Cataphracts.

[ASCLEPIADES]

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

Salve, JPV!

 

WOW... you never cease to delight us!

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

The best read I had on the subject was Mariusz Mielczarek's book "Cataphracti and clibanarii: studies on the heavy armoured cavalry of the ancient world " (1993) : it does study the question in details providing interesting comparison with various kind of heavy cavalry up to the polish heavy cavalry of the modern times. He shows that the Sarmatian heavy cavalry played an important role in the development of roman heavy cavalry and shows that their armor was probably a scail mail armor made not of metal but of horse hooves material, light and solid.

[caldrail]

In a sense, the appearance of cataphracts and clibinarii was an ancient arms race. The balance between Armour/Weaponry/Mobility that we see so accentuated in modern AFV's was in its infancy then. These early experiments weren't always succesful - I'm thinking of the heavily encased rebel crupellarii that were pushed over and their armour hacked open with pick-axes by frustrated legionaries. I sense an element of this was the story of that ill-fated charge by cataphracts, where the infantry simply opened their ranks, let them in, then unhorsed them and bye-bye... The cavalryman is potentially very effective. hje has weight and mobility on side, plus the higher position of the rider gives him the higher ground. The approach of cavalry is intimidating, so infantry close up and attempt to present an inpenetrable barrier to prevent being overrun by the horsemen. Like other periods of military history, there's a balance to be met amongst troop types. Who has numbers? Who has weight? Who has penetration? Who has speed? Who can do the most damage? Who can intimidate more? And never forget, who can organise a better strategy?