Nomad Heavy Cavalry (late Roman/Dark Ages
Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2025 11:53 am
Query from a non-historian.
My knowledge of this subject is a little lacking.
WRG lists and books illustrated Hun and following nomad elite cavalry as dual armed with kontos and bow. This was also the case with Sasanian and Byzantine elites. Books I read around the time suggested that the Byzantines adopted this equipment from the Huns who were recruited into the Byzantine army. Sasanians were illustrated double equipped but the bow was described as being primarily for hunting and not war.
There were lots of discussions around the time as to the difficulty of wielding both weapons; FOG miniature lists appear to follow this premise as they do not allow for lance/bow combinations.
FOG2 only has Byzantines as dual equipped and this kit out starts with Bucellarii who were mercenaries recruited from Huns, Goths and Sasanians. However, Hun, other nomad and Sasanians do not include double equipped elites.
Out of curiosity, is there any new evidence (i.e. post 1980's) on this interpretation and what is it please?
Thanks in anticipation.
My knowledge of this subject is a little lacking.
WRG lists and books illustrated Hun and following nomad elite cavalry as dual armed with kontos and bow. This was also the case with Sasanian and Byzantine elites. Books I read around the time suggested that the Byzantines adopted this equipment from the Huns who were recruited into the Byzantine army. Sasanians were illustrated double equipped but the bow was described as being primarily for hunting and not war.
There were lots of discussions around the time as to the difficulty of wielding both weapons; FOG miniature lists appear to follow this premise as they do not allow for lance/bow combinations.
FOG2 only has Byzantines as dual equipped and this kit out starts with Bucellarii who were mercenaries recruited from Huns, Goths and Sasanians. However, Hun, other nomad and Sasanians do not include double equipped elites.
Out of curiosity, is there any new evidence (i.e. post 1980's) on this interpretation and what is it please?
Thanks in anticipation.