"Thracians with Romphaia " Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAnother week, another unit for the Amazon army!
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 25 Oct 2013 10:34 a.m. PST |
Nice minis!.
From here link Hope you enjoy!. Amicalement Armand |
Socalwarhammer | 25 Oct 2013 3:55 p.m. PST |
Absolutely stunning paint jobs. I don't know about all of the models holding the Rhomphaia with one hand. Everything I have read seems to indicate that a small shield (pelta) could have been used in the support hand, but that the weapon was designed to be wielded with 2 hands with a total length of between 1.2 and 1.5 meters (including handle). Also my own reading and research seems to indicate that the Rhomphaia had predominately straight blades and less commonly blades that were curved only slightly downward (not unlike the Spanish Falcata or Greek Kopis), some of these seem to be sweeping backwards, much more in line with the Falx, not the Rhomphaia. I am torn in my opinion, in general I like the sculpts, but don't care much for the hand placement or representation of the weapons
I know that many representation show the Rhomphaia used in combination with the Thureos, but the design of the central hand grip of the Thureos seems to have precluded its use in combination with the Rhomphaia. I am sure I will get many other opinions, but that is my reasoning on it. |
Marcus Brutus | 25 Oct 2013 6:11 p.m. PST |
I generally see the rhomphaia used one handed in most of it depictions so I can see why Warlord went with this presentation. Most depictions show them used with thureos. Aventine has lightly longer blades. Is that what you were thinking about? link |
elsyrsyn | 25 Oct 2013 7:00 p.m. PST |
I've seen pictures and drawings of a few archeological finds thought to be rhomphaia that are slightly forward curved, but also surprisingly slender. I think they'd be far more handy with two mitts on the haft. Doug |
Socalwarhammer | 25 Oct 2013 8:46 p.m. PST |
I think the real issue is that by many accounts, the Thracians fought in mixed order and varied weapons, which has led to some confusion through the ages. Unlike more regimented armies like Greeks or Romans, which normally had a high level of uniformity among weapons within a unit, the Thracians fought in mixed order. Those armed with Rhomphaia would be standing next those armed with spears, Thureos and javelins. Along with other types of hand weapons. In addition to being a devastating overhead slashing/chopping weapon it could also be used as a very effective thrusting weapon. Many (and by no means all) of the depiction of Rhomphaia depict them being used without a shield. In regards to Aventine, they give a mixture of armaments within the unit 'Thracians with Rhomphaia' and IMHO this is a more correct impression based on historical evidence. I in fact own many Aventine Thracians and in my own collection have presented them as such, a mixed unit. If Warlord his attempting to depict a Thracian alternate to the Rhomphaia, commonly known as the Sica, which in fact was used by both the Thracian and Dacian peoples, then I would agree with the overall depiction in the sculpts. The Sica was generally a 1.5 to 2 foot weapon with a blade curved to the rear, not the front or straight like the Rhomphaia and was still in common use during the time period as the Rhomphaia. Again, some would disagree with my view on the subject. |
JJartist | 26 Oct 2013 9:05 a.m. PST |
There's plenty of contradictions in sources and art about the universality of the "fearsome two-handed rhomphaia"
. The Kazanluk and other art finds (that have turned up since the the rhomphaia was described as a two handed weapon by Phil Barker so long ago)
seem to indicate shield in one hand and rhomphaia in the other
. but there are other references to two handed usage. Archaeological finds seems to support many different variants of the weapon style
. so it seems ok to support both views.. use with a thureos as a longer sword than normal, or really long handled ones that are mostly fro two hand chopping, more like the later described falx (which is the same weapon). I like a mix of both types in my Thracian units.. or these can simply be used as Thracian skirmishers in various armies. |
JJartist | 26 Oct 2013 1:07 p.m. PST |
Following up: Kazanluk
Shumates' reconstruction of Kazanluk:
Just about all have shields with their choppers:
Differing lengths:
|
Socalwarhammer | 27 Oct 2013 10:12 a.m. PST |
Thanks Jeff. My opinion is similar, and is largely why I like the miniatures sculpted by Aventine. Again we have the age old question
Is that a Rhomphaia or a Sica? I loose so much sleep over it
Not really. Really nice pics. |
JC Lira | 30 Oct 2013 4:52 a.m. PST |
I've bought a total of one Warlord Games product, Cretan archers I think. The figs were too small to use with my 28mm Greeks -- even smaller than my 25mm figs. Have you found this to be the case with all WLG metal figs? |
BigRedBat | 30 Oct 2013 5:18 a.m. PST |
I don't think it would be the case with all their minis, but the Warlord ranges certainly have a great deal of size variation within them. In the case of the Greeks, I believe they purchased the range from Immortal and consequently they will all be smaller. |
JJartist | 30 Oct 2013 2:51 p.m. PST |
Yes their Greek and Persian figures are the Immortal figures and are smaller than their Romans. |
|