Any Unarmored Alexander Phalanx at Gaugamela?

j2klbs · Post by **j2klbs** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:07 am

Hi all! I'm interested in your collective expert opinions.

As I mentioned in a prior post, I'm building a Xyston Alexander army which I want to be accurate as of the Battle of Gaugamela - 331 B.C.E.

Xyston sells both unarmored and armored pikemen for Alexander (sadly, only two poses of armored and one of those two poses is missing his greaves!) I've read reference to the fact that most of Alexander's infantry acquired body armor by the time of the siege of Tyre in 332 B.C.E.

So, in your opinions, should I buy all armored pikemen from Xyston? Or is it appropriate to have some of the back ranks unarmored, even by 331 B.C.E.?

Thanks so much!
~Jason

pezhetairoi · Post by **pezhetairoi** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:55 pm

No one knows for certain. I'd go for the best look.

For the game they count as protected, so a mix of body armour/unarmoured wouldn't be bad.

I have the same army, and all of my phalangite figures are armoured. I like the look of the figures much better. I've painted very minor variety in the armour decoration and helmet colour (bronze or iron). I've used a different under-tunic colour for each BG to tell them apart, since in the battle-line it can be hard.

will05 · Post by **will05** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:01 pm

Hi
I think that the unarmoured ones are referring to the possibility that the Hypasists could have been unarmoured due to their role requiring flexibility and a very few ambiguous references in ancient texts. How ever I quite like the idea, but went with the more usual hypasits to fit with the lists

The greaves were I think issued for the front rankers, but this still leaves the Xyston wanting as there is a pack of front rankers. Using the front rankers gives quite a good looking phalanx. ANC20072-Macedonian Pikemen Officers/File Leaders.

I have some pictures of mine here http://littlearmies.pbwiki.com/FrontPage.

Hope this makes sense as I am trying to do this post whilst burning the family tea.

j2klbs · Post by **j2klbs** » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:54 pm

Thanks for the replies, guys!

will05 - your models look outstanding! Nice job! I was considering using only 1 file leader model per front base (i.e. he would be flanked by two non-leader miniatures). In essence, he would be representing the chiliarch (the lowest ranking officer) in charge of 1024 men. However, having seen your mini's, I'm reconsidering.

~Jason

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Tue May 20, 2008 8:04 pm

Certainly there is not a concrete evidence to support our afirmations. Nevertheless I would advice you to use more armoured pikemen in the front ranks and no armour at all in the last one. Even you could represent some muscled armour for the front rank. Here you have an illustration from Peter Connolly:

Consider also the idea of putting some musicians in the rear rank (the 4th rank of the phalanx).

flameberge · Post by **flameberge** » Wed May 21, 2008 4:55 am

Will05, your figures are great! I've never seen anyone put so much detail in painting 15's. At first I was sure they were 25mm figures till I recognized them as xyston. Did you paint the shading on the faces or did you do a wash?

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:08 am

Wonderfull miniatures, Will05. I think that your Tracians are the best painted ones in 15mm that I have ever seen. For the Greeks and Macedonians I have to admit that I prefer less colour (as in Connolly illustrations), more austerity even if I have to recognize that it is pretty possible that it were their real clothings. I will encourage to post some of the pics around here so more people can see them.

That elephant, that was awesome!

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Wed May 21, 2008 11:05 am

I have to agree that the figs painted by will05 are truly inspiring!

Macedonians decked out in purple and gold would be perfectly fine for campaigns following the conquest of the Persian empire, while more subdued attire would be appropriate for the earlier campaigns against the Persians themselves.

Cheers,
Scott

spike · Post by **spike** » Wed May 21, 2008 12:08 pm

ars_belli wrote:I have to agree that the figs painted by will05 are truly inspiring!

Macedonians decked out in purple and gold would be perfectly fine for campaigns following the conquest of the Persian empire, while more subdued attire would be appropriate for the earlier campaigns against the Persians themselves.

Cheers,
Scott

Its the lighting on the photographs that shows the figures to their best effect, Excelent projection of depth with the nicely out of focus backgrounds- Really show how good figures should be photographed - and better than those in the rules and army lists, which I think are flat in comparison to these.

Spike

grendelsbane · Post by **grendelsbane** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:22 pm

I'm currently painting Xyston Macedonians. I debated the issue of armord/unarmored figures, too. I've finally come down to 1st rank of the file leader figures, 2nd rank armored, 3rd and 4th ranks unarmored. As someone else pointed out, they're all "protected" in FoG, so the figure depiction is more for show.

Oh, and will05's figures are brilliant! I'm a better than average painter and I can guarantee that my Macs won't be half as well painted.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:50 pm

grendelsbane wrote:I'm currently painting Xyston Macedonians. I debated the issue of armord/unarmored figures, too. I've finally come down to 1st rank of the file leader figures, 2nd rank armored, 3rd and 4th ranks unarmored. As someone else pointed out, they're all "protected" in FoG, so the figure depiction is more for show.

Oh, and will05's figures are brilliant! I'm a better than average painter and I can guarantee that my Macs won't be half as well painted.

same goes. i've also put muscians and officers in the front ranks. ancient sources are always patchy at best, so just have fun with the ranges you have.

will05 · Post by **will05** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:22 am

Hi
I didn't see this thread after I posted to it until the other day. Thanks very much for all the kind words, I was really quite moved by it all.

flameberge I use a black undercoat and paint over with GW Tanned flesh then I high light with Liquitex pot Portrait Pink. If there is a load of flesh I wash the Tanned Flesh with Liquitex Burnt Sienna and then highlight with Tanned flesh again before doing the final highlight in Portrait Pink. Small brushes are what make it quite easy and Isabey do a range that are perfect for the purpose, but I get them from my locale art shop. I think the range is called Repique Kolinsky, but this may just be something French they write on the side of the brush that I don't understand.

Strategos69 I have to agree with you that it is more likely that the armies were less colurful, and were colour was used it would probably be more earthy than my interpretation on the whole, and subdued by dust etc. on campaign. My interpretations are taken from the more colourful, simply because I like colour and I often can't stop myself taking on a challenge even though I know that I may regret the time it takes once I am committed to a certain painting scheme for an army.

Once again thanks to you all for your comments.
Will