Help support TMP

"14th century miniatures" Topic

12 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board

896 hits since 11 Nov 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Largoras Inactive Member11 Nov 2017 6:24 p.m. PST

Righto lads, I'm making some European armies for the 14th century, Scottish wars of independence, early HYW etc.
However, I am not sure which manufacturer to choose from, since there was still a lot of chainmail but also plate armour during this time.
I was thinking going with fireforge miniatures and chainmail and gambesons etc for poorer soldiers, like the standard infantry levies etc, especially for poorer equipped armies such as the Scottish.
But then also mixing a select few men-at-arms and knights in plate armour, for a few wealthy knights and Lords.
I'd primarily be using fireforge and perry miniatures for this, maybe some front rank as well.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.

IGWARG1 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian11 Nov 2017 6:45 p.m. PST

Perry HYW are early 15th century, Fireforge are 13th century, I think. You can use both companies rank and file infantry, but should chose others for 14th century knights.

I suggest to look at Foundry for 14th century knights. They should mix very well with Perry and Fireforge. Font Rank are chunky and may not mix well, good figures though.

BattleCaptain Inactive Member11 Nov 2017 6:53 p.m. PST

Aw, I thought I was going to see some REALLY old miniatures!

Viper911 Supporting Member of TMP11 Nov 2017 8:40 p.m. PST

Hi Largors I have front rank figs for a good price if your interested


Sobieski Inactive Member11 Nov 2017 9:43 p.m. PST

What is "chainmail"?

foxweasel12 Nov 2017 2:12 a.m. PST

You know exactly what chainmail is, you're just trying to be clever.

foxweasel12 Nov 2017 2:18 a.m. PST

Sorry, meant to say that 1st Corps medieval figures are worth a look.

Sobieski Inactive Member12 Nov 2017 2:51 a.m. PST

True – an illiteracy. But I was trying to let him down lightly.

Cerdic Supporting Member of TMP12 Nov 2017 6:02 a.m. PST

Here you go. Figures are listed as their maker describes them. So you can look at the 14th Century heading, but also the Hundred Years War section, for example…


uglyfatbloke13 Nov 2017 4:25 a.m. PST

Largoras, there's no evidence to suggest that Scottish troops were less well-equipped or looked any different to their counterparts elsewhere.
David Imrie's Claymore ranges should definitely be on your list, also Perry's and Foundry….Fireforge not so much unless you want a more fantasy less history. Essex have some very good knights/men-at-arms for the early 14th C though they are lsoted as HYW as I recall.
Good to avoid figures with no armour. They are an important feature for Victorian romancers and wargame manufacturers but they're not really a feature of the medieval battlefield.

Thomas Thomas14 Nov 2017 3:45 p.m. PST

SCottish knights at Homildon Hill (1402) were said to have been improving their armor for three years (probably from French sources).

Walsingham says: "The Earl of Douglas was pierced with five wounds, not withstanding his elaborate armor."

So those among the higher Scottish nobility could indeed be well armored though it appears to have been to little avail.


uglyfatbloke14 Nov 2017 4:26 p.m. PST

We know from that people bought – and what it cost them of course – that Scottish men-at-arms and infantry equipped themselves identically to English men-at-arms and infantry.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.