Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Huns's descendants horse archery

24567

Comments

  • IzzyStradlinIzzyStradlin Senior Member Karaz BrynPosts: 10,876Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    How well armoured were Hunnic archers? :)
    "Raise them, Necromancer. Set brother against brother. Let's give our hosts something worthy of recording in their pathetic book of complaints, shall we?"
    The Queen of Mysteries, on the Book of Grudges.

    Her voice was as rustling silk. "In the darkness I dreamt of you, cousin."
    "Hawk no longer. My wings are dust and bone. I crawl through time now, like an asp."
    "You took my wings, Neferata. You made me crawl. Now I return the favour. Crawl, cousin. Crawl."

    Team Elize von Carstein


    Warhammer Lore, by Sotek!

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH4nPsl2ctS365aEfFBwxbg

    For ease of memory, if we're not talking about cavalry, everything the High Elves have is better than everything the Dark Elves have.

    Izzy's More-Loreful Stats Mod

    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1279441247&searchtext=
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    gage2617 wrote: »
    The Huns would likely employ Parthian shot as well. Just because the technique is named after Parthia, does not mean they are better than all others just because the Sassanids control Parthia. With that same logic, I could conclude that the Western Roman Empire should have the best horse archers because they controlled Cantabria at the time. It is nonsense.

    For gameplay reasons, I think the Huns should have the best horse archers, but at a small margin. This is because realistically the Byzantines and Sassanids would outclass the Huns in all other forms of warfare due to their centralized command structure and professional soldiery. The real advantage to the Huns was that they were incredibly mobile, and their being nomadic allowed them the ability to attack when and where they were strong, but stay out of reach where they were weak, and this is most accurately reflected in the hit and run ability of horse archers.
    I think the real advantage of the Huns was that they have better trained horse archers who were trained from birth while the two empires often have to spend a lot of resources training soldiers who were adults by the time they were exposed to horse archer tactics.I would say the Persians and Romans should have a much higher recruitment and upkeep cost than the nomads.
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Gokturks Khagan's center setlled centra asia. Gokturks 's start vassal of Sienpi( Mongolic).. Independence war, tribal war, war for controlling trade route with China are %95 all of gokturks war ...Gokturks are alliance with Byzantion. Because they war against Sasanids 1-2 times
    Sorry, I didn't understand. The Gokturks were interested in Persia. They even reached Tus in the second war and their raids reached Ispahan before they were beaten by Smbat.
    Turanist wrote: »
    Its better to hear fairy tails from Persians.

    Its a known fact with evidence that Turkic(Turanian) people were the best in archery. No offence.
    What evidence? I believe it was the other way around. The Scythians and the Parthians were the best. They are the descendants of those who domesticated the horse so they did it before the Turks. The Turks were better only in the middle ages when horse archery had died in those regions.
    darthfanta wrote: »
    I think the real advantage of the Huns was that they have better trained horse archers who were trained from birth while the two empires often have to spend a lot of resources training soldiers who were adults by the time they were exposed to horse archer tactics.I would say the Persians and Romans should have a much higher recruitment and upkeep cost than the nomads.
    The Persians trained since they were children but it seems people still think of the untrained Persians of 300.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    Sorry, I didn't understand. The Gokturks were interested in Persia. They even reached Tus in the second war and their raids reached Ispahan before they were beaten by Smbat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_Khaganate Gokturks history.You can see..

    http://www.traditional-archery.co.uk/asiatic-archery-bow-mechanics/#.VJgzD5AAQ Some information about bows.
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    Sorry, I didn't understand. The Gokturks were interested in Persia. They even reached Tus in the second war and their raids reached Ispahan before they were beaten by Smbat.


    What evidence? I believe it was the other way around. The Scythians and the Parthians were the best. They are the descendants of those who domesticated the horse so they did it before the Turks. The Turks were better only in the middle ages when horse archery had died in those regions.


    The Persians trained since they were children but it seems people still think of the untrained Persians of 300.
    I don't think that's the case anymore by the time of the 6th-7th century regarding horse archery.According to what I've read,this is shown by the fact that Persians and East Roman horse archers had to stay in rigid formations whereas nomad horse archers fight in much free and individualistic manner that observers thought that they weren't fighting in any formation.IIRC,this is one of the reasons why the Persians had such a nasty time dealing with the Hephthalites.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »

    But attacker side Sasanids...Sasanids attack Hepthalits.Heptalits and Gokturk were alliance... Sasanid want to Bactria,Sogdina.Gokturks dont want to all Persia.Exaggerated unbiased sources( all source perisan and shahname).I mentioned Seljuks,Timur,Massagte.I dont say anything about Gokturks.You talked about gokturk..And Gokturks allied with sasanids for a while too.I said taht Gokturks Iran politics were neutral and for trade route..Gokturks are creating alliances with Byzantion ,Sasanids.Heptahalits at another times
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Perso-Turkic_War Gokturks,Byzanton vs Sassanids
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    But attacker side Sasanids...Sasanids attack Hepthalits.Heptalits and Gokturk were alliance... Sasanid want to Bactria,Sogdina.Gokturks dont want to all Persia.Exaggerated unbiased sources( all source perisan and shahname).I mentioned Seljuks,Timur,Massagte.I dont say anything about Gokturks.You talked about gokturk..And Gokturks allied with sasanids for a while too.I said taht Gokturks Iran politics were neutral and for trade route..Gokturks are creating alliances with Byzantion ,Sasanids.Heptahalits at another times
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Perso-Turkic_War Gokturks,Byzanton vs Sassanids
    No, Gokturks attacked first. At first it was Sassanids and Gokturks vs the Hephthalites. After the Hephthalites were beaten the Gokturks attacked the Sassanids and they teamed up with the Hephthalites but they were defeated by Bahram Chobin. They invaded again and were defeated by Smbat and after that they teamed up with the Eastern Romans and they defeated the Sassanids. Yes, the sources were biased, especially Seboes but so was every ancient source.

    I mentioned the Gokturks because you mentioned the Timurids and Mongols who had nothing to do with this time period and claimed that the nomads always won. You should be mentioning the defeat of the Huns by Yazdegerd II instead.
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    No, Gokturks attacked first. At first it was Sassanids and Gokturks vs the Hephthalites. After the Hephthalites were beaten the Gokturks attacked the Sassanids and they teamed up with the Hephthalites but they were defeated by Bahram Chobin. They invaded again and were defeated by Smbat and after that they teamed up with the Eastern Romans and they defeated the Sassanids. Yes, the sources were biased, especially Seboes but so was every ancient source.

    I mentioned the Gokturks because you mentioned the Timurids and Mongols who had nothing to do with this time period and claimed that the nomads always won. You should be mentioning the defeat of the Huns by Yazdegerd II instead.
    Indeed Persians should be power faction, and superior horse archer to that of Romans.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Indeed Persians should be power faction, and superior horse archer to that of Romans.

    I think Persian can be great troll..Everyone know that Nomad have better horse archer ,bow in military history.Sasanids can have good army..My claim is nomads having better horse archers
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    I think Persian can be great troll..Everyone know that Nomad have better horse archer ,bow in military history.Sasanids can have good army..My claim is nomads having better horse archers
    He gave you his point of view with facts and you call Persians trolls? Sassanid controlled Parthia, east/southeast of the Caspian sea and they were a nomadic people who also possessed great steeds. As nomads they were born into horse archery and it become their life style.
    You think all the Parni tribe just settled in cities and that was that? I don't think so.

    Just because the Huns lacked in other areas doesn't mean they have to be better in their horse archery than everyone else just for game balance sake. The huns (apparantly some think they were Turkic) attacked Sassanid Persia and had their bows handed to them, so they went west for easy pickings.

    If they were better than everyone else why didn't they go anywhere else but west? Maybe because they were equally matched?

    I don't think Huns should have better numbers in terms of missile attack or RoF, but perhaps larger units than other factions
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • AriyanAriyan Senior Member Posts: 505Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    He gave you his point of view with facts and you call Persians trolls? Sassanid controlled Parthia, east/southeast of the Caspian sea and they were a nomadic people who also possessed great steeds. As nomads they were born into horse archery and it become their life style.
    You think all the Parni tribe just settled in cities and that was that? I don't think so.

    Just because the Huns lacked in other areas doesn't mean they have to be better in their horse archery than everyone else just for game balance sake. The huns (apparantly some think they were Turkic) attacked Sassanid Persia and had their bows handed to them, so they went west for easy pickings.

    If they were better than everyone else why didn't they go anywhere else but west? Maybe because they were equally matched?

    likeee:)
    ◢==◣
    Brave As Lion
    Parthian Royal Cataphract
    Roman soldiers prefer to suffer any fate rather than look a Sassanid Savaran in the face
    Libianus XVIII PP.205_11
    Sarbazan.....HAMLEEEEEEE!!!!!!
    http://www.persepolis.nu/timeline.htm
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USAPosts: 5,540Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    The thing is, just like the Sassanids the Huns changed as they took lands and expanded their control. Not every person fighting with the Huns were born as Huns. They took subjugated people and the Huns added them into their military forces. While those who were of Hunnic ancestry might have continued nomadic traditions (just like parts of the Sassanid Empire) the vast majority of those who came under their command were not from a nomadic life style. The Huns didn't purge the local populations and being a Hun wasn't some kind of zombie virus that turned the locals into nomadic Huns.

    I understand that simplifying things makes things appear to be easier to understand but it doesn't change what happened. And I'm willing to bet that in reality, the Horse Archers of the Huns were on par with the Horse Archers of the Sassanids (Though the Sassanids might have out classed them in armor). This however is a game and I have no idea how CA will choose to implement the differences.
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    He gave you his point of view with facts and you call Persians trolls? Sassanid controlled Parthia, east/southeast of the Caspian sea and they were a nomadic people who also possessed great steeds. As nomads they were born into horse archery and it become their life style.
    You think all the Parni tribe just settled in cities and that was that? I don't think so.

    Just because the Huns lacked in other areas doesn't mean they have to be better in their horse archery than everyone else just for game balance sake. The huns (apparantly some think they were Turkic) attacked Sassanid Persia and had their bows handed to them, so they went west for easy pickings.

    If they were better than everyone else why didn't they go anywhere else but west? Maybe because they were equally matched?

    I don't think Huns should have better numbers in terms of missile attack or RoF, but perhaps larger units than other factions
    Hun armies cant larger than sasanids.Agriculture civizilation have more populaton than nomadic culture, econommy
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Troll? Persian were super power and were at par with eastern Rome at this point of time, there for it should be as such. Persian were good horse archers too and no lesser than Huns and you cannot prove with fact that Persian were bad vs Huns so I suggest that you stop arguing, I give you fact Battle of Edessa Persian used horse archer spam and won again. so I suggest that you stop glorifying Huns when other faction were as good.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    He gave you his point of view with facts and you call Persians trolls? Sassanid controlled Parthia, east/southeast of the Caspian sea and they were a nomadic people who also possessed great steeds. As nomads they were born into horse archery and it become their life style.
    You think all the Parni tribe just settled in cities and that was that? I don't think so.

    Just because the Huns lacked in other areas doesn't mean they have to be better in their horse archery than everyone else just for game balance sake. The huns (apparantly some think they were Turkic) attacked Sassanid Persia and had their bows handed to them, so they went west for easy pickings.

    If they were better than everyone else why didn't they go anywhere else but west? Maybe because they were equally matched?

    I don't think Huns should have better numbers in terms of missile attack or RoF, but perhaps larger units than other factions
    Were the Parthians still nomadic in the 400s C.E?You really have to take that into consideration. Another thing is that Parthians are but a minority in the Persian empire.Another thing is that just because Persians are highly trained horse archers in Herodotus' time,it doesn't mean they are almost eight hundred years later in 395 C.E. Armies change,so does society. Originally,the main combat forces of any Magyar/Hungarian army in the early middle ages would be their horse archers.By late middle ages, the cream of the Hungarian army was their heavily armoured knights.
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Were the Parthians still nomadic in the 400s C.E?You really have to take that into consideration. Another thing is that Parthians are but a minority in the Persian empire.Another thing is that just because Persians are highly trained horse archers in Herodotus' time,it doesn't mean they are almost eight hundred years later in 395 C.E. Armies change,so does society. Originally,the main combat forces of any Magyar/Hungarian army in the early middle ages would be their horse archers.By late middle ages, the cream of the Hungarian army was their heavily armoured knights.

    Hungarians or Huns? There's a 500~ year gap between them, so it's all theories regarding their connection. Best not go down that road and just roll with Huns. Also late middle ages is way in the future regarding TW:A time frame, so no relevance to this topic. So I'm not sure what your'e on about.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • GelstonGelston Senior Member Posts: 1,577Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Hungarians or Huns? There's a 500~ year gap between them, so it's all theories regarding their connection. Best not go down that road and just roll with Huns. Also late middle ages is way in the future regarding TW:A time frame, so no relevance to this topic. So I'm not sure what your'e on about.

    He was on about how an army changes overtime and was providing an example.
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    Gelston wrote: »
    He was on about how an army changes overtime and was providing an example.
    MY bad, I missed "Originally". Still, the example is invalid, as Parthian/Sassanid armies always consisted of heavy/light cav and hardly changed.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    Edited this for consistency... Sorry Rostam! :) ~Al
    Careful, you are sinking....
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Careful, you are sinking....
    Indeed he is, As I said before Persian used horse archers during battle of Edessa. and won great victory against eastern Rome. and fact that Sassanid were federation in a way and parthians were 1 of the high end noble houses shows that way of Parthian weren't out of window.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Indeed he is, As I said before Persian used horse archers during battle of Edessa. and won great victory against eastern Rome. and fact that Sassanid were federation in a way and parthians were 1 of the high end noble houses shows that way of Parthian weren't out of window.
    No one is disputing that the Persians had horse archers,but the fact that they beat Rome with horse archers doesn't mean Persian horse archers are anywhere near the beat.Given that Roman armies are largely infantry based,most cavalry based armies would be a terrifying foe to a Roman army,which is why Roman armies became more cavalry oriented later on.Another thing is that horse archers are not the only type of cavalry the Persians have.The Persians have other cavalry such as cataphracts and clibanarii.Final thing is can someone confirm whether the Parthians are still nomadic at this stage?Most nomadic tribes lose or degrade their horse archer capabilities overtime once they create some sort of empire,settle down and become farmers.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    No one is disputing that the Persians had horse archers,but the fact that they beat Rome with horse archers doesn't mean Persian horse archers are anywhere near the beat.Given that Roman armies are largely infantry based,most cavalry based armies would be a terrifying foe to a Roman army,which is why Roman armies became more cavalry oriented later on.Another thing is that horse archers are not the only type of cavalry the Persians have.The Persians have other cavalry such as cataphracts and clibanarii.Final thing is can someone confirm whether the Parthians are still nomadic at this stage?Most nomadic tribes lose or degrade their horse archer capabilities overtime once they create some sort of empire,settle down and become farmers.

    Yeah at that point the Parthian werent a match for the tribes who stayed nomads, both in heavy cavalry and horse archery.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    darthfanta wrote: »
    No one is disputing that the Persians had horse archers,but the fact that they beat Rome with horse archers doesn't mean Persian horse archers are anywhere near the beat.Given that Roman armies are largely infantry based,most cavalry based armies would be a terrifying foe to a Roman army,which is why Roman armies became more cavalry oriented later on.Another thing is that horse archers are not the only type of cavalry the Persians have.The Persians have other cavalry such as cataphracts and clibanarii.Final thing is can someone confirm whether the Parthians are still nomadic at this stage?Most nomadic tribes lose or degrade their horse archer capabilities overtime once they create some sort of empire,settle down and become farmers.
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Yeah at that point the Parthian werent a match for the tribes who stayed nomads, both in heavy cavalry and horse archery.

    Only on very few occasions were nomads able to penetrate the Iranian plateau. Almost all the invading nomads were a cavalry army which the Parthians/Sassanids had to counter. We also know that due to the frequent incursions from the steppes into Iran and the turmoil in the western fronts that These Iranian dynasties had to have very mobile armies.

    Only in the Sassanids era did they field a more professional infantry to face the west ,but most of their armies were cav based. You can't just brush them aside and say they were no match for the nomads. The Iranians had been defending their land from the nomads for a very long time and became good at it.

    With regards to Parthian vs nomad, who was better at horse archery? Debatable, but heavy cav is something completely different. By this point Parthian Hcav was incorporated into the Sassanids armies and then modified/improved so be useful against the nomads in the northeast and the ERE(Byzantines).
    So again they managed to repel the nomads and the ERE over and over again.

    If anything The Sassanids had the undisputed heavy cavalry. Don't forget it wasn't just horsemanship, but armor technology and two of the most important yet least talked about elements of the Parthian/Sassanind (specifically Sassanids) Heavy cavalry was the type of steed that were used and chivalry. The code of knighthood started in Iran not in Europe as some claim.
    All this put their heavy cav up into another level.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Only on very few occasions were nomads able to penetrate the Iranian plateau. Almost all the invading nomads were a cavalry army which the Parthians/Sassanids had to counter. We also know that due to the frequent incursions from the steppes into Iran and the turmoil in the western fronts that These Iranian dynasties had to have very mobile armies.

    Only in the Sassanids era did they field a more professional infantry to face the west ,but most of their armies were cav based. You can't just brush them aside and say they were no match for the nomads. The Iranians had been defending their land from the nomads for a very long time and became good at it.

    With regards to Parthian vs nomad, who was better at horse archery? Debatable, but heavy cav is something completely different. By this point Parthian Hcav was incorporated into the Sassanids armies and then modified/improved so be useful against the nomads in the northeast and the ERE(Byzantines).
    So again they managed to repel the nomads and the ERE over and over again.

    If anything The Sassanids had the undisputed heavy cavalry. Don't forget it wasn't just horsemanship, but armor technology and two of the most important yet least talked about elements of the Parthian/Sassanind (specifically Sassanids) Heavy cavalry was the type of steed that were used and chivalry. The code of knighthood started in Iran not in Europe as some claim.
    All this put their heavy cav up into another level.

    Nomads had a bad time conquering cities, Attila was renowed because he was one of the few who did take cities...

    The nomads would have slauthered them on the battle field, but they took the good solution and just camped their cities, like most people do when they're attacked by some nomadic tribes.

    Again, the Sarmatian had the undisputed heavy cavalry, not the sassanids. Even the finess Iranian horseman used to be nomads that were helping them...

    The nomads did have good metal.... just saying
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Yeah at that point the Parthian werent a match for the tribes who stayed nomads, both in heavy cavalry and horse archery.
    HAHA, This proves that you have limited knowledge of east, Sassanid heavy cav was soooo good that Romans start copying it, as for nomads they got their *** handed to them anytime they tried anything so no their heavy cav was weak and so was their horse archer vs Sassanian empire. go read about Bahrām Chobin then you will understand nomads were no match.
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Nomads had a bad time conquering cities, Attila was renowed because he was one of the few who did take cities...

    The nomads would have slauthered them on the battle field, but they took the good solution and just camped their cities, like most people do when they're attacked by some nomadic tribes.

    Again, the Sarmatian had the undisputed heavy cavalry, not the sassanids. Even the finess Iranian horseman used to be nomads that were helping them...

    The nomads did have good metal.... just saying

    As I said said go read about real history not fantasy, camping castles is roman tactic not sassanid. due to fact sassanid army was consist of cav and that would be stupid to camp city... any fight against nomads was carried out in field.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    I think we can all agree to disagree, but history speaks for itself.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    I will continue the argument through private message.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    HAHA, This proves that you have limited knowledge of east, Sassanid heavy cav was soooo good that Romans start copying it, as for nomads they got their *** handed to them anytime they tried anything so no their heavy cav was weak and so was their horse archer vs Sassanian empire. go read about Bahrām Chobin then you will understand nomads were no match.

    The romans copied the Sarmatians you fool. :p
    I think we can all agree to disagree, but history speaks for itself.

    Indeed. Nomad are better horseman as they prouved many times. PEACE OUT
    As I said said go read about real history not fantasy, camping castles is roman tactic not sassanid. due to fact sassanid army was consist of cav and that would be stupid to camp city... any fight against nomads was carried out in field.

    Same too you mate. Stop with "my ancestor were the best" thing and get back to reality. Sarmatian were renowed for beeing the best shock cavalry of their time...

    I know that the Sassanid counter part does look cool on your little books, but it doesnt mean that they were the best. ;)
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The romans copied the Sarmatians you fool. :p
    I was under the impression that Parthian cataphracts was a copy of the Sarmatian one and the Romans in turn copied the Parthians.
This discussion has been closed.