I been reading a lot on Roman cavalry tactics. I read from the book "Roman army: the Greatest military War machine" that Roman cavalry in the Principate were mainly skirmishers and rarely collided with enemy infantry.
Only till the 2nd century units of Contus armed cavalry infantry started to appear but only in limited numbers. I think it wasn't till Gallienus, Romans used lancers massively. I also read from the book German Foderetii tended to collide like Medieval knights but the Roman citizen cavalry tended not to.
The Contus seemed to appear early in the Republican period and cavalry charges seem to be more decisive, like Zama, Magnesia and Telamon but disappeared with Marius. What happened? Why didn't the Romans train their Auxilaries and mercenaries in these tactics till Gallienus? Pompey I believe had some Roman citizen cavalry trained in Easter shock tactics at Pharspalus.
Roman infantry seemed to be carrying the Contus as well in Hadrian era, but Arrian probally was referring to the Pila. Spear armed Legionaires don't seem to appear to Severus. How well did the Legion stand up to straight and flaking cavalry charges? Did the Principate Legions or the 3rd and 4th centuries do better against cavalry charges?
Also the development of Cataphracts and later Medieval Knight tactics, should this be credited to Sarmatians, Persians, Germans or the Romans themselves?
Quote:Also the development of Cataphracts and later Medieval Knight tactics, should this be credited to Sarmatians, Persians, Germans or the Romans themselves?
Between Cataphracts and Medieval Knights are about 500 years of development. So i would not like to credit ancients that much for medieval warfare, even if there are relations.
The first roman cataphract ala was founded in the early 2nd century in Moesia. Most probably it should counter sarmatian forces. So yes, the iranian steppe tribes should receive our credit. Also the Parthians were steppe tribes before they invaded Parthia. Even the Persians came perhaps from these northern steppes, but more than 500 years earlier.
The interesting question is, why the romans adopted this style that late and not latest after Charrae.
I have no clue, which origins the greek heavy cavalry had, but the romans obviously adopted the sarmatian/parthian style.
The germans are mixed. The western german tribes were not that cavalry heavy, even if they had good cavalry, but rather the classic type. But the Goths had a strong heavy cavalry, which they probably established after contact with the sarmatians. So again the iranian steppe tribes.
I don't think Romans introduced contus till reign of Hadrian & even after that the javelin was primary cavary weapon for Roman horsemen for a while? I think at Zama both cavalries had Numidian light cavalry, not lancers. I think Magnesia was the first battle where Romans fought against cataphracts. I don't know what type of spears or javelins Romans used prior to Marius but pila volleys, although effective against the predominately infantry armies of their earlier enemies, probably were shown to be less effective against later cavalry, especially horse archers who could out range them so they probably loaded their armies with auxilliary archers to boost their long range weapons ability. Realistically I think most cavalry attacks would be aimed at flanks or rear after clearing defending cavalry rather than front. As to influences on Roman cavalry who knows, they never forgot Carrhae so probably Parthian horse archery but encounters with Roxolani heavy cavalry closer to home on Danube was probably a major influence on heavy cavalry tactics but I think the Romans always admired the fighting ability of the Celtic or Gallic cavalry & they were probably the major influence in regards to horse gear, weaponry & saddles etc. As to similarity with medieval knights, probabably not, as contus was used with both hands in either overhand or underhand posture & no stirrups or shield. These are just my opinions though.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Quote:I don't think Romans introduced contus till reign of Hadrian & even after that the javelin was primary cavary weapon for Roman horsemen for a while?
Afaik heavy cavalry / cataphracts never became the main cavalry force of the romans.
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. And finally, not every mounted lancer with a contus is a cataphract or shock cavalry.
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"
There are a number of difficulties with the way Roman cavalry are percieved, in my opinion. Contus-armed cavalry - and there were [i]contarii[/i] as well as cataphractarii and clibanarii in the later Roman army - were specialised shock cavalry, but this does not mean that cavalry not armed with the contus were incapable of shock action.
The 'standard' Roman cavalryman of both the Pricipate and Dominate might have been armed with javelins, but he was also armed with a hasta and had a shield and armour. Indeed most contemporary images of Roman cavalry show a spear being wielded in a thrusting manner, not a javelin being thrown.The hasta does not differ greatly in size or capability from the lances wielded by the Norman knights at Hastings, who did not couch their lances; and depictions show these knights using overarm thrusts much as most depictions of Roman cavalry do.
The main difference between contus-armed cavalry and 'standard' Roman cavalry is one of specialisation. The standard Roman cavalryman could do patrol and screening work, in battle he could skirmish or engage in close or shock combat with the hasta, he was a flexible soldier. The contus armed cavalryman could only do one thing, battlefield shock action; he was better at this than the 'standard' cavalryman, but he could not do the other duties.
There is at least one passage in Ammianus Book XXXI of his history where he describes infantry being armed with contus, rendered by the translator as 'pikes'. It may well be an experiment by Valentinian who Ammianus and one other ancient author claimed was 'an inventor of new kinds of arms'. It's only during the reigns of Valentinian and his brother Valens do we see any reference to Roman infantry using the old Pilum, referred to in the various passages as 'pilis', which may indicate that Valentinian reintroduced the use of that weapon during his reign.
Hi, new to this board. Was wondering the best way I could get advise on an old wood carving I discovered. From my limited research it appears to me to be a Cataphract or Sarmatian. It is a rider on horseback with scale armor on his chest, what appears to be a bucket helmet on his head except I see some scales on the helmet as well. Appears there are also some long scales hanging from the back of the helmet to cover the neck. There are some missing pieces behind the rider. Can not tell if there is a long cape flowing behind him or maybe he was holding a banner or a pike with some flowing material on it. I have seen similar depiction in some artwork. One was of Mathianes, son of Zaidar and the other was a Sarmatian Horseman. Now I am so curious, I have to find out more. Please let me know if you have sugeestion as to how to go about. Thank you.
I just posted something to this board in regards to a carved wood item I discovered. It looks very similar to the object you picture in association with your user name. Please read my question and help if you can. Thank you
No offense taken. I am not saying it is several hundred years old, but I buy a lot of antique wood items and I can say for sure it is at least 100 years old by the texture and hardnest of the wood and the patina that runs deep into it. I was just trying to see if anyone knows what or who it depicts. I just recently started studying ancient armor like the lorikon alusidaton and various scaled armor and began finding all these other painting, sculptures, etc and a lot of them look similar to this carving so now my interest is peaked to find out more. Thank you for you input.
