Just how good...

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

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.

[edyzmedieval]

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.

[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.

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.

[edyzmedieval]

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.

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.

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.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

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.

[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 Wizard]

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.

[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?

[Watchman]

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.

[edyzmedieval]

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.

[The Wizard]

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.