"Question about Sikh's, Indian Mutiny and Afghan Natives" Topic
6 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 use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to The Sword and The Flame Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleWhatever happened to the Boogey Men?
Featured Workbench ArticleMardaddy has an adventure with two Victorian science-fiction vessels.
Featured Profile Article
|
Murvihill | 11 Sep 2016 6:19 a.m. PST |
I'm finishing up my Afghan army, with six tribes (10 jezail, 10 swords), two units of Ghazis (all swords) and one cavalry unit. Next I'm thinking about working on Sikh's and/or Indian Mutiny. I have two questions: 1. assuming a 10 unit army, how many units would be irregular and how many regular? 2. Are the irregular units close enough at 1/72 that I could use them for both or all three armies? Thanks, Dave M. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 11 Sep 2016 6:42 a.m. PST |
You're referring to Afghan forces in those other conflicts I assume? 1. Almost none would be regular in the British/EIC sense of the term. Dost Mohammad had a palace guard but all Afghan forces in this period would have been feudal levies. Shah Shujah had some regiments drilled on British lines but these fled after the disaster of the First Afghan War and the survivors incorporated into Company units IIRC. 2. Yes. |
Oh Bugger | 11 Sep 2016 8:45 a.m. PST |
2. Are the irregular units close enough at 1/72 that I could use them for both or all three armies? Just about though the Sikhs had more armoured cavalry than the Afghans. On question 1 for Sikhs I'd go regulars for most of the infantry and artillery. |
Murvihill | 12 Sep 2016 9:43 a.m. PST |
"You're referring to Afghan forces in those other conflicts I assume?" No, I'm referring to the Sikh army and the Mutineers. Both had significant numbers of irregulars listed in their OB for the Sikhs and with numerous references to them with the Mutineers but I'm not sure when they actually went into battle how much of the force would be irregular. And I'm curious if The Afghans or Ghazis (who I put basically in off-white with turbans) could be used as reasonable stand-ins for the irregular forces of the other two. |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 12 Sep 2016 3:13 p.m. PST |
Oh, sorry I got the wrong end of the the stick. Haythornthwaite's Colonial Wars Sourcebook reckons about a third of the 150k strong Sikh army was regular infantry. I would reckon that means half regular, half irregular with the balance being artillery and cavalry of which the latter was mostly irregulars of the gohrchurra type. As to the costuming I'd say no since Sikh turbans have a distinct look compared to Afghan ones, but it depends how fussy you are. Newline do an extensive Sikh wars range in 1/72 if that helps. I think they'd proxy more easily for the Mutiny, but, like the Sikh Wars most of the real fighting fell to the regular troops. |
Ivan DBA | 17 Sep 2016 10:01 a.m. PST |
The pleural of Sikh is Sikhs. No apostrophe needed. |
|