08-28-2009, 07:16 PM
Hi. I joined this forum because I saw other stuff about "econmic support system" for post Roman cavalry but Dariusz distracted me.
Dariusz, Greetings! my friend is a Prof of ancient studies and said to me that the graves of Sarmaty at Klin Yar and other Sarmat sites showed horse heights of 14 hands or less. Thats not just for the usual "sacrificial poor quality" horses but also for "Favourite boss horses" i think.
When you talk about smaller horses which needed less food, i think this is true. Polish Husaria horses needed no winter fodder..not even in the 17 century..not even in Polish or Russki winter. I think its why so many survived the trip to Moscow with the French, when the french horses didnt survive. Small and tough..thats the answer.
That leads me to the earlier posts about post roman Brits and ability to support cav economically. As said above, the Sarmat horse avoided the nemesis of state cavalry..FOOd and FODDER. A 1920 s Brit farm needed 30% of it's output just to feed the donkeys! One can work out the savings Sarmat cavalry offered. Sarmatians seemed to have had three mounts per man or more plus and big family tribe structire to support the operational team. Also, a huge amount of cattle. In arable southern England, they would have not been greatly appreciated but in Uppland Cumbria etc, i reckon noone would have cared. Plenty of food for all. And skins and bone. Not all Sarmat armour was of iron. Much lamella armour "plate" was of bone..which is why we dont find it.
I wont go on. I think the Sarmatian horse were low maintenance and, better still, were great because they preferred to fight in winter as the Poles still did until recenetly. Keeping a team of,say, 400 cav on the go seems entirely possible and ot much tax levy needed.
Dariusz, Greetings! my friend is a Prof of ancient studies and said to me that the graves of Sarmaty at Klin Yar and other Sarmat sites showed horse heights of 14 hands or less. Thats not just for the usual "sacrificial poor quality" horses but also for "Favourite boss horses" i think.
When you talk about smaller horses which needed less food, i think this is true. Polish Husaria horses needed no winter fodder..not even in the 17 century..not even in Polish or Russki winter. I think its why so many survived the trip to Moscow with the French, when the french horses didnt survive. Small and tough..thats the answer.
That leads me to the earlier posts about post roman Brits and ability to support cav economically. As said above, the Sarmat horse avoided the nemesis of state cavalry..FOOd and FODDER. A 1920 s Brit farm needed 30% of it's output just to feed the donkeys! One can work out the savings Sarmat cavalry offered. Sarmatians seemed to have had three mounts per man or more plus and big family tribe structire to support the operational team. Also, a huge amount of cattle. In arable southern England, they would have not been greatly appreciated but in Uppland Cumbria etc, i reckon noone would have cared. Plenty of food for all. And skins and bone. Not all Sarmat armour was of iron. Much lamella armour "plate" was of bone..which is why we dont find it.
I wont go on. I think the Sarmatian horse were low maintenance and, better still, were great because they preferred to fight in winter as the Poles still did until recenetly. Keeping a team of,say, 400 cav on the go seems entirely possible and ot much tax levy needed.
Roderic Wout..
Today\'s truths are often tomorrow\'s lies
Today\'s truths are often tomorrow\'s lies
