|
Post by zemelmete on Jan 29, 2006 10:59:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gambin on Jan 29, 2006 19:26:20 GMT -5
Look to me like their armour combines the common type worn by their western European contemporaries with elements from Scythians and Sassinids.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 29, 2006 19:49:52 GMT -5
yes very Sarmatian influenced...however the Eastern Roman soldiers wore similiar attire to.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Jan 30, 2006 4:35:17 GMT -5
Thanks for comments. I wished to know which ethnic groups influenced ugric attire and weapons the most. I actually don't wonder about scythian and sarmatian influence at all since ugrian tribes had close contacts with them many centuries.
Do you think ugrian warrior attire have also russian influence? And if has, how strong is it?
It is interesting that it is quite easy to find a lot of information about scythians, sarmatians, their history, warriors etc. while it is very hard to find information about ancient ugrians. I actually was surprised to see ancient khanty and mansi warrior clothes and weapons which don't look "primitive" as many want to imagine regarding to khanty and mansi...
|
|
|
Post by gambin on Jan 30, 2006 6:23:32 GMT -5
It is interesting that it is quite easy to find a lot of information about scythians, sarmatians, their history, warriors etc. while it is very hard to find information about ancient ugrians. Probably this is due to the reason that the ancients (esp. Greeks and Romans, who were doing most of the writing) had more practical contacts with the Scythians and Sarmatians than with the Ugrians farther north. Remember that the Greeks had colonies in the Crimea area and were able to actually influence the culture of the Scythians locally. Generations later, both Greeks and Romans had contacts with Sarmatians. Their contact was enough for them to enter their legends and literature...Sarmatians are thought to be an inspiration for the wild Amazons for example. I actually was surprised to see ancient khanty and mansi warrior clothes and weapons which don't look "primitive" as many want to imagine regarding to khanty and mansi... Looking at those illustrations I am guessing that the publisher of those drawings was Osprey. It is a company that publishes information and illustrations on armies of the past of many eras. It is impressive the amount of work that they cover and the cultures as well. They give attention to even the lesser known peoples of history.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Jan 30, 2006 9:07:26 GMT -5
It is interesting that it is quite easy to find a lot of information about scythians, sarmatians, their history, warriors etc. while it is very hard to find information about ancient ugrians. Probably this is due to the reason that the ancients (esp. Greeks and Romans, who were doing most of the writing) had more practical contacts with the Scythians and Sarmatians than with the Ugrians farther north. Remember that the Greeks had colonies in the Crimea area and were able to actually influence the culture of the Scythians locally. Generations later, both Greeks and Romans had contacts with Sarmatians. Their contact was enough for them to enter their legends and literature...Sarmatians are thought to be an inspiration for the wild Amazons for example. It is only partial explanation. Greeks knew about ugrians. Maybe not so good and detailed how about scythians and sarmatians, but ugrians were mentioned several times f.e. in Platon works. Ugrians were quite often mentioned also in ancient and medevial russian works. It means that there should be enough information about ugrians. Besides that khanty and mansi played big role in russian conquering of Siberia. So by my opinion it is somewhat strange that ugrians have so little attention from historian side. In russian history books ugrians are mentioned very few times (if any). Actually russians would never see Siberia even in their dreams if they would not have support of some khanty nobility... I actually was surprised to see ancient khanty and mansi warrior clothes and weapons which don't look "primitive" as many want to imagine regarding to khanty and mansi... Looking at those illustrations I am guessing that the publisher of those drawings was Osprey. It is a company that publishes information and illustrations on armies of the past of many eras. It is impressive the amount of work that they cover and the cultures as well. They give attention to even the lesser known peoples of history. I hear the first time about this book. It sounds like it would be worth to own that. I took pictures from this web-site: nativeurals.narod.ru/
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 30, 2006 10:22:37 GMT -5
That bow for instance their in your illustration is a Sarmatian style. Much of Eastern Europe aswel as the lands which would be Soviet Russian was called Sarmatia by the Roman's. So much of the Uralic style would been very similar to the Sarmatians,Magyars,Bulgars and Huns of those time periods,and they all wouldve had Roman contact and trade for centuries. Roman influence in fact stretched all the way to China and the far east. Here's the link to the Osprey book company: www.ospreypublishing.com/
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jan 30, 2006 13:59:37 GMT -5
Crimson your quote is good, but in what way the Steppe peoples were influenced by Romans?
it was rather the other way round with the Romans adopting elements from central asian warfare...The Romans have always had an Infantry based warfare, while all the Steppe peoples only relied on Cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 30, 2006 17:22:56 GMT -5
Crimson your quote is good, but in what way the Steppe peoples were influenced by Romans? it was rather the other way round with the Romans adopting elements from central asian warfare...The Romans have always had an Infantry based warfare, while all the Steppe peoples only relied on Cavalry. Thats actually an old myth,as thats what some contemporary historians used to state years ago. But the truth is Rome not only had an uncanny Calvary of her own,which defeated the famed Eastern Cavalries in head to head battle,she had an awesome Navy as well. Rome had to early on ,develope a superior Calvary to be able to defeat the greatest in world at the time. We also wrongly hear so often that Roman's could'nt fight Sea Battles without the use of the boarding blanks ect to engage in hand to hand combat at sea,cause their "only land warriors"...complete rubbish,thats even completly against common sense. What I meant in influence was many in trade and military matters,not necessarily in their armor alone.As I said their more Samaritan influenced their obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Jan 30, 2006 18:00:08 GMT -5
its true that the late Roman army had a formidable cavalry, and that was caused by the switching of a defensive warfare (cover the borders) and the reaction to a more mobile warfare such as tht of the Steppe invaders, Desert peoples, and Sassanid Persians, who largerly fought on horses (or camels)
in this period Roman army pursued mercenary cavalryman such as the 'Alans' (maybe the forfathers of modern Ossetians in the Caucasus) these Alans were particulary used in Gaul in the 5 century, as much as in the repression of local revolts as against the Huns.
The Roman army say from the Republic to the 3d century AD as I said was mainly Infantry based, the core of the army was infantry, it was a good infantry and it was very fast in marching. of course there were cavalry contingents as well. But since before Ceasar, Roman cavalry was mainly formed by foreign auxillaries, which maybe proves the fact that Roman citizens still preferred to figh on foot. after all Roman tacticts were very schematic and group oriented while Cavalry (light) are mainly individualistic and random. Steppe Nomads never really adopted infantry tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 30, 2006 22:03:32 GMT -5
what you say is true to a certain extent,and perhaps fits for the later half of the Empire's reign.But the Romans where also Horse soldiers. also their introduction of the Spatha, devastated the enemy.
The Roman Army formed their calvary early on during the late Republic and Early Imperial era...it was this calvary which defeated and conquered the East.
Auxiliaries where used afterward the subjugation of the annexed lands and peoples...The last 2-400 years of the Empire came to rely more on the Auxiliaries..as the Italian soldiers where being phased out or limited to certain lands ...they mainly filled the officer core of Auxiliary legions.
*Look up,if you havent already, the real Roman calvary commander Lucius Artorus Castus who led one such Sarmatian Auxiliary calvary legion into battles...his Dragon Helmet and standard was remarkable for its day.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Feb 1, 2006 8:50:51 GMT -5
Romans depended on foreign cavalry Auxillaries since the times of Cesar. Cesar used German Cavalry against the Gauls, also because he played on the hatred between the two groups. I found this about Roman preference for Infantry tactics: 'The Cavalry (Equitatus) and Auxiliary As Romans were never considered exceptionally good horsemen, and the role of the cavalry not as important in the Roman thought process, the Equitatus was generally made up of non-Roman horsemen. While they would play an important part of Legionary tactics, the Roman Cavalry was considered secondary and would remain the weakest part of the Roman Army until the very late Imperial period. Generally, the cavalry was used as light skirmishing troops, and mounted archers whose job was to patrol, act as scouts and messengers and to provide a mobile defensive screen while the legion was massing in battle array. As in all armies throughout history, the mounted trooper was also very effective in chasing down and harassing a fleeing and panicked enemy force.' The site: www.unrv.com/military/roman-cavalry.phpOn the Spatha i think the Romans again adapted to new methods of Warfare. Its well known that the Romans of the early Period used the 'Gladius' which is a Short sword, excellent for thrusting. mainly an infantry weapon. The Opening ssequences of 'Gladiator' and 'HBO Rome' show how this was effective against the long swords of Gauls and Germans, which needed more space to swing about and slowed down the action. The Spatha (evolved in Italian Spada) was a longer Sword and in my opinion it reflects an increase in cavalry tacticts (the short Gladius would be useless on Horseback)
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Feb 1, 2006 15:27:45 GMT -5
Like I said before theirs far to much misinformation out their. Scholars have overshadowed other important parts of the Roman Military such as their Calvary and Navy and just favor the Roman Footsoldier and their famed fighting formations,which is very unfortunate.
The recruitment of Allies and Auxiliaries are to separate things. Rome never(least up until the 400 AD) relied on foreign Mercenaries or Auxiliaries to fight let alone win their battles for them which would be what your alluding to in that link. Mercenaries and Auxiliaries where never reliable let alone fully trusted,nor would they ben given such a prominent role & place along side the real Roman army. A well trained Calvary can defeat Infantry,Rome would not have foreign Calvary guarding on her flanks,especially during her Late Republican expansion and later Conquests of the early-middle Imperial era. Auxiliaries(which means helpers) also weren't formed until after Rome defeated a province and their respective native armies. On top of that, Auxiliaries also had to be first given Roman Citizenship in order to serve.
* The German tribes where pushing into Gaul,which was causing the Gallic tribes to start making trouble on Italian Frontiers. Such as the Helveti ,who where being forced into Roman Territory. Caesar put down the Helveti,then the Sueves and Swabians crossed the Rhine and warred with Rome's Gallic allies such as Aedui. Caesar rode back into action with his Legion and destroyed the Germanic chieftain and would-be Conqueror of Gaul,leaving Ariovistus. and his German force utterly defeated . Ariovistus barely escaped back across the Rhine with what was left of his forces.
So much for the supposed Tuetonic or Gallic Calvary against the superior though often less in number Roman Army.
After this Caesar finally gained complete control and ultimately final conquest of Gaul,once the Belgae Nervi where crushed.
Here's a valuable and very factual statistic :
By 400 AD, less than 5% of Rome's soldiers were Italian, compared to 70% at the time of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Feb 1, 2006 15:42:59 GMT -5
At the outset of the Second Punic War, the historian Polybius tells us in his formula togatorum, Rome possessed the largest and finest army of the Mediterranean. Six legions made up of 32'000 men and 1600 cavalry, together with 30'000 allied infantry and 2'000 allied cavalry. And this was merely the standing army. If Rome called on all her Italian allies she had another 340'000 infantry and 37'000 cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Platypus on Feb 1, 2006 19:00:26 GMT -5
The situation of the Auxillaries in the Roman armies was much similar to the Cossacks in the Tzarist, Soviet (and even Nazi) armies. They were irregular troops and for this reason they werent included in the Army, but treated as a non official fighting force, rather independent especially because they were unable to be formed in proper units. these troops could cause great damage but also could be very vulnarable in an adverse tactical situation As you say its unlikely that Auxillaries did the duties of regular cavalry (Exploration, Protection) They role was to cause a s much damage and do the general dirty work, (ambushes, raids etc). for the same reason its unlikely that they would have been granted the privileges of Roman Soldiers. But the Auxillaries unlike you say werent Roman Citizens (and by the time of Ceasar only a few areas of Italy were granted citizenship) Auxillaries were granted Roman Citizenship after a period of service, I imagine 20 years. but you are pushing the dates to back this is a book on the subject, which talks about Auxillaries from 14-193, and attributes them reconaissance and heavy cavalry tactics www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S9738
|
|