Unit Art from Caratacos

[Obelics]

Wow, loved that steppes knight! what does it means its name? and what level it will be? Will it be more/less than a zradha pahlavan more/less than an azad asavaran, or it will be a level among the two? in other words, in what manner are you planning to make it different from the 2 other heavy cavalry of the game? I think it is too early for the stats, but im curious...eh. It should be nice to have finally a unit capable of throwing a small amount of arrows, pheraphs sacrificing it's sword/mace secondary weapon... what a pity only 2 weapons for rtw.

im collecting these eb arts (just for personal use). Great work!

[The Persian Cataphract]

Awarzaramarakana, Artaserse (Yeah, or however you spell that)

Spâhbâdê Pahlavânîg means "Parthian general", and is intended to be the early Parthian general's bodyguard (As the Sâhigân Pâhr, is based on later evidence, not so very suitable for a bunch of semi-nomads). This unit is equipped for melee, but other than that we are still discussing it as it is in the concept stage. The unit obviously lacks armour equivalent to the Zradha Pahlavan and the Azad Savaran (These are proper cataphracts with more heavily armoured riders), in which Azad Savaran is based on late evidence as well. But it will nonetheless carry a stinging punch and encourage the player to bring him out to campaigns as the unit has zero upkeep, far more encouraging than the previous Pontika Spahet (A la Theophilattos). So depending on what is seen on Nate's concept, this is between the Zradha Pahlavan and the Pontika Spahet. Parthia needed a reliable heavy cavalry, without going overboard offering the Grivpanvar/Sahigan Pahr right away. It has a bow and the armour is flexible, so it is not impossible that this unit may function as a "Zradha Shivatir". Point take into consideration

[MeinPanzer]

Actually, the scabbard slide may be significantly older if we take the earliest theorized dating of the Orlat battle-plaque, and taking that certain aspect into context, Parthian heavy cavalry may have had access to this tool.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't see this until now, but this is too glaring for me to let be. Let's, instead of relying on the two schools of thought of the Orlat plaque, neither of which is heavily influenced by an intimate knowledge of the dating of weaponry and equipment, actually examine it analytically, shall we?

First of all, one item can instantly give us an idea of a date, and that is the bows. They are of the distinct "Hunnic" or "Sassanian" type, with long ears. This type of bow did not appear until the late 2nd C. AD or so.

Secondly, here we see a "draco"-like windsock standard, the likes of which don't appear elsewhere until around the 3rd C. AD or so.

Thirdly, the combattants on this plaque carry gorytoi which have a distinct "two-tube" quiver attached to their fronts. This doesn't appear elsewhere until the 1st C. AD.

And finally, we have the scabbard slides which, if we omit the plaque as evidence, only appear elsewhere in Central Asia from the 2nd C. AD.

So, considering this evidence, it seems that the presence of scabbard slides would suggest a later date for the Orlat plaque, rather than the Orlat plaque suggesting an earlier date for scabbard slides.

I would give the plaque a date of at the absolute earliest the 1st C. AD, but I tend towards the 2nd C. AD in my evaluation of it. I sincerely hope that you do not use it as a source for Hellenistic-era armoured cavalrymen, Parthian or otherwise. Just use the (much safer) 1st C BC Indo-Saka coins of Spalirises and Azes I.

[Obelics]

Awarzaramarakana, Artaserse (Yeah, or however you spell that)

Spâhbâdê Pahlavânîg means "Parthian general", and is intended to be the early Parthian general's bodyguard (As the Sâhigân Pâhr, is based on later evidence, not so very suitable for a bunch of semi-nomads). This unit is equipped for melee, but other than that we are still discussing it as it is in the concept stage. The unit obviously lacks armour equivalent to the Zradha Pahlavan and the Azad Savaran (These are proper cataphracts with more heavily armoured riders), in which Azad Savaran is based on late evidence as well. But it will nonetheless carry a stinging punch and encourage the player to bring him out to campaigns as the unit has zero upkeep, far more encouraging than the previous Pontika Spahet (A la Theophilattos). So depending on what is seen on Nate's concept, this is between the Zradha Pahlavan and the Pontika Spahet. Parthia needed a reliable heavy cavalry, without going overboard offering the Grivpanvar/Sahigan Pahr right away. It has a bow and the armour is flexible, so it is not impossible that this unit may function as a "Zradha Shivatir". Point take into consideration

great, great, Great! I read this post about 10 times, trying to capture every minimal information i can. Thanks Tpc and arzarakarawak!, so we will have an early bodyguard like that spahdabe pahlavnig (and there is a remote possibility it will be a sort of zradha shivatir-like bodyguard unit), and a late bodyguard like the Grivpanvar (that fight like an uber catafhract) this adding a lot of variety to the gameplay, so you have to change your gameplay as you obtain the late-bodyguard. In fact i was asking myself why we had already grivpanvar from the start of the campaign. So Grivpanvar will be late bodyguard.
And from what i tried to capture, the pontika spahet, will be gone in the late EB versions (ah poor Theo...). While in 0.8 it is still present only at the start of the campaign. And it will be replaced from the spahdabe pahlavnig.
ok now my hands are just starting to sweat... now i have not but to imagine how it could be the in-battle General skin for this units (or there is even a remote possibility to have two different General skins for the two types of bodyguards, spahdabe pahlavnig and grivpanvar...ok too much pheraphs). Sweat ... Sweat ...

thanks friend!

[The Persian Cataphract]

First of all, one item can instantly give us an idea of a date, and that is the bows. They are of the distinct "Hunnic" or "Sassanian" type, with long ears. This type of bow did not appear until the late 2nd C. AD or so.

I was specifically under the impression that the "Hunnic" bow would be asymmetrical in appearance rather than specifically having "long ears", which too can be seen in some Parthian terracotta. Even so, by the time of the mod, the usually considered, but alas mistaken "early" evidence for the asymmetrical bow, or the "Hunnic" bow if you will, would be the one found in Niya, Xinjiang earliest dating 1st century AD. This bow does not have the "long ears" you are suggesting, and fact is that even the smaller Scythian style bows could have long ears, as the only thing distinguishing it to the "Hunnic" bow would have been symmetry, size and how the bow-string was suspended to the ears. However as the "Hunnic" bow reached the Sarmatian steppes at around 1st century BCE, most definitely as an innovation from the east, it is from the stance of common sense not too farfetched at all to suggest that the large, asymmetrical bow was in use earlier, and indeed, looking at some belt-plaques ascribed to the Sakae culture, we do not only see this peculiar bow, but one certain plaque is dated between the fifth and third century BCE:



The Hermitage museum is even more strict with the dating:

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-...GFILEN&author=

Taking this into account with the peculiar cavalry equipment depicted in the Orlat plaque, including the web-like lamellar armour, Scythian style bowl helmets and the fact that the plaque itself is not strictly realistic, this does not exclude an early dating at all. In fact, the numismatic evidence of Azes (C. 57-35 BCE) and Spalirises (C. 65-40 BCE) does on the contrary reinforce the theorized early dating of the Orlat plaque, and further taking it into respect that this plaque was found in a Kurgan in Soghdiana, in which among this artifact, there was a set of objects indicating a "Sarmatian Horizon" according to the study made by Pugachenkova. Other scholars, like Gorelik, puts the date significantly later, ascribing the plaque to the Hephtalites.

But even Gorelik seems to largely agree with me regarding some of the equipment. Specifically, the bow with... Oh, reinforced ears even



Further reading:

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm

As far as the draco banner is concerned, I am afraid you are mistaken. Here is an extract from Osprey's title on the Sarmatians:



By the time of the 2nd century it was rather adopted by the Romans. This is by no means a pointer to when the draco convention was ever brought up among Sarmatians, let alone the Sakae. On early lamellar armour style as depicted in the concept art, it is little different than the reconstructed Scythian cavalry armour supposed to represent the 5th-4th century BCE type, so the technique of applying the lamellar was known for a long time.

As for the debate regarding scabbard slide, I would primarily refer to it as a suspension for the sword, and only in second hand attribute it as a device used for giving the sword an "easier" angle for the unsheathing. As we have seen many times in Sassanian bas-reliefs even footsoldiers (Or dismounted cavalry) were clearly using a scabbard slide system, while actually carrying their swords at sharp angles.

At a later time I shall elaborate on the scabbard slides. In the meanwhile, ponder a little on whether your attitude on archaeology is apt for obscure steppe cultures. We may rely on the various dating given by the experts, but that is in itself no warranty to historical context, nor are datings absolute limits, especially taking into consideration the spread of certain conventions, the location of findings, and the theorized origins of the convention in itself.

[Kugutsu]

Doesnt all that armour make archery tricky? Surely it restricts movement quite considerably?

[The Persian Cataphract]

Doesnt all that armour make archery tricky? Surely it restricts movement quite considerably?

Indeed it does. These heavily armoured men were equipped for melee and would only use archery for additional support, for "softening up" the enemy prior to an attack, or used when retiring. It's just an added bonus (Though it could also be the other way around, it would depend on the strategy, perhaps in scenarios such as archery duels).

[MeinPanzer]

I was specifically under the impression that the "Hunnic" bow would be asymmetrical in appearance rather than specifically having "long ears", which too can be seen in some Parthian terracotta.

My mistake, the Hunnic bow is distinct from the Sassanian- the Sassanian has the long ears, and the Hunnic is asymmetrical. And which Parthian terracottas show bows with long ears? I know of three which clearly show mounted Parthian archers, and none show bows with long ears.

rEven so, by the time of the mod, the usually considered, but alas mistaken "early" evidence for the asymmetrical bow, or the "Hunnic" bow if you will, would be the one found in Niya, Xinjiang earliest dating 1st century AD. This bow does not have the "long ears" you are suggesting, and fact is that even the smaller Scythian style bows could have long ears, as the only thing distinguishing it to the "Hunnic" bow would have been symmetry, size and how the bow-string was suspended to the ears. However as the "Hunnic" bow reached the Sarmatian steppes at around 1st century BCE, most definitely as an innovation from the east, it is from the stance of common sense not too farfetched at all to suggest that the large, asymmetrical bow was in use earlier, and indeed, looking at some belt-plaques ascribed to the Sakae culture, we do not only see this peculiar bow, but one certain plaque is dated between the fifth and third century BCE:



The Hermitage museum is even more strict with the dating:

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-...GFILEN&author=

These are not the Sassanian bows seen on the Orlat plaque, though. Those are distinct from this style of bow which only appear around the 2nd C. AD.

Taking this into account with the peculiar cavalry equipment depicted in the Orlat plaque, including the web-like lamellar armour, Scythian style bowl helmets

One of which was also found in a 1st-2nd C. AD Sarmatian grave.

and the fact that the plaque itself is not strictly realistic,

The overall plaque may not be, but the details clearly are, and the artist has painstakingly depicted them.

this does not exclude an early dating at all.

If you don't wish to exclude the early dating, can you provide early evidence for that style of gorytus, windsock standard, or Sassanian bows being used earlier than the 1st C. AD?

In fact, the numismatic evidence of Azes (C. 57-35 BCE) and Spalirises (C. 65-40 BCE) does on the contrary reinforce the theorized early dating of the Orlat plaque,

No it doesn't. All it proves is that this style of armour was being used already in the 1st C. AD, which everyone accepts. The style of armour proves nothing either way, because identical armour to that shown on the Orlat plaque is shown in reliefs from Kalchayan from the 1st to 2nd C. AD, showing that this style was worn from the 1st C. BC into probably the 3rd C. AD.

and further taking it into respect that this plaque was found in a Kurgan in Soghdiana, in which among this artifact, there was a set of objects indicating a "Sarmatian Horizon" according to the study made by Pugachenkova. Other scholars, like Gorelik, puts the date significantly later, ascribing the plaque to the Hephtalites.

But even Gorelik seems to largely agree with me regarding some of the equipment. Specifically, the bow with... Oh, reinforced ears even



Further reading:

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm

And yet Gorelik doesn't cites sources for his image, which seems to be based on the 4th-3rd C. Chorasmian pottery fragment showing a cataphract, but which Gorelik has significantly changed. And considering some of the other flights of fancy Gorelik takes when illustrating warriors in that title, I wouldn't trust it. Again, can you present some primary evidence for the Sassanian bow existing earlier than the 1st C. AD?

As far as the draco banner is concerned, I am afraid you are mistaken. Here is an extract from Osprey's title on the Sarmatians:



By the time of the 2nd century it was rather adopted by the Romans. This is by no means a pointer to when the draco convention was ever brought up among Sarmatians, let alone the Sakae.

And yet it only seems to have appeared in any sources, Sarmatian or otherwise, by the 2nd C. AD, with no earlier evidence for it. Just like the scabbard slides, you could suppose an earlier date for this item, but there is no evidence for it.

On early lamellar armour style as depicted in the concept art, it is little different than the reconstructed Scythian cavalry armour supposed to represent the 5th-4th century BCE type, so the technique of applying the lamellar was known for a long time.

The materials and style of armour are the same, but the composition of the suit of armour is wholly different from earlier examples, and appears to be much more complex, especially the neck protectors.

At a later time I shall elaborate on the scabbard slides. In the meanwhile, ponder a little on whether your attitude on archaeology is apt for obscure steppe cultures.

I will, but perhaps you should ponder why you consider a piece which has several details for which evidence only exists after the 2nd C. AD to be datable to the 1st or even 2nd century BC.

We may rely on the various dating given by the experts, but that is in itself no warranty to historical context, nor are datings absolute limits, especially taking into consideration the spread of certain conventions, the location of findings, and the theorized origins of the convention in itself.

Exactly, which is why I like to look at parallel evidence and attempt to discern the dates of items myself, then try to mesh that with the accepted dating schemes. Oftentimes, the archaeologists who write up these reports don't know about the chronology of the Sassanian bow, or of a particular type of gorytus, and so those details can be used to evaluate their dating. And while I agree that the dating of steppe artifacts is by no means accurate, with dates often ranging over a few centuries, you cannot argue that a piece which clearly sits comfortably within the range of the 1st to 3rd C. AD could date two or even three years earlier because dating is not an "absolute limit."

[antiochus epiphanes]

correct me if im wrong, but are you guys are saying that the shia limbs were sassinian in origin????

[paullus]

No it doesn't. All it proves is that this style of armour was being used already in the 1st C. AD, which everyone accepts. The style of armour proves nothing either way, because identical armour to that shown on the Orlat plaque is shown in reliefs from Kalchayan from the 1st to 2nd C. AD, showing that this style was worn from the 1st C. BC into probably the 3rd C. AD.

I'm not sure I followed your argument there in several places. Most importantly, the majority of those Indo-Skythian coins are 1c BC, not 1c AD. But since this is primarily about bow types, I see why its less relevant, though aren't some of those bows similar in type to what you're talking about? The details are a little hazy on those coins, and I'm not well-versed on these bow styles (not hardly my area), so I could certainly be wrong.

Oh, and for those readers who'd like to decide for themselves, just do a search for those kings, you can get some of their coins on a site called "wildwind." The Perseus collection is disappointingly small, at least for the kings I checked, and if you're really interested, I'd wager there's at least a good journal article on some of these coins, if not a whole book.

Can we also agree that earliest artifacts establish a Terminus Ante Quem, not a start date? Sometimes that's all you get. A lot of times that's all you get.

Exactly, which is why I like to look at parallel evidence and attempt to discern the dates of items myself, then try to mesh that with the accepted dating schemes. Oftentimes, the archaeologists who write up these reports don't know about the chronology of the Sassanian bow, or of a particular type of gorytus, and so those details can be used to evaluate their dating. And while I agree that the dating of steppe artifacts is by no means accurate, with dates often ranging over a few centuries, you cannot argue that a piece which clearly sits comfortably within the range of the 1st to 3rd C. AD could date two or even three years earlier because dating is not an "absolute limit."

So what is your method for dating these parallel items? The archaeologists are using dating tests or contexts to determine dates, if they don't know about the chronology of the Sassanid bow, how is that less accurate than your dates for the chronology, which hardly seems set in stone, of the Sassanid bow?

Oh, and I'm gonna get crucified by my team-mates for this, because we're supposed to be addressing a topic at a time, but have you seen the greave-wearing thureophoros in Sekunda's Hellenistic Infantry Reform?

[MeinPanzer]

I'm not sure I followed your argument there in several places. Most importantly, the majority of those Indo-Skythian coins are 1c BC, not 1c AD.

I accidentally typed AD in place of BC in that first date, my mistake.

But since this is primarily about bow types, I see why its less relevant, though aren't some of those bows similar in type to what you're talking about? The details are a little hazy on those coins, and I'm not well-versed on these bow styles (not hardly my area), so I could certainly be wrong.

The Indo-Saka coins? The coins aren't very clear, but they seem to be the same "Scythian" bows seen on others sources still in the 1st C. BC. They definitely don't have the distinct "ears" of the Sassanian bow.

Oh, and for those readers who'd like to decide for themselves, just do a search for those kings, you can get some of their coins on a site called "wildwind." The Perseus collection is disappointingly small, at least for the kings I checked, and if you're really interested, I'd wager there's at least a good journal article on some of these coins, if not a whole book.

Also check out coinarchives.com and search for "indo saka" or for the kings' individual names names.

Can we also agree that earliest artifacts establish a Terminus Ante Quem, not a start date? Sometimes that's all you get. A lot of times that's all you get.

All these artifacts can only provide a terminus ante quem, of course, but it is a terminus ante quem which postdates the EB timeline by at least a century.

So what is your method for dating these parallel items? The archaeologists are using dating tests or contexts to determine dates, if they don't know about the chronology of the Sassanid bow, how is that less accurate than your dates for the chronology, which hardly seems set in stone, of the Sassanid bow?

Because all the cases I've seen for assigning this piece to a Hellenistic date omit any mention of the type of bow carried, which, to me, indicates that they are either ignorant of the evidence for the chronology of bow types, or simply did not think it significant (which would be a gross oversight).

I should also mention that the author of this article (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Art/so...heroic_art.htm) also mentions something about the chapes depicted, which I was not aware of:

Concerning the realia and their chronological position I only want to comment a point not touched by all the authors mentioned above: Much has been said about the swords depicted on the battle plaque, however, we miss an evaluation of the chapes. Ilyasov and Rusanov only speak of a "rectangular chape",24 but it seems useful to clarify the type. The piece appears slightly protrusive and of course rectangular as seen from the side. If we consider a view from the bottom, the chape must have had an oval outline. In reality one may reconstruct a separate wooden piece fastened to the scabbard and probably covered with a surrounding hoop. Now, for this specific type of chapes we have interesting comparative materials. A similar type appears on a famous silver bowl in the British Museum25 which can be dated into the Kidarite-Hephthalite context of Tokharistan (Bactria).26 This bowl was certainly created in the fifth century AD.27 A second pictorial parallel we find with one of the famous hunting plaques in the Siberian treasure of the Hermitage.28 Although the latter have been dated quite often into a considerably earlier ("Scythian") horizon,29 I am convinced that they belong to a "Hunnish" milieu of the first centuries AD in Eastern Central Asia.30 Archaeologically, the rectangular chapes under consideration are a very distinctive hallmark of weaponry from the age of Attila,31 and they appear from Central Europe to the Caucasus and even the Altai foothills (e.g., Jakusowice in Poland,32 Szirmabesényö in Hungary,33 Verin Kholm in Abkhasia,34 Brut in Ossetia,35 Tuguzvonovo in the Altai area36). All examples mentioned date to the late 4th and the first half/mid of the 5th centuries AD, but first traces in the West already appear around 300 AD (time of the Tetrarches, Werner's type "Gundremmingen").37 On the other hand, the Western Hunnish sword type definitely differs from the type depicted on the Orlat plaque. This is quite evident from the mobile Sino-Sarmatian sword guard found in Orlat kurgan 2 (similar to the type visible on the plaque) but never to meet with the Hunnish context mentioned.38 What does that mean? In our opinion, the Orlat chapes and guards belong to an armament of transition from the latest "Sarmatian" types to the classic types of the age of Attila. Therefore, I am inclined to see the armament complex of Orlat as belonging to the third century or to the first half of the fourth century AD.

Which, again, points to a later date in the centuries AD rather than BC.

Oh, and I'm gonna get crucified by my team-mates for this, because we're supposed to be addressing a topic at a time, but have you seen the greave-wearing thureophoros in Sekunda's Hellenistic Infantry Reform?

Which one are you referring to?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Here we go again....

[Geoffrey S]

Here we go again....

Leave it. As long as the discussion stays civil, there's no reason to fret.

Though it might be an idea to split this discussion into a seperate topic, if it becomes too large and dominates the original subject, namely Caratacos' fantastic art.

[Caratacos]

Tell me about it... *cough* hi-jack *cough*

[Elthore]

Meinpanzer, regarding the gorytus: have a look at the link to the essay on scythian bows that Persian Cata provided. That fellow talks extensively of the gorytus, including specific dates, it might clear things up. I found it very interesting and informative by the way, thanks Persian Cata!

[MeinPanzer]

Meinpanzer, regarding the gorytus: have a look at the link to the essay on scythian bows that Persian Cata provided. That fellow talks extensively of the gorytus, including specific dates, it might clear things up. I found it very interesting and informative by the way, thanks Persian Cata!

Unfortunately, it doesn't. That article is too generalized, and it only addresses the different types of gorytoi in passing. The style shown on the Orlat plaque, with two long, distinctive quivers, only appears after the 1st C. AD in other sources. Just like all these other items, it may have appeared earlier, but to suppose so without evidence, and to use that supposition to support an earlier date for this piece, is very problematic.