Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[gothic-l] Re: Infantry/cavalry

Expand Messages
  • Tim O'Neill
    ... There s not much wrong with it as a generic depiction of a nomadic horse archer, but it s not much of a depiction of a Hunnic warrior. There is nothing
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 1 12:43 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Bertil Häggman wrote:

      > With these views of yours it is hard to
      > see why there should be so much wrong
      > with Warry's picture of a hunnic warrior.

      There's not much wrong with it as a generic depiction of a nomadic
      horse archer, but it's not much of a depiction of a Hunnic warrior.
      There is nothing distinctively Hunnic about any of the equipment
      or trappings depicted. It looks far more like a Mongolian warrior
      of 700 years later and only gives a vague idea of what a Hun warrior
      would have looked like. If you're going to bother depicting a Hun,
      why not look at some specifically Hunnic artefacts and include them
      in your reconstruction?

      > Your comment on the cavalry at Adrianople
      > is a little bit ambigous, but I maintain that
      > the Alan cavalry section was a large one.

      I'm sorry if I was in any way ambiguous - I was trying to be very
      clear and specific. How was I ambiguous? Perhaps I can explain more
      carefully. And what are you basing your assessment of the number of
      Alans at Adrianople on?

      > Concerning Dupuy & Dupuy, there are of course
      > later editions. The 1976 printing it was rather
      > is the one I own.

      Then all I can say is I can't think of any recent historians who support
      Dupuy and Dupuy and wonder what they are basing their assessment on.

      > The relevance is of course that the Germanic peoples
      > were no strangers to cavalry.

      True, but no-one has ever disputed this. That they used cavalry is
      very clear from all the evidence. The question is the relative
      numbers of cavalry and infantry in Germanic armies in general and
      in Fritigern's army at Adrianople in particular.

      >And the influence of the nomadic steppe peoples would certainly have
      >kept the ration of cavalry very high, both Gothic cavalry
      > and Alanic cavalry.

      This is generally true, but these proportions differ depending on
      *when* you are talking about and *which* Goths you are discussing.
      Euric's Visigothic armies probably had substantial numbers of cavalry,
      but his Tervingian ancestors in Fritigern's time had very few.
      The Tervingians' neighbours, who were in contact with the nomads
      you mention and who lived on the plains, adopted their cavalry tactics.
      The forest-dwelling Tervingians didn't have as much direct contact
      and retained traditional Germanic infantry-dominated warfare.

      > So if western Germanic peoples
      > had a 50/50 ration in Ceaser's time the ratio ought
      > to be even higher in 4th century Gothic armies.

      Where are you getting this 50/50 ratio for Caesar's time?
      The passage in Tacitus, which you've already quoted, states quite
      explicitly that 'their strength lies in infantry rather than
      cavalry' and goes on to describe how infantry accompany the
      relatively small numbers of cavalry to reinforce them.
      (Germania 6). The passage in Caesar you've referred to describes
      the same tactic, discussing a force of 6000 cavalry reinforced
      by a similar number of infantry skirmishing with the Romans
      before a battle between Caesar. This passage is not describing
      the distribution of infantry and cavalry in Ariovistus' army
      overall, it's talking about a specific body of warriors
      using a specific mixed infantry/cavalry tactic for a specific
      purpose. The description of the pitched battle which followed
      two days later indicates that it was, again, a largely infantry
      vs infantry affair. Caesar's cavalry is mentioned several times
      pursuing the fleeing Germans, but no German cavalry is mentioned
      in the rest of the account.

      I simply can't see how these two passages can be taken as any kind
      of evidence of a large proportion of cavalry in early Germanic armies.
      In fact, they seem to be clear indications of quite the opposite.
      This is one of the reasons why, as Malcolm Todd summarised in the
      quote in my last post, the overwhelming consensus is that the
      western Germans relied largely on their infantry. The descendents
      of these tribes, the Franks and Alamanni, were certainly known as
      people who fought predominantly on foot. I can't think of *any*
      evidence at all for this 50/50 cavalry/infantry claim and I've
      never seen it made before.

      > Concerning Burns I think his work is surpassed (didn't he
      > publish in the 1980s?) by later works on Roman and Germanic
      > warfare. More on that later.

      The seminal article on Adrianople was published in 1976.
      'Ostrogoths: Kinship and Society' was published in 1980 and
      "A History of the Ostrogoths' was released in 1984. I'd be interested
      to learn who has surpassed Burns' analysis of Adrianople. I've seen
      this issue discussed on a number of fora recently, including one
      where military historians of the calibre of Kelly DeVries and
      Bernard Bachrach were involved in the discussion - all of these
      scholars characterised the Battle of Adrianople in the way
      I've been describing it and according to Burns' analysis.
      Who's has surpassed Burns? What are they basing their analysis on?

      > Would you please let us know what you have so far published
      > on the web and the web addresses. Looking forward to
      > your new material and please inform on the list when
      > it is available.

      I haven't had time to add much content to the site, since I've been
      teaching myself Photoshop 5.5 and some more HTML and using this to
      make the site look more attractive. When I'm ready to launch I can
      assure you gothic-l will be the place where it's first announced.
      Cheers,

      Tim O'Neill
      Tasmanian Devil
    • got@yesbox.net
      tim o neill wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1906 Good Evening Tim, Yes, I believe that you are
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 1 4:59 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        tim o'neill <scath-@...> wrote:
        original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1906

        Good Evening Tim,

        Yes, I believe that you are right. I checked up the writer of the
        article, and he is a writer and a archeosofist. As far as I understod,
        it´s someone who is studying ancient thinking, knowledge and ideas. He
        doesn´t seem very reliable since much of his theories are based on what
        he "thinks" is right. It´s his personal homepage, but to me it looked
        like a official presentation of a exhibition.

        > I'm not sure what Lindgren means by Scythians 'inventing' cavalry - as
        > Assyrian bas-reliefs show cavalry many centuries before the appearance
        > of the Scythians or the Hsing Nu. It can't even be said that the
        > Scythians invented the horse archer, as (again) there are early Middle
        > Eastern examples of this troop type. It should also be noted that the
        > traditional identification of the Hsing Nu with the Huns is a
        hypothesis,
        > and it is not longer universally accepted.


        > I'd like to see some evidence for this, as it is completely contrary
        to
        > all the evidence presented by every historian of technology I've ever
        > read. See http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpages/stirrups.html for a
        > good brief summary of the current scholarship on the development of
        the
        > stirrup by my friend Dr Paul Gans - his footnotes indicate some useful
        > up to date reading on the subject. If Lindgren has evidence that the
        > Sarmatians used stirrups I'm sure there are a lot of historians who'd
        > like to see it.

        No, he doesn´t seem to have any proof of that. But he writes that many
        celts moved eastwards towards the Black sea in the 500 BC to able to
        take part in the blossoming trade with the scythians. He also says that
        the celts probably founded the Lithuanian city of Wilna/Wilnius, and
        that a large colony lived in Kiev. Ackording to him this was known by
        Jordanes in the 500c, who called it "Caldo", and that in our time a
        collar, a celtic torque was found there.
        I really hope that he is right this time. BTW, interesting link, and I
        can´t do else than to blow the retrait as the east-romans did at
        Adrianopolis.

        > The Roman cavalry didn't use stirrups, but instead used the 'horned
        > saddle' - with four 'horns' which help hold the rider in the saddle
        and
        > into which a cavalryman can lean to strike powerful downward blows.
        > Modern experiments with reconstructed horned saddles have shown them
        > to be stable and effective for cavalry tactics. The Sarmatians and
        > Ostrogoths used a similar kind of stirrupless saddle with a high bow
        > and equally high crupper, as evidenced by the rich harness found at
        > Apahida. This kind of saddle worked in the same way.

        Thanks, this was interesting! That they could get support enough was
        good to know. So I wonder if it was possible to have lighter lances,
        but they probably had to be abandoned as soon as they "got stuck".
        But the normal cavalary-weapon must have been a sword. Just knowing
        that any second you could be hit from above or stepped on by a horse,
        could put the most disciplined army into turmoil! Just to ride down
        your enemy, was also a part of the tactic, wasn´t it? An army that
        wasn´t equipped with heavy lances probably wouldn´t stand a chance. One
        later solution I remember from the battle of Waterloo, was to form
        squares to prevent their enemies to ride them down.

        > developed in the 11th century and replace the 'overhand' and 'kontos'
        > techniques which the Gothic cavalry and their Alanic and Sarmatian
        > precursors would have used.

        I´m looking forward to your warfare webpage. One reason to that I put
        up the link was that I wanted some people to see the cavalary-battle
        from the bronze-age, half-way down the link. It´s actually regarded by
        other researchers to be from the 500-400 BC, early iron-age. It´s also
        interesting to note the name "Tegneby". Has this been the village for a
        chief and his men, his "thegnar", since that time until viking-age?
        This picture, which you posssibly has seen before is maybe a worthy
        prospect for your homepage?



        Hälsningar-Greetings,



        Gutwulfs
        Håkan Liljeberg
      • Tim O'Neill
        ... Roman cavalry were armed with both spear and sword and it seems the Sarmatian, Alan and Gothic cavalry used swords whenever they could afford them or could
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 2 2:15 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          got@... wrote:

          > > The Roman cavalry didn't use stirrups, but instead used the 'horned
          > > saddle' - with four 'horns' which help hold the rider in the saddle
          > and
          > > into which a cavalryman can lean to strike powerful downward blows.
          > > Modern experiments with reconstructed horned saddles have shown them
          > > to be stable and effective for cavalry tactics. The Sarmatians and
          > > Ostrogoths used a similar kind of stirrupless saddle with a high bow
          > > and equally high crupper, as evidenced by the rich harness found at
          > > Apahida. This kind of saddle worked in the same way.
          >
          > Thanks, this was interesting! That they could get support enough was
          > good to know. So I wonder if it was possible to have lighter lances,
          > but they probably had to be abandoned as soon as they "got stuck".
          > But the normal cavalary-weapon must have been a sword.

          Roman cavalry were armed with both spear and sword and it seems the
          Sarmatian, Alan and Gothic cavalry used swords whenever they could
          afford them or could get hold of them.

          > Just knowing
          > that any second you could be hit from above or stepped on by a horse,
          > could put the most disciplined army into turmoil! Just to ride down
          > your enemy, was also a part of the tactic, wasn´t it? An army that
          > wasn´t equipped with heavy lances probably wouldn´t stand a chance.

          Even then, the psychological impact of a cavalry charge can be quite
          daunting. I've stood in a shield wall with horsemen charging towards
          it in large-scale medieval re-enactment battles. Even when you know
          they aren't trying to kill you, that their weapons are blunted and
          that the horses are going to turn away at the last moment - your first
          instinct is to run like hell! And this is with five or six cavalrymen,
          the effect of thousands charging at once would have been awesome.

          > One
          > later solution I remember from the battle of Waterloo, was to form
          > squares to prevent their enemies to ride them down.

          During the filming of the movie 'Waterloo' in the seventies they used
          real soldiers as extras. When it came to the climax of the battle
          where the British squares were facing the charging French cavalry the
          direct had to shoot the scene over and over because the men playing
          the British soldiers kept running away.

          > > developed in the 11th century and replace the 'overhand' and 'kontos'
          > > techniques which the Gothic cavalry and their Alanic and Sarmatian
          > > precursors would have used.
          >
          > I´m looking forward to your warfare webpage. One reason to that I put
          > up the link was that I wanted some people to see the cavalary-battle
          > from the bronze-age, half-way down the link. It´s actually regarded by
          > other researchers to be from the 500-400 BC, early iron-age. It´s also
          > interesting to note the name "Tegneby". Has this been the village for a
          > chief and his men, his "thegnar", since that time until viking-age?
          > This picture, which you posssibly has seen before is maybe a worthy
          > prospect for your homepage?

          Well, 'Kunthihuzd' is a site purely devoted to the Gothic peoples and
          the warfare section is going to concentrate entirely on them, their
          arms, armour, tactics and the major battles in which they fought.
          That alone has been keeping me busy for months, I can assure you.
          Cheers,

          Tim O'Neill
          Tasmanian Devil
        • John Otis
          Please unsubscribe me from this mailing list Thank you, John ... From: Tim O Neill To: Sent: Wednesday, March
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 2 7:14 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Please unsubscribe me from this mailing list
            Thank you,
            John
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Tim O'Neill <scatha@...>
            To: <gothic-l@egroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 3:43 AM
            Subject: [gothic-l] Re: Infantry/cavalry


            > Bertil Häggman wrote:
            >
            > > With these views of yours it is hard to
            > > see why there should be so much wrong
            > > with Warry's picture of a hunnic warrior.
            >
            > There's not much wrong with it as a generic depiction of a nomadic
            > horse archer, but it's not much of a depiction of a Hunnic warrior.
            > There is nothing distinctively Hunnic about any of the equipment
            > or trappings depicted. It looks far more like a Mongolian warrior
            > of 700 years later and only gives a vague idea of what a Hun warrior
            > would have looked like. If you're going to bother depicting a Hun,
            > why not look at some specifically Hunnic artefacts and include them
            > in your reconstruction?
            >
            > > Your comment on the cavalry at Adrianople
            > > is a little bit ambigous, but I maintain that
            > > the Alan cavalry section was a large one.
            >
            > I'm sorry if I was in any way ambiguous - I was trying to be very
            > clear and specific. How was I ambiguous? Perhaps I can explain more
            > carefully. And what are you basing your assessment of the number of
            > Alans at Adrianople on?
            >
            > > Concerning Dupuy & Dupuy, there are of course
            > > later editions. The 1976 printing it was rather
            > > is the one I own.
            >
            > Then all I can say is I can't think of any recent historians who support
            > Dupuy and Dupuy and wonder what they are basing their assessment on.
            >
            > > The relevance is of course that the Germanic peoples
            > > were no strangers to cavalry.
            >
            > True, but no-one has ever disputed this. That they used cavalry is
            > very clear from all the evidence. The question is the relative
            > numbers of cavalry and infantry in Germanic armies in general and
            > in Fritigern's army at Adrianople in particular.
            >
            > >And the influence of the nomadic steppe peoples would certainly have
            > >kept the ration of cavalry very high, both Gothic cavalry
            > > and Alanic cavalry.
            >
            > This is generally true, but these proportions differ depending on
            > *when* you are talking about and *which* Goths you are discussing.
            > Euric's Visigothic armies probably had substantial numbers of cavalry,
            > but his Tervingian ancestors in Fritigern's time had very few.
            > The Tervingians' neighbours, who were in contact with the nomads
            > you mention and who lived on the plains, adopted their cavalry tactics.
            > The forest-dwelling Tervingians didn't have as much direct contact
            > and retained traditional Germanic infantry-dominated warfare.
            >
            > > So if western Germanic peoples
            > > had a 50/50 ration in Ceaser's time the ratio ought
            > > to be even higher in 4th century Gothic armies.
            >
            > Where are you getting this 50/50 ratio for Caesar's time?
            > The passage in Tacitus, which you've already quoted, states quite
            > explicitly that 'their strength lies in infantry rather than
            > cavalry' and goes on to describe how infantry accompany the
            > relatively small numbers of cavalry to reinforce them.
            > (Germania 6). The passage in Caesar you've referred to describes
            > the same tactic, discussing a force of 6000 cavalry reinforced
            > by a similar number of infantry skirmishing with the Romans
            > before a battle between Caesar. This passage is not describing
            > the distribution of infantry and cavalry in Ariovistus' army
            > overall, it's talking about a specific body of warriors
            > using a specific mixed infantry/cavalry tactic for a specific
            > purpose. The description of the pitched battle which followed
            > two days later indicates that it was, again, a largely infantry
            > vs infantry affair. Caesar's cavalry is mentioned several times
            > pursuing the fleeing Germans, but no German cavalry is mentioned
            > in the rest of the account.
            >
            > I simply can't see how these two passages can be taken as any kind
            > of evidence of a large proportion of cavalry in early Germanic armies.
            > In fact, they seem to be clear indications of quite the opposite.
            > This is one of the reasons why, as Malcolm Todd summarised in the
            > quote in my last post, the overwhelming consensus is that the
            > western Germans relied largely on their infantry. The descendents
            > of these tribes, the Franks and Alamanni, were certainly known as
            > people who fought predominantly on foot. I can't think of *any*
            > evidence at all for this 50/50 cavalry/infantry claim and I've
            > never seen it made before.
            >
            > > Concerning Burns I think his work is surpassed (didn't he
            > > publish in the 1980s?) by later works on Roman and Germanic
            > > warfare. More on that later.
            >
            > The seminal article on Adrianople was published in 1976.
            > 'Ostrogoths: Kinship and Society' was published in 1980 and
            > "A History of the Ostrogoths' was released in 1984. I'd be interested
            > to learn who has surpassed Burns' analysis of Adrianople. I've seen
            > this issue discussed on a number of fora recently, including one
            > where military historians of the calibre of Kelly DeVries and
            > Bernard Bachrach were involved in the discussion - all of these
            > scholars characterised the Battle of Adrianople in the way
            > I've been describing it and according to Burns' analysis.
            > Who's has surpassed Burns? What are they basing their analysis on?
            >
            > > Would you please let us know what you have so far published
            > > on the web and the web addresses. Looking forward to
            > > your new material and please inform on the list when
            > > it is available.
            >
            > I haven't had time to add much content to the site, since I've been
            > teaching myself Photoshop 5.5 and some more HTML and using this to
            > make the site look more attractive. When I'm ready to launch I can
            > assure you gothic-l will be the place where it's first announced.
            > Cheers,
            >
            > Tim O'Neill
            > Tasmanian Devil
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > FreeLotto wants to give you a brand new Mazda Miata. Plus
            > tonight and every night you can win $1,000,000. Sign up
            > today to win! Drawing will Drawing will be held on
            > March 8, 2000. play for FREE!
            > http://click.egroups.com/1/1946/3/_/3398/_/951900910/
            >
            > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
            > -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/gothic-l/?m=1
            >
            >
          • John Otis
            Please unsubscribe my name Thank you, John. ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:59 PM Subject: [gothic-l]
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 2 7:15 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Please unsubscribe my name
              Thank you,
              John.
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <got@...>
              To: <gothic-l@...>
              Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:59 PM
              Subject: [gothic-l] Re: HIST:Infantry/cavalry


              tim o'neill <scath-@...> wrote:
              original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1906

              Good Evening Tim,

              Yes, I believe that you are right. I checked up the writer of the
              article, and he is a writer and a archeosofist. As far as I understod,
              it´s someone who is studying ancient thinking, knowledge and ideas. He
              doesn´t seem very reliable since much of his theories are based on what
              he "thinks" is right. It´s his personal homepage, but to me it looked
              like a official presentation of a exhibition.

              > I'm not sure what Lindgren means by Scythians 'inventing' cavalry - as
              > Assyrian bas-reliefs show cavalry many centuries before the appearance
              > of the Scythians or the Hsing Nu. It can't even be said that the
              > Scythians invented the horse archer, as (again) there are early Middle
              > Eastern examples of this troop type. It should also be noted that the
              > traditional identification of the Hsing Nu with the Huns is a
              hypothesis,
              > and it is not longer universally accepted.


              > I'd like to see some evidence for this, as it is completely contrary
              to
              > all the evidence presented by every historian of technology I've ever
              > read. See http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~tekpages/stirrups.html for a
              > good brief summary of the current scholarship on the development of
              the
              > stirrup by my friend Dr Paul Gans - his footnotes indicate some useful
              > up to date reading on the subject. If Lindgren has evidence that the
              > Sarmatians used stirrups I'm sure there are a lot of historians who'd
              > like to see it.

              No, he doesn´t seem to have any proof of that. But he writes that many
              celts moved eastwards towards the Black sea in the 500 BC to able to
              take part in the blossoming trade with the scythians. He also says that
              the celts probably founded the Lithuanian city of Wilna/Wilnius, and
              that a large colony lived in Kiev. Ackording to him this was known by
              Jordanes in the 500c, who called it "Caldo", and that in our time a
              collar, a celtic torque was found there.
              I really hope that he is right this time. BTW, interesting link, and I
              can´t do else than to blow the retrait as the east-romans did at
              Adrianopolis.

              > The Roman cavalry didn't use stirrups, but instead used the 'horned
              > saddle' - with four 'horns' which help hold the rider in the saddle
              and
              > into which a cavalryman can lean to strike powerful downward blows.
              > Modern experiments with reconstructed horned saddles have shown them
              > to be stable and effective for cavalry tactics. The Sarmatians and
              > Ostrogoths used a similar kind of stirrupless saddle with a high bow
              > and equally high crupper, as evidenced by the rich harness found at
              > Apahida. This kind of saddle worked in the same way.

              Thanks, this was interesting! That they could get support enough was
              good to know. So I wonder if it was possible to have lighter lances,
              but they probably had to be abandoned as soon as they "got stuck".
              But the normal cavalary-weapon must have been a sword. Just knowing
              that any second you could be hit from above or stepped on by a horse,
              could put the most disciplined army into turmoil! Just to ride down
              your enemy, was also a part of the tactic, wasn´t it? An army that
              wasn´t equipped with heavy lances probably wouldn´t stand a chance. One
              later solution I remember from the battle of Waterloo, was to form
              squares to prevent their enemies to ride them down.

              > developed in the 11th century and replace the 'overhand' and 'kontos'
              > techniques which the Gothic cavalry and their Alanic and Sarmatian
              > precursors would have used.

              I´m looking forward to your warfare webpage. One reason to that I put
              up the link was that I wanted some people to see the cavalary-battle
              from the bronze-age, half-way down the link. It´s actually regarded by
              other researchers to be from the 500-400 BC, early iron-age. It´s also
              interesting to note the name "Tegneby". Has this been the village for a
              chief and his men, his "thegnar", since that time until viking-age?
              This picture, which you posssibly has seen before is maybe a worthy
              prospect for your homepage?



              Hälsningar-Greetings,



              Gutwulfs
              Håkan Liljeberg


              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              FreeLotto wants to give you a brand new Mazda Miata. Plus
              tonight and every night you can win $1,000,000. Sign up
              today to win! Drawing will Drawing will be held on
              March 8, 2000. play for FREE!
              http://click.egroups.com/1/1946/3/_/3398/_/951958865/

              eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/
              http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            • got@yesbox.net
              tim o neill wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1914 ... Hails Tim, Yes, it must be a terrible feeling
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 4 8:02 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                tim o'neill <scath-@...> wrote:
                original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1914
                > got@... wrote:

                Hails Tim,

                Yes, it must be a terrible feeling to face thousands of well armed
                cavalry-men.
                Long hillebards lances, was used in the medieval ages by the swiss army
                and germans against eachother and against cavalry too I suppose. Also
                successfully used in the battle of Stirling as far as i know.

                One detail I remember from a radioprogram about the battle of Waterloo,
                a quote from a contemporary source, was quite scary in details. It said
                approximately, that when the first volleys hit the cavalry-mens
                metal-breast plates and harness it first sounded like a hailstorm
                against a metal-roof. And when the soldiers were reloading it sank in
                intensity, to immediately rise to full storm as soldiers had reloaded
                and the cavalary made another charge.
                Must have been an unreal and frightening feeling!

                I am thinking about sending a scanned picture of the visigothic
                picture-stone from Lèon to some people on the list, so people can make
                out their own opinion!
                I think this picture has to be completed with a red-black or red-yellow
                whorl on the shield, also shoes not boots. Maybe no helmet..

                http://www.ur.se/skaraborg/lb_gfk24.html


                Hälsningar


                Gutwulfs


                > > > The Roman cavalry didn't use stirrups, but instead used the
                'horned
                > > > saddle' - with four 'horns' which help hold the rider in the
                saddle
                > > and
                > > > into which a cavalryman can lean to strike powerful downward
                blows.
                > > > Modern experiments with reconstructed horned saddles have shown
                them
                > > > to be stable and effective for cavalry tactics. The Sarmatians
                and
                > > > Ostrogoths used a similar kind of stirrupless saddle with a high
                bow
                > > > and equally high crupper, as evidenced by the rich harness found
                at
                > > > Apahida. This kind of saddle worked in the same way.
                > >
                > > Thanks, this was interesting! That they could get support enough was
                > > good to know. So I wonder if it was possible to have lighter lances,
                > > but they probably had to be abandoned as soon as they "got stuck".
                > > But the normal cavalary-weapon must have been a sword.
                >
                > Roman cavalry were armed with both spear and sword and it seems the
                > Sarmatian, Alan and Gothic cavalry used swords whenever they could
                > afford them or could get hold of them.
                >
                > > Just knowing
                > > that any second you could be hit from above or stepped on by a
                horse,
                > > could put the most disciplined army into turmoil! Just to ride down
                > > your enemy, was also a part of the tactic, wasn´t it? An army that
                > > wasn´t equipped with heavy lances probably wouldn´t stand a chance.
                > > One
                > > later solution I remember from the battle of Waterloo, was to form
                > > squares to prevent their enemies to ride them down.
                >
                > During the filming of the movie 'Waterloo' in the seventies they used
                > real soldiers as extras. When it came to the climax of the battle
                > where the British squares were facing the charging French cavalry the
                > direct had to shoot the scene over and over because the men playing
                > the British soldiers kept running away.
                >
                > > > developed in the 11th century and replace the 'overhand' and
                'kontos'
                > > > techniques which the Gothic cavalry and their Alanic and Sarmatian
                > > > precursors would have used.
                > >
              • M. Carver
                Hails! Gutwulf j. all.: Why not send the picture to me as well, and I will put it up in the gothic-l vault, where I am currently also putting up other
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 4 11:34 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hails! Gutwulf j. all.:
                  Why not send the picture to me as well, and I will put it up in the
                  gothic-l vault, where I am currently also putting up other
                  gothic-related things. Anything of relevance will find a place in the
                  gothic-l vault. (we have up to 20 MB).
                  Cheers,
                  Maþþaius


                  got@... wrote:

                  > charge. Must have been an unreal and frightening feeling! I am
                  > thinking about sending a scanned picture of the visigothic
                  > picture-stone from Lèon to some people on the list, so people can make
                  > out their own opinion! I think this picture has to be completed with a
                  > red-black or red-yellow whorl on the shield, also shoes not boots.
                  > Maybe no helmet.. http://www.ur.se/skaraborg/lb_gfk24.html Hälsningar
                • got@yesbox.net
                  m. carver wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1936 Hails Matthaius! I will try to do it next week. I
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 4 2:08 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "m. carver" <mcarve-@...> wrote:
                    original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/gothic-l/?start=1936
                    Hails Matthaius!
                    I will try to do it next week. I have already made a colored photoshop-
                    picture over a year ago from a gotlandic picture-stone. They were in
                    red-black and yellow-black. The first combination and yellow-red, have
                    been attested by color residue preserved on stones from the 900c, and
                    then put in the walls of churches in the early 12th c. I will do my
                    best to find the right discette.

                    The picture-stone looks very similar to the ones on my homepage from
                    Väskinde, Sanda and Bro. In one source by Erik Nylèn, I have seen that
                    the stone is supposed to be from the 400c, but that must be an error,
                    instead it should be the 500c. In the same book he says that it is
                    visigothic, so it must be a misprint.



                    Gutwulfs
                    Håkan Liljeberg

                    > Why not send the picture to me as well, and I will put it up in the
                    > gothic-l vault, where I am currently also putting up other
                    > gothic-related things. Anything of relevance will find a place in the
                    > gothic-l vault. (we have up to 20 MB).
                    > Cheers,
                    > Maþþaius



                    > got@... wrote:
                    >
                    > > charge. Must have been an unreal and frightening feeling! I am
                    > > thinking about sending a scanned picture of the visigothic
                    > > picture-stone from Lèon to some people on the list, so people can
                    make
                    > > out their own opinion! I think this picture has to be completed
                    with a
                    > > red-black or red-yellow whorl on the shield, also shoes not boots.
                    > > Maybe no helmet.. http://www.ur.se/skaraborg/lb_gfk24.html
                    Hälsningar
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.