11-07-2009, 10:33 PM
It was noted several times in this topic that it refers to efficiency of ancient armored cavalry vs infantry therefore relations about hussars smashing Muscovite or Swedish foot (however I might love these stories of past glory of my nation :lol: ) are not really relevant here.
The fact is however that despite Vegetius' remark that cataphracts were efficient against infantry no ancient battle seems to supoort this view. At Tigranocerta Armenian cataphracts escaped at the very sight of Roman legionaries, at Carrhae cataphracts were either thrown back or even failed to reach the infantry order (they proved to be great against young Crassus' force consisting from Gallic cavalry, skirmishers and SOME legionaries, but not in firm order as these were chasing fake retreat of Parthian-Saka horse-archers), when fighting Aurelian Zenobia's cataphracts were eventually beaten by club wielding unarmored infantry, Argenorentum was pointed before while rapd attack of Roman infantry in one of the battles of Julian's Persian expedition resulted in routing Persian cataphracts, even earliest testemony of employment of this type of cavalry at Magnesia is not really clear when we try to identify what part of Roman order did Seleucid right wing rout. The cataphracts on the left wing were not apparently that succesflul but these we know had to face Roman legionares again. Someone has quoted Tacitus' record of the battles with Sarmatians on Danube when Romans defeated heavy armored horse of Asian type.
To sum up - I am the other part of Roman Eastern front, amateur of Parthian, Persian and Sarmatina warfare but the testemonies can not be challenged and the value of the cataphracts, clibanarii or whatever, aginst motivated, well armed (not always necessarily) foot was very limited. At best. These were fantastically performing versus lighter cavalry or light infantry which means anyone who could threaten horse archers. Killing foot soldiers was latters' job. Cataphracts were devloped in the environment dominated by cavalry and they reflected eastern - steppe philosophy of mounted combat where encounters with ordered infantry were relatively more seldom than with another horse. Main powere there was however light cavalry, and the best of the light cavalry there were the horse archers. Later Sasanian horse took the best of these two and became armored archers, the type of cavalry surviving in Orient at least until Mamelukes.
Regarding Tang and Tibetans - Chinese heavy horse had different origin than the Romans one. First of all there were no cataphract in China before stirrups, secondly late Sui fully armored "tank riders" were different than these of Taizong. Naturally Sui type remained in use but Taizong himself fought in semi-heavy-type which followed Turkish example, which allowed more dynamic manouvering. What is however interesting here is that Han strategists believed that Xiong Nu were vunerable in open plains where their bow mastery on horseback could have been matched with close combat cavalry and foot crossbowmen (dosn't that sound like confirmation of my theory of anti-cavalry employment of cataphracts? :wink: ). Chinese art of war is indeed fascinating but it is different environment, and it would create digression equally useless as examples of cavalry smashing infantry in European 17th century. I would rather stick as close as possible to Roman Army Talk.
The fact is however that despite Vegetius' remark that cataphracts were efficient against infantry no ancient battle seems to supoort this view. At Tigranocerta Armenian cataphracts escaped at the very sight of Roman legionaries, at Carrhae cataphracts were either thrown back or even failed to reach the infantry order (they proved to be great against young Crassus' force consisting from Gallic cavalry, skirmishers and SOME legionaries, but not in firm order as these were chasing fake retreat of Parthian-Saka horse-archers), when fighting Aurelian Zenobia's cataphracts were eventually beaten by club wielding unarmored infantry, Argenorentum was pointed before while rapd attack of Roman infantry in one of the battles of Julian's Persian expedition resulted in routing Persian cataphracts, even earliest testemony of employment of this type of cavalry at Magnesia is not really clear when we try to identify what part of Roman order did Seleucid right wing rout. The cataphracts on the left wing were not apparently that succesflul but these we know had to face Roman legionares again. Someone has quoted Tacitus' record of the battles with Sarmatians on Danube when Romans defeated heavy armored horse of Asian type.
To sum up - I am the other part of Roman Eastern front, amateur of Parthian, Persian and Sarmatina warfare but the testemonies can not be challenged and the value of the cataphracts, clibanarii or whatever, aginst motivated, well armed (not always necessarily) foot was very limited. At best. These were fantastically performing versus lighter cavalry or light infantry which means anyone who could threaten horse archers. Killing foot soldiers was latters' job. Cataphracts were devloped in the environment dominated by cavalry and they reflected eastern - steppe philosophy of mounted combat where encounters with ordered infantry were relatively more seldom than with another horse. Main powere there was however light cavalry, and the best of the light cavalry there were the horse archers. Later Sasanian horse took the best of these two and became armored archers, the type of cavalry surviving in Orient at least until Mamelukes.
Regarding Tang and Tibetans - Chinese heavy horse had different origin than the Romans one. First of all there were no cataphract in China before stirrups, secondly late Sui fully armored "tank riders" were different than these of Taizong. Naturally Sui type remained in use but Taizong himself fought in semi-heavy-type which followed Turkish example, which allowed more dynamic manouvering. What is however interesting here is that Han strategists believed that Xiong Nu were vunerable in open plains where their bow mastery on horseback could have been matched with close combat cavalry and foot crossbowmen (dosn't that sound like confirmation of my theory of anti-cavalry employment of cataphracts? :wink: ). Chinese art of war is indeed fascinating but it is different environment, and it would create digression equally useless as examples of cavalry smashing infantry in European 17th century. I would rather stick as close as possible to Roman Army Talk.
Patryk N. Skupniewicz
