I am assembling some Xyston Persia 15mm Takabara cresent shield peltasts for a friend.
How long in millimeters should I cut the Javelins?
I usually go 3 cm for javs, 4 cm spears and 5 cm pikes.
Sometimes 3.5 cm spears
Its a jav, on a 15mm figure that would be 10mm to 15mm . , perhaps 18mm on a larger scale 15mm.
10mm would be the smaller veruta size javelins, 15mm a dual throwing /thrusting spear.
Roy
Quote from: Mark G on June 01, 2014, 08:00:56 AM
I usually go 3 cm for javs, 4 cm spears and 5 cm pikes.
Sometimes 3.5 cm spears
That sounds a tad long for 15/18 mm figures? Javelins I cut to about 12-15 mm, equivalent to 4ft (to mix metric with Imperial....sorry!). Short spears about man height, 20mm long etc.. My pikes are not full length, as it can make the figures a bit more unwieldy on the table, so about 40-45mm (long enough to see it's not a mere spear), instead of 50-55 scale size.
The drawings in my copy of AMPW fig. 7 and 8 show Takabara javelins at about 5/7 the height of a man, short spears held by Kardakes are shown as man height, if that helps?
Martin
Quote from: Mark G on June 01, 2014, 08:00:56 AM
I usually go 3 cm for javs, 4 cm spears and 5 cm pikes.
Sometimes 3.5 cm spears
Is that for 28mm, Mark? A javelin twice the size of the figure seems a bit ... long for 15mm. ;)
For 28mm it looks like a handy rule of thumb.
My impression is that when it came to spear/javelin types Persians preferred shorter version: Herodotus calls the weaponry carried by Xerxes' Persian infantry
aikhmas de brakheas (literally 'spears of insignificance' or 'petty spears'), while Xenophon emphasises the shortness of the
palta, the standard Persian cavalry spear. Short javelins for the
takabara would at least be consistent with this apparent trend.
The "takabara" are probably mostly using thrusting-spears, so about the same height as the figure. What's that for Xyston "15mm" - 20mm or so?
Nope , those are 15 mm scale through to xyston.
Because
1. You cant cut 1cm bits of wire
2. It looks stupid when you do.
It is pointless attempting proportionate weapons to figures which cannot fit proportionately on bases. So go with what looks good, which - just like overly muscled figures with large heads and hands, is longer javelins and shorter pikes
Its a valid view, that the artistic representation trumps scale accuracy. However one can cut a 10mm length of wire. Either use a soft steel pin (the head is already shaped and thus just needs a bang to flatten to a lovely spear shape) or use brass wire. Either of these will cut easily with a pair of wire cutters.
Of course, if making a spear of hard wire it is easiest to cut 20mm, sharpen and flatten both ends and then cut in the middle!
Roy
One notes in passing the existence of a school of thought identifying 'yauna takabara' (Greek Takabara) as Macedonians:
For:
http://macedonia-evidence.org/persians.html (http://macedonia-evidence.org/persians.html)
Against:
http://ancient-medieval-macedonian-history.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/yauna-takabara-persian-name-of.html (http://ancient-medieval-macedonian-history.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/yauna-takabara-persian-name-of.html)
The aspect that is perhaps of interest is that the designation derives from the Behistun inscription of Darius I, which I understand dates from a time considerably prior to the appearance of takabara in Persian armies.
Out of interest, what are our sources for Persian takabara? (If anyone can be bothered, that is.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 02, 2014, 10:39:09 AMOut of interest, what are our sources for Persian takabara? (If anyone can be bothered, that is.)
For the troop-type, that is "Persian peltasts" - briefly, representations on the Alexander Sarcophagus, Greek vase-paintings, possibly the Persian on the Kinch Tomb. References to Persian infantry as "peltasts" in Xenophon's
Oikonomikos IIRC, and Callisthenes-in-Polybius on Issus, and probably elsewhere.
The use of the name "takabara" for "Persian peltasts" is one of Nick Sekunda's ideas, originally in his "Achaemenid Military Terminology" (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 21, 1988): the Babylonian inscription for one of the throne-bearers on the Perseoplis tombs says "Yauna with shields on their heads", the Old Persian equivalent says "Yauna takabara"; ergo, taka-bara "taka-bearers", means "with a shield" and "taka" means a shield, presumably not all shields (since we know that the word spara exists and means another sort of shield) but of a type that can be compared with a hat, so a light buckler or pelte. The thesis is strongly disagreed with by, err, some German guy in a reference I can't remember.
I may have been thinking of http://www.achemenet.com/actualites/25%20-%20Rollinger-Manuskript.pdf (http://www.achemenet.com/actualites/25%20-%20Rollinger-Manuskript.pdf) - but he is not in fact strongly disagreeing with the taka-shield equation, so I may have been thinking of something else.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 02, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
"taka" means a shield, presumably not all shields (since we know that the word spara exists and means another sort of shield)
Whence that "presumably"? English has both the generic "shield" and special word for various subtypes, like "buckler". Old Persian could equally have
taka as a generic term and
spara for a subtype.
Acc'd to note 29 of your link, someone called Tolman strongly rejected the interpretation
taka = "shield", on the underwhelming grounds that the Old Persian word for "shield" is known to be
spara. The reference is:
Tolman, Herbert Cushing: ,,Does yaunā takabarā (Dar. NSa) Signify ,Shield (i.e. Petasos)-wearing Ionians'?" In: Proceedings of the American Philological Association 44 (1913), liii-lv.Note that Rollinger questions the rendering of the Akkadian as "Ionians with shields on their heads" - he thinks it's more like "Ionians who raise
maginnāta to their heads", where the meaning of
maginnāta is uncertain, albeit with "shields" as a strong possibility. Between this and the fact that the hats of the
Yaunā takabarā depicted aren't particularly shield-shaped he rejects the idea that any shields present are metonymic for headgear - if they're the Shield-bearing Ionians, they're probably bearing actual shields.
I confess to a certain incredulity to "Shield-bearing Ionians" as an ethnonym. Are the people designated simply as
Yaunā then the Shieldless Ionians? If it's correct however, presumably the sort of shield Darius' scribes had in mind (regardless of the degree of specificy of
taka the word) wasn't a pelte but an aspis - that'd be the sort of shield Greeks were notable for.
(Since at least one other subject people appear to be named for a cultural or cultic habit - the
Sakā haumavargā, aka Amyrgian Scythians, or the haoma-drinking Scythians/Saka - one idly wonders if the raising of
maginnāta might be something similar.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 02, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 02, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
"taka" means a shield, presumably not all shields (since we know that the word spara exists and means another sort of shield)
Whence that "presumably"?
Umm, from my vague memory of Sekunda (1988), I think. Unless that was a rhetorical question.
Being a little out of my depth on this point, would we happen to have any further original source references to takabara, especially as part of a Persian army, or does the entire concept arise solely from this inscription and its mention of 'yauna takabara'?
No, it's only this inscription from which Sekunda constructs a name for the troop-type.
Of course, it is only the name that's at issue; there is other evidence for the existence and appearance of "Persian peltasts".
Not forgetting the specialised mobile units known as the welebara, from the wele, a deeply concave shield placed, not on the head, but beneath the feet of a Gardinian fighter. Ingeniously mounted on a wheel (root wele: Assy. 'that which rolls'), the soldier stood upright in it and was pushed into battle by a camp follower. His speed along with his superior elevation, enabling him to pick out targets for his javelins above the dust of battle, gave him a distinct advantage over his adversaries.
Sorry, just could not resist!
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 02, 2014, 08:47:11 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 02, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 02, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
"taka" means a shield, presumably not all shields (since we know that the word spara exists and means another sort of shield)
Whence that "presumably"?
Umm, from my vague memory of Sekunda (1988), I think. Unless that was a rhetorical question.
Not meant as rhetorical. It would hardly to be safe to assume that a step missing in your summary of the argument was necessarily missing in the original.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 02, 2014, 09:24:01 PM
No, it's only this inscription from which Sekunda constructs a name for the troop-type.
Of course, it is only the name that's at issue; there is other evidence for the existence and appearance of "Persian peltasts".
Thanks, Duncan.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 02, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
(Since at least one other subject people appear to be named for a cultural or cultic habit - the Sakā haumavargā, aka Amyrgian Scythians, or the haoma-drinking Scythians/Saka - one idly wonders if the raising of maginnāta might be something similar.)
So might we find ourselves fielding a unit of kottabos players? ;D