Painting guides for Pontic/Mithridatic armies?

[Nebelwerfer41]

Does anyone know of some good references for painting the Pontic armies as listed in Rise of Rome? I can't seem to find an Osprey book on the subject (*GASP*), however there are three books dedicated to the subject of Roman underwear.

[pezhetairoi]

I recommend the following:

The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, by Phil Barker
a wargames research group publication

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, by Duncan Head
another wargames research group publication

These two books are not illustrated in colour, but they are packed with info and colour suggestions. The second book would likely be the biggest help for pictures, but the first book has most of the history. They are older books, perhaps a little outdated, but still useful.

I saw your other post, and I would like to warn you that ancient armies are very poorly documented in comparison to the WW2 hobby. You probably already know this. Some armies are known only from a few passages in texts written by their enemies. Most of the information you will find is conjecture mixed with confusing archaeology and comparison of neighbours and origins. Few books will agree with each other.
There is a lot of filling in the blanks and "best guess" armies. There is no Osprey "Pontus" book likely because no one knows enough about it. However, with a mix of a few Osprey books, you could piece together the army components. It looks rather "cosmopolitan" to me.
For example: if you are including Galatians in your army get a book on gauls/celts. If you are including pikemen find some books on Alexander or his successors (like Seleucids) , if you are including cataphracts look at Parthians and Achaemenid Persians, if you include thuerophoroi find some later greek info, for black sea troops look at Scythian and Sarmatian books. For hillmen and tribesmen look at Thracians.

That is the best I can suggest.

[expendablecinc]

And to get you all fired up to use this army I suggest the historical novel "He Died Old" Mithridates Eupator king of Pontus" by Alfred Duggan.

Anthony

I recommend the following:

The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, by Phil Barker
a wargames research group publication

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, by Duncan Head
another wargames research group publication

These two books are not illustrated in colour, but they are packed with info and colour suggestions. The second book would likely be the biggest help for pictures, but the first book has most of the history. They are older books, perhaps a little outdated, but still useful.

I saw your other post, and I would like to warn you that ancient armies are very poorly documented in comparison to the WW2 hobby. You probably already know this. Some armies are known only from a few passages in texts written by their enemies. Most of the information you will find is conjecture mixed with confusing archaeology and comparison of neighbours and origins. Few books will agree with each other.
There is a lot of filling in the blanks and "best guess" armies. There is no Osprey "Pontus" book likely because no one knows enough about it. However, with a mix of a few Osprey books, you could piece together the army components. It looks rather "cosmopolitan" to me.
For example: if you are including Galatians in your army get a book on gauls/celts. If you are including pikemen find some books on Alexander or his successors (like Seleucids) , if you are including cataphracts look at Parthians and Achaemenid Persians, if you include thuerophoroi find some later greek info, for black sea troops look at Scythian and Sarmatian books. For hillmen and tribesmen look at Thracians.

That is the best I can suggest.

[Nebelwerfer41]

I saw your other post, and I would like to warn you that ancient armies are very poorly documented in comparison to the WW2 hobby. You probably already know this. Some armies are known only from a few passages in texts written by their enemies. Most of the information you will find is conjecture mixed with confusing archaeology and comparison of neighbours and origins. Few books will agree with each other.
There is a lot of filling in the blanks and "best guess" armies. There is no Osprey "Pontus" book likely because no one knows enough about it. However, with a mix of a few Osprey books, you could piece together the army components. It looks rather "cosmopolitan" to me.
For example: if you are including Galatians in your army get a book on gauls/celts. If you are including pikemen find some books on Alexander or his successors (like Seleucids) , if you are including cataphracts look at Parthians and Achaemenid Persians, if you include thuerophoroi find some later greek info, for black sea troops look at Scythian and Sarmatian books. For hillmen and tribesmen look at Thracians.

That is the best I can suggest.

Thanks for your suggestions, I'll investigate into those. It also looks like the Osprey Compilation "Rome and Her Enemies" might have some info as well.

Regarding the relative ambiguity of the TO&Es for ancients gaming, I'm pretty well aware of those issues. I've done some reading on the ancient period (The Histories, Persian Fire, general tidbits here and there) and I'm fully prepared to do a little more digging than I'm used to for this stuff. I just needed a place to start!

Given your comments, is it pretty safe to say that a falxman in the employ of Mithridates would be outfitted similarly to Thracian or Dacian falxmen? Are these types of assumptions regularly made in this period?

[pezhetairoi]

Sounds like a safe bet to me.
From the FoG Pontic list you have troops listed as Thracians classed as Heavy Weapon, as well as the Bastarnae.
Later Thracians are well documented (there is an osprey book), the Bastarnae I think are more germanic -- more like Dacians.
There were also some "black sea" peoples who carried large axes. Maybe the Bastarnae had those instead of a falx/romphaia.
There are some subtle differences in costume.

This list covers a time period from 132-63BC. That is a total of 69 years. Its very likely that fashions changed a little within that amount of time. So with the Pontic Army you'll have to make some assumptions.

Do the best you can, but the game police won't come and get you if a few figures are off ... some of my opponents are happy as long as the figures have the right weapons! Depending on what scale you play the right figures may not even be available.
Part of the fun is becoming an armchair expert on your own particular army, so read as much as you can and you will come to some of your own conclusions.

Of course, there are lots of "experts" around this forum, so posting specific questions here can get you lots of (contradicting) advice.

[Nebelwerfer41]

Bump.

Ok, so I'm going to start applying color shortly and I still have some general questions. First off, armor. Would iron/steel have been common enough at this time to paint the cataphracts and other armored figures as such?

Secondly, clothing. Were there any particular colors that I should use or stay away from? For instance, if indigo was common in the area I would assume that a good deal of figures would be wearing blue clothes.

Third, horses. typical colors?

That's about it for now. Forgive my ignorance and especially if I seem a little anal, but I don't want to plunk down an army that looks like it fell off a circus truck.

[bobm]

Bump.

Ok, so I'm going to start applying color shortly and I still have some general questions. First off, armor. Would iron/steel have been common enough at this time to paint the cataphracts and other armored figures as such?

Secondly, clothing. Were there any particular colors that I should use or stay away from? For instance, if indigo was common in the area I would assume that a good deal of figures would be wearing blue clothes.

Third, horses. typical colors?

That's about it for now. Forgive my ignorance and especially if I seem a little anal, but I don't want to plunk down an army that looks like it fell off a circus truck.

Some very general pointers;

Cataphracts would have bronze or iron armour and regularly a mixture of both. Plate cuirass etc would be bronze, but possibly tinned to look a bit like bright steel.

Colours were a class thing, more status equals more and brighter colours. Alexander's cavalry wore yellow cloaks with different coloured edgings, this tradition could easily have continued. Lots of earthy reds, dirty yellows, off white etc for rank and file, with coloured edges, bands and the like.

Horses I'll leave to more expert opinion. I paint whatever I fancy!

[Nebelwerfer41]

Thanks, that was the kind of info I was looking for! Would weapons have been steel, or would you still see some bronze implements? Specifically for blades like swords and falxes (falxi?).

[bobm]

Thanks, that was the kind of info I was looking for! Would weapons have been steel, or would you still see some bronze implements? Specifically for blades like swords and falxes (falxi?).

Iron blades (steel by accidental addition of carbon during production) with iron or bronze cross guards.

[Mithras]

Just a few thoughts, for what they are worth.

One thing to keep in mind, and reinforced by the recent book on Mithridates (by Matyszak), is that Mithridates (and indeed all of the Pontic kings) had a seemingly inexhaustible supply of wealth. The army was extremely well equipped by the standards of the day, and there are some anecdotes regarding Mithridates ordering his men to "tone down" the gaudiness of some of their equipment when operating, for example, in Greece, in order not to seem too ostentatious. Whether or not you believe these anecdotes, the fact is that the man had a lot of money, and he spent it quite liberally on the army.

As such, it would probably be ok to go for brightly colored tunics, shiny armor, etc. Mithridates was a master of manipulating public opinion. For some reason I've always associated him with the color blue, but I have begun to suspect, since he was a huge admirer of Alexander (and a claimed descendent/possible reincarnation) that red would not have been uncommon, particularly in the dress of the phalangites/pezhetaroi.

One (very minor) disagreement I have with the Pontic list as it exists in FOG is that the Imitation Legion isn't equipped with armor - my argument would be that it would have been. Of course, it's very much a matter of interpretation - there's no evidence to say WHAT they wore, except that they were "equipped in the Roman style" and "trained by Roman deserters", and the rules are quite valid in their own interpretation.

Anyway...

The point here is that you can make a very sharp looking army, if you choose, combining the best of Hellenic and Persian style. Of course, that could also mean you could make them look incredibly gaudy and impractical;) Keep in mind that these guys repeatedly beat the Romans, so they weren't rank amateurs. So there's an equal argument for making them look, alternatively, like hard campaigners, too. Maybe dirty them up a bit, give them a mix of looted equipment. Idunno.

One other thing that might be helpful. The symbol of Mithridates family was a star superimposed over a crescent moon resting on its back and facing upward. The theme is constantly repeated through coinage, monuments, etc. It would not be unreasonable to use this as a shield device. But then again, your guess is as good as any other. Just something I've seen used recently, and it seems like a valid idea.

Finally, get yourself a copy of the Matyszak book. You will -not- regret it. It will tell you more about Mithridates and his campaigns that any other book (or WRG supplement) of the last several decades. The unfortunate thing about "He Died Old" (while it is a cracking read) is that the material is highly questionable - some of it is poorly sourced, and there is a belief among scholars that some of it may have simply been invented by the author. I suspect that if "Mithridates Eupator: Rome's Indomitable Enemy" had been available a few years earlier, several wargaming interpretations of the Pontic Army might be, if not radically, at least marginally different. If nothing else, it's worth considering that Mithridates and his various generals are the only military leaders, to my knowledge, outside of Pyrrhus, who defeated the Legions using a Hellenistic Army in a major encounter (and actually did it several times).

-M.

[benos]

sadly for the more colour minded amoung us the main colour for horses in that era and region would be brown, i find the best way to paint them is black undercoat layer of brown paint, ink wash then pick out 1 -3 white "stockings" and the mussle bar, greys tend to be dappled, this is a bit more time consuming but can look effective to break up the browns, undercoat black, paint in a mid grey and get an old brush and paint uneven blotches (in theory it should be individual spots but at the scale we are looking at no one could tell anyway , occasional black horses are fine, but ink wash them to give a bit of a sheen.
don't do pallinino, pie-bald or skewbald as these did not really develop until much later (nomads could probably get away with one or two though)

don't use coat d'arms horse tones (i picked these up as i am colour blind, only to be told by then girlfriend that the horses were green !! ...)

hope this helps

Ben

[Nebelwerfer41]

Just a few thoughts, for what they are worth.

One thing to keep in mind, and reinforced by the recent book on Mithridates (by Matyszak), is that Mithridates (and indeed all of the Pontic kings) had a seemingly inexhaustible supply of wealth. The army was extremely well equipped by the standards of the day, and there are some anecdotes regarding Mithridates ordering his men to "tone down" the gaudiness of some of their equipment when operating, for example, in Greece, in order not to seem too ostentatious. Whether or not you believe these anecdotes, the fact is that the man had a lot of money, and he spent it quite liberally on the army.

As such, it would probably be ok to go for brightly colored tunics, shiny armor, etc. Mithridates was a master of manipulating public opinion. For some reason I've always associated him with the color blue, but I have begun to suspect, since he was a huge admirer of Alexander (and a claimed descendent/possible reincarnation) that red would not have been uncommon, particularly in the dress of the phalangites/pezhetaroi.

Yes, I have the book (just read it last week), and I didn't get a clear picture of the Mithridatic armies from the reading. I think during the first war, the forces would have been "blinged out," but soldiers taking part in the second and third wars would have carried less loot.

One (very minor) disagreement I have with the Pontic list as it exists in FOG is that the Imitation Legion isn't equipped with armor - my argument would be that it would have been. Of course, it's very much a matter of interpretation - there's no evidence to say WHAT they wore, except that they were "equipped in the Roman style" and "trained by Roman deserters", and the rules are quite valid in their own interpretation.

Agreed, I don't actually have the army list, but the imitation legionnaires should probably have been armored from all accounts I have read. Definitely not as well trained, but armored none the less.

Anyway...

The point here is that you can make a very sharp looking army, if you choose, combining the best of Hellenic and Persian style. Of course, that could also mean you could make them look incredibly gaudy and impractical;) Keep in mind that these guys repeatedly beat the Romans, so they weren't rank amateurs. So there's an equal argument for making them look, alternatively, like hard campaigners, too. Maybe dirty them up a bit, give them a mix of looted equipment. Idunno.

Yes, hence my original questions. It seems there are so many ways you could go with this. I think I would lean towards a more subdued look, so I can pass the stands off as other troops in the future.

One other thing that might be helpful. The symbol of Mithridates family was a star superimposed over a crescent moon resting on its back and facing upward. The theme is constantly repeated through coinage, monuments, etc. It would not be unreasonable to use this as a shield device. But then again, your guess is as good as any other. Just something I've seen used recently, and it seems like a valid idea.

Ever since I read that I've been looking for such a decal to use for a banner in the supply camp. I might have to hand-paint that.

Finally, get yourself a copy of the Matyszak book. You will -not- regret it. It will tell you more about Mithridates and his campaigns that any other book (or WRG supplement) of the last several decades. The unfortunate thing about "He Died Old" (while it is a cracking read) is that the material is highly questionable - some of it is poorly sourced, and there is a belief among scholars that some of it may have simply been invented by the author. I suspect that if "Mithridates Eupator: Rome's Indomitable Enemy" had been available a few years earlier, several wargaming interpretations of the Pontic Army might be, if not radically, at least marginally different. If nothing else, it's worth considering that Mithridates and his various generals are the only military leaders, to my knowledge, outside of Pyrrhus, who defeated the Legions using a Hellenistic Army in a major encounter (and actually did it several times).

-M.

Mithras, Thanks for the suggestions on the army and Benos thanks for hte tips on the horses.

[Mithras]

Not at all a problem on all counts. Glad to help.

I'm not sure about the "not so well trained bit" for the Imitation Legion, especially when one considers the Roman deserters in the Pontic ranks and the training of the force by Roman exiles; Barker (and at least one other source, which escapes me at the moment) both contend that they were probably just as good, but that the problem was there were never enough of them (of course there were, by the time of the planned invasion of Italy, but this never happened). There is also one other reference (maybe it's Matyszak in this place? Don't have my copy available for immediate reference.) that argues they fought quite fiercely, being unwilling to be taken captive by their former countrymen. I have a friend in the gaming group here who argues that all Imitation Legion should be "Average", by definition; he feels that it is unbalanced to rate the Seleucid Imitation Legionaries as "Superior" but not to do the same for other similarly armed/equipped/trained troops. I must admit I do not have enough of a feel for the game to make an argument either way.

All that said, I think the rating of "Average" is probably a very reasonable one, given the lack of concrete evidence either way. The Armored factor would give them better staying power in a fight, I'd suspect, and more accurately reflect their usefulness.

I believe that someone attempted to do a graphical version of the seal of the Mithraditic line for one of the Rome: Total War realism mods. If I can find it, I'll post a link (or an image) here. It might be a good starting point for making decals/having them made or to print out. If nothing else, it'd be a good painting reference.

-M.

[Nebelwerfer41]

There is also one other reference (maybe it's Matyszak in this place? Don't have my copy available for immediate reference.) that argues they fought quite fiercely, being unwilling to be taken captive by their former countrymen.

Most likely because they were executed for desertion upon capture!

[Mithras]

There is also one other reference (maybe it's Matyszak in this place? Don't have my copy available for immediate reference.) that argues they fought quite fiercely, being unwilling to be taken captive by their former countrymen.

Most likely because they were executed for desertion upon capture!

If they were lucky. Others were tortured, enslaved, etc.. Not a good thing. The Romans were remarkably tolerant people when you were willing to play by their rules. Otherwise... vitriolic is putting it mildly!

-M.

[Eques]

There's useful few pages in "Mithridates the Great: Implacable Enemy of Rome". It summarizes what information there is whilst admitting that there isn't much to go on.

The pre-Lucullus Pontic Army was apparently very formidable to look at, with ornate armour and trimmings. When it moved over to a legionary style army this aspect became less important and the aim "was to kill rather than overawe the enemy."

I am planning in mine to mostly use Seleucid core troops, imaginitively painted, plus some generic archers, javelinmen etc.

It is likely, being from the East, that these troops would be wearing trousers rather than tunics.

[Mithridates]

As noted above, the best source for Mithridatic emblems and the like are the coins of Pontus for the period. Check with Mr Google.

Seems that Mithridates used the Macedonian 8 rayed star with a crescent moon on its back below it. He also used at various times a gorgon's head, Perseus and his winged steed and a stag among others. You could also use Mithridates own head - could be wearing a lion skin a la Hercules or even an Achaemenid lappet headress. One of the transfers available of say Alexander's or another head should be fine.

There are also coins with an eagle standing on a thunderbolt which would be nice.

You could go out on a limb and use some of the Achaemenid or even Sasanid standards but that might be a bit courageous.