Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Colors for Late Republic Romans?
#1
Salve,<br>
<br>
I've just gotten my hands on some really fine 1st Corps Late Republican Romans. I figured that I'd try and paint them as close to realistic as it's possible to get. These are the colors I thought I'd use for the different parts (with a few remarks/questions thrown in for good measure):<br>
<br>
Helmet: Mostly Bronze with a few Iron (newer helmet types) is this too early?<br>
Feathers/Crest, Black feathers with yellow crests, red for Centurion/Optio, was this system in place at that time?<br>
Hamata: Medium Iron<br>
Pteruges: Dark Leather, White-ish for â€Â
Reply
#2
210 BC is usually not considered the Late Republic, but that's nitpicking. As Sander has said quite often in the tunic threads, the Republican army, and certainly at that stage in time, a militia army: the soldiers provided their own equipment, the best they could afford. That more or less rules out 'systems'. So I guess you can go to town (within reason) on any colours you like, and some variation would make it even more realistic. <p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#3
Thanks Jasper,<br>
Well I _did_ invite nitpicking, didn't I :-)<br>
The reason I use "Late Republican" is that that is what the miniatures are sold as. Seeing a few greek looking helmets on them, I'd personally call them middle or even "early-ish" republic. The problem is that I'm torn between going totally wild and making them post-Cannae where I figure that pretty much anything goes, or making them in a more regimented fashion (keeping in mind their diverse backgrounds, etc). Problem is that the miniatures are in a bewildering array of poses.<br>
I guess that I'll just have to make my mind up, as usual, he he. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Salve,<br>
<br>
There is no system regarding helmet crest colours attested for later times. Depictions portray them in as much random fashion as clothing colours. Polybius describes crests as being black and red/purple. Later evidence includes a wider range of colours. Shield edging was, again according to the description by Polybius, made of iron.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
Thanks for that, Jasper and Sander.<br>
<br>
I'm re-reading Polybius at the moment and that started the whole project off. How the bit about the miniatures being "late Republic" got in there, I've no idea. They're quite obviously fairly early Republicans and labeled as such. I guess I must have been sleeping...<br>
The reason I'm spreading myself out, colour-wise, is that I want to make the miniatures look like some of the better off post-Cannae legionaires.<br>
I guess the overall idea would be: some variety, but maybe not too much, except on the "civilian" items (tunic, etc.).<br>
As far as I know the legions were made up of people from the same area (is this right?). The way I see it, they would have bought their equipment from their local shops, wich would give it a good deal of similarity in appearance, it's just so much easier to make things after a pattern, once you know it.<br>
<br>
Thanks for the help again, and comments are stille appreciated, even nitpicking ;-) <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#6
Although realistically the colour of the legionaries' tunics, shields and other panoply would be varied, as a miniature wargamer I find it easier to 'batch-paint' with uniform colours since this speeds up the painting process considerably. I suppose this approach is more suited to a Roman army in the Early Empire (or even Late Republic?)when standardisation was already in practise than for a Republican army of the Punic Wars for example. I'm tempted to eschew 'realism' for convenience and visual appeal, since I prefer the striking look of uniformed armies with a coherent colour scheme.<br>
<br>
Osprey reference books show illustrations of Punic War legionaries with white (or red) shields and off-white tunics which come across as a very striking colour scheme. My argument for uniform colours and minimal variation is based on my opinion that such things as tunic and shield colours are all speculation and conjecture anyway, for no one here can claim that they were first-hand eyewitnesses.<br>
<br>
What are your thoughts? <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#7
Salve Auxilia,<br>
<br>
with these miniatures I want to try to make something realistic-looking. I have some Early Imperial Romans as well, and they're painted much as you do. I try to go for the "similar, but not the same" look for these miniatures (I'm a firm believer in military fashions) because they're part of my Cartaginian Army (as Roman renegades, or some such), and that's allready a quite colourful bunch. My 6mm Romans (Casearan) are painted with each maniple in the same colours, maybe not correct, but it looks good (and is easier to paint, a major factor when painting 3.500 of them)<br>
<br>
Just a few thoughts. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#8
Quintus, what game system do you play? Does it use 6 mm scale miniatures? I ask this because I play Games Workshop's <i> Warmaster</i> and the miniature scale for that game is 10 mm. I also own a few 1st century AD Roman legionaries in 15 mm scale and am considering looking into the popular DBM (or even DBA) wargaming system.<br>
<br>
Back to painting, while I do prefer uniformity I like to add small colour variations, often on things like scarfs, scabbards, different shades of brown on leather and wooden parts and especially different coloured horses for cavalry. I'm also pro-realism to an extant, and while I like the look of an army with a strong cohesive colour scheme, I find it odd if <i> every</i> single detail was similar in colour. This is even more pronounced with cavalry units where the horses are all the same colour! Nothing could look more unnatural!<br>
<br>
So, variation is, I find, necessary to avoid 'unnatural' looking armies but I tend to keep it to a minimum to speed up my painting. Being a perfectionist (and also lazy ) I'm already a relatively slow painter, so any method that helps me get that unit done quickly (but painted to a decent standard) is welcome. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/uauxilia.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Auxilia</A> at: 7/7/02 11:59:29 pm<br></i>
Reply
#9
Well, mostly I play WAB in 25/28mm, but we're trying out Naumachiae (Naval Warfare) this week, I hope. For 6mm I plan to use either a Warmaster variant or a slightly changed form of WAB and the whole thing would probably end in a massive game a few years from now.<br>
I'm a bit of a "Paint Nazi" with my own miniatures and I prefer every miniature in a 24 man unit to be different (in this period, anyway). Cavalry is a lot easier to paint, you can add a lot of variety by having different coloured horses with different socks, etc. I work late, so I have set up a routine where I paint in the morning, so that steadily adds more finished miniatures.<br>
I grew tired of painting Imperial Romans with their "regimented" looks, a major factor in starting a Cartaginian army, and it's a joy to paint the many different peoples. On top of that I get to research the various nationalities, something I've always enjoyed.<br>
I've tried both 15mm miniatures and DBx rules, I'm afraid none of them have suited me, 15mm being "strange" when you're used to either 6mm or 28mm. DBx I thought too stylized, Armati too, but that's largely a matter of taste, I know people who swear by DBx (and Armati too). <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
Auxilia,<br>
<br>
why don't you just use the 15mm with Warmaster, there's an ancients variant (ancientmaster) freely available on the net at: www.brumbaer.de/wm/ancients/index/html<br>
The size difference is not that big that you could'nt use the miniatures you allready have. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#11
Sorry Quintus, but I've beaten you to that idea. I'm familiar with Brumbaer's website, and in fact have recently designed my own Ancientmaster army lists with plans to use 15mm models.<br>
<br>
Now, during my endeavours I encountered one problem; basing. Initially I was going to use the typical 40mmx20mm Warmaster bases for all unit types i.e. infantry, cavalry, chariots, elephants ('monsters') etc. However, I hit a snag when I realised that some of the 15mm models like chariots and elephants weren't going to fit easily into the 40x20 Warmaster basing system.<br>
<br>
I then tried to increase the base measurements by half, thus ending up with 60x30mm bases. Still, that didn't solve the problem, since Warmaster's rather rigid '3 stands in a unit' system wasn't flexible enough to allow uneven numbers of stands in units.<br>
<br>
Finally, I decided on a compromise. I will use the DBM basing system, since IMO it's more dynamic i.e. close and open/loose formations are more clearly represented than in Warmaster. This shouldn't cause any serious upset in game-balance so long as both armies adopt the same system. Obviously I intend to play in-house games rather than play against people who didn't use the same basing method. Another bonus to using the DBM basing system is that if I should feel like taking up DBM, I'll already have a legal DBM army to use, thus saving me from having to spend all that cash again in collecting the same army just so I could base it differently. Tongue<br>
<br>
So, while the minis will be based according to the DBM system, the rules will be Warmaster.<br>
<br>
I'd appreciate any comments on this matter. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#12
Basing outside of "your scale" is a mess! I had to go through five different setups before I found what I wanted!<br>
There is a key to basing miniatures, though - in most game systems only the width of the base really matters.<br>
Brumbaer's site is pretty good, I've tried out his system with Egyprians and Hittites (6mm) and that works pretty well.<br>
A thought about DBm bases: I know a few people who have halved their bases, that way you could always use two for DBM and the singles for Warmaster (just make them half as wide as they should be). I don't know the exact size of DBM bases, aren't they a good deal larger than Warmaster?<br>
<br>
Just a few thoughts. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#13
Apparently the depth of the bases in DBM do matter, since IIRC it affects 'retreat/fall back', 'pursuit', 'combat' and other such game aspects.<br>
<br>
About halving DBM bases, it won't work since I can't see how I could split a 15mm chariot model in half to straddle 2 bases. Furthermore DBM uses 15x40mm bases for certain types of units which is nearly the same as the 20x40mm Warmaster bases. Certain DBM light infantry and skirmishers are based with those exact measurements too (20x40).<br>
<br>
So, halving the bases is not really a viable option since in some cases (as with infantry) the DBM base measurements are almost identical to Warmaster, whereas in others (notably cavalry, chariots and 'monsters') the measurements vary greatly. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Republic socio-political RPG! Lucius Brutus 0 2,066 06-17-2009, 10:34 PM
Last Post: Lucius Brutus

Forum Jump: