Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cataphracts development
#1
Hi
I always assumed that cataphracts were not a real shock cavalry, but rather an armoured horse archer. The distinction would be that
1) The cataphract armour was extensive, but not that heavy, designed more as a protection against arrows than for close combat
2) Cataphracts would use bow as primary weapon, while the lance and sword/mace would be used to finish an already weakened enemy.
However, I see that the name is also given to lance only units (Plutarch, Vit Lucull) and of course the same name is covering a very extended period, so I would like to hear the learned opinions of people in this forum, could a development of cataphracts be traced, from earliest mention/data available to medieval times? Changing tactics, equipment, in different regions/periods.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#2
Quote:I would like to hear the learned opinions of people in this forum, could a development of cataphracts be traced, from earliest mention/data available to medieval times? Changing tactics, equipment, in different regions/periods.
Wow, that would be a big study. But try Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Oficyna Naukawa, Lódz. That should get you started.
I agree that armoured cavalry was not just armoured horse archers, but rather armoured spear platforms. Horse archers did not need armopur that much as they could rely on speed and distance. I believe that Roman armored horse archers were developed when the Romans developed missile defences against all sorts of cavalry.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
Unfortunately the book is out of print and unavailable at Amazon.
My theory is that cataphracts were born as armoured horse archers, as they seem to show up first in the steppes, so that they had to deal with horse archers armies, and then when Iranians enteres contact with other military cultures, like that of the Romans, with a strong infantry component, they slowly shifted into armoured lancers. So there would be in fact 2 types of cataphracts. in fact, late steppe warriors, like the turks or the mogols, did use "cataphracts", in the sense of armoured horse archers.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#4
Сataphract means literally "totally enclosed" - completely covered.
Various bronze age depictions show attempts to increase horse protection by the Mittani and the Hittites.
You are right that the first goal was missile protection.
But as the horse breeding improved and the horses became larger new fighting concepts could be developed.
Though grave findings lead us to asume that certain Skythian nobles had increased armor protection for horse and rider it seems that it was a slow process.
Xenophon talkes and describes Cyrus "omotrapezoi" (who eat with him (Cyrus)) and there is areconstruction in the book "warfare in the classical world". They are reputed to be the first cataphracts.
Bactrian catafracts are mentioned at Gaugamela against Alexander but I am not sure if it is Arrian or Plutarch that talks about them.
Really heavy charging cataphracts are the Seleukidic AGEMA.
It seems that Seleukos combined Bactrian and Macedonian concepts.
The Armenians, Parthians and the Sassanides seem to have been influenced by that model.
In the site www.atarn.org there is a page about a skythian saddle that offers great stability and it is possible that allowed further development.
I think the direct link is in the topic "Greek Cavalry".
Mongol heavy cavalry charged at river Kalka and many belived that charge was their main role (Oshprey campaign "river Kalka")
Hope I helped.
Stefanos
Reply
#5
Hi Stefanos
Thanks for your info. I think it was Antiochos III who fielded for the first time cataphracts in the Seleucidan army in the battle of Magnesia, I think there are no earlier mention of cataphracts in Seleucidan army.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#6
I have not done much reserach on that so you might be right.
I suspect though that the a number of the troops before that time were not metal-coverd but used linothorax type accessories. That is why I agreed with you idea that the missle protection was the first objective.
You might be right because the Seleucidik kingdom was filthy rich for its time and so Antiochos took the effort to develop large horses and metal ormored troopers in large numbers while previously the trouble to field these type of cavalry was not considered possible.
Kind regards.
Stephanos
Reply
#7
I read that the Sarmatians were the first to develop the basic cataphract concept, then the Massagetae picked it up and eventually gave the tech and tactics to the Persians. Is this true?
Paul Basar - Member of Wildfire Game\'s Project 0 AD
Wildfire Games - Project 0 A.D.
Reply
#8
I would say that the Parthians preceded cataphract development of the Sarmatians, so the Massagetae may have been even before them. That said, it is very hard to establish the origin of cataphracts from finds alone, and hardly any ancient text (if at all) giving a good account of that development.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#9
I was reading "Greece and Rome at war"-P, Konolly I think (not sure about the author).
There was an interpretation of a heavy armored lancer in a black and white design that according to the author it was based on a Pergamen statue older than 200 B.C.
I feel though that the Skythians are possibly the first to use heavy armored cavalry but I cannot very sure.
There are Classic Era burial findings from south Italy that show increased metal horse-protection but they are ussually atributed to a warlord fearful for his mount not as proof of extra heavy cavlary.
Kind regards
Stefanos
Reply
#10
Xenophon, Anab I.8 says that Cyrus body guard of picked cavalrymen 600 strong had their horses protected by coverings for the forehead and chest, so horse armour was already used by Persians at that time (edit I think Stephanos already cited that passage)
I guess that Scythian armoured cavalrymen would be horse archers though, while the Persians, from Xenophon description, threw javelins and then closed with swords. Probably also Scythian armour would be more leather than metal.
AKA Inaki
Reply
#11
As I said I think I will agree tha barding was initiated against archery and most step cultures were mainly horse archers.
Number of excavations in NW Ucrane revealed "horn armor".
My opinion is that the -laquered leather or horn protected mainly the horse.
The rider had usually more metal. It seems that the earlier Catafract charge recorded by a westerner is Xenophon but I guess if any member of the forum has delved in eastern literature or Archaeology might enlighten us more or give us a different view.
Kind regards
Stefanos
Reply
#12
I think that the earliest use of Seleukid catafracts may be Panion which was around 200BC IIRC.

It would appear likely that Antiochos III was influenced to develop his catafracts by his experiences during his great eastern expedition. That is the most likely time he would have come into contact with users of catafracts such as the Parthians. Before that use of horse armour was partial and really only amongst the steppe or near steppe people such as the Baktrians recorded at Gaugamela.

It does seem fairly clear that the catafract was a steppe development and so is likely to have been a response to horse archery as people have stated. It is not clear why Antiochos would adopt the catafract unless he was either impressed by them (they must have looked impressive) or perhaps had an eye to his eastern neighbours and their obvious intent to take over Seleukid territory.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply


Forum Jump: