Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

While I don't play armies with these troop types, I do sometimes
paint them, so here's something that's always bothered me about the
figures manufactured to depict, say, Byzantine
klibaniphoroi/kataphraktoi: Why do caparisoned or otherwise face
armoured horses often have their eyes covered by the armor or
caparison? This is particularly common among SHC. How did the horses
see where they were going? How could a blind mount charge and be
useful in combat? Just wondering.


Greek

[Harlan Garrett]

Very interesting question, I look forward to the discussion.

Harlan

-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos8 [mailto:hrisikos@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:20 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] SHC, SHK, EHC, EHK


While I don't play armies with these troop types, I do sometimes
paint them, so here's something that's always bothered me about the
figures manufactured to depict, say, Byzantine
klibaniphoroi/kataphraktoi: Why do caparisoned or otherwise face
armoured horses often have their eyes covered by the armor or
caparison? This is particularly common among SHC. How did the horses
see where they were going? How could a blind mount charge and be
useful in combat? Just wondering.


Greek





Yahoo! Groups Links

Well one reason for SHC eye armor has to do with a painting guide for
late Roman armies that shows what appears to be a screen over the
eyes of the horses on a Clibinaphoroi. Unlike our diligent scribe,
Scott, most manufacturers research no further than a good Angus
McBride type painting.

Also note that on most horse armor, in real life, the face plate has
a little flange to keep the horse from looking directly ahead. A
horse, being a herd animal, wants reassurance that he is running with
the herd (left and right) moreso than to know exactly what is in
front of him at a distance. This is evident when looking at full SHK
type armor such as the famous suit of Maximillian armor.

Unlike the blinders on civilian horses where the horses are to be
undistracted by passing people/animals, their main function is to
keep the horse from choosing to go a different way on its own.

Wanax

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Harlan D. Garrett"
<Harlan.D.Garrett@W...> wrote:
> Very interesting question, I look forward to the discussion.
>
> Harlan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hrisikos8 [mailto:hrisikos@D...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:20 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] SHC, SHK, EHC, EHK
>
>
> While I don't play armies with these troop types, I do sometimes
> paint them, so here's something that's always bothered me about the
> figures manufactured to depict, say, Byzantine
> klibaniphoroi/kataphraktoi: Why do caparisoned or otherwise face
> armoured horses often have their eyes covered by the armor or
> caparison? This is particularly common among SHC. How did the
horses
> see where they were going? How could a blind mount charge and be
> useful in combat? Just wondering.
>
>
> Greek
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links

[scott holder]

Also note that on most horse armor, in real life, the face plate has
a little flange to keep the horse from looking directly ahead. A
horse, being a herd animal, wants reassurance that he is running with
the herd (left and right) moreso than to know exactly what is in
front of him at a distance. This is evident when looking at full SHK
type armor such as the famous suit of Maximillian armor.

>We are fortunate that loads of medieval armor survives so that we can truely
tell what was done. I would need to pull a couple of my big picture coffee
table books to recall what's what.

>But the SHC aspect of this is truely problematic because much of what we have
stem from coins, relief sculptures of varying degrees of quality and graphiti.
Like Boyd said, the little bulbous screen that seems to cover the eyes of every
SHC horse figure around dates back close to 30 years. I don't recall the
original source. Oftentimes, modern artists seem to fill in the gaps in the
historical record by piecing together a couple of bits from Cataphract A
(Parthian) and Cataphract B (Kushan) in order to make a horse for Cataphract C
(Chinese). Now that I think about it, I'm trying to recall if there is a
contemporary visualization of a Seleucid cataphract anywhere.

scott

[John Murphy]

I know it is fashionable to knock WRG and Angus McBride nowdays, but
one of the really great things about WRG's books is they usually
cite original source material.

In AEIR plate 140 the SHC headpiece is stated as being from an
archeological find in Scotland (of all places). So yes this is
cobbled-together cataphract but at least it is peicewise based in
fact. Most of it comes from two originals from Dura, one iron and
one bronze. Never seen 'em so I do not know if those had headpieces
with "tea-strainers" or not. These might also be in evidence on the
Khusru II relief in anyone has a depiction of that to look at.

A general note, horses can't even see directly to the front without
any obstruction. Their natural vision is very much two seperate side
fields with a blind spot maybe 20-30 degrees (I forget, someone more
knowledgeable can correct me) in arc to the front and a larger one
directly their rear. If you need specifics I can pull out one of my
texts on equine vision.

Now, me, I would still take Phil Barker's research complete with
cited source material on the subject over most people's that knock
it with no real concrete contrary evidence of any kind actually
cited, even to the point of sticking my neck out again on this one.

So give me the "tea-strainers" any day.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> coins, relief sculptures of varying degrees of quality and
graphiti... the little bulbous screen that seems to cover the eyes
of every SHC horse figure around dates back close to 30 years.

C'mon Scott, I am not sure I see where _any_ of this
is "problematic". Despite the historian's need to "publish or
perish" 30 years on the face of it seems a relatively short time
when considering objects 1500-2000 years old. Surely not _all_
history needs to be revised by each successive generation.

And nothing is inherently problematic that I see in any of the
source types mentioned (even "graffiti" however one is supposed to
spell it) given that they are contemporary - which I believe is
generally the case in the data being discussed.

At least some amount of the original has survived in one
geographical location which supposedly in general supports rather
than refutes the other sources (though I could not tell you if the
chamfron in particular was among the pieces still in existence -
maybe someone with a better library could look it up as the only
stuff I can find that is original in a cursory run through my books
is the coinage and releif work and only shows open holes with
no "tea-strainers").

But anyway, a real interesting topic and I would actually love to
see some good evidence presented to the contrary even if it proved I
was, yet again, incorrect.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
>
> Now, me, I would still take Phil Barker's research complete with
> cited source material on the subject over most people's that knock
> it with no real concrete contrary evidence of any kind actually
> cited, even to the point of sticking my neck out again on this one.
>
> So give me the "tea-strainers" any day.

John, don't assume my post was ment as a knock, if your comments were
partially directed at me. Lord knows I've painted up armies based on
the now debunk chinese information from such guides a number of
times. So my research is as close as the nearest painting guide as
well. I was, in short hand, trying to say it would be probable that
the figure was sculped based upon the same information we paint by.
That is all.

As Scott said, it is extremely difficult for archeaologist to peice
together complete information for real world research, much less as a
means of providing us with accurate toys. We even, as a
civilization, go so far as to determine what is and is not cerimonial
as opposed to practicle. We simply place our own standards and
understanding upon what we find. This isn't a new practice, since
any cursory examination of depitions of romans from the 19th century
will attest.

Wanax

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Wanax Andron"
<spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> if your comments were
> partially directed at me.

Not really directed at anyone, or if anyone more at Scott in the
interests of generating some historical discussion based on his
statement (and I came off a bit more gruff that I meant to be but I
actually care about how my lead gets painted and I have _tons_ of
these guys so I want to see where to find the backup research), but
see below.

> based on the now debunk chinese information from such guides

Now, they are directed at least partially at you!

Since "such guides" are supposed to have "debunk Chinese
intormation" I hope you understand if I ask for a statement more
concrete than "Boyd says so" to go with this assertion! <g>

Given PB's source citing archeological evidence from Scotland are
you saying it is a fake Chinese faceplate found in Scotland, or on
the cataphract armor at Dura? (now, that, you can consider a jab for
fun's sake - done at the risk that I haven't seen the actual
evidence being referred to)

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:

> > based on the now debunk chinese information from such guides
>
> Now, they are directed at least partially at you!
>
> Since "such guides" are supposed to have "debunk Chinese
> intormation" I hope you understand if I ask for a statement more
> concrete than "Boyd says so" to go with this assertion! <g>

I think it was the "man at arms" series or some such from Osprey with
depictions of shang, ch'in, and western Chou. All of this "research"
was based particially upon extrapolation of later art of the T'ang
and Sui eras and a few poleax heads. Since the finding of not one
but two terra cotta armies (full size ch'in and miniature Han) all of
these speculative assumptions have been discarded. manufacturers
have all released "terra cotta" style chinese armies now. Most of my
early chinese armies were TTG, Essex, minifig and falcon; all were
based upon the depictions in these books. None of these ranges exist
anymore.

>
> Given PB's source citing archeological evidence from Scotland are
> you saying it is a fake Chinese faceplate found in Scotland, or on
> the cataphract armor at Dura? (now, that, you can consider a jab
for
> fun's sake - done at the risk that I haven't seen the actual
> evidence being referred to)

While the early chinese were known to have migrated directly through
Scottland in the Caledonian period, the face plate was actually the
codpeice from Robert the Bruce ;)

Wanax

Now if they would just uncover a Carthaginian terra cotta army, an
Achaemenid Persian terra cotta (early and late) army, etc., etc., etc.,…
(all fully painted with each statue holding a drill manual for that troop
type, of course)

I would be set .

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154

-----Original Message-----
From: Wanax Andron [mailto:spocksleftball@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:16 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: SHC, SHK, EHC, EHK

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:

> > based on the now debunk chinese information from such guides
>
> Now, they are directed at least partially at you!
>
> Since "such guides" are supposed to have "debunk Chinese
> intormation" I hope you understand if I ask for a statement more
> concrete than "Boyd says so" to go with this assertion! <g>

I think it was the "man at arms" series or some such from Osprey with
depictions of shang, ch'in, and western Chou. All of this "research"
was based particially upon extrapolation of later art of the T'ang
and Sui eras and a few poleax heads. Since the finding of not one
but two terra cotta armies (full size ch'in and miniature Han) all of
these speculative assumptions have been discarded. manufacturers
have all released "terra cotta" style chinese armies now. Most of my
early chinese armies were TTG, Essex, minifig and falcon; all were
based upon the depictions in these books. None of these ranges exist
anymore.

>
> Given PB's source citing archeological evidence from Scotland are
> you saying it is a fake Chinese faceplate found in Scotland, or on
> the cataphract armor at Dura? (now, that, you can consider a jab
for
> fun's sake - done at the risk that I haven't seen the actual
> evidence being referred to)

While the early chinese were known to have migrated directly through
Scottland in the Caledonian period, the face plate was actually the
codpeice from Robert the Bruce ;)

Wanax





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=129tipjgt/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups
/S=1705059080:HM/EXP=1086279418/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companio
n.yahoo.com>


_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]