SoA Forums

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


no doubt others will add more.

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.

Quote from: Mark G on August 22, 2013, 03:11:21 PM
Zsimios (about who I can find nothing, but who apparently mentions Palmyrene Cataphracts)

The name looks quite unclassical - typo for Zosimos/Zosimus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zosimus), conceivably?

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 22, 2013, 05:55:44 PM

Quote from: Mark G on August 22, 2013, 03:11:21 PM
Zsimios (about who I can find nothing, but who apparently mentions Palmyrene Cataphracts)

The name looks quite unclassical - typo for Zosimos/Zosimus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zosimus), conceivably?

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

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: Mark G on August 22, 2013, 03:25:08 PM

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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

QuoteTo 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?

QuoteThen, 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

Quoteexcept 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.

(http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/dura/dura-fVII26~01horseArmour.jpg)

the full set is understood to look like this

(http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/paintingcataphract.jpg)

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

Quote from: Mark G on August 23, 2013, 08:20:21 AM

But the important part there Patrick is

Quoteexcept 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.

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

Question:

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

Tom...

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

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?

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

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?

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.

Perhaps so - though Ammianus (XVI.10.8 ) uses the terms interchangeably with regard to Roman cavalry.

"And there marched on either side twin lines of infantrymen with shields and crests gleaming with glittering rays, clad in shining mail; and scattered among them were the full-armoured cavalry [catafractarii] (whom they call clibanarii)*, all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skilfully were the joinings made[/i]."

*cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)

At the battle of Argentoratum he similarly uses both terms for the same troop type.

"For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of-mail [clibanario], must hold bridle and shield in one hand and brandish his spear with the other, and would thus be able to do no harm to a soldier hidden in iron armour..." - Ammianus XVI.12.22

"Now that had happened for the reason that while the order of their lines was being re-established, the cavalry in coat-of-mail [cataphracti equites], seeing their leader slightly wounded and one of their companions slipping over the neck of his horse, which had collapsed under the weight of his armour, scattered in whatever direction they could ..." - ibid. XVI.12.38

It would seem that for Ammianus, the Roman cataphractus and clibanarius were one and the same.

Indeed you wonder how much faith to place in his works

QuoteHis work has suffered terribly from the manuscript transmission. Aside from the loss of the first thirteen books, the remaining eighteen are in many places corrupt and lacunose. The sole surviving manuscript from which almost every other is derived is a ninth-century Carolingian text, Vatican lat. 1873 (V), produced in Fulda from an insular exemplar

But obviously the transmission of his works is not his fault.

Indeed, it is a factor to bear in mind, though where he says:

"the cataphracti equites (whom they call clibanarii)"

[cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)]

it is hard to imagine even the dullest copyist mangling this.  The possibility of 'quos clibanarios dictitant' being a later insertion is of course one to consider, though the time frame is quite narrow as most of Ammianus' contemporaries were starting to write in Greek, and subsequent generations of scribes would probably neither know nor care about the difference.

the archaeologists perceive a clear difference also.

this (previously linked) is labelled as a Clib - and is from the same report as the Cat image posted earlier. 

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KPGgMS4nBJg/TLYjLb7BQ2I/AAAAAAAABMQ/lhuW6_bY7HQ/s1600/cataphractgraffito.gif)

I'm assuming that the definition has something along the lines of 'armour to the shoulder = cat, armour to the knee= clib'.

where that leaves the front armour only but to the feet, I'll pas for now.

of course, that may just be labelling by a non militarily interested type - Roy cited it as an example of a cat when we discussed images, and it is just grafitti.

Quote from: Mark G on August 30, 2013, 06:48:17 AM
the archaeologists perceive a clear difference also.

Though, from studying terms for later armour, modern commentators sometimes feel a need to classify arms and armour more than its original owners.

One theory I read somewhere had it (I think working from Ammianus) is that there was an official name (catafract) and a soldiers' slang name (clibanarius).  It used to be said - modern scholarship may have moved on - that the clib got his name from a word for oven, which would fit this theory.  However, this could all have been discredited by now.

which leaves us in the position of needing to look at whether there is any source evidence that we can use to make a conclusion.

I doubt I will find time, but trawling the slingshot CD(s) may bring some evidence to light via the cats / clibs debate from all those decades ago.

Those who read through Ammianus' XVI.10.8 description will have seen:

"And there marched on either side twin lines of infantrymen with shields and crests gleaming with glittering rays, clad in shining mail; and scattered among them were the full-armoured cavalry [catafractarii] (whom they call clibanarii), all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skilfully were the joinings made[/i]."

Quote from: Erpingham on August 30, 2013, 07:43:34 AM

One theory I read somewhere had it (I think working from Ammianus) is that there was an official name (catafract) and a soldiers' slang name (clibanarius).  It used to be said - modern scholarship may have moved on - that the clib got his name from a word for oven, which would fit this theory.  However, this could all have been discredited by now.

Actually that sounds sensible and may be about to be re-credited.  :)  Ammianus' 'cataphract called clibanarius' has his body and limbs entirely covered by armour, so he seems to have drawn no distinction on the basis of variability of coverage.

There is no distinction because it is only modern commentators such as us who need one.  An ancient source does not need to differentiate because they are the cavalry of his time and thus the people he writes for know what he means.
Ammianus could make sense if ALL armoured (man and horse) were Catafracti and some were clibanarii.
And Clibanarrii is official, at least there is a unit in the Notitia!
Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 30, 2013, 01:44:22 PM

And Clibanarrii is official, at least there is a unit in the Notitia!
Roy

No-one denies that clibinarius was at some point official terminology , the idea is to suggest a possible origin.  It is possible for soldiers names to become the official name over time.  Also, the Notitia is some time later than Ammianus (I don't know the latest theory, I'm afraid).  So, it is possible that in Ammianus' time, the two words described the same troop type but by the time of the Notitia, tactical or technical evolution may have seen the recognition of separate types.

If Ammianus was writing around AD 380 (his account cuts off in AD 378 with the battle of Adrianople), he predates the earliest possible date for the Notitia by 15 years.  However given the way the Notitia treats offices and appointments, not to mention troop dispositions, it looks as if it dates from a decade or so later (c.AD 405).

Interestingly, mentions of 'clibanarii' by Ammianius are confined to Book XVI, chapters 10 and 12 (one use each; two total).  He uses 'catafractarii' eleven times, twice in books XVI and XXV and once each in books XVIII, XIX, XX, XXII, XXIV, XXVIII and XXIX.  The latter was evidently the customary term during his time.

In the Anonymous Valesianus, considered to have been composed c.AD 550, cataphracts are referred to as 'equites ferrati', iron-clad cavalry, in the description of the battle of Cibalae (AD 314 or perhaps 316) between Licinus and Constantine.

is there anything tactically we can draw from that battle description?

that is the missing part here - more tactical descriptions of usage.

Good thinking, Mark.

The tactical description for Argentoratum goes:

"So, when the call to battle had been regularly given on both sides by the notes of the trumpeters, they began the fight with might and main; for a time missiles were hurled, and then the Germans, running forward with more haste than discretion, and wielding their weapons in their right hands, flew upon our cavalry squadrons; and as they gnashed their teeth hideously and raged beyond their usual manner, their flowing hair made a terrible sight, and a kind of madness shone from their eyes. Against them our soldiers resolutely protected their heads with the barriers of their shields, and with sword thrusts or by hurling darts [tela = missiles] threatened them with death and greatly terrified them." - Ammianus XVI.12.36

Cf. Arrian, Ars Tactica 39: "It is at this point that good horsemanship is especially needed to be able simultaneously to throw at those who are charging in and to give one's right hand side the protection of the shield."

The above passage looks like the German cavalry charging the Roman cavalry, who intriguingly do not use a lance but rather javelins and shield. 

To continue:

"And at this point in the battle the rider drew close to his companion, protecting his sides with the firmness of an infantryman and his front with an unbroken row of shields [parmis], thick clouds of dust arose as various movements occurred, our men now holding, now yielding as the most war-experienced among the enemy forced progress with the pressure of their knees, but with great determination [our men] mingled hand-to-hand [dexterae dexteris = literally 'right side to right side'] pushing shield-boss on shield-boss and the sky re-echoed with the shouts of the victors and the cries of the fallen."

It would seem that Julian's cataphracts at Argentoratum did not use the usual lance but rather the javelin and shield of the standard Roman equites.  They shot at approaching opponents and then engaged hand-to-hand.

Next we should examine the descriptions of cataphracts elsewhere in Ammianus.

i rather suspect that Ammianus  is referring to conventional Roman Scutarii cavalry and their shields and javelins.

Ammianus battle descriptions are very useful, but they are all partial and flawed and problematic if we want to use them as analytical descriptions . that is to say he is not Polybius or Caesar.

even those two paragons leave us puzzles as to what is going on in a battle. I would suggest that at Argentoratum we have a problem as to the composition of the Roman army and as to how it is laid out.
roy

This is of course possible; one wonders just how many of Julian's scarce cavalry were actual cataphracts.  Ammianus' excursus on the Germans' inability to harm a solidly mounted cataphract gives the impression they were the predominant cavalry type on the Roman side.

XVI.12.21-22 "And when (just as the above mentioned deserter had told us) they saw all our cavalry opposite them on the right flank, they put all their strongest cavalry forces on their left flank in close order. And among them here and there they intermingled skirmishers and light-armed infantry, as safe policy certainly demanded.

For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of-mail [clibanarius], must hold bridle and shield in one hand and brandish his spear with the other, and would thus be able to do no harm to a soldier hidden in iron armour; whereas the infantry soldier in the very hottest of the fight, when nothing is apt to be guarded against except what is straight before one, can creep about low and unseen, and by piercing a horse's side* throw its unsuspecting rider headlong, whereupon he can be slain with little trouble."

*latere forato iumenti = secretly pierce the beast of burden.  'Latere' can mean 'secretly' or 'in the side', and 'secretly' is on keeping with the furtive nature of the approach, while 'in the side' looks strange when we are considering an armoured horse.  The use of 'iumenti' for the cataphract's mount suggests a sturdier than usual animal.


When describing the course of the battle we get the same impression of cataphract predominance:

XVI.12.37: "And although our left wing, marching in close formation had driven back by main force the onrushing hordes of Germans and was advancing with shouts into the midst of the savages, our cavalry, which held the right wing, unexpectedly broke ranks and fled ..."

XVI.12.38: "... Now that had happened for the reason that while the order of their lines was being re-established, the cavalry in coat-of-mail [cataphracti], seeing their leader slightly wounded and one of their companions slipping over the neck of his horse, which had collapsed under the weight of his armour, scattered in whatever direction they could; they would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry under foot, had not the latter, who were packed close together and intertwined one with the other, held their ground without stirring. So, when Caesar had seen from a distance that the cavalry [equites] were looking for nothing except safety in flight, he spurred on his horse and held them back like a kind of barrier."

Ammianus seems not to differentiate between 'cataphracti' and 'equites'.  At the very least, his description implies the cataphracts were the majority cavalry type.

The next description, albeit a not especially helpful one, is from the siege of Amida: the cataphracts are Persian.

"And now through the zeal of all the preparations were completed, and as the morning star shone forth various kinds of siege-works were brought up, along with ironclad towers, on the high tops of which ballistae were placed, and drove off the defenders who were busy lower down. [3] And day was now dawning, when mail-clad soldiers [ferrea munimenta] underspread the entire heaven, and the dense forces moved forward, not as before in disorder, but led by the slow notes of the trumpets and with no one running forward, protected too by pent-houses and holding before them wicker hurdles. [4] But when their approach brought them within bowshot, though holding their shields before them the Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order, and almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark; even the mail-clad horsemen [cataphracti] were checked and gave ground, and thus increased the courage of our men." - Ammianus XIX.7

More Persian cataphracts in the next reference:

" On his first attack the king himself, with a troop of horsemen gleaming in full armour [cum agmine cataphractorum fulgentium] and himself towering above the rest, rode about the circuit of the camp, and with over-boldness advanced to the very edge of the trenches. But becoming the target of repeated missiles from the ballistae and of arrows, he was protected by a close array of shields placed side by side as in a tortoise-mantlet [densitate opertus armorum in modum testudinis contextorum], and got away unhurt. " - Amianus XX.7.2

Note that the Latin 'opertus armorum' indicates a covering of armour, and could simply mean that being surrounded by armoured men kept Sapor from harm.  Shields are not specifically mentioned, though the possibility is not excluded.

In the next description, Julian is facing a Persian army near Ctesiphon.

"The Persians opposed to us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen [cataphracti] in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horses was protected by coverings of leather." - Ammianus XXIV.6.8

Note the horses are described as having leather, not mail or scale, armour.  This may have been intended to provide protection against missiles, but would have been less effective against Roman pila, which may explain how the legionaries bested these opponents in the subsequent battle.  Ammianus does not list the armament carried by these cataphracts.

what I think we can take from there is

XVI.12.21-22  - further evidence of the vulnerability of cataphracts to anything other than to their front.

XVI.12.37 suggests that this tactic of sending foot skirmishers in with the German cavalry worked.  Those who have read Speidel will be thinking of horse stabbers, I suspect.

the iumenti reference is also interesting.

XVI.12.38 possibly reinforces the belief that mounted men at speed (running) will not make any impact on steady formed infantry - nor seek to try, depending on your views on these things.

Ammianus XXIV.6.8
again references a formation of cataphracts operating in very closed ranks.

The first and last are the most significant.

When you look back to 12.21-22 and the danger from allowing men to get between the horses, this makes perfect sense to see XXIV.6.8 as the simplest way to reduce the risk down to just the two very end horses. - insisting on absolute boot to boot formation when facing formed enemy.

This also stands in complete agreement with the descriptions from Plutarch on Carrhae - close formed and flank vulnerable.

In that respect, a clear example of the earlier and later cats having the same vulnerabilities and the same tactical solution to ensure tight formation
- which we know from horse tactics through the ages, starts out with slow charges or walks to ensure the formation is preserved, and takes many years of development and training before the same formation is able to achieve this with speed - not until one side becomes so consistently defeated at a slow attack do they attempt to remedy this by charging in formation at speed, as the insistence of formation is always the most important thing.

The difference between earlier and later here is that we do have examples of later cats charging at speed - which we do not have from the earlier period (and hence my supposition there is a difference at that level),
one which I think we can logically ascribe to technical changes to the horse equipment and the development of a formalised courtly nobility equipped as cataphracts - which does not exist, and was not as evident under the Parthians.

BTW, is there a better name for the horsemen who only have armour on their front half - but down to the feet of the horse?  these are clearly not what Ammianus means here when he does use the term Clibanarii.

Quote from: Mark G on September 02, 2013, 07:37:18 AM

BTW, is there a better name for the horsemen who only have armour on their front half - but down to the feet of the horse?  these are clearly not what Ammianus means here when he does use the term Clibanarii.

Do we know that they had a separate name or existed in separate units?  Is it possible that contemporaries called them less-well armoured cataphracts (or clibanarii).  From the above examples, Ammianus seems not to distinguish by name between cataphracts with metal-armoured horses and those with leather armour.

I cannot see how there could not be a different name for them.

There seems to be no description of this type in Ammianus: I give his remaining cataphract references (omitting the one about the crocodile).

XXV.3.4 "While he was hastening to restore order there without regard to his own peril, a Parthian band of mailed cavalry [cataphractorum Parthicus globus = a tight formation of Persian cataphracts] on another side attacked the centre companies, and quickly overflowed the left wing, which gave way, since our men could hardly endure the smell and trumpeting of the elephants, they were trying to end the battle with pikes and volleys of arrows [contis et multiplicatis missilibus]."

'Parthian' here means 'Persian': old habits died hard.  This is the battle in which Julian forgets or omits to put on his armour.  The 'contis' are not pikes but lances, which we would expect cataphracts to carry.  More interesting is where the many missiles are coming from: elephants, supporting archers or the cataphracts themselves - Ammianus gives the latter impression.

The action continues:

"But while the emperor rushed hither and thither amid the foremost ranks of the combatants, our light-armed forces [succinctior armatura = prepared troops] leaped forth against them and hacked at the legs [suffragines = hams, hocks] and backs of the Persians, and those of the elephants."

It appears that Julian had arranged for specially detailed troops to do a bit of hamstringing.  It is possible the Persian mounts were unprotected from the rear, or that their leather protection was not proof against close-quarter combat.

Following Julian's death in battle, the Roman army retreated.

XXV.6.2 "But when we accordingly were just beginning to leave, the Persians attacked us, with the elephants in front. By the unapproachable and frightful stench of these brutes horses and men were at first thrown into confusion, but the Joviani and Herculiani, 2 after killing a few of the beasts, bravely resisted the mail clad horsemen [cataphracti equites]. [3] Then the legions of the Jovii and the Victores came to the aid of their struggling companions and slew two elephants, along with a considerable number of the enemy."

Yet another fight between Persian cataphracts and Roman infantry ends in favour of the latter after an initial elephant fracas.

Back to the western front.  In XXV.5.6 Roman forces are trying to ambush an army of raiding Saxons, get it wrong and are saved by some cataphracts.

XXV.5.6 "For, excited by the sound of the approaching Saxons, some of our men rushed out before the proper time; on their sudden appearance the savages raised terrible howls, and while the Romans were hastening to steady themselves, they were put to flight. Presently, however, they halted and massed themselves together, and as their dangerous plight gave them strength (though somewhat impaired), they were forced to fight; but after suffering great losses they were routed and would have perished to a man, had not a troop of mail-clad horsemen [cataphracti], which had been similarly stationed on another side, near a byway, to cause danger to the savages as they passed by, been aroused by their cries of terror, and quickly come to their aid."

This tells us little except that cataphracti are still in use as of AD 369-370.

Back to the eastern front.

XXIX.1.1 "At the end of the winter Sapor, king of the Persian nations, made immoderately arrogant by the confidence inspired by his former battles, having filled up the number of his army and greatly strengthened it, had sent his mailed horsemen [cataphracti], archers, and mercenary soldiers [plebem = masses, not mercenaries] to invade our territories."

And cataphracts were still in use among the Persians as the majority heavy cavalry type, perhaps even the majority cavalry type, as of AD 371.

Conclusions - while it is possible that Ammianus may be simplifying, we seem to have cataphracts, undifferentiated from clibanarii, as a main Roman and principal Persian cavalry type.  The Persians carry 'conti', lances, and seem also to use missiles, unless Ammianus is referring to a contribution made by supporting archers.  The Roman cataphracts are less well described, except at Argentoratum, where the impression one gains is that they used the standard javelin/shield/sword combination of standard Roman cavalry (equites).  Whether this would be true of Roman cataphracts in an eastern army is less clear.

Does the Latin original of the last quotation allow us to tell whether those archers are on foot or horse? It occurs to me that if they're horse archers, that army sounds distinctly, well, Parthian.

Ammianus has Sapor command an army of "cataphractos et sagittarios et conductam miserat plebem" - cataphracts, archers (not differentiated between foot and horse; conceivably both or either, although the earlier Roman trick of accelerating infantry as they approach archers* would presumably not work against the mounted variety) and massed, mobilised lower orders.

*XXIV.6.11: "... the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks."

This is from the battle near Ctesiphon, where Ammianus gives Persian dispositions as:

"[The cavalry] was backed up by companies of infantry [in subsidiis manipuli locati sunt peditum = contingents of infantry were in reserve/support], who, protected by oblong, curved shields covered with wickerwork and raw hides, advanced in very close order. Behind these were elephants, looking like walking hills, and, by the movements of their enormous bodies, they threatened destruction to all who came near them, dreaded as they were from past experience."

One does wonder if these infantry would be the 'sagittarii', the speed and direction of Julian's invasion presumably having made it impossible to assemble the 'lower orders' as yet during the campaign.  In this engagement, the Persian cavalry contingent seems to be all cataphracts, if we take literally Ammianus' description:

"The Persians opposed to us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horses was protected [equorum multitudine omni defensa] by coverings of leather." - Ammianus XXIV.6.8

In Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (4th), of the few illustrations of armoured horses.

the Cataphract horse is taken directly from Dura (see above)

and the two identified as clibanarii are both half armoured - one with and one without stirrups.

the stirrup less clib is Sassanid, and the stirruped one is byzantine.

Which I suspect is where my vague notion that Clibs were half armoured came from originally, just as I suspect Ammianus etc. are where Roys belief that there is no difference between clibs and cats came from.

the text on the riders is interesting too, suggesting a clear functional difference between clibs and cats in later Sassanid armies, but I'm out of time, someone else will have to post.

I don't believe that AEIR's depictions represent Phil Barker's current thinking - certainly, 4th century clibanarii and cataphracts are treated identically in his current rules (close order unshielded lancers with full armour for man and horse - SHC, L in old WRG-speak). I dropped out of Ancients for about 15 years so am unaware of what prompted the rethink.   

I've a vague recollection of the clibinarii/cataphract debate from Slinghots of the early 1980s so you'll probably find something on the CD. At that time Phil (naturally) defended the AEIR reconstruction on the basis that clibanarii have a shield pattern listed in the Notitia Dignitatum; as SHC in those days didn't have shields then he assumed lighter armour for the clibinarii and extrapolated backwards from 7th century Byzantine gear. However that equipment is now believed to have derived from Avar practice so late Roman half-armour barding is something of a red herring.

Regards
Mick

interesting.

from memory of earlier, the Sassanid rider text I referred to has the Clibs (half armoured) on the flanks of the cats (full armoured) as a standard tactical deployment.

Have we any evidence either way on that?

The shielded or not aspect is a bit pointless, I think - rules no longer differentiate that, not would they particularly care about whether a rider had his face covered or not as they did in the old WRG days
- but if there is a clear tactical deployment, it would certain fit with the direction this thread is going

- namely, that there was a difference in usage - and that it may come down to the ability of the half armoured men to defend to their flank better, and wheel and move faster than their fuller armoured cousins.

I think I am right in saying that DBMM does not really reflect a difference between the two types of cavalry when caught to their flank, so in that respect, Phil would have no need to differentiate between them. 
Alternatively, he may have concluded that Clibs and Cats are the same, which then just leaves the question of what he thinks about half or full armoured horses.

half cats, anyone?

From memory, he now believes the two to be identical in both role and equipment (and wearing full horse armour; I don't think there's any pre-Avar evidence for half-armour). IIRC his current thinking on the topic is outlined in his note to the DBMM Late Roman army list but I don't have it to hand. I'll check this evening.

BTW isn't the half-armoured Sassanid clibanarius itself now somewhat discredited, at least as being standard equipment in any way? AFAIK it appears in only one relief, and that of a king who had spent time in Byzantium so may simply be reflecting his own individual preference. 

Regards
Mick

Could be, but if so, where did Phil get the idea that there was a tactical employment to them from when he wrote AEIR

and what about the Byzantine ones?

Given that he doesn't provide references in the book you'd need to ask him. But the latest edition of AEIR dates from around 1980, reflecting 1970s research, so his thinking has probably moved on. 

By Byzantine, do you mean the post-Avar half-armoured lance/bow chaps or the more extensively armoured Klibanphoroi of the 10th century who I believe _did_ have a distinct tactical role as a battering ram in the centre of the line, flanked by conventional cavalry?

Regards
Mick

Quote from: Mark G on September 03, 2013, 12:45:32 PM
Could be, but if so, where did Phil get the idea that there was a tactical employment to them from when he wrote AEIR

Knowing Phil Barker only by reputation, it is very unlikely he just made it up.  It will have come from his research but, because he was always reluctant to reference his stuff, it is hard to know where.  It is probably an interpretation of a primary source (Roman, Byzantine or Sassanian) but as we know from threads like this one, without the source it is hard to say whether the interpretation is correct.  I would be concerned that the original refers only to non-cataphract cavalry being placed on the flanks, which sounds something like Mick's reference to Byzantine manuals - maybe a place to start a search?

the tactical role o
fir Byzantine tenth century cataphracts  (Nikephorians) is from a Byzantine manual of the time. i think its nikephoros Ouranos, but don't cite me on that. i have it on the shelves nd ould look if i matters a lot. i recall they were to be deployed in wedge for line breaking and that is dirt of ow thy are used against the Rus at Dorostolon. I remember that is in Leo the Deacon.
The late Byzantine manuals describe troops that are called menaulotoi who are specific anti cataphract spearmen with stout pears. that implies that the Byz Arab enmies have Cats too and in the first Cusade there are troops called Agulanoi, armoured men on armoured horses who wield maces.
However, i doubt that Parthian or Sasanian cataphracts are designed to take out lose order infantry. It is much more likely that theirprimary ole is to combat horse archers and that would mean that the armour was inportant, but they don't necessarily form up lose and may ell move quite rapidly on the battlefield.
That makes them analogous to later steppe cavalry with barded horses, who wold look to push back horse archers by a rapid advance.
roy

On those Byzantines.

Is there any evidence that they had a half cat (armour at the front, nothing at the back of the horse)?

If there is doubt about the Sassanid provenance, and little to support the Byzantines either, it closes off a large part of the cats / clibs conundrum.

Byzantine types are out of my current horizon, so it is over to our Dark Ages experts for this one.

Byzantine half armour did exist. From memory, it's described in the Strategikon as based on Avar practice so in use from the end of the 6th century.

I did check the DBMM list notes on Roman catphracts BTW: summarising, the current view is that the original Roman cataphracts were armoured lancers on unarmoured horses. More heavily armoured men on armoured horses were called clibanarii. The original cataphract units were wiped out at the Milvian Bridge; when re-raised later they were equipped as clibanarii.   

I'm simply stating what the notes say and don't know where that view originates. Perhaps the Slingshot archive might help?

Regards
Mick

it would be nice to compile that strategikon source here, if anyone has the faintest idea where it is within the text.

its in the section on cavalry equipment Mark. I can give chapter and verse in a day or two whaen I am back home.
At present I am in an hotel in Berwick , having just come back from a guided battlefield walk of Flodden which has its 500th anniversary today.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on September 09, 2013, 07:00:58 PM
At present I am in an hotel in Berwick , having just come back from a guided battlefield walk of Flodden which has its 500th anniversary today.
Roy

Hope you had good weather for it.

Quote from: Mark G on September 09, 2013, 02:05:39 PM
it would be nice to compile that strategikon source here, if anyone has the faintest idea where it is within the text.

Individual equipment is discussed in Book I, §2. Acc'd to Dennis's translation:

QuoteThe horses, especially those of officers and the other special troops, especially those in the front ranks of the battle line, should have protective pieces of iron armor about their heads and breast plates of iron or felt, or else breast and neck coverings such as the Avars use.

Of the Avars themselves (Book XI, §2) we learn:

QuoteNot only do they wear armor themselves, but in addition the horses of their illustrious men are covered in front with iron or felt.

So frontal (only) armour seems secure enough, but details are distinctly sparse. No idea if there's archaeological evidence to tell us more. Note that there appears to be two styles of frontal horse armour - that used by the Avars and some Roman/Byzantine troops, and another one used by other Roman/Byzantine troops.

Yes, the weather was sunny with some cloud. The tour and talkwas given  by Clive Hallam-Baker.
All very good. one cannot beat seeing a battle on the ground , thogh we should be aware that lan use changes. Clearly James was outwitted and payed a poor tactical hand. mind you, when you have 50% more men than our opponent and your chaps are well motivated that hardly counsels caution.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on September 10, 2013, 11:55:31 PMClearly James was outwitted and payed a poor tactical hand. mind you, when you have 50% more men than our opponent and your chaps are well motivated that hardly counsels caution.

To read some Scottish historians, you'd think that it was a foregone conclusion that the Scots should win and somehow James threw this away.  Both underestimates the problems the Scots had and the English ability to adapt to the circumstances as the battle developed, I feel.  However, that's another topic  :)

Meanwhile, back in Byzantium .....

On Flodden, you would not believe some of the sub-Nigel Trantor gibberish which made the papers here about it.

'it was the foreign French pikes which got in the way' - really?  will you be arguing that whirling a kilt above your head could deflect a longbow shaft too?

But the most noticeable thing about Flodden this year is that because it is not a 'great victory', there is a huge part of Scottish society which wants to pretend the battle never happened - I don't need to point out the glaring omission of attendance at the ceremony to anyone who cares to look, and the minimal coverage it got.  Even though it was at least as important - if no more so - to Scots history than Bruce (who used that victory to invade Ireland ! )

but we digress

on Cats

the two rules which I have best access to offer differing interpretations of cataphracts and clibinarii.

Armati treats clibanarii differently from cats

Clibs, where identified are full movement cavalry (HC) , fighting value (FV) 5 and +2 protection,

whilst cats are more varied ranging from the reduced movement (CAT), fighting value (FV) 6 and +3 protection, to the full movement cavalry (HC) (FV) 5 and +2 (or even +1 for some sassanids) protection

that is, cataphracts can be a name applied to a range of armoured cavalry, but is usually applied to a specific troop type (CAT) , whilst Clibs applies to two specific things which do not match that specific CAT troop type at all

e.g.

Sarmatian Cataphracts - CAT (FV) 5 +2
Parthian / Palmyran / Armenian Cataphracts - CAT (FV) 6 +3

Late Roman (West or East) cataphracts - CAT (FV) 6 +3
Late Roman (East) Clinanarii - HC (FV) 5 +2

Bellisuaurian Kataphractoi - HC (FV) 5 +2

Sassanid Cataphracts - CAT (FV) 6 +3
Sasanid Clibanarii - HC (FV) 5 +2

Nikephorian Kataphractoi - CAT (FV) 6 +3
11th century Byzantine Kataphractoi - CAT (FV) 6 +3


Avar Nobles are identical to both the earlier Bellisaurian Kataphractoi and the Sassanid Clibanarii

where both cats and clibs are in the same list, the clibs are faster but weaker and less armoured.


DBMM

they are all knights class, not cavalry,
but the clibanarii are bracketed with sarmatians (or companions) as KN (F) (or if mounted archer rear supports such as Byzantine Klibanophoroi - KN (I))

Full cats are close formation on fully armoured horses as Kn (X) - such as Parthians, Sassanids or Byzantine Klibanophoroi

de coding all the notes, I read that as identifying a difference between the close formed fully armoured cats (KN (X) and the hard charging fast Knights which are similar to the companions (KN (F)).

some list examples.

Sarmatian nobles - KN (F)
Parthian / Palmyran / Armenians - KN (X)

Late Imperial Roman  Catafractarii KN (F) (upgradable after 337 AD to (X))
Late Imperial and Patrician Roman Clibanarii KN (X)

Maurikian Byzantine Optimates Kn (F) - no Kataphractoi are identified by name but the troop type matches the Bellisaurian list

Sassanid Cataphracts KN (X)

Thematic Byzantine Kataphractoi - KN (I)
Nikephorian Byzantine Klibinaroi - KN (X)

Avars are regular cavalry (superior)

So DBMM, where it identifies Cats and Clib, seems to start out matching Armati (CAT = KN (X), and then swap the definitions around for the Romans and the later Byzantines.)

But still, they do differentiate them in the same list for the eastern romans.

I may get time to trawl through the slingshot archives for relevant bits from the old Cats CLibs debate there in the next week or two.

Quote from: Mark G on September 11, 2013, 09:41:21 AM

'it was the foreign French pikes which got in the way' - really?  will you be arguing that whirling a kilt above your head could deflect a longbow shaft too?

Then there is what we might call the 'Braveheart approach'  ;D - where is Mel Gibson when you really need him?

It may be safe to say that Byzantine half-armour was adopted from the Avars - at least we seem to have a general consensus on that point, which may even include Byzantine authors.  My question is this: before adopting Avar-influenced styles, can we find any difference between cataphracts and clibanarii in original sources?  Ammianus does not appear to distinguish between them.

Later (10th century AD) Byzantine armies keep their 'kataphraktoi' but start to add 'klibanophoroi', which wargame rule-writers evaluate as a tactically diferent and more heavily-armoured troop category.  Do we know the source information on which this is based?

I'm not sure where this thread is going, to be honest. We've a definition of cataphracts/clibinarii that tries to encompass armoured cavalry (with complete, partial or no horse armour) from Parthian armies of the 1st century BC to 11th century AD Byzantines and making generalisations on equipment and tactics based solely on a selective nomenclature, so Persians are included because the Romans called them clibs/cats, but we seem to be excluding Turks, Tibetans, Koreans and Chinese who are just as heavily armoured as the heaviest western/near eastern types.

I don't feel any more enlightened, I must confess.

Cheers
Mick

Re DBMM, note that the Kn (X) classification also covers some far eastern lance-bow-and-horse-armour cavalry, incl Tibetans, some Chinese and Korean heavies, and some nomad types. (Frankly, which of these become Kn (X), Kn (F), or Cv (S) seems at times pretty random to me. On my more heretical days I sometimes suspect they should all be Sipahi (S), but then again I'm dubiously qualified to be the judge of that.)

Otherwise I sort of agree with Mick. "Cataphract" basically just means "armoured (cavalry)", and I doubt we're entitled to take as a given that the troops so designated by classical and medieval authors were all more similar to one another than to other sorts of armoured cavalry.

Incidentally, do we have any clear examples of classical authors using "cataphract" to designate armoured riders on non-armoured horses?

we don't have enough information to say where we will end up, its still in the gathering phase.

but it looks to me like we have an end point, where a clib is a half armoured horse, and a cat is a full armoured one.

and a start point where a true cat is a fully armoured man and fully encompassed (hard) armoured horse.

and some variation in the middle
and some ancestry on the steppes involving the protection of the horse, rather than a true different troop type which I intend on not getting into.

I am suspecting that the term clib started as a nickname for cats, but became a recognised military term much later and was thus the basis for the later usage of the term clib - that there is a clear difference between these later fully armoured horses and half armoured horses in both equipment and useage, but that this was not the case in the middle periods, and that the two terms make sense to use to identify that differentiation - in the later period.

and so far, i've not see anything to make me abandon my early and middle cats theory.
nor to doubt that as horsemen, they were not noticeably slower - but equally, in the earlier period, were forced into a slower pace by the need to maintain formation.

as for the east, well someone who knows something about it needs to start saying something, since I have little interest in it and do not plan on bothering looking it up.

but none of it is clear enough to make any strong statements or conclusions yet.

as far as the term debate goes, its pretty minor, what really matters is identifying usage differences - hence my early middle period.  I think we do have agreement on the later period that half armoured and fully armoured are different and work differently - to which end the notes in dbmm were interesting to me.

When is your end point? By the 10th century, Klibanophoroi referred to men on fully armoured horses (probably textile, IIRC) whilst most Kataphraktoi rode unarmoured horses. 

I don't think there's any evidence that clibanarii ever referred to men on half-armoured horses. That was a hypothesis put forward by Phil Barker in the 1970s and he's changed his mind since then.

Rgds
Mick

   

Quote from: Mick Hession on September 11, 2013, 11:40:25 AM

I'm not sure where this thread is going, to be honest. We've a definition of cataphracts/clibinarii that tries to encompass armoured cavalry (with complete, partial or no horse armour) from Parthian armies of the 1st century BC to 11th century AD Byzantines and making generalisations on equipment and tactics based solely on a selective nomenclature, so Persians are included because the Romans called them clibs/cats, but we seem to be excluding Turks, Tibetans, Koreans and Chinese who are just as heavily armoured as the heaviest western/near eastern types.

That is because Tibetans, Koreans and Chinese do not appear in Greek and/or Roman sources and Turks are comparative latecomers to same.  ;)  One can always expand the topic to 'armoured cavalry' to consider them, but the initial aim of the thread seems to have been to try and establish what, if any, were the operative differences between the terms 'cataphracti' and 'clibanarii' within the context of the Near East and Roman Empire in the period c.200 BC to c.AD 400.

Quote from: Mick Hession on September 11, 2013, 06:19:44 PM
I don't think there's any evidence that clibanarii ever referred to men on half-armoured horses. That was a hypothesis put forward by Phil Barker in the 1970s and he's changed his mind since then.

I believe it was based on this (http://www.aryo.ir/gallery/kermanshah/taq_bostan/images/img_2767.jpg) sculpture showing Khosrau II on a half-armoured horse combined with the idea that the clibanarii were the archetypal Sassanid cavalry and the somewhat rash assumption that the king of kings would be shown with the gear of same.

Note BTW that AEIR doesn't say that clibanarii always meant men on half-armoured horses. On the contrary, it has early Sassanid clibanarii used complete horse armour, but of felt rather than the later metal. A relief is cited. Roman clibanarii are suggested to have been on part-armoured horses, but this is explicitly a conjecture based on the Sassanid analogy.

Thanks for the clarification Patrick. I was puzzled why Turks were excluded when later Byzantines, whose horse armour was based on Turkic models, were included in Mark's list. If the thread's objective is to understand _Roman_ cataphracts and clibinarii then I believe the Avar-based half-armour to be a red herring.

Cheers
Mick 

I would make some comments..

1)
"wargamers cataphracts" -
Fully armoured men on fully armoured horses; armed with long heavy two handed lances; in close order advancing at the trot.
These stem from Phil's thoughts decades ago that combine some Roman descriptions of the heaviest armed Armenian and Persian cavalry with the much later description of the tactics for a Byzantine unit of very heavily equipped cavalry used to break up infantry (the unit was, rather ironically, called Klibanophoroi ).  There is very little evidence of how the fully armoured cavalry contemporary to the classical powers fought, and most of it supports lance and bow 'steppe' style tactics.

2)
Greek and Roman writers using the term cataphract/kataphractoi...
Most authors simply used the term to mean 'armoured', no more no less.  The Victorian translators habitually used the term 'currasier' (which had almost exactly the same loose meaning in their day).  The term clibanarii is in some ways more specific (it's almost always used for cavalry), and in some ways less so (the 'baking oven' root is first used in a Roman comedy), and again not terribly useful.

3)
Armoured men on armoured horses pre-date the Persians and Romans. The normal armament 'East of Rome' is lance and bow, some illustrations show just lance and later (600CE onwards) sometimes a long sword and a small shield with a central grip replace the lance.

Don't forget the Tibetans.

i thought that the point of the original post was that Mark percieves a difference between cavalry who have heavy  horse armour and a long lance (and mostly no bow) and cavalry with horse armour and lance and bow and probably have either lighter felt and or leather armour or half armour. Let's call the heavy, lance only troops, type A and the lighter bow armed chaps type B. At one point there was a series of posts that suggested that type A moved slowly to the attack because of their heavy kit and that type B developed to protect the flanks of the As who were vulnerable to attack by lighter cavalry.

If  we were to say that Type A did not exist we would be wrong. Seleucid cataphracts and tenth century Byzantine cataphracts fit the definition of break-through cavalry in heavy armour, man and horse. Later Moghul cavalry would fit the definition of type B as their horse armour is light and flexible, their lances short and their bows prominent.
The debate has shown that there abre multiple variations on the cataphract and not just two types. the combination of armour for man and horse and weaponry of lance (long and short), sword, mace and bow has been tried in every permutation. 
Given these variations of kit and useage a challenge is thrown down to rulewriters, particularly those who create a number of classes of cavalry and give each class a movement rate, a protection level, a weapon effect and a prescriptive outcome when it wins or loses. Of course it is much easier for some of the earlier rules systems that simply provided a tariff  for armour, weaponry , speed  etc and then build each combination.
the difficulty that creating a named troop type with fixed attributes a la DB rules creates is exemplified by the debate, many years ago, about Parthian cataphracts and bows. Once the rulewriter had decided that they did not have bows and did have heavy armour they were fixed as a category despite much evidence to the contrary. at the time I thought that the defence of this category was just pig headed, but there is a deeper point which was that the system of categorisation at the heart of such rules (the Superior Light Horse or Knights Fast or Auxilia X type definitions) relies upon  crunching troops' abilities into broad categories and once you unpick one you oPen the door to debate on all. i am sure that the rules writers who use such categories fully understand that they are doing a violence to the evidence by clumping together warriors who could easily have been included in other definitions. In order to get  simplicity evidence has to be either ignored or interpreted in a way that fits the rules rather than the facts as others see them.
To return to the cataphracts point, i just do not see why the breakthrough type cataphracts who have armour  and long lances or maces are categorised as moving slowly. Is there any actual evidence for this rather than the compelling myth in a rulesmith's mind that  men in heavy, clumsy armour on metal armoured horses must move slowly?
Roy

Quote from: Mick Hession on September 11, 2013, 09:33:03 PM
Thanks for the clarification Patrick. I was puzzled why Turks were excluded when later Byzantines, whose horse armour was based on Turkic models, were included in Mark's list. If the thread's objective is to understand _Roman_ cataphracts and clibinarii then I believe the Avar-based half-armour to be a red herring.

Cheers
Mick

Yes, the focus has wandered slightly and I think Roy's post puts it back in perspective: he has reminded us that the supplementary question at the start of the thread was whether in Near Eastern armies of the Hellenistic-Roman period there was a slow-moving tight-formed cataphract lancer type or whether, as Tom indicates, the evidence points in the direction of such fully-armoured types operating essentially like normal cavalry but with the advantage of greater protection.

yes, that works much better as a summation.

I allowed myself to get wildly distracted, which never helps - but I learned a good bit in the process, which does.

ps. nice to see you at a proper keyboard again Roy, whatever mobility device you are using, its auto correct has played merry havoc on whatever it was you had attempted to communicate over recent weeks.

As for your question - which is a central one.

what we have is some evidence from Carrhae of Cataphracts which
retain a very close formation
successfully receive a mounted charge at a halt,
and which are used to direct rather than to shatter formed infantry (into the attack of Parthian Horse Archers) - that is, which use steady pressure rather than an impact charge.
but we also have them being able to generate a fearsome charge on men which have broken formation - which to me is evidence that individually, cats could charge like cavalry, but when acting in formation they did not.

which raises the question of why not when in formation - to which the answer I find (so far) is in their extreme vulnerability to the flanks and to men who get in between the horses - for which Ammianus gives a good example of how the horseman is vulnerable to a footman inside his lance.

We also have zosimos describing cats which are tired by being tricked into charging cavalry which evade repeatedly.  no indication these are light horse either - which again suggests that the targets looked like something the cats could catch - but that they only had a very small distance of speed before having to pull up, and a lack of endurance compared with normal cavalry.

We also deconstructed Magnesia to find that the evidence of a cataphract charge there is a lot less solid than it appears - with the infantry running as their flank was threatened, and the cats following up, rather than the cats making the charge.
we also have the cause of this rout being the defeat of the Roman cavalry first.

so that is a lot of evidence of the cats having to remain in a tight close formation which precludes charging at speed as a group, but not as individuals.

Contra those examples of slow cataphracts we have Sarmatians who clearly charge fast and yet have such heavy armour that they are useless on foot and do also have horse armour. IIRC the description of catphracts in Heliodorus has them charging. Perhaps someone could remind us of the description of the battle where the Armenian cataphracts fight the Romans.
Roy

More random thoughts...

Roy, only some Moghul cavalry had short lances  14-16 ft is the average for surviving lances from the period.

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. But on the other hand we have Chinese and Mongol accounts of cavalry 'dancing' (skirmishing in modern gamer speak) then forming up in close order to attack at a full gallop.

On the side of the 'wargamer cataphract' there are the crusade period references (several but separate) to, smallish, units of ghilman who form up in close order for specific attacks.  I wonder if it's more of a tactic used by heavy cavalry that a troop type as such.

Tom..

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.

Tom, i was working from artistic representations of Moghul cavalry which I recall as generally short, though some Persian school ones are indeed long.

Mark, I am intrigued by your trotting argument. is there any proof that a lance of say 12 ft long is unmanageable at speeds lower than a gallop, particularly when held n both hands?

Byzantine cavalry with long lances are epected to charge, i rather doubt that they do this at the gallop because that would lead to a dangerous loss of cohesion.

Quote from: Mark G on September 13, 2013, 08:55:16 AM
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.

So far I would prefer to see Cataphracts as having a range of tactics and as not having to be slower on the tabletop than other heavy cavalry. Looking at the Dura cataphract on the horse it does not look that heavy or restrictive. I looked again at Carrhae and the action against Publius can be seen as him attacking a stationary line, but that might just be sensible Parthian tactics at that point in the battle.  The horse archers wheel away leaving the Gallic cavalry facing the Cataphract line. Perhaps aving it move forward would have compromised the horse archers evade?

Quote from: tadamson on September 12, 2013, 09:45:56 PM

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.)

It may even be that speed of advance is determined more by the extent and quality of training than by equipment and/or closeness of formation.

One set of engagements we may wish to look at is Constantine against Maxentius, because this is one of the cases which is generally understood to be cataphracts being tempted into a charge by lighter cavalry and defeated in detail, or disorder, or both.

First there was the battle at Turin (AD 312), and I am still looking for the original account of this action - anyone please feel free to quote it.  All I have found at present is the Wikipedia article stating that Constantine equipped his cavalry with iron-topped clubs (maces?) for dealing with the opposing cavalry.

Zosimus' account of the crucial battle at the Milvian Bridge (also AD 312) goes thus:

"And the two armies being drawn up opposite to each other, Constantine sent his cavalry against that of the enemy, whom they charged with such impetuosity that they threw them into disorder. The signal being given to the infantry, they likewise marched in good order towards the enemy. A furious battle having commenced, the Romans themselves, and their foreign allies, were unwilling to risk their lives, as they wished for deliverance from the bitter tyranny with which they were burdened; though the other troops were slain in great numbers, being either trod to death by the horse, or killed by the foot.

As long as the cavalry kept their ground, Maxentius retained some hopes, but when they gave way, he fled with the rest over the bridge into the city. The beams not being strong enough to bear so great a weight, they broke; and Maxentius, with the others, was carried with the stream down the river." - Zosimus II.44

Curiously, there is nothing about tempting Maxentius' cataphracts out of position, only 'charging them with such impetuosity that they threw them into disorder'.  Presumably Constantine's cavalry had retained their concussion weapons from their earlier battles and used these to good effect to neutralise their opponents' advantage in armour.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 13, 2013, 12:55:32 PM
It may even be that speed of advance is determined more by the extent and quality of training than by equipment and/or closeness of formation.

Later experience certainly suggests so. Frederick the Great found that long training was needed to get his cavalry to charge in line at the gallop, and they were very lightly equipped by cataphract standards.

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.

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...

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?

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 13, 2013, 10:04:58 AM

Quote from: tadamson on September 12, 2013, 09:45:56 PM

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"

Quote from: Mark G on September 13, 2013, 08:55:16 AM
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.

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

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 27, 2014, 12:03:01 AM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 13, 2013, 10:04:58 AM
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.

Quote from: andrew881runner on August 26, 2014, 11:42:14 PM
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.

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)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 27, 2014, 12:21:52 PMI 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.

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
.

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?

Quote from: aligern on August 27, 2014, 04:58:47 PM

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 (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/dynastiesandkingslists/a/061409ParthianKings.htm).  Has he an alter ego, perhaps?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 27, 2014, 10:42:31 PM
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.

QuoteDo 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.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 27, 2014, 11:25:31 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 27, 2014, 10:42:31 PM
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.

Quote
... 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.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 28, 2014, 12:02:43 PM
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.

QuoteA 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).

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 28, 2014, 01:28:10 PM

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).

That seems eminently reasonable, and I would be content for it to be the last word in the matter given our present state - or lack - of knowledge.

I created a thread on RAT several years ago which may prove of some use in this necromantically raised thread!

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/278996-the-arms-equipment-and-impact-of-late-roman-clibanarii.html?limitstart=0&start=75