There's no problem with the Austrians, but is it possible to put together a Turkish army for this period from existing Pendraken figures?
There was some discussion here http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2044.msg17294.html#msg17294
The Janissaries and Tartars from the Renaissance range should be fine, but I'm wondering if there are any suitable figures for (1) unarmoured cavalry with swords, lances and pistols, and (2) other musket-armed infantry. These seem to be the main additional ingredients needed.
Since posting this I see Baccus have started a range of Ottoman Turks specifically for the early 18thC but so far it includes only Janissaries. I'm also aware of the possibility of doing this in 20mm plastics.
I have also been looking at doing this era (and also 1711 against the Russians).
I don't think the cavalry will be much trouble - but this depends a little on which unarmoured types you are trying to depict? I was planning to mix in some of the available unarmoured cavalry - the Dellis, Tartars, Cossacks for example - with the existing sipahi/silhidar figures for the main body of the cavalry. But generally just paint over any armour/'trim' on the Sipahi/Silhidar figures.
The Thirty Years War mounted croats might also be useful.
The other musket armed troops are more of a problem. I haven't seen them but I am hoping that the mercenary Tufecki will do for these. Also I think that SYW Austrian Grenzer types will be OK. Their uniforms are based on Balkan dress of the period and so should be OK if painted right - again you could 'trim' a little to make them less regular looking. It is possible that the Russian SYW Pandours and Renaissance Polish Hajduk could also be used/mixed in but again I have not seen them so it is difficult to be sure.
I think it is 'doable' with a bit of compromise and imagination. A big problem is that basically little is known about what the real troops actually looked like but this problem can also be a help as you can use 'best guesses'.
Quote from: Hwiccee on 08 December 2013, 11:55:05 AM
The other musket armed troops are more of a problem. I haven't seen them but I am hoping that the mercenary Tufecki will do for these. Also I think that SYW Austrian Grenzer types will be OK. Their uniforms are based on Balkan dress of the period and so should be OK if painted right - again you could 'trim' a little to make them less regular looking. It is possible that the Russian SYW Pandours and Renaissance Polish Hajduk could also be used/mixed in but again I have not seen them so it is difficult to be sure.
All those work well in the forces I use to fight friends Russians and Austrians
Yes, in 10mm 'conversion by painting' is possible!
I've only just started collecting books and illustrations and I know that sources are thin on the ground so some imagination is needed.
The impression I get is that most non-Janissary Turkish infantry and Turkish cavalry had long coats and 'exaggerated' turbans. Balkan and other non-Turk infantry would have had other styles.
The thing to remember is that styles of dress, with some exceptions, was up to the individual soldier and/or the provincial commander (or similar) who raised/commanded the unit. Also the units came from a wide area with different climates, traditions, etc. So there could be massive variety within units and between units of the same type from a gaming point of view.
Also at this time there were only really 2 kinds of infantry used in the field, at least against European opponents - Janissaries and mercenary musket armed troops of various types from the Balkans.
This earlier discussion may be helpful:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3932.msg45297.html#msg45297
It's very frustrating that so many figure types lack pictures in the Pendraken shop and can't be found elsewhere on the web!!! Even at shows one only sees army packs...Pendraken is really underselling itself here.
On the plus side this project is looking increasingly doable, but I'd be happier if I could see OT13 and some other packs before ordering. Otherwise it's a bit of a lottery.
My interest here is in doing armies for Maurice. The 18thC can be rather predictable, hence my interest in Ottomans.
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2119.60
2nd & 3rd entries on page 5 are entered as Ottoman Tufekci Musketeers
Can anyone confirm that those are indeed the figures from OT13?
Stop this discussion NOW! >:(
I've just talked myself out of building a 18th Century Ottoman army and now you lot are putting the bad thoughts into my head again....Oh Shiny! ;D
The figures captioned as Ottoman Tufekci Musketeers look ideal.
Now, are there any pictures of OT3 and, if possible, OT1 and OT2?
Yes the pictures of the Tufecki are very useful. I am less sure about the information from the SYW Ottomans post. Some of this doesn't seem to correspond with the information I have.
I have planned to get the Ottomans for some time. I have the Russians for the GNW and I am building Austrians for the WSS, so I want the Ottomans as alternative opponents for these.
I am going for the following -
Sipahi: I will use the OT3 and OT4 packs for these. Basically at this time good troops have no/less armour and no/less 'old fashioned' weapons (lances, bows). So the elite household units (often called Sipahi of the Porte or Kapakula) I will paint over most of the armour and chop off most of the lances and as many of the shields as possible. For the better units (Europeans) I will similar but say about half. For the worst units (the Asian/Africans) I will leave them as they are or only 'convert' a few. I base my cavalry in groups of 5 on a base so I will have say 1 or 2 lances on an Elite base, 3 or 4 on an average base and all 5 on a poor base.
Tartars: The OT7 tartars obviously.
Moldovian/Wallachians: A mixture of OT6, YW4TYW Mounted Croats, P13 Polish Dragoons and STA14 Austrian SYW hussars - I will 'convert many of these - i.e. chop off plumes, lances , etc.
Segbans: YW4 from the Thirty Years War range.
Janissaries: OT9 and OT14
Levands/Arnauts: mainly OT13 with some SYA25 Austrian grenzers
Artillery: OT15, 17 and 18
That is all you need I think.
@Hwiccee
The only detailed work I have at the moment is Richard D Watts' 'The Ottoman Turkish Army of the 18th Century'. This mentions lances quite a lot, and also shields, so I might be less inclined to remove these.
I understand there was an artillery reform but not till 1732 so I suppose the Renaissance artillery may be more appropriate for anything before that date.
I don't know what OT3 looks like, but some of OT4 have barded horses. Do you think they are still appropriate?
You can mix in some of the polish hussars too as the wings are seperate
@doctorphalanx
Richard D Watts' 'The Ottoman Turkish Army of the 18th Century': I am afraid it is difficult to say how reliable this is as he doesn't give much in the way of sources. He has clearly used some of the Western guides to the Ottoman army dating to the later part of the 17th century and reprinted during the 18th century. These kinds of works contain all kinds of troops from the period of the original publication and earlier but with little indication of usage. So many of the troops covered are obsolete types or support troops or just not used in the field, at least in Europe. Quite a lot of this work covers these types of units which basically didn't exist or feature in this period, at least in European field actions. He also repeats the old idea of Ottoman hordes.
As far as I can tell there were a lot of troop types around armed/equipped with old fashioned weapons, shields, armour, etc. But a lot of these were not actually field troops or were not present in any kinds of numbers in Europe at least. Some of the cavalry that did fight was certainly equipped with lance, shields and other 'old fashioned' stuff, at least in theory. But whether they actually used them in action is more questionable and certainly efficient/good cavalry didn't. Sword, pistols and carbines were the weapons of choice and widely available. Asian and other backwater parts of the empire were criticised for using old equipment and being basically rubbish. It is a similar story in other similar armies.
Because of the way the army was I am sure every unit would have some guys who choose to use lance/shield/armour but equally some would also use sword/pistols/carbine. Good troops used the modern stuff as it was better.
Artillery: The reforms of 1732 were short lived and had little real impact, other than being the first attempt. Until the 1770 the artillery was more like renaissance artillery than 18th century but then Western artillery in the early part of the 18th century was also basically the same as 17th century artillery. But the Ottoman guns were always bigger and heavier than similar guns and western artillery changed rapidly in the mid 18th century.
Bard: I would guess not generally. Although again the backwater troops probably would be more inclined to do so and I would guess there would be a good chance of some people in all units might do. Like you I am at the planning stage of the army (I asked about Janissaries about a week ago) and haven't actually seen the figures yet. So I am not sure what would be best.
I hope this is of some help but I will repeat I don't think anyone really knows here on weapons, dress, etc - we are in 'best guess' territory. But the types I mentioned do seem to be the only ones that actually took to the field.
@Hwiccee
Thanks for your detailed response.
What sources would you recommend?
If the regular Sipahi approximated to European style, i.e. sword and pistol, the Renaissance Sipahi are not a very good starting point. You would have to cut away a lot of lances and shields but wouldn't end up with 'animated' swordsmen.
@ Hwiccee
I was wondering what you make of the Ottoman OOB/troop types listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrovaradin_order_of_battle#Ottoman_army
@doctorphalanx
Sources: I am afraid there are no really good sources from the gamers point of view and not in general. Watts is certainly right that you have to find bits buried around the place. The best I can offer are some academic books. But be warned they are often not very helpful and only a few pages are useful.
Virginia Aksan, Ottoman Wars 1700-1870 - she also has some other articles on various aspects which are useful, one on the war of 1768 for example.
Uar and Erikson, A Military History of the Ottomans
Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700
There is also an upcoming booklet on the war of 1711 (should be out in 2014) - The Humbling of Peter the Great
Sipahi: I would still say use the renaissance sipahi - I don't think there is another option really. As already mentioned I haven't actually got any figures yet but cutting them down will be a pain but doable. I am hoping that some of the 'command' will be swordsmen for example. Plus we are only talking about doing some of some units. I have 'converted' some of the Poles already for my Polish GNW army and that went well, shorten the lance and shape it a bit to make a sword & a pistol is also doable. OK they are not that 'animated' but.....
OOB: Yes I have come across this as well. I tried to find someone who has a copy who can say what the source of this is - it is by a staff writer on the S&T magazine so not neccessarily an 'expert'. But it looks plausible at least - many such lists don't even manage that. But as is often the case it adds to the confusion as much as helps. The numbers look like theory rather than practice and the names look like the source is not Turkish. So for some of the names it is difficult to be sure what they are supposed to be. While the academics insist that maximum army size is nowhere near these numbers.
I should also point out that the academics say the key advantage of the Ottomans was their logistics/supply system. It was far superior to their enemies and years ahead of its time. But of course it meant they needed lots of non combatant muscle/baggage handlers, etc to actually run this system
OK so from the top -
Auxillary Light Cavalry - looks good, the irregulars will be Moldovians/Wallachians
Provincial Cavalry - Deli are scouts. Gonullu according to the academics were 'real' troops in the past but by this time had become garrison troops/muscle. So maybe these are these guys or maybe the name has been corrupted but either way they are clearly not combat troops.
Infantry Sari - Tufekci are good, Gonullu as above. Yoynuk are muscle/baggage handlers, etc.
Provincial Cavalry - these are ordinary Sipahi.
Regular/Slave Cavalry - these are some of the 'elite' kapa kula/sipahi of the porte.
Infantry Sari Ahmed - Janissaries are obvious. Division Cemaat no idea at all (Cemaat is probably a persons name). See below.
Support - Sekban are mounted musketeer types (i.e. dragoons in the original sense - ride to battle, fight dismounted). I would guess these are from the Balkans. Boluk Division - as Cemaat above. See below on these as well.
Artillery Corps - These are all good and part of the 'elite' troops. They are the gunners, engineers and other specialists support troops.
Regular/Slave Cavalry - these are some more of the 'elite' kapa kula/sipahi of the porte.
OK so back to the Cemaat/Boluk divisions. These are called Infantry/Support troops. I was a little surprised to see the Gonullu and other probable non combat troops (muscle) in this list, such lists don't usually have these. So it could be that these are more muscle/baggage guys, etc. But 53,000 is a lot for muscle. Perhaps the Boluk are as they are said to be support but the list is noticeably short of ordinary Sipahi. Normally there are 2, 3 or more ordinary sipahi for each 'elite' sipahi - so there could easily be 50 to 60,000 ordinary sipahi. So it seems likely that one or both of these groups are actually more ordinary sipahi who have been misidentified or something. Whichever you think is correct means problems. If they are misidentified sipahi then what else is misidentified? If they are really infantry/support then where are the rest of the sipahi? They could also be something else - the numbers of Tartars are fairly low so maybe Boluk could be more Tartars. While because Boluk is in with the Sekbans then maybe they are more Balkan troops - musketeers?
So we are really in best guess territory here. I would guess that Cemaat at least is sipahi and probably Boluk. Boluk might be something else but it is impossible to know what. If I am right then most likely the 3 groups of sipahi are from different areas - Europe, Anatolia, Asia for example. But there really are many different possible interpretations you could come to. Without whatever the original of this list is then it is difficult to tell and even if we know it will probably bring more questions/problems.
So this would, in theory, give us a strength of combat troops if the above is correct -
21,000 'Elite' sipahi
51 to 63,000 Ordinary sipahi (depending on if Boluk is sipahi)
10,000 Allied light cavalry
32,000 Janissaries
17,000 Tufekci/Sekban musketeer types
5,000 Gunners
This is similar to the (best guess again) composition of the army in 1711. If the acadamics are right the real strength of the army will be about half of these numbers. We really need some one Turkish to look at all this & publish whatever is available in Turkish sources - this looks to me to have come from a non Turkish source.
Hello,
A little bit of copy and paste here from a post on the "By Fire and Sword" forum. Which is about the 17th century wars between Ottomans and Poles and so on. So a bit earlier (1672), but I think a lot still applies.
Quote
Those interested in Ottoman Empire and its army may want to have a wee look into some primary sources:
Paul Rycault, The history of the present state of the Ottoman Empire..., London 1686
http://books.google.nl/books?id=rJxMAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+history+of+the+present+state+of+the+Ottoman+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mnuoUvvuIseb0wWYgoHIAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20history%20of%20the%20present%20state%20of%20the%20Ottoman%20Empire&f=false
Elias Habesci, The present state of the Ottoman Empire..., London 1784
http://books.google.nl/books?id=kfoSAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+history+of+the+present+state+of+the+Ottoman+Empire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mnuoUvvuIseb0wWYgoHIAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20history%20of%20the%20present%20state%20of%20the%20Ottoman%20Empire&f=false
And/or some good articles and books about Ottoman warfare:
Gabor Agoston, Guns for the Sultan, Cambridge 2005
Mark L. Stein, Guarding the Frontier. Ottoman Border Forts and Garrisons in Europe, London-New York 2007
Selcuk Aksin Somel, Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, Lanham-Maryland-Oxford 2003
Mesut Uyar, Edward J. Erickson, A military history of the Ottomans, Santa Barbara-Denver-Oxford 2009
Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman warfare 1500-1700, London 2001
@Hwiccee
Ottoman army history is a real can of worms. What information there is on the web seems to come mainly from gamers quoting each other without reference to sources or dates.
Have you seen David Nicolle's Ospreys on the 'The Janissaries' and 'The Armies of the Ottoman Turks'? I haven't read them yet but I have them on order.
If you go to Google Books you can preview quite a lot of the content of the 'The Janissaries':
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0HWKMh3p9JwC (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0HWKMh3p9JwC)
As you will see, it may shed some light on both 'Boluk' and 'Cemaat'.
@doctorphalanx
The basic problem with Ottoman history is lack of reliable first hand information. This is mainly because non Turkish writers have to rely on a few basically bad sources and there was no interest in the period by Turkish historians, or at least any that has results that made it outside Turkey. But the good news is if you look at the list of recent works I put up and also OldenBUA you will see some Turkish names. It seems interest in this is growing in Turkey and so with luck better information will be available in the fuure.
I am afraid I am not a big fan of Osprey books. They are OK but I would rely on them without additional information.
Yes I know about the earlier use of Boluk/Cemaat but I am not so sure these old terms were still in use or applied to Janissaries - it is common in all armies for terms to drift over time to be used differently. Sekbans for example is used for one of these division, some of the Janissary units, mounted musketeers and some of the irregular forces at various times. If these guys in the list are more Janissaries then that just opens up a lot more questions - the key ones being where are the Sipahi, they should be at least half the army ,and about the size of the Janissary Corps - this would make them 2 to 3 times the official size of the Corps. Maybe they are Janissaries but basically if they are then something is very wrong with everything else we think we know.
I have been inspired by this to try again to track down the original list that was used to see what that actually says.