PDA

View Full Version : Mongol Greenskins?



Mazdug
29-04-2007, 19:52
I seem to recall seeing someone mention a mongol themed greenskin army at one point, and was considering doing the same myself, I was curious if anyone had any pivtures of armies themed this way, or suggestions regarding it?

Onisuzume
29-04-2007, 20:05
Try a hobgoblin army.
They have a pretty good mongol theme to them.

sigur
29-04-2007, 20:10
At least Oglah(sp?) Khan and his lot. I don't remember CD Hobgoblins being that mongolian. Hell, why didn't GW make Hobgoblins the Ogres' underings instead of introducing weird things like Gnoblars.

lilljonas
29-04-2007, 20:24
Painted properly, the usual Gobbo Wolfriders can look very mongolian (that's the look I went for). With some simple GS work, you can surely improve that image.

If you are prepared to scour ebay etc, there were a bunch of mongolian-looking orcs on foot released for Leviathan. I have like 30 of them in blisters in my attic, they are not the best sculpts in the world, but they sure look mongolian.

The Judge
29-04-2007, 20:28
Confrontation have the mongol-orcs, check them out for inspiration. Very nice ideas indeed.

Mazdug
29-04-2007, 20:30
I figure as far as sculpting goes, I can use the furry hat from the 40k ork sprue and greenstuff some furs onto the bodies for boar boys. I know the wolfrider models are basically perfect on their own, and I could pick up Oglah Khans wolf riders somewhere and include them in the army. I also plan on modelling some snotlings in furry hats riding rats, I figure the comedic value of such a model alone would be worth the time and effort it would take to make a few bases.

ashc
29-04-2007, 22:46
sounds like a wonderful theme - include lots of wolfriders, it would be awesome.

Ash

ExquisiteEvil
29-04-2007, 23:03
Im making all th hobbos(from plastic wolf riders) in my CD army as 'mongolian'.

Basically Ive chopped off their noses and given them smaller ones with GS aswell as a GS long moustache and slant eyes - they look pretty good so far!:D

Bretagne
29-04-2007, 23:23
Im making all th hobbos(from plastic wolf riders) in my CD army as 'mongolian'.

Basically Ive chopped off their noses and given them smaller ones with GS aswell as a GS long moustache and slant eyes - they look pretty good so far!:D

slant eyes? your really going for gusto arent you?

ExquisiteEvil
30-04-2007, 00:15
I use green stuff on their eyes to make them look like mongolians

Brother Siccarius
30-04-2007, 06:18
At least Oglah(sp?) Khan and his lot. I don't remember CD Hobgoblins being that mongolian. Hell, why didn't GW make Hobgoblins the Ogres' underings instead of introducing weird things like Gnoblars.

because the imagery of the Ogre Kingdoms was done by the guy who did the imagery for Labyrinth.

ExquisiteEvil
30-04-2007, 06:34
because the imagery of the Ogre Kingdoms was done by the guy who did the imagery for Labyrinth.

really? I didnt know that, though I can certainly see it in the gnoblars

Hobgoblyn
30-04-2007, 08:20
really? I didnt know that, though I can certainly see it in the gnoblars

It had more to do with
1) The humor aspect of the largest race being served by the smallest
2) Chaos Dwarfs already employee Hobgoblins are their secondary race
3) Hobgobala Khan is too damn bad ass to be a simple pawn of Ogres

Avian
30-04-2007, 11:00
because the imagery of the Ogre Kingdoms was done by the guy who did the imagery for Labyrinth.
Inspired by the work done by the guy why did the imagery for Labyrinth (Brian Froud), you mean.

Inkosi
30-04-2007, 13:55
apart from the fact that they are both light cav,

IMHO, its quite an insult to link the grobbos or hob-grobbos to Mongols. We are talking about the most efficient, powerful, all-conquering army ever seen in the history of mankind.

Alexander, his great empire didnt even cover 1/4 of the mongolian empire.
Spartans? they died.
The Mongols? they kicked everybody's ar*** during their time. ( including the persians )

grobbos? they run.

despite being a useful light cav unit, you cant really compare them to the invincible Golden Horde of the Mongols.

Bloodknight
30-04-2007, 14:07
Oglah Khanīs wolfriders and Ghazak Khan are both mongolian themed. In my DoW army all the fast elements are Wolf riders (I use the Battlemasters Goblin riders as Hobgobbos, as they wear a spiked helmet with a fur brim, just like Oglahīs boyz do) and sometimes Ghazak leads them.

The old CD Hobgobbos were Assyrian or Persian themed with their Smurf hats. You can see these still as Bloodbowl figures in the GW online store.

Avian
30-04-2007, 14:16
The old CD Hobgobbos were Assyrian or Persian themed
Actually they were scythians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian

(it's the Dark Elves that were assyrians and the Chaos Dwarfs that were persians :p)

hertz
30-04-2007, 14:21
The Mongols? they kicked everybody's ar*** during their time. ( including the persians )
despite being a useful light cav unit, you cant really compare them to the invincible Golden Horde of the Mongols.

Not entirely true, they didnīt kick the Sami, as they couldnīt get at them.
The Khan said something along the lines that he wished he never had to try to war them again. donīt remember the details, though. :evilgrin:

Bregalad
30-04-2007, 17:40
Have a look at the Asian themed Goblins (incl. Ogres) from Rackham:
http://www.rackham-store.com/boutique_us/liste_familles.cfm?type=normal&num=12&code_lg=lg_us

Terror of the East
30-04-2007, 18:28
Hey guys ive been working on my own Eastern themed army for a whyle...i themed it on the ifamous black wolf mercinary army...have a maxed out unit of Oglahs wolfboyz,Ghazak Khan, some ogres, giant, manbiter gnoblars, light cavalry(hung warriors), bandits. sometimes i play with Trolls (war trolls of the grey mountains)and goblins (Manglars mutant goblins) and other units i have made unique but useing normal rules. lots of conversions and 'eastifying' has gone into them. hope to have pics up soon.

Hobgoblyn
30-04-2007, 20:31
apart from the fact that they are both light cav,

IMHO, its quite an insult to link the grobbos or hob-grobbos to Mongols. We are talking about the most efficient, powerful, all-conquering army ever seen in the history of mankind.

Alexander, his great empire didnt even cover 1/4 of the mongolian empire.
Spartans? they died.
The Mongols? they kicked everybody's ar*** during their time. ( including the persians )

grobbos? they run.

despite being a useful light cav unit, you cant really compare them to the invincible Golden Horde of the Mongols.

Your arguement here is easily defeated.
Yes, when they were on a roll (particularly under Ghengis Khan) the mongols were unstoppable. Of course, they didn't have to face off with guns, rokkits, dragons, mages, ogres, dwarves, ratmen or elves.
Secondly, when the Mongols weren't on a roll? Well, at different points in history the best of the Mongollian armies were defeated by..
1) A pubescent girl who dressed up like a man to join the army
2) An exiled, half-starved, exhausted Korean diplomatic team
3) Walls. Both in China and Japan (caused them to float out at sea long enough to get caught in a hurricane)

So, no, the Mongollian hordes were not some Invincible Golden Horde...
They were an army that did unbelievably well when they were doing good and totally crapped out at things other armies would have easily overcome when they were doing poorly.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the Mongollians were ever noted for being particularly brave. Vicious, ruthless and cruel, to be certain, but not really brave... they led people in chases around the battlefield to break open tight ranks to flank and destroy them.
So assuming that Hobgoblins are pretty much just humans with -1Ld an Animosity with faster calvary, poison and other sneaky tricks... add in the right 'army rule' (like Empire's detachments or the Bret's calvary formations) and Hobgoblins don't have to make any worse stand-ins for the Mongols than the Lizardmen do for the Africans, the Chaos Dwarves do for the Babylonians, the Orcs do for the Germanic tribes, the Empire does for the Holy Roman Empire or the Chaos Barbarians do for the Vikings (although WarHammer's portrayal of the Vikings is so horribly off-base and misguided, just about anything would have been a better stand-in).

Revlid
30-04-2007, 21:37
At least Oglah(sp?) Khan and his lot. I don't remember CD Hobgoblins being that mongolian. Hell, why didn't GW make Hobgoblins the Ogres' underings instead of introducing weird things like Gnoblars.

Gods, can you imagine Reabe's reaction? :D

lilljonas
01-05-2007, 02:16
Gods, can you imagine Reabe's reaction? :D

I think "rabid" is the word you're seeking.

Orcboy_Phil
01-05-2007, 04:43
apart from the fact that they are both light cav,

IMHO, its quite an insult to link the grobbos or hob-grobbos to Mongols. We are talking about the most efficient, powerful, all-conquering army ever seen in the history of mankind.

Alexander, his great empire didnt even cover 1/4 of the mongolian empire.
Spartans? they died.
The Mongols? they kicked everybody's ar*** during their time. ( including the persians )

grobbos? they run.

despite being a useful light cav unit, you cant really compare them to the invincible Golden Horde of the Mongols.

Except the Mongols had their arses handed to them by a bunch of castrato.

Bretagne
01-05-2007, 04:51
to the credit of the mongol's hardiness, there are still bands of mongolian descendants living on the steppes today.

Inkosi
01-05-2007, 06:55
Your arguement here is easily defeated.
Yes, when they were on a roll (particularly under Ghengis Khan) the mongols were unstoppable. Of course, they didn't have to face off with guns, rokkits, dragons, mages, ogres, dwarves, ratmen or elves.
Secondly, when the Mongols weren't on a roll? Well, at different points in history the best of the Mongollian armies were defeated by..
1) A pubescent girl who dressed up like a man to join the army
2) An exiled, half-starved, exhausted Korean diplomatic team
3) Walls. Both in China and Japan (caused them to float out at sea long enough to get caught in a hurricane)

So, no, the Mongollian hordes were not some Invincible Golden Horde...
They were an army that did unbelievably well when they were doing good and totally crapped out at things other armies would have easily overcome when they were doing poorly.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the Mongollians were ever noted for being particularly brave. Vicious, ruthless and cruel, to be certain, but not really brave... they led people in chases around the battlefield to break open tight ranks to flank and destroy them.


because they led people around so it means they werent brave. duhz.



and once again i need to correct some "history" you people have.

1) get your history correct, that is one of the the legends/fable in china where the daughter went to serve the army in place of her father. because of 1 movie "Mulan" which was not historically correct at all, we have people quoting from that, amazing, its not even historically proven she existed at all.

2) the mongols failed to cross the sea not because of the great wall, once again even your geographical sense amazes me, the great wall was no where near the seas seperating china from korean/japan. and there is NO great wall in japan, unless you are refering to walls of their houses.

3) diplomats? sorry mongols dont really listen to diplomats. all historical facts point that the mongol invasion was stopped by a storm, and as the mongols was a cav based army, you cant really expect them to be masters of the sea do you.


i am not going to argue with the stereo type casts westerners have put on other races that are not from europe with the mentality that "we-had-the-best-army"

hell, i am not even a mongolian, i am a chinese and my fore-fathers were humiliated by the mongolians but at least i know some cold hard facts.

just ask any decent historian, the best army or force ever seen in the history of mankind.

lilljonas
01-05-2007, 09:37
[off topic historical rant]

Actually, Inkosi, you are incorrect about the non-existance of walls in Japan.
The first Mongol invasion was recalled after one days of fighting at Hakata Bay where the Japanese desperately and barely managed to hold one. While retreating for the night onto their ships, the brewing storm destroyed several ships, and so they retreated to wait for reinforcements.

The second invasion, however, in the meantime (5 years), the Japanese raised several fortifications and walls at the coasts where Mongol attacks were expected, especially around Hakata Bay. When the second, much larger invasion came in 1281, the fortifications at Hakata Bay was the main reason for the defenders being able to stall the invasion for two months, until a great typhoon smashed the Mongol fleet on August the 15th and 16th.
(see for example Japan its History and Culture by W.S. Morton and J.K. Olenik)

[/off topic historical rant]

Mongolians are indeed extremely cool, and I'm looking around for a good producer of 13-14th centrury Mongolians since it would be fun to paint some. But they are cool on their own merits, so there's no need to tweak history.

Orcboy_Phil
01-05-2007, 13:29
just ask any decent historian, the best army or force ever seen in the history of mankind.

They where an incredible succseful army yes, but the best of all time?

Different Armies througthout history have dominated because of supierior technology, the dominance of chariots in anicent mesotopania for example, or the Long Bow during the hundred years war.
However as history progresses different armies become obsolute. You throw the Mongolian Horde agasint a modern western army today (yes even France) and they would be desimated. The same if you threw a modern western army agsint an Army 800 years from now.
The mongolian succeses came down to three elements. High discipline, mobility and ruthlessness, and as with all succseful armies througthout history discipline is always the key.

Now back to Hobgoblins, yep, ummm... *squee*

DeathlessDraich
01-05-2007, 14:12
Strange historical rants here.:D

Historical fact??

The term is self contradictory. There may be historical opinions, no more.

Facts may only be established through:

a) Hard physical evidence - There is none in this case. DVDs and recording devices did not exist in Mongolian times unfortunately. :D
b) Archaelogical evidence and artefacts themselves which are often proferred as hard evidence can be construed in many ways.
c) Third party evidence - so called historical records of other nations are opinions as well, no more.

What were the Mongolians really like? Answer: Anything you want them to be.

Orcboy_Phil
02-05-2007, 02:41
Strange historical rants here.:D

Historical fact??

The term is self contradictory. There may be historical opinions, no more.

Facts may only be established through:

a) Hard physical evidence - There is none in this case. DVDs and recording devices did not exist in Mongolian times unfortunately. :D
b) Archaelogical evidence and artefacts themselves which are often proferred as hard evidence can be construed in many ways.
c) Third party evidence - so called historical records of other nations are opinions as well, no more.

What were the Mongolians really like? Answer: Anything you want them to be.


High Mobility: They where a light cavalry based army,
Ruthless: c.f. Baghbad
Disciplined: Must have been for an Army of that size not to slaughter thoose who surreneded to them agasin't the orders of thier supperiors.

Inkosi
02-05-2007, 10:22
Strange historical rants here.:D

Historical fact??

The term is self contradictory. There may be historical opinions, no more.

Facts may only be established through:

a) Hard physical evidence - There is none in this case. DVDs and recording devices did not exist in Mongolian times unfortunately. :D
b) Archaelogical evidence and artefacts themselves which are often proferred as hard evidence can be construed in many ways.
c) Third party evidence - so called historical records of other nations are opinions as well, no more.

What were the Mongolians really like? Answer: Anything you want them to be.


Your statements are an insult to History and anyone studying/interested in history.

if seeing is believing and everything can be made up then sorry, the world would have no history at all.

Hitler was a gentlemen, all the facts that portrayed him as a daemon were all "made up" by the allies.

Japan never slaugthered millions of chinese in Nanjing, China, all the dead bodies, living accounts, photos,videos were all "made up" by the chinese government.

Alexander's large empire was only an exaeration by his generals.

In fact the world has no history at all because you didnt see it and because even if there were living accounts or evidence, it all could be "made up" or just OPINIONS in your words.

nice in your 3 statements, you effectively wiped out the entire history of planet earth.

i am no longer refering to just the mongolians, but to history on a whole, to doubt the history of the world is like insulting all the people and components who have been part of it and the integrity of the numerous historians who have recorded it.

History has been as unbias as it can get, if you doubt it, then there is nothing you can trust. if you think history is just opinions from the other side then sorry, you dont know enough about history.
IMHO, that is just so tactless or simply, RUDE.

Inkosi
02-05-2007, 10:30
and if it were only opinions, most of the history of mongols of that era are left behind by the chinese.

china who suffered the most under the mongols.

if it were opinions, we could have portrayed them as scheming grobbo-style hit n run raiders and it was luck that allowed that them to become so successful.

but no, we acknowledged their military might and prowess, we gave them their due credit, if the people who had suffered and humiliated could give an accurate account of the mongols, it is an insult to the chinese historians to dismiss their records as OPINIONS from the other side.

lilljonas
02-05-2007, 10:34
It's funny that you mention the Chinese respect and historical account concerning Mongols. A friend of mine who studied at Beijing Daxue got an F on his essay on Genghis Khan, since he said that he was Mongolian, not Han Chinese. Oh well, but that's a bit off topic, and more related to the current revisionist ideals and not the accounts of the contemporary Chinese chroniclers.

Orcboy_Phil
02-05-2007, 13:12
Your statements are an insult to History and anyone studying/interested in history.

if seeing is believing and everything can be made up then sorry, the world would have no history at all.

Hitler was a gentlemen, all the facts that portrayed him as a daemon were all "made up" by the allies.

Japan never slaugthered millions of chinese in Nanjing, China, all the dead bodies, living accounts, photos,videos were all "made up" by the chinese government.

Alexander's large empire was only an exaeration by his generals.

In fact the world has no history at all because you didnt see it and because even if there were living accounts or evidence, it all could be "made up" or just OPINIONS in your words.

nice in your 3 statements, you effectively wiped out the entire history of planet earth.

i am no longer refering to just the mongolians, but to history on a whole, to doubt the history of the world is like insulting all the people and components who have been part of it and the integrity of the numerous historians who have recorded it.

History has been as unbias as it can get, if you doubt it, then there is nothing you can trust. if you think history is just opinions from the other side then sorry, you dont know enough about history.
IMHO, that is just so tactless or simply, RUDE.

History is changable and mallaible. History and acrheology only interrpret the past and never can relive. History can never be a 100% accruate reconstruction of the past. The first thing I was taught whilst studying history.

Chiron
02-05-2007, 17:18
i am no longer refering to just the mongolians, but to history on a whole, to doubt the history of the world is like insulting all the people and components who have been part of it and the integrity of the numerous historians who have recorded it.

Few historians are unbiased, especially ancient historians when history was seen as just another story to tell

by all accounts Livy was an outright liar for example, his work has massive amounts of flaws and inaccuracies in it when compared to other sources, even some of the sections he lifted directly from Polybus are likely to be unreliable to Polybus' admiration of the Scipii family

emperorpenguin
02-05-2007, 17:27
(it's the Dark Elves that were assyrians and the Chaos Dwarfs that were persians :p)

I've always thought the Dark elves reminded me of Assyrians! :eek: But it doesn't appear based on look, unless the older models were?
Or do you mean in theme/style?

Mazdug
02-05-2007, 18:05
While I certainly enjoy a good debate on the subject, and have some strong opinions regarding it, I would kind of like to get back to some WARHAMMER related suggestions for how one might model Mongol greenskins, especially how to make a viable army composition using all cav, and what specific modeling tricks/techniques could be used to convert the existing models into mongol-esque models, without doing full resculpts (I'm OK with greenstuff when it comes to adding beards/furs and touching up gaps, but when I have tried to sculpt my own models, they come out looking like Gumby after a hard night on the town).

In regards to history, I believe that we have a fairly decent grasp in the modern age of what has happened in the past, we certainly cannot be 100% accurate on anything, and we do currently have a PHD system that requires people to muddy the waters, rather then clean them, but as a whole, I don't think some things are worth questioning. We know the Mongols where an amazing, all cavalry force. We know they kicked the crap out of basically everyone they encountered. These are not subjective things, they are basic facts. However, to say they are one of the greatest armies of all times is a very subjective argument. What is most important, and armies successes, its capabilities, amount of land conquered, difficulty of opposition overcome? Does military technology only count as it relates to other civilizations at the time, or should it be compared across all times, allowing only for the most modern armies to rank amongst the best. Basically, what I'm saying is that before you can really debate something like this, you need to qualify what specific thing you are debating.

lilljonas
02-05-2007, 22:31
Yes. Let's get more on topic.

The possibility of a horse archer themed list has been debated here on Warseer some month a go, if I remember correctly.

Ha, found it:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75039&highlight=horse+archer

It contains the selected ideas at that time for lists geared towards light/medium cavalry, and horse archer in specific. The synopsis of that thread would be "probably possible, but not an easy choise at all". If you want to play horse archers with Warhammer, WAB seems to be the way to do it.

Hobgoblyn
03-05-2007, 03:59
1) get your history correct, that is one of the the legends/fable in china where the daughter went to serve the army in place of her father. because of 1 movie "Mulan" which was not historically correct at all, we have people quoting from that, amazing, its not even historically proven she existed at all.

Well, it may have been fable or not. The point is that at least there is some reason to believe that at some point some rabble, whether part of this was a girl with no military training or not, did end up repelling the Mongolian horde at least onece.


2) the mongols failed to cross the sea not because of the great wall, once again even your geographical sense amazes me, the great wall was no where near the seas seperating china from korean/japan. and there is NO great wall in japan, unless you are refering to walls of their houses.

I apologize for not being clear. I was saying that
a) The Mongollians were cut out of China simply by building a wall. European armies perfected breaking through walls (i.e. castle/fortress walls) while the Mongollians failed at this task.
b) Even though the Mongollians were able to sail to Japan, beat the samurai senseless on one trip... the Japanese built walls on the beaches and suddenly the the Mongollians couldn't touch them. The storm didn't occur until the Mongollians were sitting on the ocean for 3 weeks and ran out of supplies.
I was not referring to the same wall, simply that a 'walls in general' seem to defeat them.


3) diplomats? sorry mongols dont really listen to diplomats. all historical facts point that the mongol invasion was stopped by a storm, and as the mongols was a cav based army, you cant really expect them to be masters of the sea do you.

My third point was referring to a group of Koreans who were sent as a diplomatic convoy to China and were rejected by a new dynasty. They were rejected, chained and sent back home without any supplies or horses. Half starved and exhausted they came across Mongollian leaders with a captured Chinese princess and managed to defeat them, take the princess for themselves and deliver her back to the Chinese capital. I saw a movie based on these events, although the movie was clearly exaggerated and over the top.


just ask any decent historian, the best army or force ever seen in the history of mankind.

You'll never get a precise answer on this by anyone who isn't an over exhuberant fan of one or another. Simply put, all armies excelled at something at some point or their countries would have been wiped off the map long, long ago. And there are ones who were especially good at guerrella warfare and raiding that couldn't fight prolonged battles and others who were well-set to fight prolonged battles, but would often lose when they were hit by something really strong at once.
And a lot of armies never went head to head, so there will never be a clear victor amongst them.
But then, that's why we have games like WarHammer. Because no one really knows. And, more over, history has demonstrated that even in situations where it seems very clear that one army is superior to another, the inferior one can often win.

Avian
03-05-2007, 11:50
I've always thought the Dark elves reminded me of Assyrians! :eek: But it doesn't appear based on look, unless the older models were?
Or do you mean in theme/style?
A lot of it is in the background, but it is also in the unit types. Read Mercenaries of the Ancient World, by Serge Yalichev, for example. (Link (http://www.amazon.com/Mercenaries-Ancient-World-Serge-Yalichev/dp/009475750X/ref=sr_1_1/104-7430355-1684755?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178188886&sr=8-1)). There is a section there on the assyrians that even mentions executioners as a warrior type!

emperorpenguin
03-05-2007, 12:55
A lot of it is in the background, but it is also in the unit types. Read Mercenaries of the Ancient World, by Serge Yalichev, for example. (Link (http://www.amazon.com/Mercenaries-Ancient-World-Serge-Yalichev/dp/009475750X/ref=sr_1_1/104-7430355-1684755?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178188886&sr=8-1)). There is a section there on the assyrians that even mentions executioners as a warrior type!

thanks Avian I'll check it out. Really pleased to see I wasn't mad to link the Assyrians to Dark Elves! :)