Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: glenning on January 25, 2022, 07:07:40 PM
-
Hello everyone, I recently got a bunch of Perry crusades minis from a friend but since I know very little about the different crusades I need some help - my main questions is shields - I'd like the force to have a unified look with almost identical shields, which faction would work then? Kite or heater shields? The area of Europe where the crusaders came from doesn't really matter as long as these minis would work with a faction that had somewhat identical shields to tie the hold force together, so which faction/unit might that be? You get the idea - thanks in advance!
PS. I was thinking knight hospitaller at first, but I'm guessing they all had the black robes? DS.
Also - the two cloth trips on the back of the helmet on the sergeants - should they be in the same heraldic color as the shields? Again, thanks in advance!
If the "identical shields" thing is a no-go - would these guys work as some central-European/Scandinavian "identical shields" guys from the 11th century or are they to "crusady"?
-
In as far as we know, there were no uniform shield patterns during the Crusades; as more and more Crusades took place heraldry started to creep in which made it all the more unlikely that there would have been any uniformity (the whole point of heraldry was to mark individuals out).
That said, for minor troop types such sergeants and the like, you could get away with a uniform colour/patterns as a mark of expression on your part. Unlikely historically, but they are your miniatures and you can paint them up as you like :)
The Perry Crusade range is specific to the First Crusade so very little uniformity. If you look on the Perry website under their Crusades, Christian section you will see that the last packs in the range are Knights Hospitaller- these were added to the range years after the rest but are more specific to the Second Crusade as opposed to the First Crusade, where the shape of shields had begin the very slow journey through the centuries to the classic "heater" shield.
Hope that helps a little?
-
For 1st Crusade think Normans for the Crusaders and you won't go far wrong, so kite shields and perhaps even the odd round shield will still be there (Byzantines still used the round shield a lot I think). Slowly over time the kite shields got smaller and the top edge became flatter, gradually morphing into the heater shape later on in following crusades. No heraldry as such at this time, although you might expect a lord's personal retinue to wear his colours and carry his banner, but for the most part people just decorated themselves and their gear as they saw fit, or maybe following a family design.
1st Crusade was too early for the Templars and Hospitallers so they're not there yet, the main groups being 'French' Normans, 'Italian' Normans and Franks under various Dukes and Princes. They also picked up other groups of European fighters along the way, some under minor nobles and some literally just wandering east, who shuffled themselves into the various commands. There wasn't an overall military leader, which led to various quarrels and plenty of jostling as ambitions locked horns (mostly the Italian Norman Bohemond and the Southern Frank Raymond) and sometimes people would change the lord they served part way through the campaign, so you have a lot of flexibility as regards building forces. The knights and mounted men-at-arms did suffer badly from a loss of horses as the campaign went on, so your mounted vs foot ratio kind of depends on how close you want to stick to history.
-
If you don't care for Hospitaller black - which looks dashing but was killingly hot - bear in mind they switched to bright red after a while.
-
Have a look at 'Battle Flags' shop of transfers you can get for the crusades.
Not necessarily uniform shields but 'themed', might help with ideas.
Also, Holy Orders had different colours for different grades.
So Templar Sargeats wore Black with a red cross and the Knights wore white with a red cross.
Hope that helps.
-
Also this is not my quote, but this sums everything perfectly about heraldry for Templars. Certainly in the early periode of the Templars, forget the white shield with the red cross.
The period of the Templars was one where uniformity did not exist; there was no universal calendar, no "correct" time of day and certainly no military uniforms as we understand the term. Monasteries each made their own arrangements for obtaining cloth and making up the garments worn by monks - and the same [most] certainly applies to the Drapers in Templar Preceptories. The idea of uniform shields is a modern one, suiting modern concepts of how military organisations should appear.
...
It is likely that, just as in the case of the flag, Templar shields could vary in their design - certainly the shape changed over time and I suspect that the design did too. Senior people in the Order might choose their own shield design and it is possible that the rank and file did the same. Uniformity was an unknown concept, beyond what is set out in the Templar Rule.
....
The baucent (piebald, meaning black and white) banner definitely did not have to be the same as the design on the shield - compare the Hospitaller's 1260 banner of red with a white cross, while shields of that time seem to have been black.
EDIT: Also the podcast "History of the Crusades" is golden.
For hospitallers this picture is most historical accurate for the different periodes.
(https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/271444630_4537287956398551_1049467464313700306_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=T3YDeRhexVAAX88wx9w&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=00_AT-cSmMfQfHgA4NaDJNfnSquQdvVGyuPgtGzUJJN8Bu4tg&oe=61F5D58D)
Edit 2: This is a perfect example of a Templar knight during the third crusade.
(https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/271241894_4422692294505911_3449215854934143018_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=b9115d&_nc_ohc=H5E2XKSI3kgAX8thcGo&tn=QU8GDpmCpb0wmZmg&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=00_AT_ClXNJec90sifpKWT1BMmWrI-PhhyXIziGHOf4UMJCEA&oe=61F645D9)
-
It is a bit of a misnomer that heraldry is a later invention. England's three lions comes from Normandy's two lions, which predate the First Crusade by quite a while. Various forms were in use throughout the Dark/Middle Ages (I think it's Olaf's Saga which talks about his men using a cross, ala Constantine).
That said, there were not rules around it per say and the whole army wouldn't have uniform devices. Retinues might have used color schemas in simple fashion to make it obvious who you served. Thus I think it somewhat up to you where you want to go.
As to the Knights Templar, they may have used a black/white motif ala the beauseant, on their shields. It is certainly how I like to model my Templars. Note that their foot wore a brown/black surcoat vs the knight's white or their priest's green.
As to shields, it depends on which crusade. 1st Crusade would be largely kite/norman shields, 3rd Crusade you are getting closer to classical heater shields
-
It is a bit of a misnomer that heraldry is a later invention. England's three lions comes from Normandy's two lions, which predate the First Crusade by quite a while. Various forms were in use throughout the Dark/Middle Ages (I think it's Olaf's Saga which talks about his men using a cross, ala Constantine).
That said, there were not rules around it per say and the whole army wouldn't have uniform devices. Retinues might have used color schemas in simple fashion to make it obvious who you served. Thus I think it somewhat up to you where you want to go.
As to the Knights Templar, they may have used a black/white motif ala the beauseant, on their shields. It is certainly how I like to model my Templars. Note that their foot wore a brown/black surcoat vs the knight's white or their priest's green.
As to shields, it depends on which crusade. 1st Crusade would be largely kite/norman shields, 3rd Crusade you are getting closer to classical heater shields
I'm pretty sure that a lot of the colors and heraldry started even earlier than that.
The greeks and others did it with their shields, and a relatively standardized color or colors for your force is one where it's easier for someone to tell friend from foe when things get chaotic
-
Here this is an interesting blog from a re-enactor that wants to make himself a tempalr kit.
http://www.durhammedievalcombatacademy.org/Portfolio_Knight_Templar.html?fbclid=IwAR3Dhh3HsUc9WPF9hhxTnMkj2m8ZQWbDkllTzZQDHOAVWGZ46gAqGLNBEFM
Altough the kit I posted a couple of posts above is imo the most historical correct for a templar around the third crusade.
Also a quote from Brother Ranulf I think is very interesting
The historian and author Ian Heath has stated that the baucent banner was in use from 1128 and "the Templars had a secondary banner of a red cross on a white field, and each commandery had its own banner plus a reserve one to be unfurled if the first was lost", indicating that there were a number of different banners in use at the same time - but he gives no supporting evidence for this. If this is correct, then it may also help to explain the many varieties of known shield designs, with each commandery (Preceptory) coming up with its own designs for flag and shields.
It's from the forum Livinghistory.co.uk.
-
Thanks a lot everyone! I might go with a black/yellow scheme or red and white - paint the shields in the same colours but with a lot of different designs - horizontal/vertical stripes, half/half etc. etc. Like these:
-
Btw, the "sash" attached to the back of the helmets on the sargents - same color as the shield colors or something else?
-
I would not want to limit myself to a uniform colour or pattern for crusaders. They came from all over Europe after all.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hhEIeNvPRwE/Vxf5I26QqZI/AAAAAAAAJAE/-z3rXJxPXJAwIyRB8xYlfSPBp4g2oQ5QACLcB/s1600/Normannen%2B014.JPG)
-
Some cool pictures!
The sash attached to the helmet can be any colour, but you could chose one colour to group the retinue together.
I.e I gave all the sashes for my retinue the colour red. I don't know if I would do it again, but now it is this for a 11th century Spanish retinue.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/px9izq3nt3ufu2j/33.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbv9l80vxemcta3/41.jpg?dl=1)
-
Great looking minis - thanks yet again!
-
I've gone two different ways.
For my Normans i hand painted all my shields as below:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fPvnS361CdI/YMiinhf5GlI/AAAAAAABHAs/fYp3-qMbHkcVLHLYE_bnZQX7qG2om0QAQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/NORMAN%2BMILITES%2B1A.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KaOzVlbzTxw/YMiipHV9WfI/AAAAAAABHA0/qPzcAe-jAxUzkIuYyH5Xgba6q9K0ZWEWgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/NORMAN%2BMILITES%2B1E.jpg)
For my Christian Spanish I went off the beaten track and painted a colour scheme:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ribwOTlij6g/XqK-gGBDoYI/AAAAAAABDT4/zmr-NDeLs7InxUDOTdpP-elvHAIx50MZwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SPANISH%2BKNIGHTS%2BUNIT%2B1B.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WdZqU1AStVs/XqK-idSVSHI/AAAAAAABDUE/DhOdB9K--HcLpziPEt0yaYaD5sXOTIEsQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/SPANISH%2BKNIGHTS%2BUNIT%2B1D.jpg)
-
Awesome stuff - very inspiring!
-
I've done both myself. Here are my vikings, and you can see some units use a unified color scheme and others without.
(https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2022/1/13/1129295-.jpeg) (https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/1129295-.html)
I've got a green/white unit, with a stag motif, a red/white unit with a bird motif, black/white/red with a dragon motif, blue/yellow with bears, blue/white with whales, and a couple random units
Also for my Normans:
(https://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2022/1/13/1129291-.jpeg) (https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/1129291-.html)
There mostly patterned on known heraldry of early medieval folks or towns near where I lived in England. Then also a red/white unit based on the coat of arms for the town we lived in.
I've currently got a black/white unit in progress, and eventually may do a yellow/red or other unit.
-
There are some great paintjobs being displayed here! I think the key is to not get too obsessed with uniform colours, but have a good variety within the known boundaries of what the colours could be.
Also the podcast "History of the Crusades" is golden.
I'm not sure if we listened to the same one, but are you talking about the podcasts by Sharyn Eastaugh? That one is kind of weird, since in the background description leading up to the crusades, she missed the Seljuk invasion of the Eastern Empire. In fact, she spent more time talking about Arianism (?!) than things like the Battle of Manzikert.
-
@Gregmita, jup, I am talking about that one. To be fair the real meat of the podcast starts with the preparing of the first crusade. The events before, that causes the first crusade, are only talked about in one episode or so.
I can only say, that I love it. I am now at episode 106, the fall of Tripoli.
-
Okay, I guess I'll keep going with it, to see if she has good details. The problem is that without some of the background, she tends to present the whole thing as "suddenly, the Christians attacked for no reason", which ignores the complexity of the actual situation.
@Gregmita, jup, I am talking about that one. To be fair the real meat of the podcast starts with the preparing of the first crusade. The events before, that causes the first crusade, are only talked about in one episode or so.
I can only say, that I love it. I am now at episode 106, the fall of Tripoli.
-
Okay, I guess I'll keep going with it, to see if she has good details. The problem is that without some of the background, she tends to present the whole thing as "suddenly, the Christians attacked for no reason", which ignores the complexity of the actual situation.
I've always liked Terry Jones' 'The Crusades'. Yes it is slightly anti crusader, but it is rather funny while being full of good info. I think, while Jones implies it a bit farcically, that the crusades were very much motivated by faith. Entire towns don't just get up and walk to the Levant from Germany/France looking for wealth, not in the middle ages. I will say the book is not as good as the tv series, which was very well done.
Also try God's Battalions. It's a pretty good take on the crusades. It acknowledges all of the muslim conquests of the Levant, Africa, Spain, etc. It doesn't run from crusader brutality, but is fair on why it happened. I found it rather refreshing, not flawless, but still...
-
Great answers and great looking minis so far - very inspiring!
Perry's Muslim soldiers(mainly the Arab militia and command) seems to be painted like a rag tag bunch as well - would it be historically correct to paint Arab militia in off-white robes for a whole unit but with mixed shield design/motifs?
-
Perry's Muslim soldiers(mainly the Arab militia and command) seems to be painted like a rag tag bunch as well - would it be historically correct to paint Arab militia in off-white robes for a whole unit but with mixed shield design/motifs?
That would wholly depend on where the milita was mustered. If from a affluent city then it's safe to assume they would turn out on nicer clothing. The opposite for poorer settlements.
-
I've always liked Terry Jones' 'The Crusades'.
Yeah, that was probably my first taster and got me interested in the Crusades. It's very much made for entertainment, with Terry Jones' wry commentary to the fore, so perhaps gives something of a skewed vision, but it's a good read and gave me a hunger to learn more. In a complete reverse of older texts, more recent (as in, the last 30 yrs!) works on the Crusades do seem to paint the Crusaders as cruel invaders and Muslims as innocent victims, which is perhaps a weighted bias to counter previous perspectives. I enjoy the Thomas Asbridge books for quite honestly shrugging and admitting no-one really knows what motivations were at work with each individual (everyone was human), but there was certainly a very literal and powerful faith element, as in all aspects of medieval life, along with the very visceral ambitions of some to get out from under the shadows of their liege lords and carve out a kingdom in the east. The aggressive expansion of Islamic territories around the Levant, Turkey, North Africa and Spain would certainly have reinforced the 'them and us' attitudes necessary when European leaders tried to motivate people for war, along with the usual fanciful rumours of baby eating and whatnot. Let us not forget the Pope's ambitions to strengthen the political power of Rome (and maybe draw the Byzantine church closer to the Latin church) by diverting a lot of restless, troublesome warlords away from Europe and essentially making them someone else's problem!
So lots of different people would have had lots of different reasons, but when you get people en masse geared up for violence, the original motivations get warped very easily and it's hard to understand why decisions were made after the fact.
-
There are a number of period painting that show Arab infantry in various colours of robes, from both Byzantine and Muslim sources. I think it depends on how colourful you want your army, since there is quite a range of plausible colours.
For example:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4298/35234735494_c940a08bf0_b.jpg)
(http://warfare.6te.net/13/MSarabe5847-f94v.jpg)
In general, I recommend that site for historical illustrations.
http://warfare.tk/index.htm
Perry's Muslim soldiers(mainly the Arab militia and command) seems to be painted like a rag tag bunch as well - would it be historically correct to paint Arab militia in off-white robes for a whole unit but with mixed shield design/motifs?
That would wholly depend on where the milita was mustered. If from a affluent city then it's safe to assume they would turn out on nicer clothing. The opposite for poorer settlements.
-
I'm old enough to have watched the Terry Jones show on TV at the time as a teenager. It was... definitely entertainment. :)
It was kind of funny when he referred to the rising Mamelukes in the collapsing Ayyubid dynasty as "a group of revolutionary soldiers fighting back" with inspirational music playing in the background. Even back then, I knew the Mameluke leaders, when jockeying for power, were whacking each other like characters in a Warner Brothers cartoon.
The negative view of the Crusades is a lot older than 30 years. Even back in the time of Runciman, it was already the horrible fanatical barbarians attacking superior civilizations. More recent books actually tend to be much better - e.g. Asbridge, Tyerman, Riley-Smith, etc. They actually have far more Muslim sources to draw on too, which interestingly makes the narrative much more balanced in favour of the crusaders! This newer batch of books introduced me to ibn al-Athir, which has really improved my understanding of Muslim history.
I've always liked Terry Jones' 'The Crusades'.
Yeah, that was probably my first taster and got me interested in the Crusades. It's very much made for entertainment, with Terry Jones' wry commentary to the fore, so perhaps gives something of a skewed vision, but it's a good read and gave me a hunger to learn more. In a complete reverse of older texts, more recent (as in, the last 30 yrs!) works on the Crusades do seem to paint the Crusaders as cruel invaders and Muslims as innocent victims, which is perhaps a weighted bias to counter previous perspectives. I enjoy the Thomas Asbridge books for quite honestly shrugging and admitting no-one really knows what motivations were at work with each individual (everyone was human), but there was certainly a very literal and powerful faith element, as in all aspects of medieval life, along with the very visceral ambitions of some to get out from under the shadows of their liege lords and carve out a kingdom in the east. The aggressive expansion of Islamic territories around the Levant, Turkey, North Africa and Spain would certainly have reinforced the 'them and us' attitudes necessary when European leaders tried to motivate people for war, along with the usual fanciful rumours of baby eating and whatnot. Let us not forget the Pope's ambitions to strengthen the political power of Rome (and maybe draw the Byzantine church closer to the Latin church) by diverting a lot of restless, troublesome warlords away from Europe and essentially making them someone else's problem!
So lots of different people would have had lots of different reasons, but when you get people en masse geared up for violence, the original motivations get warped very easily and it's hard to understand why decisions were made after the fact.