Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Steppe Heavy Cavalry Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 01:02 |
The first Cataphract came from the Sythians who passed it onto the PArthians.The Turks were well known for the metalworking.
Mongols are said to have cataphracts too.
Question is did the steppe armies use heavy and light cavalry as different tactical units ?
Or were the unarmoured ones just unlucky to not get armour
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 08:39 |
They did have both light and heavy units. Close encounter charging and long distance peppering with arrows. This debate can be found here also in technicolor!Mongol Armor?
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 00:03 |
I know i participated in this debate, Tadsmason still argues there was no differetiation between light and heavy
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 00:46 |
The first Cataphract came from the Sythians who passed it onto the PArthians. |
Actually, that depends on what a "cataphract" is. I think the first time the term "Cataphract" appeared in sources, it described a type of cavalry fielded by the Macedonian sucessor states.
Question is did the steppe armies use heavy and light cavalry as different tactical units ?
Or were the unarmoured ones just unlucky to not get armour |
I think the honest answer is that we don't know. For some of the steppes states, we barely have enough sources to say that they even existed - so finding any information about army organization is difficult. Most likely, there were at least armies that did not distinguished between heavy and light units. (i.e. the officiers wore armor and led unarmored cavalry).
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 17:30 |
first evidence of Cataphracts comes from wall paintings in Kwarazmia around 300 BC. Scythians had units of heavily armoured troops that also fought with the Kontus lance as lancers but they were not Cataphracts in the sense that they had no horse armour and not complete body protection.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 22:03 |
It still depends on what is considered to be a "Cataphract" because a great deal of units named "cataphracts" in history did not wear full horse armor, or much of any horse armor. I'm probably writing an article for this month's AE magazine on cataphracts in the ancient period, so you can save your disagreements after that.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 01:33 |
Sarmatatians and Sythians both had Cataphracts , the Parthians , Bactrians introduced them from Transoxiana
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 04:14 |
"Cataphract" was never used to describe Sarmatian and Scythian cavalry in ancient sources. Only modern authors have adopted the term to describe Sarmatian cavalry, which appears to be similar to other cavalry that were described as "Cataphract."
As a generic term for heavy cavalry, many nations has units similar to cataphracts, ranging form Tibetan, Chinese, to a large number of Steppe nations.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 17:44 |
well, if i call Cataphracts as Heavy Cavalry, a certian person on this forum will run the barricades, so i use the term Cataphract...i'm aware that for example Byzantine military terminology refered to fully and only partially armoured cavalry units both as Cataphracts but in "folk language", a cataphract is a fully armoured horseman on a fully armoured Horse.
BigL, no, Scythians had no Cataphracts as i explained above.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 08:18 |
Originally posted by Temujin
well, if i call Cataphracts as Heavy Cavalry, a certian person on this forum will run the barricades, so i use the term Cataphract...i'm aware that for example Byzantine military terminology refered to fully and only partially armoured cavalry units both as Cataphracts but in "folk language", a cataphract is a fully armoured horseman on a fully armoured Horse.
BigL, no, Scythians had no Cataphracts as i explained above. |
fame at last I agree though.. Scythians, did have armoured cavalry, some of whom were on armoured horses (not as fully armoured as later cultures) and used long, heavy, two handed, spears with broad heads. The modern concept of a classical cataphract (from the latin cataphractoi, which comes from Greek and means 'covered'), is a fully armoured man, on a fully armoured horse, using a long, heavy, two handed spear. They are assumed to fight in close order and charge at the trot. Unfortunately, there is very little real evidence to support this theory and many military historians (myself included) are rather dubious that the type ever really exsisted.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 08:46 |
Yes, this topic seems to be a continuation of a fond one from days gone by.
I am holding a copy of the Osprey series - Attila and the Nomad Hordes in my hand as I am writing this. In a note on the plates (pictures) of a 9'th century Kirghiz tribesman it says the following:
Later Kirghiz military equipment showed greater Chinese influence. It had much in common with that of the later Mongols. This heavily armoured cavalryman has armour almost entirely of iron lamellae, plus an iron helmet reinforced with iron bands. The beginnings of plate armour can be seen in his shoulder pieces and the disc over his chest which may have covered a lacing system. The laminated vambraces on his lower arms are in a long-established Transoxanian tradition while his shins would be protected by mail strips which appear, though not very clearly, in some Buddhist wall-paintings. The horse's armour is of leather lamellar with a flexible disc over the animal's ghiz sword.
Whether such troops were active as cohesive heavy units is open to scrutiny, but the term heavy cavalry "cataphract" may appear appropriate while describing this soldier. What do you think?
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 11:29 |
Unfortunately, there is very little real evidence to support this
theory and many military historians (myself included) are rather
dubious that the type ever really exsisted. |
They did exist. Both horse armor and rider armor have been found in archaeology or described by ancient writers. There is also a lot of artwork showing heavily armored cavalry, including roman graffiti and Sassanid reliefs. One dispute is how widespread horse armor was, because horse armor appears to be much rarer than human armor. But it appears that there were some units that had fully armored horses.
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 24-Jul-2006 at 11:33
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 19:42 |
BTW gentleman, I want to throw in another argument that came to mind lately. empirically, "heavy" cavalry used a different tactic than "light" cavalry, i think so much is clear, BUT that both untis cannot do both tactics at the same time is maybe not so clear...
the skirmishing, in our case with bows, is conducted by a unit of various size by individual horsemen performign the Tatar Dance, this requires the unit to break up and develop in a loose skrimishing cloud. this, i think, we all agree on.
however, now it gets interesting. the cavalry charge however, either by sabre but more common by lance is performed by a unit of various size in a closely packed formation requiring all horsemen ideally riding ankle to ankle to provide a cohesive mass of horses to overrun any given target. such units are usually held in reserve for the critical stage of the battle since after the charge the unit would usually disintegrate and wouldn't be able to continue the fight because of the tiring of the horse. cases of heavy units reforming after the charge and charge for a second time are very rare also due to the lack of discipline and organization and ultimately losses suffered in the initial charge.
point being, since tadamson doesn't believe in a differentiation, i don't understand how after the intital skirmishing, the already tired horses would form a line for a charge since they would be spread all over the battlefield. the process of gathering and lining up in formation would take long enough to allow the enemy to flee or reform its own troops and the horses, especially if they have horse armour would have the power.
i have also found some empirical examples that are a little in favour of tadamsons theory (if i understood him correctly) but i will present them tomorrow because it's already late here.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 21:29 |
Originally posted by Seko
Yes, this topic seems to be a continuation of a fond one from days gone by.
I am holding a copy of the Osprey series - Attila and the Nomad Hordes in my hand as I am writing this. In a note on the plates (pictures) of a 9'th century Kirghiz tribesman it says the following:
Later Kirghiz military equipment showed greater Chinese influence. It had much in common with that of the later Mongols. This heavily armoured cavalryman has armour almost entirely of iron lamellae, plus an iron helmet reinforced with iron bands. The beginnings of plate armour can be seen in his shoulder pieces and the disc over his chest which may have covered a lacing system. The laminated vambraces on his lower arms are in a long-established Transoxanian tradition while his shins would be protected by mail strips which appear, though not very clearly, in some Buddhist wall-paintings. The horse's armour is of leather lamellar with a flexible disc over the animal's ghiz sword.
Whether such troops were active as cohesive heavy units is open to scrutiny, but the term heavy cavalry "cataphract" may appear appropriate while describing this soldier. What do you think? |
It supposes a lot from very little actual evidence for the appearance of Kirghiz cavalry. - and the book is not one of Osprey's best...
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 21:30 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
Unfortunately, there is very little real evidence to support this
theory and many military historians (myself included) are rather
dubious that the type ever really exsisted. |
They did exist. Both horse armor and rider armor have been found in archaeology or described by ancient writers. There is also a lot of artwork showing heavily armored cavalry, including roman graffiti and Sassanid reliefs.
One dispute is how widespread horse armor was, because horse armor appears to be much rarer than human armor. But it appears that there were some units that had fully armored horses.
|
Fully armoured cavalry exsistd. My point is that there was little or no real difference between heavy cavalry and catapracts.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 21:36 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
"Cataphract" was never used to describe Sarmatian and Scythian cavalry in ancient sources. Only modern authors have adopted the term to describe Sarmatian cavalry, which appears to be similar to other cavalry that were described as "Cataphract."
As a generic term for heavy cavalry, many nations has units similar to cataphracts, ranging form Tibetan, Chinese, to a large number of Steppe nations.
|
Meant to answer this. cataphractoi was used by Arrian to describe the Alans (a Sarmatian group in Asia Minor) and by several other Roman writers to describe the Roxolani (a Saratian group in Dacia) and several Roman cavalry units. The word originaly meant 'decked' (first used to describe galleys with wooden decking over the rowers).
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 23:06 |
Meant to answer this. cataphractoi was used by Arrian to describe the
Alans (a Sarmatian group in Asia Minor) and by several other Roman
writers to describe the Roxolani (a Saratian group in Dacia) and
several Roman cavalry units. |
In which text do the terms appear. I'm pretty sure "Cataphractoi" has never been used to describe Sarmatian/Alan cavalry, at least in the ancient age. Mariusz Mielczarek wrote: "Though Greek and Roman writings do not describe it by this term, the name of cataphracti is today also given to heavy armoured cavalry of the Sarmatians and of other states and peoples of the East, not mentioned above, where the presence of heavy armoured cavalry is documented."
Edited by Imperator Invictus - 25-Jul-2006 at 23:10
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 02:23 |
Originally posted by Temujin
BTW gentleman, I want to throw in another argument that came to mind lately. empirically, "heavy" cavalry used a different tactic than "light" cavalry, i think so much is clear, BUT that both untis cannot do both tactics at the same time is maybe not so clear...
the skirmishing, in our case with bows, is conducted by a unit of various size by individual horsemen performign the Tatar Dance, this requires the unit to break up and develop in a loose skrimishing cloud. this, i think, we all agree on.
however, now it gets interesting. the cavalry charge however, either by sabre but more common by lance is performed by a unit of various size in a closely packed formation requiring all horsemen ideally riding ankle to ankle to provide a cohesive mass of horses to overrun any given target. such units are usually held in reserve for the critical stage of the battle since after the charge the unit would usually disintegrate and wouldn't be able to continue the fight because of the tiring of the horse. cases of heavy units reforming after the charge and charge for a second time are very rare also due to the lack of discipline and organization and ultimately losses suffered in the initial charge.
point being, since tadamson doesn't believe in a differentiation, i don't understand how after the intital skirmishing, the already tired horses would form a line for a charge since they would be spread all over the battlefield. the process of gathering and lining up in formation would take long enough to allow the enemy to flee or reform its own troops and the horses, especially if they have horse armour would have the power.
i have also found some empirical examples that are a little in favour of tadamsons theory (if i understood him correctly) but i will present them tomorrow because it's already late here. |
Liao cavalry was armoured but it sent in unit after unit to dance and wheel and then retired back to rest?
Mongolian light cavalry was able to dance and wheel and form up into columns to attack their enemy ,the horses would be relatively untired as they are Unarmoured.Note not all light cavalry would be dancing and wheeling only those being shot at by enemy archers.
It would seem foolish for Armoured horses to skirmish,especially if facing fast enemy cavalry, because they would be unable to retreat from them.
At all battles like Leignitz and Huan er tsui the mongol light cavalry formed up and engaged in melee combat.But even after conquering Jin the mongols horse archers were unarmoured in attacking Europe.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 11:05 |
The original debate wasn't whether light and heavy cavalry existed, it was whether they existed in separate units. One analogy that they didn't exist in separate unit is like "rifle" units in WWII. For example, among the Germans, you had about 6 guys carrying Mauser kar98 rifles led by 1 sergent carrying an MP40. Obviously, the Mauser and mp40 had entirely different functions, so at long range, the sergent would simply not do anything. In our case, you would have both light and heavy in the same unit and they split up into different roles.
It would seem foolish for Armoured horses to skirmish,especially if facing fast enemy cavalry |
First of all, very few sources directly say whether the cavalry was "heavy" or "light" cavalry, and more importantly, how heavily armored. Secondly, not all heavy cavalry were armored extremely heavily, that is not all of them carried horse armor or very heavy armor. Obviously, extremely heavily armored horsemen could not skirmish, but there is no hard evidence to say how many Mongols were "extremely heavily armored." Moderately heavy cavalry could skirmish, with one example being the Byzantines around 500-600.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 15:05 |
Originally posted by BigL
Liao cavalry was armoured but it sent in unit after unit to dance and wheel and then retired back to rest? |
but apparently they didn't charged?
Mongolian light cavalry was able to dance and wheel and form up into columns to attack their enemy ,the horses would be relatively untired as they are Unarmoured.Note not all light cavalry would be dancing and wheeling only those being shot at by enemy archers. |
1. says who?
2. there is no pictoral evidence that Mongol ligth cavalry carried lances, especially since it would have hindered them in performing the Tatar dance. the lance is slung around the right arm when not in use and it would have hindered the carrier in both reaching for arrows as well as in turing aroudn and perform a parthian shot for example. for skirmishing, the lance is a major hinderance.
It would seem foolish for Armoured horses to skirmish,especially if facing fast enemy cavalry, because they would be unable to retreat from them. |
agree.
At all battles like Leignitz and Huan er tsui the mongol light cavalry formed up and engaged in melee combat.But even after conquering Jin the mongols horse archers were unarmoured in attacking Europe. |
sure, i didn't questioned ligths cavalry ability for melee, just their ability to charge.
|
|