As I think I've mentioned previously on this forum, I've identified 11th century Scots as a good army to collect in the sense it'd fit well with locally available opposition (there's Norse-Irish, Viking, and Isleman armies around). However, the ususal suspects don't seem to have any reconstructions of what Scots should look like in this period - there's nothing in Heath's ADA or AFE, frex. So I thought I'd ask if anyone can point to another reference, or has any knowledge or ideas what they should look like. Would they be similar to contemporary Irish? Would there be much armour? Did they use particularly long spears as the DBMM classification as Pikes (F) suggests? A fellow gamer once told me they'd wear black and yellow clothing, does anyone know of a basis for this?
Relatedly, can anyone point to good figures to use? It would be a bonus if the same manufacturer did allies like Scandinavians, Islemen, and Galwegians. (It'd be a further bonus if the line included witches, because if I do end up doing this army I just will have to have three witches in the baggage.)
I have no idea of their accuracy, but TSS/QRF/Freikorp have released a range of Scots for (so far) the 9th to 12th centuries.
http://totalsystemscenic.com/product-category/15mm-ancients-tss/feudal-scots/
These do not seem to be the range they used to sell which was sold to Sgt Major Minis but now OOP I believe. The old range had witches - perhaps the new one will. Magister Militum does pointy hat style witches and also some screaming women with a druid if you want to go more Magrat than Granny Weatherwax.
Thistle and Rose did a range I think. The new owners are supposed to be releasing them fairly soon, but they have been saying that for a while.
Well, you are in a very speculative period. There's a bit of a shortage of images of Scots before the 14th century (when they go from non-existent to very rare). However, there is little to suggest that the lowland Scots would where anything hugely different to either the later Picts or the northern English. The Scots may have had more of a love for checks and stripes (its a Celtic thing) than the English but I don't think there is direct evidence for it .
Couple of specific thoughts on questions. Long spears - maybe but less certain than many seem to think. Most warriors (Picts, Northern English, Welsh, 14th century Scots) have spears a foot or two higher than head height in the limited pictures we have. Depends on your definition of pikes I suppose. I think I'd err on the side of shieldwall.
Trousers - did they wear them? Probably in Lothian, probably not in the west (tight, Irish-style trews maybe?) But that's speculation.
Yellow and black. Guessing but maybe referring to later Irish/Highland practice of saffron leine for the yellow and undyed wool for the black (Irish wool clothing was noted by Gerald of Wales as black, because that was the colour it came off the sheep - lots of heritage sheep breeds like Soays (a Scottish breed) produce brown/black wool, so plausible).
Thanks for the replies (and keep 'em coming if anyone else has something to add) :)
Quote from: Erpingham on October 01, 2017, 07:30:42 PM
The Scots may have had more of a love for checks and stripes (its a Celtic thing) than the English but I don't think there is direct evidence for it .
Given att we're looking at hundreds of figures for an army, I think I'll keep checks and stripes to a minimum!
QuoteLong spears - maybe but less certain than many seem to think. Most warriors (Picts, Northern English, Welsh, 14th century Scots) have spears a foot or two higher than head height in the limited pictures we have. Depends on your definition of pikes I suppose. I think I'd err on the side of shieldwall.
I wouldn't consider a spear of seven feet or so a pike, no, but it's probably enough to justify Pk (F) status in DBMM. The "shieldwall" bit would be more of a concern for the accuracy of the classification, Pk (F) typically being assumed to have small if any shields.
QuoteTrousers - did they wear them? Probably in Lothian, probably not in the west (tight, Irish-style trews maybe?) But that's speculation.
I guess that's a good option for distinguishing commands - the guys in trousers are in this command, the guys without are in that. 8)
Quote from: Swampster on October 01, 2017, 07:10:49 PM
I have no idea of their accuracy, but TSS/QRF/Freikorp have released a range of Scots for (so far) the 9th to 12th centuries.
http://totalsystemscenic.com/product-category/15mm-ancients-tss/feudal-scots/
bugger.......more figures to add to the list.....!
In the recent discussion on the Kingarth stone (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2718) there were a couple of references to stones that might be close in date to what you're looking for:
Quote from: Duncan Head on May 11, 2017, 09:03:45 AM
That's the rear of the Kirriemuir 2 stone, Roy: at http://warfare2.netai.net/6C-11C/Kirriemuir_2_stone_rear.htm there's a better picture. (Which shows some really cool details: is that a mail cape the upper horseman's wearing? And what's that jacket that the mounted huntsman's got!)
That site suggests a C9th-10th date but at https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_130/130_637_650.pdf, Lloyd Laing sees hints of a later date, Roy's C11th or even later:
QuoteKirriemuir 2 was recognized by Henderson (1978, 56) as 'late' (by implication ninth century or later).
There are external clues to the dating of Kirriemuir 2 and Monifieth 2. The mounted warrior on Kirriemuir 2 (on the back, top) carries a sword with straight guards and domed pommel (illus 2b). This type of sword is found on a few other Pictish stones (notably at Shandwick, discussed below), and seems to have started to replace in the later ninth century the type with down-curved guards and upturned pommel represented for example on Aberlemno 2, Angus. The sword type has been discussed by Davidson (1962, 57 and pl XI-XIII) and Bone (1989, 66). The Kirriemuir type of sword appears in English sculpture in the 10th century, for example at Middleton 2A, Yorkshire (Lang 1991, 183 and pl 677), or the Nunburnholme Cross also in Yorkshire (Lang 1991, 189–93 and pl 721), dated to the late ninth or 10th century. Variants of the type with a pommel shaped like a flattened hemisphere were current in the 11th century, namely Petersen's (1919) types W and X, represented in London as Type VII (Wheeler 1927), and it is with these later variants that the Kirriemuir sword most closely corresponds.
...
A date as late as the 11th or early 12th century is possible for Kirriemuir 2 on the basis of these analogies, and the form of the sword pommel, as discussed above, would not be out of keeping with this.
These are stones in the Pictish tradition, so you might still be looking at styles that look "late Pictish" (without the body-art).
See also the infantryman with the lobed shield at the bottom of the Ardchattan cross at http://warfare2.000webhostapp.com/6C-11C/Ardchattan_stone.htm
I seem to recall PV Walsh's Slingshot articles on Fergus of Galloway argued for an Irish appearance and arms for the Galwegians.
The TSS range that Peter mentioned above has just had another pack of warriors added to it, mainly Axemen.
Donnington have some good Scots figures too in their early medieval range.
Just had an email from QRF/TSS they are launching a New Pict range next month. With a bit of luck some might fit with the images Duncan linked.
Quote from: Anton on October 02, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
I seem to recall PV Walsh's Slingshot articles on Fergus of Galloway argued for an Irish appearance and arms for the Galwegians.
There are 12th century descriptions of galwegians which refer to them as "naked" (which may just mean unarmoured) e.g.
" men agile, unclothed, remarkable for much baldness [shaven heads?]; arming their left side with knives formidable to any armed men, having a hand most skillful at throwing spears and directing them from a distance; raising their long lance as a standard when they advance into battle" (describing troops in 1173)
Contemporary descriptions of the battle of the Standard in 1138 notes their lack of armour, their light spears and that they had swords.
And when the frailty of the Scottish lances was mocked by the denseness of iron and wood they drew their swords and attempted to contend at close quartersIt has been suggested that the well-known pictures of Scots on the seal of Carlisle (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siege_of_Carlisle_1315.jpg)from 1315 are Galwegians.
Yes, its an interesting quote, especially the 'baldness' should we take it as akin to the "naked" so neither helmet nor armoured? Or is it a warrior fashion visible because of the lack of helmet?
The formidable knives and skill with throwing spears sounds very Irish.
Two things come to mind, Walsh notes lots of mentions of axes, like the figure on the ladder in your link and we should expect a significant Gall Gael influence in Galloway.
The long, presumably thin, lances interest me apart from the reference you quote does anyone else mention them for Galwegians?
Quote from: Anton on October 02, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Donnington have some good Scots figures too in their early medieval range.
The ones in the Originals Arthurian range? Unfortunately there are no pictures.
Based on Anthony's comments, many of the Irish and Anglo-Saxon figures in the New Era range could serve - but I'd rather not mix Original and New Era Donnington.
Galwegians being warband, giving them long lances may be pragmatically undesirable as they need to be distinguishable from Scots Pk (F). But Anthony's quote has "long lance" singular, so perhaps it's a single lance used as a field sign
in lieu of a proper standard?
Quote from: Anton on October 02, 2017, 11:56:06 AM
The formidable knives and skill with throwing spears sounds very Irish.
Also I think quite Welsh
Quote
The long, presumably thin, lances interest me apart from the reference you quote does anyone else mention them for Galwegians?
I looked up the descriptions related to the Battle of the Standard and it is a bit open to interpretation. Firstly, I made a mistake with my quote. The property of spears problem isn't they are javelins but they are thin and long.
Why therefore does the great length of those spears, which we perceive afar off, alarm us? The wood is fragile, the iron blunted; when it smites it is destroyed, when it is struck it breaks, scarcely sufficing for one blow. Catch it on a stick, and the Scot stands there unarmed.This is part of the pre-battle speeches (the old inferior enemy kit trope). There is also a mention of calf-skin shields. But it isn't explicitly directed at the Galwegians. The fact that the issue of the spears is revisited when describing the Galwegians may be significant though.
Incidently, the viewpoint of the Galwegians on fighting without armour is related as
We surely have iron sides, a breast of bronze, a mind void of fear; and our feet have never known flight, nor our backs a wound.When someone says something as desperately heroic, you know they're doomed.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 02, 2017, 12:26:27 PM
But Anthony's quote has "long lance" singular, so perhaps it's a single lance used as a field sign in lieu of a proper standard?
Knowing your knowledge of latin, I checked the original
lanceam longam cum ad bellum progreditur erigentem pro signumDoes that help?
Incidentally, before anybody thinks Anthony is very knowledgeable about galwegians, while aware of some of the quotes, I have been greatly helped by finding this (http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/scottishannalsfr00andeuoft.pdf) online.
Andreas, I was thinking of this Donnington Originals Range
http://shop.ancient-modern.co.uk/medieval-feudal-and-cruisades-56-c.asp
Good link Anthony. Yes, I see the Welsh similarity too.
There is a quote before the Standard of a dispute between the Galwegians and the Scots Normans where the former correctly say they have just defeated armoured Normans at Clitheroe and that they can do it again, which as it turned out they could not. The sense of it is that the Galwegians were not armoured.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 02, 2017, 12:53:38 PM
Knowing your knowledge of latin, I checked the original
lanceam longam cum ad bellum progreditur erigentem pro signum
Does that help?
Well, it certainly seems to speak of a single weapon raised as a standard, but the verb is singular whereas the English translation is plural "they advance", so something funny is going on.
Quote from: Anton on October 02, 2017, 01:36:21 PM
Andreas, I was thinking of this Donnington Originals Range
http://shop.ancient-modern.co.uk/medieval-feudal-and-cruisades-56-c.asp
Ah, thanks.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 02, 2017, 03:01:13 PM
Well, it certainly seems to speak of a single weapon raised as a standard, but the verb is singular whereas the English translation is plural "they advance", so something funny is going on.
Here is the full quote, which may clarify
Agilem, nudam, calvitie multa notabilem, sinistrum latus munientem cultellis, armatis quibuslibet formidandis, jaculis jaciendis et dirigendis in longinquum manum habentem aptissimam, lanceam longam cum ad bellum progreditur erigentem pro signum
Quote from: Erpingham on October 02, 2017, 03:21:41 PM
Here is the full quote, which may clarify
Agilem, nudam, calvitie multa notabilem, sinistrum latus munientem cultellis, armatis quibuslibet formidandis, jaculis jaciendis et dirigendis in longinquum manum habentem aptissimam, lanceam longam cum ad bellum progreditur erigentem pro signum
Ah. The entire passage is in the singular, presumably describing the archetypical Galwegian warrior. Then presumably every individual has a long
lancea to brandish after all (and
signum is "sign", of warlike intent I guess, rather than "standard").
A good question is what the 12C writer would understand by
lancea. In classical usage it's a javelin, and a long one is still not very long as spears go; but as ModEng "lance" shows, the word eventually got applied to longer weapons not intended for throwing.
Scots Normans would indubitably be armoured, and presumably also elite troops ("thegns" in terms of the DBMM list), at least from the ex-Angle southeast. The mass of spearmen seem to've remained poorly armoured through-out the Middle Ages, so presumably little if any armour in the 11C? Helmets, maybe?
Quote from: Erpingham on October 01, 2017, 07:30:42 PM
Trousers - did they wear them?
Relatedly, did Islesmen wear them? I'd gotten the idea that they quickly adopted Irish-style dress, but at least bits of the Internet think they remained indistinguishable from stay-at-home Scandinavians.
Quote
A good question is what the 12C writer would understand by lancea.
A quick check in Oman on the battle of the Standard is that the Scots spears discussed above are called
lancea, so a long, if slightly weedy, weapon could be so described. Oman (who usually quotes the original of his translations) records that long Flemish infantry spears at Steppes (1212) were called
lancea. So the word may already have been general in meaning by this stage and capable of being applied tolong weapons, not just to lighter throwable ones.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 02, 2017, 04:00:27 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 01, 2017, 07:30:42 PM
Trousers - did they wear them?
Relatedly, did Islesmen wear them? I'd gotten the idea that they quickly adopted Irish-style dress, but at least bits of the Internet think they remained indistinguishable from stay-at-home Scandinavians.
Later depictions (after Somerled's revolt separated the Isles from Man) invariably show Islemen as bare-legged but that was probably the case earlier too, as Magnus Barelegs got his nickname because his favoured attire reflected his upbringing in the Isles. Irish, or at least Hiberno-Norse, influence really dates from the latter half of the 11th century when Man was ruled by branches of the ruling dynasty of Dublin so if you're building an army from that period a mix of bare-legged and trousered individuals would be ok.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Mick Hession on October 02, 2017, 04:58:57 PM
Later depictions (after Somerled's revolt separated the Isles from Man) invariably show Islemen as bare-legged but that was probably the case earlier too, as Magnus Barelegs got his nickname because his favoured attire reflected his upbringing in the Isles. Irish, or at least Hiberno-Norse, influence really dates from the latter half of the 11th century when Man was ruled by branches of the ruling dynasty of Dublin so if you're building an army from that period a mix of bare-legged and trousered individuals would be ok.
Thanks. The DBMM list begins in 1050, so conventional Viking figures might be OK for the very start of the list but they should quickly become more Irish-ish.
Quick note:- TSS have recently released a range of 'feudal Scots' which may be useful (?).
Martin
Quote from: Martin Smith on October 03, 2017, 09:22:17 AM
Quick note:- TSS have recently released a range of 'feudal Scots' which may be useful (?).
Martin
I would refer the honourable gentleman to the reply #1 :)
Oooops 😳
but worth mentioning again.....as they are a decent set of figures 8)
While looking for Macbethian stuff, I came across a book The Picts and the Scots at War by Nick Aitchison. Anyone familiar with book or author?
Also potentially interesting seems Sally M. Foster's Picts, Gaels, and Scots. Anyone read it?
no to either alas but by the looks of the Amazon reviews both may be worth a punt although both have been labelled by some as 'dry'. For me this is something that history books in general get labelled as so not necessarily a reason not to get! :)
Yeah - when it comes to non-fiction I tend to take "dry" as a commendation. Sure, there are books too dry for my tastes, but my tastes are clearly more xerophilic than most people who write Amazon reviews'.
absolutely....I think I would be more worried if I read a review of a history book that said 'swashbuckling' or 'gripping' ;D
Quote from: Holly on October 04, 2017, 03:57:31 PM
absolutely....I think I would be more worried if I read a review of a history book that said 'swashbuckling' or 'gripping' ;D
'Heartwarming' and 'inspiring' are my danger signals.
Quote from: Swampster on October 04, 2017, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 04, 2017, 03:57:31 PM
absolutely....I think I would be more worried if I read a review of a history book that said 'swashbuckling' or 'gripping' ;D
'Heartwarming' and 'inspiring' are my danger signals.
heartwarming in a historical account would be quite unusual it has to be said ;D
The Pictish thread made me aware that Alex Woolf has penned the volume of the New Edinburgh History of Scotland covering the "Pre-Feudal" period (approx. 9th to 11th centuries). Another for consideration I guess - anyone read it, or anything else in the series?
Quote from: Holly on October 04, 2017, 08:34:30 PM
Quote from: Swampster on October 04, 2017, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 04, 2017, 03:57:31 PM
absolutely....I think I would be more worried if I read a review of a history book that said 'swashbuckling' or 'gripping' ;D
'Heartwarming' and 'inspiring' are my danger signals.
heartwarming in a historical account would be quite unusual it has to be said ;D
'Read this heartwarming and life-affirming tale of how a young boy overcame the death of his father, the abandonment by his tribe and even slavery to become the beloved ruler of half the known world by the inspiring methods of adopting the sons of orphans, rewarding merit and eliminating every living creature from any city which opposed him'.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 04, 2017, 08:58:00 PM
The Pictish thread made me aware that Alex Woolf has penned the volume of the New Edinburgh History of Scotland covering the "Pre-Feudal" period (approx. 9th to 11th centuries). Another for consideration I guess - anyone read it, or anything else in the series?
I found this review (https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/2734/1/Woolf%20review.pdf) of it, which is broadly positive but has some significant nits to pick.
Quote from: Swampster on October 04, 2017, 11:29:20 PM
'Read this heartwarming and life-affirming tale of how a young boy overcame the death of his father, the abandonment by his tribe and even slavery to become the beloved ruler of half the known world by the inspiring methods of adopting the sons of orphans, rewarding merit and eliminating every living creature from any city which opposed him'.
Absolute brilliance.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 04, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
While looking for Macbethian stuff, I came across a book The Picts and the Scots at War by Nick Aitchison. Anyone familiar with book or author?
Also potentially interesting seems Sally M. Foster's Picts, Gaels, and Scots. Anyone read it?
I have the Aitchison book and don't rate it at all, mind you I didn't pay much for it. It's a collection of stuff from secondary sources and old translations. Like an average Wargames Magazine article rather than a really good wargame magazine article.
Quote from: Anton on October 05, 2017, 12:35:10 PM
I have the Aitchison book and don't rate it at all, mind you I didn't pay much for it. It's a collection of stuff from secondary sources and old translations. Like an average Wargames Magazine article rather than a really good wargame magazine article.
Thanks. Off the wishlist it goes.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 02, 2017, 10:19:44 PM
Quote from: Mick Hession on October 02, 2017, 04:58:57 PM
Later depictions (after Somerled's revolt separated the Isles from Man) invariably show Islemen as bare-legged but that was probably the case earlier too, as Magnus Barelegs got his nickname because his favoured attire reflected his upbringing in the Isles. Irish, or at least Hiberno-Norse, influence really dates from the latter half of the 11th century when Man was ruled by branches of the ruling dynasty of Dublin so if you're building an army from that period a mix of bare-legged and trousered individuals would be ok.
Thanks. The DBMM list begins in 1050, so conventional Viking figures might be OK for the very start of the list but they should quickly become more Irish-ish.
Related question: the list also allows Dubliner, Manx, or Orcadian Viking allies: I imagine the first two lots would be at least as Hibernified as the Islesmen, but would the Orcadians be more conventionally (trouseredly) Scandinavian in apperance?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 04, 2017, 02:36:06 PM
Also potentially interesting seems Sally M. Foster's Picts, Gaels, and Scots. Anyone read it?
I have the Picts, Gaels and Scots work, by Sally Foster. Read it maybe 5-10 years ago, and thought it was a more than decent read. Better than 'coffee table standard', by far. Plenty of useful illustrations, and a well constructed and informed text.
Also have Surviving in Symbols, an Osprey sized museum shop type book by Martin Carver. A more concise run-through of Pictish evidence, with decent illustrations. Possibly aimed more at the casual reader, but also a decent read.
Martin
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 09, 2017, 07:43:33 AM
Related question: the list also allows Dubliner, Manx, or Orcadian Viking allies: I imagine the first two lots would be at least as Hibernified as the Islesmen, but would the Orcadians be more conventionally (trouseredly) Scandinavian in apperance?
List notes notwithstanding, there wasn't much of a distinction between Manx, Orcadians and Islemen in the 11th century. At that time, the Isles were something of a no-man's-land contested betwen Orkney and Man. Orkney's influence waned after the death of Thorfinn the Mighty (about 1053, IIRC) and Man ultimately won out during Guthroth Crovan's reign (1079-1095). Orkneyinga Saga indicates the Orcadians retained closer links to Norway than the Norse of the Sudreyar so I'd use standard Norse figures for them. The Manx and Dubliners might be a bit more "trousered" than Islemen - the much later Book of Clanranald characterises Somerled's secession from Man in 1156 as a Gaelic rebellion against Norse oppression so you could infer that "Islemen" were a bit more Celtic / bare-legged.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Martin Smith on October 09, 2017, 10:01:42 AM
I have the Picts, Gaels and Scots work, by Sally Foster. Read it maybe 5-10 years ago, and thought it was a more than decent read. Better than 'coffee table standard', by far. Plenty of useful illustrations, and a well constructed and informed text.
Thanks. Are the illustrations central enough I should avoid the ebook option? (My e-reader doesn't do colour.)
Quote from: Mick Hession on October 09, 2017, 10:41:41 AM
List notes notwithstanding, there wasn't much of a distinction between Manx, Orcadians and Islemen in the 11th century. At that time, the Isles were something of a no-man's-land contested betwen Orkney and Man. Orkney's influence waned after the death of Thorfinn the Mighty (about 1053, IIRC) and Man ultimately won out during Guthroth Crovan's reign (1079-1095). Orkneyinga Saga indicates the Orcadians retained closer links to Norway than the Norse of the Sudreyar so I'd use standard Norse figures for them. The Manx and Dubliners might be a bit more "trousered" than Islemen - the much later Book of Clanranald characterises Somerled's secession from Man in 1156 as a Gaelic rebellion against Norse oppression so you could infer that "Islemen" were a bit more Celtic / bare-legged.
Thanks. Given that there's a lot of more standard Norse figures around than Isleman or Hiberno-Norse ones, any excuse to use them is helpful :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 05, 2017, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: Swampster on October 04, 2017, 11:29:20 PM
'Read this heartwarming and life-affirming tale of how a young boy overcame the death of his father, the abandonment by his tribe and even slavery to become the beloved ruler of half the known world by the inspiring methods of adopting the sons of orphans, rewarding merit and eliminating every living creature from any city which opposed him'.
Absolute brilliance.
I just want the isbn number :-)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 09, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Martin Smith on October 09, 2017, 10:01:42 AM
I have the Picts, Gaels and Scots work, by Sally Foster. Read it maybe 5-10 years ago, and thought it was a more than decent read. Better than 'coffee table standard', by far. Plenty of useful illustrations, and a well constructed and informed text.
Thanks. Are the illustrations central enough I should avoid the ebook option? (My e-reader doesn't do colour.)
Majority of the illustrations/photo's are black and white (plus 6 glossy colour pics in the centre. I don't think you'd lose much from not having the colour pics.
M
Quote from: Martin Smith on October 09, 2017, 01:28:20 PM
Majority of the illustrations/photo's are black and white (plus 6 glossy colour pics in the centre. I don't think you'd lose much from not having the colour pics.
Thanks again 8)
Quote from: Swampster on October 04, 2017, 11:29:20 PM
'Read this heartwarming and life-affirming tale of how a young boy overcame the death of his father, the abandonment by his tribe and even slavery to become the beloved ruler of half the known world by the inspiring methods of adopting the sons of orphans, rewarding merit and eliminating every living creature from any city which opposed him'.
Classic - and not too dissimilar to the blurb for Adrienne Mayor's book on Mithridates!
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8977.html
Quote from: Prufrock on October 09, 2017, 03:01:38 PM
Quote from: Swampster on October 04, 2017, 11:29:20 PM
'Read this heartwarming and life-affirming tale of how a young boy overcame the death of his father, the abandonment by his tribe and even slavery to become the beloved ruler of half the known world by the inspiring methods of adopting the sons of orphans, rewarding merit and eliminating every living creature from any city which opposed him'.
Classic - and not too dissimilar to the blurb for Adrienne Mayor's book on Mithradates!
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8977.html
[Topic continued here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2972.msg36549#new).]
With reference to the following in the original posting......."Relatedly, can anyone point to good figures to use?"
Not really wanting to enter into the debate on troop types but when building a Scots (Alba) Army for my 10th Century Britain Solo/Programmed Campaign I searched for Scots using 2 handed/Shieldless long Spear (DBAv3 Pike - Fast).
I notice no-one has mentioned Irregular Miniatures. In their 15mm Medieval range they do just such a set of spearmen figures in 4 different clothing, plus Scots Light Horse and Irish/Scottish infantry ( 4 different poses, clothing and equipment).
In addition I used Old Glory (Via TimeCast Figures) who do a Scots/Irish Command set and a Picts range (especially good for Psiloi/Javelin men) The are to be found, a little bizarrely, in the Armies and Enemies of Byzantium Range, listed as Picts and Scots Irish.
I was pleased with the overall look and effect............ even if there is still debate about Army composition and the existence
or not of Spearmen or the "Pike" classification.
By the way, in my own Solo Campaign the Scots of Alba doing quite nicely - having given the Kingdom of Jorvik a bloody nose and subdued Mercia thus breaking it away from Wessex control/influence. I am at 925.A.D.
Quote from: Hannipaul on October 11, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
In addition I used Old Glory (Via TimeCast Figures) who do a Scots/Irish Command set and a Picts range (especially good for Psiloi/Javelin men) The are to be found, a little bizarrely, in the Armies and Enemies of Byzantium Range, listed as Picts and Scots Irish.
They're, irritatingly, sold in packs of 24. If one were to buy a 24-pack of "archers & javelinmen", does one know how many of each one is getting?
(As it happens, to max out the light foot contingent of the DBMM list, one needs 24 each of archers and javelinmen - but one'd rather buy a pack of each and know you're getting the right number.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 12, 2017, 06:17:29 AM
Quote from: Hannipaul on October 11, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
In addition I used Old Glory (Via TimeCast Figures) who do a Scots/Irish Command set and a Picts range (especially good for Psiloi/Javelin men) The are to be found, a little bizarrely, in the Armies and Enemies of Byzantium Range, listed as Picts and Scots Irish.
They're, irritatingly, sold in packs of 24. If one were to buy a 24-pack of "archers & javelinmen", does one know how many of each one is getting?
(As it happens, to max out the light foot contingent of the DBMM list, one needs 24 each of archers and javelinmen - but one'd rather buy a pack of each and know you're getting the right number.)
I've generally found that they are 50/50 when sold like this, but I wouldn't guarantee it. I've also found that the packs sometimes have a couple of spare figures, which helps.
There may be a FoG battle group pack sold by OG15s in the USA which is just archers or javelinmen. I've bought a few of these in the past as they are often smaller- particularly useful for things like the Ottomans in the Renaissance range where the infantry packs are 48 figures. Orders take longer than from Timecast but the price difference isn't too bad despite the extra postage. Even better if you can order enough to get a discount.
Quote from: Hannipaul on October 11, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
With reference to the following in the original posting......."Relatedly, can anyone point to good figures to use?"
Not really wanting to enter into the debate on troop types but when building a Scots (Alba) Army for my 10th Century Britain Solo/Programmed Campaign I searched for Scots using 2 handed/Shieldless long Spear (DBAv3 Pike - Fast).
I notice no-one has mentioned Irregular Miniatures. In their 15mm Medieval range they do just such a set of spearmen figures in 4 different clothing, plus Scots Light Horse and Irish/Scottish infantry ( 4 different poses, clothing and equipment).
Used the Irregulars for my Pre Feudal Scots DBA army, plus a spare given away at a tournament. Excellent mix of clothing/heads. Replaced the cast spears with brass rod.
Only downside was the spears being held approx 30-40 degrees from horizontal, requiring much thought when basing, to avoid rear rank clashing with front rank when in column/double ranked. Other than that, love 'em.
M
Tangentially I discover that the Latin names (or at least a pair of Latin names) of Moray and Alba are Moravia and Albania respectively.
Further proof that medieval people shouldn't be let anywhere near nomenclature!
In their "Feudal Europe & Crusades" range, Donnington have a few Scots codes: FEF53 Scots Spearman, FEF54 Scots warrior, and FEF90 Macbeth/Early Scots Clan Chief. Unfortunately, these are among the few figures for which the website doesn't have pictures yet; anyone seen them in the flesh? Do the former two look suitable for the 11C?