Inspired by Ian Hughes two excellent biographies of Stilicho and Aetius, I've been contemplating a "cooperative" campaign where the players hold various commands in the late fourth and early/mid fifth century Roman armies in the West with umpire/AI controlled invaders.

I'm working through the various invading groups and their respective army lists. The list that stood out is the Early Vandals. The list covers the period 166-444 and makes the claim that at this time the Vandals fought on foot. From my limited research, it appears that as a result of long term exposure to the Sarmatians/Alans and a significant change in the economy from agrarian to horse husbandry, the Vandals were predominantly charging lance armed cavalry likely fighting in Sarmatian style without a shield by the time of the Migration. Can anyone please provide any authority for the claim that the Vandals were still fighting on foot in my period of interest or, is it a wargame convention to create some differentiation in barbarian armies?

Any input is gratefully received.

Cheers
Kent

Not sure there is any real evidence for how they fought and their classification is probably as much as by analogy with neighbours as anything else.

Feel free to post up evidence you find that may suggest other classification.

I would recommend Simon MacDowall's book on The Vandals as well as Ian's two books.

I certainly don't think the idea that the Vandals fought mostly on foot is a wargaming convention.  The Vandals were settled farmers prior to their migration in 405/406.  Given where they lived (Mountainous and Wooded regions) in contrast to the Hungarian plain and steppes where the Sarmatians lived I think the question should be what evidence suggests that they were predominantly mounted.  It wasn't an area that would naturally support large scale horse husbandry.  That said, the only specific unit labelled as Vandals in the Notitia Dignitatum were cavalry. 

In 405, they were on the cusp of defeat by the Franks until rescued by the Alans. Don't know if that tells us anything.

Once they migrated to Spain, again they weren't living in a land suited to large scale horse husbandry.  The Alans occupied a large area of southern Spain for what must have been a relatively small number of horsemen.  The Vandal areas were less suited to horse husbandry.

Vandal nobles were undoubtably capable of fighting mounted but they would be a minority of the army. A mosaic in Carthage shows a barbarian (i.e. not Roman) noble on horseback and the trappings look Sarmatian.  This could be either a Vandal influenced by contact with Sarmatian culture or an Alan noble. 

A possible argument would be that the Vandal kings were known as the Kings of the Vandals and Alans. In Spain the two groups were separate until the Alans were defeated by the Visigoths. If the Vandals adopted Sarmatian culture from Sarmatians (the Alans were a Sarmatian tribe), why hadn't the two groups merged into a single tribe after the decimation of the Alans?

In conclusion, I wouldn't rule it out as absolutely impossible, but it seems unlikely to me.  If you do believe the idea that the Vandals fought like Sarmatians, use the Later Sarmatian list.

Richard

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

Quote from: Pyrrhus on January 18, 2023, 06:03:04 AM
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.

Rather typical of Syvanne I'm afraid 

Quote
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.

https://www.academia.edu/36134228/The_Vandals_and_Sarmatians_in_a_New_Perspective  for the interested; I read it a bit back but it didn't stick on my mind.

Quote
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.

Be careful about talking about "the Goths". Those Goths who took to cavalry - the Greuthungi - lived out in far more steppe country than the Vandals who entered the empire in 406. Those Goths, such as the Tervingi, who lived in less open territory did not take to cavalry so much.

The Sarmatians present at Adrianople were named as Alans not Rhoxolani IIRC* and the Gothic cavalry in their force was Greuthungi (Saphrax and Alatheus being "guardians" of the young Greuthungi king IIRC) - being a group that crossed into the empire separately from the Tervingi. Again somewhat reinforces that we must not just think of "the Goths" nor, and even more so, of "the Germans".


* yup checked Ammianus, and it is Alan

The source for the Vandals being primarily farmers is archaeological finds.  I cannot quote you specific papers as I read them some time ago.  Vandal culture was distinct from Sarmatian culture.

Syvanne seems to come up with too many theories that are not backed by evidence.  I don't think we can entirely rule out the possibility that they were mounted warriors, but they were undoubtably living in country not suited to a large scale horse rearing culture.

If you think the Vandals did fight as Sarmatians, then use the Late Sarmatian list...  We have to accept that there is a huge amount we don't know.

Richard