Cataphract, Clibanarii, whatever, against Infantry

[recondicom]

Um, I'm not sure how relevant Almogavres are to the discussion at hand

Nothing. Very different cup of tea.
As often before, Manuel simply likes to come in with all kinds of information not directly related to the discussion. And again, he simply copy-pasted a text from the internet into the discussion. A piece of text that has no direct bearing on the question discussed here.

[moderator mode] Manuel, if you have nothing to contribute, please refrain from entering the discussion. [/moderator mode].

I’ still reading the original question to see whether I could say anything about the size of the mount. It ocurred to me that the taefali used big asses to carry away loot and also for other types of training. Is that your cup of tea? Mule.

[Robert Vermaat]

I’ still reading the original question to see whether I could say anything about the size of the mount. It ocurred to me that the taefali used big asses to carry away loot and also for other types of training. Is that your cup of tea? Mule.

Exactly. Discussing Almogavres in a general way had nothing to do with that. Or what Taifali asses relate to the original question: "how many battles do we know of where Cataphracts [..] fought solid infantry [..] and how did they perform".

Do tell though what source informed you about the size of Taifali asses.

[recondicom]

Exactly. Discussing Almogavres in a general way had nothing to do with that. Or what Taifali asses relate to the original question: "how many battles do we know of where Cataphracts [..] fought solid infantry [..] and how did they perform".

Do tell though what source informed you about the size of Taifali asses.

Archeological puts the oldest Equus asinus in Syria 9000 BC. Also Nile river; Somalia, Ethiopia. The African version is 1.10 to 1.22m and the somalian 1.25 to 1.30. This must be the same size as the original Danubian horse. Herodotus describes the Sigynnae (north of the Danube) as having horses incapable of carrying men and were used for chariots. In Northern Eritrea, Groves originates the E.A. Taeniopus to speculate on a wide mixing of Ass and having more than 1.30m

[Alanus]

Do tell though what source informed you about the size of Taifali asses.

Archeological puts the oldest Equus asinus in Syria 9000 BC. Also Nile river; Somalia, Ethiopia. The African version is 1.10 to 1.22m and the somalian 1.25 to 1.30. This must be the same size as the original Danubian horse. Herodotus describes the Sigynnae (north of the Danube) as having horses incapable of carrying men and were used for chariots. In Northern Eritrea, Groves originates the E.A. Taeniopus to speculate on a wide mixing of Ass and having more than 1.30m

Hailog, Recondicom

Sorry for butting in. :? )

[recondicom]

Hailog, Recondicom

Sorry for butting in. :? )

That’s not my point. Sarmatia is just the big East area to the Baltic sea; which stars at the Syrian border and It varies in size accordingly. The term taefali could apply to all different tribes of sarmatians but also to slavs and others as attested by the customs. Even the Syri could be called Sarmatians and so when they (Josephus) enrolled in Solomon armies as cavalry they were Sarmatians as well. The reason I said this is because they requested women as payment.
More so… I’m speculating whether the sarmatians before the Eastern/Western Empire were more semitic than Aryan… and whether they were transported by sea and not by land. Let’s not forget the elephants.
Vale

[Robert Vermaat]

Do tell though what source informed you about the size of Taifali asses.

Archeological puts the oldest Equus asinus in Syria 9000 BC. Also Nile river; Somalia, Ethiopia. The African version is 1.10 to 1.22m and the somalian 1.25 to 1.30. This must be the same size as the original Danubian horse. Herodotus describes the Sigynnae (north of the Danube) as having horses incapable of carrying men and were used for chariots. In Northern Eritrea, Groves originates the E.A. Taeniopus to speculate on a wide mixing of Ass and having more than 1.30m

You're doing it again. You talk about Taifali mules and then post about African horse, plus a claim that this 'must be' the same as a Danubian horse. Which is not about Taifali mules at all. So in fact you made a silly statement and you can't answer our questions were you found the information. Pure bluff, once more.

That’s not my point. Sarmatia is just the big East area to the Baltic sea; which stars at the Syrian border and It varies in size accordingly. The term taefali could apply to all different tribes of sarmatians but also to slavs and others as attested by the customs. Even the Syri could be called Sarmatians and so when they (Josephus) enrolled in Solomon armies as cavalry they were Sarmatians as well. The reason I said this is because they requested women as payment.
More so… I’m speculating whether the sarmatians before the Eastern/Western Empire were more semitic than Aryan… and whether they were transported by sea and not by land. Let’s not forget the elephants.

And more. BS.
Semitic Sarmatians enrolled in Solomon's armies 'because they requested women as payment'.
Taifali could apply to all different tribes of Sarmatians - I wonder where you get that: more info about African horse, Medieval Islamic troops or Templars coming, no doubt?
And let's not forget the elephants, indeed - the elephants of course have much bearing on Tailali mules, semitic Sarmatians and lets not forget THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

Stay on the subject, and discuss seriously please. This is your last warning.

[Alanus]

Hello, Recondicom

Lets correct your "speculations."

Sarmatia is just the big East area to the Baltic sea; which stars at the Syrian border and It varies in size accordingly.

Ahh! They moved Sarmatia since I last looked at it! The north-south geographicial limits of "Sarmatia" were from the north bank of the Danube/Ister to the "Scythian Sea" (the old term used by Pliny), now called the Baltic. Even 16th century maps had this feature. You cannot include the Balkans, the Lavant, or the border of Syria. If you do include them, you lose your next turn and have to go back to the end of the line. :lol:

The term taefali could apply to all different tribes of sarmatians but also to slavs and others as attested by the customs. Even the Syri could be called Sarmatians and so when they (Josephus) enrolled in Solomon armies as cavalry they were Sarmatians as well.

No, nyet, nien! The term Taifali refers to a specific and singular tribe of Sarmatians. Slavs and Syrians cannot be included as Sarmatians or Taifali. If you do include them, you lose 2 turns and must go back to the end of the other line (the one marked "Slavs Only").

The reason I said this is because they requested women as payment.

Please send these women to me. Make it Fed Ex or Priority. BUT make them young and mostly-good-looking. 8)

More so… I’m speculating whether the sarmatians before the Eastern/Western Empire were more semitic than Aryan… and whether they were transported by sea and not by land. Let’s not forget the elephants.

Please note: Sarmatians were included in the Indo-Iranian language group. The term "Aryan" has poor connotations. And of course, the idea that Sarmatians were relanted to Syrians or any Semitic-speaking peoples is pure fabula.

Oh! And don't forget the elephants. Otherwise we'd have nothing to ride upon. :roll:

[Nathan Ross]

Did the infantry of M. Antonius not face up to and frustrate the attempts of the Parthian horse archers and Cathphracts?
Albeit on a long retreat? There was a battle where the infantry formed up on a hillside, and waited until the Perthian patience dissapaited and they attacked, only to be severly mauled by the heavy infantry who did not foolishly charge down the hill.

Can't recall if that was one of the skirmishes on Antonius' retreat, or if I am thinking of another campaign.

Plutarch describes Antony's men fighting the Parthians during their retreat from Phraaspa, but all the references seem to be to Parthian light cavalry and archers - at one point, the Romans form a testuda and the Parthians 'lay aside their bows and grasp their spears by the middle' (IIRC), and are easily repulsed.

I think the campaign Byron's thinking of is the series of battles conducted by Antony's lieutenant Ventidius Bassus against the Parthians in Syria, c38BC. Dio describes three battles, all Roman victories, and makes specific reference to Parthian armoured cavalry. In two cases, Ventidius uses terrain to his advantage:

...Ventidius through fear of the barbarian cavalry remained on the high ground, where he was encamped. The Parthians, because of their numbers and because they had been victorious once before [i.e. at Carrhae?], despised their opponents and rode up to the hill at dawn… when nobody came out to meet them, they actually charged straight up the incline. When they were at length on the slope, the Romans rushed down upon them and easily hurled them down-hill… Cassius Dio, Book 48.40

This was at the Cilician Gates. A year later Ventidius faced the Parthians again at Gindarus - Dio (and Frontinus (Stratagems I.I.6)) mentions that a spy in the Parthian camp persuaded them to take their army on a roundabout route into Syria, giving Ventidius time to muster his forces. This might also suggest, since the Parthian force seems to have been heavily armoured, that they may have been rather exhausted by long marches and bridge building by the time they reached the Roman position. The battle itself was much like the previous one:

…[The Parthians] imputed sloth and weakness to the Romans and therefore marched against their camp, although it was on high ground, expecting to take it without resistance. But when a sally was suddenly made, the assailants, being cavalry, were driven back down the slope without difficulty; and although at the foot they defended themselves valiantly, the majority of them being in armour, yet they were confused by the unexpectedness of the onslaught and by stumbling over one another and were defeated by the heavy-armed men and especially by the slingers; for these struck them from a distance with their powerful missiles and so were exceedingly difficult for them to withstand. Dio, Book 49.20

Ventidius was later given a triumph in Rome - the only one ever awarded to a 'General' for a victory over the Parthians, and doubly notable as Ventidius himself, born in Picenum, had appeared as a child captive in Pompeius Strabo's triumph following the Social War.

These accounts do, however, suggest that the Parthians were willing to send heavy cavalry on frontal assaults against infantry positions - although perhaps, with the heavy losses they suffered, they rapidly learned from their mistakes!

- Nathan

[recondicom]

Ahh! They moved Sarmatia since I last looked at it! The north-south geographicial limits of "Sarmatia" were from the north bank of the Danube/Ister to the "Scythian Sea" (the old term used by Pliny), now called the Baltic. Even 16th century maps had this feature. You cannot include the Balkans, the Lavant, or the border of Syria. If you do include them, you lose your next turn and have to go back to the end of the line. :lol:

In some non specific undated maps Armenia is part of the Asian Sarmatia and Mesopotamia is just very small. As to your other opinions I had my own. Vale

[marka]

I think the campaign Byron's thinking of is the series of battles conducted by Antony's lieutenant Ventidius Bassus against the Parthians in Syria, c38BC. Dio describes three battles, all Roman victories, and makes specific reference to Parthian armoured cavalry. In two cases, Ventidius uses terrain to his advantage:

…[The Parthians] imputed sloth and weakness to the Romans and therefore marched against their camp, although it was on high ground, expecting to take it without resistance. But when a sally was suddenly made, the assailants, being cavalry, were driven back down the slope without difficulty; and although at the foot they defended themselves valiantly, the majority of them being in armour, yet they were confused by the unexpectedness of the onslaught and by stumbling over one another and were defeated by the heavy-armed men and especially by the slingers; for these struck them from a distance with their powerful missiles and so were exceedingly difficult for them to withstand. Dio, Book 49.20

These accounts do, however, suggest that the Parthians were willing to send heavy cavalry on frontal assaults against infantry positions - although perhaps, with the heavy losses they suffered, they rapidly learned from their mistakes!
- Nathan

reading between the lines the parthians MAY have believed he had 'stolen a march' on their army.

to answer the original question well trained and drilled infantry in appropriate formation in a defensible position had little to fear from heavy cavalry like cataphracts provided they held their nerve...this is shown repeatedly throughout history.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I know of battles where heavy horse (Not Cataphracts otherwise I wouldn't be asking :wink: ) charged home against solid infantry and won it depends if the cavalry are just as determind as the infantry

[Robert Vermaat]

In some non specific undated maps Armenia is part of the Asian Sarmatia and Mesopotamia is just very small. As to your other opinions I had my own. Vale

What does that mean? 'Some non-sepecific undated maps'? Like ones you drew yourself? can you name the sources for these maps (like the books you found them in) or is this yet another example of your general non-specific un-proven opinions?

[recondicom]

What does that mean? 'Some non-sepecific undated maps'? Like ones you drew yourself? can you name the sources for these maps (like the books you found them in) or is this yet another example of your general non-specific un-proven opinions?

I’m not sure what your question is. But, we could reference maps from 117AD to start. UNRV site has one.

[Robert Vermaat]

I’m not sure what your question is. But, we could reference maps from 117AD to start. UNRV site has one.

My question is plain and simple: name your sources!
If that site has such a map, provide a link.
But you mentioned mapS, so kindly provide references for the other(s).

Is that clear enough for you?

[marka]

I know of battles where heavy horse (Not Cataphracts otherwise I wouldn't be asking :wink: ) charged home against solid infantry and won it depends if the cavalry are just as determind as the infantry

evidence from countless battles suggests that against determined organised infantry heavy horse rarely if ever suceeded.there is a fabulous account of battle between byzantine infantry and persian heavy horse which adequately illustrates what happens...the name of the battle escapes me at present.
the alllamanni routed julians cataphracts at strassbourg and his own infantry did well enough against persian clibanarii
can you name the battles where they did charge home against solid infantry