Yoritomo

Hi once again! Please chack these sites: www.pegasomodels.com www.latorremodels.com You may find them interesting. Cheerz!

***Also,BTW,in Greek Knaos=Temple,Knightes=Templar Order Warrior Knightes...Knight...later any European Warrior of this type. ***Sorry!!!Forgot to write the word "probably".(It was written in the article where i got this info from... Well,SORRY!!!,I should add the word "probably"!!!Knight comes from cnight=servant.So I read nonensense in this article...Sorry again. Cheerz! You can go ahead and just call me 'sir' if you like. Of course,as you wish!So next time "Sir Longbow". Probably about the horses...My knowledge about Antiquety is limited. Cheerz!

Hi there! ***Also,BTW,in Greek Knaos=Temple,Knightes=Templar Order Warrior Knightes...Knight...later any European Warrior of this type. Sorry!!!Forgot to write the word "probably".(It was written in the article where i got this info from... Cheerz!

Hi there! Dear Longbow,you probably missunderstood me .That's what I'm talking about!A 11th Cent Knight wouldn't have a plate armor but chain mail only,while a cataphract was much more heavily armed. Yes,first strike with a lance with a hand guard would be more powerful,but consider this lance would drop the knight down from the horse,while the old style lance would slip into the hand of the Knight.Furthermore,you can handle this last lance in any point of it's lenth,which helps sometimes. I was not trying to compare chain and scale armor to find out which is better...I was just telling that the warrior who wears scale armor is considered heavily armed.And that's true,you can find out that every Eastern heavy-cavarly warrior is covered with scale armor.Chain mail is flexible but less protective than scale.It's weight varries-the rings which it's consisted of would be very small or very big.Scale armor weight also varries-it depends on the material used for the scales and on how big they are.I guess a hardened-leather scale armor would be even lighter than chain mail(but for sure lighter than plate armor AS I SAID BEFORE ).Chain mail will protect the warrior from swords and axes,but not from arrows and lances.A scale armor would be more effective for piercings.Plate armor works as well,but it's heavier and less flexible. A teardrop shaped shield protects a large part of the mounted warrior,and the steel perigramme would not allow the sword strike to brake or stuck on the shield,like it happens with the kite shapedd shield.Also,the upper two corners of the kite shaped shield would let the sword be in contact with the edge of the shield.This does not happen with the round-like edges of the teardrop shield. Not every horse was heavily armored,like the one you show on your picture,however,check the rest of the pictures of the topic.This armor was not cheap at all and I guess not all cataphracts could afford this.Also,this horse carries a heavy rider and it could be quicker without an armor.It depend on what's it's work.It sometimes had to be quick,while in other cases it should be slower,but better protected.No idea about the horse action in battle.Norman horses may have been better at this,since they fought more often with infantry. And,BTW,Your Highness Longbow,we were talking about crusaders in general-not every crusader was in the order of the Holy Temple of Solomon,so that's necessary to wear typical robe of the order . Also,BTW,in Greek Knaos=Temple,Knightes=Templar Order Warrior Knightes...Knight...later any European Warrior of this type. Cheerz!

Hi all! George,I'll have to disaggre (As a Greek ).Cataphracts were MUCH better armed than the Western Knights(talking about 10-11 century).The word "Cataphract" comes from the Greek word "Cataphractos" which means the person(warrior...)who carries a "Cataphractis"-Byzantine lamelar armor.As we check in the images,a cataphract was armed in a combination of plate armor(legs,arms),lameral armor for the chest and under this one a chain mail,while a European Knight of the same time was armed only with chain mail(full-body though...).Furthermore,the shield of a cataphract was bigger than this of a knight and had metal parts.As for the lances,I don't see a difference between the byzantine and Western lances.Probably you have in mind the typical tournament lance with the hand protector which was used in tournaments.This Western lance was used in war much later-15 century-and it's less comfortable than the normal lance. The only area where a cataphract was less armed than a Western Knight would be the head,since Knights wore heavy full-cover helmets.However,a cataphract would have better vission ability and less weight on his head. Actually,the type of armor used by the cataphracts was a combination of Western and Eastern armor.Only this kind of heavy armor could save a cataphract from cavarly archers carring composite bows-much much much more effective and lethal than any european bow. Same with the horse.Western horses were armed with full chain mail,while cataphract horses were armed with full-lamelar armor(as good as plate armor,but more flexible and maybe lighter). Flavious Constantine,believe me man,you wouldn't like to fight against one of these gayz!They kept away Saracens,Bulgrarians,Avars and much more wild warriors,which means that this kind of expensive clothing they used to wear was just for showing off their wealth .Furthermore,a crusader could be dressed in much more decorated clothes(White robe with red cross was optional,many knights were dressed in bright clothes with the family herald,or just expensive silk robes).Don't compare a cataphract with a legionare.A cataphract was a noble man heavy cavarly warrior of the Byzantine Medieval Empire(not Roman any more ),while a legionare was just a tactical soldier-too poor compared to a cataphract . Cheerz!