New Unit at the .com

[biguth dickuth]

We already knew how they looked like so no surprises this time.
I do wish they looked more "partian" and less like sassanid persians of 500AD, though.

[The_Emperor]

Just what we expect from the people of .COM "Lets vote for a unit we have already seen" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[shingenmitch2]

They gave them shields...

half the point of all that armor is that they didn't need shields to weild their lances w2 friggin hands.

---------
This is totally frustrating. This COULD BE the greatest ancient warfare game ever. It will still be far better than anything out there now, but it won't come close to its full potential.

-------

Dr.E: I want sharks with frikkin laser beams... is that too much to ask?
No.2: ... well we had to cut back a little.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ July 02 2004,12:01)]They gave them shields...

half the point of all that armor is that they didn't need shields to weild their lances w2 friggin hands.

---------
This is totally frustrating. This COULD BE the greatest ancient warfare game ever. It will still be far better than anything out there now, but it won't come close to its full potential.

-------

Dr.E: I want sharks with frikkin laser beams... is that too much to ask?
No.2: ... well we had to cut back a little.
They gave them those ugly octagonal shields, which leads me to believe that this is actually an older version of the Parthian Cataphract model.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ July 02 2004,11:13)]They gave them those ugly octagonal shields, which leads me to believe that this is actually an older version of the Parthian Cataphract model.
I'm not so sure - this could be some stylistic statement - you know the Octagonal shields are "different" - so that means Eastern.

Time will tell.

Barkhorn.

[kataphraktoi]

Quote[/b] ]I do wish they looked more "partian" and less like sassanid persians of 500AD, though.

It is Parthian, have u seen a Sassanid Cataphract around AD 500? That Parthian Cataphract that u see at the .com is based on a graffiti found in Dura Europos and precedes the Sassanid period.

It is quite accurate, the Cataphract did carry shields but they were sometimes based on personal taste than uniform requiremtnt.

Wiz did mention he did some research into Parthians, perhaps he can drop a line or two.

Don't need to distort the historically accurate Parthian Cataphract to make it cool. It is cool.

[Steppe Merc]

I like, it, looks like the stuff from my Osprey books about it. Do wish they didn't have a shield, so they could use their lance with two hands, as stated before, but if CA can't even get the pikemen to use two hands, I doubt they'd give the Sarmatians and Parthians two handed lances. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif All together, good job, and this desserved it far more than the 'Spanish' Longsheilds men http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[The Wizard]

This unit could've been perfect, but there are some choice, and very important, mistakes.

Let's break it down.


Outfit.
The helmet is nice, but full aventails were almost surely not used until well after the beginning of our year in eastern armies. Lamellar was something that the Armenians and Parthians used (the Armenians used it more often), but not in the timeframe of RTW, for all archeological and contemporary historical evidence we have point to laminated armor or scale mail.

Is that chain mail? Some contemporary historians (as well as modern ones) attribute the quick victory of the founder of the Sassanian dynasty of Persia, Ardeshir, to the fact that his heavy cavalry wore chainmail, and not lamellar and/or scale like the Parthians.

The laminated armguards and 'chaps' (lacking another word) are good stuff, and so is the horse armor, although I msut stress the fact that a lot of the Parthian cataphracts did not have this horse armor, for their (read: the riders) own equipment was expensive enough.

But a shield? As far as I know shields were definately not part of the equipment of any Parthian or Persian cataphract, ever (realizing the fact that the 'shields' used by the Sassanians later on were strapped on to defend against arrows and not used against blows from a weapon).

Also, is that a mace or a sword? Maces were weapons used besides swords by the Sassanid Persians, but as far as we know Parthians preferred Skythian-style long swords.

All in all, a worthy effort, but flaws (the lamellar and full aventail are acceptable) like the shield make it fall slightly short, regarding outfit.


Description.
This, unfortunately, is crap. Iberian bullcrap. Cataphracts were not knights, they did not possess the saddle and the technique to break formations apart, unless these are extremely weakened. Cataphracts don't "turn battles with one thunderous charge". In fact, they charge at an ambling pace, not because their chargers cannot take anything more, but because a charge at full gallop would have thrown them off their horses because of the uncompromising position they had when using their kontoi two-handedly and the fact that their type of saddle did not allow for such a position to be used at a high-velocity impact (experts on Skythian saddles and horsemanship should verify this thesis of mine).

In fact, as I have mentioned before, Parthian cataphracts usually 'charged' at enemy formations to scare them into closing ranks, so that they were easier targets for the horse archers who rode in support of the cataphracts.

In fact, at several key examples (like the battle of Taurus in 39 BC), the cataphracts were fought to a standstill by the Roman cohorts because they had no support from the horse archery. So they do not break formations with their crushing charge, they only destroy other cavalry and threaten.

Close, but not quite close enough.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, according to Osprey, after a long time of horse archery, when the cataphracts came after them, they ended up just running away.
And yes, that is a mace. About the horse armour, in Osprey they had almost full armour around 1 BC, but I've never seen horse armour cover the rump of a horse (you'd think it'd get awfully dirty quick like).

[The Wizard]

Well, there is no evidence of Parthians using lamellar, but since the Armenians seem to have used it later on, it is acceptable to assume that Parthians used it too.

But lamellar only came in sway with the Parthians, the Armenians, and (later) the Sassanid Persians in the later period of their empires, not in the timespan of RTW.

In the timespan of RTW, Parthian and Armenian (in the first century BC) cataphracts were usually not armoured fully (in the first century BC that was more common, yes), and their turn-out consisted of scale mail made from horn, iron, or bronze, leather tabards, laminated or scale armguards and chaps, and helmets of various shapes and sizes.



~Wiz

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It seems forming wedge is a special ability? Interesting...

[Basileus]

they look even more armored then the catprhact in mtw hehe, looks good though

[longjohn2]

Not sure why this guy has a shield. The ones in the game don't anymore.

As for their charge, I'd point out that Seleucid cataphracts did ride down a legion at Magnesia, and the Parthians certainly thought it worth a go against later legionaries. The fact that they couldn't break the finest infantry of their time means little. Medieval knights couldn't ride down quality infantry (i.e. dismounted knights) either.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Quote[/b] ]Not sure why this guy has a shield. The ones in the game don't anymore.

Well, that and the disclaimer right above the units link in the home page at the .com have restored my faith (or at least enough of it) in CA.

Thank you, longjohn2 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Steppe Merc]

Thanks for that longjohn

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Well, I was going to agree with Parthian/Persian (Achmenid & Sassanian) specialist Wiz, but longjohn2 has advanced to relieve my concerns. Although it seems CA's webmaster is a little clumsy to get an ancient image in the new units release page. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (longjohn2 @ July 02 2004,21:24)]Not sure why this guy has a shield. The ones in the game don't anymore.

As for their charge, I'd point out that Seleucid cataphracts did ride down a legion at Magnesia, and the Parthians certainly thought it worth a go against later legionaries. The fact that they couldn't break the finest infantry of their time means little. Medieval knights couldn't ride down quality infantry (i.e. dismounted knights) either.
That's good to hear, thanks for your rapid reply. It's very commendable that CA still continues to provide information for the public, even when the latter is critical and angry at the product you are making. Bravo

Seleucid cataphracts ...? I would think that Seleucids, being Successors, would not have cataphracts but Companions (or at least a weakened version of what some historians now call the 'greatest cavalry of all times'). They couldn't have been Parthian mercenaries since Parthia had been subdued by Antiochus III.

About the Parthians finding it worth a go, of course they did. They were nobility and therefore (at the least) confident in their own skills as warriors. At Taurus (the finest example of a well-fought Partho-Roman encounter on the field in RTW's time scheme, when Parthia was at the height of its power), cataphracts found themselves unable to break the Roman cohorts on rising ground, because massed slingers held their support, the horse archers, at bay. Given, they weren't attacking the cohorts in the best situation, but without horse archers even a rise was enough to stop their "thundering charge".

At Gindarus a year after Taurus, the Parthian cataphracts were fought to a standstill after they attacked what they (under the Parthian prince Pacorus, son of shahanshah Orodes II) thought was an undefended Roman camp, without support from horse archers. When Pacorus was killed in the melee, the cataphracts made a hasty retreat.

After that, Parthia cannot be said to have been in a good enough state to be considered at its height, for after Orodes II was murdered in 37 BC (a year after Gindarus) Parthia was plagued by civil wars and dynastical struggles. These were the reason of the fact that Octavius Caesar realized that the Parthians were capable of no sustained offensive warfare, because of this constant infighting.

Parthian cataphracts were quite unable to break fresh troops in close ranks with good equipment. If an enemy formation was thoroughly weakened by constant fire from horse archers, it was easily broken because of demoralization and the thinned out formation.

Edit:: Right, knew I forgot something. Parthian cataphracts had nothing to fear from enemy cavalry (this including Companions), except if these were other cataphracts of course Also, I take it that by "the finest infantry of their time" you mean the Romans, and in that you are correct. Loosely formated Gauls were easier to break apart, and the same goes for other loosely formated troops. However, there is other infantry they couldn't break, by which I mean the Seleucid articulated phalanx. Antiochus III subdued them by means of diplomacy after they had retreated from his advancing army (like the Skythians in Darius the Great's Volga campaign), but the Parthians were defeated by a well-trained Seleucid army under Antiochus VII in 129 BC. However Antiochus made a big mistake by plundering the countryside, turning the locals against him (who were against the Parthians ruling them, the latter being foreign Skythians), and so he was defeated by attrition (like Hannibal, only less masterfully).

So the Roman cohorts weren't the only infantry they couldn't break.



~Wiz

[Axeknight]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ July 02 2004,18:54)]The helmet is nice, but full aventails were almost surely not used until well after the beginning of our year in eastern armies.
And darn it, his chainmail should be half a shade darkerhttp://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If there are 4,000 odd soldiers on the field, and you're one false move away from losing the battle and your empire, are you really gonna stop and say 'Dang Those full aventails on that Parthian cataphract look totally wrong' ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[econ21]

Good information, Wiz, but I'd be inclined to give CA the benefit of the doubt on this until we see how the kats play in the game. The "thunderous charge" description might be a little over-stated. In MTW, kats - and knight types in general - seem about right in power. If anyone criticises them, I suspect it is for being under rather than over powered (e.g. unable to easily ride down spearmen).

[Steppe Merc]

Agreed. I'd far rather see horses over powered rather than under. It'd show all those anti horse people that even though they didn't have stirrups, they were still a powerful force (at least the good horsemen and if used correctely.)

[Nowake]

Why is their charge described in such a fashion? Yes, they were tough, but didn't made for a tank or something.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Axeknight @ July 02 2004,23:13)]
Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ July 02 2004,18:54)]The helmet is nice, but full aventails were almost surely not used until well after the beginning of our year in eastern armies.
And darn it, his chainmail should be half a shade darkerhttp://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If there are 4,000 odd soldiers on the field, and you're one false move away from losing the battle and your empire, are you really gonna stop and say 'Dang Those full aventails on that Parthian cataphract look totally wrong' ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Is such an utterly cynical remark needed in any way?

Read my post well, and you will see that I find the lamellar and full aventail acceptable, quite acceptable really. The shield being gone ingame now makes this unit great, a lot better than some other units.

Anyways, I really hope their abilities in RTW are equal to their real abilities, i.e. they don't destroy units with one simple charge. Even loose Celtic warbands like those of the Galatians (being the closest Celts to Parthia), being stubborn bastards ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ), were past breaking in a jippy for cataphracts.

After all, their appearance gameplay-wise, i.e. not being superpowered all-killers, is more important than their appearance graphics-wise.



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif

[Orda Khan]

When we consider that none of us is 100% sure about the weaponry and armour of units from such distant times, I am quite happy with their appearance. I would not have complained about a shield either ( in the same way I did not complain about back quivers on MTW Golden Horde units ) I would suspect there were many variations in armour, helmets, horse armour and whatever, each rider equipping himself with the best he could find and/or afford.

Watching the Cataphracts on Time Commanders, they seemed to do what I was expecting them to do and CA deserve some praise. They will not die like flies when they encounter strong infantry but if they stay engaged too long they will suffer, that sounds good to me.

Now whether we will see the Parthian Shot from their Horse Archers is what I want to know. I have always stated that horse archers being chased by enemy cav should be firing back into that pursuing cav. I hope this will be the case

......Orda

[Axeknight]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ July 03 2004,13:32)]Is such an utterly cynical remark needed in any way?

Read my post well, and you will see that I find the lamellar and full aventail acceptable, quite acceptable really.
OK, I'm sorry mate. I guess I should have put a http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif in there (rubbish attempt at humour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif )

But there have been some really silly complaints on other threads, don't you agree? I'm referring to those complaints, really. Not what you said specifically. It's just 'incorrect full aventails' sounds funnier http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Sorry again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The Wizard]

No prob, it's nitpicking, but I found it worth mentioning.

Given, full aventails of mail make you look like a real badass... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



~Wiz

[shingenmitch2]

Good to hear about the shield. That is a real plus and makes this a very nice unit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

--------------
Orda
Now whether we will see the Parthian Shot from their Horse Archers

I wouldn't hold my breath... They didn't spend the effort on getting the Mac or Hoplite phalanxes to work properly, so I doubt a parthian shot would have been modeled.

"So what are the chances of a Parthian like you shooting properly at a girl like me?"

"Not good"

"Not good like 1 in 100?"

"More like 1 in 1,000,000"

"So you're telling me there's a chance"
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Rosacrux]

Wizzy

You got your Persian/Parthian stuff together alright, but as usual you are a bit on the short side concerning the Greeks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Seleucids did have cataphracts. Not many, but of very good quality. And they got them pretty early, long before the forming of the Parthian kingdom (at the time when the Parnii where little or no threat to anyone). There is quite a controversy as to who introduced first the cataphracts, anyway. As you probably know the word is Greek (means "all sealed-covered", meaning "all-armoured") and the first recorded evidence of the use of cataphracts is that of the Seleucids, in their constant warring against the other succesor states (specifically the Lagides, but I can't remember the battle).

The Lagides (Egypt, for those not knowing that what is called nowadays "Ptolemean" kingdom was ruled by the dynasty of the Lagides, as in fact Ptolemy the first was Ptolemy the Lagid - "Ptolemeos o Lagou" in Greek) also used cataphracts, but in very small numbers.

The succesor armies utilized cataphracts as shock cavalry, but since their heavy gear (and instability on the saddle) was not quite helping to that role, they used them mostly as supporting-shock or even melee units http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

The same seems to be true regarding the use of the cataphracts by the Parthians, but since the latter lacked any kind of heavy infantry (and their light infantry was of poor quality) they had to use them in a multitude of roles.

But even in the Parthian armies, the cataphracts were only a small fraction of their forces. The first to introduce massive cataphracts in the battlefield are the Persians, and the Romans followed.

[CBR]

Yes Seleucids had cataphracts.

IIRC the development of cataphracts can be traced back a long time and even Xenophon describes Persian cataphracts.

The earlier cataphracts had protection for head and chest with neck armor added later. By the first century BC the fully covered cataphract is used, at least by the Parthians.

The lance (2-handed kontos) were AFAIK not used by the earlier cataphracts but we know the Armenians and Parthians used them in the first century BC.


CBR

[The Wizard]

Ohhh, you are talking about those heavy cavalrymen. I viewed them as some Seleucid form of the hetairoi, but they are kataphraktoi So that's why the armor carved into the ballustrade of the Temple of Athena (because of the victory of Attalos I of the Antigonids over the Gauls) is regarded as cataphract armor. Nice stuff Rosa http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

But about the proportion cataphract-horse archer. This could differ greatly, from few cataphracts and lots of horse archers (as at Carrhae), to few horse archers and lots of cataphracts (as under Artabanus V, the last Arsacid king, against the Romans).

Also, from what we know of Parthian armies, they used their cataphracts mainly as shock cavalry charging straight into the enemy line (not flanking). However, seeing as Sassanid stragetical manuals (and the Strategikon, being quite identical to what we know about Sassanid strategy) also mentioned cataphracts (when the Sassanids still used them) as front line troops which should be positioned in the center, not on the flanks (a job for Sassanid clibanarii). When cataphracts were removed from Sassanid armies somewhere in the second half of the 5th century AD, clibanarii were used for that (apparently), we can assume that Parthian cataphracts were also used as front line melee troops at times.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

CBR

What later became the Kontos lance was first introduced by the Sarmatians, no? I was under that impression... allthough one can argue that the heavy, 4-meter long hippiki sarissa (utilized in the Macedonian cavalry since the times of Philipos) is an early "kontos".

The Persian had heavy cavalry of great quality and they were armoured too, but I wouldn't go as far to call them "cataphracts". Probably one could argue that Persian, Parthian and Greek (Hellenistic, mainly) influences contributed to the birth of what we call "cataphract".

Wiz

I was always under the impression that the analogy of horse arches to cataphracts in the Parthian armies was like 8 to 1. Probably you know better, though. I am no expert on Parthian history.

Also, another hellenistic kingdom that utilized cataphracts was the Graeco-Indian Bactrian kingdom.

[Quid]

Well, I think it looks great

Quid

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ July 06 2004,09:09)]I was always under the impression that the analogy of horse arches to cataphracts in the Parthian armies was like 8 to 1. Probably you know better, though. I am no expert on Parthian history.
Rosa http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif


Well, since the Parthians settled and thrived on the Silk Road revenues, the ruling Parni class of their empire became more prosperous and rich. This took place even through the civil wars that ravaged the empire periodically. This made the minor nobility richer, until they were able to afford the equipment of a heavy Parthian trooper. Of course not all the minor noble families became rich enough, but a respectable amount of these nobles that had once been part of one of the great divisions of the Iranian army were able to join the other.



~Wiz