Cataphracts.

[ScandinavianRoman]

Does anyone have any articles on the Cataphracts? I found a few on Wikipedia(not very accuarate) and a few other sites. I know that the Cataphracts orginated in Armenia and Persia, but how did they miagrate over to Eastern Roman Empire use? I also know that the Cataphracts were middle class elite troops. The Cataphracts are perhaps my favorite miliatary unit.

[Klingan]

I believe you can find some stuff about Cataphracts here., it's from an older thread at this forum where they are (Among other things) discussed.

[ScandinavianRoman]

I believe you can find some stuff about Cataphracts here., it's from an older thread at this forum where they are (Among other things) discussed.

Okay. Thanks.

[DecimusCaesar]

Perhaps this article might be of some use to you: Cataphracts and Clibinarii

 

I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it is very interesting.

[caldrail]

The cataphracts of the eastern world were influential. The emperor Hadrian experimented with them but Constantius was the first to employ them permanently I believe. Contrary to popular belief they weren't employed in the same manner as napoleonic lancers. Fearful of wearing out their horses too soon, they tended to attack at the trot, not the gallop. Mobility for ancient cavalry is very important, ancient sources describe cavalry actions that flow back and forth with one side or another either trying to avoid contact or gain a better position to to do so. In one action, the cavalrymen had ridden so hard that their horses couldn't move for exhaustion - and that made them vulnerable. Cataphracts rely on armour for protection and it obviously worked, although they weren't impregnable and at close quarters it was still possible for infantry to stick daggers in. Nevertheless cataphracts were an impressive sight, and given that an attack by cavalry can be very intimidating - the cataphracts even more so - it should not be suprising that the disadvantage of slower movement wasn't of great concern. They still had plenty of shock value it seems, and the roman emperors were impressed by stories of the persian cavalry.

 

The cataphracts themselves must have suffered from heat - clibanarii means 'oven-men' and I'm sure that wasn't just because of appearance!. The later heavier sort also protected their horse in armour meaning their mount had less endurance for the same reason. Ancient writers suggest the armour was weighty too.

[Lost_Warrior]

The cataphracts themselves must have suffered from heat - clibanarii means 'oven-men' and I'm sure that wasn't just because of appearance!. The later heavier sort also protected their horse in armour meaning their mount had less endurance for the same reason. Ancient writers suggest the armour was weighty too.

 

I believe that they wore chainmail, and chain mail is extremely heavy (a mail shirt can weigh 40 lbs, and the clibanarii's armor covered their entire body). I saw a sketch of one (I'm unsure of it's historical accuracy) that showed a conical helmet and a mail "robe" that covered his entire body from his head to his feet. The horse was fully armored as well.

[Ti. Coruncanius]

 

This is the standard pic representing the Cataphracts. It can be found in several books. This comes from Dura Europus.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

The famous graffito of Dura-Europos depicts a Parthian cataphract. The cataphract is from Persia and the Romans took from there the idea. In fact, the Roman's first met this heavy cavalry at the disastrous defeat of the seven legions of M. Crassus against the smaller Parthian corps of the spadpat (general) Surena at Carrhae in 53 BC. It's understandable that the Roman Army felt a great respect for them.

 

 

Parthian & Sasanian Cataphracts

1. Top: Sasanian Standard-Bearer

2. Middle: Parthian Cataphract, CE 3rd C.

3. Bottom: Early Sasanian Cataphract, CE 3rd C.

Edited July 27, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

The cataphracts themselves must have suffered from heat - clibanarii means 'oven-men' and I'm sure that wasn't just because of appearance!. The later heavier sort also protected their horse in armour meaning their mount had less endurance for the same reason. Ancient writers suggest the armour was weighty too.

 

I believe that they wore chainmail, and chain mail is extremely heavy (a mail shirt can weigh 40 lbs, and the clibanarii's armor covered their entire body). I saw a sketch of one (I'm unsure of it's historical accuracy) that showed a conical helmet and a mail "robe" that covered his entire body from his head to his feet. The horse was fully armored as well.

 

Details of individual units vary. Some also wore scale or banded armour too, and in some of the lighter cataphract units the horse was unarmoured. Sometimes this may be down to circumstance - whatever armour was available, repairable, or affordable for instance.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

 

I found this in History Channel. I know nothing about their sources. Unedited (SIC) :

 

"The first unit of cataphracts for Rome were formed apparently under Trajan. They reached their days of glory under Belisarius/Narses (reign of Justinian) and were intstrumental in Heraclius' heroic campaigns to reclaim the empire from the resurgent Persians.

The Cataphracts disappeared about the 800s AD so they lasted about 3 centuries. Their height of power seems to have lasted from Belisarius to Heraclius and they slowly decayed in quality until they disappeared.

 

I don't think there is much to distinguish them apart from Mongol heavy cavalry. As heavy horsemen and horse archers they were basically equal. The cataphracts were capable of fighting effectively on foot, which I have not read the Mongol were capable of.

 

Overall I'd give the slight advanage to the Mongols for superb tactical, operational and strategic abilities. Their mobility, given that each Mongol had a string of around 5 horses, was superior to all other cavalry. In a head to head charge they would have disadvatage against the presumably heavier cataphracts, but as I pointed out in another post they would not receive a charge from heavier cavalry in such a way and would defeat it through tactical guile"

 

What do you think about it?

[caldrail]

The cataphtract/mongol comparison is intersting because it complements what I've said about roman cavalry too. Light cavalry prefers not to receive a charge from opposing cavalry if it can be avoided, and therefore you get a fuid style of melee where mobility is useful - even a lifesaver. Notice though that cavalry only charge head to head by doing so in open order. To close ranks is to present a barrier to the horses, and not unnaturally, they tend to shy away from collision. Mongols of course preferred not to charge home in any case. As horse archers they could ride past delivering withering fire without risking contact, and by remaining mobile present a more difficult target to enemy missile fire. If I remember right, the mongols used curved swords? If thats the case, then these weapons are adapted for slashing blows - the curve lends itself to a cutting action - which suggests they attacked whilst riding past an opponent rather than simply ride up to him. Given the mongols carried very little protection, it would seem beneficial to avoid melee wherever possible. A mongol charge might therefore be a sweeping movement alongside an enemy formation designed to whittle down his numbers before regrouping for another pass. This hit and run mentality is typical of ancient cavalry action. With the extra string of horses a rider has access to fresh mounts and can therefore remain mobile. It might be construed that these horses were there to offset losses in melee - it could work like that - but notice that the mongols would leave their fresh horses out of harms way, and therefore if unhorsed in melee, there's going to be some difficulty in getting back to the herd.

 

Regarding the cataphracts, we see a different mentality. These men are there on the battlefield as shock troops. Their purpose is frighten the heck out of enemy infantry by making maximum use of their presumed invulnerability. The weight of armour that these men and horses carry tires them out quicker than lighter troops, and this is something that they had very much in their minds. Ancient writers describe them as attacking at the trot to prevent wearing out their horses. Against lighter cavalry then they have a disadvantage. The enemy can simply spur their horses away and leave the cataphracts standing. Since ancient warfare stressed horse-on-horse combat as a necessary stage of safeguarding the flanks of your army, this means that reliance on heavy cavalry is undesirable, and perhaps this is one reason why cataphracts were so often employed against infantry instead. The approach of enemy cataphracts must have been a matter of concern to infantry units, since their weight and reach was a definite bonus in melee, never mind their protection. It all devolves into whether the infantry keep their heads and stay together. Once intimidated and pushed apart, the cavalry assert their dominance. Should ligt cavalry get caught by cataphracts without an escape route - it could happen - then they suffer the same disadvantage as the infantry albeit they fight at the same level. This is of course the major reason for the mongols to avoid getting to grips with the cataphracts until they're tired, when the added protection is less of an advantage.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I found this in History Channel :

 

"The first unit of cataphracts for Rome were formed apparently under Trajan.

 

The Cataphracts disappeared about the 800s AD so they lasted about 3 centuries.

Salve, guys!

 

Do you agree with those statements?

 

And why do you think it happen that way?

 

Cheers and good luck!

[ScandinavianRoman]

Salve, guys!

 

I found this in History Channel. I know nothing about their sources. Unedited (SIC) :

 

"The first unit of cataphracts for Rome were formed apparently under Trajan. They reached their days of glory under Belisarius/Narses (reign of Justinian) and were intstrumental in Heraclius' heroic campaigns to reclaim the empire from the resurgent Persians.

The Cataphracts disappeared about the 800s AD so they lasted about 3 centuries. Their height of power seems to have lasted from Belisarius to Heraclius and they slowly decayed in quality until they disappeared.

 

I don't think there is much to distinguish them apart from Mongol heavy cavalry. As heavy horsemen and horse archers they were basically equal. The cataphracts were capable of fighting effectively on foot, which I have not read the Mongol were capable of.

 

Overall I'd give the slight advanage to the Mongols for superb tactical, operational and strategic abilities. Their mobility, given that each Mongol had a string of around 5 horses, was superior to all other cavalry. In a head to head charge they would have disadvatage against the presumably heavier cataphracts, but as I pointed out in another post they would not receive a charge from heavier cavalry in such a way and would defeat it through tactical guile"

 

What do you think about it?

 

Actually, I have heard that the Cataphracts survived as the Kataphractoi in the Byzantine Empire long after 800 A.D. They fell into decline after the battle of Manzikert because of the loss of Asia Minor due to that battle. The best horses came from Asia Minor.

[Ti. Coruncanius]

I found this in History Channel :

The Cataphracts disappeared about the 800s AD so they lasted about 3 centuries.

 

I thought they were around longer, but I am not positive.

 

Is there any evidence that this type of armored horseman was the predecessor of European knights?

[JP Vieira]

Hello

here are two illustrations of clibanarius: a Roman

http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/jp_v...cture30730.aspx

and a Sassanid

http://community.imaginefx.com/fxpose/jp_v...cture30737.aspx

Best regards

JP Vieira