Byzantine Armies.

[PerfectimusPrime]

When did the byzantines abandon the Roman helmets?

 

If I remember correctly, didn't the early cataphracts have a Roman style helmet?

[Favonius Cornelius]

And,BTW,Your Highness Longbow

 

You can go ahead and just call me 'sir' if you like.

 

 

 

 

You know, this whole discussion has made me realize, the decked out crusading knights of our dear Christian nations in the medieval period owe their very style to the infidel Persian cataphracts that started it all. Before them I have never read of fully armored cavalry. I bet the ancients even thought it would be a bad idea being weighed down as much as that. Cavalry took a damn long time to develop fully when so much of it seems common sense.

[Yoritomo]

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!

[Yoritomo]

***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!

 

 

 

And,BTW,Your Highness Longbow

 

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!

[Yoritomo]

Hi once again!

 

 

Please chack these sites:

 

www.pegasomodels.com

www.latorremodels.com

 

 

You may find them interesting.

 

 

Cheerz!

[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 wink.gif

 

Well,you said it was optional to waer the red cross on a white tunic,all i said was it ISNT optional if your a Templar.

 

,BTW,Your Highness Longbow

 

I was only trying to compare the two soldiers,now you've made me up to Royalty! thanks

 

Sir Longbow

[Tobias]

Sorry for taking so long to reply

I don't know too much about the kind of horses the Byzantines had, but the horses bred in Anatolia were generally huge in size and very strong. As well, the Byzantines probably had access to Arabian horses which were generally considered to be very strong and fast, and are too this day considered to be some of the best horse breeds in existence. It's safe to say that the Byzantines would have had very large and strong horses more ready at hand then perhaps some of the Western European countries, however.

[Fox Hound]

Greetings,

 

I fully agree with Yoritomo here.

 

Byzantine Cataphracts were certainly more disciplined and more versatile then any almost incarnation of the European Knight.

They tended to use mail, rather then plate or even partial plate armor, but this was done deliberately to give them a greater level of maneuverability. It also gave them superior versatility, allowing them to use their bows against an enemy depending on what they were up against.

 

I'm not going to argue that Knights were the best at what they did. I'm a tremendous fan of the noble European Knight and all he represents, perhaps the best forerunner to the modern tank in history. But the fact of the matter is that Knights, as a result of their noble nature rarely had any discipline or cohesion. They were out for personal glory, and if their side won, it was just an added bonus.

 

Knights were also exclusively shock troopers, to be used to break an enemy's lines. Unfortunately, if they faced an enemy with any discipline (English Hundred Year War forces, Swiss Halberdiers, etc) they had real difficulty.

 

While the Cataphract lacked armor as heavy as that of the Knight, he could easily fit an identical role to the Knight, that of shock trooper. I would argue that their far superior discipline more then made up for their lighter armor. Further, the Cataphract was more maneuverable, and more versatile. Against an enemy like Swiss Halberdiers for example, an initial charge would be futile. However, pulling free their bows, a unified team of well armored, well trained horse archers would be devastating.

 

Even in the time of the Crusades, Byzantine Cataprhacts were still arguably the most deadly soldiers in the western world. Unfortunately, the Empire itself was so diminished that their numbers had dwindled almost to nothing. Specifically, the loss of Asia Minor (Mazinkert) meant that the Empire no longer had access to the tremendous supply of well bred horses, as well as men who for generations had trained to become Cataphracts.

 

I got this from my fascination of Byzantine history, the true and last legacy of the Roman Empire

Edited November 21, 2005 by Fox Hound

[Favonius Cornelius]

While the Cataphract lacked armor as heavy as that of the Knight, he could easily fit an identical role to the Knight, that of shock trooper. I would argue that their far superior discipline more then made up for their lighter armor.

 

 

Can someone prove to me that plate armor was actually in total heavier than the scale of a cataphract? I'm not convinced, I think a cataphract was heavier because he had quite a lot of material there whereas the plates of a knight could be lighter due to advancements of reinforcement and angular technology. I'm not sure, I am not an armor expert, but I suspect this is a misconception.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Favonius Cornelius

[Tobias]

I would tend to agree. Scale amour is composed of a large amount of overlapping smaller plates, whereas normal plate armour is obviously plates which fit to the body. The plate does sound lighter.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Even in the time of the Crusades, Byzantine Cataprhacts were still arguably the most deadly soldiers in the western world. Unfortunately, the Empire itself was so diminished that their numbers had dwindled almost to nothing. Specifically, the loss of Asia Minor (Mazinkert) meant that the Empire no longer had access to the tremendous supply of well bred horses, as well as men who for generations had trained to become Cataphracts.

 

I got this from my fascination of Byzantine history, the true and last legacy of the Roman Empire

 

Before I read about the Knights Templar, Byzantine Cataphracts were my favorite mounted soldiers, sadly the Persian wars and the plague wore the Byzantine army out so bad.

[Fox Hound]

Greetings,

 

for all of you who're interested on discovering more about the Byzantines armor styles, you can check out this site,

 

http://www.shadesmtw.com/cataphracts.htm

 

The substance is not complete and not throughly detailed but it's sort of better than the rest.

 

And the Byzantine (Emperium Romanum) learned the Cataphracts skills from the Sassanids. While they learned their archery from facing the infamous Turkish horse archers. Truly the perfect combination of East and West.

 

Before I read about the Knights Templar, Byzantine Cataphracts were my favorite mounted soldiers, sadly the Persian wars and the plague wore the Byzantine army out so bad.

 

It is indeed sad, but the true final blow that the Byzantine endured came from the Seljuk Turks and because of the treachery of one of the Byzantine generals in Asia Minor. They've completely lost the breeding ground for their professional army, and finally were completely betrayed by their fellow Christian brethren in the 4th Crusade.

 

As for the Templars....uh, are you serious they are your favourite? Because the first thought that comes in my mind regarding them are undisciplined nobles who like to charge in to battles for personal glory. Well this is imo ^^;

[Nikephoros Phokas]

I have read all of the posts in this thread and it is interesting to see what perceptions people have of the Byzantine military.

 

Terminology is somewhat confusing and often words are misused. For example, cataphract is often used as a generic name for Byzantine cavalry. This is incorrect. The most common word in Byzantine sources is kabalarioi which is a Greek variation of the Latin word for cavalry. Mounted troops formed the core of most Byzantine armies and had more prestige than infantry, even though foot soldiers were more numerous.

 

Kataphractoi Kabalarioi

 

Heavily armoured cavalry formed into units of 384 or 504, and normally only one or two units used by the army. Single unit usually deployed in centre of first battle line, while two units could be used on flanks. Fully armoured with textile and metal armour on fully armoured horses wearing textile armour (kentukla) or bull hide (klibania). Armed with spear (kontaria), swords (spathia), sabres (parameria), maces (sidirorabdia) and shield (32-inch diameter). Supported by archers (toxotai) and javelinmen (akontistai). The archers wore only torso armour and helmets and rode unarmoured horses and armed only with bows, totalling one-quarter of the unit. The javelinmen were similar to the spearmen (lancers). These formed the interior of the unit and supported the spearmen with missile fire. The object was to drive through the enemy towards the opposing commander.

Maces were the most common weapon with spears carried by the exterior members of the rear ranks. The first recorded units were formed by Nikephoros Phokas, a member of one of the most powerful military families owning estates in Anatolia (now eastern Turkey). He commanded Byzantine forces located along the eastern frontier against Muslim forces of the Abbasid Empire during the mid-10th Century AD/CE.

Historians are uncertain about the number of kataphractoi and when they ceased to be a distinct troop type. The last units may have been disbanded in the early 12th Century.

It was very costly to maintain these heavily-armoured troops.

In battle, kataphractoi charged at the trot not at the gallop. The shear weight of the armour and the need to maintain a tight formation limited the speed of the horses.

For more information about these soldiers, I recommend "Sowing the Dragons Teeth" by Eric McGeer. This includes translations of Byzantine military manuals and descriptions of tactics and enemies of the Byzantines during the 1oth Century.

[eggers]

hey peeps

after reading the threads i thought of something.

 

The medieviel knights where from the richer classes of men from most countries, and governed by their sense of honour (honour to themselves and other rich men, as they often cared little for poor people, damsels in distress opposite to how myths protray them!). They spent their lives from childhood learning to fight and ride effectively on horse back, starting as children.

 

They were head strong and cared nothing for anybody else, just to fight and win. A good example is in the battle of agincourt where the french knights, so determine to charge in and slaughter the english charged through, killing, most of their own mercenary crossbow men (who were just in the way, and no other reason, between the french knights and english)

 

The byzantine cataphracts, as far as my research goes, didn't have such a long time of constant training. Also they were limited by horse breeds. It wasn't until later in medievil times that breeds of horse appeared which were actually able to don heavy armour (and riders obviously) and still effectively fight/charge. As larger and larger chunks of the empire fall to the arabs, they lost massive amounts of trade, which paid troops wages and traditional recruiting grounds for horses and riders. This meant quality mercenaries (to make up the shortfall in quality soliders) could not be paid very well, and they went elsewhere for work. Even on the rare event they actually reclaimed ground from the arabs, the infrastructure and landscape was destroyed by fighting, becoming mainly useless.

 

Also by the time of the downfall of the byzantine empire, they were in no better shape then the western part of the empire 1000 years before (just before rome fell), being in a bad shape of mismanagement and poor trade (i.e. money to go into the coffers and eventually pay soldiers). Also, having lost all but constantinople and a small part of western greece, they could no longer field large cavalry units or any other form of effective military, relying on mercenaries.

Edited December 1, 2005 by eggers

[Fox Hound]

Greetings,

 

For more information regarding the discipline of the cataprhacts, Wikipedia (to my surprise) had sum it um nicely,

 

Cataphracts

 

The Imperial Cataphract was a heavy cavalry horse archer and lancer, who symbolized the power of Constantinople in much the same way as the Legionary represented the might of Rome.

 

The Cataphract wore a conical-shaped casque helmet, topped with a tuft of horsehair dyed his unit's color. He wore a long shirt of doubled layered chain or scale mail, which extended down to his upper legs. Leather boots or greaves protected his lower legs, while gauntlets protected his hands. He carried a small, round shield bearing his unit's colors and insignia, strapped to his left arm, leaving both hands free to use his weapons and control his horse. Over his mail shirt he wore a surcoat of light weight cotton and a heavy cloak both of which were also dyed unit colors. The horses often wore mail armor and surcoats as well, to protect their vulnerbable heads, necks and chests.

 

The Cataphract's weapons included:

 

- Composite bow: Same as that carried by the Toxotai.

- Kontarion: or lance, slightly shorter and less thick than that used by the skutatoi, which could also be thrown like a javalin.

- Spathion: Also identical to the infantry weapon.

- Dagger

- Battle axe: Usually strapped to the saddle as a backup weapon and tool.

- Bambakion: Same as that of the infantry but with a leather corselt depicted mostly red.

 

The lance was topped by a small flag or pennon, of the same color as helmet tuft, surcoat, shield and cloak. When not in use the lance was placed in a saddle boot, much like the carbine rifles of more modern cavalrymen. The bow was slung from the saddle, from which also was hung its quiver of arrows. Byzantine saddles, which included stirrups, were a vast improvement over earlier Roman and Greek cavalry, who had very basic saddles, without stirrups or even no saddles at all. The Byzantine state also made horse breeding an important priority to the Empire's security. If they could not breed enough high quality mounts themselves, they would not hesistate to purchase them even from the barbarians if the need arose.

 

The Cataphracts, in turn, would have a great influence on these barbarians, especially the Franks, Lombards and Bulgars. Thus the Cataphract is the evolutionary link between the legionaries of ancient Rome and the Knights of medieval Europe.

 

[edit]

Cavalry formations and tactics

The Byzantine cavalrymen and their horses were superbly trained and capable of performing complex maneuvers on the drillfield and the battlefield alike. While a proportion of the Cataphrats (Kataphractos or Clibanophori) appear to have been lancers or archers only, most had both bows and lances and were equally deadly with either. Their main tactical unit was the Numerus (Also called at times Arithmos or Banda) of 300-400 men. The equivalent to the old Roman Cohort or the modern Battalion, the Numeri were usually formed in lines 8 to 10 ranks deep, making them almost a mounted Phalanx. The Byzantines recognized that this formation was less flexable and more cumbersome for cavalry than infantry, but found the trade off to be acceptable in exchange for the greater physical and psychological advantages offered by depth.

 

As with the infantry, the Cataphracts adapted their tactics and equipment in relation to which enemy they were figthting. But in the standard deployment, four Numeri would be placed around the infantry lines. One on each flank with one on the right rear and another on the left rear. Thus the cavalry Numeri were not only the flank protection and envelopement elements, but the main reserve and rear guard as well.

 

The Byzantines usually preferred using the cavalry for flanking and envelopement attacks, instead of frontal assaults, and almost always preceeded and supported their charges with arrow fire. The front ranks of the numeri would draw bows and open up on the enemy's front ranks, then once the foe had been sufficiently weakened, they would draw their lances and charge. The back ranks would follow, drawing their bows and firing ahead as they rode. This highly effective combination of missile fire with shock action, put their opponents at a dangerous disadvantage- If they closed ranks to better resist the charging lances, they would make themselves more vulnerable to the bows' fire, but if they spread out to avoid the arrows, then the lancers would have a much easier job of breaking their thinned ranks. Many times the arrow fire and start of a charge were enough to cause the enemy to run or rout without the need to close or melee.

 

A favorite tactic when confronted by a strong enemy cavalry force, involved a feigned retreat and ambush. The Numeri on the flanks would charge at the enemy horsemen, then draw their bows, turn around and fire as they withdrew. If the enemy horse did not immediately give them chase, they would continue harassing them with arrows until they did. Meanwhile the Numeri on the left and right rear would be drawn up in their standard formation facing the flanks and ready to attack the pursuing enemy as they crossed their lines. The foes would be forced to stop and fight this new unexpected threat, but as they did so, the flanking Numeri would halt their retreat, turn around and charge at full speed, lances at the ready, into their former pursuers. The enemy, weakened, winded and now caught in a vice between two mounted phalanxes, would break, with the Numeri they once pursued now chasing them. Then the rear Numeri, who had ambushed the enemy horse, would move up and attack the now unprotected flanks in a double envelopement. This tactic is similar to what Julius Caesar did at Pharsalus in 48 BC when his allied cavalry acted as bait to lure the superior horse of Pompey into an ambush by the six elite cohorts of his reserve "Forth line". The Arab and Mongol cavalries would also use variations of it later to great effect, when confronted by larger and more heavily armed mounted foes.

 

When the Byzantines had to make a frontal assault against a strong infantry position, the wedge was their preferred formation for charges. The Cataphract Numerus formed a wedge of around 400 men in 8 to 10 progressively larger ranks. The first three ranks were armed with lances and bows, the remainder with lance and shield. The first rank consisted of 25 soldiers, the second of 30, the third of 35 and the remainder of 40, 50, 60 ect. adding ten men per rank. When charging the enemy, the first three ranks fired arrows to create a gap in the enemy's formation then at about 100 to 200 meters distance from the foe, the first ranks shifted to their kontation lances, charging the line at full speed followed by the remainder of the battalion. Often these charges ended with the enemy infantry routing, at this point infantry would advance to secure the area and allow the cavalry to briefly rest and reorganize themselves.

 

When facing opponents, such as the Vandals or the Avars with strong heavy infantry, the cavalry were deployed behind the heavy infantry who were sent ahead to engage the enemy. The infantry would attempt to open a gap in the the enemy formation for the cavalry to charge through

 

Taken from,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_battle_tactics

 

There are other tacticts if your interested to read,

 

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpet...chiliarchy.html

 

It's a military manual written by Nikephoros Phokas and Nikephoros Ouranos, the Praecepta and Taktika during the Byzantine Era, really shows the Byzantine disciplines on organizing an army.

 

 

 

 

A good example is in the battle of agincourt where the french knights, so determine to charge in and slaughter the english charged through, killing, most of their own mercenary crossbow men (who were just in the way, and no other reason, between the french knights and english)

 

For knights, yes they were formidable, but hardly disciplined.

 

The Lombard knights which were used by the French back then were highly undisciplined. This was caused by their selfishness, rivalry between themselves and lack of patience. And btw, in those battles, most of it, the knights lost greatly. The provision of English Longbowmen and the stupidity of the French to fight in muddy fields while raining led the Lombard knights to their death. Most importanty those knights weren;t killed by English knights, but rather by infantrymen, men-at arms, plus English Longbowmen who used mace and pole-axes in hand-to-hand combat giving a heavy-shock to the heave-armoured Lombards.

 

So the French weren't actually a very good example. The Black Prince of England was far more capable.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Fox Hound