Cavalry efficiency

[econ21]

Companions were not that powerful in charge (lower armour=lower impact) but more capable in melee (it was difficult to manevuer with kat's armoured horse) - when kataphraktos stops inside of enemy formation he is already dead.

Unlike some of the EB team, I'm no historian but I had a feeling the situation was the opposite of what you describe.

I read some secondary source - I think the Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome WRG book - that gave the impression that cataphracts did not even charge when they fought the Romans - they virtually walked up to the legions and duked it out holding their kontos with two hands, relying on their armour to prevail. (Unlike the Norman knights, they did not use a "couched lance" to make the charge particularly deadly.)

The Companions I thought behaved in a more "Napoleonic" way - charging quickly at the critical moment to exploit a weak point and using the initial shock to prevail.

[This is all cavalry vs infantry - in a cavalry vs cavalry melee, the more maneouvrable Companions might have the edge as you say.]

Intuitively, both tactics sound risky - what you say about kats stopping being dead sounds plausible (it reminds me of some of the descriptions of knights vs foot interactions; the Romans used to try to hamstring their horse), although a massively armoured figure on a horse with a mace or something is not necessarily a weak opponent.

A headlong "Napoleonic" style charge always seemed risky if the targetted infantry held and met it with a mass of spear points. Of course, in the Napoleonic period, the heavy cavalry usually only accelerated to a charge at the last minute and typically would not close with a steady foe (in square).

[O'ETAIPOS]

Simon Appleton, what I meant by "more capable in melee" may be divided into two questions - how much blows you could deliver and how fast you can change direction the horse is moving - in both of this cases lighter, but still effecively armored men (and horse) got advantage.
The first is rather obvious - with less armour you could move more swiftly. This is seriously affected by your skill and even more by your weapon. For example with sabre you can deliver dangerous strikes from whist movement and those could be extremely fast and accurate. On the other hand mace or axe needs whole arm movement which is slow and not that accurate (similar, but weaker problem is with one hand sword).
Comparing turning ability of horses (Comp's vs Kat's) is like comparing single and twin engined fighers in WWII (eg. Bf109 and Bf110) - both had comparable speed but turning rate and acceleration was strongly in favour single engined ones, because they were much lighter.
This means that lighter cav could break from the charge in the last moment - kat's were gaining speed slower and when finally charging they were almost unable to change direction.
Kataphraktoi were like a ram while Companions like guided missile.
And obviously every cavalryman hold in place and surrounded by many inf got no chance to survive.
By the way in the Napoleonic period the best cav were not heavy cuirasiers but light Polish Lancers, who were actually able to break inf in square formation. I have to check the name of battle, but in one in Spain the English inf regiment was smahed by a charge - they lost even regimental standard (the only one lost by English inf during whole Napoleonic Wars ).

[Sarcasm]

You must be talking of Albuera...the french (polish as well, actually) cavalry smashed an entire brigade (4 regiments) and took more than one regimental colours; if memory serves me right it was 5 plus some cannons as well. However the cavalry did not break any square, in fact the only regiment that wasn't destroyed was the only one that formed in a square on time. The Cavalry just flanked the entire british line and rolled over on it's flank and rear.

[O'ETAIPOS]

I checked and it is Albuera, but the book states that English were in squares . Maybe the author made mistake, but he is historian of this period specialised in military. I'm not much interested in this period and this is my only book mentioning this battle (very briefly) so I can't check. Seems I have to visit library on my university .

[Steppe Merc]

What I said about feudal knights wasn't entirelly correct... some were more disciplined than I had known. Thanks Ranika for the info.

[Steppe Merc]

Simon Appleton, what I meant by "more capable in melee" may be divided into two questions - how much blows you could deliver and how fast you can change direction the horse is moving - in both of this cases lighter, but still effecively armored men (and horse) got advantage.
The first is rather obvious - with less armour you could move more swiftly. This is seriously affected by your skill and even more by your weapon. For example with sabre you can deliver dangerous strikes from whist movement and those could be extremely fast and accurate. On the other hand mace or axe needs whole arm movement which is slow and not that accurate (similar, but weaker problem is with one hand sword).
Comparing turning ability of horses (Comp's vs Kat's) is like comparing single and twin engined fighers in WWII (eg. Bf109 and Bf110) - both had comparable speed but turning rate and acceleration was strongly in favour single engined ones, because they were much lighter.

Single edged blades only came into the picture with the Avars.

This means that lighter cav could break from the charge in the last moment - kat's were gaining speed slower and when finally charging they were almost unable to change direction.
Kataphraktoi were like a ram while Companions like guided missile.

Not true. Often the Parthians and the later Sassanians would have their cataphracts charge, then break off the charge to allow their horse archers easier shots (the infantry would bunch up to repell a charge), or just to scare the enemy.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Single edged blades only came into the picture with the Avars.


Not true. Often the Parthians and the later Sassanians would have their cataphracts charge, then break off the charge to allow their horse archers easier shots (the infantry would bunch up to repell a charge), or just to scare the enemy.

Sabres were only example , I do not state they were used in RTW period.

Sorry, my statements were based on Magnesia battle. In this case I could only say shame Antiochos III!
But I will still state that Comp's could easier turn.
Also, mentioning Sasanids you mean Kataphracti or Clibinari?

[Steppe Merc]

I reffer to the Parthian and Sassanian heavy horse as cataphracts. I don't understand the Greek and Latin classifications, and seeing as how many of the Parthian heavy horse were still considered cataphracts though they couldn't afford horse armor, and while a greater number of Sassanians were heavier when compared to the Parthians, for most of the time the basic tactics were the same, though evantually horse archers lost prominence and infantry gained prominence.

[hellenes]

Thats my major concern:
Horse Archers historically and tactically were unstopable, there is no way to counter them, light cavalry? They shot it to pieces, Heavy Cavalry? will never catch them and will be decimated anyway...
Will the EB take the balance/gameplay path or the realism/historical accuracy one?

Hellenes

[Kralizec]

That's not true. Alexander defeated Scythian nomads in his campaign, wich were expert horse archers.
Horse archers were devastating to opponents not used to their type of warfare. The infantry centric Romans are a prime example, we all know off Cannae. However in later battles, Romans would employ more slingers and other missile troops against the Parthians. They then had a lot harder time dealing with their Roman foes.
So act sensibly and do what the Romans did: have slingers and archers take care of the horse archers, and have other units near them to protect them from cavalry charges. Maybe you can even use your cavalry to go around their backs and envelop them, though that would require great care. Just don't expect your phalangites and legions to beat horse archers.

[O'ETAIPOS]

I reffer to the Parthian and Sassanian heavy horse as cataphracts. I don't understand the Greek and Latin classifications, and seeing as how many of the Parthian heavy horse were still considered cataphracts though they couldn't afford horse armor, and while a greater number of Sassanians were heavier when compared to the Parthians, for most of the time the basic tactics were the same, though evantually horse archers lost prominence and infantry gained prominence.

The problem is that the name seems to indicate the tactics used - while kataphracti fought in block with spears on right side of horse (this was perfect for anti inf), the clibinari were formed in the wedge with HA's behind them, and maybe even holdng spear under armpit (this was anti cav formation). This means that the same rider could be called kataphraktarius or clibanarius according to formation he was in. This is only theory, but its based on few strong info in sources and in iconography - we have even inscription mentioning (catafractus) catafractarius clibanarius.