Printable View
One of my favorite units in game I would like to start out by saying. This is the recruitable unit of course. However I was wondering why they are considered Kataphracts since their horses only wear frontal armor as opposed to the Parthian/Greek versions.
Also, it seems somewhat odd considering that the Kataphract HA's on their roster are actually more heavily armored even though they are meant to be skirmishers first while the Royal Kataphracts are meant as lancers.
I have no idea on historical deployment of hai catas but their stats are very good. On the other hand, I can say easily that if you like ironclads pahlavans are best.
True that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atraphoenix
The Kata-Archer arguably requires more armour to protect it, while the Kata would need slightly less armour. Also, the lance on the Kata-Archer isn't the same as on the Kata, hence the 4 vs 5 attack. The Kata packs a mace, and overall must weigh more than the Kata-Archer as the Kata has 7 less charge (37 vs 44) than the Kata-Archer. If I remember right, the Armenian Aspet (Aspet means knight, it is what you would call Kataphraktoi) had a lance, mace, sword and a bow + quiver. The isolate Netadzik Aspet (Archer Knight) would still have one or the other of the melee weaponry. It's a matter of what the knight chooses to arm himself with. Because of this array of weaponry and Rome's lack of ability to play with more than 2 weapons, you have two separate units: the Kata and the Kata-Archer.
EDIT: Kataphract's aren't defined by a single set of armour. There are varying armour equipment among various people's horses and kata would generally refer to these heavily armed and armoured cavalry that we call knights.
Well I understand the limits of Rome's engine, I was just wondering I suppose, why the Hai Kataphractoi are less armored than their Pahlavan counterparts. In effect, they are slightly more skilled Persian heavies with a mild upgrade on armor for the rider only. I was under the impression that Kataphractoi employed a fully armored horse and that was what differed them from earlier Persian heavy cavalry like the Khusavangh (spelling really off here).
Also, the reason I love Hai Katas is the fact that they have good stamina. Really the only very heavy cav which do have good stamina. This makes them useful after the initial charge and they can actually chase down skirmishers too!
The answer to your question (reiterated in paragraph 1 of this quote) can be found in paragraph 2 of this quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
I suppose I'm asking for historical evidence for why Hai Kata's are portrayed as less armored than all others. In no way do I doubt the team's knowledge on this, I am just curious as to how the Hai came into the Kataphract tradition. Were their Kata's slightly less armored because they were later to develop Kataphractoi than say, their Pahlav counterparts across the Caspian?
As It been said probably the Hai adopted a more versatile kind of cataphract, able to manuever, while the Persians preferred a slower, but more powerful charge and better defense...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
Except later development does not equate with less armour. One can develop earlier with more armour as well as develop earlier with less armour. The question is: why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
And here is one possible answer! Haha! I'm having a good evening, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Possibly it is because lancers are expected to keep their enemy in front, while horse archers carry out hit-and-run attacks. Watchman believes that full horse-armour was developed to counter horse archers rather than for the ultimate shock cavalry. This makes sense, because it was first employed by steppe nobles, whom are mostly fighting other horse-archers and prefer hit-and-run tactics to melee brawls.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
This is just speculation on my part, but I think the cataphract archers were employed to outshoot the nomads on Armenia's northern border, while the Royal cataphracts (whom shouldn't be used to run after horse archers) did without rear-armour for the sake of greater mobility.
Thank you for your responses everyone. :bow:
The question arose out of my Hai campaign but also a general interest in the development of Kataphractoi across different areas of EB's map.
Much thanks to Ludens, as always.
And you keep up that curiosity and interest in even these minor points in military history. It's a good thing people ask these questions!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin
The half horse armour used by the Armenians, was later adopted by the Byzantine empire, for the unit was more versatile than a full armoured cataphract.
Not to mention the actual Armenian cataphract contingents within the overall Byzantine military structure...hahQuote:
Originally Posted by artavazd