D T Potts, "Cataphractus and kamandar: Some Thoughts on the Dynamic Evolution of Heavy Cavalry and Mounted Archers in Iran and Central Asia" (Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series/Volume 21, "2007") is available online at
http://archive.org/details/CataphractusAndKamandar-SomeThoughtsOnTheDynamicEvolutionOfHeavy (http://archive.org/details/CataphractusAndKamandar-SomeThoughtsOnTheDynamicEvolutionOfHeavy).
or
http://www.academia.edu/1898172/Potts_2012_-_Cataphractus_and_kamandar_BAI_21_ (http://www.academia.edu/1898172/Potts_2012_-_Cataphractus_and_kamandar_BAI_21_)
It's a useful summary of various hypotheses on the origins and development of the cataphract.
"He was equipped with a long spear, which was supported by a chain attached to the horse's neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse's thigh, so as to get the full force of the animal's weight into the spear-thrust"
I have not seen that stated before about a cataphract, has anyone else?
The article quotes Laufer as denying that horse archers are "true cavalry". I guess this reflects a 19C perception that the job of cavalry is to charge, while shooting people is the job of infantry and artillery?
I think that the attachment of the lance to the horse is based upon a passage of Heliodorus' Ethiopica. He describes a fictionalised battle between Persians and Ethiopians which has some elements of reality and some not. In the absence of corroborative evidence we have generally concluded that the linking of lance to horse is a fantasy, along with other ideas such as the currus drepanus.
if such items were accepted on the basis of a very low standard of proof we would be in for all sorts of wierdnesses including aircraft in Indian armies.
Roy
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on February 16, 2013, 09:03:27 AM
The article quotes Laufer as denying that horse archers are "true cavalry". I guess this reflects a 19C perception that the job of cavalry is to charge, while shooting people is the job of infantry and artillery?
Yes. What Laufer says is:
"Further, it is essential to grasp the fundamental fact of the difference between mounted archers and true cavalry, and the development of these two different arms and means of tactics among the Iranians. ... The description of Herodotus (IX, 49) leaves no doubt that the Persian horsemen fighting the Greeks were only a body of infantry mounted on horses and chiefly depending upon their bows, at which Herodotus expresses astonishment by remarking that, though horsemen, they used the bow; they were, accordingly, mounted archers."
Quote from: Mark G on February 16, 2013, 08:14:00 AM
"He was equipped with a long spear, which was supported by a chain attached to the horse's neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse's thigh, so as to get the full force of the animal's weight into the spear-thrust"
I have not seen that stated before about a cataphract, has anyone else?
Roy's right, it's from Heliodoros:
QuoteWhen the time of battle comes, he gives his horse the reins and spurs him with his heels and rides upon his enemies at full speed like a man made of iron or a statue fashioned with hammers. His great staff at its pointed end is tied with a cord to the horse's neck and the hinder end is made fast to its buttocks, so that in the conflict it does not yield but helps the horseman's hand, who does but guide the same aright. Thus it gives the greater blow and runs through every man it hits, and often carries away two men together pierced by one stroke.
http://www.elfinspell.com/HeliodorusBk9.html (http://www.elfinspell.com/HeliodorusBk9.html)
Whether it's correct or not is another matter. One theory is that Heliodorus misunderstood some sort of carrying-strap for the lance.