What figures (28mm) would you use for 11th - 12th century Agulani?

[olicana]

[For Early Crusades.]

They were mounted on fully metal armoured (cataphract) horses and fought with maces (& swords?), and they were not employed [probably] by any army raised west of Mosul, is the only info I can find.

I'm thinking Aventine Sassanid cataphract horses because they look suitably eastern and there seems to be no pictorial evidence to contradict that choice but, what for riders? Should I go for Aventine Sassanid riders, or something more obviously later and 'Arab'.

Given they were employed by the Seljuks at the Persian end (Great Seljuks), would Sassanids be so wrong?

No one, apparently, knows what they actually looked like so everything is conjecture. It makes the Agulani a gamer's dream, or gamers nightmare depending on your 'historical wargaming' stand point.

I only want one unit of 12, and given who used them they won't see the 'Crusader battle table-top' much.

What would you use?

[SJWi]

Olicana, beautiful though they are  I  think the Sassanid figures look (a) too early and (b) too Persian . Personally i would opt for the Avar heavy cavalry from Aventine and armoured horses. You may want to e-mail Keith at Aventine to check the riders and armoured horses are compatible.  Another long-shot option would be Gripping Beast's Thematic Byzantine cataphracts.

Regards,

[olicana]

The Byzantines are a much better option. Thank you.

I did see the GB stuff when I google image searched "28mm cataphracts" but discounted them because of the teardrop shields, presuming they were (like most GB shields) cast on, but, now I see that the shields are optional / separate. So, I could use larger 'Arab' round shields (Footsore), and add some Milliput turbans with flowing tails down the back, to make them look more 'eastern' / less Byzantine. Most also come with maces, which is very good.

[aphillathehun]

These guys on armored horses would look awesome:

https://aventineminiatures.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/616

[bluewillow]

The eureka Byzantines would suit the purpose also, they look very different and the armoured cavalry have 4 types.



https://www.eurekamin.com.au/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=byzantine&x=13&y=14

Painted ones I completed last year










More on the blog

https://stormandconquest.blogspot.com/search/label/Byzantine
Cheers
Matt

[olicana]

I looked at Aventine but, unfortunately the lance pose can't be used. The Agulani were cataphracts fighting "with swords only." Surprisingly, because the mace was generally favoured by cataphracts after the lance.

Likewise, they rode "metal-armoured horses", which WRG determines as SHC (super heavy cavalry), commonly referred to as cataphracts. This would make them stand out from the other Islamic stuff, so I'm happy with that definition from an aesthetic point of view.

Thanks for the suggestions, but I think the Gripping beast Tagmatic cataphracts will probably be ones I use. Turbans and Arab shields should change their appearance quite dramatically. Turbans are great for doing that: I added some turbans to the helmets of some WotR infantry and now they look totally 'Italian Wars'; in fact, even though they are a well known brand, people often ask me who makes them!

[aphillathehun]

I miss WRG.  I loved the 6th edition troops and formations....

[SJWi]

Olicana, I would agree that the Byzantines make the best cataphracts. I guess a lot of us are struggling with the idea of cataphracts in the Crusader-era. I thought they had died out by the late 11th century.  Can you tell me more about them and any source books you have found?

Thanks.

[olicana]

There's nothing so far.

I think most things I've seen relate to the WRG 6th Seljuk army list - the only pictures cited as being Agulani are all of wargame figures, so go figure. I really like the idea of these guys because they are different to everything else I have, so I want them, and that entry is enough for me. I think they'll be a 'colourful' addition to my existing Islamic cavalry.

I miss WRG.  I loved the 6th edition troops and formations....

For Aphillathehun: The WRG 6th list allows you to field up to 12 figures, which normally means a single unit, and rates them as:

SHC, "Irreg B", SHC, 1SA, Sh, @15pts. (G) 0-12

Meaning:

Irregular B (Feudal nobles, bodyguards, etc.), SHC (super heavy cataphracts), 1SA (one side arm, in this case a sword), Sh (shield). Up to 12, each costing 15 pts.

(G) refers to a note in the text: in this case they are only allowed to The Great (G) Seljuks and not to the Sultanate of Rum (R): Rum presumably includes Danishmend. Syrian cities such as Damascus are covered in another list and don't get them either.

With regards to the Crusades region, I think this restricts their historical use to no one west of Mosul. However, I'm not too fussed about stretching their use outside that historical context: in the same way that I allow a unit of Hospitaller knights to be used by pre-second Crusade, "Kingdom of Jerusalem", period Franks - because they are such good gamey fun, and they look great.

[FierceKitty]

This lot would be more at home in the medievals forum.

[olicana]

Indeed. Apologies. I pressed the wrong tab.

[Andreas Johansson]

The only mention of Agulani at all in the sources seems to be in the Gesta Francorum, where they are listed as one of many pagan peoples* represented in Kerbogha's army marching to the relief of Antioch, and then singled out for comment on their complete armour and refusal to use any weapons but swords.

So while they were likely recruited in Iraq or further east, the only enemy we hear of them being fielded against is the crusaders at Antioch.

My personal pet theory, for the very little it's worth, is that the name is a distortion of al-ghulam and that the bit about fighting only with swords is a misunderstanding or exaggeration of a greater appetite for close combat than typical of Turkish horsemen. So if I were doing the army I'd represent them as an elite unit of ghilman on armoured horses. But this isn't necessarily more likely than anything else, and the chronicler does make it sound like Agulani is an ethnicity rather than a troop-type.

* "Pagan", in the chronicler's usage, clearly includes "Muslim".

[olicana]

Thanks for pinpointing where the reference is. I thought they might be part of Karbuqa's Mosul army but that settles the issue. If I have my history right they might have existed but may not have seen action during the first crusade: if memory serves, that army disintegrated before it saw battle at Antioch.

The Mosul army under Jekermish, of course, saw battle shortly after Karbuqa's death (1103 ?) at Harran in 1104. That's one of my favourite battles to refight - so Agulani here I come!

[Andreas Johansson]

Thanks for pinpointing where the reference is. I thought they might be part of Karbuqa's Mosul army but that settles the issue. If I have my history right they might have existed but may not have seen action during the first crusade: if memory serves, that army disintegrated before it saw battle at Antioch.

The army saw battle when the crusaders broke out of Antioch, but much of it fled without fighting. Whether the Agulani, who- or whatever they were, were among the parts that did fight there's probably no way of knowing.

[Andreas Johansson]

It just came to my attention that the Gesta also mentions "Angulani" in the Seljuq army at Dorylaeum in 1097. It has to be overwhelmingly likely that these are the same people as the Agulani.

Not that this meaningfully helps us determine who they were or what they looked like.