28mm sassanids

[timyeh]

I want to start a 28mm Sassanian army and wanted your feedback on the compatibility of the different manufacturers. I am looking at Gripping Beasts, A&A and Aventine.  I have Gripping Beasts.  I've been told that GP and A&A are somewhat compatible but what about Aventine? Are there other companies besides these three? Comparison pictures will be very helpful.

[bluewillow]

I have a mix of A&A, gripping beast, black tree (Tribesmen) and Aventine.

The aventine horses are much finer but the infantry fits well a little taller and more slender and is the nicest stand alone manufacturer. A&A heavy cavalry is supurb and my choice, thevlights are very nice also, I love the horses and have purchased extra ones for aventine mounted figures so they match better. My gripping beast are used as foreign allied and for my palmyra army.

I will have a look on my blog for some comparison shots for you. I am sure someone has some side by side photos somewhere.

Cheers
Matt

[SJWi]

Timyeh, I don't have Sassanids by all three but do have GB Sassanids, Aventine Romans and A&A Palmyrans.  If you PM me your e-mail  address I will send you some photos.

[aphillathehun]

I don't have any GB figures but both A&A and Aventine.  Bluewillow's comments are spot on.

For heavy cav, Aventine's Sassanid heavy cav are for the latter part of the Sassanid era and A&A's are earlier, stylewise.

Both make cataphracts.  The horses of one are slightly wider than the others (don't remember which), but I've thought they are extremely similar.

Pictures of some of my Sassanids here: https://paintingdistractions.wordpress.com/category/sassanid/

[timyeh]

Thanks for all the assistance guys.  Since they all look great together, I have no choice but to get them all. 

[Atheling]

A bit late to the party but here goes.....

A&A are horses smaller than Gripping Beast but roughly the same size as Aventine.

I have to say, that after several conversations re: Early Byzantines and (Later) Sassanids with Keith from Aventine I am convinced that the Aventine miniatures are much more up to date in terms of research, largely down to the publication of The Armies of Ancient Persia: The Sassanians, Kaveh Farrokh.

For example, it is now quite obvious that Later Sassanian armies were using larger shields and not bucklers as was previously thought by many military scholars. Also, Sassanian infantry was not as rubbish as previously thought; same re: armours on some Sassanian infantry.

The Armies of Ancient Persia: The Sassanians, Kaveh Farrokh:
https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/The-Armies-of-Ancient-Persia-The-Sassanians-Hardback/p/6126

[Cyrus1]

I have all three ranges, the A&A and Aventine ranges were done by the same sculptor. The Aventine range is the most recent, accurate and best in my opinion. Here's a few comparison shots (sorry I got carried away!) GB, Aventine ellie, Aventine and A&A (shorter horse) and A&A.












Check out Phil Hendry's blog his Sassanid army is the best I've seen:

http://www.philhendry.me.uk/Phil_Wargaming_Website/sassanid_photo_album/index.html

[DalyDR]

Here are a few sites (not mine, to be clear) with those manufacturers at least somewhat represented:


https://withpyjamasthroughawhiffofgrapeshot.blogspot.com/2019/07/to-strongest-byzantines-destroy.html  -  Mostly Gripping Beast in this Sassanid army, but with some A&A leader types used.


https://bandofwargamebrothers.blogspot.com/2017/10/romans-vs-sassanids.html  -  Lots of both GB and A&A shown here, both cavalry and infantry.  I don't think they're mixed on any one base, but they are shown next to each other, and seem to blend reasonably well.


http://www.philhendry.me.uk/Phil_Wargaming_Website/sassanid_photo_album/more-sassanid-jumbos-again.html - Dr. Phil Hendry's marvelous Sassanid army appears to be Aventine (elephants and some cavalry?) and some A&A(?), but he did sneak in one GB crewman on an elephant - the one with the long spear.


My own Sassanid force, pictured here not too long ago (you can search on my username if interested), is entirely GB.

[Wellington]

Aventine are the best choice!

[Atheling]

Aventine are the best choice!

100%. The most up to date in terms of research, the horses are exactly the size they should be.

The sculptor Adam is one of the best in the business IMHO.

[Spooktalker]

I have collected a Sassanid army but haven't started painting yet. The painted armies resources shared here were among my inspirations. 

We should bear in mind that the Sassanian period spans four+ centuries, from 224 to 651 according to Wikipedia. For the same period, I am collecting three Roman armies, for the middle Imperial (A&A and Aventine), late period (Gripping Beast and Footsore) and early Byzantine (Old Glory and Aventine). We have fewer resources to go on for Sassanids, and that is why I think gamers are less averse to sometimes using a single force to represent the same time period.


I have read that the A&A range was intended more for the earlier period and the Aventine range began covering the later period, but more recently has gone back and began to cover the transitional Parthian/Sassanid period, and the website is helpfully organized.

I began collecting the for the earlier period to match against the middle imperial romans and I have a core of A&A savaran cavalry and infantry and I went with Gripping Beast horse archers on A&A horses as the GB horses are much larger. Then I supplemented with Gripping Beast infantry, Aventine early cavalry and some Old Glory. All of these mix well as long as you don't mix GB and A&A horses. I might get some Newline slingers.

I am by no means an expert and I own but have not read the Farrokh book. But nonetheless here are a few observations in no particular order.

The main difference between earlier and later armies that jumps out at me (and this may be stating the obvious, but I think that is often helpful to do) is that you have what wargamers call the "clibinarii" in the later period with the half horse armor. Aventine, Gripping Beast and Old Glory have figures of this kind. In the earlier period you have the full scale horse armor and other full barding styles, and by the later period, that is all gone?

I have avoided the half-armor ones but am now thinking of collecting a later period army even before I start painting the first one.  But personally I would not field the two types of cavalry on the same field. The infantry seem to be more adaptive especially because the iconic look with the globe hat is a guess and so probably equally wrong for any century, but if you go with the later period you should probably go with the Aventine infantry.

Another obvious statement is that rule books sometimes distinquish between cataphract and clibinarri cavalry but this doesn't seem to have a strong historical basis and the historical term for the Sassannian heavy cavalry is Saravan.

I also have the feeling, but no evidence, that horse armor is overreprented in miniature and that while some units were likely all armored you had more cavalry without horse barding in both periods (like on the cover of the Farrokh book. Even so I had to force myself to order even a small portion of unbarded horses for the heavy cavalry as the temptation for the painter is always toward pageantry. 

I said I read the A&A are for the earlier period but the javelin men with fur vests are a pretty close match for this artwork I came across for "Fanteria Daylamita," date 560!

I couldn't help but get two elephants each from A&A, Gripping Beast and Old Glory. All of them are fantastic and I'm not sorry!  I love the A&A ones especially and they are a great value, especially with an army deal, and heavy chunks of lead. But, you will end up paying way more for them in terms of your time getting them together vs the resin GB ones, which are comparatively a snap to put together. The OG ones are very nice as well. Size wise (going from memory, mind you) they are all better aligned than I would have guessed though I plan to extend the legs of the OG ones to raise them a bit closer to the level of the others. And now the Aventine ones are in stock I am tempted to get those too...


In terms of horse archers, I went with all GB because the A&A ones seem based more on reconstruction illustrations of Parthians from at least a century before the Sassanian period. And I went with GB over Aventine because of amazing unit deals. There isn't a unit deal on the site but they graciously allowed me to swap for them in the comments of my orders.


GB, Aventine and A&A and OG all get top marks for customer service.

If choosing between later and earlier period, the later period has a lot going for it if you are not constrained by the armies you plan to match up against, as you can use the marvelous later Aventine cavalry, command, etc as well as adjacent and equally marvelous Sughdians and steppe stuff. It is a prettier (but a bit more expensive) army. If you need to save on $ to fill out all the cavalry you need (especially if you are in the US) you can use Aventine as your top tier cavalry and supplement with Old Glory PLS-02, though sadly the pack has five of the iconic armor with mail over the face and five with especially bulbous globe hats. But, you can get separate cavalry heads from Aventine (not on the site but they are willing to sell them separately). And/or you could see if OG do packs of all the former, which may or may not be possible depending on how they spin the molds.

[Shahbahraz]

I would caution against an uncritical view of Farrokh's work. It has a tendency to be quite generous in interpreting sources. There is also a tendency to be self referential which makes it tricky to check claims.

I am also suspicious of the half armoured cavalry, which is a Roman style and as far as I am aware only shown on the famous equestrian statue representing the Shahanshah placed on the throne with Roman aid.

Intriguingly, bullae of Wixstam appear to show full cataphract armour in sections, so it is conceivable that cataphract armour could be worn with different coverage.

Ultimately, I have avoided the half armour and globe hats, and used mainly A&A. In my view these are best suited to early to mid period Sasanians.   

[Atheling]

Just based on my studies of the Hundred Years War over the last three decades it's clear that the nobility all enjoyed different levels of wealth. I do not see how that would be any different for Sassanian society, therefore I agree, our wargaming units of troop types, often all decked out t=in the same arm ours is unrealistic. Of course it is- we are creating a wargame.

For me, I can see a Sassanid Aswaran/Savaran/Sbaran containing soldiers with varying degrees or protection. Possibly even some soldiers without any significant armours. I'm not sure I could models my units in such a form (I would consider it) but we are essentially dealing with evident abstractions so I'm willing to make choices that do not accurately reflect the real life considerations, in order to produce an attractive army.

Of course, I would in the main, let history be my guide.
 

[Shahbahraz]

Depending on their origin, Sasanian troops would vary widely. But what we think of as typical troops until the Mazdekite revolt and military reforms would be based on the great Eran families or nobles, many of whom were the same families that had been prominent under the Parthian regime. (Pourshariatri). The House of Sasan essentially took over the leadership from the Parthian Royal House, shifting the centre of gravity from former Greek cities to the Iranian Plateau. The concept of an agnatic group mean that each would have basically an extended family or client group who were equipped and led by the family leader. Equipment would have varied depending on where they came from and opponents they faced as well as wealth. So for example, chasing Arab desert raiders in the south would be different from dealing with Romans, Armenians or Hepthalite Huns. So you would have an army optimised for local opponents in each quarter, eg. fabric horse barding is great when your opponents are horse archers, less so versus Roman legions or Armenian lancers and positively a disadvantage against mobile Ghassanid tribesmen. 

[Atheling]

Depending on their origin, Sasanian troops would vary widely. But what we think of as typical troops until the Mazdekite revolt and military reforms would be based on the great Eran families or nobles, many of whom were the same families that had been prominent under the Parthian regime. (Pourshariatri). The House of Sasan essentially took over the leadership from the Parthian Royal House, shifting the centre of gravity from former Greek cities to the Iranian Plateau. The concept of an agnatic group mean that each would have basically an extended family or client group who were equipped and led by the family leader. Equipment would have varied depending on where they came from and opponents they faced as well as wealth. So for example, chasing Arab desert raiders in the south would be different from dealing with Romans, Armenians or Hepthalite Huns. So you would have an army optimised for local opponents in each quarter, eg. fabric horse barding is great when your opponents are horse archers, less so versus Roman legions or Armenian lancers and positively a disadvantage against mobile Ghassanid tribesmen.

Do you think there's a case for "Sassanian" horse archers to be present at say, Dara 530 CE and Solachon 586 CE?

I just cannot picture the entire Sassanian army being made up of supposedly low quality infantry and Clibs. There must have been some middle ground