"Depicting a Pontic army" Topic
13 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.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleMore figures for the 28mm Amazon army!
Featured Workbench ArticleGenerating portraits using Deep Dream Generator.
|
Longstrider | 08 Dec 2014 5:18 a.m. PST |
Hey all. So I'm thinking of getting into Hail Caesar as some of the local club have some armies. To be fair there's not that much concern over historically matched opponents, as various folks have armies ranging from Peloponnesian Greeks to EIR, but everything is generally suited for the eastern Mediterranean. So I'm wondering how I might go about depicting the various options available in the HC Pontic list (I was alternatively thinking of one of the Successor lists, but they seem even more confusing). In short, I have no idea what anything is supposed to look like. What distinguishes imitation legionaries from contemporary Roman legionaries? Thureophoroi from someone else with an oval shield and a spear? Galatians from Gauls? Any help – or pointing in the right direction to do some research – would be appreciated. |
IGWARG1 | 08 Dec 2014 6:31 a.m. PST |
Take a look at RAFM Sucessors range: link They have all the figures suitable for Pontics and have photos. It will give you an idea. I would highly recommend "Armies of Macedonian and Punic Wars" by Duncan Head. This book has most of what you need for all the periods mentioned. Written by wargamer for wargamers. |
Oh Bugger | 08 Dec 2014 7:50 a.m. PST |
The Galatians were Gauls. Mith's imitation legionaries were trained by Romans and rich as he was he could afford to equip them. There is some evidence to suggest they looked like Romans. |
davbenbak | 08 Dec 2014 8:02 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the book tip although the cheapest copy available on Amazon we $73. USD |
LEGION 1950 | 08 Dec 2014 8:07 a.m. PST |
Also, check out Gripping Beast range Polomarch! Mike Adams |
GurKhan | 08 Dec 2014 8:22 a.m. PST |
AMPW doesn't specifically cover Mithridates VI's Pontic army, because it ends its coverage in 146 BC. A lot will still be relevant if you can get hold of a copy, though. There's a discussion at link "Imitation legionaries": as stated, they were equipped by Roman exiles so would probably be as close to the Roman style as could be managed. Some manufacturers do make specific Hellenistic imitation legionary figures, usually giving them Hellenistic helmets but otherwise Roman gear. Either that or straight Romans will do. Galatians were Gauls who'd been settled in Asia since the 270s. As late as 189 BC they are still described as fighting naked, but don't seem to have been as ferocious as they used to be. There is a problem in that some terracotta figurines of heavily-armoured swordsmen have been identified as Galatians, probably of the later 2nd century – see
– and _if_ this is correct, Galatian troops might have been similarly armoured by Mithridates' day. But this is uncertain. See link for a discussion of thureophoroi, with illustrations. At link is a shield-facing with the name of an earlier Pontic king. It looks very like a phalangite's Macedonian shield, and although it is a bit larger than the largest shields from Macedonia itself (c.80 cm compared to c.74cm), that may be what it is. |
Swampster | 08 Dec 2014 10:10 a.m. PST |
The armoured Galatian illustrations are based on some terracottas but it looks like the main reason for the identification is the finder equated the shield with Galatian. The face mask may even be a theatrical one as one identification is that he is a character in a play. Carvings of similar masks are found in a military context though. Unarmoured Galatian terracottas are found in Egypt though I don't know how late these go to. For the Pontic generals at least, they seem to have worn standard Hellenistic gear. There are a number of carvings of some of Mith's best boys in his heroon on Delos. A statue which is probably of Mith also shows the normal cuirass etc. He may have been trying to impress the Greeks but there is no evidence for the view in Duggan that he always wore Persian clothing. This seems to go back to Reinach's interpretation of a story where Mith hides a dagger*, but even then no trousers are mentioned. IIRC, the one figure in the heroon who is a bit different is actually a Parthian friend. He is shown wearing the same kind of lamellar cuirass shown on the statues of gods in e.g. Palmyra. Judaean heavy cavalry figures often have this kind of armour following an illustration in AMPW. There are references to at least some of the other troops wearing 'Median' gear (e.g. Plutarch's Sulla). Since he was living a couple of centuries or so after the battle he may have been using literary flourishes. OTOH, he lived next to one of the battlefields so may have had a particular interest. There is a reference in Athenaeus to cataphracts who may be Pontic, working for the Tyrant of Athens in 88-86 BC. Again, the passage of time may have created assumptions in the mind of the writer. *Going by how the dagger was hidden, it was either very small or Mith was great in more ways than one. |
Oh Bugger | 09 Dec 2014 5:48 a.m. PST |
Some Pontic coins have a star and crescent moon motif that might look good as a shield blazon. Surely Mith' could pulled off the dagger trick with equal or greater facility in a tunic. Any how without seeking to diminish his stature surely a small blade would have done the job as he cut the lad's throat iirc rather than stabbing him. |
Swampster | 09 Dec 2014 9:33 a.m. PST |
I agree re. the tunic. The word to describe the clothing which hid the fruit knife (or whatever) seems to be most commonly used for the swaddling bands of the nativity story. |
bilsonius | 10 Dec 2014 7:11 p.m. PST |
Re Plutarch's referring to Median gear – he not only lived in the area but makes a point of mentioning that weapons and armour from the battles were still surfacing in the local marshes in his day, so he might well have seen archaeological evidence with his own eyes. (He actually describes the relics as 'barbarian', which while not specifically Medo-Persian implies Asiatic rather than Hellenistic Greek.) |
GurKhan | 11 Dec 2014 3:19 a.m. PST |
Indeed. Plutarch says "The marshes were filled with blood, and the lake with dead bodies, insomuch that to this day many bows, helmets, fragments of iron, breastplates, and swords of barbarian make continue to be found buried deep in mud, two hundred years after the fight". I think we have to believe him, but all it really tells us is that some of the Pontic troops used gear that didn't look Greek or Roman. The specific references to "Median" gear in descriptions of the Pontic army refer to Median clothing rather than armour or weapopns. Thus Plutarch, "Sulla" 16: "indeed, the flashing of their armour, which was magnificently embellished with gold and silver, and the rich colours of their Median and Scythian tunics (chitonon), intermingled with bronze and flashing steel, presented a flaming and fearful sight". "Median clothing" or similar phrases is quite a common way of describing the way the Armenians and Cappadocians dressed as late as the 1st century BC. For example, in Plutarch's "Antony": "In the second place, he proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra Kings of Kings, and to Alexander he allotted Armenia, Media and Parthia (when he should have subdued it), to Ptolemy Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia. At the same time he also produced his sons, Alexander arrayed in Median garb, which included a tiara and upright head-dress (kidaris), Ptolemy in boots, short cloak, and kausia surmounted by a diadem. For the latter was the dress of the kings who followed Alexander, the former that of Medes and Armenians." I think "Median garb" just means a long-sleeved tunic, as opposed to the crossover coats of "Scythian" or "Parthian" dress, trousers, and a cap which might still be reasonably similar to the Achaemenid tiara. |
LORDGHEE | 13 Dec 2014 2:56 p.m. PST |
I wonder if Tolken read Plutarch? Armies of Macedonian and Punic Wars" by Duncan Head Avb Scribe $8.99 USD month in pdf link |
Longstrider | 15 Dec 2014 9:47 a.m. PST |
Thanks guys. A lot to think about, and I'm going to look through more ranges and see what I can figure out. Would be a good project to start after the holidays. |
|