Camel cataphracts?

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, the statements "archers and cataphracts who fought on camels" and "the kataphraktoi on horses and camels" seem to indicate to me that these were kataphraktoi (armoured) camels.

In your original question you said you had never heard of a camel cataphract, and yet this passage clearly mentions camel cataphracts using long spears.

I misread the question. With a 'camel cataphract I was thinking of the animal'. There seems to be a misunderstanding that cataphracts (heavy armoured riders) also ride on armoured animals. That is by no means the case, it's a modern simplification (I blame RTW and other games) that is by no means backup up by evidence. So if someone tells me a cataphract rides on a camel I can't see that as evidence for the animal also being armoured.

[JP Vieira]

Hello
So you believe that it was an armoured rider on an unarmoured mount (dromedary)?
But a cataphract does not emply that the mount should have any type of armour also?
Best regards
JP Vieira

[hoplite14gr]

Cataphract is the translation of the Greek term for "encased" or "fully covered". Usually we associate the image with both rider and mount being armored but a "metal covered" rider is still technically a cataphract even if the beast is not.
Kind regards

[MeinPanzer]

Well, the statements "archers and cataphracts who fought on camels" and "the kataphraktoi on horses and camels" seem to indicate to me that these were kataphraktoi (armoured) camels.

In your original question you said you had never heard of a camel cataphract, and yet this passage clearly mentions camel cataphracts using long spears.

I misread the question. With a 'camel cataphract I was thinking of the animal'. There seems to be a misunderstanding that cataphracts (heavy armoured riders) also ride on armoured animals. That is by no means the case, it's a modern simplification (I blame RTW and other games) that is by no means backup up by evidence. So if someone tells me a cataphract rides on a camel I can't see that as evidence for the animal also being armoured.

Oh, okay, then it was just a misunderstanding. If you can get a hold of Mielczarek's "Cataphracti i Clibinarii," he goes over the question of "what makes a cataphract" quite thoroughly and arrives at the conclusion that the mount need not be armoured.

[JP Vieira]

Hello
So an illustration likew this one
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JP ... 006/14.jpg
can be considered a camel cataphrat, because the rider is armoured even though the mount is not?
Best regards
JP Vieira

[hoplite14gr]

In my opinion the rider would need more leg and arm protection to qualify as cataphract. If we assume a Parthian then this culture could provide heavier armor than the one that you depict.
In my opinion you depict a "heavy horseman" not a cataphract.
Kind regards

[Comerus Gallus]

John Warry's book shows a persian delegate mounted in a camel remember?

[JP Vieira]

Hello Stefanos
Thanks. It was helpful.
Best regards
JP Vieira

[FAVENTIANVS]

John Warry's book shows a persian delegate mounted in a camel remember?

This book?

[Robert Vermaat]

Oh, okay, then it was just a misunderstanding. If you can get a hold of Mielczarek's "Cataphracti i Clibinarii," he goes over the question of "what makes a cataphract" quite thoroughly and arrives at the conclusion that the mount need not be armoured.

Which is where I got part of my knowledge.

Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Oficyna Naukawa, Lódz.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I misread the question. With a 'camel cataphract I was thinking of the animal'. There seems to be a misunderstanding that cataphracts (heavy armoured riders) also ride on armoured animals. That is by no means the case, it's a modern simplification (I blame RTW and other games) that is by no means backup up by evidence. So if someone tells me a cataphract rides on a camel I can't see that as evidence for the animal also being armoured.

However, the context of the quote is that of the Parthian army and we are pretty certain that their catafract cavalry rode armoured horses and so if catafract camelry are associated with them without other differentiatian I think we can sensibly assume that they are similarly equipped.

[Robert Vermaat]

However, the context of the quote is that of the Parthian army and we are pretty certain that their catafract cavalry rode armoured horses and so if catafract camelry are associated with them without other differentiatian I think we can sensibly assume that they are similarly equipped.

Sorry, it's not my usual role but I have to be a minimalist on this one.

Sure, Parthian cataphracts did ride armoured horses, but since we cannot possibly know if all Parthian cataphracts rode armoured horses as a rule, and it seems by no means scientifically sound to conclude that *therefore* also Parthian cataphracts on camels would have to ride armoured camaels.
Even if all Parthian cataphract horses were armoured, it still won't do to suggest that *therefore* camels would/should be armoured as well.

I'm sorry your honour, but so far the evidence rests purely on association... :wink:

So far, I have yet to see a contemporary depiction of an armoured camel. Who knows, maybe they can't carry a coat of armour as a horse can?

[hoplite14gr]

I think some where in this section there is a photo of the Teheran museum showing an exibit of camel armor.
Jonah your help would be apreciated here.
It is 15th century, but it demonstrates that it was possible to armor the camels. So Parthians could have at least possibly armored them although in my opinion only the riders were protected.
Kind regards

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I'm sorry your honour, but so far the evidence rests purely on association... :wink:

Unfortunately it is often the level of evidence we have :?

Its the same level as the evidence that Caesar's legionarii wore mail after all :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm sorry your honour, but so far the evidence rests purely on association... :wink:

Unfortunately it is often the level of evidence we have :?

True enough, but that must not hinder us using a scientific approach.

Its the same level as the evidence that Caesar's legionarii wore mail after all :lol:

hock: After all? What are they supposed to have worn - sweaters?