Slitherine

If I had the French infantry and the Circassian cavalry, I could have conquered the whole world.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Just in time for Clash of Empires, we're very pleased to announce our newest historical line, the Caucasian States. The line is being crafted by Mike Broadbent and has been extensively researched by us. We understand that these are listed in Clash of Empires as being Georgian, Daghestani or Chechen, but the list can also be used to make up a Circassian army, the most fearsome cavalry in the region and, according to some (including the notorious Corsican), the finest cavalry in the world.

Many of the Cossack feats of horsemanship and styles of dress were adopted from the Circassians as the Russians fought their long war to subject these fierce people. Many Circassians left the Caucasus after the Russian conquest and formed elite forces in other armies, most notably the Turkish, where the Circassian cavalry formed a dreaded elite. Some were even stationed and settled in Palestine and to this day form a distinct ethnic group in several villages in Israel.

Circassian horsemanship astonished those who witnessed it, and the Cossack tricks of standing on the horse's back and shooting whilst at full gallop, or sliding to the side or underbelly of the horse while it was moving at speed, were tricks learned from the Circassians.

Other Caucasian states, such as Georgia, Daghestan and Chechnya, had troops of very similar appearance, though the Dagestanis and Chechens tended to have fewer horsemen and more infantry. Indeed, the infantry in Circassian armies were largely Daghestanis and Abghazians ("Abasgians").

Because these armies were in transition from the bow to the pistol during this period, our models will be available as both Cavalry using bows and as Horse using pistols. The pistoliers will still have the bow, as was the case with the chainmail armoured horse as late as the 19th century. There will also be unarmoured horse to represent the lesser cavalry and these will have the same choices as the armoured men.

(It should be noted that the armies of the 16th and 17th centuries had not yet adopted the large furry hat and long kaftan with cartridge loops that the 19th century Circassian and Daghestani cavalry were famous for. I have been assured of this by several Circassian and Russian historians whilst doing extensive research on this army.)

The line will include:

CAVALRY
Armoured horse using pistols (these and all the other mounted will be breakwaist for maximum pose variation ... and so they can point their bows and pistols forward!)
Armoured horse using bows
Unarmoured horse using pistols
Unarmoured horse using bows
Command, including trickriding character models
Nogai nomad light cavalry horse archers

INFANTRY
Abghazian/Daghestani skirmishers with turkish muskets
Abghazian/Daghestani infantry with swords, some with shields

The bow armed models can also be used for the period as early as the 15th century, and if there is interest we will have infantry made to suit that earlier period -- for now the emphasis of this line is on the 17th century, often called the Golden Age of Circassia, and an interesting period in Georgian history as well.

Here are some preview images:

Cavalry command, including the unique "deer antler" finial for the standard:


Chainmail armoured cavalry with pistols, bows slung:



Abghazian or Daghestani tribesmen with Turkish muskets:


Abghazian or Daghestani tribesmen with shashka:


Status: the infantry are complete and in moulds. The armoured horse with pistols are complete and going into a mould this weekend. The rest will follow over the next two weeks or so.

I understand that this will be a very interesting Eastern army on the tabletop, with unique tactical options, and we wanted to do this army right for you to build a handsome force! So as you get your copy of Clash of Empires, have a look at the Caucasian States list!

Mr K., please let's have some Safavid Persians also

Many years ago Mikes Models had a small but very nice range of Safavids (in their normal munchkin size). They were discontinued sometime after they became Essex. I have never seen a range to match these, including Essex's current Moghul range.

It's nice to see obscure armies, but how about the major powers also

I won't be making those, I'm told that they are quite similar to the Caucasian states but just not as good -- the Caucasian states army is superior in a few important ways.

Frankly the Safavid Persians are rather obscure to most gamers too -- so if I'm going to offer an obscure army, it might as well be a good one.

Delbruck wrote:Mr K., please let's have some Safavid Persians also

Many years ago Mikes Models had a small but very nice range of Safavids (in their normal munchkin size). They were discontinued sometime after they became Essex. I have never seen a range to match these, including Essex's current Moghul range.

In fact Essex still have the Mike's Models Renaissance range moulds, and, although they do not include the range in their current catalogue, will supply figures from that range if you say it is to complete a collection.

I have bought Mike's Models Ottomans from them as recently as the latter part of last year.

If you PM me which figures you are after, I can let you know the catalogue numbers.

khurasan_miniatures wrote:I won't be making those, I'm told that they are quite similar to the Caucasian states but just not as good -- the Caucasian states army is superior in a few important ways.

Frankly the Safavid Persians are rather obscure to most gamers too -- so if I'm going to offer an obscure army, it might as well be a good one.

I too have a Mike's Models munchkin Persian Army, in fact I went hunting for it in the depths of my garage only last week in anticipation of the new Army list book.

It was as badly painted as I feared, so my initial plan to paint up some extra figures isn't going to happen. However, should you ever decide to expand the range to include troops suitable for the Persians, I'd be the first to buy them. I'm not sure that I'd agree with you that they are obscure, but even if they are, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting an army that isn't superior, where's the fun in that

And in fact here in what was the frozen North Mikes Models are de regeur for Trade & Treachery, & still available from Essex as your kindly co-author has pointed out. The horses supplied are essex, though, and in some cases unsuitable for Gendarmes due to saddle protrusion.

Where the figures are badly painted , dip the whole base in Army painter mid or dark shade. Gives those tired armies a new lease of life, especially as your basing skills are probably more advanced now. I dip on the base, and then remove the figures for rebasing. I now have a very acceptable 30YW/ECW collection because of this. Dark shade, my preference, works especially well on red & yellow.

The British Museum recently had a big exhibition on Shah Abbas (the guy who really turbocharged the Safavids) so I wouldn't say they are that obscure. Would make a good historical opponent for the Ottomans IIRC ... and most importantly of all they should be stunningly pretty. There are a lot of colour pics from Persian miniatures (again IIRC) showing brightly coloured silk all over the place and a general impression of total bling!

Just to be clear, when I say Persian miniatures I mean smalll paintings done at the time (not modern wargames figures )

Maniakes wrote:so I wouldn't say they are that obscure.

An art exhibit isn't really going to change wargamer awareness that dramatically though -- still pretty obscure as far as renaissance gamers go. I actually am very interested in the Safavids and Abbas' reign, and seriously considered making them.

As to the 17th C most gamers are primarily familiar with the ECW and TYW, and broad knowledge of eastern armies is pretty much limited to the Ottomans and Poles. After that I think it trails off a bit.

I wanted to make one but didn't want to make Ottomans or Poles, as there are so many models available already, but instead something different, preferably something that could fight the Ottomans but also the Russians. That left either the Persians or the Caucasians, unless I wanted to do a light horse army but I thought that not such a great idea in the 17th C.

The Caucasians can fight the Russians, the Ottomans, the Persians, and the Crimean Khanate. And they can also happily fight each other! Lots of good historical opponents. The Persians can too, but my understanding was that in FoGR the Caucasian army can essentially have everything the Persians can (except possibly artillery), and more on top of that, to make it a much more interesting army on the tabletop.

And this is not just games-driven prowess -- the Persians certainly got nowhere attacking the Caucasus. As Lesly Blanch says in "The Sabres of Paradise"

Everywhere, at all times, the Caucasian people fought. Battle thrusts were the pulse of the people. They fought amongst themselves, or against the invaders, with equal fury. Successive waves of would be conquerors found them a terrible foe; Roman legions, Arabs, Attila, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane -- and the Persians, who called the Caucasus "Seddi Iskender" -- the barrier of Alexander. Legends of Caucasian impregnability lingered on in Persia, where there was a saying, "when the Shah is a fool, he attacks Daghestan."

The Russians did eventually conquer the area but it literally took them hundreds of years and the experience left a mark on their cavalry forces -- southern Cossacks adopted the dress and riding style of the Circassians, for instance.

Speaking of the Poles, by the way, most gamers know the fiercest of the Pancery were the Petyhorcy, but perhaps they don't know that these horsemen were originally Circassian princes, come to Poland as the Russians encroached on their land. Circassians (Cherkassians) were the fiercest of the peoples in the Caucasus, but it's my understanding that the list does not specifically mention them. I'm looking forward to seeing it, as can be imagined.

To be fair I shouldn't really be chipping in here - I've got such a large pile of unpainted lead and I paint so slowly that I won't be buying anything for quite a while. So I'm not really a potential customer for you at the moment. Having said that the Safavids have been on my list of "One Day" armies since George Gush days (like I said I'm a slow painter and used to be a quick lead buyer!) and Caucasians never have been. It all comes down to personal taste I guess.

Recalling my long past DBR days I seem to recall the Safavids were reasonably well known.

i got a great poster of the chaldran battlefield, with loads of colourful cavalry, the last time i was in Isfhan. It's got pride of place in my hallway- nothing obscure about the persians

Yes, just to reiterate, I like the Persians too! But I also love those ferocious states of the Caucasus.

To show my thought process here, this is the exchange I had with Richard:

rbodleyscott wrote:

khurasan_miniatures wrote:Hi RBS, me again, this time in a quandary over whether to make Circassians or Safavid Persians as a 17th C army of Central Asia for FoGR.

First step, of course -- will both be in the lists? I assume so for Shah Abbas the Great's Persians, but perhaps the Circassians did not squeek through?

If both are in, must admit I like them both equally from an historical perspective, so I imagine it's down to which one is better in FoGR -- any thoughts on that would be greatly appreciated!

There is a Caucasian list (covering the small states in the Caucasus region such as Christian Georgia and Muslim Dagestan and Chechnya) and a Safavid list.

Both lists are quite similar, except that the Caucasians get the option, after 1620 of fielding any or all of their cavalry as more modern Horse with Impact pistol (instead of Cavalry with bow).

This makes the list much more flexible, so I guess it is the better of the two in FOGR tournament terms, and also has an interesting and probably unique troop combination.

On a parting note I'd assume that 17th C. Persian cavalry would be largely similar in appearance to Caucasian cavalry.

This makes the list much more flexible, so I guess it is the better of the two in FOGR tournament terms, and also has an interesting and probably unique troop combination.

Ah, ok, I understand where you are coming from, but I think it has to be said that there are a great many of us out here who have not the slightest intention, ever, of playing in tournaments, but who collect on the basis of what interests us. I understand completely that what works well sells, at least in the short term. I just want to play with what I find interesting

I don't play in tournaments either, but I still like an army that gives a good game. So if I like both armies the same, and one is a better army than the other, that's the one I'll make.