|
Post by paulhannah on Jan 19, 2018 15:05:13 GMT
Included in my renovated III/74 Seljuq Turk army (15mm Mikes Models) is a 4Kn Agulani element. Turns out it is the very last 4Kn element to appear in all of the DBA army-lists. So, the last cataphracts. How romantic, no? The commentary says, "Nothing is known of the Agulani except that they and their horses were completely armoured in iron and they fought only with swords." This link to Agulani a Kiwi painted was the inspiration for my own. I converted mine from Nikephorian armored horse-archers, and based them in a similar, wedge formation (on a 40x40 base). In their debut game against Eric Donaldson's new Cilician Armenians, I sent my Agulani, screened by LH, on a sweeping left-hook. When they finally got their coveted match-up, in the open against 3Ax not far from the Armenians' Camp, they exploded on the bad end of the 6-1 death-roll. A cataphract catastrophe! The last cataphracts, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 19, 2018 19:16:39 GMT
Included in my renovated III/74 Seljuq Turk army (15mm Mikes Models) is a 4Kn Agulani element. Turns out it is the very last 4Kn element to appear in all of the DBA army-lists. So, the last cataphracts. How romantic, no? The commentary says, "Nothing is known of the Agulani except that they and their horses were completely armoured in iron and they fought only with swords." This link to Agulani a Kiwi painted was the inspiration for my own. I converted mine from Nikephorian armored horse-archers, and based them in a similar, wedge formation (on a 40x40 base). In their debut game against Eric Donaldson's new Cilician Armenians, I sent my Agulani, screened by LH, on a sweeping left-hook. When they finally got their coveted match-up, in the open against 3Ax not far from the Armenians' Camp, they exploded on the bad end of the 6-1 death-roll. A cataphract catastrophe! The last cataphracts, indeed. Seljuk Turks are on my build list precisely for that particular unit, and not because of the similarity of what they represent and the spelling of my surname.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 19, 2018 20:42:42 GMT
Now that you know the Ax are a “power” troop type perhaps you will replace the Agulani with Dailami?
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jan 21, 2018 21:19:26 GMT
There is a later element of 4Kn - IV/5b Sicilian can have 1x Germans (4Kn) and has the tagline "German mercenary sergeants used by Manfred in 1266 were very heavily armoured, wearing the new 'coat of plates' over full mail, but were clumsy and unenterprising, so can be 4Kn. They are specifically mentioned in Duggan's "Lord Geoffrey's Fancy" by the status conscious narrator who is initially keen to check them out with their new armour but once he discovers that they are mere mercenary sergeants refused to have anything to do with them. It is a pity that Rum Seljuks and Sicilians are not listed as opponents or the last cataphract showdown could be a thing. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Jan 31, 2020 15:54:14 GMT
There is a later element of 4Kn - IV/5b Sicilian can have 1x Germans (4Kn)...It is a pity that Rum Seljuks and Sicilians are not listed as opponents or the last cataphract showdown could be a thing. Very true, Macbeth, but the III/74a Seljuq list outlasts the IV/5b Sicilian list by 10 years, so, who really gets the last word in Cataphracts, the Seljuqs or the Sicilians? Dunno... Yes, too bad they're not listed as opponents, so they could face off against each other. Hey, maybe I could bribe Stevie into finding some, ahem, "conclusive evidence" that they should be included in his "Historical Opponents" thread. (Winks & grins.)
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jan 31, 2020 18:20:07 GMT
There is a later element of 4Kn - IV/5b Sicilian can have 1x Germans (4Kn)...It is a pity that Rum Seljuks and Sicilians are not listed as opponents or the last cataphract showdown could be a thing. Very true, Macbeth, but the III/74a Seljuq list outlasts the IV/5b Sicilian list by 10 years, so, who really gets the last word in Cataphracts, the Seljuqs or the Sicilians? Dunno... Yes, too bad they're not listed as opponents, so they could face off against each other. Hey, maybe I could bribe Stevie into finding some, ahem, "conclusive evidence" that they should be included in his "Historical Opponents" thread. (Winks & grins.) Sicilians get the nod in my book for being later because the Agulani are technically not usable into the 1100s. I don't have the exact date because I do not have my DBM books with me.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 31, 2020 20:33:10 GMT
Hey, maybe I could bribe Stevie into finding some, ahem, "conclusive evidence" that they should be included in his "Historical Opponents" thread. (Winks & grins.) Unfortunately such ‘ conclusive evidence’ does not exist Paul. “I didn’t write the history books”
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Jan 31, 2020 21:03:32 GMT
Sicilians get the nod in my book for being later because the Agulani are technically not usable into the 1100s. I don't have the exact date because I do not have my DBM books with me. My, what a memory Tony has for obscure DBM rubrics. Here it is: In the world of DBM, Seljuq 4Kn Agulani are are permissible only before AD 1092, or, for the Sultanate of Hamadan, as late as AD 1128.
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Feb 1, 2020 0:19:29 GMT
As a cataphract connoisseur I'm just quietly adding III/74a to my cataphract wishlist. Though its hard to become too excited or motivated over a single 4Kn element.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 1, 2020 8:00:38 GMT
So which army can field the most cataphracts?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 1, 2020 9:45:51 GMT
That would be the III/15 Tibetans (560-1065 AD), who can have up to 10 x 4Kn//Sp Paddy.
The II/37 Parthians (250 BC-225 AD) have only a mere 6 x 4Kn in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 1, 2020 13:47:12 GMT
So which army can field the most cataphracts? Tibetans indeed......
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Feb 2, 2020 21:43:30 GMT
So which army can field the most cataphracts? Tibetans, and thats why I have them!
Its interesting watching your opponents' reaction as you deploy them. One bloke exclaimed "8 cataphracts!'. To which I replied "I could have 10". He came straight back with "I admire your restraint.".
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Feb 3, 2020 9:22:58 GMT
So which army can field the most cataphracts? Tibetans..."I could have 10". Or...ZERO Cataphracts, as one could, optionally, deploy Tibetans dismounted and field about as many Spear elements (10) as a Spartan Hoplite army. --Can't do that in 2.2.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 3, 2020 9:46:43 GMT
As we are discussing cataphracts, does anyone else think the following is a bit odd:- In DBA Bows have a combat factor of 4 against Cavalry and against 3Kn (not all ‘knights’ had heavy armour...think of Alexander’s Companions or the Goths at Adrianople in 378 AD). But Bows also have a CF of 4 against 4Kn cataphracts... ...so what was the point of all that heavy expensive armour to protect horses from bowfire, when they are just as vulnerable as unarmoured Cavalry and 3Kn when shot at? Ah, but in DBA it’s the effect that counts, and a CF of 4 against mounted seems to work fine. (Still, one would have thought that Bows having a CF of 3 against totally armoured cataphracts would have been more appropriate)Just a thought...
|
|