Medieval knights and Cataphracts

[Argeus the Paladin]

Which one would have been theoretically the better heavy cavalry? Or are they in essence the same except for minor difference in details?

Could anyone shed some light into this?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Which one would have been theoretically the better heavy cavalry? Or are they in essence the same except for minor difference in details?

Could anyone shed some light into this?

Knights also denote a nobility iirc. Kataphracts didn't have to be mobility. Personally I prefer kataphracts because they also carried bows.

[torongill]

And maces

[Argeus the Paladin]

Well, maybe not.

While their roles in military history often seem to overlap with lancers or generic heavy cavalry, they should not be considered analogous to these forms of cavalry, and instead represent the separate evolution of a very distinct class of heavy cavalry in the Near East that had certain connotations of prestige, nobility and Esprit de corps attached to them. In many armies this reflected upon social stratification or a caste system, as only the wealthiest men of noble birth could afford the panoply of the cataphract, not to mention the costs of supporting several war horses and ample amounts of weaponry and armor.

@ torongill: Tried a simulation in RTW. Cataphracts tear pretty much every other cavalry to shreds, one-on-one. But there is no Cat in MII, so I couldn't simulate.

[hellheaven1987]

They are not the same because:

1. Different time period.

2. Different background.

3. Different technology access.

Overall, it is like another Ninja vs Hoplite thread.

[athanaric]

They are not the same because:

1. Different time period.

2. Same background.

3. Different technology access.

Fixed.
Cataphracts and Medieval knights have a fairly similar background, which is, amongst other things, the nobility of nomadic Iranian tribes. The cataphract can be considered as something of a forerunner of or role model for the Medieval knights, although there are of course some differences.
Some scholars argue that it was the Sarmatian cultural influence on Germanic and other European tribes, as well as the introduction of Kataphraktoi into the Roman army, that gave rise to the Medieval knights (as an extra-heavy cavalry unit. Of course Europeans had nobles before that).

Blah, Cataphracts rarely appeared in large number.

Depends what you define as "large". It's a relative term...

[swabian]

Some scholars argue that it was the Sarmatian cultural influence on Germanic and other European tribes, as well as the introduction of Kataphraktoi into the Roman army, that gave rise to the Medieval knights (as an extra-heavy cavalry unit. Of course Europeans had nobles before that).

That was a learning process as a result of warlike interaction and acculturating coexistence and eventually simply an effective fighting technique which spread just like other tactical aspects in military history. It was certainly not a conscious takeover in the sense of a distinct warrior ideal or cultural mimicry.

[FreeRadical]

Well, maybe not.

While their roles in military history often seem to overlap with lancers or generic heavy cavalry, they should not be considered analogous to these forms of cavalry, and instead represent the separate evolution of a very distinct class of heavy cavalry in the Near East that had certain connotations of prestige, nobility and Esprit de corps attached to them. In many armies this reflected upon social stratification or a caste system, as only the wealthiest men of noble birth could afford the panoply of the cataphract, not to mention the costs of supporting several war horses and ample amounts of weaponry and armor.

I like you're quote very much nice! Keep up your good research Argeus,you seem like the kind of person that looks deeply into something,rather than just coming to a quick conclusion.You research until you find you're answer.'That's very admirable and open minded

[Carpathian Wolf]

Well, maybe not.



@ torongill: Tried a simulation in RTW. Cataphracts tear pretty much every other cavalry to shreds, one-on-one. But there is no Cat in MII, so I couldn't simulate.

There's no doubt that most Kataphracts were composed of the nobility but it wasn't a pre-requisite is what I am trying to say.

[hellheaven1987]

There's no doubt that most Kataphracts were composed of the nobility but it wasn't a pre-requisite is what I am trying to say.

Depends on regions. For Persia it might be the case, but for Byzantium it seems most were household troops, which were not necessary nobility.

[konny]

There's no doubt that most Kataphracts were composed of the nobility but it wasn't a pre-requisite is what I am trying to say.

nor was it for knights.

[Carpathian Wolf]

nor was it for knights.

But that's how fuedalism worked in western europe. You supplied your own knights. The cataphracts of the Roman army in the east were state funded during certain eras.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Granted, the time frame is diffferent, but they do overlap - the fall of the Cataphracts only came in the 15th century with the fall of Constantinople, while the image of the mounted European knight in shining armor had been there since as early as the 10th century with the Norman Knights. IMHO.

The other two I agree.

BTW: This is not like Nija v. Hoplite. More like Ninja v. Arcani.

[hellheaven1987]

Granted, the time frame is diffferent, but they do overlap - the fall of the Cataphracts only came in the 15th century with the fall of Constantinople, while the image of the mounted European knight in shining armor had been there since as early as the 10th century with the Norman Knights. IMHO.

No, I have not heard the mention of Cataphracts after Byzantium's military system turned into more mercenary based in 11th Century. Similar, knights became more dominated force around 11th Century. Hence both were not overlapped at all.

Overall, it might be possible to compare Byzantium cavalries in 10th Century with Frankish knights in 11th Century. It seems that, Frankish knights in 11th Century were more medium-armed cavalries - they were heavy enough for charge attack, but still light enough to move quickly.

[Argeus the Paladin]

If I am to trust my sources (knowing it is unreliable and all that), then the armored cavalrymen of the Byzantines wearing scale mails lasted at least into the 12th century after the Komnenian Reforms and were at least the equals of the Western ones.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Most Cataphracts had became much lighter in later Byzantine history. It's hard to believe the popular "tank" Cataphract of earlier Parthian and Sassanian times, which was bluntly speaking a lumbering giant reserved for very few shock roles, would survive as the income of the Byzantine state shrank and the makeup of its enemies shifted. After the XI century and beyond, Latin Knights became the chief heavy cavalry in Byzantine service, and large regiments of Frankish cavalry saw combat in later Byzantine history, the reason being that Knights were a far more versatile and less expensive force - as hellheaven said, they combined all the shock of true Cataphracts with the mobility and skill of medium cavalry, and were not alien to dismounting and fighting as infantry or even skirmishing. Given the fact that the nobility and men-at-arms who filled the ranks of these mercenary bands could afford to be versed in pretty much every weapon specialization, they were far, far better than the specialist heavy lancer that Cataphracts were meant to be.

[KaRoU23]

Most Cataphracts had became much lighter in later Byzantine history. It's hard to believe the popular "tank" Cataphract of earlier Parthian and Sassanian times, which was bluntly speaking a lumbering giant reserved for very few shock roles, would survive as the income of the Byzantine state shrank and the makeup of its enemies shifted. After the XI century and beyond, Latin Knights became the chief heavy cavalry in Byzantine service, and large regiments of Frankish cavalry saw combat in later Byzantine history, the reason being that Knights were a far more versatile and less expensive force - as hellheaven said, they combined all the shock of true Cataphracts with the mobility and skill of medium cavalry, and were not alien to dismounting and fighting as infantry or even skirmishing. Given the fact that the nobility and men-at-arms who filled the ranks of these mercenary bands could afford to be versed in pretty much every weapon specialization, they were far, far better than the specialist heavy lancer that Cataphracts were meant to be.

Well, the Katafraktoi of Nikeforos Fokas were super heavy cavalry as well

[alhoon]

Didn't the emperor himself in some cases donated the arms necessary to elite cavalry lancers to make them kataphracts?

[cenkiss]

Cataphracts look cooler.

[Angrychris]

Not good bussiness for a mercenary to die so ill put my money against paid help.