Welcome to the Strelets Forum. Please feel free to discuss any aspect of 1/72 scale plastic figures, not simply Strelets. If you have any questions about our products then we will answer them here.
It's interesting that Stephen Turnbull seems to have performed a bit of an "about-turn" in his second Osprey book on the Mongols (Warrior 84) in showing so many heavy troops carrying shields at Kalka River. In his first, MAA 105, he states:
"The heavy cavalry...may have carried shields. Some illuminated manuscripts show small, round shields in use but the most reliable sources emphasize that shields were only carried when the soldier was on foot. A large skin or wicker shield was employed while on sentry duty and large tortoise-like ones for assaulting walls."
Even so, I'm sometimes distrustful of modern colour plates as they can include highly contentious elements that are often taken as fact.
Looking at primary sources again, of two Raschid Al-Din illustrations included in the Ospreys, one shows seven mounted heavy cavalry none of whom are carrying a shield. The other depicts a siege with a trebuchet and includes one dismounted heavy warrior carrying a small shield and four other figures who do not.
I agree the Strelets' masters scan is a bit unclear but of the twelve poses, seven have shield in hand whilst a further two *seem* to to carry a shield on their back. That's three-quarters. Additionally many seem to be dismounted *light* cav for which there is no evidence of shields whatsoever.
Again, I hope Strelets review this before the figures are released.
Dear Steve B
I think Stephen Turnbull is used to the level of documentation associated with Japanese history and very adept with Japanese language sources so turning to the Mongols would be more difficult as there has to be much more guess work. The alternative to guess work would be anthropological study and many of the revisions of our understanding of the Mongols are based on that.
Raschid al-Din was the author of the Jami al-Tawarikh but the illustrations and calligraphy would have been done in a workshop. Their accuracy would be a little like European illuminated manuscripts of the same time. I think from a modeller's point of view you either accept it or don't. I personally feel there isn't any right or wrong. For example the archers in the illustrations are drawing to the upper sternum (Manubrium)and modern Mongol archers would say this is wrong. Does that mean the rest is inaccurate, well some of the illustrations of Hulagu look good enough to be portraits. Likewise with 13th/14th c European manuscripts, the way weapon handling is depicted is often wrong but other things are surprisingly accurate.
For fear of repetition where there is no definitive authority ( true also of European armies at this time) then it seems sensible to offer the modeller a choice.
BTW looking at the Persian manuscript it would nice to have some Abbasid troops. The Mongol army at this time had sizeable Chinese elements as well as Turks Persians, Christian (Georgians) and so on.