Byzantine Armies.

[eggers]

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.

 

Yep your right, plus the english dismounted their knights to stop them charging off too, so the english knights were acting as heavy infantry.

Edited December 6, 2005 by eggers