Point taken; all that is simply reason for holding that the British Sarmatians were something different - and probably a little worse armored.
Paul MacLean Anderson
pmanderson_at_...
pmaclanderson_at_...
Be a Quidnunc:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quidnuncs/
----Original Message Follows----
From: donald_at_...
Reply-To: HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com
To: HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Sarmatians
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:49:44 GMT
In message <BAY24-F6dRdX5SqQBsP0006056a_at_...> "Paul Anderson" writes:
>The Sarmatians came to Britain under Marcus Aurelius. While 'cataphract'
>simply means "armored [horseman}"; I think the true Bysantine cataphract
was
>borrowed, a centruy later, from the Sassanians, under Aurelian or
>Diocletian. They were East Roman, hence the Greek name.
May I suggest we don't delve into the arguments about what were "true cataphracts" and what were clibanari. I remember endless debates from about 30 years ago which never reached a conclusion. Of great interest to Roman scholars but deadly dull to everyone else.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/ Yahoo! Groups Links _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Powered by hypermail