Slitherine

I noticed this a long time ago but forgot to mention it. I understand that at least under Alexios I there were still cataphracts in the Byzantine army. Why have they been excluded from the 1172-1154 list?

toska wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:16 pm (...) the 1172-1154 list?

I guess you mean 1072-1154.

toska wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:16 pm I noticed this a long time ago but forgot to mention it. I understand that at least under Alexios I there were still cataphracts in the Byzantine army. Why have they been excluded from the 1172-1154 list?

Our research indicates that there weren't any in this period. Can you show evidence that there were?

(Bear in mind that "kataphraktoi" in Byzantine Greek, does not mean Cataphracts but just armoured cavalry. Actual cataphracts were called "Klibanophoroi")

Alexios certainly had no cavalry that could stand up to Italo-Norman knights.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:14 am

toska wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:16 pm I noticed this a long time ago but forgot to mention it. I understand that at least under Alexios I there were still cataphracts in the Byzantine army. Why have they been excluded from the 1172-1154 list?

Our research indicates that there weren't any in this period. Can you show evidence that there were?

(Bear in mind that "kataphraktoi" in Byzantine Greek, does not mean Cataphracts but just armoured cavalry. Actual cataphracts were called "Klibanophoroi")

Alexios certainly had no cavalry that could stand up to Italo-Norman knights.

Sorry, it seems that you are right! I thought I remembered having read it in the Alexada, but after reviewing some passages I have not seen anything similar. Perhaps I must have confused myself with the term "kataphraktoi" that does appear in the text.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:14 am

toska wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:16 pm I noticed this a long time ago but forgot to mention it. I understand that at least under Alexios I there were still cataphracts in the Byzantine army. Why have they been excluded from the 1172-1154 list?

Our research indicates that there weren't any in this period. Can you show evidence that there were?

(Bear in mind that "kataphraktoi" in Byzantine Greek, does not mean Cataphracts but just armoured cavalry. Actual cataphracts were called "Klibanophoroi")

Alexios certainly had no cavalry that could stand up to Italo-Norman knights.

Thats very interesting question in fact.
I personally think, that they dont evaporate in some kind of magic way after Manzikert, but they were just less visible.
But as you say, evidence are needet, so i will try do dig deeper, because thats intriguing.

At this moment i found something like that:

"But aside from the change in enemies, strategy and tactics, another obvious reason for the eventual fall of the Byzantine kataphraktoi (and certainly the reason for the disappearance of the more heavily armoured version, the klibanophoroi) was the same problem that the ancient Romans had probably had with the heavy horsemen: both their expensive cost to put them on the battlefield and the amount of training it took to make the mounted warriors effective in combat.115 The final reason for the decline of the cataphracts, especially the parttime cavalrymen from the themata, was the growing trend throughout the period of the soldier-farmer owners of the strateia paying the fine instead of serving in the military. Not only did this increasingly popular practice drastically decrease the amount of thematic forces available to the Byzantine military, but so too did the largest landowners, who managed to gradually obtain the farmlands of many other minor landowners over time. Because of these two trends of the eleventh century, the Byzantine military became more and more reliant upon the Tagmata troops of the professional army and foreign mercenaries.116 Then, after 1071 when the Byzantine Empire suffered the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Romans were so devastated financially that the heavily armoured klibanophoroi were completely gone from their armies from then on.117

Byzantine armoured riders upon armoured mounts still existed after Manzikert, but they were almost exclusively in the elite imperial Tagmata units. Byzantine royalty and their horses were also still extensively protected as well. For instance, when three Norman knights attacked the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118) with their lances at the Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081, he emerged from the incident completely unscathed, most likely because of the layers of heavy armour the emperor wore.118 Even after the disaster at Manzikert, the economy of the Byzantine Empire improved in the twelfth century, allowing the military to supply its troops with more higher quality arms and armour than at the end of the eleventh century. Additionally, the improved finances of the empire led Emperor Manuel Komnenos (r. 1143–1180) to try to reintroduce numerous heavily armoured cavalrymen into the Byzantine armies once more. The new cataphract type of troops, however, were much more of an imitation of Western European knights than the earlier kataphraktoi, as shown in features such as the replacement of the old skoutaria with the new kite-style shields and the adoption of saddles with higher pommels and cantles that were better for lancers. However, Manuel’s attempt to reestablish the prominence of the cataphracts ultimately failed, for the Byzantine type of knights fared poorly against the empire’s main enemy of the period, the Turks.

In 1176, the empire was dealt another serious blow that severely weakened it when the Turks crushed the Byzantines at the Battle of Myriokephalon. Although devastated from the defeat, it was not until the havoc and destruction of the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204 that the late Byzantine cataphract truly died. From that point on, the Byzantine Empire never recovered, and even though it officially lasted until 1453, the damage caused by the Latin crusaders was so great that the sophisticated lamellar armour, which was so prized by the late Byzantine kataphraktoi, completely disappeared.119 Thus, as the once great empire of the Eastern Romans became a shadow of its former self, the last heavily armoured cavalrymen called cataphracts faded from existence."
CATAPHRACTS Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires, Erich B Anderson

So maybe adding 1 of Elite Imperial Tagmata unit will be a nice variety?
I am still looking for another sources.

gribol wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:35 pmThen, after 1071 when the Byzantine Empire suffered the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Romans were so devastated financially that the heavily armoured klibanophoroi were completely gone from their armies from then on.117

Completely gone, not just from Themata.

Byzantine armoured riders upon armoured mounts still existed after Manzikert, but they were almost exclusively in the elite imperial Tagmata units.

This directly contradicts the previous sentence? Unless it refers to:

Byzantine royalty and their horses were also still extensively protected as well. For instance, when three Norman knights attacked the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118) with their lances at the Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081, he emerged from the incident completely unscathed, most likely because of the layers of heavy armour the emperor wore.

The equipment of emperors and senior officers is irrelevant to the classification of units.

So maybe adding 1 of Elite Imperial Tagmata unit will be a nice variety?

You have not yet convinced me.

gribol wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:35 pm At this moment i found something like that:

"But aside from the change in enemies, strategy and tactics, another obvious reason for the eventual fall of the Byzantine kataphraktoi (and certainly the reason for the disappearance of the more heavily armoured version, the klibanophoroi) was the same problem that the ancient Romans had probably had with the heavy horsemen: both their expensive cost to put them on the battlefield and the amount of training it took to make the mounted warriors effective in combat.115 The final reason for the decline of the cataphracts, especially the parttime cavalrymen from the themata, was the growing trend throughout the period of the soldier-farmer owners of the strateia paying the fine instead of serving in the military. Not only did this increasingly popular practice drastically decrease the amount of thematic forces available to the Byzantine military, but so too did the largest landowners, who managed to gradually obtain the farmlands of many other minor landowners over time. Because of these two trends of the eleventh century, the Byzantine military became more and more reliant upon the Tagmata troops of the professional army and foreign mercenaries.116 Then, after 1071 when the Byzantine Empire suffered the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Romans were so devastated financially that the heavily armoured klibanophoroi were completely gone from their armies from then on.117

Byzantine armoured riders upon armoured mounts still existed after Manzikert, but they were almost exclusively in the elite imperial Tagmata units. Byzantine royalty and their horses were also still extensively protected as well. For instance, when three Norman knights attacked the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118) with their lances at the Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081, he emerged from the incident completely unscathed, most likely because of the layers of heavy armour the emperor wore.118 Even after the disaster at Manzikert, the economy of the Byzantine Empire improved in the twelfth century, allowing the military to supply its troops with more higher quality arms and armour than at the end of the eleventh century. Additionally, the improved finances of the empire led Emperor Manuel Komnenos (r. 1143–1180) to try to reintroduce numerous heavily armoured cavalrymen into the Byzantine armies once more. The new cataphract type of troops, however, were much more of an imitation of Western European knights than the earlier kataphraktoi, as shown in features such as the replacement of the old skoutaria with the new kite-style shields and the adoption of saddles with higher pommels and cantles that were better for lancers. However, Manuel’s attempt to reestablish the prominence of the cataphracts ultimately failed, for the Byzantine type of knights fared poorly against the empire’s main enemy of the period, the Turks.

In 1176, the empire was dealt another serious blow that severely weakened it when the Turks crushed the Byzantines at the Battle of Myriokephalon. Although devastated from the defeat, it was not until the havoc and destruction of the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204 that the late Byzantine cataphract truly died. From that point on, the Byzantine Empire never recovered, and even though it officially lasted until 1453, the damage caused by the Latin crusaders was so great that the sophisticated lamellar armour, which was so prized by the late Byzantine kataphraktoi, completely disappeared.119 Thus, as the once great empire of the Eastern Romans became a shadow of its former self, the last heavily armoured cavalrymen called cataphracts faded from existence."
CATAPHRACTS Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires, Erich B Anderson

So maybe adding 1 of Elite Imperial Tagmata unit will be a nice variety?
I am still looking for another sources.

Personally,I suggest you use some historical sources instead of modern suspects which can directly prove that the cataphract-type cavalry continue to exist in the Byzantine army after 1071AD.And the "Kataphraktoi" is not cataphract but just armoured cavalry,this is a common mistake.The kataphraktoi didn't have horse armours in their periods.You can see the reconstruction of a kataphraktoi prior to the Nikeforos II(Fokas)'s period by the renown scholar of Byzantine,Greek and Roman army studies,Dr.Timothy Dawson,for example:

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:30 am Personally,I suggest you use some historical sources instead of modern suspects which can directly prove that the cataphract-type cavalry continue to exist in the Byzantine army after 1071AD.And the "Kataphraktoi" is not cataphract but just armoured cavalry,this is a common mistake.The kataphraktoi didn't have horse armours in their periods.You can see the reconstruction of a kataphraktoi prior to the Nikeforos II(Fokas)'s period by the renown scholar of Byzantine,Greek and Roman army studies,Dr.Timothy Dawson,for example:

I am looking for one book about byzantine cavalry, but its unavaiable now. If i found it, maybe there will be some new informations.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:30 am it also lack of the horse armour of leather lamellar or felt that would be normal for such troops

gribol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:37 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:30 am it also lack of the horse armour of leather lamellar or felt that would be normal for such troops

I think he means lack of horse armour is normal for such troops.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 6:29 am

gribol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:37 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:30 am it also lack of the horse armour of leather lamellar or felt that would be normal for such troops

I think he means lack of horse armour is normal for such troops.

I have got found this Osprey at now (Byzantine cavalrymen about 900-1204, Timothy Dawson) and for me its clear, that also the horse have got full body armour (please check the next pictures and there is a quote: "Cataphract, with the horse also covered with iron and lamellar armour ..." (sorry for my poor english)). But this dont resolve ours problem, because thats Cataphracs from the period before simplification of the armour.

But as i said before, i am looking for a certain book that can help us a bit but is very unavailable.

gribol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 6:46 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 6:29 am

gribol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:37 am

I think he means lack of horse armour is normal for such troops.

I have got found this Osprey at now (Byzantine cavalrymen about 900-1204, Timothy Dawson) and for me its clear, that also the horse have got full body armour (please check the next pictures and there is a quote: "Cataphract, with the horse also covered with iron and lamellar armour ..." (sorry for my poor english)). But this dont resolve ours problem, because thats Cataphracs from the period before simplification of the armour.

But as i said before, i am looking for a certain book that can help us a bit but is very unavailable.

I don't understand very well, what book you can't find are you referring to? Timothy Dawson's?

Konnica w armii Cesarstwa Bizantyńskiego od VIII do XIII w. Rola militarna i znaczenie społeczne Michał Wojnowski
https://www.znak.com.pl/ksiazka/konnica ... wski-45843

It is a bit surprising to me how Klibanophoroi do so well against the early Knights and Sergeants and even the late ones, once they overcome their charge and they (too?) often/easily do.

"Personally,I suggest you use some historical sources instead of modern suspects which can directly prove that the cataphract-type cavalry continue to exist in the Byzantine army after 1071AD.And the "Kataphraktoi" is not cataphract but just armoured cavalry,this is a common mistake.The kataphraktoi didn't have horse armours in their periods.You can see the reconstruction of a kataphraktoi prior to the Nikeforos II(Fokas)'s period by the renown scholar of Byzantine,Greek and Roman army studies,Dr.Timothy Dawson,for example..."

About this fellow, the 'renowned scholar', there is this interesting thread... read down beyond the fourth crusade controversy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/com ... _its_more/

The only one I would consider legit is John Haldon.

But arguing over whether there is sufficient documentation to justify the inclusion /exclusion of such or such unit is missing the point imo. It would be more fruitful if we look at whether such and such tactics in the game can be deemed historically valid, i.e somebody asked whether the importance of heavy artillery in ancient battles can be documented. I noticed there was no answer... There are many things about battle dynamics in the game that cannot be documented. My favourite is getting your heavy cavalry right in front of enemy infantry and stand there, preventing them from moving. Where do you see that battle tactic? And then you can't really disengage either because you can only draw back and the infantry can move into the vacated square....

gribol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 6:46 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 6:29 am

gribol wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:37 am

I think he means lack of horse armour is normal for such troops.

I have got found this Osprey at now (Byzantine cavalrymen about 900-1204, Timothy Dawson) and for me its clear, that also the horse have got full body armour (please check the next pictures and there is a quote: "Cataphract, with the horse also covered with iron and lamellar armour ..." (sorry for my poor english)). But this dont resolve ours problem, because thats Cataphracs from the period before simplification of the armour.

But as i said before, i am looking for a certain book that can help us a bit but is very unavailable.

The next picture is the Emperor Alexios I,I think he is out of our classifications.

Because the large units of fully armoured cavalry were gone,so you can't find any evidence that could be useful for you,and,you can find the describes from the second book:
These practices(Horse armour)were far from universal, however, and representations of Roman cavalry in the Middle Period, including men of the tàghmata, very rarely show horse-armour. One sculpture from the Church of St Bartholomeus in Armenia probably shows a heavy cavalryman’s horse fully armoured, but it is variously dated between the 7th and 12th centuries. Such protection is also visible in the 12th-century iconography, on sgraffito dishes from Veria, Macedonia; and on a 13th-century example from Nicaea (modern Iznik, in Turkey).The best image of Eastern Roman medieval cavalrymen employing horse armour is found in the Codex of Alexander, a 14th-century document from Trebisond (see page 24). In the 15th-century twilight of the Empire, Turkish sources still mention the Roman cavalry riding armoured horses. Armours and horses of the Imperial domestici (shield-bearers) were, according to Tursun Beg, covered with silk and jewels. This is exactly what is shown by contemporary frescoes of the military saints, dressed and equipped like the archóntes of the last Roman elite. The Achilleis (v. 138) describes the hero armoured from head to foot (απὸ τὰ νύχια ἔως τὴν κορηφὴν … ἀρματωμένος … καὶ τον ιππάριν του), possibly including his horse, in order that he should not be recognized. His men (v. 465) are also completely armoured (ὠχυρωμένα) like their war-horses (φαρία). (The poem distinguishes between the war-horse, φαρί, and the baggagetrain horse, ippàrion upòsellon tou dromou.)

And,the Mr.Richard said,"The equipment of emperors and senior officers(I think including the bearers)is irrelevant to the classification of units."

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:25 am The next picture is the Emperor Alexios I,I think he is out of our classifications.

Because the large units of fully armoured cavalry were gone,so you can't find any evidence that could be useful for you

And,the Mr.Richard said,"The equipment of emperors and senior officers(I think including the bearers)is irrelevant to the classification of units."

So maybe we have go different editions of this book.
I know, that Slitherine was making a research about that topic, and i am doing that from my own curiosity.
Maybe i can find something new, who knows.

On the other hand, I'm curious as to why the Byzantine Empire temporarily phased out these heavy cavalry.
In Chinese history this cataphract used to disappear in the early 8th century of the Tang Dynasty, leaving only a ceremonial army. The reason was that the main enemies of the Tang dynasty at that time were the nomadic Turks and the southern mountainous Nanzhao, and the effectiveness of such heavy cavalry was limited.
Since 751, when the Tang Dynasty began to fall into civil strife, the cataphract became popular again until after the Mongol Empire unified China, when this type of cavalry appears to have largely receded from the historical scene.

wzfcns wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 4:03 am On the other hand, I'm curious as to why the Byzantine Empire temporarily phased out these heavy cavalry.
In Chinese history this cataphract used to disappear in the early 8th century of the Tang Dynasty, leaving only a ceremonial army. The reason was that the main enemies of the Tang dynasty at that time were the nomadic Turks and the southern mountainous Nanzhao, and the effectiveness of such heavy cavalry was limited.
Since 751, when the Tang Dynasty began to fall into civil strife, the cataphract became popular again until after the Mongol Empire unified China, when this type of cavalry appears to have largely receded from the historical scene.

The main reasons were largely similar in both cases, as i can see.