Just how good...

were the Byzantine Kataphraktoi during the revival period from Nikephoros Phokas to Basil II and the early Komnenian? How would they compare to the elite knights of the western european states? Byzantine military writers talk about the thunderous charge of the Franks. But the Kataphraktoi had more armor on them and armoured horses, while their horse breeding was just as good in not better. They used long lances to hit infantry/cavalry before they could reach them. Shouldn't they have an equally thunderous charge, if not better? Were they used in a different way? So, just how good were they? Also how effective was regular cavalry (that is, the backbone of the Byzantine armies) during these periods?

I posted this at twc but I would like as much input as possible.

Think of this.

Kataphraktoi(normal and Tagmata) where iron-clad war machines put into a special formation of about 570 soldiers. There were different setups for the formation, but they surely included lancers, swordsmen and archers(armoured horsemen, of course).

A thunderous charge of the front line lancers and the reinforcement of the swordsmen/macemen would break even a powerful formation.

This was even more thunderous when the Scholae/Exhoubitoi Klibanophoroi charged home. :egypt:

Eric McGeer, quite the expert on Byzantine Warfare in this era, actually questions their overall effectiveness and suggests they probably went out of use after the war with the Fatimids in the 990s. Though extremely hard to get hold of, his book, 'Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the 10th century' will tell you everything you need to know on the subject. It also features Phokas' Praecepta Militaria and Ouranos' Taktika.

The typical recommended formation was 504 men depending on numbers available (a 380 man formation is also recommended in the manuals), with about a third of those actually only being normal mounted archers in the centre, a way to 'pad out' the formation, as it were, since these were very expensive and quite rare. Also, lancers were never really in the front line, it was usually the macemen and sabre holders, the shock troops as it were. Lancers were either on the sides or near the back, the Byzantine Kataphractoi did not seem to use it in the charge, since they did not actually charge. It is unanimously agreed that they always trotted, never charged. It was largely hoped the mere psychological effect of their terrifying appearance would unnerve the enemy into fleeing, thus breaking the enemy line and enabling the infantry to pour through the gap created. So quite unlike the knights of the West, which Phokas is actually said to have had great disdain for. He much seemed to prefer discipline and focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia

Eric McGeer, quite the expert on Byzantine Warfare in this era, actually questions their overall effectiveness and suggests they probably went out of use after the war with the Fatimids in the 990s. Though extremely hard to get hold of, his book, 'Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the 10th century' will tell you everything you need to know on the subject. It also features Phokas' Praecepta Militaria and Ouranos' Taktika.

---

Excellent book. Recommended. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

The typical recommended formation was 504 men depending on numbers available (a 380 man formation is also recommended in the manuals),

---

Ah thanks. I was wrong about 570. I knew there was something about 500.

Quote:

---

Also, lancers were never really in the front line, it was usually the macemen and sabre holders, the shock troops as it were. Lancers were either on the sides or near the back, the Byzantine Kataphractoi did not seem to use it in the charge, since they did not actually charge.It is unanimously agreed that they always trotted, never charged.

---

Tzimiskes sometimes used charging, but it was rare, true. And lancers were in the front line too, but they weren't too often, because the massivity of the horse/armor/warrior package was far too heavy to sustain a thunderous charge with lances.

Well while Leo the Deacon reports that Tzimiskes rather boldly committed himself and his guard at Dorostolon, we can't really be sure that he 'charged in', as it does not really mention him doing so. Surely the pure weight of his Immortal Kataphracts would have been enough to unnerve the already demoralized Rus and cause them to flee. And I don't believe there any other other real good accounts of him in battle.

The Thematic cavalry may have charged with lances but I'm really not sure about the Kataphractoi I haven't read any accounts of them doing so.

Thanks for the answers.

It is really strange that the Kataphraktoi did not charge. It kind of defeats ther purpose, doesn't it? Would they be more effective than knights if they did? Did earlier cataphracts like Seleucid, Parthian and Roman trot instead of charge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City

Thanks for the answers.

It is really strange that the Kataphraktoi did not charge. It kind of defeats ther purpose, doesn't it? Would they be more effective than knights if they did? Did earlier cataphracts like Seleucid, Parthian and Roman trot instead of charge?

---

The Romans didn't have Cataphracts, and the Parthians charged.

The Parthians (and the Sassanids) defenitely did charge with their cataphract. I'm guessing the Seleucids did too, since the whole idea of "shock cavalry" was a Macedonian innovation- but the Seleucids didn't rely on them to a significant extent.

Of the Romans, as far as I know ataphracts were only employed by the eastern Roman empire (later called Byzantine empire) but they were employed like heavy horse archers, much like ancient Persian cavalry. They relied on (german) mercenaries to charge home.

By what I know of it the usual pace of close-order shock cavalry attack was about universally something called canter. I've been told trotting is pure torture for a horse having to carry armour and an armoured man (and not exactly comfortable for the rider either), and gallop ***** up the formation something awful and tends to make it extremely difficult to reform afterwards. Or at least it seems to have done so even for the odd Napoleonic cavalry unit that used it, and by that period the level of squadron drill and cohesion was something entirely different (AFAIK it was actually more or less the cavalry's main weapon, given the rank degeneration of both individual fighting skill and weaponry by that time...).

Plus given what I know of how horses react to large solid obstacles (like firm close-order infantry) at high speeds, accelerating to high speeds would really have been rather pointless anyway. Horses AFAIK adamantly refuse to run into obstacles and hit the brakes before contact, but are willing enough to walk into them if properly trained.

I understand there was a major difference in the fundamental tactical purpose of cataphracts and knights, however. The latter were AFAIK normally deployed in "waves" two ranks deep for shock action with the couched lance with wide frontage (and lighter cavalry right behind for support), in order to inflict maximum distruption to the entire front of the enemy unit and make the most use of the number of lances available, and presumably to hopefully break the enemy's resolve in one go. Knights would seem to have often gotten into trouble if this wasn't achieved and they became bogged down in a slugging match, although of course their high training and good equipement helped in such cases.

Cataphracts in general were rather different by what I understand. They were less about maximised initial impact and more about acting as a sort of armoured battering ram to first distrupt the enemy formation and then maintain a steady murderous push against it by the virtue of sheer resilience until something broke and the enemy fled. The very complete and heavy armour they wore, man and horse alike, as well as the comparatively deep and close-order formations they used would suggest as much (as for that matter the fairly common use of half-barding that only protects the front of the horse - the only part exposed to enemy attacks during the charge and the push). The same goes for the peculiar weapons distribution of the Byzantine "blunt wedge" formation that had the long kontos spears at the flanks; IMHO that suggests a clear intent for the blunt tip - armed with "close" melee weapons like maces and swords from the start - to carve their way into the enemy ranks by sheer weight, push and near invulnerability to attacks (and hence relative unstoppability), and the lancers at the flank to use their long and in a close melee unwieldy spears to keep foemen off the sides of the front-rankers and generally "widen the gap" being created in the enemy ranks, so to speak. The horse-archers formed into the rear ranks (who presumably first "shot in" the attack and then retreated behind their heavier brethren to add their weight and fire arcing fire to the rear of the enemy formation) would seem to fit the picture rather well.

I would say it is really a difference in staying power. Knights traded staying power and the ability to force their way into the enemy formation by depth and weight for raw "alpha strike" shock power, while the cataphracts were more intented for a "slow and steady" wearing out and dispersal of enemy units.

Oh yeah, and the Romans used cataphracts too. I've gotten the impression they first copied the idea from the Sarmatians they encountered on the Great Hungarian Plain around the first century AD (the original core was likely formed by allies and mercenaries from among the nomads), and this type spread throughout at least the northern and eastern parts of the Empire. The Sarmatian military colony settled in northern Britain is a well known example, but I've read enough mentions of steppe-style cataphracts as part of local limitanenses garrisons during the Late Antiquity to assume it was far from the only one. They also copied the modified and heavier version used by the Armenians, Parthians and Sassanids a while later under the designation clibanarii, but these were apparently considered a more elite type and invariably attached to the Imperial household and other comitatus field armies; their armour was apparently regarded as a rather specific type that was centrally manufactured in state armouries, in difference to the simpler and lighter armour used by the cataphractii which was presumably more of a "bring your own gear" thing that could be manufactured locally given the more 'garrison' status of those troops.

Very informing post Watchman. So I guess in MTW terms, western knights should have higher charge, lower defence and attack while Kataphract should have a medium charge but higher attack and defense.

Depends on the period. Obviously a Late Medieval guy in full plate and on a plate-barded horse has way more staying power than his Early Medieval colleague with just mail hauberk (tops) and "buck nekkid" horse...

But in general terms knights would be "high speed/high offense/moderate resiliency/high charge" type while catas would be "low speed/high offense/high resiliency/moderate charge" IMHO (I personally don't like the way knights were the about only cavalry in MTW whose Attack was above "good"). Knightly armour improved of course, but then again the other "Eastern" cavalry school was that of high-maneuverability heavily armoured guys practicing a kind of hit-and-run approach - charge in, do some damage, disengage, regroup, rinse and repeat until the other side breaks. AFAIK the massed catas employed as a ranked-up battering ram were a bit of an unusual variation around those times, and probably primarily meant more to disperse massed heavy infantry than for all-around battlefield use which demanded more flexible formations.

Curiously enough though, the Gothic Knights of MTW are really "massed cataphracts" in overall design - designed more to hack the enemy to bits over a sustained period partly by virtue or raw staying power rather than the usual shock charge duties of knights.

The "thunderous charge" that can "break down walls" mentioned by Anna Komnena was the result of training with the couched lance -- a technique pioneered (I don't know if it was imported from further East, but I haven't read so) by Nicephoras Phocas in his reforms. It was later passed on to, yes, the Norman and other Western nobility.

So, yes, Byzantine cavalry at this "apogee", if you will, of the empire was very impressive -- not to mention extremely versatile. Byzantine cavalry combined the power of the Western knight and the mobility of the Eastern horseman. Later, with the theme system in ruins and the empire's borders nonexistant, it was a problem getting men in the first place.

So Komnenian cataphracts (were there any after Manzikert?) charged like Western knights? But it seems there is unaminous agreement that Nikephorian cataphracts did not charge because Phokas appreciated order and discipline more than charges. How can he have introduced the couched lance technique?

I fail to see where the two are incompatible. "Easterners" knew and used the couched lance technique too (the Arabs called it "Syrian attack" around the Crusades"), just not as on as massed scale or as much specialization as the "Franks" were wont to.

Although for that matter, the Franks in Outremer learned rather more tactical control than was the norm in Europe right fast - they kind of had to, the maneuver-crazy locals would've eaten them alive otherwise. Sort of like you don't have to hang out at the edge of the steppe too long to learn the wisdom of a fairly cautious approach to combat.

Anyway, if cataphracts for some reason that quite eludes my understanding did not or could not charge, one cannot but wonder what the heck would have been the point in raising such expensive troops at all ? Armoured cavalry was almost without expection designed for shock assault duties, to ride with near impunity through storms of incoming fire that would decimate lighter troops and smash the enemy apart in close quarters. If you could use them for something else (many, and among some nations apparently about all, "eastern" cataphracts and clibanarii carried the same composite bows as other cavalry), swell, but shock action was their designated specialty field.

Charge discipline is a question of troop training and drill, not of the exact weaponry and technique used. And by what I know of it the Byzantines (and their troublesome neighbours) tended to drill their cavalry pretty well, much better than was even dreamt of among the feudal jigsaw-puzzle hosts of Europe. The open spaces of the East were the natural terrain for mobile cavalry warfare, and to be genuinely good at that you really needed to know more than a linear charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City

So Komnenian cataphracts (were there any after Manzikert?) charged like Western knights? But it seems there is unaminous agreement that Nikephorian cataphracts did not charge because Phokas appreciated order and discipline more than charges. How can he have introduced the couched lance technique?

---

Yes, they were.

Couched lancing was known by the Arabs and the Byzantines. Wizzy(Baba Ga'on) presents very well the fact that the Kats sometimes charged with the couched lancing.

Watchman here appreciates an important aspect of Eastern versus Western "schools" of cavalry: control.

The Western "school", if you will, specialized heavily in the massed charge of close ranks, using their new saddles and couched lance technique to develop a formidable amount of penetrating power. However, in exchange for that power, they lost a lot of control, meaning that once the so-called "boar's head" was on charging away, there was little capable of stopping it -- including the Westerners themselves.

Compare that to their Eastern colleagues. They exchanged a degree of penetrative power for more control, able to wheel and spin and carry out complex movements across the front with far more ease than Western armies.

That is how, for instance, the Teutonic boar's head (the Russians liked to call it the "great German pig", I've read) was surrounded and massacred by the forces of Nevsky on Lake Peipus (or was that the Neva? Don't remember). Or, another example, that was how the Mongols won at Legnica. They knew perfectly that, should the knights make contact in the usual manner, it would get bloody for them -- so they used their own power against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

By what I know of it the usual pace of close-order shock cavalry attack was about universally something called canter. I've been told trotting is pure torture for a horse having to carry armour and an armoured man (and not exactly comfortable for the rider either), and gallop ***** up the formation something awful and tends to make it extremely difficult to reform afterwards.

---

A canter (or a lope) is definitely easier on the rump than trotting and galloping. I would imagine even more so when fully armored up. I have never tried but I can guess it would be difficult to steady a lance while trotting (too slow and bouncy) or galloping (too fast and bouncy), however in a canter I’ll bet I could even hit a target. ~D

With a ton+ of horse and rider covered in armor you don’t really need to be going 30 mph (the speed of a gallop) in order to smash a formation (a 15 mph canter would be plenty IMO).

Hmm, very interesting read.

Seeing this, do the Cataphracts of the ERE need to be changed at all?

Or is their current state suitable enough (considering their stats need to be looked at again and changed)?

That actually gave me a cool idea. Someone should alter the units so that Byzantine and other armored eastern cavalry can maneuver better (Conditions for charge easier to pull off, able to withdraw more easily) and make the knights have a more direct, specialized charge (Stronger impact, harder to set up, harder to pull out ) :idea2:

I'm not all that sure how well that'd apply to the Katas though - with all that ironmongery on they just plain aren't going to be very agile. Them horses have their limits after all, and throughout the history of superheavy cavalry a certain ponderousness is a recurring headache.