A couple of questions regarding 5th Century Alans

[Richard in Sachsen]

Hello all,

I had a couple of questions regarding 28mm Alans that I needed assistance or opinions since I am not so very familiar with them yet. I was hoping someone here could help. I am using a combination of Warlord Samartians and A&A Sarmartians

1. Basing. I like to base my 28mm figures individually for use in different systems with movement trays. For armoured lance and bow cavalry I am not sure how to go about it. Should they be in open order for shooting or close order for charging? Should light cavalry (also armed with lance and bow) be in open order? (I personally would think so, but....)

2. The A&A models come with the small bucklers for the upper left arm. Are these appropriate for Alans?

3. Likewise, the Warlord light cavalry models come with wicker shields, some in Peltast-shape. Are these also appropriate for Alans of the 5th Century? Or no shields at all?

4. Any definitive information or advice on how the lances are carried while shooting? I read that they may have been carried on the back but not how how to connect them. I was thinking of using "Avar style" by making a green-stuff thong over the right shoulder and holding the lance by the upper third of the shaft.

5. Speaking of lances, are these kontos? Kontos seem rather long to hold this way while shooting. Were their lances shorter?

6. Paint schemes for tunics and trousers. Most of my Osprey resources illustrate BC and early AD. There is one illustration of Samartians in the Late Roman era wearing Roman uniforms but they seem to be Laeti. This army is meant to be for Goar and his successors. So would the old zig-zag and line patterns of Scythians, early Samartians and other steppe peoples still be in use?

7. The Warlord armoured Samartians seem to be konto heavy cavalry. Would anyone know if at this late date whether all such units carried lance and bow or did some consist of pure cataphracts without missile weapons. I know things were slowly changing to the clibanarii/bucellarii type of armoured lance and bow cavalry around this time. That is, should I be contemplating adding bow and quivers to them or are they accurate enough as konto cataphracts.

Any advice and opinions would be of great assistance.

Thank you in advance,

Richard

[Codsticker]

7. The Warlord armoured Samartians seem to be konto heavy cavalry. Would anyone know if at this late date whether all such units carried lance and bow or did some consist of pure cataphracts without missile weapons. I know things were slowly changing to the clibanarii/bucellarii type of armoured lance and bow cavalry around this time. That is, should I be contemplating adding bow and quivers to them or are they accurate enough as konto cataphracts.

I hope somebody knowledgeable replies as I am curious about this as well.

[Jericho]

1. Basing. I like to base my 28mm figures individually for use in different systems with movement trays. For armoured lance and bow cavalry I am not sure how to go about it. Should they be in open order for shooting or close order for charging? Should light cavalry (also armed with lance and bow) be in open order? (I personally would think so, but....)

That's more personal preference really, isn't it? For heavy I would go for a closed order with the first row kontos armed and the second row bow armed. The same for your light cavalry. I would only use open order for skirmishers.

2. The A&A models come with the small bucklers for the upper left arm. Are these appropriate for Alans?

Who wouldn't like a shield to protect your front and side when charging straight ahead towards the enemy? Maybe for variation you can give them different kinds of small shields to break uniformity.

3. Likewise, the Warlord light cavalry models come with wicker shields, some in Peltast-shape. Are these also appropriate for Alans of the 5th Century? Or no shields at all?

Those models are made for the Dacian Wars from around 100AD. And they look a lot like the earlier Scythians, Sakas and Cimmerians. Personally I find it strange that their clothing hasn't changed from 800BC to 100AD. Not to mention 450AD.
Over the years cultural influence from neighboring peoples or tribes would find their way into the Alan society. By the 5th century the Alans were no longer a dominant people having been harassed by the Huns for years or maybe even decades. So they either submitted to the Huns or sought protection by making alliances with the Goths, Vandals and other peoples, or form a Foedus with the Roman Empire in return for lands.
It's human nature, when you put a single individual and put him in a tightly knit group of people, that individual will try to fit in. So I believe that the Alans that allied with, for example, the Goths will ultimately have looked like Gothic Alans. Just like how the Romans started to adopt Germanic fashion.
Long story short; I think they would have assimilated styles from the Huns, Goths, Germanics and Romans.

4. Any definitive information or advice on how the lances are carried while shooting? I read that they may have been carried on the back but not how how to connect them. I was thinking of using "Avar style" by making a green-stuff thong over the right shoulder and holding the lance by the upper third of the shaft.

5. Speaking of lances, are these kontos? Kontos seem rather long to hold this way while shooting. Were their lances shorter?

7. The Warlord armoured Samartians seem to be konto heavy cavalry. Would anyone know if at this late date whether all such units carried lance and bow or did some consist of pure cataphracts without missile weapons. I know things were slowly changing to the clibanarii/bucellarii type of armoured lance and bow cavalry around this time. That is, should I be contemplating adding bow and quivers to them or are they accurate enough as konto cataphracts.

I always supposed the cataphracts were a combined arms unit with an archer supporting a kontos bearer.
After the charge was complete both kontos and bow would be useless and the sword would come into play (another reason to have that small shield  )
Also you have the light cavalry that can support the charging cataphracts with disrupting fire.

6. Paint schemes for tunics and trousers. Most of my Osprey resources illustrate BC and early AD. There is one illustration of Samartians in the Late Roman era wearing Roman uniforms but they seem to be Laeti. This army is meant to be for Goar and his successors. So would the old zig-zag and line patterns of Scythians, early Samartians and other steppe peoples still be in use?

See my earlier answer. They would be mixed kind of like your Soisons army. With one looking more like an Alan, the other like a Roman, etc.

I have also toyed with the idea of making an Alan/Vandalic army. I would have gone for a mix Gothic figures, Romans, Avars and Huns from Aventine and Huns from Gripping Beast. Altough I would shun those figures that look too much like Mongolians. Crusader's 'Early Saxon and Franks' look very good for the Germanic influence, too bad they don't have cavalry figures.

But this is just my idea. I'm curious what you're going to come up with.

[Richard in Sachsen]

Thanks Jericho, that is very helpful. It's always great to get outside advice and I very much appreciate it.

The main force of armoured nobles (Warlord) are in close-order on a home-made tray made for Hail Caesar, they're in cuneus formation. However, for Dux Bellorum and Comitatus they will need to be split up on smaller trays of three figures per tray. Comitatus recommends three-figures close order for heavy cavalry per stand/tray and two for light cavalry per stand tray. It was the categorisation of both lance and bow that was confusing me - two to a tray or three (risking shooting the guy next to me in close order, but who knows, these steppe horse archers were pretty amazing and maybe friendly fire was not so much of a problem as it would seem).

The figures are pretty cool, all charging with kontos levelled and very dynamic. But they were the one I was curious as to whether I should attach bow cases and quivers or not.

I did look in Phil Barker's book last night and he asserts no shields. However, I am unclear if he is talking about early and mid antiquity or including late antiquity as well. I might just do the shields on the A&A armoured archers as it seems by the 5th century, that is what the general movement was towards with other armoured horse and lance cavalry.

The second large formation is A&A armoured Samartians shooting (horses unarmoured), those are the ones I intend to attach lances around the shoulder. Thinking it over, I think it would look better with thin strips of the tomato-paste tube metal for the thongs than green stuff, and probably easier.

A very interesting idea to mix them (archers and lancers), I need to see how they look together again and if they mix well. All the A&A are on unarmoured horses while all the Warlord are armoured. If some of the Warlord were unarmored and some of the A&A were armoured, then they would probably mix better. Otherwise they may just stand out enough to break the illusion. I'll see.

The other option for the A&A armoured lance and bow cavalry, I thought, would be to make them a unit of Heruls but I'm finding a hard time finding any definitive info on the Heruls themselves as opposed to the Heruli unit of the Roman army. Yet, reading the chapter on Ricimer, it seems Alans and Heruls were giving him headaches in northern Italy ca. 470 or so.

Good answer on the clothing styles, I'll do just that. I'll mix them like the Gallo-Romans.

I would have gone for a mix Gothic figures, Romans, Avars and Huns from Aventine and Huns from Gripping Beast.

That is exactly what I have done with my warlords and their bucellarii! Ricimer has a mix of mostly Footsore Goth Nobles with a couple of Romans and Aventine Steppe Nobles thrown in, since he was himself a Goth. Marcellinus has mostly Aventine Steppe Nobles with some Romans, Aegidius (coming soon) has a few Romans and mounted Gripping Beast early Saxon characters and heroes. Riothamus has the new Saxon Miniatures' Arthurian heavy cavalry - but those figures can be painted as almost anything.

I very much like doing that, mixing them up as it helps to give the flavour of the times.

Thank you so much for your advice, it's very helpful and I very much appreciate it.

[Jericho]

Thank you so much for your advice, it's very helpful and I very much appreciate it.

Happy to oblige.

And now that you're talking about Ricimer, Marcellinus and Riothamus, I have another interesting article about the campaign of Riothamus against the Visigoths.
LINK
That blog has a load of interesting articles. Unfortunately not regularly updated.

Before you know it, you'll have to make Childeric & Chlodovech, Emperor Anthemius & Anthemiolus, and King Euric. Perhaps a Comes Paul too? 

[FierceKitty]

I'm not necessarily convinced that the small group always tries to blend in with the larger. Ever seen Hasidic Jews in New York? They seem satisfied to be very distinctively different. Across Europe today there is still squabbling over headscarves that people want to wear to assert difference. A hippie returning from India invariably wears khadi as long as it lasts to advertise his or her enlightenment. I don't know how Alans felt about their Alaninityness  , but it may have meant a lot to them.

[Richard in Sachsen]

Thanks. Yes, I agree there should definitely be some distinctive "Alaninityness"  or the army runs the risk of not being identifiable at all and simply a generic mess. But I think Jericho meant something along the lines of what I just did with my Gallo-Romans by integrating some other styles into the overall scheme

[FierceKitty]

Fair 'nuff.

[Jericho]

In short I meant what Richard just said.

Alans weren't a religious group, so they had no set dogma that told them what to wear to be a full fledged Alan.
Alans themselves were just a grouping of various nomadic tribes, led by their own kings, united under the leadership of a single great king. As was the same for the Franks, Alemanni, Goths, Vandals, etc.

For example the people we know as Vandals, that crossed into the Empire in 406 and settled in Hispania, were a coalition of Vandalic tribes, Suevi tribes and Alan tribes, along with a smattering of small groups of other tribes too small to get mentioned in the sources. The Alans under king Respendial stayed with the Vandals, while the Alans under king Goar threw their lot in with the Romans after entering Gallia.

In Gallia some of these tribes stayed and settled, such as Alans that roamed Armorica and Aquitaine up to the 450's.
Most of the Vandals then moved on, voluntary or under influence of Constantine III, some even joined his forces as federates. Some even turned back with the troops of the rebel Gerontius to fight against Constantine III.

Hispania, lacking any Imperial military presence to resist the barbarian horde, got divided between the major tribes.
Gallaecia was taken by the Hasdingi Vandals; the Suevi took the westernmost part of Gallaecia; the Alans took Lusitania and Carthaginiensis; Baetica was taken by the Silingi Vandals.

Up to this point the peoples were really seperate with each its own identity, until the Goths under Wallia reestablished Imperial control to most of Hispania in 417-418. The Silingi are so heavily defeated, they are never heard of again. The Alans are crushed as well, losing their king Addax in the process, and seek protection with the Hasdingi.

The Vandals that invaded Africa were now a mix of mainly Hasdingi, with remnants of Alans, Silingi and some Suevi.
(Most of the Suevi remained in Gallaecia)
While the first Vandal kings after 418 styled themselves as Rex Wandalorum et Alanorum, the later ones like Gunthamund and Thrasamund just went with Rex Wandalorum or even plain Rex or Dominus. Not surprising because most of their kingdom were made up of Romano-Africans and Numidians. And the king needs to represent himself with all the people he commands.

In 1917 a grave was found of one Arifridos. His grave looked as most rich Christian Roman graves in the area, only his inscribed name gave the clue that this was a Germanic man and not a Roman.
An epitaph found in 1951 told of the woman Ermengon who was married, 35 and identified herself as Sueva.
While the Vandals, Alans and Suevi interacted with the Romans, they started to blend in, acquire Romanitas and only held Germanic or Romanised names as their ethnic identity.
What is not to say that an Alan identified himself solely with the Alanic identity, he could have felt Vandal as well, as well as a Roman.

You yourself can identify yourself with your hometown, province, country and even continent.

Or you can look at your local games club. All of them have the human identity, all of them have the wargamer identity, then you diverse in what kind of wargame identies (classic, fantasy, SF, etc) and ultimately into friend groups which is an identity unto itself.

I can also recommend the book 'the Vandals' by Andy Merrils and Richard Miles (2014). It has an interesting chapter about ethnicity inside the Vandals group and with the people around them.

[area23]

Excellent information.
For miniatures you can also consider West Wind Arthurians.
All of them with seperate heads so in theory you could mix them easily with Aventine steppe tribes heads.
They have late roman (heavy-)cavalry, Saxon infantry and various late roman and germanic seperate head sets.
I used the heads on Crusader Arthurians to make ostrogoths and a headswap on Foundry Numidian cavalry as poor Alan scouts or bandits. 

[Richard in Sachsen]

Thanks! Actually West Wind Arthurians were my first starter army since I got back into the hobby in 2011. Those are my friggin Dumnonians that I am still having a hard time finishing. And, I think it was the separate heads that has been the cause of my procrastination!

Buuuuuuuut... that is a terrific idea about using Aventine and other manufacturers heads! Maybe I'll do that on some future Bucellarii. My Alan contingent is complete with miniatures, it's just kinda in the palette planning phase now, hence the questions.

But I certainly will chew on that idea for warlords and bucellarii. Really is a good idea.

[aphillathehun]

The other option for the A&A armoured lance and bow cavalry, I thought, would be to make them a unit of Heruls but I'm finding a hard time finding any definitive info on the Heruls themselves as opposed to the Heruli unit of the Roman army. Yet, reading the chapter on Ricimer, it seems Alans and Heruls were giving him headaches in northern Italy ca. 470 or so.

You're probably already aware of this passage from Procopius:
"And the persians, shooting into great masses of the enemy in the narrow alleys, killed a large number without difficulty, and particularly of the Eruli who had at the first fallen upon the enemy with Narses and were fighting for the most part without protection. For the Eruli have neither helmet nor corselet nor any other protective armour, except a shield and a thick jacket, which they gird about them before they enter into a struggle. And indeed the Erulian slaves go into battle without even a shield, and when they prove themselves brave men in war, then their masters permit them to protect themselves in battle with shields. Such are the customs of the Eruli."

[Richard in Sachsen]

Thanks aphillathehun,

Actually no, I wasn't aware of that and coincdentally I am at the very beginning of Procopious right now as my before bed reading. I am sure I will get to that part but that was extremely helpful in clarifications: so it seems that the armoured riders would not be good Heruls but the unarmored light cavalry may work in their stead.

Thanks for that

[smirnoff]

This on Heruls from an Armati list written by a specialist on the period:

'The Heruls were the bad boys of the Eastern Germanic tribes. Roman authors tell us that they had filthy customs, fought naked, wore little armour, etc. For a while, the Heruls dominated the steppe until badly defeated by the Lombards. The Heruls ended up in Byzantine service being a particular favourite of Narses.'

You can safely depict them as Germanic Heavy Cavalry, whether they fought in dense foot formations (like heavy warband) is moot. They seemed to have adopted a looser formation but I cannot remember where I read that...

[Richard in Sachsen]

Thanks Smirnoff. Then I don't think these guys would work as they are heavily armoured. They're A&A 4th Century armoured Satmatians firing bows. They may have to stay with the Alans but I was beginning to suspect that my Alans contingent was becoming too armoured cavalry heavy in proportion to light cavalry and horse archers. The Warlord Sarmatian light cavalry are mostly holding lances while also carrying bows but there are a couple shooting as well.

Maybe those would work better as I am under the impression that the Heruls were steppe-influenced eastern Germanics and the floppy hats, etc. would probably work.

But that leaves my Alan contingent with proportionally more armoured than unarmored units and I would think it should be the other way around.

I'd rather find a different place for the armoured horse-archers but now I don't think Heruls are it.

Maybe put them to the side and wait for Aventine's new Justian Byzantines to come out? Perhaps they'd work out in Belisarius' expeditionary force?