Reviewing New Recruits (2): Infantry, part 1

 Regular readers will know that I have recently acquired a nice lot of vintage Minifigs 25mm 7YW/AWI figures, whose former owners were members of the Whitehall Warlords club. I've been going through them ( there are twelve boxes full!),  making notes and taking 'mugshots' of each unit.   So far I've gone through seven boxes of infantry  ( I showed some of the cavalry in a previous post );  and I'll give a quick run-through of the first four boxes here. I am reasonably confident of what is being represented in most cases, though there are a few mystery men -  I'd welcome any opinions on what they might be! 

Box 1 was sold as  Bavarians:  there are two 'regiments'  ( that's what I'm calling them, at least ), one with red facings, the other yellow facings,  each of two battalions. Each battalion has a 'company' each of what look like Grenadiers and 'Light Bobs'  -  I have not checked on when that battalion organisation might have been introduced, but feel it might be later than 7YW.  

They have fictionalised French-style flags, so I suspect these are leaning towards an 'Imagi-nation' setup. But they are nice, and there's some mounted officers and a couple of regimental  gun crews too, all potentially useful. 

Here's the 'red' regiment with officer and gun crew.. 

  .. and the 'yellow' regiment in close-up 

 

Box 2: described as 'French and Swiss' :  

First a battalion of (judging from the flag) probably Picardie regiment :

( I have my own Regiment Picardie from Garrison figures, so I will probably change the flag on these to another unit with similar facing colours ).

also a  battalion of  'Santorge' regiment :

 ..and two battlaions 'Vaubecourt' regiment, with their Colonel : 

 and some  'Swiss' : I have not delved into what regiment they might be representing, and they don't have flags, which can be the easy way to identify them! Need to look into them a bit more.. 

 Box 3 and it all gets a bit more esoteric :  AWI  Americans and Native Americans! 

The American  units are conveniently labelled under the bases, so I know what they are intended to be,  and we'll start with '3rd New York' :

 

  and '1st Continental'  :

 then '3rd Pennsilvania' 

and the rather interesting-looking 'Glovers Marblehead' with splendid snake 'Don't Tread On Me' standard! 

  various riflemen/militia,  

 

and an assortment of drummers on a single base - a sort of amalgamated band? 
 

A very minor point, but that last one is a good example of some pretty unusual basing that has been used for some units - they are on an aluminium bases, which have clearly been specially cut by someone with access to fairly serious machinery! Maybe the former owner knew someone with a metalwork shop.. Serious 'old school' basing, anyway, and as the chap selling them said, the only problem is that they can't be used with magnetic paper in storage boxes!  You'll notice there are several basing styles going on here, because there were several different owners/painters involved. There are a few rather ragged cardboard bases that will need replacing, but  I'm inclined to keep them as they are as far as possible, partly because re-basing is just tedious, and partly to reflect the history and 'heritage' of the figures - which are probably 30 or even 40 years old, some perhaps even older. I think the ones on Aluminium bases may be hard to remove, anyway!  

Next the Native Americans, in what look to be three distinct 'Warbands', if that's appropriate. The first one is led by a British officer and features a few red coats, so I think we can surmise  their allegiance:  

 

 and the third is a real curiosity, with those red facemasks! 

 I'd be quite interested if anyone can suggest what tribe or faction these might be representing... 

 

We'll finish with Box number 4 : oodles more French, and a lone Hungarian unit.  the French are labelled with their former owners' designations, so easy to identify. Starting with Royal Italien Infanterie: 

 Touraine Infanterie: 

 Soissonais:

and Bourbonais:

 ..and finally the wild card,  'Hungarian Fusiliers'  

That's enough for now, I think! Plenty more boxes to come, though - I am still working through them, identifiying units and taking pictures.  I have clearly got the makings of a decent French army, to start with!  I'm quite pleased with that, as I was just starting to try to add a French contingent to my collection. I'm going to need to add some cavalry for them - I have some dragoons awaiting painting, and I will look into acquiring some more of the basic types. 

The Americans and Native Americans  are a completely new direction for me, but I'm quite pleased to have them - topical too, with the 250th anniversary upon us. I have a copy of 'Rebels and Patriots', and I can see some games of that being possible ( no British yet, but watch this space - or the red-coated Swiss might stand in!).

Bavarians and Hungarians interesting too - the former can be a small allied contingent, traditionally to the French, but Imaginary campaigns can allow all sorts of 'what-if' alliances. And the Hungarian unit is a nice addition to my existing Austrians, whose infantry units  are currently all 'German'.  

More to come - as a teaser, I can say Box no.5 is full of Russians! I will continue sorting through them  and show more pictures in future posts. I am rather enjoying the process of all this -  is it  a rather extended example of Bob Cordery's 'sorting the button box'?   I also need to plan a campaign, clearly..!  So, more to come in the next post or two, watch this space. Meanwhile keep well, everyone.   

 

'Proper Wargaming' : Edgehill with Pike & Shotte

Earlier this week I was fortunate to have a really great day's 'proper wargaming' - thanks to old gaming friends Reg and Tony. We met at Reg's place at Haverhill, which is a nice easy trip for me. Reg had set up his table with his  15mm ECW collection for a re-fight of  Edgehill (1642), the first big battle of the English Civil War. We  used Warlord Games  Pike and Shotte rules, which I had not played before, though I have been introduced to the Warlord  Black Powder system on which P&S is based, in a couple of previous games with the same guys - and I have thoroughly enjoyed playing them.  

I took some pictures during the day, in a slightly haphazard way - as one does when busy playing the game and learning the rules! I'm afraid  some of them are a bit dark, but I'll include a selection  here to give a flavour of the game. Here is the table at the start of the day: 

Initial setup - Parliament to the Left

I should say that nearly all the scenery ( roads, stream, fields, trees etc ) was purely for decoration and did not affect play, except for the hedges at bottom left, lined with Roundhead dragoons. Tony played King Charles,  and Reg and I shared the Parliamentary command, with me on the right (nearest the camera, left of photo)  - each side had two cavalry wings and the central infantry and guns divided into two sub-commands ( called 'Battalia' in the rules, I think - I'd just call them Left and Right Wing of Infantry), so it was easy to split the Parliamentary army.   Reg had put in a few special rules - the main one being aimed at realistic behaviour from the Royalist cavalry.  Prince Rupert over on the Royalist Right ( top right of picture) had 'Galloper' cavalry up against Parliament's less dynamic  horsemen, who used 'Caracole' tactic (they could not counter-charge, which seemed quite a disadvantage) - so Reg made a rule that if the Royalists routed their opponents, they would automatically then have to attack the Parliament baggage train, which was placed nearby. They would fall to looting and be out of the battle, unless actually attacked by further Parliamentary units. That seemed quite an appropriate rule, and I'm sure we all assumed it would happen - more on that, later! 

For obvious reasons, I was more involved and took more pictures of my side of the battlefield, which was perhaps a shame, as the really decisive action took place over on the other wing, as Reg's horse  battled with Tony/Rupert's Cavaliers!  Anyway, here's my cavalry wing  ( slightly better quality, as I had 'Gallopers'),  and the foot beyond: 

Parliament right-wing cavalry

   and my opponents on the Royalist left :

 Reg's figures were fairly 'vintage' ( I mean that in the nicest possible way) and included both 'second generation'  and 'third generation' Minifigs 15s - I have some of the '2nd Gen' myself, and I rather like them, I think they are  well-proportioned, crisply-sculpted and simple.  And  I reckon they were from the early 1980s, so 'vintage' indeed!  

Over on our left wing,  here are Reg's sturdy 'Caracolers'  moving up steadily:

Parliament left-wing cavalry 

 ..and here are a couple of Rupert's regiments coming in at the gallop ( or maybe 'a good round trot' at least) 

..vs. Rupert's Cavaliers 

 

To give an idea of how things developed, here's an overview of the battle, about the mid-point of the day : 

 Reg and I pretty much stood our ground and let Tony come to fight us - Tony attacked on both wings with his cavalry as expected, and used an interesting manouevre in the centre. He brought forward  most of his second line infantry units into the first line, hence coming at us with just one line  of infantry, and aiming to get superior numbers into action early on and overpower our first line ( not having moved forward much, we didn't have space to imiitate him, but equally I was happy to be more 'conventional' and keep the second line as reserves to feed into the fight as required.  Tony also came forward in something of an 'oblique order', having spotted that my cavalry wing was not going to advance beyond the hedgeline, so would not threaten his infantry flank, therefore  his left-wing foot could move further forward.  

The cavalry wings got stuck in, but not perhaps as expected. It's got to be said that Rupert had something of a bad day! As Reg likes to say, his favourite part of the Black Powder system is the 'Command Rolls',  required to allow units and groups of units to carry out their orders. A very simple die-roll mechanism means you just can't be sure if your orders will be carried out - and I think failures can easily be rationalised as due to messengers not getting through, orders being misunderstood, or regimental commanders being indecisive, incompetent or perhaps even drunk! Anyway for whatever reason, 'Rupert' had quite a lot of problems getting his splendid horsemen to dash forward - he wasn't alone as his opponent had quite a few failed rolls as well! Instead of the expected Royalist steamroller going over the Parliamentary wing, things developed in an much more back-and-forth way. Reg's cavalry could not counter-charge but there was nothing stopping them just charging, and they managed that well enough several times! Quite a classic 'whirling cavalry fight' developed, as you can see here 

Cavalry fight on Rupert's wing - not the expected walkover!

Reg used a simple token system for keeping track of unit status - the 'puffs of smoke' indicated Disordered units, the small green dice were for tracking casualties , and when a unit took enough hits to  reach 'shaken' status the green die was placed on a circular mdf token. So you can see the nearest unit in the picture ( Royalists) is looking rather battered! 

On my cavalry wing, I was well-cast as a cautious early Roundhead leader, deciding to hold the hedge line with my cavalry if possible, thus negating any charge bonus for the other side. Tony wasn't dicouraged by that, and got stuck in of course! We tussled long and hard over those hedges, but I'm glad to say my chaps held their ground, and the Royalists could not break us. Here's a typical melee across the hedge, with the larger red dice used to keep track of hits taken in the melee ( which may of course be 'saved'  before translating to the green casualty dice ).  Looks like my chaps (left) are getting the better of this one, just!   

 

I have to say I managed to miss photographing the most exciting incident on my wing - isn;t that always the way, too busy rolling the dice and reacting to the results! I got a bit complacent and moved one of my central foot regiments forward ( I had been maintaining an alignment with the hedges overall), and they were pounced on by Tony, who sent a cavalry unit galloping hell-for-leather to attack them in the flank  - aided by a highly successful 'up to three moves' command roll!  My regiment was able to go into 'hedgehog', and in fact the Cavaliers never made contact, as they had charged across the front of another Parliamentary regiment and a gun, who all fired like crazy - the horse took enough hits to force a Break Test, which sent them reeling back to their own lines.  They did however have an impact, as the poor Parliament infantry unit was now stuck in 'Hedgehog' and shot to pieces by Royalist foot and guns!

Infantry firefight on the Parliament centre left 

 All along the line the infantry and guns carried on firefights, with plenty of casualties taken and dished out, and Tony's tactic of bringing forward more units came close to working - at one point Reg had three adjacent units all teetering on the edge of breaking, which would have left a massive hole in our centre!  Lucky for us, Tony's next round of firing saw some low die-rolls, Reg was able to rally off some losses and we breathed again! 

and on our centre right 

 Above is my side of the infantry fight, and you can see where a first-line unit had routed under fire, but I was able to feed a second-line regiment into the gap - that felt like authentic tactics. 

Allowing for a lunch break etc,  I reckon we got about five hours of solid gaming in, and it was always absorbing and fun, thanks to my fellow players and the very 'playable' rules.  And the result? Well, on my flank we held those hedges fairly well, and didn't look like we'd be shifted; in the centre there had been fiercesome firefights but no-one had actually closed to 'push of pike', and things looked pretty evenly matched.  But on our left wing, Rupert's Cavaliers actually took quite a bashing from the Parliamentary horse, and I think in the end Rupert's wing lost half its units, and was therefore 'Broken' - quite the opposite result to what I had assumed! That left Reg with enough cavalry in good shape to start rolling up the Royalist foot on our left ( and remember they had advanced in a single line, no reserves - that may have been a fateful decision! ).  So at that point, and with an  appointment for dinner at the local pub, Tony graciously conceded, and 'twas a famous victory for Parliament!  Below you can see the final situation and my excellent fellow players :

 That was a great day's gaming!  Many thanks to Reg for hosting, great figures and table  and  a really good scenario, and Tony for his usual cunning and dynamic play, and all in a great friendly spirit!

We all had some thoughts on the game - we did wonder if the artillery were a bit too powerful, not so much due to the rules,  but perhaps there were too many guns? Both sides were  a little reluctant to charge their foot forward into melee, partly due to the expected effects of close-range guns on the chargers. I have Peter Young's book on the battle somewhere, and am interested to have a look at the OOBs and the numbers of guns.   I wondered if we had also set up a little too far apart - we had both light and medium guns, and both had to move forward slightly to get into range. I think historically the armies deployed within artillery range, and the battle opened with an exchange of cannon shot, as was typical at the time. So perhaps we should have started a bit closer, and given at least the medium guns the chance to shoot from the start, rather than the first couple of moves being taken up with shuffling forward into range. 

The rules, I thoroughly enjoyed - I've talked about about the command rolls, and I do think they are a very neat way of introducing 'friction' to proceedings, in a reasonably authentic way - note that a better commander will succeed with his orders more often, and your C-in-C has the opportunity to 're-roll' some of your failures, which allows you some more agency.   The firing and combat rules are really simple 'roll a bunch of D6', with generally 4,5 or 6 to hit, the opposition allowed saving rolls and the crucial '6 inflicts temporary disorder', which gives a further level of uncertainty - you might save all those hits, but still be disordered by the enemy fire.  As a beginner I didn't get all the concepts and mechanics  straight away, but certainly picked up enough to be playing quite happily, pretty quickly. Reg and Tony are big fans of rhe Warlord BP system, and I can entirely see why ( I just noticed Norm Smith his excellent Commanders web page giving a great little run-through of how the system works for a Napoleonic infantry 'column vs. line' assault - see  'A Run Out With Black Powder', 25th Aug 2025 - , he is clearly a fan too!).   Now I must say that from pure cussedness I think I am not going to get entangled in the Warlord 'universe' and start buying all the multiple editions and formats of rulebooks and scenario books and starter sets, but I'm more than happy to play them as a guest; might even look out for a second-hand set of 'BP' on ebay or whatever, just to be a bit more prepared in future!  

All in all, a really good day's gaming, in good company - many thanks indeed to both Reg and Tony. I look foward to further outings - hmm, it may be my turn to host next, and those recently-acquired 7YW figures might be useful..  I hope this has been interesting for readers, it was certainly enjoyable for me, both to play and to write about.    

Next time, I may be able to present some sort of 'parade' of vntage Minfigs 25mms. Until then, keep well, everyone. 

'Dominion of Risorgimento' : Palestro 1859

In between counting and photographing vintage Minifigs,  I fancied a quick and easy bit of gaming with my 6mm Risorgimento 1859 armies.  I have to thank Bob Cordery for his most timely pointing out that the latest  'Dominion of..'  rulesets to be release included  Dominion of Otto von Bismarck,  which cover the period from the Crimean to Franco-Prussian wars. at around £5 from Wargames Vault, they looked worth a try.   

As you may be aware, these are very simple rules, designed for solo play and using only about 6 units per side, so games can be played in pretty quick time - and from my experience with the Pike and Shot version, they have some interesting and subtle mechanisms. In this case, Infantry are defined as 'Line' (mainly relying on firepower)  or 'Column'  (mainly fighting in assault columns), and this seems a fair reflection of the period. Artillery can be kept in the 'reserve' area and used for bombardment in support of attacks by other units, which can be very effective.

The rules include scenarios and army lists for 24 historical battles, one of which is Palestro 1859, which suits my current  'Piedmont vs Austria'  setup (really must get some French next!),  and with  the forces  comprising five or six units each side, very easy to  find armies for.  So I gave it a go, and here is the intial deployment - Peidmontese nearest the camera. 

 

Historically, the Piedmontese had counter-attacked the invading Austrians and re-taken the village of Palestro on the River Sesia, and the Austrians then attempted to push the Piedmontese out of their defensive positions. In the suggested scenario,  Piedmont has three 'Line' Infantry units in defensive  positions  ( denoted by the walls )  as their front line, with the right-hand unit also being Elite status - these were the French 3rd Zouave regiment on the day, but I used Piedmontese Grenadiers (must get some French next!).  That unit was concealed (hence trees) and could not be bombarded by artillery until they had revealed themselves by engaging in combat.  In reserve (back line) they had two 'Column' infantry units, which were deemed 'unreliable' to simulate the uncertainty of reinforcements arriving. 'Unreliable' units have to roll a die before their first combat - they will either rout and be eliminated, or become 'regular' and fight as normal. You might have noticed that I deployed 'Column' units in a sort of T-shape formation representing the attack column with skirmishers out front, and 'Line' units in simple blocks. 

The Austrian force had three 'Column' infantry units on the front line and ready to attack, plus two more 'Column' units and one Artillery unit in Reserve - the latter being able to fire in support of attacks by the front-line units. So, they had the advantage of one extra infantry unit and supporting srtillery, but were facing 'dug in' defenders, one unit of whom had Elite status. And so, to battle..

The basic turn mechanism is for the attacker to go first and specify one sector of the table (Left, Centre or Right ) to mount an attack, with combat taking place between the opposing front-line units in that sector  ( note that since this is a solo game, it's easier to keep the same sectors as 'Left' or 'Right' for both sides - in this case, as per the photos ). Once that attack is resolved, the Defender takes their turn to attack in their specified sector. The choice of sector is decided by the active player rolling a die - they may be able to choose their attack sector, or have the choice forced upon them, depending how the die roll goes. So there's an element of uncertainty in that decision, the Commanders are not in complete control of their forces and fighting may break out in unintended places - which seems quite a reasonable, 'fog of war' effect.

Turn One opened with an Austrian attack in the Left Scctor (having rolled a high enough score to choose), where on of their 'Column' Infantry faced an entrenched  Piedmontese 'Line'. The Austrians could also have their Artillery fire on the enemy unit first - it did so, but missed.  In the subsequent combat, 'Line' units fire first (all combat rolls are one D6), but have less chance of scoring a hit, then surviving 'Column' units can charge home, with a better chance - rather subtle.  In this case the Piedmontese shooting was too good, scoring a hit and eliminating the attacking Austrians.  An eliminated unit must be replaced from Reserve - so one of the two reserved Austrian  'Column'  units stepped up.  In the Piedmontese turn, the Die decided on a 'Centre' attack;  there were no Piedmontese artillery, so no bombardment. In the combat the  tables were turned, with the Peidmontese scoring a 'miss'  and the Austrians rolling high - the Piedmontese unit was Eliminated, and had to be replaced by one of the two 'Unreliable Infantry 'Column' units from Reserve.   Each side lost one unit in Turn One, but perhaps Austria did better, knocking out a dug-in unit which was only replaced by 'Unreliable' reserves. 

Turn One: Piedmont centre weakened?

 

Turn Two started well for Austria; again getting choice of attack sector, they chose the Centre. Their artillery missed again, but the 'Unreliable' defending Piedmon unit rolled low on its reaction test, and promptly routed! It was replaced by the second, and last, also 'Unreliable' unit from reserve. Piedmontese pride was restored on their turn; the die roll forced them to attack on the Left, but their 'Line' unit there rolled high and defeated the opposing Austrian 'Column' unit. It was replaced by another 'Column', leaving only the Artillery in Austrian reserve. Losses still even at two units each, but that Piedmont centre looked quite worrying, and reserves were denuded..

Turn 2 : Front lines holding, but Reserves almost gone

On Turn Three,  fighting broke out on the Left (decided by the die roll), and the Austrian  Artillery finally got the range, scoring a hit which removed the 'Dug-In' advantage from the defending Piedmont unit.  Piedmont's 'Line' unit then missed, but so did the attacking Austrian Column, so no decision there. The Dice Gods favoured the Austrians, however, as Piedmont's roll  indicated the same Left sector again, the defending Line unit's shooting was again ineffective, and the attacking Column charged home and overran them! With no units left in Reserve, Piedmont could not replace the loss, leaving their Left sector undefended.  Things looked bad for the Italians.. 

Turn 3 : Piedmont Left gone - is it all up for them?

 Would Turn Four spell the end for the Piedmontese?  The Austrian die roll denoted fighting breaking out on the Right, where all had been quiet until then - and here lurked the Elite Piedmont Grenadiers. As noted above, these were concealed and could not be bombarded by artillery, so the Austrian Column had to fight unsupported - and were promptly shot down by the Grenadiers' musketry. This was a double blow, as it forced the Austrian artillery to come out of reserve to fill the front line gap, leaving it unable to bombard in support of other sectors AND facing an Elite enemy!  On Piedmont's turn the worst promtly  happened for Austria - the die roll decided on the Right sector again, and the artillery were sent packing by the Piedmont Grenadiers!  That Elite unit had really proved its worth. 

Now the opposing sides are each allowed one attempt to 'Rally' and bring back one routed unit, and at this point ( luckily I remembered the rule!) both sides took advantage of that  - and both sides rolled high and succeeded. The Austrians were able to rally their Artillery (hmm, perhaps an Infantry would have been better?)  and put it back in place on the Right, and Piedmont rallied one Line Infantry, and filled the gap on the Left.  With three units each left, the Piedmontese had held things together, at least, and their Grenadiers looked well placed for potential further success. 

Turn 4 : successful Rallies fill the gaps

 

Turn Five opened with  the Austrian die roll indicating combat in the Centre, where Column faced Column, so combat rolls would be simultaneous - but first the 'Unreliable' Piedmont unit must test, and failure could spell disaster.  The die was rolled - success, the Piedmont unit held its ground! Better yet for them, in the ensuing combat the Austrians were defeated, leaving their Centre wide open, no reserves available. The Dice Gods were merciless then - the Piedmont roll indicated 'Centre' again, and this allowed the unopposed  Piedmontese centre unit to attack the flank of the Austrians on the left..

Turn 5 - Piedmontese flank attack

 In a flanking attack, the attacker gains an advantage on its die roll and the defender cannot fight back - and the Piedmontese attackers rolled high. The last Austrian Infantry unit was sent routing, and with only their Artillery unit left to oppose three enemy units, Austria was soundly defeated! 

How it ended - only Artillery remain for Austria! 

 

So that was that; I rather enjoyed the game. For such a simple syatem, there are some interesting and subtle features which felt 'right', and for fans of quick games, it probably would have taken only about half an hour, had I not been taking plentiful notes and photographs.  Apart from just 'a quick game', the obvious use for this would be for a 'mini-campaign' where map moves could generate  multiple battles which could each be resolved very simply and quickly.  I also think that it would be interesting to 'tweak' and add to the rules; I think it might be worth making 'bigger' games,  perhaps increasing the number of sectors on the board and/or maybe the number of units per sector, and perhaps bringing in more terrain effects and thus enabling more 'meaningful' terrain to be placed? My only hesitation about the basic system is that  the commander's choices can feel quite limited  ( the downside of the die roll for sector choice), and there isn't really a concept of 'manouevre' - would it be good to be able to move units between sectors, to bolster weak points or reinforce successes?  I'm sure others have been thinking along some or all of these lines.

For a quick and simple game, that has set quite a few thoughts running, as well as simply  being enjoyable.  I hope my description has been of interest to you, too! 

Now I need to get back to sorting through the 'Minifigs haul' - more pictures to come soon, Probably before that happens, though, I am  lucky enought to be promised a bit of 'Face to Face' gaming this coming week, with Black Powder's  Pike and Shotte variant and Edgehill 1642 as the scenario, which promises to be interesting and fun, and will be fully reported in a future post, if possible.   Until then, keep well everyone and (if in the UK)  enjoy your holiday weekend!

Reviewing New Recruits (1) Cavalry

You may remember that   couple of posts ago I reported that I had acquired quite a large number of 'pre-loved' Minifigs 25mm Seven Years War / American War of Independence figures, being disposed of by the Whitehall Warlords club. Now I've had a bit of time to look through them, I can start to show them here.  I have sorted through eleven of the twelve boxes, and made notes on what they contain; I have also photographed most of them, though with variying results - I'm not happy with all the pictures, so I will probably go back and re-photograph quite a lot of them.  Hmmm, should I do a 'unit mugshot' for each and every battalion, or does that way madness lie? 

Among the last to be looked at were the cavalry, and I think I got reasonable pictures of them, so I'll use this post to show some of them. Here is the box containing most of them - 82 figures in all, I think:

 There are eight distinct units/groups of figures, mostly (but not all)  organised into what look like units of twelve troopers each. And they are mostly rather nice! Here are some of them: 

 I should say, I am by no means sure of the identity of all these units, and will be happy to consider suggestions of what they might represent!  I have been looking through good ol'  kronoskaf.com , of course. The above - well, Cossacks seemed a good guess, but they look a bit, well, a bit too uniform? It is of course possible that the original owner has painted them as 'Imagi-nation' troops in a uniform of his own design. The Miniature Figurines 25mm range is still available through Caliver Books, but alas not all the figures in their lists have accompanying photographs - the only possible one I could see was the Prussian Bosniak Lancer, but the pose looks wrong - and they wore red, anyway!  So I suspect these were probably meant to be Russian Cossacks. 

Here's another interesting unit - I rather like the somewhat lilac uniforms 

For a while I thought these might be based on  Prussia's  4th 'White'  Hussars, with the white pelisse and blue dolmen,  but those white Mirliton caps are pretty unusual.  And then  on kronoskaf I spotted  the splendidly-named Russian  Slobodskiy Hussars! Here's the illustrations from the website  ( credited to David at Not By Appointment , I hope he won't mind me showing it) 

I think my chaps must have been at the very least inspired by the above, even if the 'blue' is not quite the same. 

We have some nice 'heavies' as well, such as these: 

 

Possibly more Russians?  Kronoskaf mentions that Russian Dragoons often wore a buff-leather 'Kollet' with cornflower blue collar and cuffs etc, but it's very insistent that the cornflower blue saddle cloths etc had no lace - maybe our painter had a different source, or just wanted to give them nicer trim?  

Perhaps a rather  left-field alternative might be Prussian Cuirassiers?  It seems that the coat worn by these regiments of heavy horse was usually a buff leather Kollet, which had excellent protective properties against sword cuts and was relatively light and flexible.  And the hats on the figures look to be Bicornes, which Prussian Cuirassiers wore - Russians had Tricornes.  So maybe, just maybe - the regimental facing colours and saddlecloth etc might be OK for Cuirassier Regiment no. 11 Leib Caribiniers?  BUT I gather the buff-leather Kollets were replaced by more conventional coats from as early as  1735 - so these are not right for Seven Years War, or even the Austrian Succession. For the moment, I think I'm going with Russians..  It may be an idea to invest in the relevant Osprey book for Russian cavalry, too.  [ Update: hmmm.. following a great comment from Neil P - see below -  now I think maybe Prussian after all, if a bit of a hodge-podge - the prominent white plumes are mentioned in the relevant Osprey as a distinctly  Prussian feature, too ].

One more before I close : 

 

hmm... bicorne hat again, so perhaps Prussian-inspired? Coat colour might be leaning towards Russian Dragoons? But the red saddlecloth etc is all wrong for them. Again, it might just as likely be an 'Imagi-nation'. It's quite possible that someone bought a small selection of figures in bulk ( to get a discount, maybe? ) and didn't mind about the difference between tricorne and bicorne, or were putting together their own entirely fictional units, inspired by but 'improving on'  real units.  Very nice looking, anyway! [update: following Neil P's and Chris' useful comments, I am leaning towards these perhaps being Prussian Dragoons - maybe even inspired by the famous Bayreuth unit..]  

It goes without saying that I welcome any expert (or non-expert, come to that) opinions from amateur SYW uniform sleuths out there who might have an idea on some of these.. If they do turn out to be fictional I think that's no problem, as I can equally well come up with my own imaginary Germanic/Central European Duchy or Kingdom for them. The main point is to get them on the table and use them! 

I can see this identification and classification phase may take a while - there are probably over 40 units of infantry to look at! ( Some of those are a bit easier as they have recognisable flags, and some are even labelled on the bottom of the command stands, very helpful! )   But it's interesting and fun, too,  a bit of a project in itself.  I think I will, as I said, try to photograph every unit -  I will try not to  bore you all to death by posting all the pictures, maybe just the more interesting ones.  It looks like I may also need to create my own Imagi-nation(s) for some of them,perhaps give myself an alter ego  as Grand Duke de Nirgendsville (Thank you, Google translate) to command that army; we shall see.

So as you can see, i have plenty to be getting on with looking through this lot;  expect a few more posts showing some of them, interspersed with other topics ( must not lose sight of the 1859 Risorgimento armies! ), and of course I should be making an effort to make use of some of these in an actual game as soon as practical - with the numbers available, quite a big battle should be possible! 

I hope this has been of some interest, plenty more to come! Meanwhile keep well, everyone.      

Fnurban #37 : Zulus, Sir - Paintings of 'em!

On Saturday afternoon I braved the torrential rain showers which broke our recent heatwave, for a trip to the National Army Museum, Chelsea. Their current exhibition is called Myth and Reality: Military Art in the Age of Queen Victoria , and a series of talks were run during the day in support of it. I booked for one of them - Military Art of the Zulu War, given by Ian Knight. As many of you will know, Ian is THE expert on  Zulu military history - I just checked, and found that I have a series of  articles by him starting in issue 16 of Miniature Wargames magazine, from 1984!  I am no expert on the Zulus (clearly I have failed to read all those articles!), but it's always worth hearing someone who really knows their subject - and so it proved.   Please excuse my poor-quality phone picture of Ian in full flow ( well, it was 'darkest Africa', I suppose)  

 

The museum website described the talk like this :

Ian Knight examines artistic representations of the Zulu War of 1879 and how they continue to influence our understanding of the conflict today.

The Zulu War was fought between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom in the furthest reaches of southern Africa. The Zulus demonstrated remarkable resilience, and the war became notable for its ferocious battles. Today, the conflict holds a prominent place in Britain’s collective memory of colonial warfare.

Artists of the time attempted to influence opinion of the Army and its exploits against the Zulus. Charles Edwin Fripp’s romanticised depiction of the British defeat at Isandlwana failed to capture the Victorian public’s imagination. But paintings of the successful defence of Rorke’s Drift by Lady Elizabeth Butler and Alphonse de Neuville proved more popular. Butler’s piece in particular attracted a ‘great crush’ of onlookers at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1881.

As part of our Victorian Soldier Spotlight, historian Ian Knight will examine the different ways that artists of the era portrayed the Zulu War, showing how their work has helped these events to enter British folklore.

Ian is a good, very articulate but unstuffy speaker and gave us a 75-minute tour of his subject (over-running by 15 minutes, but no-one minded!). I didn't take notes, but can remember some sailent points and will try to give them here. 

The Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 was essentially an unprovoked  invasion of the Zulu Kingdom by British forces led by Lord Chelmsford.  How was it portrayed back in Britain? Well, photography was possible but difficult, as photographers still needed to transport bulky kit and chemicals, and the war zone was isolated and undeveloped - and a war zone! So 'action' photos were rare, though pictures of British troops and some Zulu prisoners were made in camps well away from the front. Even if photographs had been easily available, the newspapers of the time could not print them; they relied on drawings and sketches sent back from the war, which would then be turned into engravings for publication in The Daily Graphic, Illustrated London News etc.  Ian showed us a pencil sketch (see below) made by Melton Prior at the battlefield of Isandlwana about a month after the event,  and the published engraving made from it - from  which the original's images of dead and decaying British soldiers were of course omitted.

 There was of course a lot of public interest in the war, and this soon led to the commissioning of paintings recording the main events - these would be put on public display and could draw large crowds to view them.   Ian took us through some of these, and pointed out salient features:

First out of the blocks was this, Siege of Rorke's Drift by William Henry Dugan:

From Art UK (Image credit: The Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh ) 

 This was painted in 1879, quite soon after the event and when very little information was available -which explains why you little or no detail of the location!  Ian pointed out that the Zulus are not accurately portrayed - the artist just didn't have sufficient information. 

 As timew went by, a lot more detail of the events of the battle became available and could be included in paintings.  In 1880, French artist Alphonse de Neuville produced The Defence of Rorke's Drift 1879'  ( French artists seemed to feature prominently; it seems many had learned their craft depicting the events of 1870-71 ).   

 

Ian pointed out that this sort of picture works a bit like a film - it includes many different episodes which people would have read about in the newspapers: Chaplain Smith handing out ammunition; Surgeon Reynolds attending to wounded; Lieutenants Chard and Bromhead, the highest-ranking officers present; the hospital set on fire by the Zulus and wounded being carried out, etc. All these incidents are included in the picture, though they actually took place at different times during the 12-hour siege. Notice of course, that events are seen very much through British eyes - the Zulu attackers are barely visible, the focus is of course entirely on the heroic British defenders. 

However, it seems that Queen Victoria was not too impressed with a Frenchman producing the definitive representation of a British battle, so she commissioned a British artist to paint the same subject. This was Lady Elizabeth Butler, whose  The Defence of Rorke's Drift  was also painted in 1880.

 In many ways a similar approach to de Neuville,  with several of the well-known characters on view : Chard and Bromhead (both VC) right at the Centre, Chaplain Smith behind them,  wounded Private Frederick Hitch (VC)  in right foreground, also handing out ammunition,  Surgeon Reynolds ( in black) attending to wounded, his assistant  Storekeeper Byrne dramatically falling, shot,  and  Corporal Ferdinand Schiess (VC) climing onto  the barricade to use his bayonet (khaki uniform, to left of the officers ). Plus of course the hospital on fire, and wounded being escorted away,  and again of course the Zulus don;t get much of a look-in, all the focus is on 'our brave boys'.  Many of these men had been interviewed by Lady Butler, and showed her the uniforms they wore at the battle - though Ian pointed out that Bromhead and Chard would very likely have worn  full beards on campaign, which would then have been shaved off on their return to Britain.  The painting attracted large crowds when put on public display,  and you too can now see it 'in the flesh', as it has fairly recently  been cleaned and restored,  and is part of the exhibition at the NAM. Well worth looking at it full-size and in person! 

The final battle of the war, and  the final defeat of the Zulus, was at Ulundi, in July 1879, and of course there is a large-scale painting of it, which belongs to the National Army Museum collection; it was for some years on display on the wall of a corridor in the museum  This is The Battle of Ulundi by Adolphe Yvon  ( another Frenchman!)  , also painted in 1880.

 

Ian said he had been puzzled for a while, as the  picture seems to show the British force in a battle line, whereas in fact Lord Chelmsford drew up his army in a large square formation;  it seems that the painting was most probably painted as a 'panorma',  designed to be displayed on the wall of circular chamber, with the audience at the centre. That would explain, for example, the way that the smoke of battle seems to be drifting in different directions(!).   Also note one or two   dark-coated British lancers at the bottom left - these would be from the 17th Lancers, who charged in pursuit of the fleeing Zulus. A few years ago, he said, he was shown a painting in South Africa depicting the 17th at Ulundi, and  realised that it was probably a missing panel from this picture, showing the 17th about to charge.         

 Of course the other famous event of the Zulu War was the catastrophic defeat of Chelmsford's army at Isandlwana, on the same day as Rorke's Drift, and this too has been the subect of several artworks, the most famous being by Charles Edwin Fripp, first exhibited in 1885: 

 Perhaps unsurprisingly, this picture was not as popular as the Rorke's Drift paintings - the public were much more keen on the latter miraculous victory than this disastrous defeat!  Ian talked us through some interesting points.  As ever, the focus is on our brave boys, who must be seen as heroic even in defeat, hence the 'last stand' nature of the foreground group, though the background scenes of slaughter would probably be more like the reality,  One detail he pointed out was the young drummer boy in the left centre, when in fact the British drummers would have been adults. Also note that there are no officers shown - so the heroic  other ranks are left to 'do and die' by their incompetent (and fleeing ) officers?  This painting also belongs to the National Army Museum, and they have a web page about its recent restoration.     

The attempts to find consolation in catastprophe continued in several other contemporary  paintings which focussed especially on the story of Lieutenants Teignmouth Melvill and Nevill Coghill, who were killed attempting to save the Queen's Colour of the 1st Battalion, 24th Foot.- as Wikipedia puts it , the colour was carried off the field by Lieutenant Melvill on horseback but lost when he crossed the river, despite Lieutenant Coghill having come to his aid. Both Melvill and Coghill were killed after crossing the river, and received posthumous Victoria Crosses in 1907 as the legend of their gallantry grew. Here is Last Sleep of the Brave by Alphonse de Neuville (1881) - Lancers find the bodies of the dead heroes, united in death and still protecting the colours:. 

 Except,  as Ian Knight pointed out,  the bodies were found some distance apart, the colours were not saved but dropped in the river, and that's the wrong colours in the picture! 

And what about the poor old Zulus in all this? As stated already, the paintings tend to show the heroics of the redcoats, and ignore the zulus and their point of viw- at least partly, it seems because artists had little first-hand knowledge of them and their appearance and equipment. Ian as able to show us one image of Rorkes Drift,  drawn from a viewpoint amongst the Zulu army - I haven't been able to find a copy of that one, but it was, Ian said, almost certainly based on this watercolour  sketch made by Lieutenant Chard, who was  in command on the day :  

 

And finally, I think Ian said that this drawing, A Zulu Regiment Attacking at Isandlwana, again by C E Fripp, was a rare, good accurate portrayal of Zulu warriors - Fripp had been to South Africa and seen the battlefields, and met the Zulus. 

 So on that note, I'll finish - many thanks to Ian Knight for a really interesting talk, and to  the NAM for organising it. If you are anywhere near Chelsea in the near future, the exhibition is no doubt worth a look too - I only had a few minutes spare to look at it on the day, but  will certainly be  going back. 

I also noticed that if you are very keen on all this, you can spend 14 days in November in the company of Ian Knight, on a Zulu War tour run by Cultural Experience the historic tour company. But I should point out that it will cost you over £6,000 - I paid a fiver for the talk, that will do me!  Until next time, keep well, everyone.