Timurids : How bulding an army ?

Hello

After playing Ottomans, i'll try a timurid army.

Can you give me advice for bulding this army ? (300 or 500 pts)

I like the idea having Elephants and Buffalo herds

I used to have a rather nice Timurid army. I dont have the list book to hand but at 300 points it had;
2 Elephants
2 Cf Herds
4 Fp Hostages
6 Cm 5/6 VDU with bow
I cant remember the number of generals but i tended to go for high values

I agree with Steve on his army list composition although it was never fielded in such a bizarre conformation as far as I can tell. Not all at one battle, that is.

I am building one with exactly the same design, only because it makes me laugh. A bit of everything slightly lunatic but with the chance of occasionally pulling off a victory. I am using a combination of Gripping Beast and Eureka figures.

The problem with historical Timurids is a simple one - cost. Well over half of the army was well disciplined armoured cavalry. 

Impetus' point structure makes it easy to create such a force (they are only Mongols with a twist, after all) It's just that, if you want to do that, you don't get much other than a scary cavalry arm. That's fine but I have Normans, Crusaders, Seljuqs, Mongols and Catalans for my cavalry fun. 

The Timurids are just not distinctive enough if you are focused purely on winning games. But, as they are a great looking army, you can throw in all the mad stuff and just enjoy the ride.

There is a great book: 

Epic of the Persian Kings
The art of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh

by Barbara Brend and Charles Melville 
IBTauris, Cambridge 2011.

It has a lot of high quality Timurid period artwork in it and gives some great detail on colours and equipment. It's not an Osprey baby-food book, by the way. It is a real resource. I can send a scan or two if you're interested.

Thanks for all

The Timurids are just not distinctive enough if you are focused purely on winning games.

No, I play for fun.

I see you don't use archers or infantry. Why ?

You give Command Structure "Poor", not "Average" ?

I can send a scan or two if you're interested.

I'm.

That's only one variant - the particularly lunatic one.

I have another with fewer CM cavalry, CL Turcomen and infantry archers. That's the one I will probably field as I already have most of them.

The Timurids did field large cavalry columns. It depends on whether you view a 400 pt army as a discrete force - a small self-contained army. Or if you regard it as part of a larger force - which allows for some of the distortions you often see on the table - it's just that particular part of the battlefield.

In terms of command structure, you can argue whichever you like. Horse armies by their nature are expansive - they need the manoeuvre room. I suspect Timurid command was strong at unit level but beyond that had the usual "high tactical" problems. They knew what to do and what to expect in the event of failure. Timur was a very hard examination marker. Their high aggression level would also come into play. At the end of it, either CS is valid in my opinion.

I think the Timurid list is pretty decent. Great cavalry plus good T units and FL armed javelin infantry in support. Love the Gripping Beast figures.

Crazy army Starkers and Silverpaint looking forward to seeing this on the table
Think it would make a great article for the Impetus magazine by the way...with pictures

I am considering a Timurid Army for some time now. I always was looking for the more fearsome Mongols and Elephant composition but thos mad variants promise a lot of fun too - hmm...