Martin, I largely agree with you. My personal intent here was only to question the "historical claim" suggested by the piece's title. I have no problem with people wanting recreations of famous works of military art even if those works contain errors - I get it.
In those cases just make it clear that is what it is. It is where a specific incident is alluded to and the model contradicts current knowledge of the subject that bothers me.
I do believe that history is a fluid concept. I already have a wide data base on Waterloo specifically yet I have still bought three new books on the subject this year alone, and every book surprises me and tells me something new. That knowledge does not often seep into the realms of general knowledge, and the myths perpetuate.
I want those myths to be clarified as such and failure to do that leads to the likes of Black Cleopatra on Netflix.
In Grod's new piece it is the title that got me going. It does not depict "The Last advance of the Old Guard" for the reasons given in posts above; that title suggests Waterloo to most people and the incident being alluded too was actually an advance by the "Middle Guard". This is not Grod's fault, it is the fault of 175 years of propaganda taught in schools and shown in documentaries based on limited research which has seen a recent boom over the last 50-60 years.
If model producers stick to generic titles (and I'm not referring to Grod specifically here) there is no conflict. "The advance of The Old Guard" for example would have raised no hackles and could be a depiction of any previous Guard action.
O.K. I am being a bit pedantic here. admitted, but I'm just trying to be informative to those who have a liking for this subject who may not be quite obsessive about it as I am.
On the other hand - I know absolutely nothing about German WWII uniforms or Roman armour
.
David