Printable View
I just found some interesting images from wikipedia
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Iranians2.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Parthian2.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Parthian4.jpg
Look like some movie or TV seris! Anyone know what it is?? :beam:
I was expecting to find an easy answer in the Wikipedia attributions, but the uploader just "put" them in the public domain. He even has a screenshot of RTW Vanilla Parthian cataphracts in there.
I expect some astute wikipedian to remove the photos within the next few days. Enjoy them while you can.
-Glee
Holy craaaaap.
Though I do not know the origins of these footage, in spite of being easy to be charmed by, the production value looks thoroughly shoddy. The faux-lamellar armour is just cloth, and the props are largely based upon Sassanian devices, though I shouldn't be complaining as the Sassanian fashion was of largely Parthian design in inspiration. My complaint may however be based upon the little authenticity provided by the goods. A particularly important point is that the Parthian nobility were an extravagant lot and would dress in a highly fancy manner, and generally be well-groomed. The Parthian fashion was renowned and adopted throughout the "Eastern" world, and survived long into the Sassanian times before it was fused together with an emerging Turkic or Central Asian fashion during the 6th-7th centuries CE.
The last photo, which according to the Wikipedia link supposedly portrays the chief emissary Vagises is ultimately of higher quality than the other footage (What the hell is the guy in the left rear doing...). The other two however just don't seem authentic in the least. The scale armour looks stupid and amateurishly made, and the "army" in the second picture looks like a sad reminder of Pajama infantry. The cast looks like they were drafted from the Islamic militia and moral police... I wonder how Pacorus would look like then. I smell disaster, and a potentially bad case from Iranians shooting themselves in the foot, but I just simply need more information.
But because I'm obsessed with having a large image catalogue, thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Umm nobody knows the name of this movie/whatever?? I want to watch it.... :furious3::wall:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
actually, its leather. the textere is too smooth to be cloth (compare it to the nearby sleeve on that seated general).
I'm just being a perfectionist.
as for the article at wikipedia-It is simply completely off. the picture of the cataphract (not the RTW one), was of a medieval one, probably Muslim or byzantine, and judging from the armor, between the 8th and 12th centuries AD. the helm was the tipoff.
well, sopmeone ought to correct it.
Actually, no. That cataphract is enacted from a blogger/author Chris Winstanley from the website www.remountdepot.com, which expired a while ago; as far as I can recall it, it was meant to be a Sassanid cataphract, in spite of several quirks in the armour. Sassanians did use spiked helmets, a fact that was to emerge during the great Turkic migrations in the eastern steppes to which this design usually is accorded.
The armour has a few quirks as well; the chausses of chain-maille are a clearly original construct which is rather used as a replacement material. See how he does not bear any laminated armour? I think most of the cost went to the expenses of making the barding, which by far is the most impressive part of the enactment. The coat is clearly of the Parthian-style, and the long pantaloons is something rather representative of late-Parthian/early-Sassanian military dress-code, until long surcoats, hard riding boots with gaiters and so forth would against gain dominance.
"Muslim Cataphract" is not a valid term and has no specification to it; the ancient Iranian knighthood died with the decline of Zoroastrianism, and only sporadically prevailed in isolated areas until it was reinvigorated by the Turco-Mongol tradition of Tarkhan champions. It has no connection to Islam. It is not a term to be as loosely applied as that of a Crusader knight. The doctrines were simply far too different.
You are correct in that it might be leather which is represented, but the production value as seen on the props would leave me at doubt even as far as that is concerned.
For all we know praying to Allah...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
judging by their somewhat poor attention to historical accuracy.
TPC
So the early Arabs did not use Cataphracts? Not even the Ummayads? Seems odd; I can understand that the armies of the Right Guided Caliphs would not have used heavy cavalry as I don't think they were wealthy enough to equip cavalry in the same style as the Byzantines or the Sassanids, but even when the Ummayad Caliphate stretched from Spain to Afghanistan it did not use Cataphracts?
I'm logging on to Wikipedia to replace that RTW pic with an EB one right now. And I'm referring it to EB, btw. Got rid of those ugly ahistorical pictures, too.
EDIT: Oh yeah, that Cataphract8 looks like something from the Imperium Romanum - the chain is a giveaway. Parthians didn't use chain as much as lamellar, scale, etc. And Surena & friends, as general & aides, would likely have better armour than that.
@ Shatov - M2TW shows the Fatimid Caliphate ("Egypt" ingame) as having "Royal Mamluks" - cataphract-esque cavalry with short spears. Seems like total BS to me.
There is no indication pointing at commonwealth adoption of the cataphract doctrine by the Islamic-Arabian equestrian tradition; if cataphracts were used, these would have been Chaldaean and/or Iranian "asawira" auxiliaries or mercenaries, and at this time, the cataphracts were rather a multi-role heavy cavalry, quite different from their super-heavy characteristics during the late-Parthian and mid-Sassanian eras; we should not dismiss that the late Sassanians may still have equipped themselves in a super-heavy fashion, we have for instance the paintings at Piandjikent giving several hints of Soghdian and Sassanian-style super-heavy horsemen (Though Soghdian mounts were shown unarmoured, and the Sassanian warriors were dismounted and depicted fighting on foot), and passages in the annals of Tabari speaking of Persian chargers armoured in large covering blankets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shatov
Arabs did use cataphracts. Though these are not exactly the Arabs you maybe had in mind. No, I am speaking of the cosmopolitan city-state of Hatra, which was a Parthian client kingdom, with very profound Parthian influences. They have been described as being strong in archery and in horse. The Syrian-Arab kingdom of Palmyra used cataphracts, and they too closely followed the Parthian modus operandi of military matters, even though they were independent from Parthian overlordship.
The equestrian doctrine brought by distinguished tribes amongst the Ansari (Such as the Bahilah) was vastly different from that of the later Faris-horseman, and depended upon high mobility and the usage of long lances; a very strong reminder of the pre-Islamic matriarchal Tanûkhid tribe under queen Mavia, and their tribal cavalry which was renowned for being expert in using long lances. In nearly all the battles between the Arab-Islamic armies and the Sassanians and the Byzantines, the cavalry is consistently referred to as a flanking apparatus, not unlike the Numidian cavalry used by Hannibal. This is not a cataphract tactic. The rinse-and-repeat tactics of Poitiers/Tours and the descriptions of the heavy horse deployed at river Talas has lead to fresh thought about whether or not the Umayyads did indeed make use of local Iranian and Turkic nobility to provide support. There is also a previous Romano-Byzantine influence in North Africa in particular, further supported by influences of the invading Alannic, Gothic and Vandal torrents. The reason why it worked at Talas is that Iranic-influenced heavy horse had experience fighting against Turkic cavalry. The reason why it didn't work against Frankish war-band style infantry is two-fold; the Turkic and/or Iranic horsemen auxiliaries were disaffected and/or relatively inadequately equipped.
Even so if the Umayyads made use of cavalry auxiliaries, the cataphract tradition was declining and the roots to this particular quirk were ironically planted already by King of Kings Chosroës I as he launched the dîhqân-reforms; previously the knightly caste was existing in symbiosis with the religious apparatus and the "Aryan-ness" of the warriors was a highly vaunted privilege, which has certain parallels to a chivalric code. As Zoroastrianism would decline, this code of chivalry would be relegated and isolated to certain regions such as Deylam and Sîstân and later recounted in the Epic of Kings by Fêrdôwsî as a pivotal element in the Iranian heroism.
Throughout the Caliphate eras, the Turkic ghulâm-tradition was obviously coming out much stronger, as it emphasized versatility of arms, and therefore proved itself to be a much more simple subject to transition from the early Islamic lance-armed light horse to the Turkic-style medium to heavy cavalry armed with spears, swords and bows and armoured with lamellar, bucklers and spiked helmets. Unless of course we take into account Chorasmian horsemanship which curiously mixed the Sassanian and Turkic traditions by retaining the Clibanarii doctrine of shock and mass with Turkic-inspired equipment.
So with all that said, no the Caliphates did not rear an institution of mounted champions; if any were deployed, they would have used mercenaries or lent troops by surviving Iranian nobility as cavalry auxiliaries. There was no such thing as "Muslim cataphracts", especially as far as the Âzat-knightly caste is concerned. In fact, if I may throw political correctness down the bin, the early Islamic hegemony pro-actively sought to eradicate such institutions, even if it came down to hiring mercenaries as a part of relegating even Iranic mawali into a sub-servient caste. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the anti-Iranian policies applied by the Arab-Islamic hegemony; however that is another discussion and its breadth is beyond the scope of this subject. It was at the end conceivably more practical to turn to the Turkic equestrian tradition which above all emphasized efficiency, versatility and mobility. This was somehow also extended to the Tagmata-era Byzantines who armed their Stratiotai to accomodate needs of tactical flexibility.
The Iranic tradition of utilizing super-heavy cavalry was visibly reinvigorated during the Turco-Mongol and foremost the Timurid era which is reflected upon in contemporary Persianate-art and miniatures produced by the Timurids, Mamluks and Ottomans. These are the typical Tarkhan, Khassaki and Sipahi equestrian elites which contrast well to the brief Byzantine revivals of Klibanophoroi armed with kontaria, and their tactical deployment, whether a Byzantine Klibanophoros, or a Tarkhan champion, were clearly that of proper cataphract characteristics: A strong frontal charge by lances, making use of a tight knee-to-knee formation using shock and mass to make a break-through. This is not at all like the European knights of the Middle Ages or the early Medieval times (Until of course the advent of plate-armoured Teutonic Knechte or French Gendarmes as they utilized tight formations and were clearly deployed for frontal assaults), or the Arabian Faris or the Turkic ghulâm. These are completely different doctrines.
Funny how no-one has answered AqD's original question. :inquisitive:
I was refering to a different unit. I thought it was a cataphract-the ghilman (ghulam in singular)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shatov