Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 41, no. 4 (Spring 2002), pp. 7–21.

© 2003 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1061–1959/2003 $9.50 + 0.00.

S.M. PEREVALOV

The Sarmatian Lance and the

Sarmatian Horse-Riding Posture

Heavy cavalry formation, introduced by the Sarmatian tribes during the first cen-
turies C.E., can be rightfully considered their most ingenious invention, which
subsequently had a great influence on the formation of medieval knighthood
(Cardini 1981; Russian translation Cardini 1987). This cavalry was later named
“cataphracts” (from the Greek kataphraktos, mailed). The term is borrowed from
classical tradition and, in general, it reflects the fact that that the issues of Sarmatians’
defensive armament are studied more extensively than others in modern literature.
In the present article, less-studied elements of Sarmatian military techniques and
tactics are explored: the way of using the main weapon of the cataphracts—a lance
[contus] and their horse-riding posture in a battle. We have used the two most
informative groups of sources—written sources and drawings. The chronological
framework for the article is the first and second centuries.
To define our research, it is necessary to explore which Sarmatians first used
the new type of cavalry, with the lance as their main weapon, and when they did
so. Since our knowledge derives from Greek and Roman writers, we should specify
that we focus on when this new invention became known in the classical world.
The radical change in Sarmatian military techniques is best seen among the
Roksolans. Two sources—Strabon and Tacitus—with a difference of 100 years,
left notable evidence about this tribe’s armor and tactics.1 Strabon (VII.3.17,
p. 306), writing about the war between the Roksolans and Diophantus, Mithridates
Eupator’s military leader around 110 B.C.E., describes them as lightly armed forces,
apparently cavalry, because he is talking about nomads. Their defensive armament
consisted of raw leather coats of mail and wicker shields, offensive armament—
short lance, bow, and sword. They were tactically as weak as “any barbarian tribe”

English translation © 2003 by M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 1999 by S.M.
Perevalov and the Institute of Archeology, Russian Academy of Sciences. “Sarmatskii
kontos i sarmatskaia posadka,” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia, 1999, no. 4, pp. 65–77.
Translated by Anya Bernstein.

7
8 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

and were utterly defeated by the Greek phalange, which was much smaller (6,000
against 50,000). Strabon does not find anything distinctive in the Roksolans’ ar-
mament compared to the Scythians and other barbarians: “the majority of other
barbarians are armed in a similar way.”
Tacitus (Hist. I. 79) presents a strikingly different view in his account about the
foray of the Roksolan army of 9,000 into the Roman Mesia in 69 C.E. We see a real
revolution in armament, methods of protecting the body, and tactics. The long
lance and heavy long sword (gladius) have become the Roksolans’ main weapon;
bows are no longer mentioned. They are shielded by solid coats of mail with metal
or tanned leather scales, impenetrable to arrows; replacing shields. Finally, they
utilize the effective tactics of frontal attack: “when they attack in squadrons (turmas),
it is unlikely that any array [acies] would sustain their attack.” The failure in the
battle with the Romans of 69 was caused by the snow turning to slush, which
prevented the Sarmatians from using their terrible weapons during the battle order.
These very Sarmatians had wiped out two Roman cohorts in the previous winter.
Therefore, the revolution in the Sarmatians’ military techniques should be placed
in the period between Strabon’s “Geography” (the first quarter of the first century)
and Tacitus’s “History” (the first decade of the second century). R. Syme has tried
to specify the date. Basing his speculations on the first mentions of a distinctive
Sarmatian weapon, the lance (sarmaticus contus), by Roman poets of the end of
Flavius’s period—Stacius (Achill. II. 132–33, Silius (Pun. XV. 684), and, most
importantly, Valerius Flaccus (Argon. VI. 162; pp. 231–38)—he dated the Ro-
mans’ first precise mention of special Sarmatian tactics to the period of Domitianus’s
wars on the Danube (89–92 C.E.). At the same time, he dated the creation of Valerius
Faccus’s sixth song of “The Argonautica” to 92 C.E. (Syme 1929, p. 136).
Syme’s chronology linked the first mention of Sarmatian tactics to the histori-
cally closest confrontation between Romans and Sarmatians, and may need to be
corrected. Different specialists date the poem and its different parts to any time
between the 70s and the 90s C.E. (Halfmann 1986, p. 50; Taylor 1994, p. 214 f.;
recent analysis: Valerius Flaccus, 1997, pp. xviii–xxiv). Nothing prevents us from
dating Valerius Flaccus’s evidence on the Sarmatians to an earlier period than the
one suggested by Syme. However I do not accept the argument (Valerius Flaccus,
1997, p. xxiii) related to Obidius’s mention (Ibis. 135) of the lance (hasta) as a
typical weapon of the Sarmatians-Yazygi:a the context is too brief to draw serious
conclusions. Another observation is relevant. The sixth book of “The Argonautica”
tells about an imaginary battle between Scythian-Sarmatian armies, Persius’s al-
lies, who arrived from the north through Iberian lands (Georgia), and the Jason
and Aet coalition. The situation recalls an episode, also known from Tacitus (Ann.
VI, pp. 33–35), of the Ibero-Parthian war of 35 C.E. for the Armenian throne with
participation of North Caucasian Sarmatians, Iberians’ allies. The probability that
details of the battle between Sarmatians and Argonauts can be traced back to the
real data about the Sarmatians’ incursion into the Caucasus in 35 C.E. is quite high.
(Cf. Halfmann 1986, pp. 49, 50, where Valerius Flaccus’s evidence is compared to
 SPRING 2002 9

the Alans’ incursion of the early 70s. But then the Alans were moving not through
the Caucasus but along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea.)
Sarmatian military tactics in the battle of 35 C.E. against the Parthians are prac-
tically the same as those used by the Roksolans described by Tacitus (Hist. I. 79).
During the crucial battle, the Sarmatians “ensure they will not allow themselves to
be showered with arrows; to prevent this, a swift thrust and hand-to-hand combat
are necessary. A discrepancy arises in the opposing armies: the Parthians, equally
accustomed to and skilled in thrusting forward and retreating, disperse their cav-
alry to hit the enemy with arrows, while the Sarmatians, who do not use bows,
with which they are less skilled, attack them with long lances (contis gladissique).
At one moment, the enemies conjoin and roll backward, as is usual for mounted
battle; at another, they press the enemy with bodies and weapons as during a hand-
to-hand combat (Tac. Ann. VI. 35, translated by A.S. Bobovich). The Sarmatians
of 35 have the same weapons as Roksolans of 69 (lance) and sword; bows are
either absent or used very little. They also have the same tactics (frontal attack and
hand-to-hand combat) and, possibly, the same defensive armament, which is not
mentioned but suggested, judging from the tactics, in Ann. VI. 35.
Tacitus does not specify a tribe for the Sarmatians of 35. However, according to
Josephus Flavius (Ant. Jud. 18.97), they were Alans—a tribe possibly related to
Roksolans, who are “light Alans,” in one etymology. By comparing Josephus’s
and Tacitus’s evidence, we learn that Alans used the new type of weapons and new
tactics during their first emergence on the historical stage. Epic authors of the
Flavian period include episodes of Sarmatian tactics in a mythological or
pseudohistorical context. Alans can be considered the inventors of the Sarmatian
heavy cavalry of the new type, as later sources suggest. Arrian in his “Tactics”
(137 C.E.) calls the lance method of attack “Alano-Sarmatian” [τòν τρóπον τòν
’Αλανικòν καì τω ÷ ν Σαυροµατω ÷ ν—“the way of the Alans and of the Sarmatians”]
(Tact. 4.7.; 4.3). The point that Alans used some new type of weapons can be
concluded from Ammianus Marcellinus’s account (XXXI. 2.17) of the transference
of their name, customs, way of life, and an “armament common to all” (eandemque
armaturam) to other tribes (apparently, Sarmatian), united under their rule. The
description of this armament, greatly resembling that of Tacitus’s cataphracts (Hist
I. 79), is presented by Ammianus, without ethnographically linking the Danube
Sarmatians (Amm. Marc XVII. 12.2) to Alans. Apparently, the author could not
relate these two different traditions. Later Latin writers of the fourth–sixth centu-
ries considered Alan cavalrymen typical cataphracts. Vegetius (Veg. I. 20) pointed
out Alans’ influence (as well as that of Goths and Huns) on improvements in
defensive armament of Roman cavalry. In the “Life of St. German” (Const. V. Germ.
XXVIII), the Alan horde of Eochar (Hoar) of 445 is called the “iron cavalry” (eques
ferratus). Jordanes (Jord. Get. 50) considered heavy armament to be the Alans’
distinctive trait (Alanum gravi . . . armatura aciem strui).
Thus, the heavy Sarmatian (Sarmato-Alanian) cavalry was known at least from
35 C.E., in literature designated by the term “cataphracts,” mailed cavalry. The
10 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

term became widely accepted. While it is adequate, it does not fully illustrate the
specifics of Sarmatian cavalry during the first century of its existence. The prob-
lem is that cataphracts appeared long before the first century C.E. Putting aside
remote ancestors of Sarmatian-style heavy cavalry such as Assyrian and Persian
mailed warriors, Roman and Greek writers knew of cataphracts under the same
name since the Hellenistic period (Rattenbury 1942; Rubin 1955; Eadie 1967;
Khazanov 1968, p. 181). Romans often collided with them in the eastern wars: in
189 C.E., in the Battle of Magnesia with Antiochus III (Liv. XXXV. 3), in the
battles of Luculus with Tigran the Great near Tigranokerte, 6 October 69 B.C.E.
(Plut. Luc. pp. 26–28) and the Battle of Harran (Carrhae) between Crassus and
Surena in 53 B.C.E. (Plut. Crass. 18–19; 21; 24–25). At the turn of our era,
cataphracts with defensive armament for horses were considered typical of the
national army for Armenians, Albanians, and Midians (Strab. XI. 4.4–5), p. 502;
XI.14.9, p. 530).b In general these mounted warriors demonstrated poor skills in
tactical maneuvers, against serried legions as well as against light cavalry (Plut. Luc. 28).
Sarmatians of the first century represent a different case, because they were
strong in their tactics. Tacitus (Hist. I. 79) points out: “It is curious to say this, but
the Sarmatians’ courage is, in a way, situated outside of them.” Later he explains:
Sarmatians are the most dangerous when, in the ranks, they use their long lances.
However, mounted warriors started using long lances long before the first century
C.E. The Sarmatians’ predecessors, the Scythians, used lances, but they were never
widespread (Chernenko 1984). Mounted pikemen [sarissophori] were known in
Madedonian armies (see Markle 1977). Long before the Alans appeared, military
theoreticians noted that long lances are the best weapons for horsemen, attacking
the enemy from close range (Ascl. Tact. I. 3, writing mid-first-century B.C.E.). This
was the same technique the Alans and Sarmatians used later (Arr. Tact. 4.3). What
is so special about the lance (contus) compared to its predecessors?
By the turn of the first century C.E., Homer’s word lance (originally a sailor’s
pole) came to signify a large cavalry lance (Liddel 1968, p. 978; Sophocles 1957,
p. 680; Cagnat 1887, p. 1495). As any shaft weapon, a lance could be used for both
throwing and inflicting blows. “A lance has a double purpose—for hand-to-hand
combat, for close-range and far-range battles; it has a lance,2 as well as a sarissa
and a javelin” (Strab. X. I. 12, p. 448). Due to its long shaft, the lance was mostly
used as a piercing weapon. It became a type of national weapon of the Sarmatians.
During the first century of our era, the expression sarmaticus lance became a tech-
nical term (Bosworth 1977, p. 240). The specifics of using the long lance, which,
judging from pictures, sometimes reached 4 to 4.5 meters (Peters 1984, p 189),
along with horse-riding posture, were frequently studied and variously explained.
The concept of a specifically “Sarmatian horse-riding posture” can be considered
the most common and well-substantiated hypothesis.
There were no stirrups in ancient times (see White 1962, p. 14; Vainshtein 1991,
pp. 214–17). That is why a horseman faced a difficult task while in battle: how to
use his lance and remain on horseback without feet support. Pictorial and some
 SPRING 2002 11

Figure 1. Portrayal of the Sarmatian lancemen from the northern reaches of

the Black Sea (Severnoe Prichernomore): 1, 2, 4, 5—Pantikapea’s frescos;
3—Trifon’s relief from Tanais (from Boss 1994).

written sources suggest that mounted warriors usually rode as follows: the legs
were parallel to the horse’s movements, the reins in the left hand, and the lance in
the right hand, either raised or loosely hanging down like that of Alexander in the
battle with Darius on the famous Pompei mosaics. However, images of mounted
cavalrymen of the first and second centuries, possibly Sarmatians or Sarmatian-
influenced Bosphorans, on Pantikapean frescos and Trifon reliefs from Tanais,
revealed a different picture: warriors usually faced the audience, both hands hold-
ing the lance, while horses were painted in profile, reins thrown onto their necks
(Fig. 1). M.I. Rostovtsev (1914, p. 340) wrote about horsemen portrayed full-face
(“more than likely, Sarmatians”): “I was inclined to see in this full-face portrayal a
new indication of ethnographic realism, judging from pictures of capturing the
posture of a horsemen during a battle, either caused by this moment or generally
typical.” Later V.D. Blavatskii, also using iconographic material, specified the main
12 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

components of the Sarmatian posture: a horseman “gallops without holding the

reins; the torso and the left shoulder are turned three-quarters toward the viewer,
which lets him hold the lance with both hands. Such a posture is quite feasible and
fully corresponds to the Sarmatian riding posture” (Blavatskii 1968, p. 44, see also
Blavatskii 1949, pp. 96–100). A similar notion of a special Sarmatian riding pos-
ture, usually expressed in descriptive terms, is found quite often in Russian and
foreign literature (Vinogradov 1963, p. 57; Khazanov 1971, p. 49; Cardini 1987,
pp. 47, 48; Cardini 1981, p. 17, 18; White 1962, pp. 8, 9; Boss 1994, p. 18).
Recently, V.A. Goroncharovskii and V.P. Nikonorov criticized the theory of the
Sarmatian riding posture. In their opinion, the full-face portraial of horsemen on
the Bosphoran monuments is the result of heroic stylization, necessarily involving
portraying them holding the lance with both hands and even riding in a so-called
“female way” (Goroncharovskii 1993, p. 80). The critics consider the “Sarmatian”
posture impossible: “Not only without stirrups, but also leaving the reins on horses’
necks, a warrior wearing heavy armor and holding a lance with both hands, no
matter how skilled in horse-riding, should eventually end up on the ground, at
least at the moment of colliding with the enemy” (Goroncharovskii and Nikonorov
1987. p. 210). However, their only supporting argument—a reference to the re-
sults of M. Markle III’s experiment on the model of a Macedonian sarissa—is
erroneous. The experiment was devised only to demonstrate actions of Macedonian
cavalry and the conclusion should not be extended to the Sarmatians. Markle him-
self acknowledged the possibility of holding a lance with both hands during battle
and called this method the Sarmatian “national technique” (Markle 1977, p. 337).
V.N. Kaminskii (1993, p. 98) suggested the following reconstruction of the
Sarmatian posture: “A horseman stabilized himself in the saddle with the reins’
loop, which he tied around his waist. Thus, the reins were constantly drawn, so
that the horseman could always control the horse, freeing both hands to hold the
heavy lance.” Such an extravagant explanation is not supported by any sources
and therefore does not deserve any discussion. (One can quote Cicero: “who tied
my son-in-law to the sword?”)
Long before Goroncharovskii and Nikanorov, P. Rattenbury (Rattenbury 1943)
and G. Chilver (Chilver 1972, pp. 144, 145) argued against the possibility of a
horseman thrusting the lance with both hands. Because the issue in question is still
considered controversial, it is worthwhile to reconsider the material about the
“Sarmatian” riding posture, paying special attention to the issue of holding the
lance with both hands during battle.
In the mentioned extract from Tacitus’s “History” (Hist. I, 79) is a description
of Sarmatian (Roksolan) cataphracts, armed with long lances (conti) and swords
(gladii): “sed tum umido die et soluto gelu neque conti neque gladii, quos praelongos
utraque manu regunt, usui, lapsantibus equis et catafractarum pondere.” G.S. Knabe
translates this: “On the day when it was raining, the ice was melting, and the
Sarmatians could not use either their lances or their very long swords, which they
hold with two hands; their horses were sliding in the mud, and heavy coats of
 SPRING 2002 13

mails were impeding their fighting ability” (Tacitus Cornelius 1993, p. 418). The
controversial issue in the original passage is whether quos praelongos refers to
both lances and swords or only to swords, as Knabe translated it. P. Rattenbury
(Rattenbury 1943) has analyzed the passage and concluded that Tacitus uses a
syntactical unit with paired phrases typical of his writing, so that each part of the
first phrase correlates to the second phrase, according to the following formula: 1
(a + b) and 2 (a + b) (see Brink 1944, p. 43). The construction of the relevant part
of the sentence, “umido die et soluto gelu neque conti usui, lapsantibus equis,—
neque gladii, quos praelongos utraque manu regunt, usui, catafractarum pondere,”
becomes “(Sarmatians) could not use either their lances—because the horses were
sliding—or their swords (which had to be handled with both hands due to their
great length) because of the armor’s heaviness” (Rattenbury 1943, p. 69). “The
longest” and double-handed could only refer to swords in this interpretation.
Such clarification, though quite interesting from the philological standpoint,
does not contribute much to solving the historical (military and technical) prob-
lem. Rattenbury himself admits that the norms of the Latin language allow for a
different interpretation of the text, so that the word “the longest” (praelongo) could
refer to lances and swords (Rattenbury 1943, p. 68): praelongos could refer to
conti and to gladii. That is why he draws extra evidence from outside, the most
crucial being Heliodorus’s (Aeth. IX. 15) description of a cataphract who holds
with his right hand a lance attached to a horse’s torso and neck, while holding the
reins with his left hand. Using such a proof “by analogy” (Rattenbury 1942, pp.
113–15; Chilver 1972, pp. 144, 145; Khazanov 1968, p. 182; Goroncharovskii
1993, p. 81) is methodically vulnerable, because it is not certain that the Persian
(described by Heliodorus) and the Sarmatian cataphracts had the same manner of
fighting. Strangely enough, Rattenbury admits that. As concerns the text of Tac.
Hist. I. 79, Rattenbury’s interpretation is based on the assumption that the “long-
est” sword, as opposed to the lance, was meant exclusively for unmounted battles
(when a horseman is thrown off the horse). Without this assumption, the opposi-
tion used in Tacitus’s figure of speech loses its meaning. The assumption is a
stretch—we saw in another description of the same tactics (Tac. Ann. VI. 35) that
the Sarmatians used both lances and swords (contis gladiisque) in mounted battles.
According to all the sources (including that of Heliodorus), the lance was indeed
really long—from this point of view, it is justified to apply the word praelongus to
it. Finally, the absence of shields among Tacitus’s Roksolans may be explained by
this very necessity to free both hands to operate the lance (Syme 1929, p. 130).
The logic of the situation (admitting the possibility of double interepretation of the
phrase’s syntax) speaks for Tacitus’s Sarmatians holding the lance with both hands.
Let us consider other sources referring to the Sarmatian lance. Concerning the
above-mentioned battle of the Argonauts’ supporters and opponents, the poet
Valerius Flaccus of the first century C.E., provides an important description of
actions of mounted Sarmatian lance-throwers against the cavalry of javelin-throwers.
Below we quote the text in question, cited from “the manuscript of the ninth cen-
14 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

tury Vaticanus 3277–V, publishers of ‘The Argonautica’—N. Heinsius (Leiden

1794), E. Baehens (Teubner 1875).”
Valer. Flac. Argonaut. VI. 231–38:
cum saevior ecce iuventus
Sarmaticae coiere manus fremitusque virorum
semiferi; riget his molli lorica catena;
id quoque tegmen equis; at equi porrecta per armos
et caput ingentam campis hostilibus umbram
fert abies obnixa genu vaditque virum vi,
vadit equum, docilis relegi docilisque reponi*
atque iterum medios non altior** ire per hostes
“And the terrifying roaring squad of the Sarmatian warriors came tearing along;
their coats of mails made of connected flexible parts are strong, and the horses are
mailed likewise; the lance [elovaia pika] (el’—abies), extending across the horse’s
shoulders and head, casts a long shadow across the enemy’s territory, and, being
held tight against the knees, is thrust forward with the combined might of the
warrior and the horse. The lance knows how to leave (the body) and return to the
same position only to make its way forward through the thick of enemies, staying
on the same level (alt.—non tardior, ‘as fast’).”
The text is definitely not easy to interpret, and some debatable details are re-
constructed based on R. Syme’s analysis (Syme 1929, pp. 132, 133). Sarmatian
warriors and horses are covered with armor; there is probably no shield, letting the
warrior freely wield a large, protruding lance, thrusting it into enemies and pulling
it out to use again. The horseman obviously uses both hands, as we see from the
position of the lance. He holds it tight against his knee, slightly raised (non altior),
at the level of an enemy’s chest or stomach. The blow is inflicted with all the might
of both the warrior and his steed at a sweeping speed. There is no indication of
attaching the lance to the horse’s torso, as Heliodorus’s cataphracts [had done].
The data from “The Argonautica” confirms and completes two other Flavian
poets—Silius and Statius. One of the Silian’s “Punica’s” characters (a Numidian)
attacks his enemy in the following way (Sil. Pun. XV. pp. 683–85):
necnon, cornipedis tergo de more repostus,
sustentata genu per campum pondera conti
Sarmatici prona adversos urgebat in hostes
(“Likewise sitting on horseback, supporting a heavy Sarmatian lance tilted ahead
with his knee, he pointed it toward the enemies.”)
In Statius’s Achillead “I learned, . . . how, a Sarmatian thrusts his lance, spin-
ning it”—didici, . . . quo turbine contum Sauromates . . . tenderet (Stat. Achill. II.
pp. 131–33).
Finally, a different passage from Flaccus’s “Argonautica” (VI. 162) mentions a
“Sarmatian wielding a huge lance with a belt” (ingentis frenator Sarmata conti).3

*reponi Baehrens; relinqui V; **altior V; tardier Hensius.

 SPRING 2002 15

According to Syme (Syme 1929, p. 132), the lance wielded with a belt (frenum)
should be understood not as a javelin [metatel’nyi drotik] (hasta amemtata) but as
a lance furnished with a special belt, used to pull out the lance from the enemy’s
body after a successful thrust.
In the last case, we can base our speculations on archeological material to con-
firm the above claims. In 1901, during the excavations of a kurgan dating to the
first–second centuries C.E. near the village [stanitsa] of Kazanskaia, several tips
from Sarmatian lances, 0.314 to 0.44 m long were found. The tips had leaf-shaped
spikes and long plugs [vtulka], ending with a large rosette-shaped flange [zakraina].
According to V.D. Blavatskii, such a plug [rosetka] “should prevent the lance from
penetrating the defeated enemy’s body too deeply (more than 0.3–0.4 m) in order
to allow a horseman sweeping along at full gallop to pull it out quickly and effec-
tively (Blavatskii 1954, p. 117, 118), p. 58, 2; see also Khazanov 1971, p. 47).4
Scenes depicting horsemen on a silver goblet from Kosika’s hoard—one of the
most significant archeological finds of the last decade—are very close to Valerius
Flaccus’s and his contemporaries’ description (Dvornichenko and Fedorov-Davydov
1993, pp. 149, 150; Treister 1994, pp. 180, 181). Two horsemen with lances, one a
hunter, the other a warrior, can be seen on the upper and lower friezes, riding to the
right, each with left shoulders facing forward, hands on the same (right) side of a
horse. Each warrior holds the staff of the lance in its lower part by the left hand
from below, while holding the upper part near the end at a straight angle with the
right hand. In this position, the lance protrudes far forward—approximately by
two quarters (cf. Val. Flac. Argon. VI. pp. 234–36), tilting forward under the weight
of its upper part, as in Silius: pondera conti . . . prona (Pun. XV. 684). The blow is
inflicted with all the might of both the warrior and his steed. Spears’ ends on the
Kosika goblet are quite similar to the abovementioned tips from the kurgan no. 17
near the village of Kazanskaia (Treister 1994, p. 184), allowing the rider quickly
to pull out the lance from the enemy’s wound. The battle scene between a lanceman
and an archer (fig. 2) in the lower row is so similar to the description of the battle
between the Sarmatians and the Parthians in 35 C.E. (Tac. Ann. VI. 35) that it
seems to be an illustration to Tacitus (see Vinogradov 1994, p. 163; on later dating
of the Kosika goblet from the second–third centuries see von Galle 1997, p. 179).
Comparison of data from three Flavian poets with the pictures on the Kosika
vessel allows us to introduce some corrections to A.M. Khazanov’s reconstruction
of the lance-holding method: “The extended left hand supports the staff, while the
right hand directs the blow” (Khazanov 1971, p. 49; Goroncharovskii and
Nikonorov 1987, p. 209, fig. on p. 203). Although such a technique is possible, it
is not effective, because the lance remains suspended and the blow is inflicted only
with the strength of the (right) hand or both hands. In our case, the rider does not
“support” but clasps the staff to his knee (hip), applying all the strength and weight
of the horse and the rider toward the blow at full speed.
Concerning the name, I suggest the term “lancemen” [kontofory] for the
Sarmatian horsemen of the first–second centuries because it better reflects the
16 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Figure 2. Horsemen scenes on the Kosika vessel (from V.K. Guguev).

essence of innovations brought by Sarmatians to the art of mounted battle. This

term was first used by Arrian (κοντοφóροι [contofors] Tact. 4.3; 44.1; Ekt. 22) to
refer to cavalry using the “Alan-Sarmatian technique” of frontal attack. The first
regular units of Roman cavalry, trained in the Sarmatian techniques, were likewise
called not “cataphracts” but contarii, that is, lancemen.
With all the advantages of hand-to-hand combat, the Sarmatian riding posture
naturally created difficulties in handling horses without reins. This had to be over-
come by many years of training of both warriors and horses, in which the Alans
engaged since childhood (see Amm. Marc. XXXI. 2.20). Our sources, however,
say that horsemen of different ancient peoples used to let go of the reins at the
moment of attack (Liv. XXXV. 11.80–10; XL. 40. 5–6; Verg. Aen. IV. 41). There-
fore, the difficulties might not have been that great. More important was the diffi-
culty in using a shield while the left hand was holding a lance. It seems that, in the
beginning, the Sarmatians did not use shields at all, which made them an easy
target for enemies should their battle order be disturbed (Tac. Hist. I. 79). Later, at
least in some cases, Alan and Sarmatian lancemen had shields (Arr. Ekt. 17)—
probably not very large ones, attached to the left forearm. The drawbacks of the
Sarmatian posture include their vulnerability from the sides in close battle, be-
cause it was difficult for a rider to turn his lance—very threatening front forward,
but too long. The opponents of lancemen often used the technique of attacking on
the flank (Plut. Luc. 28; Arr. Ekt. 31). The Sarmatians could compensate for their
weaknesses with the technique of mixing cavalry and infantry, as they did in the
successful confrontation with the Parthians in 35 C.E. (Tac. Ann. VI. 35).
 SPRING 2002 17

Figure 3. Terracotta from the British Museum with the lion-hunting scene.

Holding the lance with two hands and the riding posture called the “Sarmatian
way” was quite widespread in Iranian and related cultures. The first attempts to use
this new technique probably happened before the classical authors found out
about it. Images of warriors mounted like Sarmatians were found among the
Khorezm finds, dating from several centuries before the Alans appeared in the
European steppes (Tolstov 1948, table 82; Khazanov 1971, p. 50). Not coinciden-
tally, Central Asia is considered the birthplace of the Sarmatian cataphracts (Rubin
1955), ancestors of the Alans. In Parthia, cataphracts holding the lance with both
hands were possibly known before our era, assuming Plutarch’s sources go back
to the Battle of Harran (Carrhae), 53 B.C.E. (Plut. Crass. 18, 19; 21; 24, 25). Illustra-
tions of Parthian cataphracts mounted in a “Sarmatian way,” holding a lance with
both hands, are also known (Fig. 3). But it was the Sarmatians who gave their name
to the new weapon and technique, which probably reflects their real input in the
creation and perfection of the lancemen’s cavalry.
Neighboring peoples soon began to appreciate and borrow the new Sarmatian
technique. Romans, who in general were known to monitor carefully all military
innovations of both allies and enemies, began to practice the Sarmatian method
actively. (For more on this, see Kiechle 1965, p. 108 ff; Eadie 1967, p. 161.) Rid-
ers wielding long lances ([κοντóς ’επιµη′κις—elongated lance) were in the army of
Vespasian near Jerusalem (Jos. Bell. Jud. III. 5.5); their organization is unknown to
us. The first regular unit of contarii (lancemen), ala I Ulpia contariorum miliaria
civium Romanorum (CIL. III. 4183) appeared in Trajan’s times about 108 C.E
18 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

1 2
Figure 4. Relief with Roman lancemen [contarii ]: 1—rider of the Ala I
Caninafatium); 2—curator of the Ala I Ulpia Contariorum Miliaria (Kiechle 1965,
p. 104, Fig. 10, 2).

(Cichorius, 1894, Sp. 1239 ff.) Apparently, they did not yet have defensive weap-
ons, as evidenced in Josephus Flavius’s description and portrayals of contarii on
stellae (Fig. 4). The first cavalry unit of cataphracts furnished with coats of mail
appeared during Adrian’s reign (117–38 C.E.)—ala Gallorum et Pannoniorum
catafracta (Kiechle 1965, p. 195). Drawing an analogy to weapons of other
cataphracts, we can suppose that the riders of the Gallo-Pannon cohort [ala] also
were contarii, although we have no direct evidence. During Adrian’s reign, the
Romans already knew how to use a lance in the Sarmatian way. “Some Roman
horsemen carry lances (κοντυóς)5 and attack using the Alanian and Sauromatian
technique, others have spears (λóγχας),” Arrian wrote (Arr. Tact. 4.7).
Most likely, Roman mounted warriors with the Sarmatian weapons held a lance
in the same way—with both hands—and sat on horseback in the “Sarmatian way.”
In the second part of “Tactics,” listing Adrian’s innovation in the cavalry, Arrian
writes that Roman horsemen were taught “to attack in turns, interchanging retreat-
ing and attacking, as is done by Sauromatian and Celtic lancemen (Tact. 44. 1).
M.I. Rostovtsev compared this description with horsemen’s depictions on the Kerch’
frescoes (Rostovtsev 1914, p. 340). Further into his tractatus, Arrian explains the
 SPRING 2002 19

Figure 5. A horseman with two-handed [dvuruchnyi] lance: an engraving on a

sixth-century dish from Isola Rizza (from Boss 1993).

Roman cavalry’s usage of new technique, correlating it with a Sarmatian lance

with a Celtic name, “tolutegon,” [τολου′τεγον) The horsemen do not throw spears
[kopiia], but “attack holding the lances straight (tilted forward?) for the thrust
(κοντου′ς) . . . ορθους ως εις προβολην φεροντες επελαυνουσιν) (Tact. 43.2; com-
pare 4.7). Arrian does not provide details about the posture but we can refer to the
depictions of Roman contarii on the stellae of the second century C.E. (Fig. 4).
Most scholars studying the reliefs think the horsemen held the lance with both
hands (Cagnat 1887, pp. 1495, 1496; Syme 1929, p. 131; Markle 1977, p. 337).
Doubts are expressed by Eadie (1967, p. 172). Judging from the position of the
right hand, holding the staff from the back, the horseman supports the lance in its
middle with his left hand—hard to see from a photograph—in the manner re-
created on the Pantikapea frescoes and on the Kosik vessel friezes. However, it was
difficult for civilized peoples to equal nomads in this skill. Apparently, this
prompted Marcus Aurelius to hire 8,000 Sarmatians-Yazygi in 175 C.E. (Dio Cass.
71.16). They were probably cataphracts, some of whom served in Britain (Rich-
mond 1945). The late empire already counted several units of cataphracts (as well
as Clibanarii, with similar weapons), some of whom were of Sarmatian origin.
On the whole, the Roman attempt to adapt heavy Eastern cavalry was not very
successful (Eadie 1967, p. 173). Nevertheless, evidence that Western European
people practiced the Sarmatian riding posture while holding their lance with both
hands is found as late as the early Middle Ages (Boss 1993, p. 68). Among relevant
sources is a sixth-century dish clearly depicting a mailed horseman (a Langobard? a
Goth? a Byzantine?) with a lance held with two hands tilted forward [napereves] at-
tacking enemies (Fig. 5)—almost an exact copy of the Kosik vessel. Later comes the
age of horse reins and the Sarmatian riding posture is replaced by the knights’ way.

Editor’s notes

a. The Yazygi were a Sarmatian tribe, linked with Alan-Persian (Iranian) cultural traditions.
b. The ethnic groups named here do not perfectly correlate with modern-day Albanians and
20 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Armenians. This is relevant to current politics of national history concerning the origins of
“White Albanians.” For more on the politicization of debates about ancestral correlations, see
Victor A. Shnirelman, The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in the Transcaucasus
(Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 2001).

Notes
1. For the purpose of this article, it is not important whether Strabon’s Roksolans (called
“Revksinals” in the Kherson’s decree in honor of Diophantus—IOSPE II, no. 352) and
Tacitus’s Roksolans were the same people and whether we should consider them to be
Sarmatians in the strict sense. (Strabon does not discuss it, whereas for Tacitus, Roksolans are
undoubtedly Sarmatians.) More important, both authors considered the Roksolans typical
representatives of the military culture of the people inhabiting the land named Sarmatia (former
Scythia), according to writers of the turn of the first century C.E.
2. G.A. Stratanovskii (Strabon, 1994, p. 425) give a wrong translation of the word contus:
“a shaft of a lance.”
3. V.V. Latyshev’s translation (VDI 1949, no. 2, p. 349): “a Sarmatian throwing a huge
spear” [kop’e] is inaccurate. Other versions of the translation are: “a Sarmatian wielding a
huge lance” (B.N. Grakov, quoted from Vinogradov 1963, p. 57); “a Sarmatian who puts a
rein upon his huge lance” (Valerius Flaccus 1972, p. 313).
4. One more variety of a Sarmatian lance is represented by a tip from the Al’dinskii
kurgan found in Checheno-Ingushetia—a massive, leaf-shaped lance with short plug [vtulka]
(Vinogradov 1963, p. 57). In general, there are not many Sarmatian finds, making their
typology difficult (Khazanov 1971, p. 45). This situation has not changed during the last
quarter of the twentieth century.
5. P.I. Prozorov’s translation “javelins” [drotiki] (SC, V. 1, p. 521) is misleading, but
accepted in Russian texts, in which the “Alanian-Sarmatian” technique described by Arrian
is perceived as a technique of javelin-throwers (Blavatskii 1954, p. 118; Kaminskii 1993, p.
98, and others). In passing, I should mention two other common mistakes, regarding
Arrian’s “Tactics”: (1) A wedge-shaped Scythian formation of the fourth century B.C.E.
(Tact. 16.6) is ascribed to Alans or Sarmatians; (2) Snake-shaped badges (Scythian in
origin) worn by the Roman cavalry during a parade (Tact. 35.3) are confused with the
badges of Alan units in the battle (Blavatskii 1954, p. 120, 122; Khazanov 1971, pp. 74,
89; Kuznetsov 1992, pp. 257, 258; Goroncharovskii 1993, pp. 79, 81; Kaminskii 1993,
pp. 95, 97).

References

Blavatskii, V.D. “O bosporskoi konnitse.” KSIIMK, 1949, no. 19.

———. Ocherki voennogo dela v antichnykh gosudarstvakh Severnogo Prichernomor’ia.
Moscow, 1954.
———. O bosporskikh vsadnikakh v pospisi Stasovskogo sklepa. Antichnaia istoriia i
kul’tura Sredizemnomor’ia i Prichernomor’ia. Leningrad, 1968.
Boss, R. Justinian’s Wars: Belisarius, Narses and the Reconquest of the West. Stockport, 1993.
———. “The Sarmatians and the Development of Early German Mounted Warfare.”
Ancient Warrior, 1994, vol. 1. Stockport.
Bosworth, A.B. “Arrian and the Alani.” HSCP, 1977, no. 81.
Cagnat, R. Contus (κοντος). Dictionnaire des Antiquités grecques et romaines. D’après
les texts et les Monuments. Ch. Darembert et Edm. Saglio. Vol. 1, p. 2 (C). Paris, 1887.
Cardini, F. Alle radici della cavalleria medievale. Florence, 1981.
———. Istoki srednevekovogo rytsarstva. Moscow, 1987.
 SPRING 2002 21

Chernenko, E.V. Dlinnye kop’ia skifov. Drevnosti Evrazii v skifo-sarmatskoe vremia.

Moscow, 1984.
Chilver, G.E.F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’s Histories I and II. Oxford, 1972.
Cichorius. Ala. Militärisch. RE I, 1894.
Dvornichenko, V.V., and Fedorov-Davydov G.A. “Sarmatskoe pogrebenie skeptukha I v
n.e. u s. Kosika Astrakhanskoi oblasti.” VDI, 1993, no. 3.
Eadie, J.W. “The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry.” JRS, 1967, vol. 57.
Goroncharovskii, V.A. “Katafraktarii v istorii voennogo dela Bospora. Skify. Sarmaty.
Slaviane. Rus’.” PAV, 1993, no. 6.
Goroncharovskii, V.A., and Nikonorov, V.P. “Iluratskii katafraktary (K istorii antichnoi
tiazheloi kavalerii).” VDI, 1987, no. 1.
Halfmann, H. “Die Alanen und die Römische Ostpolitik unter Vespasian.” EA, 1986,
no. 8.
Kaminskii, V.N. Voennoe delo Severnogo Kavkaza. Drevnosti Kubani i Chernomor’a. I.
Pontiisko-Kavkazskie issledovaniia. Krasnodar, 1993.
Kiechle, F. “Die ‘Taktik’ des Flavius Arrianus.” 45. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission. 1964. Berlin, 1965.
Khazanov, A.M. “Katafraktarii i ikh rol’ v istorii voennogo iskusstva.” VDI, 1968, no. 1.
———. Ocherki voennogo dela sarmatov. Moscow, 1971.
Kuznetsov, V.A. Ocherki istorii Alan. Vladikavkaz, 1992.
Liddel, H., and Scott, R. A Greek–English Lexicon. Vol. 1. Oxford, 1968.
Markle III, Minor M. “The Macedonian Sarissa, Spear, and Related Armour.” AJA, 1977,
vol. 81, no. 3.
Peters, B.G. Voennoe delo. Antichnye gosudarstva Severnogo Prichernomor’ia. Moscow, 1984.
Rattenbury, P.M. “An Ancient Armoured Force.” CR, 1942, issue 56.
———. “Tacitus, Hist. I. 79.” CR, 1943, issue 57.
Richmond, I.A. “The Sarmatae Bremetennacum veteranorum and the Regio
Bremetennacensis.” JRS, 1945, issue 35.
Rostovtsev, M.I. Antichnaia dekorativnaia zhivopis’ na Iuge Rossii. Vol. 1. Opisanie i
issledovanie pamiatnikov. St. Petersburg, 1914.
Rubin, V. “Die Entstenhung der kataphraktenreiterei im Lichte der Choresmischen
Ausgrabungen.” Historia, 1955, vol. 4, no. 2–3.
Strabon. Geografiia. Moscow, 1994.
Sophocles, E.A. Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. From B.C. 146 to
A.D. 1100. Vol. 2. New York, 1957.
Syme, R. The Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus. CQ. V., 1929, vol. 23, no. 3–4.
Tacitus Cornelius. Sochineniia. St. Petersburg, 1993.
Taylor, P.R. Valerius’ Flavian Argonautica. CR. V., 1994, vol. 44, no. 1.
Tolstov, S.P. Drevnyi Khorezm. Moscow, 1948.
Treyster, M.Ia. “Sarmatskaia shkola khudozhestvennoi torevtiki.” VDI, 1994, no. 1.
Vainshtein, S.I. Mir kochevnikov tsentra Azii. Moscow, 1991.
Valerius Flaccus C. Argonautica. With an English translation by J.H. Mozley, 1972.
Valerius Flaccus. Argonautiques. Vol 1. Chants I–IV. Text prepared and translated by
G. Liberman. Paris, 1997.
Vinogradov, V.B. Sarmaty Severo-Vostochnogo Kavkaza. Groznyi, 1963.
Vinogradov, Iu.G. “Ocherk voenno-politicheskoi istorii sarmatov v I v. n.e.” VDI, 1994, no. 2.
von Galle, H. “Stsena poedinka vsadnikov na serebriannoi vase iz Kosiki (Istorii i
vospriiatie odnogo iranskogo motiva v Iuzhnoi Rossii).” VDI, 1997, no. 2.
White, L. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford, 1962.