Both PB ranges were based on Phil Barker's books Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars and Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome. This figure is taken from illustration 20 in AMPW.
The 's' designation was used to distinguish the newer 25mm style of models from the preceding, smaller 1/72nd range. The transition was soon complete and the 's' - special - was dropped from the figure codes thereafter.
The Cardaces were apparently armed and equipped to fight in a comparable fashion to hoplites - or possibly peltasts - and were an innovation aimed at fielding a body of native close fighting infantry. The model doesn't look terrible convinced.
I always liked this figure, he was very easy to paint. Inspired by this site and the article in the WI, Im gradually replacing all my modern plastics with Garrison and Hinchliffe ancient Persians. So thanks for the posts.
ReplyDeleteGlad you liked that article - when it comes to Persians the Garrison ones are my personal favourites - a good deal bigger than Minifigs and more animated - I have some Hinchliffe too including chariots.
ReplyDeleteAs Minifigs poses go, this one seems to share some features with ME56, the armored goblin ...
ReplyDeleteIt does now you mention it - how odd!
DeleteGreat 'old school' stuff. Funny how figure makers simply used Phil Barker's book directly as their source, presumably it was recognised as the best (or only?!) one available. Even down to basing the numbering system of the range on the illustration numbers in the book! I hope all that adulation didn't go to his head..
ReplyDeletePlease do show us how you paint these up!
Yes and whoever made the figures often copied what the illustration looked like literally, missing out anything on the 'blind side' of the illustration even where it is mentioned in the text! The Persian slinger has no ammunition for example - because no pouch or means of carrying slingstones is shown on the picture. Similarly, where an element is illustrated to show a rare or unusual piece of kit - because the standard would look like something already illustrated as explained in the text - the sculptor just went ahead and made what was in the picture. So, there's no Persian javelinman because none is illustrated, despite the fact the Slinger description points out the same figure could be armed with javelins. I suspect the sculptor/s was given illustrations ahead of publication and wouldn't necessarily have had the text at hand. I always thought that tying the range so closely to the books was a stroke of genius, at the time the WRG take on things was treated as holy writ by ancient players. Even today, some of the assumptions and rather tenuous associations that Phil Barker incorporated into his books still persist as 'facts' amongst the ancient wargaming community - I've even seen them in video games - which just goes to show how influential those two volumes were. Yes I should do a piece on painting one day - I'll try and get round to it sooner rather than later.
ReplyDelete