View Full Version : cataphract?
been reading about the cataphract horsemen. i know who there based on [sarmatians]cataphractarius or[persians]clibanarius. but the name cataphract seems to mean to describe armoured infantry/elephants/ or other troops and the name refers to the armour not the units just a generic term to describe anything armoured or heavily armoured? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
The Wizard
12-11-2003, 23:11
When referring to 'cataphracts', people usually mean the heavily armed horses. But Sarmatian? Nay, the first true cataphracts could be found in Parthia...
you can see sarmatian cataphracts depicted on trajans column. the armour they wear owes more to artistic flair than the truth.the sagittari clibanari were modelled on sarmatian parthain and palmyran lancers and may have been fully armoured including there horses? but finds of horse armour have been very rare indeed by the 5th centurie the roman cavalryman had evolved into mainly an horse archer due to hunnic influence. but depending on which sources you base your information you arrive at differant conclusions?
one thing is certain the roman cavaryman compared to their asian/ european/ persian/ counterparts were totaly inferior. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The Wizard
12-12-2003, 14:39
Yes, they were inferior, but as support to the completely superior Roman legionaries, they were good
In the time of the decline of the Seleucid Empire, and the rise of Parthia, the 'knights' of the Parthians were the cataphracts.
I don't know if the Romans ever used cataphracts, but they certainly did use Gothic heavy cavalry... and only the East Roman Empire used horse archers to add to their shock cav... that's one of the reasons that the Eastern Empire survived, while the Western Empire fell.
kataphraktoi
12-12-2003, 18:12
The terms Cataphract and Clibanarii are often used synonymously indiscriminately. We can break down what they mean and come to our own conclusions:
Cataphract: isn't exclusively used to described armoured cavalry - it means armoured - eg. Nicephorus Uranus says that horses should be cataphract if possible. The composite conclusion is that a Cataphract denotes a well-armoured warrior - and mount - but to a certain extent and that could mean well-armoured but not full armoured.
Clibanarii: "Oven boys" is more likely to refer to fully armoured wawrriors from head to toe. Consider the term
Klibanophori(resemblance?), a Byzantine heavy cavalry heavier than the Cataphract and often described as "super heavy cavalry" because of their weight. Whereas the Byzantine Cataphract (Kataphraktoi) is well-armoured with having the same kind of complete protection the Klibanophori enjoys.
On a demographic level: Cataphract is used to denote Western heavy cavalry and Clibanarii, Eastern heavy cavalry.
Hope it helps.
Methinks the Roman EMpire fell military due to the lack of good infantry: Adrianople was the massacre of good disciplined infantry...after that not much good infantry till the advent of professional infantry. Since poor infantry spelled Cavalry superiority, good infantry spelled twilight of cavalry dominance.
Can't wait for Cat/Clib watever in RTW
Leet Eriksson
12-13-2003, 01:28
am i the only one who thinks the kataphraktoi are incredibly underpowered in the game?
They should be able to handle any armoured knight,that includes chivalric/crusader and feudal knights,but not heavier cav like gothic knights or lancers.
kataphraktoi
12-13-2003, 06:23
I don't think they've made up their mind on what a Cataphract or Clibanarii because they['ve confused the two together and just cobbled up something that looks like heavy cavalry with an uncertainty of a teenager with pimples.
It spells modding time.........next year.
On a side note, at a point Rome did create two special corps of cataphracts:
- Ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum Cataphractata (fought in Dacia against the Alans and Sarmatians, in 159 AD)
- Ala I Nova Firma Miliaria Catafractaria (stationed in Arabia in 244 AD to contrast Arabs and Parthians)
Other interesting Roman special cavalry units of the same period:
- Ala I Ulpia Dromadarvorum Miliaria (camel mounted, 2nd century BC, stationed in the East)
- Ala Ulpia Contariorum Civium Romanorum (heavy lancers, similar to early royal knights. Created by Trajan.)
All this is after the game timeframe though... modders take note http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
just been looking something up regards cataphracts. the name seems to stem from cataphracta which used quiet a few times by vegitus to describe armour of any type whether worn by infantry/horses or elephants?.
also a descrption by ammianus describes completely armoured lancers as{cataphractari equites]. also looking at trajans column depicts fully armoured sarmatians?. while latter funeral of members of the equites cataphractarii pictavenses and equites cataphractarii ambianses shows armoured riders on unarmored horses hence the confusion.
Indeed, Trajan's column depicts fully armoured sarmatians, to be more exact the roxolans. You're talking probably about those that participated in Decebal's campaign from the winter of 101-102 south of Danube. They were lead by Susagus.
Their armour was so heavy, that when they crossed the frozen Danube the ice broke with them - many died this way - the rest were easy prey for the numerous roman auxiliary cavalry.
Quote[/b] (faisal @ Dec. 12 2003,18:28)]am i the only one who thinks the kataphraktoi are incredibly underpowered in the game?
They should be able to handle any armoured knight,that includes chivalric/crusader and feudal knights,but not heavier cav like gothic knights or lancers.
No, you're not alone in thinking that, Faisal. I too am surprised at how relatively weak they are, especially versus other heavy cavalry. In fact in my opinion, about the only unit I can think of that should even be able to take on the Kataphraktoi 1-on-1 at all are the Kwarazmiams (I love those guys ).
The Wizard
12-14-2003, 10:57
Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Dec. 13 2003,12:31)]Indeed, Trajan's column depicts fully armoured sarmatians, to be more exact the roxolans. You're talking probably about those that participated in Decebal's campaign from the winter of 101-102 south of Danube. They were lead by Susagus.
Their armour was so heavy, that when they crossed the frozen Danube the ice broke with them - many died this way - the rest were easy prey for the numerous roman auxiliary cavalry.
Yes, those were the 'later' Roxolani Sarmatians... their heavy horse was heavy indeed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
kataphraktoi
12-15-2003, 06:45
Wat would u guys prefer
Cat/Clib lancers or
Cst/Clib lancers who use a bow as well like Parthian and Sassanids.
The Wizard
12-15-2003, 13:19
Well, that is more exact for eastern civilisations... the nobles there learned to use both lance and bow when at war.
DemonArchangel
12-15-2003, 21:38
Lance and bow for some civilizations, just lance for others and bow only for others too.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.