Alan Military Tactics

[Alanus]

Thank you, Michael

Your enlargement of the subject really puts the later Alans into perspective, especially since most European historians oft dismiss them as "finished" or "an extinct people" at exactly the time they were the Mongol's elite troops/cavalrymen. Evidently, their military tactics and expertise were valued by the great Khans. :wink:

The descriptions of their armor in the above posts are important, as is the fact they were excellent artificers. I'm thinking of wearing a chainmail corselet under my new lamellar bodice. This would protect the openings at my under-arms and extreme sides of my chest. Naturally, this extra garment-- perhaps shortened to my waist but no lower-- will ad weight to an already heavy outfit; but this is exactly what we hear from Tacitus when he describes the Roxolani as having a hard time regaining their feet after being unseated.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Or other descriptions of Alans using Catafracts in the late era.

[Michael Kerr]

In regard to the settling of Alans by both Rome & China in different time periods. Although 30,000 Alans were settled in China, do you think the various 5th century Alannic groups were resettled in Gaul with a similar number? Somehow I doubt it but how many core Alan cavalrymen would Sangibanus have had under his command at Chalons? A few thousand, a few hundred. If they were veterans of the Roman army their horsemen would probably be organized like other Roman cavalry & trained to act & fight like Roman cavalry or at least understand Roman tactics, not the old style swarm tactics of the Steppes but possibly a hybrid of both. But although the original Alan group under Respendial that joined with Vandals invading Gaul & then Spain may have been quite large, even after Goar's Alans defected from this group but I don't think the Alan groups in Gaul in Aetius's time would be as large. Only surmising of course.
Constantius mentions that when Germanus travelled to meet Eochar's army to try & stop this warlike people & their "idol worshipping" king when he neared the Alan army, he noted that the people had already started off and the armoured cavalry had filled up the entire route. This seems a sizeable force but maybe the traffic included wagons, families, herds & of course a flood of refugees fleeing the oncoming Alans with their remaining possessions loaded on to any wheeled transport they could get their hands onto sending a clear message to rebel Amoricans that the Alans were here to stay, but in a late Roman context would a force of a few thousand Alans be feasible or would it have been a much smaller core force consisting of mounted archers & lancers with a mixed force of retainers as well as new allies, who owe them allegiance as their new overlords,or family through marriages etc. from their newly settled lands. It was a common military tactic to get part of your army to drive herds to raise dust clouds creating the impression of a much larger force. So could they have been in smaller groups at first as it was mentioned earlier in this thread that after Eochar died Sangibanus took over both groups & if true then Aetius must have approved of merger. But I doubt if Alan groups in Gaul numbered more than a few thousand.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Alanus]

Obviously, the groups between the Black and Caspian seas were substantial, the group in China even more so-- perhaps a hundred thousand in total population. The groups in France, Spain, and Italy were smaller, yet not so small that they lost their cultural identity. Maybe less than 10,000, but not consolidated as they were in the East. If we are to believe some writers, the Alan military tactics continued after Chalons. Here's a portrait of a 19th century Alan who switched to firearms. :wink:


[attachment=8340]Ramonov_vano_ossetin_northern_caucasia_dress_18_century_2013-11-09.jpg[/attachment]

His name was Vano Ramonov, an Ossetian chieftain.

[Michael Kerr]

Impressive looking chap in your pic Alanus. The sad & ironic thing about Ossets/Alans was that the further they got pushed into the Caucusus Mountains the more they would have ceded good grazing land & in turn the ability to breed significant numbers of horses which the Alans were famous for around 4th & 5th centuries. Unless you could buy or steal them.

In regards to 5th century Alans in Gaul. If Goar's group of veterans defected to Romans in 406AD then by 440AD they would have been fighting for Romans for 34 years so isn't it likely that this was the group resettled around Valence but now possibly led by Zambida. Paulinus of Pella talks about an unnamed Alan king defecting to Romans at siege of Vasatae (Aquitaine) present day Bazas in 414AD & I have to wonder what happened to them? On paper the veteran settlement at least looked like a resettlement of veterans on “deserted lands". However the other 2 instances in 442 & 447AD seem more like punitive expeditions to punish rebels & confiscate their land.
In regards to Eochar/Goar when Germanus met him on the road to Amorica he was described as an “idol worshipping" king with a fierce reputation who needed a translator to speak to Germanus yet by 447AD Goar would have fought alongside & mixed with Romans for 41 years & by this stage was probably a nominal Christian at least so he would know more than a fair bit of Latin. Even allowing for attrition & replacements in his group the core of his forces would be probably considered too old for fighting by 447AD so could Eochar's group be a more recent defection from Attila (possibly before 442AD) than Goar's original group? Any thoughts?
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

In Bachrach's "A History of the Alans in the West" he covers their settlement pretty well. The Alans mentioned in 414 were settled as a buffer around Narbona and Arelate. Goar and Sambida led two seperate groups of Alans - The ones settled in 414 I think were moved and became Sambida's, while Goars were never settled until 440.

[Alanus]

Michael,

I always believed the Goar Alanic group settled in the area closest to Armorica, probably Orleans and along the river Narbone. Basically, also neighbors of the Taifali. Although Goar was described as "idol worshiping," there are absolutely no indications, from Anything ever written by "real" Roman historians, or ever found in Sarmatian-Alanic graves by archaeologists,, that the Alans worshipped idols. (The exception being the modern duo of Littleton & Malcor, who didn't do their homework.) I'm inclined to think Goar/Eothar came straight from the same Alans converted in Pannonia by Bishop Amantius, as were the Alans under Gratian. The migration route to Gaul led straight from Pannonia. This misconception may have come from the Orthodox view of Arians as worshiping a false God (quite frankly, Arianism made more common sense than the contrived idea of the Trinity). Seems likely that Goar was replaced by Sangiban.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

With Goar and Sambida fighting together and alongside Aetius for years, it would have made sense to put Sambida in charge of Goar's Alans when Goar died. They would have respected Sambida as a leader and Sambida was loyal to Aetius, it also put the Alans in a better position to fend off Visigothic expansion northward if they were under one united group.

[Gesiþ]

That pic of Alan's gets me thinking; how much were the Alans associated with the Cossacks in the area during that time? Could there be a significant number of Sarmatian-Alan Cossacks?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You mean the Khazak? No, the Khazak were a very late Turko-Russian group. There is no relation.

[Michael Kerr]

Alanus wrote:

The migration route to Gaul led straight from Pannonia. This misconception may have come from the Orthodox view of Arians as worshiping a false God (quite frankly, Arianism made more common sense than the contrived idea of the Trinity). Seems likely that Goar was replaced by Sangiban.

In regards to Arianism.
I must admit I know little of Arianism, but what you say about ‘idol worshiping king' makes sense and the use of a translator could merely be a matter of protocol for an Alan king in Roman army to ensure that there are no misunderstandings in official, legal or military business.
But why was Arianism so acceptable to so many barbarian groups including the Alans rather than Nicene or Orthodox Creed?
Did Arianism permit polygamy which would allow many Alans to convert & still keep what to them would have been their traditional customs?
Aspar the Magister Militum of Eastern empire was an Alan & an Arian & had 3 wives. The rise of his father's family coincided with anti-Goth feeling & mistrust after Adrianople in Constantinople.
The late 10th century Byzantine patriarch Nicholas Mysticus, in a letter to the bishop of recently converted Alania who in a previous letter to the Patriach complained about polygamy being common among many Alans in his diocese, urged him

to be patient with Alans on affairs concerning marriage opposed to the rules of the church as it is not easy to accept so sudden a conversion of a pagan life into the rigour of the gospel.

I think that the reality of steppe politics being so fluid, that marriages, & the obligations expected from both parties as a result of this union either for mutual defence or expansion, regularly occurred between various Alan groups as well as with hunnic groups & Ostrogoths & they were an accepted way to cement alliances & treaties & ensure loyalty, so having a few wives and their respective retinues & children would be common among Alan or Hunnic leaders.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Marriages were a good way to cement politics and alliances - Attila's wife Ildico was a marriage to cement an alliance.

However, I think Arianism was more popular because the Transition takes time from Polytheism to Monotheism. The Romans were already beginning more monotheistic practices (Mithras, Sol Invictus, etc) when Christianity was made legal.

the Barbarians went to Arianism likely because it preserved some of their Polytheistic practices, and the Transition was easier.

[Michael Kerr]

Thanks for reply on Arianism, if I may just go back to the settlement of ‘deserted lands' around Valence by Sambida's Alans in 440AD. Taken literally ‘deserted' indicates land devoid of people & livestock & produce through war, disease or famine & therefore the settlement of Alans would be a relatively easy affair as there was no one there to dispute their claim. However Alemany adds a note of caution in his book “Sources on the Alans" that the term could possibly be a legal or official Roman term for a registered property for which taxes had not been paid. So a lot of ‘deserted lands' could still have had their previous owners living there who needed to pay up including back taxes I assume or be forcibly moved (maybe rebel landowners). Taking the Visigothic settlement in Aquitaine as an example even if they paid up they would probably still have to share 50% of their best land with Alans.
So if this was the case & the settlement of Alans was as brutal as the 2 later campaigns in 442 & 447AD. It appears that Aetius turned to the Alans as his enforcers when ‘strong arm' tactics were required which is ironic as The name Sangibanus roughly translates in Osset as ‘cangi-ban' or ‘He who has power in his arm or wing', Aetius used them 3 times in Gaul when he needed ‘to crack a few skulls' of recalcitrant Gallic or Amorican landowners or rebels, 440, 442 & 447AD. So at the battle of Chalons he must have had a lot of faith, despite the doubts & questions on their reliability that Sangibanus' Alans along with infantry support would hold the centre of his lines for as long as necessary before Hunnic army pressure built to a point where they withdrew or staged a feigned retreat.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

442 is indeed an excellent example of the Alans driving out uncompliant landlords. We do know that the Alans settled in 440 in 442 did indeed establish settlements there, but as you said the "Deserted Lands" being interpreted as "unpaying landlords" is an excellent Idea.

I may write an article on the Alans of Sambida and Goar for the upcoming year's "Steppe Nomads" of Ancient Warfare Magazine.

[Urselius]

The Alans became prominent in the Byzantine army in the late Komnenian period. At the Battle of Hyelion and Leimmocheir in 1177 the Seljuq commander was killed by an Alan soldier in the Byzantine army, with his "two-edged sword". This is suggestive that the Alans retained the use of straight broadswords. in the face of increasing use of sabres north of the Caucasus, for some time.