Printable View
I was reading back over the Seleucid preview and you said that the Seleucid generals didnt know how to use the cataphracts correctly... How did they use them? And what is the correct way to use them? Also how did the Seleucids battle the Armenians and other northern cavalry types if they're cavalry were, for the majority, too waited down to keep up with their northern counter parts?
Since noone else has answered, I'll give it a go:
The proper way to use Holosideroi/Cataphracts would be to use them as the "hammer", when the enemy is already engaged with the "anvil": Your infantry.
A quite well-known Macedonian, I believe his last name was "the Great" or something like that, used this tactic with reasonable success with his Hetairoi/Companion cavalry (hammer) and phalangitai (anvil). ~:)
Also later used by Patton with tanks instead of cavalry :)
~:eek: My goodness, you don't know about Alexander the great? Traitor! get him!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sfwartir
~D
Cataphracts rely on their armors (additional protection) and weight (momentum) to crash directly into the ennemy, they aren't the most suited for running behind ennemy lines and chasing opposing cavalry...
So i would say that using them like Alexander Hetairoi would be a bad way to use them.
I don't know how the seleucids used them but a charge while in a very dense formation (to prevent the horse to try to evade the shock and focalize the momentum) is the only way i think. Of course, you still can't charge pikes frontally :)
They might be vulnerable to harrassing by horse archers (despite the armour) so it's maybe the reason why some cataphracts units also used the bow.
Not all cataphracts were slow. Only the richest could afford the armour, arms and horses needed to be a cataphract, and many of the lesser nobles couldn't afford horse armor for example. So no two cataphracts would be equpped the same, and their would be varying degrees of heaviness based on the rank of the noble.
Alexander didn't use his hetairoi as the hammer in the sense of hitting from the flank to drive the enemy against phalanxes. He charged with his phalanxes, i e the offensive was from the same direction as the general attack, then rolled up the line, not attacked from rear. So you might better call it the hammer-superhammer attack. Fits better.
If you charge heavy sword wielding soldiers, your guarenteed to succeed, either with the initial shock, or unless they change, H2H with the mace.
I tested it a few hours ago, and the catapracts, when charging a regular legion (cohort, whatever) after hitting them, and going in with the mace, they sustained none, or 1 casualty from the battle.
i think he ment historicaly, not in-game. afaik catapracts had more charging-power against infantry lingnes, but were less effective in cav-cav battles. my guess is Seleucids used them for swiftness, not for power; wich is teh opposite of usefull...
again, as always: correct me if i'm wrong
How did the Parthians use Cats then? They didn't have the anvil to hold an enemy in place.
I read somewhere (think Wikipedia) that they were used to charge into troops pursuing HAs. Is this true?
Well I don't think there was any set tactic. Rember, cataphracts were all equipped diffrently. But once an army tried to chase the horse archers, they would end up being exausted. Then the horsearchers could wheel around as the cataphracts charged.
In addition, the amount of cataphracts varied battle to battle.
Also, most infantry lines (especially the non Greek ones) would end up breaking before the charge of the cataphract, out of fear. Or they would end up getting close together to try and withstand it, which would allow the horse archers excellent targets while the cataphracts wouldn't actually charge.
They would also likely be able to win in a fight if they charged other cavalry, but if they had to chase them, then they would fail. That's what the horse archers and the other light cavalry was for.
Likely the Selecuids failure came from their lack of light cavalry. Without horse archers to soften up infantry or chase off other light cavalry, cataphracts would be vuneralbe, and while they wouldn't suck, they would likely end up dying. It's just a guess, however.
In the Parthian sense the Cats were used as line-breakers but only after the HA had done their work. They were also used more as scare objects than anything else. At Carrhae Surena sent the cats careening at the Roman lines only to break away before contact when it became evident the Romans were holding firm. Then he moved in his HA to soften the enemy, and then charged again to annoy but not to combat. The cats were used as a lure for Crassus' Gallic cavalry, who sallied out of the legionary square to get trashed by the cats, then finally, Publius Crassus' breakout column was also engaged by cats and massacred. The cats were not used to engage formed, massed formations at Carrhae, but to strike down the enemy when he detached forces to force local engagements. The cats were only used against a broken or scattered army. So Parthian cat usage was very different from the Greek usage of it.
That was only one battle, against an enemy that used heavy infantry. Rember, they also had to fight against nomads who used primarily horse archers but also had heavier horse. So while Carhae is helpful, it isn't the deffinetive definition of cataphracts, IMO.
i think EB should make its own: art of war book/manual/script. it'll really help/be interesting
IMO, Carrhae shows skillful use of catphracts by the Parthians, or, more generally, skilled generalship on Surena's part. It was not always so, though.
In 39 BCE; the Parthians invaded Roman territory, and at the Cilician Gates their cataphracts charged uphill against a Roman camp with predictably disastrous results. One wonders if the Parthians had grown contemptuous of the Romans ater Carrhae. A year later at Gindarus the Parthians charged again straight against another Roman camp. This time, however, an astute Roman general might have fooled them into thinking the camp was undefended. It turned out it wasn't and the Parthian defeat was total, including the killing of a Royal Prince.
Those frontal charges are not that different from what Seleucid cataphracts did at Magnesia. If anything, the Seleucids were somewhat more successful. Antiochos III led 3000 cataphracts and the cavalry Agema (1000) on his right wing in a charge that managed to break one of the four legions opposing him. In Livy's account of the battle it was actually the Latin Ala (not really a Roman legion) in the extreme left of the Roman battle line that Antiochos cavalry outflanked and routed. That would have required the Seleucid cavalry moving diagonally across the whole frontage of both the Roman legion and the Latin Ala (they were not posted in the extreme right as was typical) However, the battle's account in Justin says explicitly that it was the Roman legion right in front the Seleucid cavalry that was routed and that the event was considered a great disgrace, even if the Romans were the eventual victors of the battle. A third account by Appian speaks of the Seleucid king "breaking through the Roman phalanx" which is not very detailed, but seems to agree better with Justin than with Livy. And we know that Livy was not above masking anything that migh reflect poorly on anything Roman....
If we accept Justin's version (which, IMO, given the disposition of the troops and Appian's wording, does not seem unlikely) the Seleucid cataphracts could boast of being one of the very few bodies of ancient cavalry (if not the only) that managed to break a Roman legion by a frontal charge. However, and just to add some more perspective, at the other end of the battlefield another 3000 Seleucid cataphracts were thrown into disorder by fleeing scythed chariots and then Pergamene and Roman cavalry made short work of them.
I'm not saying that the cataphracts were used poorly in Carhae, but they could have a more impoartant use. Sometimes they shouldn't have been used as the main component, but if they needed to out heavy horse an enemy, they would be perfect.
But by the time the Romans started to fight the Parthians, weren't they already in decline? Perhaps the generals were losing their touch...
Because if the cataphracts were always used so poorly, I doubt that they would have stuck as long as they did.
Well, the Parthians would still hang around for some 250 years after those battles and Mark Anthony's invasion of Parthia which followed shortly after those Roman victories was defeated and just barely avoided ending up in another disaster like Carrhae... I just think those two were examples of particulary bad use of cataphracts (well, in the 2nd one the Parthians might have been tricked). I just brought them up to show that even the Parthians could ocassionally make major mistakes with their cataphracts, not that they typically misused them. Those were the first major Roman-Parthian clashes after Carrhae and I can't help wondering if the Parthians might have grown overconfident after their victory.