Thanks for your thoughts, Richard.
My initial query arose while reading Ilkka Syvanne's first volume in his multi volume series on the Late Roman Army. While discussing Rome's various opponents he postulates that the Vandals had become mounted warriors as a result of their exposure to the Sarmatians. In terms of fighting style, Syvanne interprets the Vandal as shieldless using the lance (contus) in a two handed fashion. He concedes the possibility that they fought in "German" style charging with a long spear and carrying a shield. He does not provide a source for these conclusions. Hence my query.
However, my interest was piqued and I have done a little research. Roman Zavroff's article in Collegium Medievale 2017, The Vandals and Sarmatians in a New Perspective is a very interesting read. He provides a thorough review of the literary and archaeological evidence to support his hypothesis that by the mid 2nd century Sarmatization of the Vandals had begun and that by the mid 4th century and the time of more frequent contact with the Romans the Vandals were a predominantly mounted force fighting in the Sarmatian style and little distinguishable from the Sarmatians.
Richard, Prof. Zavroff would take issue with a number of your comments. With respect to the region inhabited by the Vandals, they settled in the Carpathian basin which includes both the Great and Lesser Hungarian Plains. Their neighbours were the powerful Sarmatian Iazyges augmented in the 3rd century by waves of Alans. This is perfect cavalry country and provided some of Europe's finest cavalry for centuries. I would be more surprised if the Vandals didn't Sarmaticize and adopt the horse in those circumstances.
Further, he argues the archaeological evidences supports an economic transition from farming to animal husbandry beginning in the mid 2nd century, likely as a result of the close contact with the Sarmatian peoples.
I am unaware of any source/authority for the claim that immediately prior to 406 the Vandals were primarily farmers. I am unaware of any primary source which directly or indirectly suggest that was the case. A century earlier perhaps but not that late in my opinion. Further, why would the Sarmaticization of the Vandals be less complete than the Goths who were likewise exposed to the Sarmatian peoples but apparently not the same level as the Vandals? The Sarmatians were present with the Goths at Adrianopolis (the Roxolani) and the leaders of the "Goth" cavalry, Saphrax and Alatheus both bear Sarmatian/Iranian names indicative of a strong Sarmatian influence amongst the Germans.
With respect to the battle with the Franks, it does reinforce the notion of close ties between the Vandals and Alans and that perhaps the Alans were more numerous and powerful. Prof. Zavroff argues that until the destruction of the Alan kingdom in 418, they were the dominant partners in an Alan, Vandal, Suebi Confederacy. In support he notes the relative importance of the Alans in the sources for the 2nd and 3rd centuries and the very few mentions of Vandals. He further notes that the aforementioned Confederacy is invariably described in the sources as "the Alans, Vandals and Suebi"; suggesting a dominancy. Likewise, in the Spanish settlement, the Alans received the lions share of the territory, a broad swathe through central Spain while the Suebi were consigned to the northwest and the Vandals the south. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that there were relatively few Alan horsemen. Prior to their destruction at the hands of the Visigoths they must have been powerful enough to justifying taking the aforementioned lion's share of the territory.
I am well aware of the Carthaginian mosaic. I agree that it could represent either an Alan or Vandal warrior but in my opinion is more likely to be a Sarmaticized Vandal. They were, after all, the primary conquerors. However, we cannot outright dismiss the possibility that the mosaic was commissioned by or for an Alan noble.
Likewise, I am aware in the 418 change in title for the king of the Vandals. There are numerous possibilities as to why the Alans were not simply absorbed into the Vandals. The simplest answer is history and respect. The Vandals had done pretty well for themselves because of their involvement with the Alans. If that isn't reason enough, stripping an already defeated people of their identity is not likely to raise morale and engender feelings of warmth. At a time of significant threat why sow division and resentment?
If not before the Migration, when did the Vandals transition to a mounted warrior society? After the fall of Carthage? I have a hard time believing the Vandals crossed N. Africa on foot, drove out the Romans and then decided to transition from what was obviously working. What was the impetus for change? Moorish/Berber raiders? Heavy cavalry is not ideal at hunting down raiders particularly in a potentially hostile environment. Where did the horses come from? I don't believe North Africa was noted for its horses.
If you haven't read Prof. Zavroff's article I highly recommend it. The depth and complexity of his argument may well sway you, given the lack of any real evidence to support for the claim that the Vandals were still farmer/foot warriors at the start of the 5th Century.
Just my 2 cents/p.
Kent
My initial query arose while reading Ilkka Syvanne's first volume in his multi volume series on the Late Roman Army. While discussing Rome's various opponents he postulates that the Vandals had become mounted warriors as a result of their exposure to the Sarmatians. In terms of fighting style, Syvanne interprets the Vandal as shieldless using the lance (contus) in a two handed fashion. He concedes the possibility that they fought in "German" style charging with a long spear and carrying a shield. He does not provide a source for these conclusions. Hence my query.
However, my interest was piqued and I have done a little research. Roman Zavroff's article in Collegium Medievale 2017, The Vandals and Sarmatians in a New Perspective is a very interesting read. He provides a thorough review of the literary and archaeological evidence to support his hypothesis that by the mid 2nd century Sarmatization of the Vandals had begun and that by the mid 4th century and the time of more frequent contact with the Romans the Vandals were a predominantly mounted force fighting in the Sarmatian style and little distinguishable from the Sarmatians.
Richard, Prof. Zavroff would take issue with a number of your comments. With respect to the region inhabited by the Vandals, they settled in the Carpathian basin which includes both the Great and Lesser Hungarian Plains. Their neighbours were the powerful Sarmatian Iazyges augmented in the 3rd century by waves of Alans. This is perfect cavalry country and provided some of Europe's finest cavalry for centuries. I would be more surprised if the Vandals didn't Sarmaticize and adopt the horse in those circumstances.
Further, he argues the archaeological evidences supports an economic transition from farming to animal husbandry beginning in the mid 2nd century, likely as a result of the close contact with the Sarmatian peoples.
I am unaware of any source/authority for the claim that immediately prior to 406 the Vandals were primarily farmers. I am unaware of any primary source which directly or indirectly suggest that was the case. A century earlier perhaps but not that late in my opinion. Further, why would the Sarmaticization of the Vandals be less complete than the Goths who were likewise exposed to the Sarmatian peoples but apparently not the same level as the Vandals? The Sarmatians were present with the Goths at Adrianopolis (the Roxolani) and the leaders of the "Goth" cavalry, Saphrax and Alatheus both bear Sarmatian/Iranian names indicative of a strong Sarmatian influence amongst the Germans.
With respect to the battle with the Franks, it does reinforce the notion of close ties between the Vandals and Alans and that perhaps the Alans were more numerous and powerful. Prof. Zavroff argues that until the destruction of the Alan kingdom in 418, they were the dominant partners in an Alan, Vandal, Suebi Confederacy. In support he notes the relative importance of the Alans in the sources for the 2nd and 3rd centuries and the very few mentions of Vandals. He further notes that the aforementioned Confederacy is invariably described in the sources as "the Alans, Vandals and Suebi"; suggesting a dominancy. Likewise, in the Spanish settlement, the Alans received the lions share of the territory, a broad swathe through central Spain while the Suebi were consigned to the northwest and the Vandals the south. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that there were relatively few Alan horsemen. Prior to their destruction at the hands of the Visigoths they must have been powerful enough to justifying taking the aforementioned lion's share of the territory.
I am well aware of the Carthaginian mosaic. I agree that it could represent either an Alan or Vandal warrior but in my opinion is more likely to be a Sarmaticized Vandal. They were, after all, the primary conquerors. However, we cannot outright dismiss the possibility that the mosaic was commissioned by or for an Alan noble.
Likewise, I am aware in the 418 change in title for the king of the Vandals. There are numerous possibilities as to why the Alans were not simply absorbed into the Vandals. The simplest answer is history and respect. The Vandals had done pretty well for themselves because of their involvement with the Alans. If that isn't reason enough, stripping an already defeated people of their identity is not likely to raise morale and engender feelings of warmth. At a time of significant threat why sow division and resentment?
If not before the Migration, when did the Vandals transition to a mounted warrior society? After the fall of Carthage? I have a hard time believing the Vandals crossed N. Africa on foot, drove out the Romans and then decided to transition from what was obviously working. What was the impetus for change? Moorish/Berber raiders? Heavy cavalry is not ideal at hunting down raiders particularly in a potentially hostile environment. Where did the horses come from? I don't believe North Africa was noted for its horses.
If you haven't read Prof. Zavroff's article I highly recommend it. The depth and complexity of his argument may well sway you, given the lack of any real evidence to support for the claim that the Vandals were still farmer/foot warriors at the start of the 5th Century.
Just my 2 cents/p.
Kent
