The Seljuks combined the normal Steppe tactics of rapid movement, large-scale co-ordination of different troop formations and massive launching of powerfully shot arrows with the Sarmatian tactic of wearing heavy coats of armour and charging home with the lance. The tactics were on the whole successful – although not nearly so successful against the western Crusaders and their efforts to get to grips with the enemy as quickly as possible as was the case in most confrontations between Steppe people and the western knights. While we remember Saladin and his successors as great heroes and champions, therefore, their example should be set into the context of the much greater successes achieved by the Mongols, the Huns and other Steppe peoples. Nevertheless, the Seljuks were powerful enough to deal to the Byzantine Empire a series of crushing blows from which that great civilization was never really able to recover. While the city, the remnant of the Eastern Roman Empire, held out in one form or another for quite a while longer, decline was evident.

Although the victories of the Crusaders in establishing their Christian states in Palestine and Syria are well-rehearsed in western history and considered to be great triumphs, in reality they were much less relevant to the Seljuk leaders. Indeed, the loss of manpower that would have entailed rapid recovery of those territories meant that leaders preferred to keep their attention in the east of their lands, where much greater events were afoot. The eastern portions were in any case generally richer, benefiting from higher levels of trade, including that from across the Silk Road trails, as well as sophisticated cultural and urban environments. Nevertheless, it was hammer blows from the Steppes that brought an end to the Seljuks who were one of the many states and peoples to be wiped away by the onset of the Mongols.

The first is that grave finds suggest that some women were involved in fighting. Greek writers wrote of the Amazons in such a way as to suggest a Steppe tribe as the source of their ideas. Perhaps it is the case that the Sarmatians had a history of matriarchy (as a number of other peoples did) that had been lost by the time of recorded history. Women did fight in some cultures, although it was not common and was more likely to occur when all members of a people were obliged to defend territory or possessions against an aggressor.

The second distinctive feature employed by the Sarmatians was the use of full armour both for warriors and for their horses. Unlike all other Steppe peoples, the Sarmatians fielded heavily-armoured lancers in preference to the fast-moving and deadly composite bow armed archers that terrorized the sedentary peoples of Europe and China. The approach was successful in military terms and Sarmatians were sought out as valued allies. Evidence shows that a group of Sarmatian warriors was stationed in England as part of the occupying Roman forces and others were spread across the Empire. However, the approach had an even more notable impact: seeing the success of armoured cavalry on the battlefield, more and more western and European monarchs decided to adopt the same approach.

While geography and the possession of the crossbow meant that developing horse archers was not suitable for western Europe, the larger horses and a culture of wishing to meet and decide battle on a face-to-face basis derived from Greek influences made the knight the perfect choice. For a millennium after the Sarmatians themselves melted away from history, no doubt absorbed into another federation of more successful tribes, their heritage remained prominent across the continent. Armoured knights smashed into each other on scores of battlefields through the centuries. When faced with more mobile opponents and in difficult terrain, as was the case during the Crusades, for example, that desire to meet face-to-face could result in disastrous consequences.