"Goths with armoured / barded horses?" Topic

I noticed on the musketeer miniatures site that one can optionally order Gothic cavalry horses with Sassanian style horse armour or alternately with ordinary horse tack.

Is there any solid proof that that Goths rode armoured horses? And if so, when and with what proportion of their cavalry?

It seems a more Middle Eastern thing that a Germanic thing?

Possibly due to contact with Sarmatian neighbours I guess.

Grand kahunas rode armored horses. But did the Goths have grand kahunas?…

Procopius says (Wars V.16) of the Italian Ostrogoths:

"But he (Vittigis) himself was hastening to go with his whole army against Belisarius and Rome, leading against him horsemen and infantry to the number of not less than one hundred and fifty thousand, and the most of them as well as their horses were clad in armour."

I don't know of any supporting evidence, and he may be exaggerating: I don't think he mentions horse-armour in any of the battle accounts.

It's actually more of a steppe thing.

The evidence for Goths in Italy to have horse armour is acceptable, but not totally certain. There's the Procopius quote and the fact that they have a likely source of adoption from, as fat Wally said adoption from Sarmatians whom they lived alongside in Pannonia and will have found in Italy as they fought for Odovacar. It is very likely that Procopius exaggerates the numbers of troopers thus equipped.
As to the point about there being no further mentions, well in Maurice;s Strategikon (590 AD ) we suddenly get mention of Byzantine horse armour and the Avars have horse armour too. It doesn't mention Sasanian horse armour, but we 'know' that they had horse armour from the pictorial and sculptural references.
So When did the Byzantines get this horse armour? It is very likely that they had it all along from when they were Late Romans (just no one told them that they would soon be Byzantines). So I have my doubts about the argument that because horse armour is not mentioned in Procopius for either Romans or Goths (or Persians) it was not worn at least by some. In terms of the rules of evidence we would have to believe that Persians from 525-565 do not have horse armour and most here would disagree with that.
Roy

10% "cataphract" as a maximum seems acceptable, if you must have them. In our rules, a "half-armored" horse (armor only in front) is still just a "heavy", though; only full armor makes the cavalry into "cataphract", the heaviest armor class of all. Goths did not have those. Hardly anybody did….

I recall reading about Sarmatacizing Goths somewhere, so perhaps some groups used horse armor. Certainly some Gothic tribes migrated from the European Steppes (IIRC southern Ukraine area specifically), so it is very possible they had long contact with other steppe cultures as well as the Sarmatians…

Damon.

My advice is rather simple – if it don't feel right, give it a miss.

Cataphract cavalry will not feature in my early Gothic army of 250AD.

Raglan

Huevans,

During the invasions the Goths would certainly of had access to the Imperial armouries and factories, but the quantity of horse armour would not exceed the established number of Catafract and Clibinarii units.

Among the succesful Gothic generals they could have better armoured rider and horse as part of their household guard or Buccellari.

Procopius mentions horse armour during the Italian campaign.

Cheers,

The evidence for Goths in Italy to have horse armour is acceptable, but not totally certain.

(snip…)

Works for me, on balance. Based on this it would be very difficult to argue that it absolutely did NOT exist.

Is there any reason that the Goths could not manufacture the armour themselves?

If the Sarmatians could make suits of horse armour, the Goths probably could as well.

Since the Romans were making horse armour it seems reasonable that it would continue to be available to the Italian Ostrogoths, to some extent, during their time running the show in the 6th century.

Well out of my period, but the availability of mounts with the strength and stamina to wear horse armour might also be something to consider here.

We have no reason to believe that Goth horses in Italy are any worse than the Byzantine ones. They have horse herds and a breeding programme and Italy is reasonable country for horses. I would go with a unit being on armoured horses or 10% .
Procopius was there at the time and it would be a show of distrust in the source to move him from an exaggeration to a downright lie. Similarly with his attitude to franciscas. I don't believe that it is practical to throw them en masse, more that they are a secondary hand held weapon and a javelin or angon is thrown, but the Franks do have them and they can be thrown. Similarly with casualties. If the number of Goths killed in battles were accurate as given by Procopius then there would have been no Goths left, but he is almost certainly right when he attributes relatively heavy casualties.
On that basis I'd say he was unlikely to be inventing Goth horse armour.

As for 250 AD I too would doubt that the Tervingi had horse armour its more likely that Greutungi (from whom the Italian Goths are most likely descended) had the opportunity and model to adopt when they pushed out onto the plains north of the Black Sea.
Roy

From a gaming perspective, it would also make a difference what level of action you're trying to represent. Seems like the consensus is that Goths could have had horse armour, maybe even 10% of the cavalry using it.

Fair enough, but it matters how it was used, and with Goths, it probably wasn't brigaded into pure units the way cataphracts were, it would have been the property of the top rank nobles. If that 10% of Goths with horse armour are the chiefs and bigwigs, it will be dispersed throughout their cavalry units.

So, in a 'big battle' game (DBA, or Impetus), the effects of the horse armour will be virtually nil, since in any given Goth cavalry unit 90% will not have it…

On the other hand, if the game is a 'big skirmish' (WAB or similar) where units can represent much smaller formations, then you could legitimately argue that 10% of the Goth cavalry units (in practice usually 1 per army) represent a paramount chief and his high class entourage, most of whom are using the horse armour. Then that unit does get the equivalent of cataphract protection. Of course in that case the Late Roman or Byzantine heavy cavalry they are facing are 'real' cataphracts and could have the entire force (or whatever the 'slice' would be for that force level) kitted out as ultra-heavies…

There has been a tendency going back at least as far as WAB for game designers to just say "figure to troop ratio is whatever you need it to be to represent the battle", then ignore how different force levels would impact troop availability in the army lists. (To the credit of WAB supplement writers, some have taken some account in their advice for playing small 'skirmish games') I'm probably being pedantic about it, but it seems sloppy to me, since even in ancient times command and troop employment at lower command levels was not the same as deploying a full field army – they just don't act the same and, to me, the games should represent the differences in command level in the army lists and the rules.

I'll get off the soap box now ;)

It was a good soapbox….

Except that the 10% or so are at the front of the units and thus offering the most protection to those behind. It would be like armoured knights on armoured horses, the front rankers have the best gear but the whole can gain an advantage.
Of course , if we followed the Pattus logic Sarmatians would not have horse armour because its very likely that only leaders and front rank men have it.

As to Byzantines they are explicitly stated by Maurice to have armour on the horses of the front ranks and to have less protected men behind. The same is almost certainly true for the Persians.
Maurice talks of the leading men of the Avars having armoured horses so it probably holds out there on the steppes too.

We are in a judgement area here and thus I'd rather see one or so units of Goths on armoured horses than the whole lot That's for the Goths in the Balkans from 460 and for Theoderic's and Witiges armies in Italy (up to 540) .
It adds a bit of colour and has a logic to it.

"Cataphracts" are pretty. The evidence allows for them, so they ought to be there. But being reasonable, no Goth army should have more than a fraction as many as a proper Byzantine army does; nobody should be having more "cats" than the Byzzies; the Persians would come second, then the Avars, probably, then the Goths have the least. That is all opinionated speculation, of course….

Lewisgunner,

That's a good set of points. I'd actually agree with Sarmatians having fewer shock cavalry than they have in some rule sets (DBA in particular, where virtually all of them are in one of the lists).

I'd also agree that it could be a good justification for having at least a portion of Goth units in Big-battle games classed as shock cavalry.

For me it brings up an interesting game design question – how to classify units that historically consisted of troop types with different equipment

In 'big skirmish' games like WAB, it's pretty easily resolved – the 10% with the heaviest kit are the models in the front rank, with the lighter shock cav behind and as attrition takes its toll, the less armoured figures take their places in the front rank.

For big battle games it gets a bit trickier. The simplest would be to classify the whole unit according to the front rank, but maybe have fewer of them in the army. Alternatively, it might be possible to pro-rate according to the proportion of troops with the heavy kit – so a 10% full armoured shock unit would be more protected than one with no horse armour, but less well protected than one with 50% or more horse armoured… That gets fiddly, but is not impossible in games like Hail Caesar where the units have several stats that can be tweaked up or down.

I agree that in the last analysis, it comes down to judgement calls all around. My thing is that I like to see historical logics brought in, considered, and kicked around to arrive at the judgements! I learn more that way, like the contents of Maurice's writing on troops ;)

I play a set where armour mostly matters against missiles and is a low value component in actual fighting. So i am quite happy that one or two units in a Gothic army (with the date and geography restrictions above) are armoured as they would represent well equipped elites, let's say the royal comitatus and that in other units the amount of armoured horses would be too few to make a difference.
I think we also have to have a view on the Goth's weaponry. We have strong support for Goth cavalry being contos armed, for generic spear terms and for javelins. We can go for all being dual armed , or we could have some units with contos, some with spear and javelin and some with javelin only.
In the rules I play the armament is decoupled from the fighting effect. so you could be javelin/spear cavalry on a 5 or you could be lancers on a 5 or Nikephorian cataphracts with mace on a 6. That's because the fighting value is taken as a combination of weapon/armour/aggression/training.
Earlier someone said about the Goth units being around their chiefs. That argues for a mix of weapons in each unit. Easy if your rules go for overall effect, less easy if individual weapons matter in terms of factors.
Incidentally, I believe that Napoleonic lancer second ranks kept to their swords and in many Byzantine units the middle ranks were bow only with only the front couple using lances. It does seem obvious that after the first couple of ranks a lance is more danger to your own side than to the enemy. That would lead me to conclude that units of Goths might well have had mixed weapon sets.

Roy

I wrote a response the other morning but it got lost during the daily update :-(

My personal opinion is that some Gothic troops had horse armour. BUT not all and not 'units' as such.

Wk know that large groups of Goths were considered to be very influenced by Sarmatian groups. These Sarmation groups were semi-nomadic horse based cultures. Warriors used bow, sword (long straight like most Iranian groups)lance (two handed) and horse; they wore armour and used enough horse armour for it to be noted as characteristic. Various items suggest that mail was popular and leather lamella armour (the standard horse archer defence) was used for man and horse. Roman sources describe the use of scale armour and pointedly mention horn plates.

Horse armour was, to a very large extent, primarily a defence against archery and may have been left off in a Gothic/Roman context (less massed archery).

Separate figures with horse armour (and those with spear/javelin/shield rather than lance) will look good mixed in. Tactics appear to be a normal cavalry mix of local skirmish-shock cycles rather than out and out shock (pretty rare anywhere in practice) but aggressive enough to rate as 'shock' in many rules (eg Kn in DBA/DBM/DBMM).

Depending on your figure scale a particular leader and his comitatus (say 80-200 men) might all have lance and horse armour, and rely on charging. They could be a 'unit' in many rules (eg WRG 1-6, WAB).

I do hate the use of cataphract as a defined troop type. Wargamers have an image of men in full metal armour on horses with full armour, using long heavy lances, fighting in close order, charging at the trot. This is largely based on Byzantine klibanophoroi and assumed to be how much earlier Parthian, Armenian etc types fought. I even see this in modern textbooks now.

Fun…

Tom

Forgot to add…

Roy, can you think of any evidence of Gothic cavalry fighting in anything other than shallow lines? I have a vague memory of 'phalanx' being used to describe one unit but 'globus' as the generic term used.

Tom..

You see the use of the words "cataphract", and "phalanx", because they are visual words with an ancient connection as warfare evolved between people over an extensive period of time. Purists/pedants will growl, and insist that you use "barded" and "shield wall" instead, but there is no reasonable objection to the use of the earlier, "classical" terms. Just because a horseman sports full armor on his mount doesn't mean anything more than that: the word "cataphract" is a good definition of the armor, nothing more. The original Greek word, iirc, had nothing whatsoever to do with training and the use of lances or the speed with which a horse was moving into combat, and everything to do with the word "oven" as a metaphor of the warrior and horse so-encased.

The word "phalanx" has nothing to do with specific weapons beyond leveled long spears/pikes, like "phalanges", i.e. fingers, an allusion to the forward projecting shafts and points. Thus "phalanx" is useful for the continuation of any spear line in close order right through the Renaissance….

cataphractoi means 'covered over or decked.

Throughout Greek, Roman (and Byzantine) literature the word has been applied to various armoured troops (infantry and cavalry). Most of the cavalry so described lack horse armour.

Phalanx was commonly used for any deep block of troops, including Romans, Gauls, Spaniards, Franks etc It was occasionally used for cavalry (hence my question to Roy)

ps the 'oven' reference was sometimes suggested as a root for clibanarii. Interestingly several scholars now think that the late Roman units of clibanarii were the wargamers cataphracts and the units of catafractarii were lighter armoured lance and bow types (previously the opposite was believed; but that's academia for you)
:-)

Tom..

Armour is very expensive, I gave some Big Cheeses and a few rich henchmen half barded horses (c 10% seems about right), and my Goths range from a few of those to a few unarmoured, shield, spear, horse (again c 10%), but the bulk are armoured men, unarmoured horse.

Fully barded horses are IMO a cataphract ithing, so I haven't done that.

At the risk of a) being pedantic, and b) stating the obvious, the other question is of course what one means by "Goth". Several have mentioned above the likely Sarmatian influence. But equally, we know from grave finds that it is possible that there were Sarmatian elements living within "Gothic" communities. Plus of course, the later one considers within the period, the more mongrel the various ethnic groupings have become – Alans, Sciri, Rugii, etc, etc, all morphing into "Visigothic" or "Ostrogothic" or "Vandal" groups. Now, it is traditional to represent these as Allied contingents in wargaming terms. This might be right for some situations – eg the coalition that crossed the Rhine in 406 – but equally I suspect that it is far too neat and differentiated for many other scenarios: eg, would the Alan remnants with the Vandals in North Africa really have operated as a nice separate unit of horse archers, or just mixed in with the Germanic cavalry?

Actually leather horse armour isn't particularly expensive (about the same labour as a composite bow). It goes in and out of fashion amongst 'steppe' cavalry but is pretty much universal at various times. The trade off appears to be increased protection against arrows vs reduced endurance for the horse.

Half bards are an interesting item in themselves. The textual descriptions (of Byzantines, Avars and on one occasion Gothic cav)are mostly "armoured horses to the front" (likely the front of the formation be line, globe or arrow) but some can be read as "horses, with armour at the front". Plus we have actual illustrations of Byzantines with front only armour (and a certain Sassanian king) and a later satirical piece that talks of half armour to prevent people running away. I can see them as part of the complex Byzantine mixed formations (primarily to protect against infantry) but would expect full bards in Gothic use. Though the heroic 'only for going forward' aspect would certainly appeal to their culture.

Like others here I would go with most Gothic cavalry as helmet, mail/lamella body armour, shield, sword, spear and javelins. Add some with lances and/or bows and no shield, and a proportion on armoured horses (not Sassanian felt bards).

simples! as the irritating adverts put it.

Tom..

Hi Tom,
The Gothic cavalry at the battle outside Rome in 538? step forward to replace shooting casualties as they stand there and wait for the Byzantines to run out of arrows. Hence they must be in deep formations. I can't recall anywhere else where formation is hinted at.
Roy

DBS303 is right that the Goths absorbed other groups, some of which are absorbed or rather do not reappear as groups, some of which are very definitely separate as the Rigi are. There are Sarmatians in Odovacar's army and possibly added to Theoderic's army on the march. Plus that grouping of Goths had been neighbours of Sarmatians fo many decades and had ample time to learn the techniques. Bittugur Huns join Theoderic and keep their bows, but not their horse archer tactics because you have to live a nomadising life or be a soldier in a state determined to main tai those tactics and the Goths are not.

As to the Alans in the Vandal army. I keep saying this, they are not horse archers . The Alans that cross to Gaul and Spain are not skirmishing horse bows, but armoured heavy cavalry lancers. They are like Sarmatians to whom they are closely related. Not that they don't have bows, but like Sarmatian bows they are tactically subordinate to lance use.
So when the remnanat of theAlans in Spain (not an insignificant remnant because the Vandal king becomes king of the Vandals and Alans) joins the Vandals it imports contos using to the Vandals (if they did not already have it). This accounts for the Procopian description of Vandal cavalry as using only spears, it is because they have become rich enough in Africa to mount everyone and operate with steppe lancer tactics.
Roy

Formations:
Thanks Roy, it's an interesting thought that the 'standing receiving arrows' tactic would be a lot less painful, and more understandable if they did have horse armour.

Separate/mixed groups:
Given the social/cultural background, the individual family and clan groups would remain separate but would take on the name 'Goth' as the Goths have taken on the role of dominant group in a confederation. In steppe culture clans could range from a few hundred to several thousand, so separate units/commands are not inappropriate in wargames.

horse archers or lancers:
Our perceptions of 'horse archers' are heavily influenced by Parthian and similar peoples (eg Cuman Pechneg) who were mostly poorly equipped (bow, sword, horse, little or no armour) and relied on dispersed skirmishing to avoid being drawn into unequal melee. Many steppe groups (including Sarmatians, Alans, many Huns, most Turks) were quite heavily armed (and armoured) fought in separate squadrons (often in tight wedges) that used aimed archery and simulated charges to break up and disorder the enemy before a final fierce, close order charge. As these 'heavy horse archers' move into Europe the charges become more effective (for reasons that are hard to pin down) and archery use reduces significantly. The Alan's in particular seem particularly 'lance happy' (and we had better not digress into the whole Arthur/lance/knights thing).

Tom..

Separate mixed groups.
The Lombards do something similar and Paul the Deacon says that they settle their allies in villages by group so their are villages named for the Sarmatians, Gepids, Avars etc.

I wonder if military bow use does not survive in such circumstances becausae there is no tactical rationale for it. If you are a Bittugur Hun in a Goth army you form a unit with other 'Goths' and operate in a way that the whole army understands. I wonder if ancient generals were capable of a wargamer's subtle realisation that hey I have 500 horse archers here, I could send them out to skirmish. As said earlier, I suspect that horse archer tactics took training to operate in units and once that training stopped they just became lancers with bows. After all, we know that the Visigoth king Theoderic hunted with bow and arrow on horseback so the top guys would certainly have the individual skills.
And yes. I like your point on waiting in ranks. If you have armoured horses and foot archers next to you keeping the horse archers at a safe distance (operating behind shielded infantry) then casualties from the horse-bows will be slight until they run out of arrows and then you roll forward and hopefully crush them.
Roy