11-09-2013, 11:45 AM
Frank wrote:
That just about matches the ratio of cataphracts to horse archers in Surena's forces at Carrhae so your probably right. In regards to use of contus in Sarmatian/Roxolani forces, being a shock weapon, after initial contact I think the contus being an awkward weapon to handle with both hands, basically a long pole with a sharp metal tip & no counterweight, would be quickly discarded to be retrieved after battle & horseman would switch to swords, sagarii & other close combat weapons like maces or clubs. You are right that not every Sarmatian carried a contus & the lighter armoured but still well armed horse archer probably made up the majority of their armies. Cassius Dio describes a winter battle in which Romans defeated Iazyges with Iazyges fighting Roman formation with bows (which were probably not so effective in this particular battle), shorter lances & shields (possibly wicker covered with hide) & he does not mention them using the 2 handed contus at all unlike the Roxolani who seem to have made an impression on Romans even though defeated by them. So I suppose Sarmatian princes, chiefs, nobles & their personal retinues/bodyguards would be well armoured but the rest would wear what protective clothing they could & be mostly light to medium cavalry. I may be wrong but I think it was the Avars who could switch from their lances which they had strapped to their backs & bow quite easily. I think one of Maurice's drills in Strategikon emphasises this switching from lance to bow & back to lance in training Roman cavalry but obviously not the contus.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Quote:Even in the parthian or sarmatian armies, cataphracts were not the strongest part. Historians guess about 10% cataphracts for the parthian cavalry. Perhaps a bit more for the sarmatians. The rest is light cavalry primarily mounted archers.
That just about matches the ratio of cataphracts to horse archers in Surena's forces at Carrhae so your probably right. In regards to use of contus in Sarmatian/Roxolani forces, being a shock weapon, after initial contact I think the contus being an awkward weapon to handle with both hands, basically a long pole with a sharp metal tip & no counterweight, would be quickly discarded to be retrieved after battle & horseman would switch to swords, sagarii & other close combat weapons like maces or clubs. You are right that not every Sarmatian carried a contus & the lighter armoured but still well armed horse archer probably made up the majority of their armies. Cassius Dio describes a winter battle in which Romans defeated Iazyges with Iazyges fighting Roman formation with bows (which were probably not so effective in this particular battle), shorter lances & shields (possibly wicker covered with hide) & he does not mention them using the 2 handed contus at all unlike the Roxolani who seem to have made an impression on Romans even though defeated by them. So I suppose Sarmatian princes, chiefs, nobles & their personal retinues/bodyguards would be well armoured but the rest would wear what protective clothing they could & be mostly light to medium cavalry. I may be wrong but I think it was the Avars who could switch from their lances which they had strapped to their backs & bow quite easily. I think one of Maurice's drills in Strategikon emphasises this switching from lance to bow & back to lance in training Roman cavalry but obviously not the contus.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
