Some questions regarding EBII's Saka horse trappings

[Lvcretivs]

(I'm not a native english speaker, so please disregard the quite high-strung phrasing and the probably unintended hostile and confrontative wording , any bolding is purely for emphasis and to prevent misunderstandings)

Recently, a new Twitter update showcased the as usually marvellous EBII unit modelling:

Saka are getting finally some love, an elite model got finished: http://bit.ly/jaJhgn http://bit.ly/llHpK2 http://bit.ly/ls7GQL ~Tux

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I always had the impression that the elaborate 'Altai-Scythian' horse trappings - especially the spectacular horse head gear from the Pazyryk kurgan burials - were primarily ceremonial in nature - essentially comparatively seldom used prestigious parade gear (IIRC they show 'wear and tear', but no identifiable battle damage) and probably especially made or at least substantially refurbished for the funeral procession of the deceased elite warriors.

Given the often stated historical authenticity the EB II team strives for their mod, this prompted the question:Was the elaborate Pazyryk antlered horse head gear really used in battle - as it will be in EBII?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Two EB II team members - Bobbin in answer to a previous similar question from moonburn -

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[...]anyway that looks like an horse decorated in a pretigious way and not a mount for war consisting of reindeer

There are actually depiction of horses with that type of headgear in battle, so we know it was used during combat.

and I Am Herenow - in response to a rather poorly phrased question () from me -

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well, here are just some of the pictures from the unit concepting thread, chosen somewhat at random (there were about twice as many pertaining to the horses alone; then more still pertaining to the other elements such as the pickaxes):

https://img718.imageshack.us/g/45186990.jpg/

I Am Herenow

Addendum: I was not the original creator of the aforementioned unit concepting thread and know nothing about Saka history; I just happen to have come across your post and thought I would answer it.

answered in the affirmative:

I Am Herenow posted four rather randomly selected pictures from the corresponding unit conception thread, three of which I already knew - the Pazyryk-1 horse mask with 'deer antlers' , the horned Pazyryk-1 horse head gear (both C14 radiocarbon dated to ca. 305-288 BC) and the 4th century BC horse harness from the Bolshaya Tsimbalka kurgan in the Ukrainian Dnieper Basin , all exhibited in the Hermitage, St Petersburg.

These pictures undeniably show the use of rather elaborate horse trappings in an at least funeral context - these rich trappings decorated sacrificed horses buried with their owners - but sadly they don't conclusively prove the use of those trappings in battle.

This curious Greek vase painting I Am Herenow posted is IMHO not really conclusive evidence for the use of such horse trappings in a 'Scythian' context - there are strange iconographical peculiarities: this shoulder-frieze(?) of an late archaic (520/510 BC? - 250 years before the Pazyryk burials!) amphora or hydria (?) seems to depict completely naked riders - not wearing the typical Scythian costume - wielding slings - not the typical Scythian composite bows with gorytoi- atop strange rather goatlike mounts (compare the short, stubby tails and the prominent 'beard' completely absent on the Pazyryk finds - not to mention the lack of otherwise always clearly visible horse tails!) - taking this to accurately depict 'Scythian' or precisely Central Asian 'Saka' riders seems quite farfetched.

So, let me ask two relatively simple questions:

1.Is this the sole pictorial source, on which the use of the elaborate antlered Pazyryk horse gear or similar horse trappings for EBII's Saka elite cavalry is based?

2.Could a team member, ideally the 'unit conceptor' please cite the academical source(s) in which this depiction is covered and analyzed and name the academical publication(s) which treat the Pazyryk trappings as horse trappings used in battle?

Thanks in advance - if it's to much of an hassle please simply disregard this post.

(Please bear in mind that this 'wall of text' is purely 'constructive criticism' by a interested archaeology student intended to enhance the historical accuracy of EBII)

[moonburn]

herm if you consider steppes warfare there won´t be any weapons marks in the antlers since they wheren´t very keen on melee fighting as for the rest i´m a total ignorant on eastern and nomadic factions and all i know i learned from eb

[Lvcretivs]

herm if you consider steppes warfare there won´t be any weapons marks in the antlers since they wheren´t very keen on melee fighting as for the rest i´m a total ignorant on eastern and nomadic factions and all i know i learned from eb

Well, given that the Pazyryk-2 'chieftain' mummy's injuries showed that he probably died from a sagaris blow to the head and a recently published study examining the '(...) skeletal remains of (seven) Pazyryk warriors with a particular focus on violence-related injuries' showed that from a 'total of 14 traumatic injuries(...) twelve injuries (86%) were related to interpersonal violence, most likely caused by weapons similar to those found in Pazyryk tombs (battle-axes, daggers and arrowheads)' it seems that the Central Asian Skythians/Saka weren't particular afraid of close combat - which would have left clear 'battle marks' on those elaborate and relatively fragile horse trappings made from leather, felt and wood ;)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The warriors of the steppes: osteological evidence of warfare and violence from Pazyryk tumuli in the Mongolian Altai

Xavier Jordanaa, Ignasi Galtésa, Tsagaan Turbatd, D. Batsukhd, Carlos Garcíaa, Albert Isidroa, Pierre-Henri Giscard and Assumpció Malgosa

Skeletal remains of Pazyryk warriors unearthed in a recent archaeological excavation in the Mongolian Altai offer a unique opportunity for verifying ancient histories of warfare and violence given by Herodotus in the fifth century BC. The Pazyryks were Iron Age nomadic groups associated with the eastern Scythians and known from burial site discoveries on the high steppes of the Altai (Central Asia). The aim of this paper is to analyze the evidence for bone trauma provided by the skeletal remains of these Pazyryk warriors with a particular focus on violence-related injuries. The sample consists of 10 individuals, comprising seven adult males, one adult female and two children. Seven individuals exhibited a total of 14 traumatic injuries. Six of these injuries (43%) showed evidence of bone remodelling and eight injuries (57%) were morphologically compatible with a perimortem origin. Twelve injuries (86%) were related to interpersonal violence, most likely caused by weapons similar to those found in Pazyryk tombs (battle-axes, daggers and arrowheads). Five individuals, including the female and one child, exhibited evidence of violent death. Furthermore, one individual also exhibited evidence of scalping. Despite the small number of Pazyryk skeletons analyzed, the pattern of traumatic injuries observed appears to be in agreement with that documented in conflicts related to raids or surprise attacks, and not a result of routinized or ritualized violence. These findings contribute new data to osteological evidence from Scythian burial sites.

[Gustave]

Wow. Looks like we shouldn't show stuff on twitter after all.

[Lvcretivs]

Wow. Looks like we shouldn't show stuff on twitter after all.

?!

Excuse me, but with all due respect what's wrong with simply asking for the academical sources on which EBII unit concepts are based?
Why that curious 'cast pearls before swine' attitude ?

Given the EB II team's often stated aim for maximum historical authenticity and the without doubt excellent research accumulated in the unit conception threads on the development forum, is it really too much of an hassle giving a simple rationale for the use of an specific archaeological find - in this case the Pazyryk-2 antlered horse head gear - for an specific unit - Saka elite cavalry?

After all it's a relatively simple matter of 'We choose to portray unit X in this way because inter alia academical source Y, line Z says so/supports such an interpretation. If you have a problem with that, don't play EBII. ' - I would be seriously disappointed if it is much of a problem for the EBII unit concept artists and researchers to provide such really basic information.

If it's really to much of an hassle for the hard working researchers or will be covered in a future preview, please simply disregard this post and close this thread.

Many thanks in advance.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What?!

Excuse me, but with all due respect what's wrong with simply asking for the academical sources on which EBII unit concepts are based?

There is nothing wrong with that per se, no. However whether you are going to get a useful reply is entirely up to the discretion of the historians who put this concept thread together. If they feel generous you might get a reply now. What you have seen so far is little more than a snapshot of a work in progress. I realise that you understand the following but I would like to stress it anyway: twitter is not the medium by which we communicate our broader motivations and aims in depicting history the way we do. We have previews for that purpose.

Additionally, a lot of team members (myself included) do not really read these forums as intensively as you might expect.

So in short, unless the historians who put the concept thread together have seen and are willing to entertain your questions I think that we should shelve them for now because other team members cannot really provide you with much of an answer without revealing more than we might want to right now. Again, there are previews for that.

[Lvcretivs]

There is nothing wrong with that per se, no. However whether you are going to get a useful reply is entirely up to the discretion of the historians who put this concept thread together. If they feel generous you might get a reply now. What you have seen so far is little more than a snapshot of a work in progress. I realise that you understand the following but I would like to stress it anyway: twitter is not the medium by which we communicate our broader motivations and aims in depicting history the way we do. We have previews for that purpose.

Additionally, a lot of team members (myself included) do not really read these forums as intensively as you might expect.

So in short, unless the historians who put the concept thread together have seen and are willing to entertain your questions I think that we should shelve them for now because other team members cannot really provide you with much of an answer without revealing more than we might want to right now. Again, there are previews for that.

Many thanks, Tellos Athenaios , I'm well aware of all those aspects and completely agree with the team's position - and hope that the EB II historians feel generous right now . If not - well, than let's shelve those interesting questions for now and wait for the surely marvelous Saka preview to materialize