05-11-2015, 06:16 AM
The Alans of the late 4th to early 5th century were pastoral nomads like the various earlier Sarmatian groups of the 1st to 3rd centuries before them. All the earlier sources describe them as living in wagons or having either felt or wicker strut tents mounted on wagons which would have been demounted from their wagons or carts when an encampment was established. I don’t believe that trellis tents or yurts were invented till much later by the Turks who could dismantle their tents and carry them on mules, horses or camels whereas the Sarmatian/Alan tents would have been heavier structures not easily dismantled necessitating the need for wagons. They would travel with their herds in the harsher climate of the unprotected steppe lands from the Don to the Danube where they wandered according to the seasons, rainfall patterns and most importantly water sources. All the massive river systems flowing into the Black Sea from the Don to the Danube would have had massive wetland areas in Roman times which would have provided plenty of moisture rich grasses and meant that the nomads could maintain larger herds of sheep, cattle and more importantly horses, entailing necessary equestrian skills for herding, mobility and defence of the encampment as well as seasonal raiding for resources like grain and salt for the health of their herds.
These massive river systems would have contained lots of wild game and fish for hunting and fishing so use of the bow would have been a necessity even if the bow had became a secondary weapon of the Sarmatians and Alans. They probably did some farming but not extensively and mainly millet. In their migrations to Gaul the ability to maintain large herds would have diminished and the climate would have been a lot milder and not subject as much to variations in rainfall and temperature negating the need for large seasonal migrations. In a couple of generations they would have found it more convenient to ditch their wagons and felt tents and live in permanent structures as there would have been plenty of sources of building materials and most importantly the climate to grow their own food, they could no longer raid their neighbours unless ordered to by the Romans or extort money from the Romans for peace like in the good old days so they became over time farmers and not herders.
As to their martial skills, I have always assumed the use of the contus and heavier armour and charging in disciplined formations was developed or copied from other people like the Massagetae, by the various Sarmatian groups to combat horse archers and there have been many debates in this forum as to whether they were effective against disciplined Roman infantry although in the two more famous descriptions, one by Tacitus describing the defeat of the Roxolani while attempting to cross the lower Danube with their booty and the other by Cassius Dio who described the defeat of the Iazyges on the frozen Danube near Pannonia. On both cases the conditions didn’t suit the cavalry charge with the Roxolani caught in wet and slushy conditions and the overconfident Iazyges confronting a Roman square formation on slippery ice which they couldn’t flank and the Roman front rank using their comrades shields to give them a firm footing so that they could confront the Iazyges.
Philippe Richardot in his book La Fin De L’armée Romaine (284-476) wrote that the Alans fighting for Aetius at Chalons would have looked a lot different to the Alans that fought with Saphrax and Alatheus at Adrianople as they would have been armed & equipped with Roman equipment but they probably would have still used the classic steppe tactics though with feigned retreats and massed disciplined charges a feature of their style of warfare. They probably faced Alans fighting for Attila as some Alan tribes submitted to the Huns and there were a lot of Alan/Sarmatian connections with Greuthungi Goths & the Amali rulers, who fought with Attila at Chalons. Apparently Attila was angry with the leader of the Alans, Sangiban as he thought there was an agreement where Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans to Attila thereby allowing the Hunnic army to cross the Loire river and raid Visigoth territory so there was still contact between Alans to a degree, on both sides of the fence in 451AD.
The Roxolani were famous for the use of the contus and the long heavy sword but the Iazyges, as noted by Cassius Dio used a shorter lance and carried shields, probably because they had more contact with their neighbours the Quadi in regards to weaponry and fighting tactics as the Quadi would have by contact with the Iazyges with cavalry playing an important role in their forces. So in a nutshell there are lots of reasons why the Alans changed over time, just a couple of generations I think. The Romans did not allow large groups of Alans or Sarmatians to settle in Roman territory only small groups with favoured leaders in an attempt to play one group against another. Of course the wealthier leadership of the Alans would have fared better than the poorer ones with larger landholdings and tenant farmers to do the work & they could afford quality horses & maintain their equestrian skills with hunts and falconry. 8-)
These massive river systems would have contained lots of wild game and fish for hunting and fishing so use of the bow would have been a necessity even if the bow had became a secondary weapon of the Sarmatians and Alans. They probably did some farming but not extensively and mainly millet. In their migrations to Gaul the ability to maintain large herds would have diminished and the climate would have been a lot milder and not subject as much to variations in rainfall and temperature negating the need for large seasonal migrations. In a couple of generations they would have found it more convenient to ditch their wagons and felt tents and live in permanent structures as there would have been plenty of sources of building materials and most importantly the climate to grow their own food, they could no longer raid their neighbours unless ordered to by the Romans or extort money from the Romans for peace like in the good old days so they became over time farmers and not herders.
As to their martial skills, I have always assumed the use of the contus and heavier armour and charging in disciplined formations was developed or copied from other people like the Massagetae, by the various Sarmatian groups to combat horse archers and there have been many debates in this forum as to whether they were effective against disciplined Roman infantry although in the two more famous descriptions, one by Tacitus describing the defeat of the Roxolani while attempting to cross the lower Danube with their booty and the other by Cassius Dio who described the defeat of the Iazyges on the frozen Danube near Pannonia. On both cases the conditions didn’t suit the cavalry charge with the Roxolani caught in wet and slushy conditions and the overconfident Iazyges confronting a Roman square formation on slippery ice which they couldn’t flank and the Roman front rank using their comrades shields to give them a firm footing so that they could confront the Iazyges.
Philippe Richardot in his book La Fin De L’armée Romaine (284-476) wrote that the Alans fighting for Aetius at Chalons would have looked a lot different to the Alans that fought with Saphrax and Alatheus at Adrianople as they would have been armed & equipped with Roman equipment but they probably would have still used the classic steppe tactics though with feigned retreats and massed disciplined charges a feature of their style of warfare. They probably faced Alans fighting for Attila as some Alan tribes submitted to the Huns and there were a lot of Alan/Sarmatian connections with Greuthungi Goths & the Amali rulers, who fought with Attila at Chalons. Apparently Attila was angry with the leader of the Alans, Sangiban as he thought there was an agreement where Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans to Attila thereby allowing the Hunnic army to cross the Loire river and raid Visigoth territory so there was still contact between Alans to a degree, on both sides of the fence in 451AD.
The Roxolani were famous for the use of the contus and the long heavy sword but the Iazyges, as noted by Cassius Dio used a shorter lance and carried shields, probably because they had more contact with their neighbours the Quadi in regards to weaponry and fighting tactics as the Quadi would have by contact with the Iazyges with cavalry playing an important role in their forces. So in a nutshell there are lots of reasons why the Alans changed over time, just a couple of generations I think. The Romans did not allow large groups of Alans or Sarmatians to settle in Roman territory only small groups with favoured leaders in an attempt to play one group against another. Of course the wealthier leadership of the Alans would have fared better than the poorer ones with larger landholdings and tenant farmers to do the work & they could afford quality horses & maintain their equestrian skills with hunts and falconry. 8-)
Regards
Michael Kerr
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"
