02-28-2011, 01:26 AM
Tacitus said it was a sword so large it was over the shoulder and wielded with two hands. It kind've makes sense. Sarmatian heavy cavalry (which is what i'm assuming you're researching) didn't carry shields because of the size of their kontos's(kontoi?). I can't find anything about weapons from the Pokrovka burial sites. Sarmatian cavalry would've influenced later cataphracts and clibarnii. I would say that a lengthened spatha form would be as good a guess as any.
Saddles are tough one. Historians (especially from ones that glorify infantry) don't write about saddles. An armored man wielding lance, sword, and bow without stirrups would definitely need a lot of support. I saw somewhere that it was mentioned that in some cases the lance was chained to the saddle to keep the rider from falling off at impact and to add the weight of the horse to the strike. Sadly, the source totally escapes me. I've also seen illustrations of Sarmatian cavalry showing large guards attached to the saddle to protect the rider's legs.
Tacitus says iron scales in Origins of the Germans. My guess is that it would've depended on the wealth of the wearer. Metal scale armor would've been extremely expensive to make and maintain. Not to mention the wearer would need a big horse that couldn't subsist on open grazing except at certain times of the year while campaigning.
My own personal guess would be that the poorest men would've worn scale armor of boiled leather scales moving up to the richest wearing iron or bronze with hoof/horn scales in the middle somewhere. To save weight, Japanese armorsmiths mixed their materials using metal scales (technically lames) to protect vital areas and lacquered rawhide for less vital areas. It's not too terrible a leap to think that Sarmatians might've done come up with the same idea.
Tacitus also mentions chainmail protecting the neck IIRC.
Hope this helps.
Saddles are tough one. Historians (especially from ones that glorify infantry) don't write about saddles. An armored man wielding lance, sword, and bow without stirrups would definitely need a lot of support. I saw somewhere that it was mentioned that in some cases the lance was chained to the saddle to keep the rider from falling off at impact and to add the weight of the horse to the strike. Sadly, the source totally escapes me. I've also seen illustrations of Sarmatian cavalry showing large guards attached to the saddle to protect the rider's legs.
Tacitus says iron scales in Origins of the Germans. My guess is that it would've depended on the wealth of the wearer. Metal scale armor would've been extremely expensive to make and maintain. Not to mention the wearer would need a big horse that couldn't subsist on open grazing except at certain times of the year while campaigning.
My own personal guess would be that the poorest men would've worn scale armor of boiled leather scales moving up to the richest wearing iron or bronze with hoof/horn scales in the middle somewhere. To save weight, Japanese armorsmiths mixed their materials using metal scales (technically lames) to protect vital areas and lacquered rawhide for less vital areas. It's not too terrible a leap to think that Sarmatians might've done come up with the same idea.
Tacitus also mentions chainmail protecting the neck IIRC.
Hope this helps.
