79 A.D. no more: Pompeii got buried in 1631

The official version states that in 79 A.D. the ancient Roman city of Pompeii was buried under 4 to 6 m (13 to 20 ft) of volcanic ash in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. The site was eventually lost until its initial rediscovery in 1592 and broader rediscovery almost 150 years later in 1748.

After thick layers of ash covered Pompeii and Herculaneum, they were abandoned and eventually their names and locations were forgotten. The first time any part of them was unearthed was in 1599, when the digging of an underground channel to divert the river Sarno ran into ancient walls covered with paintings and inscriptions. The architect Domenico Fontana was called in; he unearthed a few more frescoes, then covered them over again, and nothing more came of the discovery. Pompeii was rediscovered as the result of intentional excavations in 1748 by the Spanish military engineer Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre.


79 A.D.

Roque Joaquín de Alcubierre was a military engineer in the Spanish Army
who discovered architectural remains at Pompeii and Herculaneum in 1748.

Roque Joaquín de Alcubierre.jpg

IMPORTANT: Officially the city of Pompeii was lost until 1748. Whatever they claim was dug out in 1599, was not linked to Pompeii at the time.
  • If Pompeii was not discovered and identified prior to 1748, than any mentioning of it prior to 1748 would be a clear and obvious evidence of the scientists trying to substitute true world chronology with bogus data.

I plan on showing you that Pompeii suffered its fate in 1631, which makes our official history 1,552 years off. I have a pretty strong feeling that the official liars (and I do not mean your local history teacher) know about their mess up. Unfortunately for them, there was some supporting fake evidence created, and it is no longer possible to portray this Pompeiigate as a simple mistake. They simply cannot play it down due to some highly questionable "fakish" evidence of the Vesuvius eruption, and Pompeii/Herculaneum destruction, created to support the date of 79 A.D. The "officials" tied too many historical individuals into this story. It is impossible to correct the timing of the destruction of Pompeii without messing up the entire timeline. Below is an example of such evidence.


Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus commonly known as Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122 AD), was a Roman historian belonging to the equestrian order who wrote during the early Imperial era of the Roman Empire. His most important surviving work is a set of biographies of twelve successive Roman rulers, from Julius Caesar to Domitian, entitled De Vita Caesarum. He recorded the earliest accounts of Julius Caesar's epileptic seizures. Other works by Suetonius concern the daily life of Rome, politics, oratory, and the lives of famous writers, including poets, historians, and grammarians. A few of these books have partially survived, but many have been lost. - Wiki

Our official history claims he stated the following about the Roman Emperor Titus , "There were some dreadful disasters during his reign, such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Campania, a fire at Rome which continued three days and as many nights, and a plague the like of which had hardly ever been known before."


39 A.D. - 81 A.D.
Coincidentally Titus ruled from 23 June 79 - 13 September 81 A.D., which covers the "official" last day of Pompeii.

My Point: If the eruption indeed took place in 1631, than this Suetonius account is either a fake figure, or he lived at a totally different time. Considering that Titus is tied into the entire history of the Ancient Rome... fill in the blanks yourself.

Note: Various internet sources were used to put this list together.

List of evidence pointing to 1631

1. Old Maps: 1514, 1570, 1575, 1603
2. Etchingss: 1633
3. Epitaffio di Portici: 1631
4. The Three Graces: 1st century AD vs. 1503/1505
5. Pineapples on the Pompeii frescoes
6. Domenico Fontana's Water Conduit: 1590s and water wells
7. Piranesi and Pompeii
8. Christianity in "Before Christ" Pompeii, ROTAS (CIL IV 8623)
9. Pompeii Surgical Tools

1. Old Maps
1514, 1570, 1575, 1603
1514 Opusculum, Distinctum, Plenum, Clarum, & Utile
Leone, Ambrogio, 1458/9 - 1525
Plan Bay of Naples 1514 Girolamo Mocetto in de_nola-11.jpg

1570 Ortelius Regni Neapolitani verissima / Link 2
Ortelius, Abraham, 1527-1598
Ortelius Regni Neapolitani verissima_Pompeii_2-11.jpg

1575 Regno Di Napoli / Link 2
Lafreri, Antonio, 1512 - 1577
Regno di Napoli 1575 Lafreri 1 Credit Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division_1_1.jpg

1603 Italia Antiqva
Philipp Clüver 1580 - 1622
Italia antiqva_2.jpg

2. Etchings
Done in 1633. Pertains to the eruption of 1631.
Mascolo, Giovanni Battista, 1582/3 - 1656, “Mount Vesuvius before / after the eruption,”
Loyola University Chicago Digital Special Collections

- Before -

- After -

3. Epitaffio di Portici
Following the disastrous eruption of Vesuvius in 1631, the Viceroy Zunica had an Epitaffio placed to admonish the dangers of the volcano in the future. The epitaph is placed in the current corner between Corso Garibaldi and Via Gianturco, just to the left of Palazzo Ruffo di Bagnara. Below is the original Latin version and the Italian translation by the Lions Club "Portici Miglio D'Oro" reported on a sign on the right of the Epitaph.


Epitaffio_di_Portici,_Napoli.jpg Epitaffio_di_Portici,_Napoli_0_1.jpg

4. The Three Graces
What a bizarre coincidence, considering that Pompeii was not found until 1748,
and Raphael painted his masterpiece in 1503/5.
  • Excavated Fresco: Roman civilization, 1st-century A.D. Fresco depicting the Three Graces. From Pompeii, Italy. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Found on south wall of tablinum of IX.2.16. Now in Naples Archaeological Museum. Inventory number 9236.
The Three Graces, from Pompeii_excavated.jpg
  • 1503-05 Oil on Canvas by Raphael: The Three Graces is an oil painting by Italian painter Raphael, housed in the Musée Condé of Chantilly, France. The date of origin has not been positively determined, though it seems to have been painted at some point after his arrival to study with Pietro Perugino in about 1500, possibly 1503-1505.

5. The Pompeii Pineapples
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, close to the Termini train station in Rome, houses one of the world’s most important collections of Classical art. On the second floor of the museum, in the gallery dedicated to ancient Roman frescoes and mosaics, you can find something very peculiar hidden in what looks like an ordinary mosaic floor. Dating from the early 1st century A.D., this mosaic illustrates various food items. At the top of the scene, a basket of fruit is brimming with figs, grapes, pomegranates, and…. a pineapple! This fresco was discovered in Pompeii.


In Pompeii's House of the Ephebe house there is the following fresco. It is inside the Lararium on the right as one enters the villa.


There is another fresco there, but somebody does not like pineapples, I guess.


Pineapple history: The thing here is that according to our official history of pineapples, there could be no pineapples in Europe in the 1st AD. Here is an excerpt, "The plant is indigenous to South America and is said to originate from the area between southern Brazil and Paraguay; Columbus encountered the pineapple in 1493 on the leeward island of Guadeloupe. He called it piña de Indes, meaning "pine of the Indians", and brought it back with him to Spain, thus making the pineapple the first bromeliad to be introduced by humans outside of the New World." Unless ancient Romans discovered the American continents, it would be impossible for them to know what a pineapple is.

6. Domenico Fontana's Water Conduit: 1590s.
Water wells.
This is probably one of the most damaging pieces of evidence there is. In 1592 the renown Italian architect Domenico Fontana dug a water channel through Pompeii in order to bring water to Torre Annunziata.



Officially, after thick layers of ash covered Pompeii and Herculaneum, they were abandoned and eventually their names and locations were forgotten. The first time any part of them was unearthed was in 1592, when the digging of an underground channel to divert the river Sarno ran into ancient walls covered with paintings and inscriptions. The architect Domenico Fontana was called in; he unearthed a few more frescoes, then covered them over again, and nothing more came of the discovery. Fontana's covering over the paintings has been seen both as a broad-minded act of preservation for later times, and as censorship in view of the frequent sexual content of such paintings. (KD: this sentence is a pure speculation) - Wiki

What we are lead to believe is that this professional architect was digging a tunnel 20 feet below the surface, and through the entire city of Pompeii. Along the way he was discovering building walls, roadways, paintings, frescoes... and was covering them as he barreled through.

Even with the above waterway information alone, it is logical to suggest that Fontana was building his water conduit through an operational city, unaffected by any volcano eruptions. But it gets better. Fontana's water conduit had water wells as was discovered during the excavation. These water wells clearly indicate that the conduit was being built through a live, and unburied city. Otherwise, if you are digging a tunnel 20 feet below the surface, why would you dig up 5 feet and build a water well which is useless due to still being under 15 feet of ash or dirt.


This water well, specifically, is screaming that Domenico Fontana was building in the living Pompeii.


There is one additional Pompeii water well which is worth mentioning. This one is depicted on the Francesco Piranesi's "View of the Temple of Isis in the City of Pompeii", Year 1788/89. In the right bottom portion of the etching we can see an access to Fontana's water conduit via a water well. The water well has a triangular shaped top, meant for access doors.



Piranesi's letter "F" google translation from Latin "A well with two windows covered with movable covers, where the ashes of the victims were thrown."
As you can see in the below contemporary image, the appearance of the water well is somewhat different from the depicted by Piranesi.



This water well was too much to explain, and as you can see above the access was significantly altered. Yet, on the 19th century "Pompeii: Temple of Isis" postcard, the water well was pretty much intact.


Water well conclusion: it is obvious that water wells connected to the Fontana's water conduit could not be built under 20 feet of ash and dirt. That would be stupid, and ridiculous, while simultaneously contradicting any common sense. They had to be constructed on top of the unobstructed surface.

NOTE: Archaeologists choose not to comment on the water well issue. I wonder why...

7. Piranesi and Pompeii
In 1748, digging proceeded sporadically, here and there at random; it was several years before the site was identified as Pompeii, and even then there was no systematic town plan. During the French occupation of Naples, 1806-1815, there was much more activity on the site, but with the restoration of the Bourbons excavations gradually slowed down again. The discovery of the House of the Faun containing the large mosaic depicting Alexander the Great in battle caught the imagination of people all over Europe following the Unification of Italy in 1861, the appointment of Giuseppe Fiorelli as director marked a turning-point in the excavations.

Most of the Pompeii excavations were done in the end of the 19th and first half of the 20th century.

Yet, Franchesco Piranesi (1758-1810), appears to know way too many of the intricate details, about everything existing in the still unearthed parts of the Pompeii. The below group of his etchings presents details he observed, which could prompt a reasonable question, "How did he know all that"? The other question to ask is why his etchings look more like an aftermath of the mud flood?

Apologies for not finding better quality of the images. On these ones you can not really read the fine print, but Pompeii is clearly visible. For better quality you will have to google "Piranesi Pompeii". Honestly, with farther and son Piranesis working on the Pompeii issue, it is hard to present even a small portion of all the works.

Most fascinating are those detailed Pompeii building plans, and various hardware. Cool stuff to have in 79 A.D. especially when compared to the hardware of the 17th century. 1500 years of no progress I guess.

Piranesi_Pompeii_1_1.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_2.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_3.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_4.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_5.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_6.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_7.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_8.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_9.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_10.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_11.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_12.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_13.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_14.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_15.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_16.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_17.jpg Piranesi_Pompeii_1_18.jpg

8. Christianity in "Before Christ" Pompeii
Sodom and Gomorra.
79 A.D. Pompeii new the Old Testament?



It reads, "Sator/Arepo/Tenet/Opera /Rotas/" You'll see its clever "palindromic-ness" . It means (literally translated) "Arepo the sower holds the wheels at his work". But, as is often pointed out, the letters can be re-arranged into two "pater noster"s in the sign of a cross with a couple of "a"s and "o"s left over - as in (converting to Greek) "alpha and omega". So it looks as if there could be a Christian significance: "our father" plus alpha and omega.

Of course, "One suggestion has been that this word square with its apparently Christian message was the scratching of people who dug down into Pompeii after the eruption. "
Source for the above. Below are a couple of etchings of the artifacts located in Pompeii, which bear Christian symbology. They were allegedly located by Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre in February 1756. - The Crosses of Pompeii (I did not dig too deep into the Christianity issue. It honestly hurts my head. There are plenty of articles on the issue with people going back and forth.)


9. Pompeii Surgical Tools
When you google "ancient Roman surgical tools" you immediately run into the surgical tools located in Pompeii. While its logical to assume that they were the best preserved due to being safely stored under the ash, it is also very suspicious due to those tools looking very similar to the surgical tools used in the 16th, and 17th centuries.


The explanation addressing the resemblance to the tools used 1500 years later is typical of our "not so honest" history science, "this collection is typical of surgical practice for nearly a millennium and illuminates the practice of medicine in ancient Rome". Once again, we are being told that our ancestors were dumb and stupid for thousands of years, and had no clue on how to develop and improve things. Here is a very good source covering the surgical tools located in Pompeii - Surgical Instruments from Ancient Rome (additional: Roman Medical Tools). Interesting, that quality contrast between Pompeii, and other ancient Roman surgical tools is striking.

Basically, our knowledge of the ancient Roman medical tools is based on the Pompeii find. Now let us look at what those 16th and 17th century surgical tools looked like.

Considering, that the Pompeii tools were kept in the dirt for a few hundred years, they look pretty good when compared to the 16th, 17th century ones. They are definitely matching the complexity.

And here is a little excerpt from, "Pompeii. Surgical Instruments"

Analysis: This collection of instruments was found in the 1770s when the Spaniard Francesco La Vega cleared the villa, which later was named as the House of the Surgeon. These forty medical instruments were made of either steel or bronze and are relatively similar to the medical tools that are used in modern society today. This includes forceps, catheters, needles, tweezers and scalpels. The fresco portrays how the Ancient Roman people could possibly have treated a battle wound.

Developed Conclusions: These surgical tools are unique because they are the best surviving example of what medicinal instruments would be available to people during the first century AD. These tools have been preserved for centuries under volcanic pumice and ash; this has protected these instruments from weather damage, and also the advancement in medicine that would mean the abandonment of these tools. The methods of Roman medicine were based on trial and error, due to the fact that there were no laws regarding the practice of medicine, nor were there any schools that taught the practice of medicine. Because of this, the intent in Roman medicine was to prevent rather than treat, and Roman surgeons learnt as they practiced, gaining experience every time they treated a patient. The medical efforts of the Romans have been considered quite advanced; this has been proven by the insight given from the surgical instruments uncovered in the excavations of Pompeii. These instruments are strikingly similar to modern surgical instruments and many of them were used for the same purpose that today’s surgeons use them for. The medicinal practises of the Ancient Romans was so advanced that it wasn’t surpassed until the nineteenth century. The preservation of this kit of 40 surgical instruments has given researchers the opportunity to accurately compare them to modern tools. This kit also shows the conditions, of which typical Roman surgeons had to endure during the first century AD. Much of the focus for Roman medicine was on damage to the human body during battle; the Roman Empire’s soldiers were offered the most effective treatment as they were considered a high value, at the time of the Mt. Vesuvius eruption, medical practitioners were well experienced in body repair such as bone setting.

I definitely like the "steel" part in there,considering the state of the ancient Roman metallurgy, "Many of the first metal artifacts that archaeologists have identified have been tools or weapons, as well as objects used as ornaments such as jewelry. These early metal objects were made of the softer metals; copper, gold, and lead in particular, as the metals either as native metal or by thermal extraction from minerals, and softened by minimal heat "

And we need to remember that ancient Roman surgical tool making abilities are being based upon these Pompeii tools.

KD Summary: Based on #6 (Domenico Fontana's Water Conduit: 1590s and water wells) alone, the city of Pompeii had to be a living city during the time when the Water Conduit was being built. This would mean that around 1590s the city of Pompeii was not buried under 20 feet of ash. The official date of 79AD is not supported by the available evidence, but... what else is new?
Is it possible there were at the very least two separate eruptions? One in 79 A.D. and one in 1631?
Hypothetically, anything is possible.
  • Where would we get sources of information for 79AD?
  • Would any of such sources have any supporting evidence of their existence between 79AD and ~1400AD?
The discovery of the House of the Faun containing the large mosaic depicting Alexander the Great in battle caught the imagination of people all over Europe
Have y'all actually seen this thing?


The Alexander Mosaic is a Roman floor mosaic originally from the House of the Faun in Pompeii (an alleged imitation of a Philoxenus of Eretria or Apelles' painting, 4th century BC) that dates from c. 100 BC.
Based on their clothing, when is this? Alexander (on the left) looks maybe like we'd expect, but the rest of the bunch, especially the King of the Persians, Darius III, (highest on the right) is looking pretty medieval, if you ask me. I think it did to the folks who tried to reconstruct (read: guess at) the entire mosaic in 1893. Note the subtle differences in the Persians:



With Darius looking a bit more like this 18th century relief:



I'd say the reconstruction is splitting the difference stylistically between the two interpretations.

So, a bit more from wiki on the mosaic itself:
The Alexander Mosaic was preserved due to the volcanic ash that collected over the mosaic during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the city of Pompeii in 79 AD. This Roman artwork was found inlaid into the ground of the House of the Faun in between two open peristyles. The mosaic was used to decorate the exedra. An exedra is an open room or area that contains seating that is used for conversing. The House of the Faun was a large estate comprising one whole block in Pompeii; this is an area of about 3,000 square meters.

As a significant artwork and piece of history, the scene of the Mosaic remained in the social and cultural sphere. The mosaic was rediscovered in 1831 in Pompeii, Italy, and was later transported to Naples in September 1843. The Alexander Mosaic is now displayed on a wall and preserved in Naples.
Sounds like they didn't do any serious restoration to it:
When it was unearthed in 1831, the mosaic was found to be in a good state of conservation, and there was much debate over the need to move it to the Royal Bourbon Museum in Naples (now MANN).

However, after about 12 years, a commission agreed that it should be moved, and the masterpiece was detached on 16 November 1844 and transported to Naples on a cart pulled by oxen.

However, in an accident during the journey, at Torre del Greco, the mosaic was thrown to the ground. The box containing the masterpiece was not opened until January 1845, and, to the relief of all, the mosaic did not show any signs of damage.
Who would have known the best place to keep something is right under a volcano eruption?

That aside, my point is I guess we're supposed to believe that the mosaic is, more or less, as it would have been depicted around the beginning of the 1 century BC. Regardless, even if it was meddled with in the 19th century, why would you depict the participants looking like they could have been from the Middle Ages? In other cases, (like Cleopatra, but KD has outlined others here too), where you have some anachronistic looking clothing, the baked in excuse is that "well, people didn't know at the time, so they painted in the style of their current century." There is no excuse here, the mosaic is alleged to be thousands of years old and definitely wouldn't have been available to ANYONE in "medieval times." And again, if it was modified in the 19th century, you'd expect it to look more in line with what the narrative was spewing about antiquity then.

When you view this all through the lens that Pompeii was actually around until the 17th century, this all starts making a lot more sense. To me anyway. Oh and by the way, the article I quote from above has some more interesting information about this mosaic, from current year:
Pompeii’s famous mosaic of Alexander the Great’s victory over King Darius III of Persia is to undergo a major restoration project at the National Archaeological Museum of Naples (MANN).

The restoration of the monumental mosaic, which was rediscovered at the House of the Faun in Pompeii in 1831, will begin at the end of this month and is expected to be complete by July.
Can't tell if they finished. The museum's website is somewhat inconclusive. A part of me wonders if it will end up looking the same as the picture at the top of this post, or whether some "artistic license" will be taken.
Which in turn is based on this painting. Source

Screenshot 2021-12-12 at 11-44-36 Category Charles le Brun - Battle of Arbela (Louvre, INV 289...jpg

At what point does realism enter the fray?
Seems to me they are all artistic interpretations of something that either did happen, is a myth or deliberate deception.
Which in turn is based on this painting

Yes, heh. I saw that one too when looking at the relief and almost included it. According to wiki, that one dates to 1669 or 1673. Which if we take at face value, means that the modern image of antiquity was already in place by then, more or less.

In fact, this is all seems to track if you continue to trace it back: the artist of that painting is Charles Le Brun (born 1619), who is said to be influenced by Nicolas Poussin (born 1594), who is said to be influenced by the works of Guilio Romano (1499) and Raphael (1483) (the gap here is perhaps interesting, I have questions about the 15th and 16th century), who was trained by Pietro Perugino (1446/1452). Raphael's depiction of antiquity seems be getting closer to the contemporary version, Pietro's looks a little more intermediary to me:


From Perugino, you go to Benozzo Gozzoli (1421) to Fra Angelico (aka Guido di Pietro) (1395) and we're essentially at the beginning of the Renaissance and his works have a lot of "medieval flair" to them (which makes sense).

Basically, all of this just reinforces the opinion that anything prior to around 1400 could be largely thrown into the same bucket. We have limited primary sources from that era and most of how we interpret it is a result of the paradigms created during the Renaissance period and later. Also makes the alleged busts from antiquity seem more and more like relatively recent productions (likely mostly 19th century cash grabs).

Seems to me they are all artistic interpretations of something that either did happen, is a myth or deliberate deception.

Indeed. At this point, I don't think there's any way to know who was real and who was a myth, with many "real" historical figures likely having a lot of mythological elements. Again, just speculating, but it FEELS like the Renaissance was not just an artistic rebirth, but a period of time where, perhaps after a major disaster, there was a coordinated attempt to assemble the puzzle pieces of history that had been scattered everywhere. The "dark ages" truly seem to be one of the biggest fudges ever narratively assembled. But ironically, it's likely more truthful than our picture of "antiquity" whatever and whenever that actually was.
Last edited:
The thing that strikes me like an elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore is the big horse's ass in the middle of the Alexander the Great floor tile art and the painting. It even has the tail up so we can see the anus. Why would you have that in the picture, particularly right in the middle? Are they trying to say something about Darius III? When one looks at the composition of the picture, Alexander is off to the side and Darius is more central, but what's with the horse's ass? The weapons shown are all consistent with the earlier era, no muskets or crossbows that I can pick out. There's no blood on the spear that Alexander is using to pierce the guy in the yellow (golden?) robe who is also more central to the painting than old Alexander. If I had to judge the picture on what I see, I would say it was about the death of the guy in the yellow who was killed by Alexander, but whose death was caused by that old horse's ass Darius.
Not sure if this says anything about the timeline in Pompeii. I did visit Pompeii as a kid but I was so young the only thing I remember is that it kinda creeped me out. I would say that the more "restored" a site is the more deception there will be.
Here are some weirdness examples in a weird painting.

No bow? just throw the arrow!


No arrows? just throw a rock! Seems the two storey chariot is full of them, how handy.


A horse in gilded armour.

golden armour.jpg

A horses arse without a body.


A bloke in white lit up pointing at what appears to be an eagle.


A man wielding what is clearly a canon of some kind as a club! A clue as to when this painting was first done maybe? It is as brightly lit as the man in white for a reason it seems.


And is this satan/devil/hell in person? EDIT to add Or an artist who hasn't clapped eyes on an elephant attempt at painting one?

Last edited:
Based on their clothing, when is this?
During the Renaissance the 'Graeco-Roman style' was predominantly associated with the Eastern Roman Empire. Here below two examples from the 'Legend of the True Cross' by Piero della Francesca.



However what strikes me the most is that in most of these 'ancient' Roman mosaics the representation of cavalry is always not very clear. You can see that the horse of Alexander has been 'lost' and this is true for many other artistic renderings I've seen. The thing is that stirrups were only introduced during the 6th-7th century according to official history, so I would like to have a magnifying glass to see through these mosaics and paintings.
@jd755 No one said these artists were warriors! The mini cannon is interesting but I wonder about the holy man in white and the black eagle. The holy man seems to be trying to protect Alexander, if that's who that is, with "good magic" from the darkness of the evil bird. An indication of a spiritual battle?
@Silveryou I didn't know that stirrups were not in use until the 6th-7th century but that's a great clue when looking at these old paintings.
@Silveryou I didn't know that stirrups were not in use until the 6th-7th century but that's a great clue when looking at these old paintings.
I've always been particularly interested in 'ancient' military strategy and according to what I've read about cavalry from that perspective is that a whole of military tactics would have been just impossible without stirrups.
So if you consider one of the supposedly major cavalry units of the ancient world, the Persian cataphracts (Cataphract - Wikipedia), it sounds extremely weird how they could charge the enemy with their lances without serious repercussions both for the individual and the unit as a whole. Just imagine a charge at let's say 50 km per hour violently clashing against the enemy without being able to counter the clash thanks to the stirrups!!! But then you discover that...

...the cataphracts were still used in the middle-ages by the so-called Byzantines, obviously with the same name (since it was a greek name in the first place) and fully equipped with stirrups and everything necessary to wage a proper medieval battle with horses. Life is strange!

Last edited:

Similar articles