When war was declared in August 1914, the Russian Empire initially mobilised 939 squadrons of Cossacks, of which 202 were Kuban and 66 were Terek. These two hosts were the Caucasian Cossacks – the rest, such as the Don, were Steppe hosts and largely wore normal Russian uniforms. However the Caucasians provided their own clothing, which was based on their own traditions rather than those of Russia, and since the figures in this set wear these uniforms, we can tell that these are Caucasian Cossacks, who were a minority of the Cossacks that served, but still a very important element. The Tsar felt a special relationship with his Cossacks, who were often called upon to suppress dissent all over Russia, and a higher proportion of Cossacks were called up, and became casualties, then in Russia proper.

The unique Caucasian uniform as worn by these figures begins with the astrakhan busby, known as the papaha, and continues with the long kaftan coat (chokha) with the distinctive cartridge pockets (gaziri) on each breast. This largely covers the figure, so there is little to see of the shirt or the trousers, though these look fine. The boots are simple enough, although we thought we could detect spurs on the boots, which if so would be a mistake as Cossacks used the whip rather than spurs. That aside, the clothing here is properly done.

These men have no kit. What they do have is a waist belt to which their traditional dagger (kinjal) is held, and a baldric which supports their sword scabbard. The sword is also part of their tradition, as it is the shashka, which had no crossguard or handguard. Those on show here have a very minimal crossguard, which is easy to ignore or remove, but probably should not be there at all (though the men were permitted to bring their own swords rather than use government issue ones). The sword shape is good, and blade lengths are between 12 and 13 mm (86 to 93 cm), which is slightly beyond the usual upper limit, but not enough to really show. Of course, the scabbards should be of the same length, but sadly a couple of them (third and fifth figures in our image) are much too short, which we first thought was the consequence of the mould not being properly filled, but the images of the masters on the box show that this was an error in the original sculpting. The first man holds a lance of correct length, and the last holds a rifle. This is far too short, even for a carbine, and this time the masters show that it was intended to be of the correct length, so it is a problem with the mould filling, but whatever the cause, it looks bad. The rest of the men have their rifle slung on their back, and reversed with the muzzle facing down.

The horses are exactly the same as those in the companion WWI Russian Cavalry, so our comments on them in that review also hold true here. Basically, the poses are not particularly natural, with lots of hooves planted firmly on the ground, but nor are they as bad as some found in other sets. The saddlery is basic and includes a rolled coat at the front (would someone wearing a kaftan also need a greatcoat?), and a small valise at the back. There are no saddlebags or other impedimenta, which is wrong as these were standard items and important. Cossack mounts are often described as little more than ponies, so would look a little different to those of other cavalry, though probably these sculpts are close enough.

The quality of sculpting is also the same as for the Russian cavalry set, so is reasonable, but the detail is not particularly sharp, so finer items like rifles and the chest cartridge holders are vague and don’t look great. We have already mentioned an instance of where the mould has not been properly filled, and this also applies to the rifle on the back of the man with the lance, which is too short and badly malformed at the butt. There is some extra plastic between rifle and body on some of the poses, and flash is notable on all of the seams. What is worse is that in a couple of places the moulds have been mismatched, leaving a strong step between the two halves. This is particularly noticeable on the right arm of many of the figures, particularly the second in our image, and is very tough to fix. The men fit their horses quite loosely, so will need gluing to stay in the saddle.

The poses of the men are chosen for ease of sculpting rather than realism, so everyone holds their weapon out to their side, which is not natural, and positively dangerous to their neighbour were these figures to be placed side-by-side in a line. The man with arm raised is more plausible, but the one holding his rifle to the side really makes no sense at all. Only the man with the lance looks reasonable, and because the lance is upright, he is clearly not actually in a fight at the moment. The second figure from the left is presumed to be an officer as he has no rifle, but a holstered pistol instead. Since there are 15 riders for the 12 horses in the set, clearly the thinking is that most people would want one such officer per 12 men (or perhaps even less), so the officer pose is almost a bonus figure that is useful but many copies will go to waste. This at least makes better use of a set with four trooper poses.

So this is another in a long tradition of HaT cavalry sets that basically provide just four poses, and so are intended primarily as game markers rather than offering a significant mix of poses that might be placed together to form a credible single body of men. The added officer is an improvement on much older examples of this strategy, but it still offers little variety for anyone building a diorama. None of the horses seem to be moving at any great pace, which is fine as a full gallop with sword drawn must have been a rare sight indeed during the war. Accuracy is pretty good, but sculpting is only passable, though the faces are quite nice, all having a moustache and one having a full beard. The mould issues will be difficult to resolve, but hopefully these do not apply to all copies of the set. Otherwise this is an adequate collection that is better sculpted than the older Strelets set, but offers much less scope for use in different scenarios.