Hi All,
I'm building an Ilkhanid Mongol army in 15mm with Museum miniatures, and am in a quandary as to what to use to make a BG of Kurdish armored lancers.
Does anyone have any tips?
Robkhan
Modelling a BG of Kurdish Lancers
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Hi Robkhan
Kurdish cavalry are decsribed as being more heavily armoured than native Arab cavalry so having figures showing this would be good. They also tended to consider hand-to-hand with the sword more manly than poking people with spears which scared the hell out of their opponents, so depicting heavily armoured swordsmen would distinguish them.
There are also comments that their armour made them slower but far more difficult to stop in the charge.
Yours
Pelagius
Kurdish cavalry are decsribed as being more heavily armoured than native Arab cavalry so having figures showing this would be good. They also tended to consider hand-to-hand with the sword more manly than poking people with spears which scared the hell out of their opponents, so depicting heavily armoured swordsmen would distinguish them.
There are also comments that their armour made them slower but far more difficult to stop in the charge.
Yours
Pelagius
-
RobKhan
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad

- Posts: 157
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:52 pm
- Location: Hamburg
Thanks Pelagius,
In FoG Kurdish cavalry are described in Swords and Scimitars as armored lancers with sword the same as some Bedouin cavalry armored lance sword.
Have the FoG people got it wrong? Or is the difference minor, or are there conflicting reports, which is the most likely in history.
Thanks again
RobKhan
In FoG Kurdish cavalry are described in Swords and Scimitars as armored lancers with sword the same as some Bedouin cavalry armored lance sword.
Have the FoG people got it wrong? Or is the difference minor, or are there conflicting reports, which is the most likely in history.
Thanks again
RobKhan
RobKhan wrote:Thanks Pelagius,
In FoG Kurdish cavalry are described in Swords and Scimitars as armored lancers with sword the same as some Bedouin cavalry armored lance sword.
Have the FoG people got it wrong? Or is the difference minor, or are there conflicting reports, which is the most likely in history.
Thanks again
RobKhan
Hi RobKhan
No the list writers are just working within the confines of the ruleset. As FoG covers a wide timespan there is only a finite amount of differentiation that can be applied to similar troop types.
Mamluks were trained to shoot in at least three different ways, in several formations and then use sword or mace as required and sometimes to charge immediately without shooting...
My own interest in the period led me to using a very period-specific set of rules that differentiates on several parameters for troops as it does not have to take into account the difference between a Sumerian with a longpointystick, a Medievil German and a Macedonian with a longpointystick. Then look at their initiative, training, morale etc etc.
The difference between a Hamdanid, Armenian, Umayyad, Abbasid or Kurdish cavalryman may be apparent in the histories but would not add anything to a "universal" set of rules. Believe me I have seen sets in the past that differentiated between weapon point materials (shudder).
Just enjoy
Yours
Pelagius
