I've researched a lot regarding the migrating tribes in the 5th century, specially the Alans. Read "A History of the Alans in the West", and though it's a good read, does numerous mentions on how they assimilated local culture and basically slowly let their traditions fade away because they were so welcome to foreigners.
My question is: regarding the Alans that stayed in Gaul as Rome's foederati (near Armorica and southwest/western modern France), how would one determine the "rate" of transition? Let's estimate pre-Chalóns and post-Chalóns, for instance.
Given there's numerous source materials on how the Sarmatians fought and their similar war strategies with the Huns, but more focused on heavy cavalry lancers. The dominating strategy of the time was already the mounted archery tactic. So how did they lose such an important cultural trait when it's clear that it was the most important and valuable thing they could offer as foederati? I know they were assignated as the main clashers against the Hunnic forces, and even were called as mounted troops, but this doesn't fit with the standard "culture loss due to the culture melting pot" theory.
If I see a source material of a 2nd century Sarmatian, would that fit a Taifal/Alanic horseman as well? Or would they have more "romanized" weapons and clothes/armor?
The Alans of the late 4th to early 5th century were pastoral nomads like the various earlier Sarmatian groups of the 1st to 3rd centuries before them. All the earlier sources describe them as living in wagons or having either felt or wicker strut tents mounted on wagons which would have been demounted from their wagons or carts when an encampment was established. I don’t believe that trellis tents or yurts were invented till much later by the Turks who could dismantle their tents and carry them on mules, horses or camels whereas the Sarmatian/Alan tents would have been heavier structures not easily dismantled necessitating the need for wagons. They would travel with their herds in the harsher climate of the unprotected steppe lands from the Don to the Danube where they wandered according to the seasons, rainfall patterns and most importantly water sources. All the massive river systems flowing into the Black Sea from the Don to the Danube would have had massive wetland areas in Roman times which would have provided plenty of moisture rich grasses and meant that the nomads could maintain larger herds of sheep, cattle and more importantly horses, entailing necessary equestrian skills for herding, mobility and defence of the encampment as well as seasonal raiding for resources like grain and salt for the health of their herds.
These massive river systems would have contained lots of wild game and fish for hunting and fishing so use of the bow would have been a necessity even if the bow had became a secondary weapon of the Sarmatians and Alans. They probably did some farming but not extensively and mainly millet. In their migrations to Gaul the ability to maintain large herds would have diminished and the climate would have been a lot milder and not subject as much to variations in rainfall and temperature negating the need for large seasonal migrations. In a couple of generations they would have found it more convenient to ditch their wagons and felt tents and live in permanent structures as there would have been plenty of sources of building materials and most importantly the climate to grow their own food, they could no longer raid their neighbours unless ordered to by the Romans or extort money from the Romans for peace like in the good old days so they became over time farmers and not herders.
As to their martial skills, I have always assumed the use of the contus and heavier armour and charging in disciplined formations was developed or copied from other people like the Massagetae, by the various Sarmatian groups to combat horse archers and there have been many debates in this forum as to whether they were effective against disciplined Roman infantry although in the two more famous descriptions, one by Tacitus describing the defeat of the Roxolani while attempting to cross the lower Danube with their booty and the other by Cassius Dio who described the defeat of the Iazyges on the frozen Danube near Pannonia. On both cases the conditions didn’t suit the cavalry charge with the Roxolani caught in wet and slushy conditions and the overconfident Iazyges confronting a Roman square formation on slippery ice which they couldn’t flank and the Roman front rank using their comrades shields to give them a firm footing so that they could confront the Iazyges.
Philippe Richardot in his book La Fin De L’armée Romaine (284-476) wrote that the Alans fighting for Aetius at Chalons would have looked a lot different to the Alans that fought with Saphrax and Alatheus at Adrianople as they would have been armed & equipped with Roman equipment but they probably would have still used the classic steppe tactics though with feigned retreats and massed disciplined charges a feature of their style of warfare. They probably faced Alans fighting for Attila as some Alan tribes submitted to the Huns and there were a lot of Alan/Sarmatian connections with Greuthungi Goths & the Amali rulers, who fought with Attila at Chalons. Apparently Attila was angry with the leader of the Alans, Sangiban as he thought there was an agreement where Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans to Attila thereby allowing the Hunnic army to cross the Loire river and raid Visigoth territory so there was still contact between Alans to a degree, on both sides of the fence in 451AD.
The Roxolani were famous for the use of the contus and the long heavy sword but the Iazyges, as noted by Cassius Dio used a shorter lance and carried shields, probably because they had more contact with their neighbours the Quadi in regards to weaponry and fighting tactics as the Quadi would have by contact with the Iazyges with cavalry playing an important role in their forces. So in a nutshell there are lots of reasons why the Alans changed over time, just a couple of generations I think. The Romans did not allow large groups of Alans or Sarmatians to settle in Roman territory only small groups with favoured leaders in an attempt to play one group against another. Of course the wealthier leadership of the Alans would have fared better than the poorer ones with larger landholdings and tenant farmers to do the work & they could afford quality horses & maintain their equestrian skills with hunts and falconry. 8-)
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:Philippe Richardot in his book La Fin De L’armée Romaine (284-476) wrote that the Alans fighting for Aetius at Chalons would have looked a lot different to the Alans that fought with Saphrax and Alatheus at Adrianople as they would have been armed & equipped with Roman equipment but they probably would have still used the classic steppe tactics though with feigned retreats and massed disciplined charges a feature of their style of warfare. They probably faced Alans fighting for Attila as some Alan tribes submitted to the Huns and there were a lot of Alan/Sarmatian connections with Greuthungi Goths & the Amali rulers, who fought with Attila at Chalons. Apparently Attila was angry with the leader of the Alans, Sangiban as he thought there was an agreement where Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans to Attila thereby allowing the Hunnic army to cross the Loire river and raid Visigoth territory so there was still contact between Alans to a degree, on both sides of the fence in 451AD.
The idea that Sangiban was supposed to surrender Orleans is IMO highly over-emphasized considering the Alans of Goar (later Sangiban) were almost fanatically loyal to the Romans and Aetius in the primary sources.
But yeah, you wouldn't happen to be able to give me the reference for this would you? This is extremely useful.
Quote:XXXVII But before we set forth the order of the battle itself, it seems needful to relate what had already happened in the course of the campaign, for it was not only a famous struggle but one that was complicated and confused. Well then, Sangiban, king of the Alani, smitten with fear of what might come to pass, had promised to surrender to Attila, and to give into his keeping Aureliani, a city of Gaul wherein he dwelt.
The late Austrian historian Hermann Schreiber in his book Die Hunnen is pretty scathing of Sangiban as well. He has devoted about 48 pages in his book to the campaign of Attila in Gaul and the possible location of the battlefield.
Whatever happened to Eochar, dying of old age or removed because of his age, we don't know, but the Alans would have been tribal & supported their tribal leader. Sangiban appears to have been a slippery, untrustworthy character & we don't know his relationship to the late Eochar (son, nephew, brother?) Its a pity about Chalons that it was all about the leaders & not the troops. Whereas Aetius probably trusted Eochar it is likely that he didn't place the same amount of trust in Sangiban if you go by the likely dispositions of the battle. As it was the Alans & Sangiban came through for the Romans as Attila in his haste to get at the Alans got caught in a pincer move between Thorismond on the right & other Roman auxilliary cavalry on the left with the Alans turning & pinning him from the front in a possible feigned retreat move.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Nobody in their right mind would place their most unreliable ally in the center. The Alans were placed in the center because, as the Strategikon notes, heavy cavalry lancers are the most effective for fighting the "Scythian" peoples (Huns and Avars).
There was no "pincer movement" either: The Goths completely routed and the Alans with possibly Thorismund and the Gothic cavalry attacked the Hunnic Center causing Attila's battle line to collapse and both armies simultaneously fell into disarray.
Remember, Jordanes was EXTREMELY biased against the Alans.
Maybe he was biased but what other sources can even come close in reporting the battle as he had access to sources closer to the action. Cassiodorus's father accompanied Aetius's son in negotiations with Attila at around this time. We all pick and choose our sources and try to point out their alleged bias. Other evidence about the battle is merely modern opinion except for the various mentions by a few Christian authors later on. Was Gregory of Tours not writing to praise the contributions of the Franks in the battle. But all the authors were biased, Gregory of Tours, Isodore for the Visigoths, Fredegar for the Franks. We have lost the works of Priscus and Cassiodorus and we know so little of the actual battle only what modern authors tell us.
We have no idea of the true dispositions of the battle only a rough sketch by Jordanes but if you want a classic comparison look at Hannibal's dispositions in the battle of Cannae where he put his most unreliable troops and probably placed himself there as well to give heart, in the centre for the Romans to attack and putting his best troops on the wing. The Romans got sucked into the centre and got crushed by the wings. Why would Aetius not do the same. Attila went for the Alans and got caught on the wings. Classic sucker punch. It seems that the Ostrogoths and Gepids on Attila's left and his other German allies on the right got taken out of the battle because Attila rushed forward and when his centre retreated the wings did likewise. Confusion reigned after that which suggests a rout. Maybe the Romans and Visigoths took a lot of casualties attacking Attila's encampment. This shot below is a rough one from my camera of one of the stages as depicted by Richardot in his book. Sure there could be other theories but I have not heard a sensible alternative one yet which is why most authors just do a summary of the battle without actually getting into the nuts and bolts of it. IMO Aetius knowing his enemy used Sangiban as bait but Aetius while being an excellent politician & probably a reasonably competent general, was no Hannibal so on the scoreboard you have to score Chalons as a tactical draw but strategic victory for the Romans as Attila's army left the field & eventually Gaul but having lost a large part of his elite Hunnic troops in the battle as they were the ones caught in the centre. I think they were going anyway so the battle was probably a waste of lives as Attila still had the strength to attack Italy later on.
But when it is all said and done we are all armchair generals and the lack of basic information about the battle means that there will always be disagreement on how battle evolved and was fought and Jordanes is the main source I am afraid biased or not and he probably was in his description of the battle and the contribution of the Visigoths. All I am saying is do we choose to ignore his opinion of Sangiban but accept his version of how the battle was won? Jordanes unfortunately was not a military man & also supposedly had Alan blood through his father so I think if there was bias it was towards Sangiban rather than the Alans in general, maybe Sangiban had a now lost bad reputation. In regards to the Strategikon why would Attila send in his vulnerable horse archers against the Alans in the centre if he knew that they would be vulnerable to heavy lancers, why not the Ostrogoths who at least had some experience with the Alannic way of fighting and in some cases probably fought the same way. Not criticizing the Alans as a military force as they played a big part in the battle but maybe Sangiban was an unsavoury character who did not warrant the trust that Eochar did?
I am in the middle of kitchen renovations at the moment so don't have the time at present to discuss location of battlefield on the other thread but when kitchen is complete I shall post.
[attachment=12353]Chalons-2.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
I think Michael has given you a good background on the Alans, aka the Late Sarmatian Culture. And Evan has rightly questioned the perhaps-warped authorial assumption that Sangiban was in cahoots with Attila. Jordanes mentions that the Alans were "unreliable" and retreated almost immediately after hitting Attila's center. This sounds like a familiar steppe tactic-- suck 'em in with the "Old Parthian Shot Trick." Fact is, although the Alans and Huns arrived from Central Asia, they were two entirely different groups with a long-standing cultural disparity.
My field of endeavor goes back to the beginning-- trying to figure out where, and when, the Alanic confederation materialized... and who was their greatest enemy. To understand the 5th century Alans (and Huns), it's handy to review their origins. Going back to the second millennium BC, two disparate cultures existed along the borders of China. The Indo-European Yue-chi were located in the Gansu Corridor (western China) and along the north of the Tarim Basin. Another closely-related IE culture-- the Saka/Massagetae-- were to the west and north (including the Altai). Both groups interacted with the Chinese. A Chinese princess married a Pazyryk chieftain, arriving in a royal chariot. Yet even earlier, it would appear that a Saka princess married a Shang Dynasty emperor. Her name was Fu Hao (died c.1250 BC); and she became the high Shang general, leading an army of up to 10,000 men against hostile Altaic-speaking tribes along the northern border. These tribes, yet to unite into a confederation, were the ancestors of the Xiong-nu... the Huns.
[attachment=12354]fuhao.jpg[/attachment]
A modern statue of Fu Hao with Asiatic features.
The incredibly long-term association between the Saka/Yue-chi and the Chinese descended into the Alanic culture, and roughly 30% of Alanic female graves contain women with Asiatic facial features. On the other hand, Alanic men were described as green or blue-eyed with blondish hair.
Around 300 BC, the Xiong-nu finally arose as a tight confederation. At this time, the Chinese hired the Yue-chi to teach them cavalry tactics, to improve their armor, to teach hose-back archery, and to improve their swords (making them longer and substituting iron for bronze). Here's a photo of the armor of Qin Shi-Huandi, also known as The First Emperor or "the Terra Cotta Army Guy."
[attachment=12355]QinLamellarScaleArmor.jpg[/attachment]
We are looking at standard Alanic armor, a traditional lamellar bodice with scale aprons. It's almost identical to my own Roxolani armor.
How inextricably odd! Even more interesting is the so-called "Type 1 Late Sarmatian sword," which is mentioned by Tacitus in AD 69, and from all appearances is nearly identical to the average jade appointed "Han Dynasty long-sword." These swords were rigged with a scabbard slide, typically adopted by the Roman Cavalry, and shown in the famous diptograph of Flavius and Serena Stilicho. Interestingly (or not) a beautiful Chinese nephrite-jade slide of the Hydra Class has been found on a scabbard of a Roxolani king, his grave unearthed in Chatalka, Bulgaria.
[attachment=12356]Chatalka_NephriteScabbard.jpg[/attachment]
Chinese slide from Roxolani grave in Bulgaria.
Without getting overly long-winded, I just wanted to point out that the Chinese-Alanic connection was quite amazing, although Roman historians were totally unaware of it. The 1st millennium BC Saka confederation was broken by the Xiong-nu, the Huns, and slowly replaced by the "Late Sarmatian Culture," actually a confederation of late Saka, a splinter of the Yue-chi, plus the Kanju, and Wusun (the latter whom Pita Kelekna openly calls Alans.) The new confederation headed north, then west, arriving in Roman territory first as the Roxolani, followed by the Taifali, and then the major group of Alans. These tribes were all part Asiatic in appearance and culture. On the other hand, the Iazyges were not an Alanic tribe but rather a remaining group of western Saroumatae closely related to the Scythians.
As a final aside, the two large federations-- the Alans (Saka/Massagetae) and the Huns (Xiong-nu) never were "compatable." The two groups always clashed. Perhaps the only exception was the Safrax-Alatheus band of Greutungi, Alans, and Huns, which disappeared into the grasslands of Pannonia and even possibly reached Scandinavia. The Alans were heavy cavalry, dependent on armor, the longsword, and contus. On the other hand, the Huns were archery oriented. Not that the Alans or Saka were unfamiliar with the compound bow-- and even the great female general Fu Hao's tomb contained a pile of bone arrowheads.
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
There is an account of a Sarmatian attack on two Roman legions in Ammianus-
'By these stumbling-blocks (so to speak) the barbarians were turned from attacking the city, having little skill in such refinements of warfare as well as being impeded by their packs of booty, and turned to the pursuit of Aequitius. And when they learned from the information of prisoners that he had gone to the remote spaces of Valeria, they quickly made their way thither, grinding their teeth and bent upon cutting his throat for this reason — that they believed that it was he who had brought their guiltless king to destruction. When this became known, at headlong speed two legions were sent to meet them in battle, the Pannonica and the Moesiaca, a strong combination for fighting, which, if they had acted in harmony, would undoubtedly have come off victorious. But while they were hastening to attack the bands of plunderers separately, they were made ineffective by quarrels that broke out between them, and contended for honour and prestige. When the Sarmatians, who were very keen-witted, learned of this, without waiting for the usual signal for battle, they attacked the Moesiaca first; and while the soldiers were somewhat slow in getting their arms ready because of the confusion, they killed a great number of them, and then with increased confidence broke through the line of the Pannonica. They thus threw the whole army into disorder, and with repeated attacks would almost have annihilated it, had not speedy flight saved some from the danger of death.' Amm Bk XXVIIII, 6, 12-15
The Alan's from at least the AD36's were enaged in a war with the Greuthungi Goth's and were joined by the Huns. Hun's and Alan's pursued the Goths to the Danube in 376AD and bands of Alan's either joined the Goth's or assisted in Hunnic attacks on them. A band of Alan's were responsible for delaying Gratian's arrival at Adrianople in 378AD and Gratian himself was stated as installing Alan's as his personal bodyguard which led to resentment and Gratian's assassination.
Yes the Sarmatians (Iazyges/Roxolani?) living on the Hungarian plain did not disappear after the Marcomannic wars but maintained a volatile love/hate relationship with Rome till the early 5th Century.
The passage you mentioned was when they aided the Quadi/Sueves when the Sarmatians almost captured the bride-to-be of Gratian who happened to be the daughter of Constantius II who was travelling to join her future husband, while they were rampaging in Pannonia.
In all their troubles with Rome from 89 AD onwards when they aided the Suevi in their war against Domitian and the Lugi, they seem to have had close relationships through trade and marital ties, with the Quadi in so much that the Quadi adopted cavalry which at the time was unusual for German tribes. The Sarmatians over time also adapted their weaponry. The Iazyges used shields in the Marcomannic wars and due to contact with Quadi and Vandals that over time they were armed like their neighbours but still retained their equestrian skills for which they were renowned. Ammianus wrote in (XVII.12.10) about the use of shields among Sarmatians in the year 358. In connection with a visit of Zizais, a Sarmatian prince, to the Emperor Constantius II, when
Quote:he [Zizais] was told to get up from the ground and gave the long awaited signal for their petition, all threw down their shields and spears, stretched out their hands with prayers.
. The Iazyges next troubled Maximinus Thrax between 236-238AD in his Sarmatian wars on the Pannonian border. It is thought that around 258-260AD under pressure from the Goths, that large numbers of Roxolani who fled through the corridor that Marcus had given them permission to use when trading with the Iazyges many years before and it is probably at this point that the names Iazyges and Roxolani disappeared from use and they were all grouped as Sarmatians. Eutropius mentions that Pannonia was depopulated by the Sarmatians and Quadi.
Over the next couple of years receptio was granted for a few small groups of Sarmatians but Diocletian seems to have had trouble with them and defeated them interestingly enough in winter campaigns in 289-290, 292 AD and also 294 AD. He next fought the Sarmatians along with the Marcomanni in 299AD. He organized for forts to be built on Sarmatian territory in the 294 campaign opposite Aquincum and Bononia, Mocsy in his book Pannonia and Upper Moesia thinks that this was an acknowledgement that the Sarmatians were themselves under pressure from Goths and Gepids and the placement of the forts was to ensure the security of the Danube.
They next fought a war against the Romans in 305 when a young Constantine distinguished himself in battle against the Sarmatians. There was another campaign in 357 when in conjunction with the Quadi they overran the provinces of Valeria, Pannonia Secunda and Moesia Prima forcing the emperor Constantius II to remain at Sirmium until he heard of the fall of Amida in 359. In 358 while at Sirmium he heard of a civil war amongst the Sarmatians between the warrior elite, the Argaragantes and their slaves?, the Limigantes. Constantius sided with the Argaragantes and the Taifali and together they defeated the Limigantes who continued to make trouble for the Romans though by retreating into the wetlands of the Danube and fighting a guerrilla type war.
The next war was in 365 when the Quadi and the Sarmatians attacked Pannonia which resulted in a small group of Sarmatians being granted receptio in the Mosel valley. The next one after that was the dispute in 373-374 when the Quadi king, Gabinius was murdered by the Dux Valeriae, Maximinus who constructed some forts on Quadi land and invited Gabinius to negotiate, before murdering him. Another attack on Pannonia by both peoples occurred in 394 when Gratian’s bride-to-be was almost captured as mentioned before. Amminius’s description of repeated Sarmatian attacks seems to show up a common Steppe/Sarmatian/ Alan tactic, attack, then retreat and try and draw the enemy out and then turn and attack again repeatedly until the enemy breaks.
So the Sarmatians didn’t just disappear from the pages of history after their defeat in the Marcomannic wars and seemed to have maintained their reputation as feared horsemen for the next couple of hundred years. Unity of leadership seems to have been their weakness and the Romans were experts at exploiting this weakness by favouring some but not all Sarmatian kings.
Walter Goffart in his book Barbarian Tides is of the opinion that a lot of Pannonian Sarmatians, joined the Alans thereby boosting the Alan numbers as well as large numbers of Quadi/Sueves joined the Alans and Vandals in their trek and invasion of Gaul in 406. We don’t hear of Sarmatians in Pannonia after that date.
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:Where did you get that image of that Qin / Han armour?
BTW, there is no scale in that image, it is all lamellar.
Hey, you're right Nadeem. On a second peek, it looks like all lamellar, although the arpon pieces are scale-shaped. The armor was made from stone so it would protect the Emperor forever, but I think his actual armor was iron, not that old-fashioned bronze stuff. Most of the troops wore leather with stiff leather riveted plates, but this just might be a rendition of Shi Huandi's personal armor. Try google images; I think that's where I found it. :-)
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
In fact the lamellar there is quite fascinating! I suspect it is rather a cuirass and spauiders. The rounded plates are primitive hanging lamellar as can be deduced from the hole layout, whereas the square ones are rigid. Interesting, as all the spauiders and skirts from Qin / Han armours I know of have exposed lacing lamellar rather than hanging lamellar.
By the way, I think we need to do away wit the overtly Chinese impression of the Sarmatians etc you are pushing. Sure, they originated in Inner Asia, and sure, there is the occasional Chinese scabbard slide or sword or quillions, but the vast majority of armour from the western steppes (inhabited by the Sarmatians) overwhelmingly show western armours of scale, maille, and Hellenistic or Central Asian (west of the Tien Shan) derived helmets. Lamellar on the western steppe is comparatively rare, and I'm not aware of any lamellar this far north-west that has Chinese derived lacing patterns and hole layouts.
If you do have examples of the above I'd be interested to see them.
I'm not wearing Qin (aka Chinese) armor, nor is it "generic" Sarmatian armor. It's what Simonenko calls "combination" armor; and more specifically, Roxolani cataphract armor. (Read Simonenko, Sarmatian Riders of the North Pontic Region. It's free as a PDF) Tacitus described it (vaguely) when reporting the ice-battle on the Danube in AD69. The Roxolani armor was so heavy that once toppled from their horses they had a hard time righting themselves. Later armor, such as worn by the Alans proper in the ensuing centuries, was often nothing more than chain-mail or scale. Here's a painting from the Bosphorus:
[attachment=12367]DSC_00053.jpg[/attachment]
I think these guys are wearing an exact copy of my helmet! :woot:
Also, we must remember that Chinese armor, along with long swords, scabbard slides, crenelated manes (such as the crenelations shown on the right-hand horse in the painting), even the Sintashta-styled chariot, came from the proto-Saka (called the "Hu") that became the Sarmatians. When a nephrite slide is found in Bulgaria, and numbers of them have been found in Russia, you have to wonder how many others haven't been found yet. (Flavius Stilicho used a scabbard slide.) My armor is not Chinese-styled; it has "D" plates and standard leather-backed scales. It was built to prove or disprove the statements of Tacitus, and he turned out to be exactly correct. I have no intention to criticize what you wear, nor how you draw your bow; I'm only interested in the origins and roots of an Alanic and proto-Alanic culture that was heavily Sinoized by living at China's border for centuries... and in fact, for Millennia. mile:
And finally, I personally believe it's a little late to really know anything that's not explicitly documented. It's all subjective according to an individual's perception of reality. Nobody knows except the know-it-alls; and there's certainly enough of them right here on RAT. :dizzy:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
I'm sure Stilicho used a distinctly "Roman styled" slide. But a scabbard slide is a scabbard slide-- a 1-point suspension system. Both Maenchen-Helfen and Trousdale, our best authoritative "know-it-alls," concluded the slide originated in wood as used by the steppe tribes living east of the Urals, thus introducing it to the Chinese who copied it in jade and bronze. It went down into India, then onto the Central Plains of Sassania, across the North Pontic area, and finally to the Romans. No matter what style it evolved into, it was a Saka/Sarmatian invention. It was replaced in China by the 2-point suspension system in the Eastern Han Dynasty; and every culture followed suit, used by such notables as General Sherman and the Shriners.
[attachment=12368]Stilico_diptych.jpg[/attachment]
Stilicho, Serena, and little Eucharius... all conveniently killed by Honorian Henchmen. Nice people, the Romans. :whistle:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
mile: