Cataphracts

[Mark G]

it is that extended coordinated training which is the key, and which I doubt was on offer in the early cataphract period.

medieval knights had to put great restrictions on the dishonour of getting ahead of your equals to maintain their solid line.

post medieval cavalry frequently stuck to a trot at best to maintain cohesion - the gallopers were always rare and elite.

crucially, all of the above used one handed weapons and bridles.

we are talking about mounted men who have to transmit their orders via knee presses through rigid armour - because the man is using his lance two handed and both his legs and the horse are encased in rigid coverings.  that's fine for left a bit or right a bit, but no good at all for 'slow down a bit', speed up a touch.

lances were shortened when the bow was introduced, and the images we have of them at full speed are of one handed lance use. 

and the other points I mentioned earlier - its a change in usage, a change in the thing entirely.

if you want to argue that cats are no different from any other cavalry, just with a bit more armour, then that middle or later period is when I would look to.
But the earlier cats, Parthians, Armenians, etc - they look to be a different, slow attack close formation beast to me.

[tadamson]

Mark:
"lances were shortened when the bow was introduced, and the images we have of them at full speed are of one handed lance use.  "

? Are you thinking of some particular troops here ? Parthians?

The norm in Central Asia and North China for a very long time was fully armoured cavalry on armoured horses with bows and long lances (15-20 shi - 4.5 to 6.0m as the length of the shi varied) who habitually charged at the gallop in close (though shallow) formation.

Regards...

[andrew881runner]

my personal idea is that cataphracts, being unable to do a full charge as medieval Knights with couched Lance saddle and stirrups, could act differently, like slashing their big kontos on the heads of poor Romans. Is that possible? or they simply charged then retreated if formation did not break? it seems of relative effect to do simply this when you can try to stab or anyway slashing giving concussive damage in the worst case. After all kontos are long, they are in Upper position, so they can stab above Shields better than a pike man would do... I would have done it if I were a cataphract. Why bothering making a so expensive and heavy armor if you simply have to charge fast then run away? only to protect from missiles? it seems strange, since first purpose of armor is to protect in melee. Then, being very close roman lines in Upper position give a big chance to do a big damage with their powerful composite bows, very effective from close range... otherwise, when would they use bows? before charge, when they are far and effect can only be very limited?  I imagine, but it is only my idea, cataphracts charging.. ok, but then remaining near roman lines, some slashing or stabbing with their long Spears, others throwing arrows in the confusion created (if there was a testudo, surely it was broken by charge). Could this be real?

[andrew881runner]

Mark I do not believe that close order cavalry MUST move slowly.  We have numerous 17th and C comments about cavalry in very close order (knee behind knee stuff) charging at a 'good round trot' to maintain formation.

Swedish early 18C cavalry were supposed to charge knee-behind-knee at a canter/gallop.

(The Sw. word used is galopp, which usually means canter today but sometimes gallop (or both). I don't claim to know exactly what it meant in the 18C but definitely something faster than a trot.)

in Italian "galoppo" is the fastest speed a horse can reach (we say that the horse goes "al galoppo") , and "canter" means literally "small galopp" so yes you are right, assuming that "galopp" has same meaning that Italian "galoppo". While Trot is Italian "Trotto"

[andrew881runner]

I have never said they MUST move slowly.

But I have said that they could not maintain formation if they moved at a gallop - this is very difficult to do, and there is plenty of history to show that only the best drilled cavalry ever attain it - 
and then offered clear evidence that they sought to maintain formation above all other things and for sensible reasons which again emphasises that they chose not to gallop as a formation.

Roy's Sarmatians are the same red herring they have always been - this is not about any armour on a horse, this is about the blanket ridged armour of a cataphract, and the vulnerability it brings to the individual horsemen, which is countered by maintaining a strict boot to boot formation.

As for trotting - you cannot trot into combat with a long lance - the vibration runs down the shaft and it becomes impossible to aim.

hence, individual galloping OR slower (formation) attacks.

You will note the replacement of long lances as time progresses, the introduction of bows, maces etc, the change in saddle back and so forth - all of which change the dynamic of the close formation requirement.

I would be interested to see whether Heliodorus  has any thing to challenge that view.

well you can Trot slowly till the last 50 mts (for example, they can be less or more depending on how much missile fire you are getting) then go into "gallopp" for the last meters (after some signal).. so you get a full speed charge while not breaking to much formation... only my 2 cents. [emoji4]
I am rather sure they trained hard (they were professional warriors, they did only this all their life..) so a charge in line is more than possible.

[aligern]

You have to look at cataphracts as developing in a cavalry only environment. They are evolved to deal with horse archer opponents, not massed infantry.  They appear to get more armour and longer lances ( if we can assume a start point with them having frontal armour and a pair of javelins) and where they are steppe derived, bows. The armour increases until it is covering all the horse and all the man. The contos is developed in parallel, it is not the exclusive preserve of the cataphract and can be a slender  spear with a pointy head or a heavy shaft with a wide head.  I believe both to be for hitting other horsemen. There are plenty of examples of unarmoured or partially armoured cavalry with the contos.
So how cataphracts  use the contos against infantry is always going to be a matter of improvisation. They might try pressuring the infantry into dense groups that cannot fight effectively whilst other cavalry use bows to shoot the foot down, they might charge in hard spearing the infantry, they might come up close and fence with the pedites over the shieldwall.  What we do 'know' from Sasanian bas reliefs is that they could charge a mounted opponent hard enough to hit him with the lance and unseat him. From the tenth century Byzantine manuals we can assume that they could charge an infantry unit hard enough to break normal spears and crash the formation.
Roy

[Andreas Johansson]

Swedish early 18C cavalry were supposed to charge knee-behind-knee at a canter/gallop.

(The Sw. word used is galopp, which usually means canter today but sometimes gallop (or both). I don't claim to know exactly what it meant in the 18C but definitely something faster than a trot.)

in Italian "galoppo" is the fastest speed a horse can reach (we say that the horse goes "al galoppo") , and "canter" means literally "small galopp" so yes you are right, assuming that "galopp" has same meaning that Italian "galoppo". While Trot is Italian "Trotto"

I am, I confess, less than sure what you think I'm right about. But note that the top-speed four-beat gait of a horse (ie, English "gallop") is specifically called fyrsprång in Swedish - usage is inconsistent whether it counts as a kind of galopp.

[Patrick Waterson]

my personal idea is that cataphracts, being unable to do a full charge as medieval Knights with couched Lance saddle and stirrups, could act differently, like slashing their big kontos on the heads of poor Romans. Is that possible? or they simply charged then retreated if formation did not break? it seems of relative effect to do simply this when you can try to stab or anyway slashing giving concussive damage in the worst case. After all kontos are long, they are in Upper position, so they can stab above Shields better than a pike man would do... I would have done it if I were a cataphract. Why bothering making a so expensive and heavy armor if you simply have to charge fast then run away? only to protect from missiles? it seems strange, since first purpose of armor is to protect in melee. Then, being very close roman lines in Upper position give a big chance to do a big damage with their powerful composite bows, very effective from close range... otherwise, when would they use bows? before charge, when they are far and effect can only be very limited?  I imagine, but it is only my idea, cataphracts charging.. ok, but then remaining near roman lines, some slashing or stabbing with their long Spears, others throwing arrows in the confusion created (if there was a testudo, surely it was broken by charge). Could this be real?

Not according to Plutarch, who writes:

"And at first they purposed to charge upon the Romans with their long spears, and throw their front ranks into confusion; but when they saw the depth of their formation, where shield was locked with shield, and the firmness and composure of the men, they drew back, and while seeming to break their ranks and disperse, they surrounded the hollow square in which their enemy stood before he was aware of the maneuver." - Life of Crassus 24.3

and

"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry [hippotai] rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space*, [2] except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses* was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once." - Life of Crassus 27.1-2

[*Translation is suspect here: I favour 'keeping in close formation they attacked the Romans' and 'the heavy steel spear which the Parthian horses impelled' respectively.]

These passages suggest that cataphracts did indeed charge 'like mediaeval knights' and relied on impetus to make their lances penetrate their targets.  They seem to have avoided charging massed Roman infantry, but were happy to charge isolated groups.

I remain unconvinced that the Parthian cataphracts carried bows; they may have done, but they seem to have relied exclusively upon their lances.

[andrew881runner]

surely this is what happened in Carrhae, we don't know if this happened all the times. Anyway I have not denied they did a full speed charge. But I simply imagined that, after the charge, being there, they could use the longer reach of their heavy Spears and their upper position to continue hitting enemy heads. And obviously bows too (yes they carried bows for sure)

[Duncan Head]

I remain unconvinced that the Parthian cataphracts carried bows; they may have done, but they seem to have relied exclusively upon their lances.

The artistic evidence is perfectly clear that at least some of them did carry bows.

[aligern]

And quite a bit of the written description can be equally interpreted as cataphracts having  bows. It is just that wargamers having been brought up with non bow cataphracts read the evidence as the archery being supplied by the unarmoured cavalry.
There is a nice coin of Spalirises that shows him with long coat of plates, standing collar, bow and a really beefy looking lance.

Roy
.

[Patrick Waterson]

The behaviour of the cataphracts at Carrhae suggests they were among the bow-less exceptions, notably their insistence on using lances to charge down small groups of Roman infantry which ran at them: if they already had bows to had or in hand, using them would be more logical as it saves changing weapons and is about as effective.

Do we have a date or dates for our artistically-depicted bow-bearing Parthian cataphracts?

There is a nice coin of Spalirises that shows him with long coat of plates, standing collar, bow and a really beefy looking lance.

I could not find this individual in the list of Parthian kings.  Has he an alter ego, perhaps?

[Duncan Head]

The behaviour of the cataphracts at Carrhae suggests they were among the bow-less exceptions, notably their insistence on using lances to charge down small groups of Roman infantry which ran at them: if they already had bows to had or in hand, using them would be more logical as it saves changing weapons and is about as effective.

Depends how close the enemy get. And if the Perseus translation is correct, and the Parthian lances are piercing horses, then the troops who are charging them presumably are (or include) horsemen - in which case, you don't get many shots in at a rider charging from what is already within horsebow range, and switching to a close-quarters weapon makes sense.

Do we have a date or dates for our artistically-depicted bow-bearing Parthian cataphracts?

Mostly C3AD - Firuzabad, Tang-i-Sarwak, possibly one of the Dura graffiti (the archer shooting, mounted on a horse with apparent rear caparison) - but there is a fragment from the Old Nisa frescoes, about C2 BC, that shows a bowcase and an armoured torso. Of course he might not be a cataphract, not enough survives to be certain, but if not he doesn't fit into the classic dichotomous Parthian model. Taken together, they suggest bow-armed cataphracts throughout Parthian history. In fact, I can't think of a cataphract without a bow, unless the famous Dura cataphract graffito is Parthian.

[Patrick Waterson]

The behaviour of the cataphracts at Carrhae suggests they were among the bow-less exceptions, notably their insistence on using lances to charge down small groups of Roman infantry which ran at them: if they already had bows to had or in hand, using them would be more logical as it saves changing weapons and is about as effective.

Depends how close the enemy get. And if the Perseus translation is correct, and the Parthian lances are piercing horses, then the troops who are charging them presumably are (or include) horsemen - in which case, you don't get many shots in at a rider charging from what is already within horsebow range, and switching to a close-quarters weapon makes sense.

If the Perseus translation is correct it is inconsistent.

"... those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses [sic] was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once."

If spears are being thrust into horses then they cannot at the same time be piercing two men.  Not without raising serious anatomical questions, anyway.  If the attackers are a mix of foot and horse then why are the Romans using a mixed formation?

When Publius' cavalry were engaging the Parthians (this was before the events of chapter 27), "most of their horses had perished by being driven against the long spears [kontous]," the men likewise suffering as "the thrusts of the enemy were made with pikes [kontois] against the lightly equipped and unprotected bodies of the Gauls."  Additionally, "The survivors fought on until the Parthians mounted the hill and transfixed them with their long spears [kontois], and they say that not more than five hundred were taken alive."  Publius took "thirteen hundred horsemen, of whom a thousand had come from Caesar, five hundred archers, and eight cohorts of the men-at-arms [thureophorōn oktō speiras] who were nearest him," but apparently no 'mixed' cohorts.   And no recorded use of archery by the cataphracts.  (All extracts from Plutarch, Crassus 25.)

Plutarch has Crassus enter Mesopotamia with "seven legions of men-at-arms [hepta ... hopliton tagmata], nearly four thousand horsemen [tetrakiskhiliōn oligon apodeontas hippeis], and about as many light-armed troops [psilous de tois hippeusi paraplēsious]."  No mixed formations as far as I can see, which suggests the bands of Romans charging out in Crassus 27 are legionaries and hence unmounted.

... but there is a fragment from the Old Nisa frescoes, about C2 BC, that shows a bowcase and an armoured torso. Of course he might not be a cataphract, not enough survives to be certain, but if not he doesn't fit into the classic dichotomous Parthian model.

If an armoured horse were visible that would be a clincher, but an armoured torso may signify just an officer of mounted archer types.  Either way, the Parthian cataphracts at Carrhae do seem to rely upon their lances whenever they are noted as doing anything.

A possibly related question: the Seleucids appear to have adopted cataphractedness under Antiochus III.  This seems to be a reaction to the Parthian employment of same; if so, then would not bow-bearing Parthian cataphracts have been imitated by bow-bearing Seleucid cataphracts?

It is little niggles like this which cause me to think that Parthian cataphracts may have added the bow later, possibly during the 1st century AD when Roman armies were becoming a regular nuisance rather than an occasional annoyance - and Romans may not have been the cause: Sarmatians might have triggered the bow's adoption.  This is admittedly conjecture, but our accounts of Carrhae do seem to favour lance-only Parthian cataphracts.

[Duncan Head]

If spears are being thrust into horses then they cannot at the same time be piercing two men.

I don't think we have to read Plutarch as saying that stabbing horses and stabboing men were simultaneous.

A possibly related question: the Seleucids appear to have adopted cataphractedness under Antiochus III.  This seems to be a reaction to the Parthian employment of same; if so, then would not bow-bearing Parthian cataphracts have been imitated by bow-bearing Seleucid cataphracts?

We don't know that the Seleucids adopted the cataphract from the Parthians, as opposed to from the Graeco-Bactrians (cf the Ai Khanum armoury) or from the Saka or by independent invention; in fact we don't even really know that the Parthians were using cataphracts as early as 200 BC, though the odds must be that they were. Nor do we even have enough evidence for Seleucid cataphracts to be certain that they didn't have bows themselves. So any answer to this question is really more speculative than the evidence allows, in my opinion. But my own take on the most plausible scenario would be that you can stick Graeco-Macedonian and Median xystophoroi into heavier armour far more easily than you can train them to be horse-archers, and the bow was simply not required in their tactical role (which might indeed be why some Parthian cataphracts may not have thought it worth carrying, despite the treason to their nomadic Saka heritage).