Saddle
The development of shock cavalry had to go hand in hand with the evolution of horse equipment. According to the unanimous opinion of researchers, the ancient cataphracts, like the ancient cavalry, did not yet have stirrups at all. This meant that the saddle could play a special role in the formation and development of heavy cavalry.
Of particular importance, according to some historians, was the antique "horn" saddle. According to Herrmann and Nikonorov, it was the evolution of the heavily armed cavalry that served as the impetus for its development. The increased role of the ramming strike required saddles that provide a better retention of the rider on the horse. Let's try to check this thesis on the available material and at the same time briefly consider the design of antique saddles.
The oldest saddles were found in the Pazyryk (Altai) barrows and date back to no later than the 5th century. BC NS. These are “soft”, frameless saddles made of two pillows that run along the horse's back and are sewn along the long side.
For the period of the V-IV centuries. BC NS. this saddle, apparently, was still an innovation, because on the carpet found in the fifth Altai mound, presumably of Persian origin, horses have no saddles, only blankets. Somewhat later, such a saddle design was already spread over a vast territory. Similar saddles can be seen on Scythian vessels and images of Shi Huang-di's "terracotta army". Nevertheless, the Greeks and Macedonians, up to the Hellenistic period, did without saddles at all, limiting themselves to a blanket-sweat-cloth.
A soft Altai (aka Scythian) saddle performed its main function well - to raise the rider above the horse's spine in order to protect it from injury. Additionally, for greater ride comfort, they had thickenings in the front and rear due to denser padding of the pillows - thigh rests. The ends of the pillows in the front and back could be covered with overlays made of hard material.
The "horn" design with developed lugs was a further step forward. The four stops secured the rider quite reliably, and the absence of a high back bow (as on later saddles) behind the waist reduced the likelihood of back injuries, although landing and dismounting required skill and caution due to protruding horns.
One of the oldest images of such a saddle is considered to be the Bactrian relief in Khalchayan, dating back to the 1st century AD. e., and a battle scene of the Orlat belt plate of the II century. BC NS. - II century. n. NS. (see below). Most researchers believe that these saddles had a rigid wooden frame. Horns or stops could be expressed to varying degrees. In some cases, you can see the semblance of a tall bow in the images. Archaeological finds of the first wooden saddle frames are extremely rare. Vinogradov and Nikonorov mention the remains from Kerch, Tolstaya Mogila and Alexandropol kurgan. All of them belong to Scythian antiquities and date back to the 4th century. BC NS.
In Western historiography, one can find an opinion about the Gaulish origin of horn saddles. This point of view goes back to P. Connolly and is based on the reliefs of Glanum - a monument of Roman architecture of the late 1st century BC. NS. But gradually it gives way to the version of eastern, possibly Central Asian origin.
The outer leather covering of the horn saddles has been found in several specimens by archaeologists. The presence of a rigid frame (lenchik, archak) in saddles of this type is still a subject of lively discussion. The frame saddle even more reliably lifts the rider above the horse's spine and provides greater durability of the saddle, not allowing him to "move apart" to the sides.
The image in Glanum seems to indicate the absence of a rigid frame, unless it is an artistic inaccuracy. Junckelmann additionally pointed out that the bronze plates attached to the saddle horns, apparently, for greater rigidity do not have the remains of nails and, therefore, were not nailed, but rather sewn on. The rigidity of the horns in this version, in addition to the plates, was provided by curved iron rods, often found in the layers of the Roman time.
Junckelmann reconstructed the saddle according to his views. It was found that the skin covering the saddle stretches and the saddle becomes wider, although the saddle itself remains functional. During use, the leather of the saddle does not form the characteristic tears and “wrinkles” typical of archaeological finds. The rear horns provided effective support for the rider, but the front horns were too flexible to support the rider. Worst of all, the saddle did not hold the shape of the cushions and therefore, over time, contact with the horse's spine became inevitable.
P. Connolly defended the presence of a wooden frame. His version is supported by a find from Vindolanda with traces of wear and tear at the point of contact with the alleged wooden ribbon. For a long time, no traces of the most woody tree have been found in the Roman region. But in 1998-2001 in Carlisle, UK, along with two leather saddle covers, they found a piece of wood that matches the front connecting saddle arch, according to Connolly's version. The saddle covers showed signs of wear similar to those found in Vindoland.
The information on the effectiveness of scaffold saddles is highly controversial. Modern reenactors perform all the combat elements necessary for a rider on them, and even consider such a saddle to be close to ideal. Unfortunately, it is not clear how accurately the reconstructions correlate with the archaeological and pictorial data in each case. On the other hand, there are also many critics of Connolly's reconstruction. For example, M. Watson believes that on such a saddle it is banally impossible to tightly grip the horse's sides with the legs, which casts doubt on the whole concept.
At the moment, the assumption of the presence of a wooden frame in horn saddles, apparently, is dominant in domestic and Western historiography, and P. Connolly's reconstruction is considered, if not canonical, then, in any case, basic.
Among Russian historians, opponents of rigid saddles are, for example, Stepanova and the famous Sarmatian specialist Symonenko (the latter, since the publication of the monograph "Sarmatian Horsemen of the Northern Black Sea Region", changed his point of view and no longer advocates the presence of a frame in antique saddles). Stepanova notes that the saddles in the images fit too tightly against the horse's back, which makes the presence of a wooden frame questionable. The horns themselves on Roman saddles and stops - on the eastern ones, she considers to be evolutionary modifications of the end plates on the front and rear cushions-stops of the soft saddle. All these saddles, in her opinion, retained a frameless design.
As for saddles with high bows instead of horns and stops, they, apparently, became widespread in Europe only with the invasion of the Huns, that is, not earlier than the 4th century. n. NS. These saddles undoubtedly had a rigid frame. Only a few finds of images of saddles with bows of the 1st – 3rd centuries. n. NS. on the territory of Europe do not allow to talk about their spread there before the Hunnic time. Stepanova admits high stiff bows for soft saddle designs, calling such saddles "semi-rigid".
In general, the connection between the evolution of the saddle and the development of the cavalry during this period seems extremely confusing. With a fair degree of confidence, we can say that the direct connection between the saddle in the 1st century. BC NS. - IV century. n. NS. and directly by the heavy cavalry with the rate on the ramming strike no.
The Romans borrowed a saddle with horns no later than the 1st century AD. NS. At a time when they did not have their own heavy cavalry. At the same time, it was among the Romans that saddle horns received the maximum, sometimes hypertrophied, dimensions that have no such analogues in the East.
The first divisions of cataphracts were formed only around 110. In the second century, the horns decrease significantly in size. Further, the situation looks even stranger. Remarkable, according to many researchers and reenactors, horny saddles suddenly lost their popularity in the 3rd century, although it was during this period that the Klibanarii appeared, which theoretically should dictate an increased demand for reliable saddles.
In the third century, the Roman Empire was already dominated by saddles with relatively low stops. In the IV century, frame saddles with high bows finally appeared, which became common, but they were introduced by the Huns, who were, first of all, horse archers, and did not rely on the ramming strike. There is no doubt that the 1st century. BC NS. - IV century. n. NS. was a period of trial and error.
Only further joint research by historians and reenactors can resolve the issue of the relationship between the development of the saddle and cavalry at that time.
Spear length
Since the Macedonian and Hellenistic cavalrymen were the chronological predecessors of the cataphracts, they coexisted for some time and, possibly, directly influenced their appearance, first let us determine the length of the Macedonian peak, the xistone.
Elian the Tactic, who lived at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries. n. BC, that is, much later than this period, indicated the length of the Macedonian cavalry spears of more than 3, 6 m. Usually the length of the spears of that period is determined by the "Alexander mosaic" - the image on the tomb of Kinch and the gold coin of Eucratides I. Since the grip of the peak was one-handed, such the peaks were held with a "lower grip" along the horse's body in the area of the center of gravity.
The Alexander mosaic is damaged and the back of the spear is lost. Markle decided that the spear was held approximately in the middle, and estimated it at approximately 4.5 meters. Connolly drew attention to the fact that the spear in the image narrows towards the point, and therefore the center of gravity in its reconstruction is shifted back - it is located at a distance of 1.2 meters from the rear end. Connolly rated Alexander's peak at 3.5 meters. Reenactors noted that, using one hand (and there is no reason to assume a two-handed grip for the Macedonians), it is impossible to change the grip from the upper to the lower and it is difficult to pull the spear out of the target.
When writing this section, the author of the article made his own estimates of the length of copies from the available antique images using a CAD program for greater accuracy. For all estimates, the rider's height, taken as a base for measurements, is taken as 1.7 m.
For the tomb of Kinch, the estimated length of the spear was only 2.5 meters. On the coin of Eucratides I, the spear has a length of 3.3 meters. The visible part of the spear on the "Alexander Mosaic" is 2.9 meters. Applying the proportions of the spear from Kinch's tomb to the damaged part of the image, we get the notorious 4.5 meters. Apparently this is the upper limit for Macedonian copies.
Sometimes, as evidence of the exceptional length of the Macedonian cavalry peaks, the existence of mounted sarissophores is cited. However, R. Gavronsky quite reasonably points out the fact that these units are mentioned only for a short period and disappear after 329 BC. e., which allows us to consider them as a kind of experiment.
Let us now turn to the materials on the cataphracts themselves and the long spears synchronized with them.
Alas, archeology does not help to clarify this issue. For example, in the Sarmatian graves there are generally few spears, moreover, in contrast to the Scythians and predecessors - the Savromats, the Sarmatians stopped using the underflow and put spears along the deceased, which would make it possible to determine the length of the spear even if the shaft decayed completely.
The authors of the collective work A synopsis of Sasanian military organization and combat units give the length of the cavalry spear-nēzak of the Parthians and Sassanid Persians at 3, 7 m, unfortunately, without any explanation.
Images come to the rescue here again. A rider in armor on a vessel from Kosiki carries a spear of 2, 7 m. A rider with a standard from the Orlat plate is armed with a long spear of 3, 5 meters. Three horsemen of the so-called Stasovo Bosporan crypt (I – II centuries AD) carry spears of 2, 7–3 meters. The rider from the crypt of Anfesteria carries a very long spear of 4, 3 meters. Finally, the record holder among the measured, the Bosporus horseman II in n. NS. with the painting that was lost and survived only in the drawing of Gross, he attacks with a spear 4, 7 meters long.
All estimates are made by the author of the article.
The results obtained should be treated with caution, many images are conditional and sometimes have irregular proportions. Nevertheless, the results are quite plausible. The presence of spears over 4 meters long can be considered rare, but quite real.
Spear strike technique. The problem of the "Sarmatian landing"
Unfortunately, ancient descriptions of the techniques of wielding a long spear in the saddle and striking it at a gallop have not survived. The pictorial sources can shed some light on the question.
The one-handed grip of the spear at the ready, apparently, was characteristic only of the Macedonians and Greeks. Judging by the images, it was supplanted by other techniques. The available versions of the spear grip for ancient times can be divided into three groups, shown below.
The one-handed grip (3) of the long spear under the arm is shown in a very small number of images. In addition to the Orlat plate, it is on the relief from Khalchayan, but there the rider is not depicted at the moment of the attack. This indicates its low prevalence.
The version of the "Sarmatian landing" (1), on the contrary, is confirmed by very numerous ancient images. Its supporters formulated it as follows - the rider pushes the left shoulder forward, holding the pike with both hands on the right. The reins are thrown, and all control of the horse is carried out with the legs bent at the knees.
The hypothesis had several vulnerabilities. Its opponents in Russia were such venerable researchers as Nikonorov and Simonenko. It was noted that the possibility of controlling a horse with only legs in battle was not very realistic, it was unsafe to jump sideways, and throwing the reins was considered completely incredible and almost suicidal. Antique images with a "Sarmatian landing" were explained by the pictorial canon and the desire to show the hero in as much detail as possible, which led to the fact that both of the rider's hands were visible to the viewer, and the artist deliberately turned his face towards the viewer.
Junckelmann experimented with a diagonal grip for a 4.5 meter lance. The right hand intercepted it closer to the end, the left hand supported it in front. This technique looks preferable to the previous one, since the unfolding moment arising from the impact is directed away from the rider and therefore does not seek to knock him out of the saddle. Moreover, it is also confirmed by antique images. In Junckelmann's experiment, the reins were not thrown, but held by the left hand. This technique, in addition to its practicality, is also confirmed by pictorial material.
A large belt plate from the Orlat burial ground found in Uzbekistan is of great importance for resolving the dispute over the equestrian strike technique of those times. The rough realism of the image looks free from traditional conventions and canons, and the abundance of details suggests that the master could have been a witness, or even a participant in the battle.
The upper right rider attacks by holding the spear in his right hand and pulling up the reins with his left. It can be noted here that there is no certainty that he made a galloping attack. His horse looks more static, "upset" compared to the rider below.
The fact that he allowed his opponent to be within sword strike distance suggests that he may have hesitated and did not have time to draw his sword. All he managed to do was simply poke the opponent's horse from a place, from an uncomfortable, static position.
The lower right rider, on the other hand, is interpreted quite unambiguously. He inflicts a blow, most likely, in motion, holds the spear "on Yunkelman", but his reins are clearly thrown - contrary to the arguments of the opponents of the "Sarmatian landing".
At present, the reality of the "Sarmatian landing" seems to have been proven by reenactors. Of course, there is still a long way to go, clarifying certain points.
I have no doubt that the long spear's two-handed grip was the main one. Moreover, any rider, most likely, could quickly change the position of the spear relative to the horse from right to left (from "Sarmatian" to "Junkelman") in order to attack the most convenient target in a rapidly changing battle pattern. In fact, these are two options for the same landing.
With regard to the abandoned reins, this is quite possible with the highest qualifications of many riders of that time and provided that the horse is well dressed. However, throwing the reins is completely optional and should not be insisted on.
There is a gap of 900 years and many thousands of kilometers between the oldest and the latest depiction of the Sarmatian landing. No artistic canon can explain such stability of the image. Thus, the Sarmatian landing can be considered the main technique. Additionally, the battle scene on the Panticapaeum crypt with a rider with an extra-long spear and the image of the so-called "Ilurat cataphractarium" suggest that this grip could have a variation when the spear is held with both hands in a position raised above the horse's head. From this position, you can attack the head of the enemy rider or, if necessary, very quickly lower the spear to either side, switching to the classic Sarmatian landing or the "Yunkelman" grip.
Here it will be appropriate to understand the description of the cataphract attack by the ancient novelist Heliodorus:
The tip of the spear protrudes strongly forward, the spear itself is attached by a belt to the horse's neck; its lower end, with the help of a loop, rests on the horse's rump, the spear does not give in in fights, but, helping the rider's hand, which is just directing the blow, it strains itself and firmly rests, inflicting a severe wound.
Obviously, the antique images do not show any attachment of the spears to the horse.
Although the straps themselves on the spear can sometimes be seen (Kinch's tomb). Even the very detailed relief from Firuzabad does not confirm Heliodorus's message. The reenactor of the Legio V Macedonica club told the author of the article that he successfully looped the lance on the horn of the replica of the Roman saddle, significantly reducing the spear drift upon impact and using his hands more to maintain the straight position of the spear than to actually hold it. If the belt broke, the rider simply let go of the spear. This partially overlaps with the indication of Heliodorus. But even such an interesting practice, although quite possible, is not reflected in the known sources.
How powerful was the spear's blow? Williams' experiments
A horse attack with a spear undoubtedly looks crushing in our minds.
Let us recall Plutarch, describing the attack of the Parthian horsemen in the life of Crassus:
The Parthians thrust into the riders heavy spears with an iron point, often piercing two people with one blow.
Such power of the blow inevitably gave rise to difficulties in delivering it.
The mass of a rider with a horse of the Akhal-Teke type, weapons and harness is not less than 550 kg. The attack can be carried out at speeds up to 20 km per hour and above. This gives a kinetic energy of at least 8 kJ. Such a huge energy certainly meant a huge impulse, which, according to the law of conservation, is transmitted equally to both the rider and the target.
Again, readers may have doubts about how the horsemen of antiquity could stay in the saddle after such blows, without stirrups, and, if Stepanov was right, frame saddles? To what extent are such reasoning, which arises both among ordinary readers and among professional historians, justified? Do we, in general, understand the situation correctly?
In 2013, after several years of persistent preparatory work, A. Williams, D. Edge and T. Capwell conducted a series of experiments to determine the energy of a spear strike in a horse attack. The experiment concerned, first of all, the Medieval era, but with some reservations, its conclusions can be applied to Antiquity.
In the experiment, galloping riders struck a suspended target, made according to the principle of a swing. The height of the toss of the target showed the impact energy perceived by it, since it was possible to apply the formula E = mgh, known from school years. To determine the height of the toss, a measuring column with marks and a camera were used.
The attacks were carried out with a spear held under the arm.
The spears were made of pine and had a steel tip. Large strong horses and various saddle options were used. For our topic, of particular interest is the first series of experiments, when the riders did not wear replicas of medieval armor with a spear rest.
Ten attacks performed with no saddle or stirrups at all yielded an interval of 83-128 J with an average of 100. Six attacks with a modern English saddle hit an interval of 65-172 J with an average of 133. Sixteen attacks performed on a replica of an Italian combat saddle yielded 66 –151 J with an average of 127. The medieval English combat saddle proved to be the worst - 97 J on average.
In some ways, such results can be called disappointing. Williams notes that blows of swords and axes transmit to the target from 60 to 130 J, and arrows - up to 100 J. blows up to 200+ J. In this case, the spears broke at an energy of about 250 J.
So, tests without spear rests have shown that there is no noticeable difference between the types of saddles in most cases. Even without a saddle, the testers showed quite comparable results.
Regarding stirrups, Williams specifically notes that they played little, if any, role in the spear ram. I, in turn, will note that the ancient "Sarmatian landing", apparently, did not have any advantages over the medieval one, since the spear is held on arms extended downward, and this excludes a hard blow by definition.
Additionally, the antique spears did not have a vample - a conical arm protection, which could play the role of a front stop when attacking with a spear. Dropped hands inevitably "spring" upon impact and additionally extinguish energy. Tests by Williams' group have shown the importance of holding the spear firmly with maximum redistribution of the load on the armor due to the support on the bib. But in Antiquity there was nothing like this. In light of these data, Plutarch's passage above seems like a standard antique exaggeration.
In general, from the point of view of this experiment, there is no reason to talk about any exceptional effectiveness of a spear strike. Low energy also means low shock impulses, so arguments about any particular danger of horse attacks for the ancient horsemen themselves, striking a blow, also look dubious. For experienced riders, which, undoubtedly, were the ancient cataphracts, it was not difficult to stay in the saddle during such attacks.
This experiment again allows us to look differently at the role of the saddle in the development of the heavily armed cavalry of ancient times. Undoubtedly, horn saddles and saddles with developed stops, soft or rigid, provided much more comfort to riders, but taking into account the results of the experiment, they cannot be considered a necessary or key technology when delivering a ramming blow. This is consistent with the intermediate conclusion made by the author in the Saddles section.
conclusions
The length of the spears of the cataphracts usually did not exceed 3–3.6 meters. Longer spears were rarely used. The cataphracts didn't need a specific saddle. The "Sarmatian" landing at a horse strike was common, and the power of a ramming blow with a spear was not something outstanding.
