Quote Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The mosaic itself dates to 200 BC, but the image, and all of its corresponding details, is thought (by consensus) to be copied from an original 4th century BC painting, which would account for many of the details seen in the image which disappeared after the latter half of that century (such as the long-sleeved "Persian" cavalry tunic and a more archaic form of helmet worn by one soldier).
Well my good sir, you beat me there. To be honest, I actually forgot that it was a copy of a painting... But it would have made a hell of an argument, non

What is the citation for the use of silk by the Hatrenes?
Our "citation" is not found in written sources, but archaeologically from what has been found in Hatra; King Uthal himself has been subject to reconstructions. In fact, King Uthal is the template behind the Hatrene clibanarius of David Nicolle's "The desert frontier" on the series of Roman enemies, as is the second resconstruction published on Montvert's "Sassanian armies". His helmet, of Parthian bashlyk design, is clearly covered with a cloth-piece, quoted by authorities as a very Persian practice, and underneath his coat, we find quilted cloth.

It is henceforth very natural to propose that silk could have been used to such purposes as well; It is known that silk is tough. Being a royalty, I doubt that King Uthal would have chosen any "lesser" textile. Again, the discussion is not about whether the Hatrene cavalry used silk, but to build a continuum on declining equipment. That Hatra actually does have quite a few statues featuring felt caps of Parthian model or helmets featuring quilted covers, as well as tunics of the same model, of clearly Iranian fashions is almost common knowledge. Parthian heavy cavalry has always and foremostly been equipped to withstand horse-archery. When cataphracts got heavier, they deviated from this purpose to attain a shock role. Implications are many, after all there is still a mention of Cardaces between Persis and Carmania in Strabo's geography,and these implications my friend, are vital in our discussion on trends. It is true that trends come and go, but we are clearly not speaking of decay.

Depictions of Macedonian cavalrymen from the 5th century BC show them carrying aspides; a few centuries later we see Macedonian heavy cavalrymen commonly carrying shields on 3rd century stelai. We don't see depictions of cavalry carrying shields in between, or have literary mentions of such a practice. Are we to assume that they did? Obviously, the use of such shields was not forgotten in these armies. One can fill in such gaps as one pleases.
Why should the continuum ever be disregarded? Especially in feudal societies where each man provided his own equipment, we'd still emphasize gradual change, not abrupt halts and sudden surges of different equipment. The Kyrbasia existed from Imperial Medean times and remained popular even among the local rulers of the Bâzrangid sub-kingdom of Persis as evident in mints. If we then see Parthian dress in Hatra dated between 1st and 2nd century CE, then why exclude quilted technology completely?

King Uthal sends his regards: