Wow, that's a great photograph. That's good info to know, too.
I wouldn't think Celtic breeds of horse would do well in steppe; their hooves would need shoeing, whereas a horse used to rocky terrain develops hardy hooves. Considering the oldest horses are Barb and Arabian, give or take the Mongolian/Przwalski's horse strain, tough, strong animals would have been available out of that stock. The Iberian horse may have been a possibility, and the Carmague ponies, Dartmoor, and Fell all look like miniature versions of Lippizaners, Andalusians, and Friesians, respectively. Body type very similar, but more compact. To say nothing of the toughness of the Mongolian steppe pony that Genghis Kahn's hordes conquered from. Even Alexander the Great's horse Bucephalous suggests a horse that had a heavy, ugly head but powerful lines. Steppe ponies lack the cleaner lines of later breeds but obviously are more adapted to their wild environments.
I can't seem to find much evidence for horseshoes; there aren't many found in archeological sites. That's another argument for having a tough steppe mount that wouldn't need them. There are some metal shoes, but they are believed to have been for medical purposes because they covered the walls of the foot and encased it. I would like more info on the shoeing of horses, however.
The Iberian horse passed on a natural hoof hardiness to its subsequent breeds: Andalusians and Lipizanners are known for tough hooves, and the same goes for Paso Finos, Pervuian Pasos, and the American mustang.
Strange as it might seem, there's a good argument that the Andalusian (aka Vandalusian) extended from the Alans who lived in Spain, as did the famous dog breed-- the Alanus. (The American mustang extended from Spanish horses brought over by the Conquistadores, perhaps a bit of Andalusian there.)The other breed prevalent in both Europe and Asia is the Akhal Teke. Both breeds sport the traditionally revered steppe colors, known as the "white-spotted gelding." These breeds have been dated back to Akhal Teke type horses, 15 hands high and found in the c. 700 to 300 BC noble Saka graves in the Altai. The Altai Saka moved south into the Illi Valley and Ferghana in the 3rd century BC where their large breeds were prized by the Persians (resulting in the Nissan) and the Chinese (the Heavenly Horse). As you note, they had hard hooves, no need for horse-shoes. The steppe influence on the Roman cataphractii was extensive, from mounts to armor. And it can be traced directly back to the Massagetae and Sarmats, both forerunners of the Roxolani ("Shining Alans") and the following Alans that entered Roman dominions.
[attachment=10919]CataphractsOrlatc.100BC-AD100.jpg[/attachment]
Cataphracts depicted on the Orlat Battle Placque, c. 100BC-AD100, found in Sogdiana
[attachment=10920]HeavenlyHorseLateThreeKingdomsc.AD350.jpg[/attachment]
Royal Heavenly Horse, c. AD300
It would make more tactical sense for Constantine to oppose the charge of the clibanarii with his infantry, and envelop the flanks of the clibanarii with his own cavalry. As the Contantinian cavalry were, apparently, the counter-attacking force, rather than the infantry, this may account for the phrase describing Constantine's actions "You yourself [i.e. Constantine] take over the mailed cavalry, where the greatest strength of the opposing battle line lay." This could be construed as saying that Constantine led the counter-attack by his cavalry against the Maxentian clibanarii, rather than his own cavalry absorbing the charge of the clibanarii, which would have been rank folly.
Constantine, in my opinion, was one of the very few truly great Roman cavalry commanders.
It is clear that Vegetius, using manuals now lost, believed that the Clibanarii were more useful against Infantry and they were stationed next to the Roman infantry as a result. I've always wondered why people believe the Clibanarii were particularly effective against cavalry as the cavalry should be able to easily evade their much heavily armoured opponents. Whereas the more ligher armoured Catafractarii would probably be able to catch any cavalry attempting to run off. But, as I discussed in the Clibanarii thread I started, there is an indication in Ammianus that by the time Ammianus wrote his history both the Catafractarii and the Clibanarii were armed and armoured exactly the same.
Quote: As the Contantinian cavalry were, apparently, the counter-attacking force, rather than the infantry, this may account for the phrase describing Constantine's actions "You yourself [i.e. Constantine] take over the mailed cavalry, where the greatest strength of the opposing battle line lay."
It depends whether the passage is actually talking about the Constantinian cavalry; Renatus has suggested a mistranslation here, and it does look like there might be some confusion. My latin is rubbish, but as an attempt at a literal translation, Catafractos equites, in quibus maximum steterat pugnae rubor, ipse tibi sumis could mean "The cataphract cavalry, where the greatest standing (strength?) of the battle line (was? rubor seems to mean 'reddish'...) you take on yourself", or something...
This could just mean that Constantine chooses to engage the clibanarii (or 'cataphracts') of the enemy directly, using his strategem, rather than just trying to repel them. So no mention of his own cavalry. The infantry line draws apart, or forms lanes, or stages a false retreat, and the charging clibanarii rush between them and are surrounded and destroyed. We can assume cavalry were involved, but perhaps in their usual position on the flanks.
But we would need Renatus to clarify the point about the mistranslation!
I know we are drifting off Constantine's Cataphractii but just on your last post on horses, the Andalusian may have been the first European "warmblood", a mixture of heavy European and lighter Oriental horses. Whether these Oriental horses came with the Alans and crossed over to Africa with the Vandals/Alans and then returned a few hundred years later with the Moorish invasion of Spain and having the Barb horse as well to add to its bloodlines, I cannot say maybe a bit of both.
Steppe horses were tough and were the mainstay of the various steppe peoples from Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Huns up to the Mongols, according to a certain Thomas, Archdeacon of Spalato who as an eyewitness wrote about the Mongols " They ride their tough little horses 'peasant fashion' by which he meant in the oriental manner, galloping them unshod over rocky, stony ground and after three days on the march give them only a handful of inferior herbage. In the Secret History there are a few lines from an order by Genghis Khan to his troops. Take care of your horses before they lose condition for once lost they will not regain it on campaign. Do not tie anything to the back of your saddle. Bridles will not be worn on the march and the horses are to have their mouths free. If this is done then they cannot march at the gallop. The important men who disobey my orders in the treatment of their horses are to be sent back to me while the unimportant ones are to be beheaded on the spot. So it seems even the Mongols knew how to make the most of their tough little horses and treat them well as I am sure Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and Huns did. Tarpans although now extinct probably made up a lot of the stock. However to carry a heavily armoured man required a bigger horse and Saka, Sarmatians, Wusun, Alans and Tocharians were excellent horse breeders. Even the larger horses found in the frozen Pazyryk kurgans dated 3rd-4th Century BC were so well preserved that scientists could even examine the contents of their stomachs and proved that they were grain fed and stabled before they died so the Pazyryk people were traders and stock breeders of not only horses but cattle and sheep and had access to quality horses for breeding and trading purposes.
As to Alexander's horse Bucephalus (Ox-head,) Deb Bennett in her book Conquerors: The roots of New World Horsemanship covers a lot of the ancient breeds including the Oriental breeds which she refers to as Ox-heads. These breeds probably originated in Eastern Turkey and northern Iraq before the time of the Hittites and on the fall of the Hittite empire spread east through Persia to the Altai and then to Central Asia, south through Palestine to Egypt and Arabia and west to Thessaly. Included in the image below the top drawing of the slender bodied Akhal-Tekes, the middle drawing of the relatively heavy bodied Niseans which were probably similar to the Ferghana and Wusun horses and also the third one of the Thessalanian breed from which Alexander's horse probably came from. She writes (her description not mine) firstly that unlike the Arabian which has a full or bulging frontal area the ox-head type horses had large bovine type eyes supported by bony orbits which arch above the plane of the animal’s forehead. Secondly the muzzle was crisply defined with wide cheekbones and sensitive nostrils and lips like in well bred cattle and thirdly the poll distinctively wide, carrying down into the broad forehead. The Arab was bred much later from 7th century AD.
[attachment=10923]oxheads.jpg[/attachment]
As to horseshoes, the Roman use of horseshoes is still a highly debatable question. The example you mentioned was the “hipposandal” I have a pic of a reconstructed one below. The horseshoe was probably invented by the Celts of the La Tene culture with specimens found around Austria, Switzerland and Germany near Salzburg and Bern. There were a few specimens found in Britain but only some date from the Roman occupation. For what purpose they were invented is also up for debate, some thought they were invented as an anti-skid device on muddy roads while others think that they were used to protect hooves on rocky ground. Although rocky ground didn't seem to bother some breeds. Charles Green in his paper “The purpose of the early horseshoe” even proposed that at first nails were driven into the horse’s foot serving as hob nails or football boot projections to give the horse better grip on soft ground and that the horseshoe was added later to prevent the hoof splitting.
Cassius Dio mentions that in a battle on the frozen Danube during the Marcomannic wars between the Romans and the Iazyges, that the Iazyges waited for the Romans to catch up and desired battle as they were confident of the result because they had trained their horses to fight on the slippery ice but maybe they had some simple device or material to avoid slipping or to aid their horses to gain some purchase on the slippery ice as well as training. Unfortunately for them the Romans formed a square and used their shields for purchase on the slippery ice and defeated the Iazyges. If you can get hold of a copy I recommend you buy, beg, borrow or steal "An early history of horsemanship" by A. Azzaroli. He covers horsemanship from early bronze age up to the battle of Adrianople. :-)
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 have had a look at more of the text of the Battle of Turin and I think that Renatus is quite right.
I think that the first part is explaining how the cataphracts (Maxentian heavy cavalry in this case) are trained to charge, ignoring wounds, straight through the opposition. The next section seems to tell how Constantine instructs his troops to evade the charge, but this is difficult to accomplish; the Constantinian (?) first line is pierced but then traps the cataphracts, preventing their return, whilst his energetic reserves? (industria tui cederent) attack them.
Quote:But we would need Renatus to clarify the point about the mistranslation!
Perhaps I was a little unkind to use the word 'mistranslation'; 'misleading' might have been better. To translate sumo as 'to take over' in the sense of 'to take command', as appears at first sight to be the case here, may be appropriate in some contexts but in this it is not. Nazarius is delivering a panegyric in praise of Constantine and it is no praise at all to say that he took command of a section of his army that is never mentioned again. Lewis & Short give various translations for sumo but those that seem most appropriate in this context are 'to take (by choice), to choose, select' or 'to take as one's own, to assume, claim, arrogate, appropriate to one's self'. What Nazarius is saying, surely, is that Constantine took to himself the task of tackling the most formidable element in Maxentius' army and defeated it by using against it Aurelian's tactic (not acknowledged) of having clubmen bludgeon the riders from their horses.
If Nixon & Rodgers intended to use 'take over' in the sense of 'take command of', the footnote that Nathan cited is, to say the least, curious. It reads, "Constantine seems not to have had any men similarly equipped, but his strategy was effective. On the other hand, if he had mailed cavalry, the enemy would not appear so mighty when the audience learned about Constantine's own cataphracti. Thus Nazarius' silence proves nothing." In other words, Nazarius does not mention that Constantine had cataphracti either because he did not, in fact, have them or because he did but to admit it would be to diminish his achievement.
All in all, Nazarius' panegyric provides no evidence that Constantine had clibanarii/ cataphracti/ cataphracti equites in his army.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Quote:Where's that picture from Alanus? The one with the stirrup?
We do seem to be straying off-topic but suggesting the "roots" of the Constantine-era cataphract's horse. That picture is from a tomb wall carving dated to about AD330, which I think is the Period of Disunity. The man standing with the horse was the emperor's high general, and the emperor's horse was named Zaluki. I imagine the stirrups came from the Juan Juan (Avars) raiding western China at that time, also the period of the mythical female general Mulan. Carvings or statues of the Heavenly-Celestial horse are consistently found in high-ranking tombs from the Han to the Ming periods. Interestingly, some depictions hint that these large horses were trained to bite. These were magnificent horses, originating through trade with the Wusun (Alans?) and Yue Chi (Kushans). To the Chinese, they were sacred. The more you owned, the higher your status in society. Here are a few more large Heavenly horses rendered from the Han to Tang dynasties:
[attachment=10926]CelestialHorseHanDynastyc.200-220AD.jpg[/attachment]
A Han Dynasty version.
[attachment=10927]celestialhorseBostonMuseumofFineArt.jpg[/attachment]
Either the Three Kingdom or Disunity period.
[attachment=10928]Black_Glazed_Pottery_Figure_of_a_Fereghan_Horse_Tang_Dynasty.jpg[/attachment]
Tang Dynasty, c. AD750.
I don't know which "authority" developed the notion that the Andalusian traveled to Africa and then back to Spain again, but a substantial portion of Alans remained in that country from the day they migrated there from Pannonia. Also, I'd like to know if the "white spotted" sport has shown up in Britain. That would be Vindex's forte.
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
Hi Alanus, just my bad grammar. Andalusian horses as a breed developed much later than 5th-6th century so the horses going over would contain a mixture of breeds including their probable ancestors. i was just saying that after 20 years in Spain the Alans & Vandals would have taken a lot of mixed Spanish/Alan stock to Africa not one breed but many types as the Spanish horses were the best in Europe. The Alans controlled Lusitania which later produced some fine horses as well, the two provinces controlled by the Alans in the carve up of Spain in 411 were very suitable for horses & you could probably assume the Visigoths improved their cavalry mount situation when they nearly wiped out the Alans of Lusitania in 418. Belisarus's troops probably took most of the African Vandal horses as booty when they defeated the Vandals so only some wild horse groups or Berber horses would have been left as over a few hundred years the Berbers themselves changed their mode of warfare from fighting from camels to excellent light cavalry, the Moors would have taken a lot of oriental barb horses in their invasion of Spain so barbs would have figured prominently in Andalusian bloodlines.
Deb Bennett loves & knows her Spanish & American horses & knows their oriental
origins & although a lot of people think that the barb originated about the same time or after or even from the Arabian horse it should be noted that they go back a lot further than that to the ancestors of the excellent Numidian cavalry horses. The Numidians constantly bettered their Roman counterparts until they switched sides & even though Rome defeated Juba we never hear much more of them. What's more she is a big fan & admirer of the Alans.
Interaction between the African barbs & Spanish breeds not only occurred at these times but from the Carthaginians trading horses for Spanish silver many centuries before the Vandal invasion. Vegetius writng before the Vandal invasion of Africa mentions the Hispani sanguinis (African horses of Spanish blood).
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
That makes sense. Barbs would've been added to the Andalusian strain after the Moorish invasion of 710. What I find interesting is a certain "posture" or animalistic "pride" that we find characteristic in the Andalusians. This same "look" or posture is evident in all of the Chinese art shown above. Interestingly, the rumored American long distance champion of the late 1800s, obviously a hardy horse, was a mustang. Likewise, about the same time, there was a long distance race from Central Asia to Ukraine... the winner being an Akhal Teke. ;-)
I believe that the forerunners of these breeds were the ones used as heavy horse by Roman cataphracts, not the smaller Mongolian or Celtic varieties although they were just as hardy. In other words, compact stature doesn't always equate with hardiness, guts, and daring-do.
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
Quote:Nazarius' panegyric provides no evidence that Constantine had clibanarii/ cataphracti/ cataphracti equites in his army.
Thanks! And in fact I wonder how easy it might have been to take cataphracts over the Montgenevre pass in early springtime, bearing in mind the description that Ammianus gives of the route...
But, more importantly, this alters the nature of the Turin battle - if the cataphracts are Constantinian, then this is essentially a cavalry fight. If not, it appears to be a clash between heavy cavalry and infantry.
Quote:I posted a photo of it four or five months ago on the Show Your Sarmatian Warrior Impression thread.
Ah yes, I had seen that - very impressive. I don't doubt that it is well researched but is there a case for the body armour to be longer? The Orlat battle plaque has cataphracts wearing what seem to be lamellar hauberks and I interpret the Sarmatians as shown on Trajan's Column as being the artist's attempt to reproduce a verbal description of man and horse being covered with scale armour, which implies that it was pretty all-embracing.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
The smaller horses would have probably been used for sagittarrii or light cavalry units but some equine ancestors of Analusians & maybe the Friesian breeds known for their strength & size would have been popular with the Romans as well as expensive & makes me think that their heavy cavalry was never very numerous. It must have hurt Rome's remount and horse acquisition processes a lot when they lost Spain to the Alans, Vandals and Sueves in 409 AD. The Byzantines seemed to be better organized & probably had access to better quality horses, which they needed to take on Saracens & various later steppe tribes. I think even the Mongols who loved their steppe ponies confiscated larger horses & probably cleaned out Central Asia & parts of Persia of their turkomans & nisean breeds for their war efforts.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
