Cataphracts

[Mark G]

Cataphracts

I am using the term to exclude partially armoured cavalry.  To come under this thread, you need a full armour covering the body of the horse as well as an armoured rider.

So we are looking at Seleucid / Parthian beginnings, in my opinion rather than going back further to earlier Sarmatian etc origins.

Classical era cataphracts, therefore would appear to start for recording purposes with Panion in 200 B.C.

I suggest that the Sassanid innovations mark a turning point in the development however, and I would put a change point at around 200 A.D after which we have a different form of cataphract.   

I base this upon the addition of the horse bow (which I cannot see working with the earlier 4m long kontos length lance - see also the one handed Clibanarius charge from Dura),
the introduction of a cantle to the back of the saddle and clamps over the legs, effectively 'tying' the rider to the saddle to transmit the shock onto the whole unit rather than relying on the riders hand strength,
and if you happen to accept it, there is also the chain attachment from the lance to the front and rear of the horse (much more dubious, I think). 

All of which I suggest a change in the ability to deliver a charge at a full gallop while retaining control of the horse.

This is, however, quite contentious, and is at the nub of the debate about whether cataphracts should be treated as heavy charging cavalry or not.

Additionally, there is also a case for identifying the clibanarius as a different entity again.



Battles recording Cataphracts vs Romans

Magnesia (189 B.C.) - Seleucids.

Tigranocerta (69 B.C.) - Armecians.

Carrhae ( 53 B.C.) - Parthians.

Antigoneia (51 B.C.) - Parthians.

River Taurus (39 B.C.) - Parthians.

The Uruma campaign (Phraaspa) ( 36 B.C.) - Parthians.

Dobrogea River ( 69 A.D.) - Sarmatians

Dacian Campaign (101-104 A.D.) - Sarmatians

Array against the Alans (135 A.D.) - Alans

Nisbis (217 A.D.) - Parthians

Emesa (272 A.D.) - Palmyrenes

Mursa (351 A.D.) - Civil War


Additional battles

Amnias River (89 B.C.) Pontus vs Bythinia - the Pontic cavalry is either armoured heavy cavalry or true Cataphract, depending on you point of view.

Panion (200 B.C.) Seleucid vs Ptolemeic - first recorded use of cataphracts in battle


Sources mentioning Cataphracts


Polybios (c 150 B.C.)

Sallust (c 40 B.C.)

Livy (c 10 B.C.)   
- Liv. 35.48; 37.40 - 44

Plutarch (c 1st Century A.D.)
- Crassus 21.6 ; 23.6-end
- Lucullus 26.6 - 28

Josephus (c 70 A.D.)

Tacitus (c 115 A.D.)

Appian (c 160 A.D.)
- Syrian War

Pausanias (C 2nd century A.D.)

Cassius Dio (c 230 A.D.)

Heliodorus of Emesa (C 3 Century A.D.)
- Aethiopea

Ammanius Marcellinus (360 A.D.)
- Roman Antiquities XXV

Vegetius (c 4th Century A.D.)

Procopius (c 550 A.D.)

Maurice (c late 6th Century A.D.)

Zsimios (about who I can find nothing, but who apparently mentions Palmyrene Cataphracts)


Sculpture etc of note showing Cataphracts

Trajans column (113 A.D.)

Sarmatian Cataphracts (fleeing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:028_Conrad_Cichorius,_Die_Reliefs_der_Traianss%C3%A4ule,_Tafel_XXVIII_(Ausschnitt_01).jpg


Dura Europos Grafitti (circa 200 A.D., no later than 256)

the Clibanarius graffito

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dura-europos+horsemen&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=dura-europos+horsemen&sc=0-13&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=074421EF43E8D6076E8BDF0A8496DB1C0401F28F&selectedIndex=2

and the Sassanid Battle Mural from Dura

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dura-europos+horsemen&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=dura-europos+horsemen&sc=0-13&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=60185EF0EAFE7A9396976D495D76B00637301F13&selectedIndex=8

although I fail to see the horse armour on these guys


Sasasanid reliefs from Firuzabad (c 224 A.D.)

These show (later) cataphracts in combat

http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/firuzabad/firuzabad_relief1.html

Sassanid reliefs from Naqsh-e Rustam (c 280 A.D.)

The equestrian relief of Barham II shows cavalry in lance combat, although the armour is not necessarily demonstrated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relief_Bahram_II.jpg


no doubt others will add more.

[Mark G]

Can Cataphracts charge at full speed?

This is why I want to emphasise a differentiation between the classical and later cataphract.

I have no doubt that individually they could gallop.

I am also quite happy to accept that it is impossible to wield a 4m long kontos at a trot - the motion would soon transmit down the length of the lance, making it impossible to aim.

So the choice tactically then becomes one of a full gallop or a slower 'walk' into combat.

For the later cataphracts, I think that the changes outlined above were all designed around generating maximum force through the horse and rider and down the lance point - and ensuring that the rider was able to retain his seat (and the horse not buckle) under impact.

So absolutely, the later cataphract was a hard charging chap.

But I suggest that the earlier rider was not -

not because he was unable to gallop into combat due to the weight of the armour (which I think is a comparatively negligible factor), nor because of his seat on the horse itself or his hand strength to maintain the grip - for clearly, two handed Xyston were used at the charge by the companions (and podromoi), and the Sarmatians too
- although I would add that these charges were surely less in their impact as a consequence, than they would later become.  Just as the Norman Knights couched lance and saddle / stirrup arrangement made their charge greater still - as attested to when the Byzantines first encountered them.

Rather, my argument that the classical cataphracts would enter combat at a slower pace is based upon the vulnerability of the rider and horse to their flanks, a vulnerability which is best resolved - and which makes the most use of the armour and length of weapon which they have, by maintaining a strict boot to boot frontage.
Such a united front is extremely difficult to maintain if you are charging at speed even in the best drilled cavalry.  To do so with only knee control (for the knotos is two handed) when the knees have full armour over them, as does the horses back have hide and scale armour over it - for me, its just not possible.

The obvious counter to this is the example of Magnesia, which most now believe saw an entire legion routed by the cataphract charge.  However the evidence for that is a lot less clear.

Livy has Antiochus' attack being against the small number of Roman cavalry, and then turning onto the legion's flank. 37.42

"pressed on their flank until the cavalry were put to flight and the infantry, who were next to them, were driven with them in headlong flight to their camp".

No doubt Patrick will have the exact Latin, but I have seen a translation which emphasises the overlapping of the flank itself, and the implication that the infantry ran rather than were broken.

This overlapping is quite key to any interpretation of the event, because it casts doubt on the belief that the cataphracts charged frontally and swept away the Roman legion on this flank.  It is also worth mentioning that the cataphracts were brigaded with the Royal bodyguard cavalry, who were not fully armoured, and who would have been expected to make a harder charge.

Appian's Syrian War has the day as dark and gloomy.  Livy mentions mist risking from the river on this side of the army. 
Appian does have the charge breaking through the Roman line, dismembering it and pursuing - which is in contrast to Livy.
But Appian gives no evidence that this was from any cause different to Livy, and it is entirely possible to read each as indicating a rout rather than a beating. 
both report Roman casualties of only 300 dead infantry and 24 dead cavalry (Livy mentions many wounded, it is true).  But for me, they were surprised while redeploying, they ran, they lived to fight another day because the battle was won elsewhere.


Tigranocerta is the next major encounter which we have some detail on.

Plutarch''s Lucullus 28.2 "he ordered his Thracian and Gallic horsemen to attack the enemy in the flank, and to parry their long spears with their own short swords. (Now the sole resource of the mail-clad horsemen is their long spear, and they have none other whatsoever, either in defending themselves or attacking their enemies, owing to the weight and rigidity of their armour; in this they are, as it were, immured.) "
... "he led his men against the mail-clad horsemen, ordering them not to hurl their javelins yet, but taking each his own man, to smite the enemy's legs and thighs, which are the only parts of these mail-clad horsemen left exposed. However, there was no need of this mode of fighting, for the enemy did not await the Romans"

Although this is not a good description of the cataphracts, it is surprising to find an array of charging horsemen await an attack  It is less surprising when we see the usage at Carrhae, however.
The weak points are also worth noting - flanks, horses legs and inside their kontos points.


The best example of cataphracts destroying an army is Carrhae.  Here the evidence is a bit more specific. Plutarch, Crassus)

24.3 suggests that they intended to charge and "throw their front ranks into confusion", but changed their minds because the Roman formation was solid.  Instead, they proceeded to break the formation with the horse archers.

25.4 has the Roman cavalry attack led on beyond the legionary supports, it is then pinned by the cataphracts "supposing that the enemy would come to close quarters with them, since they were so few in number. But the Parthians stationed their mail-clad horsemen in front of the Romans, and then with the rest of their cavalry in loose array rode round them" - which is particularly interesting as it clearly implies that the cataphracts did not charge the Roman cavalry, but rather prevented it from moving - being unable to attack them, nor able to turn away from them for fear of being attacked. 

As with the first phase, it is the archers who are the main killing weapon. (25.5)

25.7 has the Roman cavalry make a charge, which is futile - unable to penetrate the wall of armour in front of it, while vulnerable to the long reach of the kontos.

26.8 has the weakness of the cataphracts - "grappling with the men, pushed them from their horses, hard as it was to move them owing to the weight of their armour; and many of the Gauls forsook their own horses, and crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly"

the cavalry and auxilliary 'attack' is destroyed, with the final coup coming from the Cataphracts, after the archers had destroyed the most of them "where the inequality of the ground raised one man above another, and lifted every man who was behind another into greater prominence, there was no such thing as escape, but they were all alike hit with arrows, bewailing their inglorious amid ineffectual death" (25.10)

27.1 sees the main army re-engaged, archers to the fore, with the Cataphracts task being to herd the Romans into a dense target to ensure that the archers could do their work. "the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry 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"
and to pick off any who break ranks (27.2)

The Romans are allowed to withdraw during the first night, the Parthians returning the next morning to pick off the stragglers (which suggests they may indeed have eventually run out of arrows, and needed to scavenge enough to take on the remaining legions again.)

and the retreat is then harassed as it proceeds back over the desert for a number of days.

Here we see no evidence of a cataphract charge, but we do see some interesting tactical deployment of cataphracts as a blocking force, as something which can funnel both Roman cavalry and infantry, and which is quite unafraid of any counter attack - but which does not deliver a charge.  It is the archers who are the real threat here - and Crassus was right to despair when he saw the camel born resupply train in action.

(for what it is worth, Wikipedia reports that it was as a consequence of this battle that the testudio was developed and used by later Roman armies against the Parthians - I am dubious since it looks like a siege formation to me, and since Plutarch clearly reports the arrows as penetrating the Roman shields.  Making a denser target of yourself just does not seem the right response to me, but I have no evidence either way on that formation)

So, strong evidence of formation, of vulnerability to the flanks (and lower legs), and of being damn difficult to kill frontally.  But no evidence of charging at speed.

I suggest that Ammianus's statement that "Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze" indicates a body of men used to working in strict discipline and tight formation - that much would not change about the cataphract.  But until the Sassanid changes to usage and equipment, I think these chaps had to advance at a slow pace, desperate to maintain the formation to offer only two flanks, and to ensure that there were no gaps between the horses which an enemy could use once they had gotten past the kontos point.

Later - with the addition of a bow, possibly with a shorter lance able to be controlled one handed if needed, and with the tighter binding of the rider to the horse, I think speed could be gotten up.  But I remain to be convinced of this in the earlier classical period.

[Andreas Johansson]

Zsimios (about who I can find nothing, but who apparently mentions Palmyrene Cataphracts)

The name looks quite unclassical - typo for Zosimos/Zosimus, conceivably?

[Andreas Johansson]

Zsimios (about who I can find nothing, but who apparently mentions Palmyrene Cataphracts)

The name looks quite unclassical - typo for Zosimos/Zosimus, conceivably?

Be that as it may, Wikisource has the following from Zosimos about Palmyrene armoured cavalry:

But observing that the Palmyrene cavalry placed great confidence in their armour, which was very strong and secure, and that they were much better horsemen than his soldiers, he [sc. Aurelian] planted his infantry by themselves on the other side of the Orontes. He charged his cavalry not to engage immediately with the vigourous cavalry of the Palmyrenians, but to wait for their attack, and then, pretending to fly, to continue so doing until they had wearied both the men and their horses through excess of heat and the weight of their armour; so that they could pursue them no longer. This project succeeded, and as soon as the cavalry of the emperor saw their enemy tired, and that their horses were scarcely able to stand under them, or themselves to move, they drew up the reins of their horses, and, wheeling round, charged them, and trod them under foot as they fell from their horses. By which means the slaughter was promiscuous, some falling by the sword, and others by their own and the enemies' horses.

Not clear from this passage, or at least not from this translation of it, whether horses were armoured as well as men, but they seem capable of reasonably vigorous attack, albeit lacking in stamina. Now, this is in the 270s, so Palmyrene cataphracts may were well be of Sassanid type in your scenario.

[Patrick Waterson]

Can Cataphracts charge at full speed?

...

Rather, my argument that the classical cataphracts would enter combat at a slower pace is based upon the vulnerability of the rider and horse to their flanks, a vulnerability which is best resolved - and which makes the most use of the armour and length of weapon which they have, by maintaining a strict boot to boot frontage.
Such a united front is extremely difficult to maintain if you are charging at speed even in the best drilled cavalry.  To do so with only knee control (for the knotos is two handed) when the knees have full armour over them, as does the horses back have hide and scale armour over it - for me, its just not possible.

The question that arises is why vulnerable flanks (if they were indeed more vulnerable c.200 BC than c.AD 200) would encourage a slow advance.  The idea seems to be that each man (except those on the very outside) covers his neighbour's flank, but if this is the primary constraint, then why not simply form and charge (hard and fast) in wedge?  This worked for less well protected Macedonian cavalry.

The obvious counter to this is the example of Magnesia, which most now believe saw an entire legion routed by the cataphract charge.  However the evidence for that is a lot less clear.

Livy has Antiochus' attack being against the small number of Roman cavalry, and then turning onto the legion's flank. 37.42

"pressed on their flank until the cavalry were put to flight and the infantry, who were next to them, were driven with them in headlong flight to their camp".

No doubt Patrick will have the exact Latin, but I have seen a translation which emphasises the overlapping of the flank itself, and the implication that the infantry ran rather than were broken.

First the translation, courtesy of Canon Roberts, who sticks fairly close to the Latin.

Antiochus from his position on his right wing had noticed that the Romans, trusting to the protection of the river, had only four squadrons of cavalry in position there, and these, keeping in touch with their infantry. had left the bank of the river exposed. [8] He attacked this part of the line with his auxiliaries and cataphracti, and not only forced back their front, but wheeling round along the river, pressed on their flank until the cavalry were put to flight and the infantry, who were next to them, were driven with them in headlong flight to their camp.. - Livy XXXVII.42.7-8

Now the Latin for section 8.

impetum in eam partem cum auxiliis et cataphracto equitatu fecit

An attack against that part [of the line] with auxiliary troops and cataphracted cavalry he made ['auxiliis' may be the Dahae horse archers on that flank]

nec a fronte tantum instabat

nor did he so much press on the front

sed circumito a flumine cornu iam ab latere urgebat

but going round by the river now from the side [flank] rolled them up

donec fugati equites primum

whereupon the cavalry fled first

dein proximi peditum effuso cursu ad castra compulsi sunt

then the next in line infantry poured away at a run, being driven to the camp.

This overlapping is quite key to any interpretation of the event, because it casts doubt on the belief that the cataphracts charged frontally and swept away the Roman legion on this flank.  It is also worth mentioning that the cataphracts were brigaded with the Royal bodyguard cavalry, who were not fully armoured, and who would have been expected to make a harder charge.

Livy's Latin would suggest that the cataphracts did not need to make a charge, but simply followed up the breaking Romans.  Appian provides corroborative detail on this point:

"In the meantime Antiochus, after pursuing for a long distance that part of the Roman legionaries opposed to him, came to the Roman camp ..." - Appian, Syrica 6.36

However, he also mentions an interesting encounter between the Seleucid and Roman-Pergamene cavalry in the closing stages of the battle.

"When Attalus, the brother of Eumenes, with a large body of horse, threw himself in his way, Antiochus easily cut through them ..." [idem]

The Seleucid cavalry was evidently superior in a straight fight.

Tigranocerta is the next major encounter which we have some detail on.

Plutarch''s Lucullus 28.2 "he ordered his Thracian and Gallic horsemen to attack the enemy in the flank, and to parry their long spears with their own short swords. (Now the sole resource of the mail-clad horsemen is their long spear, and they have none other whatsoever, either in defending themselves or attacking their enemies, owing to the weight and rigidity of their armour; in this they are, as it were, immured.) "
... "he led his men against the mail-clad horsemen, ordering them not to hurl their javelins yet, but taking each his own man, to smite the enemy's legs and thighs, which are the only parts of these mail-clad horsemen left exposed. However, there was no need of this mode of fighting, for the enemy did not await the Romans"

What Plutarch omits to say is that Lucullus ordered his cavalry to sweep out and come in on the Armenian right flank, closing with the cataphracts as they turned to face.  This effectively pinned the cataphracts facing the wrong way (and while changing facing they lost the opportunity to charge anyone), at which point Lucullus led his infantry into the attack.

"Then he himself, with two cohorts, hastened eagerly towards the hill ..." Plutarch, Lucullus 28.3

"... he led his men against the mail-clad horsemen, ordering them not to hurl their javelins [hussois, i.e. pila] ..." [ibid]

"However, there was no need of this mode of fighting, for the enemy did not await the Romans, but, with loud cries and in most disgraceful flight, they hurled themselves and their horses, with all their weight, upon the ranks of their own infantry, before it had so much as begun to fight ..." [ibid]

And so the cataphracts broke because of - if one pardons mention of the subject - a failed morale test.

The best example of cataphracts destroying an army is Carrhae.  Here the evidence is a bit more specific. Plutarch, Crassus)

"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry 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." - Plutarch, Crassus 27.1-2

This is definitely the result of a hard charge, which implies a reasonably fast one.  If this is our one piece of evidence for 'early' cataphracts, it portrays them as going in with a lot of impetus, which suggests a speed not inferior to later cataphracts.

[Justin Taylor]

Now I seem to remember that there is a gradual walk-up to a charge and only the very final bit is covered at full speed. I tried to find a reference to it and failed.

Also note that special horses were bred to carry the weight of (armoured) rider and armour for horse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisean_horse

As for weight being a 'negligible' factor I am going to have to disagree. Not only full armour for the rider but down to the (horse) forearm as well is a big ask. And the horse armour does seem to have been effective, soldiers going under the armour to get at the horses legs.

Perhaps similar to the Andalusian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andalusian_horse

To do so with only knee control (for the knotos is two handed) when the knees have full armour over them, as does the horses back have hide and scale armour over it - for me, its just not possible.

Well hang on, when I was riding thats how you controlled the horse, with your knees. Exactly the same with a horse archer, hands doing something else, knees steer the horse. No doubt like driving a car difficult to learn but with practice it can be done. So perhaps some arrangement to allow the pressure of the knee to work on the horse, hence vulnerability of riders legs?

[Mark G]

Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry 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." - Plutarch, Crassus 27.1-2

This is definitely the result of a hard charge, which implies a reasonably fast one.  If this is our one piece of evidence for 'early' cataphracts, it portrays them as going in with a lot of impetus, which suggests a speed not inferior to later cataphracts.

But the important part there Patrick is

except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes

they have broken ranks, and are then ridden down.

the whole point of this is that when faced with those who stay in formation, they do not charge, but 'direct' them closer together to make a better target for the archers.

Justin,

Heavy horses, of course, are needed to carry the weight, just as stronger men are needed to carry human armour.

But once you are wearing it, it is not a burden which slows you down such they you cannot move at more than a slow pace.  Your exhaustion point will be much lower (Andreas' quote there shows another good example), but the armour is no more sufficient to slow you than it is for a knight.  Horses are very strong. 

This is the armour we are talking about.



the full set is understood to look like this



And quite simply, we have more than ample evidence of sculpture of these guys galloping as individuals.

[Patrick Waterson]

But the important part there Patrick is

except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes

they have broken ranks, and are then ridden down.

the whole point of this is that when faced with those who stay in formation, they do not charge, but 'direct' them closer together to make a better target for the archers.

That I do not dispute, but since the point of this thread so far seems to be the velocity attained by 'early' cataphracts, the informational content we seek lies in the spitting of two Romans simultaneously on one lance, which would seem hard to achieve at anything other than high speed.

Incidentally, would there be any reason why knee control could not be exercised through flexible metal armour?  Control does not have to be a feather-light touch (look at some of the bits of the period!), just what the horse is used to.

[aligern]

The  Panticapaeum tomb paintings in Kerch show charging Sarmatian cataphracts

i am not sure that i can buy into a theory that has two types of cataphracts, earlier and later, it looks more as though there is a broad category and many small variations upon it. so there are cataphracts with bows, cataphracts with maces, cats with heavy lances, light lances, heavy armour and light armour. some cataphracts are like knights, some like Moghul armoured cavalry.
if we are going to have a parsing of the cataphract species into only a few types then what is the story gehind that difference and what is the evidencevthat theby perform differently?
one difficlty with a bow/ no bow differentiation is that equipment is often left off artistic representations, so on Trajan's column they have ows, but i think not bow cases , some Parthian representations have no bow, but others do and recieved wisdom is that all Partian cataphracts likely had bows.
roy

[tadamson]

Question:

How are these 'covered' cavalry different from Central Asian, Manchurian, North Chinese cavalry with armour, horse armour, long lance and bow ?

Tom...

[aligern]

I suppose Mark would see a distinction between the Asian cavalry and those early cataphracts such as the Seleucid which have thicker lances and are purely chargers.  I would say that there is a family tree of CAT types and that there are several combinations of armour style and tactical useabge and not a simple Early/Late distinction.

Roy

[Mark G]

actually, I would just ask what they were like.

I know nothing about them.

was their armour hard - suggesting melee protection like western ones - or soft, suggesting a missile protection for the horse.
How armoured was the rider?
what sort of tactics do we know they used, formations, speed of attack, discipline, etc?
do we have any sources on them?

the thing is, once you start down this line of inclusion just because the horses are covered, you end up going back to Sarmatians because they had some armour on their horses too, and the next thing you know you are looking again at Assyrian horsemen with coverings on their horses (I've seen those called Cataphracts before) and then some bright spark says there really is no difference between 4 armoured horses with riders in close formation and four armoured horses pulling a chariot.  and it all descends into 'why not, it might be right' gibberish, and the point of the debate is lost.

which is why I wanted to identify splits in the term so we could look at western cataphracts in particular, and I initially set at Cats and Clibs, which I think may be best viewed when subdivided.
- my early and later cats (which I freely admin is highly debatable, but makes more sense than grouping all armoured horses and men together to me)
and Clibanarii - which I think may well need to be looked at differently (and who could well fall into the 'so much armour they couldn't gallop' category, evidence on that would be good to see)

Perhaps, eastern come under this too - or perhaps not.

so you tell us.

what are the covered eastern cavalry like and what were they used to do?

[aligern]

is there any difference between cataphracts and clibanarii. i thought that the wordswere interchangeable, just from different words, Greek and latinised Persian. Of course the actual bearers of the equipment may well have not had a particular word for their  levelof equipment. after all, if you have armoured cavalry and horse archers you might well have several levels of armour on the heavies, buut no need to differentiate them because you know that, when deployed, the best armoured men go at the front. and , despite having more or less kit there is tactical difference.

Roy

[Mark G]

I'm hoping we might tease that out.

There are illustrations of chaps with so much horse armour on they look like the horse can barely take a step forward - does that have any effect on how they operate?

I don't know.

Ditto the front armour to the feet only chaps - why no rear armour, how were they used?

[Justin Taylor]

I thought that the fully armour cataphract fought in close order and was a close combat type.

The half armoured cavalry, less well armoured for both horse and rider and in that case the horse armour was more protection against shooting.

I am sure that its all been covered in Slingshot.