"Legionaries for Aurelian" Topic

In preparation for the release of Sam Mustafa's next opus I've been investigating late 3rd Century Roman options in 28mm.

Unlike preceding and succeeding imperial phases, the equipment and appearance of 'Crisis' period legionaries seems to be contentious: some sources, such as my venerable WRG book, have late empire armour and equipment kicking in by the mid 3rd Century, whereas others have them in mail with a simplified version of the older pattern helmet.

I know that A & A does a range specifically covering this era, but its figures don't appeal to me, and I'm seeking a cheaper option. I'm thinking that if the mail/coolus(?) helmet look is appropriate, a reasonable solution would be to use EIR auxiliaries with pila substituted for spears. The swords would be wrong, but I could probably live with that. Any opinions from the Latinophiles out there?

For the Roman alficionado there are differences- helmets, swords, baldrics – that one would notice in 28mm.

I love the old A&A range, the figures are well researched and have quite an exotic look- "Romans with a twist." They are also relatively modestly priced (as he often has a deal going).

If not A&A, then maybe do it in a smaller scale? In 10mm one wouldn't notice the above differences and the minis could fit on bases the size of Sam's cards.

Crusader Miniatures make a set that might help:

link

Sort of a mixture of lorica segmentata and later helmets.

Everything I've read suggests that lorica segmentata is unlikely by the late 3rd Century, and shields should be oval.

It will be 28mm because that's the size of the large numbers of German tribesmen already owned by myself and others in the group, the group only does new projects in 28mm, and none of us is about to invest in another size when we already have such a major commitment to 28mm.

So, is the WRG date for the introduction of late Roman paraphernalia plausible? Can we get away with using late Roman legionaries? (some group members already have them).

I'd forgotten them, Paul. I wonder how they would mix with A&A?

Everything I've read suggests that lorica segmentata is unlikely by the late 3rd Century, and shields should be oval.

Old-fashioned, but it looks a bit less unlikely now than it used to:

"The Newstead type was introduced during the second quarter of the 2nd century CE and continued in use into the 3rd century, although again evidence from Spain suggests use there at least into the early 4th century. … One of the backplates from Carlisle, along with numerous cuirass fragments from León, Spain, suggest the use of this variant into the 4th century CE."

(Mike Bishop at PDF link )

But mail or scale is going to be much commoner. As for "late Roman legionaries", it depends what you mean. Most people don't believe that the muscled cuirass of Phil Barker's old illustrations, and many wargames figures, was ever really worn by legionaries at all (though there are some who still credit it). And I think the earliest evidence for the two-piece ridge-crest helmet is from the very end of the 3rd century.

Apart from the segmentata, the Crusader figures that Caliban links to do have the correct broad baldric for the 3rd century; but it's a shame about the short sleeves, and an oval shield is far more likely than their semi-cylindrical one.

We need more news about Aurelian.

Duncan is right, of course, but the Crusader minis might give a bit more variation. Size-wise, I think they would mix well with A&A.

Another pose is always useful. :-) Good for guarding the camp, perhaps, once provided with the superior A&A shields.

Armour was expensive and takes a long time to wear out so was probably kept in repair for a long time, so maybe a mix of armours? I'd be tempted to do it within units, to get different helmets too – but with a common shield, as shields wear out far faster, so later models are probably all there is available far earlier than armour. I'd opt for the oval late Roman one, also makes your army more flexible to use it later

I'd go for "stand-off scale correctness", so not obsess about baldrics & other details etc as those are invisble from a foot away behind a big shield.

Information on Aurelian is starting to appear on the Honour site

link

It started to appear 4 months ago. We need new news!

I'd go for "stand-off scale correctness", so not obsess about baldrics & other details etc as those are invisble from a foot away behind a big shield.

Not invisible to the owning player, who's usually looking at the backs of his own figures, not the shields!

A lot of the charm of the Middle Imperial army is in the small details that differentiate it from the Early Imperial army, the helmets, baldrics, scabbards and pila. If compromising, there is a danger that one might end up with an army that didn't look quite EIR or MIR. Better to build an EIR army and use as MIR, perhaps?

That's exactly what I have done. I built/collected an EIR army but made sure I had all the appropriate tools to make a strong list from the MIR. I did some research and for the first half of what DBM considers MIR you could certainly use the semi-cylindrical shield. I have about 60 stands of legionaries and they are split, one wearing the lorica segmentia and the other chain mail. This makes it nice necause when you go to make your commands you can easily distinguish between the two.

I did look long and hard at what they had to offer in terms of MIR figures (mostly from Essex) and I decided that they just looked too Late Imperial for me so I decided to stick with the Early Imperial dress.

Maybe the advent of Aurelian will prompt more manufacturers to release an MIR range. It's a pity the A & A figures are so bizarrely proportioned (like obese toddlers), because the detail on them is excellent, and you can't fault the range for depth of coverage of its subject or price. Ah well…

Any thoughts on what to do about MIR Auxilia?

On the contrary, I think that the majority of the A&A MIRs are very well proportioned; as good or better than most ranges I collect… The light infantry are some of my favourite minis – really graceful.

The photos on the A&A site aren't particularly good, though, and a couple of the auxilia poses are on the short-limbed side, but it is one of the great 28mm Roman ranges IMHO.

Agreed. I'm just gluing down some figs a friend painted for me and they're really nice figs.

The photos on the website are perfectly adequate. When viewing the very clear scans there I recall thinking that the archers were the best proportioned of the range: the closest to normal human proportions and the most like other ranges, so isolating them as examples is somewhat disingenuous, and given that the figures in the second photo are largely hidden behind shields it tells the viewer very little.

Without wishing to offend anyone, the legionaries had me thinking 'little people'. They have foreshortened limbs, excessively broad bodies, oversized heads, and tiny feet. That would be fine if historically that particular minority constituted most of the manpower of the legions*, but as far as I know recruits were drawn from the general population.

Of course, people are free to go to the website and judge for themselves.

*Although it would mean having to use 40mm figures to oppose them.

There's a big difference in looking at the pictures and holding the minis in the hand.

The scans may be clear but unfortunately some of them are badly distorted (shortened); some of the minis that look terrible on the site are often splendid in the lead. There are a couple of duff auxiliary poses with short arms but, those aside, the minis are very proportionate (or at least as proportionate as the average 28mm mini).

I should say I have no connection with the manufacturer, who's website doesn't do him much of a service- but it's ill advised to make sweeping generalisations about the range based only on the duff photos on the site.

Well, the same figures appear in a photo in an article in WSS by Phil Hendry on painting with 'the dip', and they look exactly the same there. Perhaps all attempts to accurately photograph these figures are jinxed.

I'm sure that if the manufacturer felt that any of the photos he himself posted on his own website misrepresented the appearance of his products he would have long ago replaced them.

In this day and age such images are all we potential customers have to inform us as to the appearance of POI (products of interest), but they seem to serve the majority of manufacturers well enough. All the same, I eagerly await the appearance of more 'accurate' images of A & A's MIR.

I just paid a visit to your cave, Simon, and found a number of images of A & A figures from your own collection. No surprises: they're just as dwarfesque in your photos. Is there possibly some sort of 'wishful thinking' going on here?

"A lot of the charm of the Middle Imperial army is in the small details that differentiate it from the Early Imperial army, the helmets, baldrics, scabbards and pila. If compromising, there is a danger that one might end up with an army that didn't look quite EIR or MIR. Better to build an EIR army and use as MIR, perhaps?"

Agree that the army shouldn't look like an EIR (or LIR), I guess my governing assumption is that in the chaotic 3rd, "uniform" by and large wasn't :)

I had the pleasure of attending the recent Hellenic Society and Roman Society Greeknand Roman armour dayof lectures in London .
I will put fuller details on the Society of Ancients Forum, but the lecture on Roman armour was fairly certain that very oarge amounts of lorica segmentata were still be worn even up to the time of Constantine. Of course the legionaries would be wearing later pattern helmets and they may have moved to oval shields, but the strong impression was that segmentata would be absolutely right fir Aurelianic legions as would scale and mail.

That's very interesting to know, Roy. Crying out for some head-swaps!

I just paid a visit to your cave, Simon, and found a number of images of A & A figures from your own collection. No surprises: they're just as dwarfesque in your photos. Is there possibly some sort of 'wishful thinking' going on here?

Just out of curiosity could we have an example of a well proportioned 28mm ancient figure?

I have the A&A 4th century Romans and I am pleased with the size and proportions. No appearance if dwarfism. I agree with Simon. If you look at them in your own hand they look excellent. Great detail, proportions and sculpting. I can set them next to my 28mm Late Romans from Wargames Foundry, Crusader, Black Tree Design, and Gripping Beast and they do not stand out for bad body proportions. They look really good in my opinion.

I highly favor A&A and find good value in the monthly deals they offer.

We need more news about Aurelian.

Basic rules finished, Advanced rules and Campaign being finalised. I reckon we will see them November/December.

That's My guess not Sam's.

My one question is will you be able to work Zenobia and Co into the campaign system as they don't get a mention amoung the protagonists at the moment .

Sam's comment from the Honour Forum:
link

The consensus of historians on the Carpi seems to be that by the 3rd century, they were most likely to appear as a subject people or vassals of Sarmatian or East-Germanic rulers, perhaps contributing infantry contingents to Sarmatian armies. So I included them in that respect.

I gave a lot of thought to the Palmyrans. For one thing, it's a cool story. But I had to be careful with including more armies because in Aurelian each army gets its own set of cards. An army needs to be completely distinct, therefore; there needs to be some reason that Army X is so unique in its unit types, tactics, abilities, and so on, that it would merit a unit deck of cards. And I had a lot of trouble figuring out what, exactly, would have made the (admittedly-short-lived) Palmyrans that sort of unique.

I was struck by how little firm information there is on the Palmyrene army. I'm a historian with access to a research library that can get me, free, pretty much any scholarly book written, and I was scraping the barrel to find anything more than purest conjecture. I talked to a few historians in this field, all of whom were very helpful and referred me to various research, and yet nobody could offer more than a few educated guesses about the Palmyrene military. "A little bit of eastern Rome… a little bit of Persia… some clibanarii… maybe." seems to be the consensus.

I know that other wargames have included a Palmyrene army, but I couldn't tell you what they based it on.

Finally, since Aurelian is based around a campaign that represents 60-70 years of history, and since the Palmyrenes existed as a fully independent entity for only four years, it didn't seem worth the trouble and cost.

So I decided that the Advanced Rules would offer a Palmyrene army as a DIY thing, created by mixing the Roman and Persian cards and units.

That last paragraph works for me!

Sam's reply to my query, in fact, Delbruck.

Are you just being intentionally mischievous or engaging in a round of sock puppetry?

Now, we all know that the anatomical proportions of the vast majority of 28mm figures are distorted to some extent because it's become the accepted sculpting style, and widely regarded as desirable – even obligatory. Even the slender Perrys' figures' head:body ratios and limb lengths don't quite match those of the average example of species Homo sapiens sapiens, but it's exactly that: a matter of degree, and A & A (and some others, such as Curteys and some Crusader figures) represent an extreme degree of distortion that for myself and many others is just a dwarf too far.

I honestly don't see the point of all the sophistry; the evidence is glaringly apparent and right there for anyone to view at his/her leisure, but for your benefit, along with Perry Miniatures products I'd cite the work of the Pattens for GB and the now defunct Vendel Miniatures as examples of generally well proportioned figures (if you overlook the occasional stumpy arm).

On a related topic, having no experience of dealing with A & A I can't comment on the quality of its service, but interestingly Sam himself recently reported on the Honour forum on a bad experience he had ordering from that company; so much so that he's vowed never to deal with it again!

Aurelian aside, the lack of information about the Palmyrans and the exotic Eastern nature of them makes them an interesting choice for an army to build.

As Sam suggests they must have been a mix of Eastern and Western troops and there's the possibility of some camels not to mention Zenobia or Odenathus.

As Sam suggests they must have been a mix of Eastern and Western troops and there's the possibility of some camels not to mention Zenobia or Odenathus.

If memory serves that's been the theory ever since the WRG "Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome" which is more than just a couple of weeks ago and then some!

Sad to say as I'm not starting over my "Aurelian" Romans and Persians will look an awful lot like the sizeable number of Old Glory Late Romans and Sassanids I already have! ;o)