Sarmatian Cavalry

[Sarmatian Horseman]

So what would that mean for a saddle?

I was looking at 32" arrows, and maybe a 50lb bow. Symmetric Style, about 52 inches long? Can't remember how long they were unstrung.

[Alanus]

So what would that mean for a saddle?

I was looking at 32" arrows, and maybe a 50lb bow. Symmetric Style, about 52 inches long? Can't remember how long they were unstrung.

Modern horsebows are a little longer than Sarmatian/Hunnic originals but that helps alleviate finger-pinch. There are a number of bowyers making them. I have a couple of Istvan Toth's but they are not archeaologically correct. Never tried an Attilabows model. Lajos Kassi makes good bows but they are too "modern" looking. Of the bunch, Csaba Grozer remains faithful to original designs. He was a member of ATARN early on and conducted researh with Steven Selby. I have several Grozers, but the two I use are the 45lb Hun assymetrical I illustrated and a 40lb Hungarian, both made from horn and sinew. Cheaper models, like his biocomposites, still remain archeaologically faithful. And his Extra #2s at least have horn grips and ears.

What we need, I think, is John Conyard's imput on this matter. Judging from pics of what reenactors are using, a number of the bows are "close but not quite," if you get my gist.:wink:

As for arrows, the important thing is matching them to the bow's draw-weight. For a 50lb bow, a 32 inch shaft is fine. It's weight doesn't over-power the bow, even on a 45-pounder.:grin:

[Sarmatian Horseman]

I agree. When using horn, are the arms made just of horn, and then sinew backed? i'm familiar with Native American bows, but those are way different than Steppe style bows.

[Alanus]

Matthew,

Composite bow construction goes back to the birth of "bent-wood technology," at least to the Sintashta culture, 2,000 BC. The same methods were used to build spoked chariot wheels. For the bow, a thin sliver of birch was (is) steam-bent to a wooden form. Then layers of sinew are glued to the bow front, and time is needed between layers for the sturgeon-bladder glue to dry. Then the horn is glued to the back side of the birch strip, the whole thing always replaced on the wooden form while glue dries.

The chariot and composite bow spread across the steppes rapidly, reaching China, Greece, and Egypt. Tutankammen was buried with a composite bow. The ears attached to the arms came later, about 4th century BC. The assymetrical bow appeared early on, simply because a warrior could finish a bow even if he had short and longer pieces of horn. It was a case of neccessity, not innovation. All the warrior/maker had to do was adjust the unequal-length arms to "zero tiller," the same bending-strength above and below the grip. This is Csaba Grozer's specialty; he makes an accurate bow.

And NO, I wasn't paid by Grozer to recommend his bows.

[John Conyard]

Good morning,

I've been busy!Horses, belts and a shield to finish. Today I have an old saddle with two broken horns to fix.

I suspect I am "teaching my granny to suck eggs" but......

the reconstruction of Roman bows cannot be an exact science. Little is known about the actual style of construction used for 4th century Roman recurved bows. The length of some of the bone and antler ear laths suggests the bows were not as heavily recurved as later Mongol examples, and that they were asymmetrical, with the upper limb taller than the lower. This is useful when riding. A partially surviving Parthian weapon from Baghouz has been reconstructed. Known as the Yrzi bow after the area of the cemetery where it was found, the reconstruction had a draw weight of approximately 60-70lb (Coulston 1985 240). (James (2004) 191 gives a measurement of 80lb). But the Middle-Eastern tradition of bow making would differ from that of the Huns of Central Asia, and possibly from whatever methods were used in the state fabricae. The Central Asian influence can be seen in the “Qum-Darya Bow”, found in a mass grave associated with a Chinese frontier post. Dated from the 1st century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. similar ear and grip laths spread west with Hunnic influence. They are found in western Europe on such sites as Blucina and Wien-Simmering. Such bows used up to seven ear and grip laths, compared to four on the Yrzi bow. Using ATARN you will be able to find other achaeological finds.

Modern recurve bows cannot truly mirror those of the past. In the same way modern powerful yew self-bows do not exactly correlate to archaeological finds.

http://comitatus.net/pdfs/newsletter-bhaa-issue-2.pdf contains a good article about buying recurve bows. I too use a Grozer Hunnic bow, as the best "off the shelf" answer. I fear I will not spend a fortune on a bow it will take me an instant to break when I fall off the horse. Too many Comitatus members use Skythian symetrical bows, citing the use of such a bow in two 3rd century carvings of hunting equipment from the Haute-Loire region of France, showing their use in an arcuballista or crossbow.

I buy western style wood arrows from lots of different makers, generally with just the fletchings glued on. I can then bind the fletchings, and add a suitable head, as seen on the Comitatus website.

Once again I suspect I am stating what we already know, but .......

Two types of release can be used. The eastern or Mongolian release may have been used in the east from the 3rd century, with the arrow shot to the right of the bow and the string drawn back by the thumb. The eastern thumb draw uses a thumb ring, however a western or Mediterranean two or three-fingered release seems to have been the general method used in Roman Europe. Arrows were shot to the left of the bow, with the nock of the arrow held between the index and middle finger.

Arrows were either broad heads or trilobate designs to cut as much muscle and blood vessel as possible, or narrow bodkins designed to penetrate shields and armour. Arrowheads can be socketed or tanged. A shaft with a tanged head will be susceptible to breakage in some conditions. The weight of head will effect the distance the arrow can be shot. Light 40g flight arrows can travel over 200m from my 80lb bow. Indeed Vegetius states targets should be set up at 600 Roman feet (177m)(Vegetius, Epit. II.23.) However it is probable that a selection of light, medium and heavy arrows would be carried to allow the archer to respond to a variety of threats. Heavy 70g arrows will have their greatest velocity during the first 50m of flight, and be used at relatively close ranges. Light arrows would allow a target to be peppered at 200m. The arrows from Dura and Micia in Roman Dacia were made of reed with wooden foreshafts to take the arrowhead ( Bishop and Coulston (2006) 168). But arrows from bog burials give us versions of western-style arrow construction from solid pine or ash. Shafts had parallel sides, but were tapered slightly at the fletchings widening again at the knock to prevent breakage (Jorgensen L., Storgaard B. and Andersen J.S. (2003) 269). This shape of shaft would also mean the arrows would leave the shaft cleanly. James suggested that the nature of the wooden foreshafts at Dura were not designed for holding a metal head, and the reed arrows were primarily for hunting or for target shooting ( James (2004) 196). I have experimented with reed arrows and found them too weak to be shot from high poundage bows. They do seem better suited to weaker hunting bows.

Fletchings were not “corkscrewed” about the shaft to impart a spin. Such a system would only increase drag. The natural curvature and twist of the feather will impart a spin giving increased accuracy. Surviving fletchings from Dura show that western and eastern styles were used in the east (James (2004) 197-198). In the west a recognisable cock-feather lies at ninety degrees to the knock, in the east one of the three feathers is on the axis of the knock. Western style fletchings would also stop around 25mm from the knock to allow the fingers to grip the arrow. Eastern style fletchings can be taken to the end of the knock.

In my own mind I have yet to form an opinion if the Sarmatians - early,late or in the Roman army, used reed arrows or wooden ones, or the eastern or western release. I would need to go and consider the evidence. Sorry!

In terms of saddles I appreciate there are earlier versions of steppe saddles. From felt saddle pads stuffed with hair from Skthian graves to rather clever arrangements of leather tubes with wooden spacers. I would appreciate any photos people have.

http://dariocaballeros.blogspot.com/2011...chive.html is a very evocative and useful site.


Bishop M.C. and Coulston J.C.N. (1993) Roman Military Equipment (2nd edition) (Oxford 2006).

Coulston J.C. (1985) “Roman Archery Equipment” in Bishop M.C. The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. Proceedings of the Second Roman Military Equipment Seminar, BAR International Series 275, Oxford, 220-366.

James S. (2004) Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937 Final report VII The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment (London 2004).

Jorgensen L., Storgaard B. and Andersen J.S. (2003) eds. “The Spoils of Victory” (Copenhagen 2003)

Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science. translated Milner N.P. (Liverpool 1993).

[Alanus]

Slightly later in the morning, but I'm still up.

Thanks, John. Your input would surely cover points I missed, and they did.
In particular, the "corkscewy" idea of arrow-making. I tried these things, shot them as I watched a slow-moving stick create noise as it went down-range. What a piece of junk! I have a half a box totally unused and they never will be.

Your mention of wrapping the fletching is a good one. That's why I use Szaloky's arrows. He wraps the feathers.

Again, the assymetrical "Hun" ranks high, as well as Grozer as its maker. Fact is, I know of no-one else (for an "off-the-shelf" maker) who produces them except for Lajos Kassi, but his bows are "modern." I suspect that the most pratical bows for horseback were assymetrical, and for good reason.

Well anyway, thanks for the informative post. I never realized the "armor-piercing" bodkin was that early. As for shafts, I have one reed one, never used because it seems fragile. Most arrows in the U.S. are made from Port Orford cedar, but mine are European fir I think. They are heavier than cedar, but-- man!-- they shoot straight and stay straight.:grin:

[Vindex]

Thanks for the link to the dariocaballeros site John - excellent.

[Sarmatian Horseman]

What size should scales be? I'm thinking 1.25" x 2", rounded on the ends.

[jvrjenivs]

What size should scales be? I'm thinking 1.25" x 2", rounded on the ends.

Well, that depends. Scales of various sizes have been found. And do you mean scales for a human armour of for the horse? Differ also a bit.

[Alanus]

Jurjenius is correct. Sizes differed, perhaps on the same set of armor, smaller ones for elbow-length sleeves. The smaller they are, the more you have to cut. The bigger they are, the less fluid your motions. But you have the right idea on not making the scales pointed. The pointed ones "catch" and cut.

[Sarmatian Horseman]

Ok. So would a good rule of thumb be twice as large for the horse, since it would be covering the upper part of the legs and neck, letting the legs move unencumbered?

What about protection from rust? Maybe using a clear laquer to help protect from rust?

[John Conyard]

Your best bet is to look at an archaeological report such as James S. (2004) Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937 Final report VII The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment (London 2004).

[Alanus]

Hello All!

Spent the weekend at a traditional archery symposium.:grin:
And I just found a couple of archaeological goodies. First, look at these amazing arrowheads:
[attachment=754]40-inchSarmatiansword001.JPG[/attachment]
These are bronze-age heads from a 7th century BC Massagetae grave in the Amu Darya delta, emtying into the Aral Sea. Arrowheads #8 and especially #10 certainly look like later armor-piercing bodkins. All of them are bronze, some bilobate and trilobate.

Then I found this amazing find:
[attachment=755]40-inchSarmatiansword008.JPG[/attachment]
Here we have the actual archaeological dimensions of the Sarmatian long-sword. It's dated 200 to 100BC. The total length is 1 metre; the grip is 22cm. That makes the grip 9 inches long without the missing pommel. If we had 1 1/2 inches for the pommel, the sword comes out at almost 41 inches long.

This is what the authors Kubyshkin and Mabe say about it: "The iron sword in Burial 2, Kurgan 3, has a diamond-shaped hilt. Similar swords were found in Sarmatian sites in the Volga-Don steppes dating no earlier than 150 BC. This sword style also bears the influence of Chinese traditions, as similar swords with long handles and diamond-shaped hilts made from iron and bronze were widespread during the Han Dynasty. We know of 20 swords of this type from Sarmatian burials, some of which are very similar to Chinese bladed-weapons.":grin:

I believe that what they call a "diamond-shaped hilt" is actually the "disk pommel" as defined by sword historian Thomas Chen, and as built into my reproduction early Wusun/Alanic version, pictured below:
[attachment=756]diamond-shapedpommel002.JPG[/attachment]

[John Conyard]

One for Alanus,

This is me dressed up and messing around by the campfire over the weekend. It was very cold at night and the steppe coat, hat and boots helped keep me warm! Normal "Roman" clothing was in use the following day.

[Alanus]

A really warm-looking kaftan, John!
I could have used it over the weekend, too. The archery symposium was in the higher altitudes of Maine and almost freezing at night. On Saturday eve, I wore my steppe impression and gave a talk on the composite bow's history. The New York state instructors loved it, now bringing home the idea of including living history into their archery courses.

Found a little more about weapon dimensions from Dr. Anthony's book. Early Sintashta and Andronovo bows varied between 1.2m to 1.5m. I can visualize 1.2 (47 inches on this side of the Pond) but the longer dimension comes out to 59 inches! That's equivalent to composite bows made today. Yet these early bows could not have had the additions of siyahs (ears). Just sounds too long, even though the measurements must have been made on un-strung bows.

Mikail Treister gives more on swords and bow-cases combined with the two long quivers, based on examining 76 Bosporan grave stelae. He dates them from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD. Concerning swords which had slides... "attached to the scabbards to hang the sword on the sword-belt-- these are swords of Chinese origin or they have Chinese prototypes. In China of the Han dynasties the scabbard slides, as well as the scabbard endings, cross-guards, and hilt finials, were executed primarily of jade and had elaborate decoration, as, for instance, the elements of the sword found in the tomb of Zhao Mao, dated to 122 BC."

Treister finishes with this: "The combined finds of long swords with bronze cross-guards and the daggers with rectangular cross-guards and ring-shaped finials are known in some of the Sarmatian burials in the Lower Volga and Don basins, dated already to 2nd-1st centuries BC, as well as in the 1st century AD burial #4 of the Tillya-tepe necropolis in Northern Afghanistan. These finds confirm the eastern roots of such a combination of arms."

So I think I was close in my reconstruction, although I couldn't afford jade beyond the stone on the pommel. The blade is shorter than it should be, but I no longer ride a horse, basically using the sword as a "prop."

It's far more pleasant down here on the seacoast and the apple blossoms are out.