04-01-2010, 02:40 PM
Just a couple of points
1 Bachrach. It strikes me that he has much to offer, but is disliked by other historians. They make the point about playing fast and loose with the souces in pursuit of his point and they are right. Bachrach does offer interesting insights and really put together the Alan thesis which made a viable story of their influence in the West. Its just that his assemblage of evidence and then interpretation goes beyond what we can reasonably derive.
So his (Bachrachs) Alans are heavy cavalry and the ancestors of the mediaeval knight. This fits with Jordanes' description of the Alans at the Nedao (heavy armed) and with the description in a Saint's life of Goar's armoured cavalry.
If the Alans have a light cavalry component (which is not referred to in the Vth century) then we can reasonably expect it to have been a horse archer force because the Alans are steppe dwellers.
Some centuries later the Bretons appear as mounted javelin throwers. They impress a chronicler with their dashing evolutions. They are not using bows and they are not heavy armed lancers. The one supposed reference to breton horse armour is explained away by historians as being a reference to equipment rather than armour (arma as 'arms or kitted out). It certainly is not corroborated by any other evidence and does not well fit with light skirmishing javelin tactics.
These light javelin cavalry seem more likely to be either an original Breton invenntion or to be derived from British originals. Certainly there is no mention of Alan light cavalry in the Vth century and there is plenty of mention of Alan/Sarmatian heavy cavalry in Ammianus Marcellinus, Tacitus, Pausanias etc,
Bachrach does similar things with the Carolingian inheritance of Roman methods . He quotes Agathias on the fight at Rimini in a context in which he is linking to the survival and use opf Vegetius' manual. Its a long stretch from 550Ad to 750 AD. That's not to say that he is complettely wrong, just that there are other potential interpretations (such as that Franks etc always formed shieldwall against hostile cavalry).
So his ideas are fruitful, but like much archaeology, a possibility becomes a fact in order to build upon that fact and use it for the next stage of interpretation.
With both the Alans and the Taifali (anyone seen an original source quote on ther fighting style?? except to say that they are like Alans) it is quite possible that the mode of combat dies out leaving the laeti settlements with their new names as the pressures of farming (which they presumambly have to do) and surviving take over.
As to Alans in Britannia, there are sarmatian units in Britain in the Notitia, but we may be being overly hopeful to see them continuing on after the breakdown. This is simply because the collapsed economy does not provide enough resource to keep specialist warbands except for those around the kings (tyranni) of the small states that emerge. Most of these are tiny and keeping together a couple of hundred full time cavalry will have been a huge effort for them. What evidence we have is for cavalry that have throwing spears and shields rather than lances and armour.
Roy
1 Bachrach. It strikes me that he has much to offer, but is disliked by other historians. They make the point about playing fast and loose with the souces in pursuit of his point and they are right. Bachrach does offer interesting insights and really put together the Alan thesis which made a viable story of their influence in the West. Its just that his assemblage of evidence and then interpretation goes beyond what we can reasonably derive.
So his (Bachrachs) Alans are heavy cavalry and the ancestors of the mediaeval knight. This fits with Jordanes' description of the Alans at the Nedao (heavy armed) and with the description in a Saint's life of Goar's armoured cavalry.
If the Alans have a light cavalry component (which is not referred to in the Vth century) then we can reasonably expect it to have been a horse archer force because the Alans are steppe dwellers.
Some centuries later the Bretons appear as mounted javelin throwers. They impress a chronicler with their dashing evolutions. They are not using bows and they are not heavy armed lancers. The one supposed reference to breton horse armour is explained away by historians as being a reference to equipment rather than armour (arma as 'arms or kitted out). It certainly is not corroborated by any other evidence and does not well fit with light skirmishing javelin tactics.
These light javelin cavalry seem more likely to be either an original Breton invenntion or to be derived from British originals. Certainly there is no mention of Alan light cavalry in the Vth century and there is plenty of mention of Alan/Sarmatian heavy cavalry in Ammianus Marcellinus, Tacitus, Pausanias etc,
Bachrach does similar things with the Carolingian inheritance of Roman methods . He quotes Agathias on the fight at Rimini in a context in which he is linking to the survival and use opf Vegetius' manual. Its a long stretch from 550Ad to 750 AD. That's not to say that he is complettely wrong, just that there are other potential interpretations (such as that Franks etc always formed shieldwall against hostile cavalry).
So his ideas are fruitful, but like much archaeology, a possibility becomes a fact in order to build upon that fact and use it for the next stage of interpretation.
With both the Alans and the Taifali (anyone seen an original source quote on ther fighting style?? except to say that they are like Alans) it is quite possible that the mode of combat dies out leaving the laeti settlements with their new names as the pressures of farming (which they presumambly have to do) and surviving take over.
As to Alans in Britannia, there are sarmatian units in Britain in the Notitia, but we may be being overly hopeful to see them continuing on after the breakdown. This is simply because the collapsed economy does not provide enough resource to keep specialist warbands except for those around the kings (tyranni) of the small states that emerge. Most of these are tiny and keeping together a couple of hundred full time cavalry will have been a huge effort for them. What evidence we have is for cavalry that have throwing spears and shields rather than lances and armour.
Roy
Roy Boss
