Of all armies in the history of our little blue ball, none can claim to be as unusual as that of the the Bosporan kingdom of the Crimea.
Involving a cosmoplitan mix of Hellenised Scythians and Sarmatians, Greeks colonists, Sindi and Maiotian tribesmen, with occasional Thracian, Alan and even Roman troops and thrown in for good measure a nice line in field artillery!
but this merlly an introduction to a better more descriptive article by a friend of mine, a Mr. Arian ****** ( last name fudged to protect the innocent)-
The Dacians inhabited an area roughly corresponding to ancient Thrace (modern Yugoslavia) and like their predecessors had a reputation for ferocity and warlike behaviour that brought them into conflict with the might of the Roman Empire. Dacian raids across the River Danube became more than a nuisance during the 2nd century AD and resulted in huge resources being targeted against a relatively minor people.
The Dacians were allied with other local peoples, namely the Bastarnae and later the Carpi, while also maintaining cordial and co-operative relations with the Sarmatians, one of the most restless, aggressive and impetuous folk that the ancient world produced. It may have been the fear of an overwhelming coalition led by the Dacian kings (the most famous of whom was Decebalus) that drove the Romans to campaign so vigorously in Dacia not always successfully. These hard-fought wars have left us with one of the ancient worlds greatest military records in the form of Trajans Column, which basically tells the story of a full-blown Roman campaign in strip form, wrapped around a stone column and depicted in relief.
Dacian warriors would have appeared very like other middle and northern European peoples, with beards, hair trimmed to collar length, a short-sleeved tunic, loose trousers, and leather or bark shoes. As a mountain people who lived by farming they would be healthily tanned and/or weather-beaten according to the season. They seem to have been a prosperous and active people who saw the raiding of their neighbours as a sport but the defence of their own homeland as a deadly serious business.
The Dacian army: This was composed of warrior-farmers. The commonest warrior by far would be a man in his everyday clothing armed with a number of javelins and a short sword or curved knife, his only defence a solid oval shield (often highly decorated) with an iron boss. Such men could quite easily make up over 75% of an army. The remainder would be men armed with bows who acted as scouts and skirmishers, plus a small number of men rich enough to ride around the battlefield but still dressed and equipped like the rest of the army.
Tactics and equipment: Fighting in loose swarms over difficult terrain, they could intimidate more heavily armed and armoured opponents, picking off and swamping unwary individuals or detachments but melting away if the going got too tough. The Dacians also had a couple of surprises waiting for an opponent who was able to catch them in the open field. The first was their allied Sarmatian cavalry, and the second was a terrible weapon called a falx.
Sarmatian cavalry were renowned for the ferocity of their charge, which could easily burst through all but the steadiest line of infantry or cavalry, and in an open field could be unstoppable. Armed with a 1012 ft (3.03.7 m) heavy spear called a contus (literally bargepole!), wearing helmets and mail, scale or lamellar armour, and riding horses that could also have armour to protect them from missiles, they were formidable opponents even for the Roman Legions. However, they had one great flaw: their tactics were limited to the all-out charge, and a sophisticated enemy such as the Romans could defeat them with careful battlefield preparations designed to disrupt their formations before they came into contact. Although their numbers were small in Dacian armies they would be the focus of much concern to an enemy. (For more detail on the Sarmatians see the separate entry.)
The falx was a weapon peculiar to the area. Basically a curved, scythe-like blade on a wooden haft, it has been identified with the rhomphia of the earlier Thracians. There are several accounts of its shape which vary from a weapon of almost dagger size up to a large curved blade on a curved haft (apparently resulting in an S shape). What is certain is that its effects were horrific, easily cutting through a limb or helmet. The Romans tried to counter its effectiveness by equipping chosen legionaries with heavier armour for their sword arms and lower legs and reinforcing existing helmets.
Roman campaigns: Those launched against raiding tribes usually ended with the raiders losing crops, farms and any battle they dared to offer. However, this was not the case with the Dacians. Expeditions sent to punish the Dacians in 85, 87 and 88 AD were all beaten, the first two soundly, though the last could not have been too bad a defeat since the Romans claimed it as a victory even though they ended up making all the concessions, paying tribute. Things were to change with the accession of Emperor Trajan. It was he who led two huge campaigns against the Dacians in 101 and 105 AD. The forces involved have been conservatively estimated at 12 Legions, 16 cavalry alae, 60 auxiliary cohortes and numerous guard and barbarian support units a minimum of 80,000 troops. In 106 AD Dacia was finally incorporated into the Roman Empire, but the related Carpi tribes continued the tradition of raiding right up until the end of the 4th century.
Allies: These could constitute up to a third of a Dacian army, with the Bastarnae providing up to 20% of its warriors. Their composition differed from that of the Dacians in that they relied almost entirely on the falx, with only a few mounted nobles but supported by having foot javelinmen mixed within their formations. Sarmatians especially enjoyed raiding alongside the Dacians and could number from a few individuals to a whole tribe, so potentially up to 25% of the army could consist of Sarmatian horsemen. (See the separate section on the Sarmatians).
Enemies: The Dacians enemies were limited to Early Imperial Romans and Sarmatians, while the Carpi fought both of these and Middle and Later Imperial Romans too . Potentially the Carpi may have clashed with migrating German tribes and Alan nomads up until 380 AD, when they disappear from history.
THE SARMATIANS
A nation most accomplished at brigandage
In the late 4th century BC the wild steppe people collectively referred to as Sarmatians began raiding their more settled and prosperous neighbours, and they continued to do so for over 600 years until they were wiped out by the Huns. While there were many tribes, I will concentrate here on those which were allied with the Dacians and fought both for and against Imperial Rome.
Several comments survive concerning the character of the Sarmatians which, while subjective, provide something of the flavour of their armies. Apart from the quote at the head of this piece, we are told of one Sarmatian in Roman employ that although a Sarmatian by birth, he is prudent and careful. The Sarmatian way of war was very straightforward literally!
Their warrior-class was entirely mounted. In fact we are told that their cavalry is their sole useful force and that no people is so cowardly when it comes to fighting on foot, yet when they attack on horseback, few formations can resist them. Armour could consist of a spangenhelm helmet and a mail or scale corselet, but metal body armour was only affordable to the upper classes and most warriors substituted leather and horn scales. The leather was dyed, so could be brown, black, red, green or blue, but would not be particularly bright. Horn scales were manufactured by splitting horse hooves into small plates, which were shaped and bored with holes for laces and then sewn to a backing like any other scale armour. the color of horn armour may present problems to unit makers, as most cannot agree on the colour (bluish-green is suggested by some ancient commentators). I would recommend a very light beige/brown/white. Other equipment and clothing would be solid colours, with an added layer of grime toning it down even more. Sarmatian horses were armoured in a similar way to their riders, with horn and leather predominating and metal even rarer.
Horse armour was adopted to combat the horse-archery of the steppe nomads who constituted the Sarmatians main enemies. The Sarmatians themselves also carried bows but seldom seem to have used them in pitched battles, preferring an all-out charge made even more deadly by their use of the kontos (bargepole), a heavy 1012 ft (3.03.6 m) lance with a long heavy head. The kontos would be wielded in two hands, braced against the horse and rider for extra effect The fact that the Sarmatians did not use stirrups means that their skill and horsemanship must have been exceptional to enable them to remain seated after impact. The kontos also bears a resemblance to the Japanese yari spear, which was used as a slicing and stabbing as well as thrusting weapon (there is a record of a Gothic kontos cutting an opponents head off), so their straightforward charge may not have been the only fighting style available to the Sarmatians- this said it is no wonder why they became the model for the Roman Cataphract!
Involving a cosmoplitan mix of Hellenised Scythians and Sarmatians, Greeks colonists, Sindi and Maiotian tribesmen, with occasional Thracian, Alan and even Roman troops and thrown in for good measure a nice line in field artillery!
but this merlly an introduction to a better more descriptive article by a friend of mine, a Mr. Arian ****** ( last name fudged to protect the innocent)-
The Dacians inhabited an area roughly corresponding to ancient Thrace (modern Yugoslavia) and like their predecessors had a reputation for ferocity and warlike behaviour that brought them into conflict with the might of the Roman Empire. Dacian raids across the River Danube became more than a nuisance during the 2nd century AD and resulted in huge resources being targeted against a relatively minor people.
The Dacians were allied with other local peoples, namely the Bastarnae and later the Carpi, while also maintaining cordial and co-operative relations with the Sarmatians, one of the most restless, aggressive and impetuous folk that the ancient world produced. It may have been the fear of an overwhelming coalition led by the Dacian kings (the most famous of whom was Decebalus) that drove the Romans to campaign so vigorously in Dacia not always successfully. These hard-fought wars have left us with one of the ancient worlds greatest military records in the form of Trajans Column, which basically tells the story of a full-blown Roman campaign in strip form, wrapped around a stone column and depicted in relief.
Dacian warriors would have appeared very like other middle and northern European peoples, with beards, hair trimmed to collar length, a short-sleeved tunic, loose trousers, and leather or bark shoes. As a mountain people who lived by farming they would be healthily tanned and/or weather-beaten according to the season. They seem to have been a prosperous and active people who saw the raiding of their neighbours as a sport but the defence of their own homeland as a deadly serious business.
The Dacian army: This was composed of warrior-farmers. The commonest warrior by far would be a man in his everyday clothing armed with a number of javelins and a short sword or curved knife, his only defence a solid oval shield (often highly decorated) with an iron boss. Such men could quite easily make up over 75% of an army. The remainder would be men armed with bows who acted as scouts and skirmishers, plus a small number of men rich enough to ride around the battlefield but still dressed and equipped like the rest of the army.
Tactics and equipment: Fighting in loose swarms over difficult terrain, they could intimidate more heavily armed and armoured opponents, picking off and swamping unwary individuals or detachments but melting away if the going got too tough. The Dacians also had a couple of surprises waiting for an opponent who was able to catch them in the open field. The first was their allied Sarmatian cavalry, and the second was a terrible weapon called a falx.
Sarmatian cavalry were renowned for the ferocity of their charge, which could easily burst through all but the steadiest line of infantry or cavalry, and in an open field could be unstoppable. Armed with a 1012 ft (3.03.7 m) heavy spear called a contus (literally bargepole!), wearing helmets and mail, scale or lamellar armour, and riding horses that could also have armour to protect them from missiles, they were formidable opponents even for the Roman Legions. However, they had one great flaw: their tactics were limited to the all-out charge, and a sophisticated enemy such as the Romans could defeat them with careful battlefield preparations designed to disrupt their formations before they came into contact. Although their numbers were small in Dacian armies they would be the focus of much concern to an enemy. (For more detail on the Sarmatians see the separate entry.)
The falx was a weapon peculiar to the area. Basically a curved, scythe-like blade on a wooden haft, it has been identified with the rhomphia of the earlier Thracians. There are several accounts of its shape which vary from a weapon of almost dagger size up to a large curved blade on a curved haft (apparently resulting in an S shape). What is certain is that its effects were horrific, easily cutting through a limb or helmet. The Romans tried to counter its effectiveness by equipping chosen legionaries with heavier armour for their sword arms and lower legs and reinforcing existing helmets.
Roman campaigns: Those launched against raiding tribes usually ended with the raiders losing crops, farms and any battle they dared to offer. However, this was not the case with the Dacians. Expeditions sent to punish the Dacians in 85, 87 and 88 AD were all beaten, the first two soundly, though the last could not have been too bad a defeat since the Romans claimed it as a victory even though they ended up making all the concessions, paying tribute. Things were to change with the accession of Emperor Trajan. It was he who led two huge campaigns against the Dacians in 101 and 105 AD. The forces involved have been conservatively estimated at 12 Legions, 16 cavalry alae, 60 auxiliary cohortes and numerous guard and barbarian support units a minimum of 80,000 troops. In 106 AD Dacia was finally incorporated into the Roman Empire, but the related Carpi tribes continued the tradition of raiding right up until the end of the 4th century.
Allies: These could constitute up to a third of a Dacian army, with the Bastarnae providing up to 20% of its warriors. Their composition differed from that of the Dacians in that they relied almost entirely on the falx, with only a few mounted nobles but supported by having foot javelinmen mixed within their formations. Sarmatians especially enjoyed raiding alongside the Dacians and could number from a few individuals to a whole tribe, so potentially up to 25% of the army could consist of Sarmatian horsemen. (See the separate section on the Sarmatians).
Enemies: The Dacians enemies were limited to Early Imperial Romans and Sarmatians, while the Carpi fought both of these and Middle and Later Imperial Romans too . Potentially the Carpi may have clashed with migrating German tribes and Alan nomads up until 380 AD, when they disappear from history.
THE SARMATIANS
A nation most accomplished at brigandage
In the late 4th century BC the wild steppe people collectively referred to as Sarmatians began raiding their more settled and prosperous neighbours, and they continued to do so for over 600 years until they were wiped out by the Huns. While there were many tribes, I will concentrate here on those which were allied with the Dacians and fought both for and against Imperial Rome.
Several comments survive concerning the character of the Sarmatians which, while subjective, provide something of the flavour of their armies. Apart from the quote at the head of this piece, we are told of one Sarmatian in Roman employ that although a Sarmatian by birth, he is prudent and careful. The Sarmatian way of war was very straightforward literally!
Their warrior-class was entirely mounted. In fact we are told that their cavalry is their sole useful force and that no people is so cowardly when it comes to fighting on foot, yet when they attack on horseback, few formations can resist them. Armour could consist of a spangenhelm helmet and a mail or scale corselet, but metal body armour was only affordable to the upper classes and most warriors substituted leather and horn scales. The leather was dyed, so could be brown, black, red, green or blue, but would not be particularly bright. Horn scales were manufactured by splitting horse hooves into small plates, which were shaped and bored with holes for laces and then sewn to a backing like any other scale armour. the color of horn armour may present problems to unit makers, as most cannot agree on the colour (bluish-green is suggested by some ancient commentators). I would recommend a very light beige/brown/white. Other equipment and clothing would be solid colours, with an added layer of grime toning it down even more. Sarmatian horses were armoured in a similar way to their riders, with horn and leather predominating and metal even rarer.
Horse armour was adopted to combat the horse-archery of the steppe nomads who constituted the Sarmatians main enemies. The Sarmatians themselves also carried bows but seldom seem to have used them in pitched battles, preferring an all-out charge made even more deadly by their use of the kontos (bargepole), a heavy 1012 ft (3.03.6 m) lance with a long heavy head. The kontos would be wielded in two hands, braced against the horse and rider for extra effect The fact that the Sarmatians did not use stirrups means that their skill and horsemanship must have been exceptional to enable them to remain seated after impact. The kontos also bears a resemblance to the Japanese yari spear, which was used as a slicing and stabbing as well as thrusting weapon (there is a record of a Gothic kontos cutting an opponents head off), so their straightforward charge may not have been the only fighting style available to the Sarmatians- this said it is no wonder why they became the model for the Roman Cataphract!
