12-03-2015, 07:24 PM
Thanks Alanus
Reading your stuff on the thread and zipping through 'Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians , J. Harmatta’ I think I have got where I need to get or at least to a place where I can work from.
My take is they are heavy cavalry relying on the charge as opposed to plunging bowfire as a primary tactic and do not use horse armour.
This possibly changes 275AD+ with the influx of Rhoxilani who, if I read Harmatta right, become top dogs and change, to a degree, the culture of the Iazyges which could have led to the use of horse armour; use of the bow as primary weapon is doubtful.
The Izyges may have been supported by 'serf' subjects at various points until they rebelled in the 4thC.
In terms of allies they seem to have had
92 AD Sarmatians (Rhoxilani?) and Quadi
162-5 Vandals
250-334 Burgundi, Limigantes
358 Taifal
373-5 Quadi
Does that seem about right?
Reading your stuff on the thread and zipping through 'Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians , J. Harmatta’ I think I have got where I need to get or at least to a place where I can work from.
My take is they are heavy cavalry relying on the charge as opposed to plunging bowfire as a primary tactic and do not use horse armour.
This possibly changes 275AD+ with the influx of Rhoxilani who, if I read Harmatta right, become top dogs and change, to a degree, the culture of the Iazyges which could have led to the use of horse armour; use of the bow as primary weapon is doubtful.
The Izyges may have been supported by 'serf' subjects at various points until they rebelled in the 4thC.
In terms of allies they seem to have had
92 AD Sarmatians (Rhoxilani?) and Quadi
162-5 Vandals
250-334 Burgundi, Limigantes
358 Taifal
373-5 Quadi
Does that seem about right?
Rodger Williams