Just how good...

[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?

[edyzmedieval]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[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. 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.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[yesdachi]

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.

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).

[SCRIBE]

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)?

[Rurik the Chieftain]

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 )