07-17-2008, 03:48 PM
Just read this book;
Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World,
In this it is suggested that Catephracti were used against infantry and Clibanari against other horsemen, though they may be armed in exactly the same manner. Simply it was the use that dictated thr name used.
It also suggests that a rider would engage cavalry with the spear (kontos) held in both hands (read as right hand rear and left hand forward) and pointed over the left shoulder of the horse .... however when engaging infantry it is held in one hand (read right hand down by thigh) with the spear/kontos parallel along the flank of the horse on the right side of its head. In the latter it is postulated that this gives a slight advantage over say a Macedonin phalanx using the sarisa as unless charging they would have them canted upward with the base imbedded in the ground.
I find this implausable on two counts the first being that I cannot see a one handed undearm hold on a Kontos being efficient as it would be physically very straigning and lastly that and "length" advantage would be minimal as even a small angle of cant below say 45 degrees would get to the horse before the rider could touch the footslogger. The rider would lose some length behind him for balance & control even if weighted.
Has anyone come across this theory before?
Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World,
In this it is suggested that Catephracti were used against infantry and Clibanari against other horsemen, though they may be armed in exactly the same manner. Simply it was the use that dictated thr name used.
It also suggests that a rider would engage cavalry with the spear (kontos) held in both hands (read as right hand rear and left hand forward) and pointed over the left shoulder of the horse .... however when engaging infantry it is held in one hand (read right hand down by thigh) with the spear/kontos parallel along the flank of the horse on the right side of its head. In the latter it is postulated that this gives a slight advantage over say a Macedonin phalanx using the sarisa as unless charging they would have them canted upward with the base imbedded in the ground.
I find this implausable on two counts the first being that I cannot see a one handed undearm hold on a Kontos being efficient as it would be physically very straigning and lastly that and "length" advantage would be minimal as even a small angle of cant below say 45 degrees would get to the horse before the rider could touch the footslogger. The rider would lose some length behind him for balance & control even if weighted.
Has anyone come across this theory before?
Conal Moran
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
