Generic ancient cataphract...

Liver_Kick · Post by **Liver_Kick** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:07 pm

In 15mm I'm basically looking for something generic enough to morph into a bunch of lists like Armenian, Parthian, Palmyran, etc. Any suggestions with links would be great[/u]

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:48 am

Mixing Essex could allow you to make something generic
eg : http://fanaticus.org/DBA/armiesofthefan ... index.html

And if you paint Parthian in a more regular style, I think they could also be used for Palmyran
http://menix-miniatures.blogspot.com/se ... l/Parthian

More armies on my pages :
http://www.miniatures4wargamers.com/dat ... rthian.php
http://www.miniatures4wargamers.com/dat ... menian.php
http://www.miniatures4wargamers.com/dat ... lmyran.php

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:43 pm

Essex seem to be the defaulst generic 15mm cataphract

Pictures here if you search for "cataphract" http://www.madaxeman.com/15mm/search.php

There's a list of people with Parthian ranges here http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-ind ... e=Parthian

Tim

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:18 pm

I too am painting generic cataphracts, to be used as Sassanids, Parthians, Palmyrans, Armenians, etc. This is my impression of some of the available cataphracts:

The Essex Sassanid and Late Roman/Palmyran cataphracts are ok. These are older figures and each pack has only one position. They mix well together. The Parthian cataphacts are newer but somewhat smaller. The Parthian cataphracts have three different figures in each pack. I don't think they mix well with the Sassanid and Palmyran catahracts. Although the Essex horse has a nice variety of poses (four I think) I really don't care much for them. They are too large, epecially the heads (a symptom of all Essex horses) and the armor doesn't simulate any type very well.

The AB (formerly Battle Honours) Sassanids catahracts are very nice, but they come with cast on lances that are very soft, and because of the small size of the hands are difficult to replace with wire spears. There are two diffirent figures in the range.

I have only seen Old Glory in picture and they don't do much for me.

My favorite cataphract figure is the Donnington Palmyran cataphract. Although there are a number of different figures listed they are all basically the same. I prefer the standard bearer as the figure comes with an open hand. The downside of Donnington is their casting quality isn't nearly as good as most, especially Essex. I think the Palymyrans are a newer range. The quality is certainly better than their older Parthian range, which I would not recommend.

For myself, I am using a mixture of Essex Palmyrans and Sassanids, Donnington Palmyrans, and a few Anthony Barton Sassanids, all mounted on AB scale and cloth armored horses. They mix well together.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:48 pm

The advantage with the Donningtons is you can take different cataphract horses from different ranges and add riders from different ranges. So my Steppe cataphracts have a lot of guys with bows.

bobm · Post by **bobm** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:58 pm

I've gone for mainly Peter Pig's Parthian cataphracts. Lots of variety, but many one piece castings. Essex riders are slightly smaller but swap easily with them but Essex horses are REALLY BIG...I've reserved these for generals.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:12 pm

It will be interesting to see how Khurasan Miniatures Late Roman Cataphracts and Clibanarii fit into the mix. It appears the Clibanarii will be released soon. On one of the Yahoo Groups it was mentioned the clibanarii are based on the Dura Europos graffito; fully armoured, wearing a tall "Parthian cap" style helmet, and carrying a bowcase in addition. I believe Khurasan figures tend to be on the smaller side of 15mm.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:20 pm

Khurasan now has a picture of their new Late Roman Clibanarii on their website.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:36 pm

They look pretty gangly to me. Like the end of a spaghetti western.

They look like the riders shoudl be saying:
"You see my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it..."

I prefer the chunka essex brutes:
http://expendablecic.tripod.com/seleucid/index.htm

Anthony

Delbruck wrote:Khurasan now has a picture of their new Late Roman Clibanarii on their website.

sergiomonteleone · Post by **sergiomonteleone** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:34 pm

Liver_Kick wrote:In 15mm I'm basically looking for something generic enough to morph into a bunch of lists like Armenian, Parthian, Palmyran, etc. Any suggestions with links would be great[/u]

Hi,
I completely agree regarding Sassanid: AB ones are great, unfortunately some years ago I bought Essex one.
I know that historically is not perfetc, but for some armies I use Satrapal Guards of Xyston, in my opinion they are fantastic.
Sergio

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:17 pm

They look pretty gangly to me. Like the end of a spaghetti western.

Yes, the clibanarii on the right does look a little weak, but it could be the picture. The figure on the left looks much better. On the positive side it looks like some of the the most accurate designs I have seen, with tall parthian helmet, and scale/lamallae armor on the rider's torso & the horse. It would be nice if the Khurasan clibanarii were also available on unarmoured horses and cloth barded horses like the Sassanids at Firuzabad. But at least the horses appear to be better proportioned than Essex's clysdales. When they are available I will probably pick up a few to see how they fit in with Essex, Donnington, and AB.

I know that historically is not perfect, but for some armies I use Satrapal Guards of Xyston, in my opinion they are fantastic.

I agree, the Xystons are great figures and I wouldn't have a problem using them for Seleucid or early Parthian cataphracts. But if I was puchasing an army intended for the 1st century thru 5th centuries AD I would choose a more traditional cataphract.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:49 pm

Delbruck wrote: Yes, the clibanarii on the right does look a little weak, but it could be the picture. The figure on the left looks much better. On the positive side it looks like some of the the most accurate designs I have seen,

How do you judge whether these are accurate Late Roman clibanarii when, IIRC, there are exactly zero representations of what they looked like? Or have I forgotten something (wouldn't surprise me)?

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:49 pm

expendablecinc wrote:They look pretty gangly to me. Like the end of a spaghetti western.

What have you against spaghetti western? Do you know Clint began his career in films directed by Sergio Leone? And do you know what Sergio Leone said about him? "Clint Eastwood ha due espressioni: con il cappello e senza il cappello" (Clint Eastwood has two facial expressions: with hat and without hat).

Returning to horses dimension, do you know ancient horses were very smaller than modern ones, and for modern ones I mean after Renaissance? One friend of mine who has a graduate degree in biology and he is also a history lover, said me sometime ago in medieval era many knights had very small horses not so bigger than a modern pony. When metallurgy improved and armours began heavier, they started to breed horses ever more big.

Delbruck · Post by **Delbruck** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:49 pm

How do you judge whether these are accurate Late Roman clibanarii when, IIRC, there are exactly zero representations of what they looked like? Or have I forgotten something (wouldn't surprise me)?

Nik, accurate in my mind I suppose

Although the subject was generic cataphracts, and I probably think like a Sassanid.

The evidence for the 3rd& 4th centuries would be Dura Europos:

And Firuzabad:

and for the 6th century Sassanid bullae of the four generals:

My criteria for accuracy would be:
1) scale barded horse, with options for cloth or unbarded. Later Sassanid cataphracts also appear to have used lamallae to some extend (as seen on bullae).
2) tall "Parthian cap" style helmets, which were the primary Iranian helmet of the period, and I assume would be copied by Parthian/Sassanid imitators. This may be the Dura Europos helmet.
3) scale (or perhaps lamallae) armor covering the torso, as represented on the Sassanid bullae and probably the Dura grafitto.
4) mail and banded armor to supplement.

I believe Khurasan may be one on the few to have all of the above, but there may be others.

By the way I am not pushing Khurasan Miniatures. Actually, I didn't really care that much for their initial release of Ghulams.

But, then again, never trust a Sassanid

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:05 pm

Delbruck wrote:
How do you judge whether these are accurate Late Roman clibanarii when, IIRC, there are exactly zero representations of what they looked like? Or have I forgotten something (wouldn't surprise me)?
Nik, accurate in my mind I suppose Although the subject was generic cataphracts, and I probably think like a Sassanid.

So in fact quite accurate for Sasanid cavalry although they are billed as Late Roman

I will say that all the Khurasan Miniatures figs I've seen in real life are better than the pictures he posts - needs to sort his photography out IMO as they don't do the fugres justice.

Generic ancient cataphract...

Generic ancient cataphract...

Re: Generic ancient cataphract...