Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Pikes, Muskets and Flouncy Shirts => Topic started by: doctorphalanx on December 26, 2018, 08:53:34 AM
-
If I go ahead with a project based on Cartagena (1697) I’ll need a force of Spanish Militia to oppose the Foundry pirates.
There are two packets of matchlockmen with ‘uncocked’ hats in the Foundry Marlburian range, but each packet is in the same pose. Having a force with just two poses is far too ‘Old School’ for my tastes.
The Dixon Grand Alliance range looks like an ideal source of recruits, but are they compatible enough to mix in with the Foundry figures?
-
Very compatible.
(https://wargamewarrior.webs.com/photos/League-of-Augsburg/Regiment%20Miromesnil.JPG)
This regiment is a mix of Foundry and Dixon. IIRC most of the musketeers are Dixon and all the officers / colour bearers are Foundry figures.
-
Hi Doc !
For my part, I chose the classic tricorn infantry to be able to play also Clive and Dupleix in India in the eighteenth century. In the Foundry "Malborought" range, you can notice that the references GGM003, 4, 5 and 7 are mixes of all the other infantry references, so you can buy these 4 blisters and you will have a pose of each poses available ! To complete I recommend the range "Malborought" from Casting Room miniatures that is compatible and with different poses in each blister. It also allows you to have more officers and different artillery crews!
-
Front Rank has some nice Monmouth rebellion figures.
-
I think I’d go for MB15 and MB22 for pikes, MB18 and MB21 for shot and MB1 and MB400 (from the Casting Rooms range) for supernumeraries. I’d avoid the horizontal pikes. If using the Dixon figures as well there would be plenty of variety.
They might not be fully reflective of the particularity of Spanish uniforms of the period. On the other hand a reasonable mixture might be more appropriate to a militia unit on the other side of the world.
I’d give them mostly uniform coats but a mixture of hats, breeches and stockings.
-
I note the Dixon Miniatures are split into three ranges: Grand Alliance and Louis XIV Armies with GA codes and a League of Augsburg range with LA codes. Obviously I appreciate that the Louis XIV figures are French, but are there any other significant differences between the figures?
-
Hi! I think you can mix some Foundry, Dixons and even English Civil War/Thirty years war for militia in the Spanish Caribbean. I have some Casting Room miniatures, and they are a bit bulkier than Foundry, and the sculpts are not as nice...
I painted a unit of Late XVII c. Spanish Militia (but for European battlefields)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K_XLIzcgV7s/Wu3apccpK2I/AAAAAAAAAmw/3Hce-KzQZWUIyGidLb9733LXbgtI93UyACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_2014.JPG)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pof7pCbYDY8/Wu3aqPhWdJI/AAAAAAAAAm0/ot1CEG0YHzMNeja-PEFDYfx8xIvvTOUmACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_2018.JPG)
Cheers!
-
Warfare Miniatures also has a very nice range of militia, which I believe are compatible in size with Dixon (and perhaps Perry ECW). They include quite a variety, some in coats, shirtsleeves; monmouth and floppy hats.
-
chema1986 - that is a lovely and uncommon unit. Great work.
-
I can vouch for the Front Rank late C17th range. They’re big but beautiful.
I’d say the North Star (ex Copplestone) 1672 range would be well worth a look too. Lovely figures.
-
Chema1986 - beautiful job.
NS are great figures which I’d like to use for another project, but I think they are a little too early in style and relatively large in comparison with the other figures I have in mind.
-
Foundry have a Marlburian range which includes figures with unlocked hats.
These fit well with the Dixon ranges you mention. From that company there are some differences in uniform - French units look different from English and Dutch. They are designed with this period in mind.
Warfare figures are also spot on for the time in question being for the Nine Years War/Grand Alliance.
The North Star figures are for an earlier war and if you're fussy the costume had changed slightly in terms of the coat and hat and less armour was worn (if any) by pike. Nice though they are you should give these a miss and pick from either of the three above.
Personally I'd go with Dixon. They should be a perfect match for your pirates.
-
You should give Dixon a miss because they're ugly little squabs with some awkward poses, squiffy anatomy and no necks - very much wargames figures in the old munchkin style. An entirely different quality and look to Will Hannah's brilliant Foundry cutthroats range.
The Warfare Miniatures figures are a lot nicer - but slight in stature.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course :)
What I would say, is that if you're seriously concerned about 'historical accuracy' you may wish to reconsider your choice of genre.
If (per your other thread) you settle on the excellent Foundry range for your pirates, you should probably reconcile yourself to the fact that they (like almost all miniature pirate ranges) are entirely non-historical, informed only by fanciful notions of 'what pirates looked like' in popular culture - from Peter Pan and Treasure Island to the Pirates of the Caribbean via Black Sails.
The Foundry Cutthroats include figures wearing mid-C16th burgonets; characters dressed as swashbuckling cavaliers; and figures in frock coats and tricorns straight from the mid-C18th. And all points in between. Not to mention a number of figures costumed as pure fancy dress pirates, Captain Hook style. In other words (again, like almost everything piratical in wargaming) a complete confection that plays fast and loose with costume, weapons and armour styles from a timespan of around 200 years...
Under the circumstances, fretting about whether figures portraying generic uniformed troop types from the 1670's will provide awfully inaccurate opponents for the 1690's, feels a wee bit redundant. ;)
-
While I believe that some of the figures in the Dixon ranges you mention were sculpted by Mark Copplestone, I also believe that Trevor Dixon added to them with some sculpts of his own.
-
While I believe that some of the figures in the Dixon ranges you mention were sculpted by Mark Copplestone, I also believe that Trevor Dixon added to them with some sculpts of his own.
I had heard that too Paul. I was told when Copplestone first did his Glory of the Sun range (Now North Star 1672), I should look at the Dixon Marlburian range because some of them ought to be compatible. But when I look at that range, I don’t really see anything that looks like the distinctive Copplestone style or quality... they all look very much like Dixon’s own work, which is, as I say, very old style - Minifigs, Hinchliffe and Lamming era. Great in their day of course, but nowhere near the quality of most wargames figures over the last 20+ years.
But it’s a matter of personal taste I appreciate. I know some people love the old school look :)
-
Are Ebor Miniatures WSS figures too late for what you want? I don't have any but from looking at photos they look very nice.
-
I was intending to be selective about the Foundry pirates but if they're still too Hollywood, I'd be very happy to switch to using the Northstar 1672 figures as Spanish Militia of that era but then I'd need some figures of comparable size to act as their opponents.
Perhaps other Northstar 1672 figures would actually provide the most authentic look for contemporary freebooters?
-
I had heard that too Paul. I was told when Copplestone first did his Glory of the Sun range (Now North Star 1672), I should look at the Dixon Marlburian range because some of them ought to be compatible. But when I look at that range, I don’t really see anything that looks like the distinctive Copplestone style or quality... they all look very much like Dixon’s own work, which is, as I say, very old style - Minifigs, Hinchliffe and Lamming era. Great in their day of course, but nowhere near the quality of most wargames figures over the last 20+ years.
But it’s a matter of personal taste I appreciate. I know some people love the old school look :)
You cannot have looked hard enough! The Grand Alliance range is the one that includes Copplestone sculpts not the Marlburians. They have great detail and very characterful faces. Yes short and chunky compared to many ranges these days but so are the Perry sculpted Foundry Late 17th C. / Marlburians ( which is what the OP was asking for comparisons with...) I have never understood the idea that the Dixon figures might be compatible with the Glory of the Sun range. The later Copplestone sculpts are much taller and more proportionate outweighing any stylistic similarities to my mind.
-
AdamPHayes: what you say about the comparative height of the Dixon and the Glory of the Sun ranges does not surprise me. The Dixon figures were sculpted before anyone had thought of making 28mm figures and they were originally marketed as being 25mm figures.
-
That’d be it then :)
To be fair, it may not be entirely that I didn’t look hard enough... ;)
Because having looked again, there seem to be no pictures of the Grand Alliance range on the Dixon website? Apart from a grainy group shot, in which, yes, I can discern some Copplestone-looking poses and style pointers... I would hazard that his Glory of the Sun range was his improved remake of this early range for Dixon? In much the same way as he remade some of his other earlier ranges - like the ex-Grenadier (? - now em4) Future Skirmish figures - under his own brand.
As others have said before of other manufacturers, it seems a missed opportunity in this day an age to have a website selling miniatures, without pictures of said figures. But there you go... ::)
Interestingly, they do have pictures of the Marlburian figures...
-
That’d be it then :)
To be fair, it may not be entirely that I didn’t look hard enough... ;)
Because having looked again, there seem to be no pictures of the Grand Alliance range on the Dixon website? Apart from a grainy group shot, in which, yes, I can discern some Copplestone-looking poses and style pointers... I would hazard that his Glory of the Sun range was his improved remake of this early range for Dixon? In much the same way as he remade some of his other earlier ranges - like the ex-Grenadier (? - now em4) Future Skirmish figures - under his own brand.
As others have said before of other manufacturers, it seems a missed opportunity in this day an age to have a website selling miniatures, without pictures of said figures. But there you go... ::)
Interestingly, they do have pictures of the Marlburian figures...
Me being a tiny bit glib perhaps 😉
It is strange. What other businesses so rely on opinion and descriptions from third parties for their potential customers to know what they are offering? And in a hobby where the visual appeal of the equipment is so integral to the purchasing decisions and choice of specification, it is truly bizarre to not have photographs in an online shop. All part of the quixotic charm of tabletop wargaming I suppose...
You are probably right about the Glory of the Sun range. I was surprised that Copplestone went for the much less well known earlier era for this range but maybe he deliberately did not want to directly clash with the earlier work. A slightly less Anglo-centric range than the norm is always to be applauded though I feel.
-
Interesting choice of project, a very specific year, 1697, a mostly French raid. Certainly different from the attempt by the Dutch in 1683, or the potential for an attempted pirate raid in the 1660's.
If depicting the local militia companies, rather than the Spanish army garrison troops (who had a rather unique uniform for the period), one would expect more outdated and non-uniform clothing, along with some outdated weapons such as matchlocks and a greater number of pikes.
Another interesting aspect of Spanish defense in what is now Columbia, Venezuela, and Panama is the reliance on substantial numbers of converted local Indians. Not sure how they were armed. Also, the Spanish, at least in the 1660's during Morgan's raids, formed companies divided and distinguished by race: white, Indian, African, mestizo (white+indigenous), mulatto (white+black), & possibly zambo (black+indigenous).
For this varied militia, I'd suggest a mix of figures from the mid to late 1600's, along with a strong local Indian component. That would provide the flexibility to reflect Morgan's raids on Maracaibo, Portobello, and Panama City, along with the Dutch attempt on Cartagena in 1683. But then, I hate developing an army that I can only use for one battle. That's just too much work for one game. But you may be wired differently.
-
I was looking at Cartagena but I'm now looking at an earlier period, e.g. Henry Morgan's time.
I need two forces - typical Spanish militia or garrison troops and a force of Buccaneers. I'd want them to look as authentic as possible or at least reasonably convincing or just the best that can be achieved with good-looking, currently available models.
I'm not necessarily trying to create a specific battle. It's just a peg to hang the armies on. I'm not a rivet counter, but I want to be as realistic as possible without sweating blood.
Pikeman's Lament has a 1:1 scale so I'm not trying to represent the whole of a balanced, mass army in historical proportions, just two 'skirmish' forces that might have encountered one another.
I probably just need some fairly conventional pike and shot types for both sides, though I assume that Buccaneers are more likely to have been armed with half-pikes.
For this period I'm currently considering using the Northstar 1672 figures but also any other ranges which are compatible in size including more archaic figures, i.e. ECW ones.