Combat in the Med II engine

[gamegeek2]

The Sarmatians fielded large numbers of heavily armour lancers, but few were really cataphracts proper.

Baktria and the Seleucids fielded cataphracts to counter those of Armenia and Parthia.

Even the Parthians though seemed to have changed practices and moved to more lightly armored, more mobile, and cheaper to train and equip lancers that also had bows standard shortly after 300 AD.

The parthians were gone by then, replaced with the Sassanids. Also, note that most, if not all, cataphracts had bows anyways (take a look at the EB cataphract models...2 weapon system sucks ): ). Also, the top cataphracts armour only improved during Sassanid times - the ERE offered stiff competition.

[Ichon]

The Sarmatians fielded large numbers of heavily armour lancers, but few were really cataphracts proper.

Baktria and the Seleucids fielded cataphracts to counter those of Armenia and Parthia.

The parthians were gone by then, replaced with the Sassanids. Also, note that most, if not all, cataphracts had bows anyways (take a look at the EB cataphract models...2 weapon system sucks ): ). Also, the top cataphracts armour only improved during Sassanid times - the ERE offered stiff competition.

Agree about Sarmations but I think the Selucid Cataphract companies were quite few... only heard of one which was the Leader's private guards basically. Parthians were around past 200 AD though gone by 300 you are right.

Most Persian/eastern cavalry carried a bow- for Cataphracts there were long periods the bow was more secondary weapon with seperate companies of more lightly armored lancers being the main bowmen and the Cataphracts job to drive home a charge. The more exposure the Persians had with Scythians and steppe cultures it seems they adopted the bow more often. Also maybe something to do with ERE infantry not being so vulnerable to a shock charge. When ERE went away from infantry backbone and to Cataphract and cavalry based armies then there is a return of heavy shock cavalry.

But it is easier to stick in EB era than go beyond. Cataphracts existed as normal tactic for whom- Armenians, Parthians for awhile, maybe rare Selucids... most of the other cultures had heavy lancers but not the Cataphract with scale/chain armor covering fully rider and much of the horse. So out of 20 some factions less than a handful employed Cataphracts and most of those even had them as very, very rare elites.

The rest of factions usually had some concept of heavy cavalry though it was also usually reserved for elites with normal companies employed in much numbers more like light cavalry functions. That type of heavy cavalry is well armored but I don't think using the tactic of Cataphracts to attack set heavy infantry formations from the front and break the lines with a charge.

[antisocialmunky]

The Chinese and the Koreans also had fairly heavy cataphracts. Anyone know how well they compared?

[gamegeek2]

The Chinese and the Koreans also had fairly heavy cataphracts. Anyone know how well they compared?

This happened in late Han times IIRC...Yuezhi and Saka cats influenced Xiongnu, which influenced the late Han.

[Cute Wolf]

and maybe something very intersting for all of you, cataphract-user kingdoms are often either steppe descendants, or had endure terrors of steppe warriors first, and they are virtually all over Asia

[Ichon]

I don't know that the raids by steppe cultures produced Cataphracts more that being close to steppes maybe got more and cheaper horses. Cataphracts were too heavy to chase steppe nomads, the whole point is to be heavy enough to break infantry formations. Heavy lancers and other light cavalry usually used to counter steppe horse archers. Also the economics to produce Cataphracts were usually complicated and those types of units depended alot on certain type of economic relationships.

I'd say more that more asian cultures were cavalry reliant rather than infantry reliant like Greeks and Romans were for so long.

[Cute Wolf]

Asians are actually more reliant in massed foot archery tactics, so that was quite logical if the cataphracts, being quite invulnerable with mere arrows, gains prominence as they could easily shrug off most missiles away

[bobbin]

I don't know that the raids by steppe cultures produced Cataphracts more that being close to steppes maybe got more and cheaper horses. Cataphracts were too heavy to chase steppe nomads, the whole point is to be heavy enough to break infantry formations. Heavy lancers and other light cavalry usually used to counter steppe horse archers. Also the economics to produce Cataphracts were usually complicated and those types of units depended alot on certain type of economic relationships.

I think you misunderstood, cataphract like cavalry was developed first by steppe cultures (Saka, Parthians etc) and then copied by those that they came into contact with (Seleukids, Han, Romans etc).

[bobbin]

But it is easier to stick in EB era than go beyond. Cataphracts existed as normal tactic for whom- Armenians, Parthians for awhile, maybe rare Selucids... most of the other cultures had heavy lancers but not the Cataphract with scale/chain armor covering fully rider and much of the horse. So out of 20 some factions less than a handful employed Cataphracts and most of those even had them as very, very rare elites.

Cataphracts were hardly a rarity in the Seleukid army, Livy mentions 6000 being present at the Battle of Magnesia.

I'm assuming you were thinking about the Agema, which were one half of the Royal guard and who were armed as cataphracts, even then they numbered 1000 men which is hardly a small force.

Also your forgetting the Saka, who were one the first users of cataphracts.

[athanaric]

Most Persian/eastern cavalry carried a bow- for Cataphracts there were long periods the bow was more secondary weapon with seperate companies of more lightly armored lancers being the main bowmen and the Cataphracts job to drive home a charge.

For certain time periods, yes. Which is reflected in EB's Parthian roster.

The more exposure the Persians had with Scythians and steppe cultures it seems they adopted the bow more often.

You got it the wrong way around. The Persians were bowmen (including HAs) right from the start - even in Achaemenid times.
Unless of course you mean the specific Arsacid and Sassanid dynasties. They just adjusted their tactics and armaments to whatever enemy they had to fight. Sometimes that means reverting to neglected traditions...

[Ichon]

For certain time periods, yes. Which is reflected in EB's Parthian roster.

You got it the wrong way around. The Persians were bowmen (including HAs) right from the start - even in Achaemenid times.
Unless of course you mean the specific Arsacid and Sassanid dynasties. They just adjusted their tactics and armaments to whatever enemy they had to fight. Sometimes that means reverting to neglected traditions...

Right... the tactics changed according to the enemy and the economic structures. Though sometimes it is annoying to read about Parthians as related to nomadic steppe horsemen. Maybe originally but just like the later Mongols they adopted to local cultures pretty rapidly and also there were fairly large cities north of Persia not all empty steppes.