Origin of Armenian Cataphracts?

Hi all!

Anyone know the origin of armenian cataphracts (the ones with kontos)? When did they come into use? Since the contact with Parthians or earlier? Are there any records of them in battle before 100BC? :smash:

Nomads have a tradition of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Nomads have a tradition of them.

---

Source? Armenian were not exactly nomads either, perhaps by origin, but once they settled in Armenia, they were certainly not nomadic. Armenia is a mountainous country - cannot be a nomad there.

The Armenians were a persian sucessor kingdom and shared the heavy cavalry tradition of their former masters, add to that constant contact with steppe nomads and their use armoured horsemen, the influence of makedonian cavalry tactics and you end up with Kataphrakts. It was essentially a natural progression from their earlier Achaemenid style cavalry (which was already pretty heavily armoured) and most likely occured independently from the Parthians who had similar if slightly different influences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The Armenians were a persian sucessor kingdom and shared the heavy cavalry tradition of their former masters, add to that constant contact with steppe nomads with their use armoured horsemen, the influence of makedonian cavalry tactics and you end up with Kataphrakts. It was essentially a natural progression from their earlier Achaemenid style cavalry (which was already pretty heavily armoured) and most likely occured independently from the Parthians who had similar if slightly different influences.

---

But when? where? what they look like in the beginning of EB timeframe? I'm trying to find some sources and battle records...... :sweatdrop:

The cousins of the Armenians from up north domesticated horses and subjugated Europe, Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent way back when.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But when? where? what they look like in the beginning of EB timeframe? I'm trying to find some sources and battle records...... :sweatdrop:

---

This is where my knowledge fails me I'm afraid:shame:

The person who would know the most about this is The Persian Cataphract so maybe wait around for a few days and see if he turns up, if not you try PMing him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

This is where my knowledge fails me I'm afraid:shame:

The person who would know the most about this is The Persian Cataphract so maybe wait around for a few days and see if he turns up, if not you try PMing him.

---

oh all right, so I'll have to wait for him again :sweatdrop::embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But when? where? what they look like in the beginning of EB timeframe? I'm trying to find some sources and battle records...... :sweatdrop:

---

Don't know if it's of any help; but I remember having read somewhere that Armenian Cataphracts were persent at the Battle of Mesopotamia (war between Armenia & Parthia - 88 to 85 BC).
For the life of me I can't remember where I've read that though; but knowing the man's habit of stuffing his wall-of-text posts with all kinds of nifty historical details, I'm willing to bet it was in one of The Persian Cataphract's (what's in a name?) posts.

off the top of my head... back in a days of Assyrian empire Urartu was renown for its horses and at times it paid Assyria tribute in kind... you also have Xenophon who describes fine Armenians horses as being a somewhat smaller breed than that in Persia, but more agile... then Armenians (if memory serves me well both cavalry and infantry were present) also fought on a Persian right flank at Gaugamella and overrun Macedonian left flank under the command of Parmenio.

the first specific written reference to Armenian cataphracts, however, belongs to Plutarch, though i might be wrong here. see Life of Lucullus, battle of Tigranocerta, (69 BC).

AqD, you could do this kind of stuff for AtB...

Did the unit descriptions not give any info? If not best guess would be TPC, or Foot, he was EB1 Hayasdan member.

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

The Armenians were a persian sucessor kingdom and shared the heavy cavalry tradition of their former masters, add to that constant contact with steppe nomads and their use armoured horsemen, the influence of makedonian cavalry tactics and you end up with Kataphrakts. It was essentially a natural progression from their earlier Achaemenid style cavalry (which was already pretty heavily armoured) and most likely occured independently from the Parthians who had similar if slightly different influences.

---

Armenians are not Persian!!


As Sarkiss said the Armenian kingdom of Urartu already had a tradition of cavalry. There are archeological findings of burial sites with horse skeletons dating to more than 5000 years. Armenia was one of the original places where horses were domisticated by man.

Sorry should have been a lot more clear with that statement, I meant that the ruling dynasty at the time (Orontid) was a continuation of the Achaemenid Satrap line and so could be considered a successor kingdom to the Achaemenid Empire (remember there was also a lot of intermarriage with the persian royal family as well).

I am aware that the Armenian people themselves were not Persians and had been around for a long time before their empire, it was just a poor choice of words I hope I didn't cause any offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Sorry should have been a lot more clear with that statement, I meant that the ruling dynasty at the time (Orontid) was a continuation of the Achaemenid Satrap line and so could be considered a successor kingdom to the Achaemenid Empire (remember there was also a lot of intermarriage with the persian royal family as well).

I am aware that the Armenian people themselves were not Persians and had been around for a long time before their empire, it was just a poor choice of words I hope I didn't cause any offence.

---

no offence mate. I just dont want people to be misunderstood.:2thumbsup:

some usefull information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ory_of_Armenia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But when? where? what they look like in the beginning of EB timeframe? I'm trying to find some sources and battle records...... :sweatdrop:

---

Of course, this all boils down to what you define as a cataphract. If you define a cataphract as any horseman who is heavily armoured and himself rides an mount armoured in some substantial way (i.e. not necessarily full barding), then there is evidence for the existence of Iranian cataphracts centuries before the beginning of EB. Following this same criteria, we also hear of and find archaeological evidence for the existence of Achaemenid Persian cataphracts from the fourth century BC.

If, however, you consider the cataphract to be a cataphract in the sense that the authors writing during the EB timeframe likely meant it - an almost entirely armoured horseman riding a horse wearing full or close to full barding whose main mode of attack was in using a long lance - then we don't know when or how they emerged among the Armenians. A best guess would be that they were in use by around the middle of the second century BC, and maybe even earlier. It must be remembered that the Seleucids did not adopt the cataphract until after Antiochus III's expedition to the east in the last decade of the third century BC, implying that they were probably not in use west of Parthia during that time.

As for what they looked like at the beginning of the EB timeframe, we simply don't know. The earliest representation of a cataphract from around this region comes from Iberia and dates to the 1st c. BC/1st c. AD, and so would not be representative of the cataphracts found in the early EB timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Of course, this all boils down to what you define as a cataphract. If you define a cataphract as any horseman who is heavily armoured and himself rides an mount armoured in some substantial way (i.e. not necessarily full barding), then there is evidence for the existence of Iranian cataphracts centuries before the beginning of EB. Following this same criteria, we also hear of and find archaeological evidence for the existence of Achaemenid Persian cataphracts from the fourth century BC.

If, however, you consider the cataphract to be a cataphract in the sense that the authors writing during the EB timeframe likely meant it - an almost entirely armoured horseman riding a horse wearing full or close to full barding whose main mode of attack was in using a long lance - then we don't know when or how they emerged among the Armenians. A best guess would be that they were in use by around the middle of the second century BC, and maybe even earlier. It must be remembered that the Seleucids did not adopt the cataphract until after Antiochus III's expedition to the east in the last decade of the third century BC, implying that they were probably not in use west of Parthia during that time.

As for what they looked like at the beginning of the EB timeframe, we simply don't know. The earliest representation of a cataphract from around this region comes from Iberia and dates to the 1st c. BC/1st c. AD, and so would not be representative of the cataphracts found in the early EB timeframe.

---

Thanks! So I should just assume they come from Parthians :beam:


BTW, weren't there already pre-cataphracts (with full horse bardings I read) in Media during Alexander's invasion? Also, I saw the early parthian cataphract pics (like the early bodyguard in EB) and they look very different, nothing like late Parthian or Seleucid cataphracts, and the latter are basically just macedonian-style heavy cavalry with horse barding and persian arm guards, right? :sweatdrop: :idea2:




@gamegeek2: sorry but I'm busy doing my mod... now I'm making new unit text for the chinese translation, hence the asking here :tongue3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

Thanks! So I should just assume they come from Parthians :beam:

---

Indirectly, probably, but yes.

Quote:

---

BTW, weren't there already pre-cataphracts (with full horse bardings I read) in Media during Alexander's invasion?

---

Yes, there the Persians fielded "proto-cataphracts" already from the late fifth and fourth centuries BC. These men were armoured with heavy metal or organic cuirasses, helmets, arm guards, and sometimes also armoured leg guards or saddles that extended into armoured covers for the legs. Their mounts seem to only have been armoured with barding for the breast and face masks or protomes.

Quote:

---

Also, I saw the early parthian cataphract pics (like the early bodyguard in EB) and they look very different, nothing like late Parthian or Seleucid cataphracts, and the latter are basically just macedonian-style heavy cavalry with horse barding and persian arm guards, right? :sweatdrop: :idea2:@gamegeek2: sorry but I'm busy doing my mod... now I'm making new unit text for the chinese translation, hence the asking here :tongue3:

---

The armour of the Early Parthian Bodyguard unit is based erroneously on the Orlat battle plaques, which are absolutely not Parthian and which can be dated with certainty to the 1st-2nd c. AD. These men look different because their arms and armour derive from a different cataphract tradition, which is a Central Asian (Saka) one. They wore armour composed of large quadrangular plates which included a long skirt and a sizeable collar as well as arm and leg guards. We know from a few different sources that the Parthians employed different armour, notably scale cuirasses without collars and skirts, which likely derives from the earlier Iranian tradition of armament for heavy cavalrymen. The information which we do have on Armenian cataphracts places them in the Iranian camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The armour of the Early Parthian Bodyguard unit is based erroneously on the Orlat battle plaques, which are absolutely not Parthian and which can be dated with certainty to the 1st-2nd c. AD. These men look different because their arms and armour derive from a different cataphract tradition, which is a Central Asian (Saka) one. They wore armour composed of large quadrangular plates which included a long skirt and a sizeable collar as well as arm and leg guards.

---

But what about the early Dahae heavy cavalry, the Daha Uazdaettae? It appears they look more like the Saka version of cataphracts, with long coat of plates extended to protect the legs (figures from Kurgan-Tepe suggests them being existing in 2nd-1st BC). So far I have been able to to find nothing except for a restruction of early Parthian warriors from Kurgan-Tepe, on Montvert's Sassanian Armies, and it looks exactly like the early bodyguard in EB - the armour plates are not quadrangular, however (but I can't find the original figures :shame:)

I'm wondering when they made the changes from nomad/saka style to the iranian/persian style? or were they supposed to be iranian since the beginning? :beam::smash:





PS: I found the Orlat plagues you said, very interesting! :2thumbsup: http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

But what about the early Dahae heavy cavalry, the Daha Uazdaettae? It appears they look more like the Saka version of cataphracts, with long coat of plates extended to protect the legs

---

Well, unless I am mistaken (and a member of the team like The Persian Cataphract can likely comment on this better than I can), the Dahae Noble Cavalry unit is pretty much a hypothetical unit, simply because we have no direct evidence for what Daha heavy cavalrymen looked like toward the beginning of the EB timeframe. They are actually not armoured in the Saka style - they wear a lamellar cuirass with Greek-style shoulder yokes and have their legs armoured with parapleuridia, which are armour leg protectors attached to the rider and saddle. The use of parapleuridia like this is a wholly Persian thing, and I'm guessing that the team assumed that the Dahae would have been influenced by the Persians (which is certainly plausible). In addition, the horse armour is I believe drawn from Herodotus' comment that in the 5th c. BC the Massagetae (a Saka or closely related nomadic tribe) armoured their horses with bronze head-armour and an armoured covering for the breast.

Quote:

---

(figures from Kurgan-Tepe suggests them being existing in 2nd-1st BC). So far I have been able to to find nothing except for a restruction of early Parthian warriors from Kurgan-Tepe, on Montvert's Sassanian Armies, and it looks exactly like the early bodyguard in EB - the armour plates are not quadrangular, however (but I can't find the original figures :shame:)

I'm wondering when they made the changes from nomad/saka style to the iranian/persian style? or were they supposed to be iranian since the beginning? :beam::smash:

PS: I found the Orlat plagues you said, very interesting! :2thumbsup: http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html

---

The figures reproduced by David Nicolle in his Montvert book on the Sassanians to which you refer are of the Orlat battle plaque. Kurgan-tepe was a name for the site which was discovered near Orlat in Uzbekistan. Nicolle is absolutely wrong in identifying it as 2nd-1st c. BC Parthian, as he is by no means a Central Asian expert (in actuality he is an expert on the armies of Arabia) and he is clearly unfamiliar with the sizeable amount of scholarly literature which has been written on this artefact that identifies it as dating to the 1st-2nd c. AD and belonging to the Kang-ju. This plate is what the early Parthian bodyguard unit is based on, which is why they look so similar.

ohh all right. Thanks you all for the help! :yes::2thumbsup::2thumbsup:


BTW I thought you're an EB member? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

Well, unless I am mistaken (and a member of the team like The Persian Cataphract can likely comment on this better than I can), the Dahae Noble Cavalry unit is pretty much a hypothetical unit, simply because we have no direct evidence for what Daha heavy cavalrymen looked like toward the beginning of the EB timeframe. They are actually not armoured in the Saka style - they wear a lamellar cuirass with Greek-style shoulder yokes and have their legs armoured with parapleuridia, which are armour leg protectors attached to the rider and saddle. The use of parapleuridia like this is a wholly Persian thing, and I'm guessing that the team assumed that the Dahae would have been influenced by the Persians (which is certainly plausible). In addition, the horse armour is I believe drawn from Herodotus' comment that in the 5th c. BC the Massagetae (a Saka or closely related nomadic tribe) armoured their horses with bronze head-armour and an armoured covering for the breast.



The figures reproduced by David Nicolle in his Montvert book on the Sassanians to which you refer are of the Orlat battle plaque. Kurgan-tepe was a name for the site which was discovered near Orlat in Uzbekistan. Nicolle is absolutely wrong in identifying it as 2nd-1st c. BC Parthian, as he is by no means a Central Asian expert (in actuality he is an expert on the armies of Arabia) and he is clearly unfamiliar with the sizeable amount of scholarly literature which has been written on this artefact that identifies it as dating to the 1st-2nd c. AD and belonging to the Kang-ju. This plate is what the early Parthian bodyguard unit is based on, which is why they look so similar.

---

The Hurrians, if memory serves me correctly (and logic certainly does), were great horse-breeders. No wonder the Hai were great horse-breeders, themselves knowing all too well of their Hurrian bretheren. These men were riding horses like Maseratis back till mid 3rd millenium BCE IIRC. As for almost completely armouring the horses à la kataphraktos, I am not sure we can speak of the origins on the Hurrian/Hai side before the already-mentioned Parthian timeframe armoured-horse. Maybe the texts that are being deciphered--make that 'read' (as it is one step from Hurrian to Hai-eren)--will shed more light on the issue at hand.