Slitherine

I have just me getting some Cataphract figures ready to paint and it brought to mind the question of why a number of different armies all developed cataphracts without shields?
Also why was this troop type phased out inpreference to lighter cavalry for a period and then back to knoghts with shields?

Most cataphracts fought with their spear held in both hands and combined with them being so heavily armoured shields were not considered necessary. The only cataphracts I am aware of that actually had shields were the late Byzantine ones.

I am not entirely sure why the cataphract gave way to the the armoured horse archer but it must have had something to do with the replacement troops being better suited to the task at hand.

I am not entirely sure why the cataphract gave way to the the armoured horse archer but it must have had something to do with the replacement troops being better suited to the task at hand.

Hammy,

Although in general I have no problem with the way FoG classifies these troops, I think you confuse history with the game. FoG has cataphracts ending in Iran about 600 AD. Historically, there is no evidence that 15th Iranian cavalry was less heavily armored than 5th century. In fact, there was a continual improvement of armor in Iran, and paintings show lancers continuing to use this two-handed style. Whether the most heavily armoured cavalry fought in seperate units is open to question in both periods.

FoG postulates that seperate units of heavily armored shock cavalry ended about 600 AD. This is a perfectly valid intrepration for game purposes. Personally, I think it would have added some interest to allow small numbers of Iranian noble cavalry to be classed as cataphracts between 600 and 1500 AD.

titanu wrote:I have just me getting some Cataphract figures ready to paint and it brought to mind the question of why a number of different armies all developed cataphracts without shields?
Also why was this troop type phased out inpreference to lighter cavalry for a period and then back to knoghts with shields?

The reason I feel is that too kit out a cataphract took a lot of skill ie the equipment itself before even the time to train them ie work as a unit it required centralised control. Were as a person of the period before gunpowder would be using a bow daily to hunt for food. Therefore it would be easy for people to grab their bow and jump into the saddle no training required.
The knights thing was mostly to do with the way mostly western countries were governered ie Feudal system were the lords ect fought Heavy armoured all to do with cost. Not well explained sorry just my opoinion.
Dave

david53 wrote: The reason I feel is that too kit out a cataphract took a lot of skill ie the equipment itself before even the time to train them ie work as a unit it required centralised control. Were as a person of the period before gunpowder would be using a bow daily to hunt for food. Therefore it would be easy for people to grab their bow and jump into the saddle no training required.

Careful there... for one the people were are talking about are not hunter-gatherers. The majority of the population were be farmers, followed by workers and craftsmen. None of them would just grab their bows and go hunting for food (most would probably not even own a bow).
Second using a bow on foot is very different from using it on horse, especially if that horse is moving. If anything a mounted archer needs to be a better horsemen then a lancer and aimed shoots from a galloping horse require lots and lots of practice. It's pretty save to say that a good horse archer needs at least as much training as a good lancers, probably more.

Ghaznavid wrote:

david53 wrote: The reason I feel is that too kit out a cataphract took a lot of skill ie the equipment itself before even the time to train them ie work as a unit it required centralised control. Were as a person of the period before gunpowder would be using a bow daily to hunt for food. Therefore it would be easy for people to grab their bow and jump into the saddle no training required.

Careful there... for one the people were are talking about are not hunter-gatherers. The majority of the population were be farmers, followed by workers and craftsmen. None of them would just grab their bows and go hunting for food (most would probably not even own a bow).
Second using a bow on foot is very different from using it on horse, especially if that horse is moving. If anything a mounted archer needs to be a better horsemen then a lancer and aimed shoots from a galloping horse require lots and lots of practice. It's pretty save to say that a good horse archer needs at least as much training as a good lancers, probably more.

i agree entirely. don't go thinking that because these guys didn't have fords or toyotas they had to eek out an existence.

something like cataphracts, which *extremely* expensive to maintain, would require a sophisticated civilisation. just maintaining the horse is expensive, let alone making or purchasing the armour. this demands highly integrated bureaucracy for one.

you'd need organisation almost as comprehensive like ours, but with a total absence of mechanisation (or medicine... but you get the picture).

As someone who is attempting to gain a level of proficiency with a period 'horse-bow' I can tell you its not easy. I cant even imagine how my ancient and medieval ancestors managed to do it at the ranges they supposedly could. Thats with me standing still, shooting at a stationary target, with a semi-modern bow (its recurve, but has a notch in the stock for the arrow to rest on). Having tried it with an authentic recreation of a medieval handbow (I wont even touch the recreations of the english longbow), its tough. Maybe with weekly training for several years I would be competent.

Add that to a moving horse, shooting at another moving target? No, that requires a level of skill that takes years to develop.


Its like saying just because I had a nintendo with "Duck Hunt" as a kid that I would do alright if I was called up to join the army. Not even close.

Omar wrote:As someone who is attempting to gain a level of proficiency with a period 'horse-bow' I can tell you its not easy. I cant even imagine how my ancient and medieval ancestors managed to do it at the ranges they supposedly could. Thats with me standing still, shooting at a stationary target, with a semi-modern bow (its recurve, but has a notch in the stock for the arrow to rest on). Having tried it with an authentic recreation of a medieval handbow (I wont even touch the recreations of the english longbow), its tough. Maybe with weekly training for several years I would be competent.

Add that to a moving horse, shooting at another moving target? No, that requires a level of skill that takes years to develop.


o with "Duck Hunt" as a kid that I would do alright if I was called up to join the army. Not Its like saying just because I had a nintendeven close.

What your all seem to be missing here is you are placing yourself into their world from the wrong starting point ie your not born there.

If you were born and raised in the steppes you'd learn from a young age to practice using weapons on horse back. So after twenty years it would come as natural and jumping on a horse and using a bow would be easy for them.

Never said it would be easy for me can't ride a horse but i can shoot a longbow but I don't think I'm a archer.

I never stated that they did'nt have a civilision, now that would be stupid just one reason why heavy cavalry disapeared and that was as stated a large centralised government was required to equip and look after heavy cavalry in whatever period and when and if that broke down so did the recruitment of heavy cavalry.

I don't own a nintendo so don't know about Duck shoot.

Check link for reference to steppe history.
Dave

http://steppes.proboards23.com/index.cg ... thread=824

Your talking about a very specific culture. Yes, steppe nomads would more or less be 'born in the saddle'. They are a very small minority of people in the pre-gunpowder age. Most people would not be proficient with a bow, or riding a horse. Farmers mostly. They set traps or traded for meat, they didnt go hunting. Heck, depending on where you were, there was nowhere to hunt, as that was reserved for nobility.

I am having a hard time understanding your point. Is english your native language? (not trying to be mean, but it seems that is might be a problem with translation?)

Cataphract why no shield?
Well fighting style might be a key.
The horses are so loaded that the charge should have been pretty slow so i believe the concept was close to the steam roll one. all rider packed close to one each other and riding straight. Since this is not individual fighting at all no shield is required and since the aim is to break off the enemy phalanx no protection of the rear side of the horse earliest period.
I m seeing cataphract use doctrine as something like elephant or scythe chariots.

The added value of the rider is to be able to reach the enemy before their horse have them walked down. Therefore you gonna need 2 handed long spears.

I got not enough material to back my opinion and i m pretty curious if you can confirm if i m far from truth.
I guess there are a bunch of other explanation (military tradition: for instance the compagnons of alexander have no shield too and much of the steppe cavalery also)

I suspect the number of depictions of catafracts galloping may well dent your theory

In fact the one lot of catafracts that we know were supposed to charge at a trot - the C10th Roman katafraktoi - had shields ...

I always understood that the Shield was omitted due to full body armour becoming quite sufficient, Manipulation of weapon being easier and overall cost of equipment.

I also have a bow and cannot work out for the life of me how the hell you can fire that from horseback!!! Then to add to that to use it at the point when all 4 horse hooves were off the ground at the same time to gain a steadier shot.

As somebody pointed out, We are people for times and I doubt a horse-archer of 300 AD could ever work out how the heck I can drive and use a phone and pick my nose at the same time as carrying on an argument with my wife.

Terry.

Spartacus wrote: I also have a bow and cannot work out for the life of me how the hell you can fire that from horseback!!!

You don't, you shoot it

nikgaukroger wrote:I suspect the number of depictions of catafracts galloping may well dent your theory

I had in mind for the cat. doctrine the story of the chained cavalery sent by the south song prime minister against the outlaw of the marshes

"Teach him the horse and the bow, and to despise all lies"

- Herodotus, circa 500 BCE, explaining to his fellow Greeks the Persian concept of the correct way to raise a boy.


"To ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth"

- Jeff Cooper, circa 1980 CE, explaining to his fellow Americans his own thoughts on the same subject.



The original Cataphracts from whom the Greeks copied the idea were the Persian deghans, and they literally did start learning horsemanship, archery, and horse archery from childhood.

The gentleman who said that heavy cavalry of that quality requires a large centralised government was close. What it actually requires is a highly stratified society with a full-time warrior caste. Ancient Persia followed this model in many different eras, as did the Feudal era of Western Europe.

Now having said that, I would note that the classical Cataphracts of Byzantium in its prime are alleged to have been yeoman farmers. On the other hand, we are also told they were proficient with sword, lance, axe, saddle bow, and foot bow. And that they fought equally well mounted or dismounted.

Obviously, this type of skill and versatility requires untold hours of training time, as in likely 3 to 4 hours drill per day, five days a week. Doesn't leave much time for pushing a plow, does it? The only way this makes sense is if the Cataphracts simply owned the farms, and worked them with slave/serf labor, making them once again the specialised warrior caste.

post scriptum
Despite being a pistolero of legendary skill, Jeff Cooper is also an arrogant egomaniac of towering proportions. It is not my deliberate intention to compare him to Herodotus, the Father of History, merely to point out the enduring nature of the lesson.

Something in that post makes me wonder how you're defining a catafract?

possum wrote:Now having said that, I would note that the classical Cataphracts of Byzantium in its prime are alleged to have been yeoman farmers. On the other hand, we are also told they were proficient with sword, lance, axe, saddle bow, and foot bow. And that they fought equally well mounted or dismounted.

Obviously, this type of skill and versatility requires untold hours of training time, as in likely 3 to 4 hours drill per day, five days a week. Doesn't leave much time for pushing a plow, does it? The only way this makes sense is if the Cataphracts simply owned the farms, and worked them with slave/serf labor, making them once again the specialised warrior caste.

On "Yeoman" from Wikipedia:

...As such, yeoman may refer to several general meanings:

A man holding a small landed estate, a minor landowner
A freeman, or man born free
A small prosperous farmer, especially from the Elizabethan era onwards (16th-17th century)
A deputy, assistant, journeyman, a loyal or faithful servant
"Yeoman" may also refer specifically to:

A member of a British reserve cavalry unit called a yeomanry (similar to a militia) traditionally raised from respected and moderately wealthy commoners in England and Wales, and today part of the Territorial Army.

So you wouldn't necessarily expect them to be pushing ploughs. The last (specific) definition seems a good analogy to the Byzantine case.