Heavy Cavalry

[GreatKhan]

Could some explain the history and evolution of the heavy cavalry. I found out they evolved from persian empire.

[jo the greek]

Could some explain the history and evolution of the heavy cavalry. I found out they evolved from persian empire.

Ιndeed some early types of heavy cavalry evolved
from a combination of Macedonian Compaanions and Persian earlier cavarly.

Then through the introduce of chainmail the heavy cavalry man got
new arnaments.

But eastern heavy cavarlyman is different in tacts and logic than a medieval Knight

[hellheaven1987]

Could some explain the history and evolution of the heavy cavalry. I found out they evolved from persian empire.

No, both East and West had evolved heavy cavalries separatly until Roman Empire brought the development into one. After that, Byzatnium was more close to Persia's development, while West Europe went to follow its Germanic origin with Roman and Byzantine doctrine.

[Argeus the Paladin]

^^ That seems to be the most accurate IMO.

After all, the Byzantines stuck with their (Light?) Kataphraktoi, while Western Catholic nations got their knights in shining armors.

[hellheaven1987]

After all, the Byzantines stuck with their (Light?) Kataphraktoi, while Western Catholic nations got their knights in shining armors.

Depends. It seems that the true heavy cavalries did not appear in Europe until 13th Century. Frankish knights in 11/12th Century can be only grouped as medium cavalries, and it seems that was the cavalry model followed by most Europe during that time.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

^^ That seems to be the most accurate IMO.

After all, the Byzantines stuck with their (Light?) Kataphraktoi, while Western Catholic nations got their knights in shining armors.

When the Western Catholic nations started using knights in shining armors, the Byzantine Empire was no-more.. One can notice the superiority and the strength of the Byzantine Cavalry by studying about the Byzantine-Sassanid wars.. The Sassanids fielded probably the best heavy cavalry in the world from 500 to 800 AD (If I remember well), yet the Byzantines raised at least equal cavalry forces and managed to defeat the Sassanid heavy cavalry in several battles.. I think what comes to anyones mind is the glorious gothic armors of the late medieval era, but there wasn't byzantine cavalry at that era.. The Byzantines fielded forces of kataphractii and clibanophorii in the early and middle medieval age and it was probably the heaviest cavalry in Europe..

[Herakleios]

It seems that the true heavy cavalries did not appear in Europe until 13th Century.

Armored horsemen riding armored horses and using shock tactics appear at the very least as early as the Roman period in the form of the clibanarii or cataphracti. And this is leaving out the Sarmatians of the Ukraine and Alexander's companions, both of which which I think do qualify as heavy cavalry in Europe even if the latter did not use horse armour.

their (Light?) Kataphraktoi,

http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2007...tenth-century/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Klibanophoroi were heavier than the Kataphraktoi, but the latter were certainly not "light" either.

[hellheaven1987]

Armored horsemen riding armored horses and using shock tactics appear at the very least as early as the Roman period in the form of the clibanarii or cataphracti. And this is leaving out the Sarmatians of the Ukraine and Alexander's companions, both of which which I think do qualify as heavy cavalry in Europe even if the latter did not use horse armour.

The problem about Cataphracts was that it seems Roman only used them on East, and I did not read sources suggest they were used in Europe. After all, late Roman Legions were much more localized and generally not willing to leave their home province too far, and considered there was little need to use extreme heavy cavalries in Europe, particuraly in WRE, it was more possible that no regional troops within Europe that equiped as Cataphracts.

For Sarmatians, their cavalries would be more close to Frankish knights during Crusade - mobile enough but still equiped enough armor for shocking value, but not in a Cataphract sense that sacrify mobility in exchange for extreme heavy armor. For this type of cavalries we probably can only classify them as medium cavalries.

Lastly, Companions were quite interesting case, since they were definately "heavy" in their own timeline. But compare with the true heavy cavalries, such as Cataphracts, Companions became more similar as Frankish knights in 11th Century, which can only classify as medium cavalries.

Actually, especially during the early and high middle ages knights where relatively underequiped compared to Arabic Ghulams/Mamaukles and the byzantine Klibanophoroi and Kataphraktoi

Well, technology problem and the military needs prevented Frankish knights before 13th Century to be "true" heavy cavalries. But then, it seems that it was a global development at that time since both Byzantium and Muslims were using medium cavalries in same time too (units like Mobile Guards). The true heavy cavalries appeared only when plate armor was introudced, hence truly enable cavalries to be invulable to most attacks.

[frontier-auxilia]

The problem about Cataphracts was that it seems Roman only used them on East, and I did not read sources suggest they were used in Europe.

Julian deployed them during his campaign against the Alamenei (or however you spell it). It was mentioned in Ammianus and was mostly dubbed Curassiers in modern sources cause 19th century english gentlemen usually have no idea wtf a cataphract is. Also companions are considered significantly lighter armored than their bactrian, scythian or persian counterparts. This was pretty much explicitly stated in Arrian.

Anyway from a large majority of books that describe heavy cavalry, its usually about them being use as offensive troops to charge enemy formations. Usually they don't go into details in seperating them base on how much armor they wore. If you compare companions and frankish noblemen to something ridiculously well armored like the Byzantine kataphraktois, Jin Iron Paggodas and Gendarmes, they are heavy cavalry only the latter is better at smashing an enemy formation face in thanks to heavier armor. Usually just a matter of function that defines them.

Anyway i can't be screw to quote but the general development of heavy cavalry goes like this

1. 2 handed lance
2. Stir-up lance and a shield.

Btw Anthonius those cataphracts look ###king badass where is it from?

[AnthoniusII]

J
Btw Anthonius those cataphracts look ###king badass where is it from?

These guys represent the Roman Tagmatic (units in Constantinople) cavalry.
They are known as Clibanarioi or Cataphractoi but they had names (according to their unit)like Scholarii,Hikanati,Excubitores etc..
This spesific style was developed by Nikephorus Phokas in thhe early/middle 10th century in order to regain the Empire's lands from the Muslims,Bulgarians and others.
For centuries they were the heaviest cavalrymen on the planet...
Mongols,central europeans and others created scimilar warriors much later.
But the armor does not win a battle but training and most of all morale.
In 1204 the last 512 of these guys came out to fight 80 knights but they retreated soon enough because their officer sceared ...
Compare these guys with 11th century knights and see what i am talking about...

[KaRoU23]

These guys represent the Roman Tagmatic (units in Constantinople) cavalry.
They are known as Clibanarioi or Cataphractoi but they had names (according to their unit)like Scholarii,Hikanati,Excubitores etc..
This spesific style was developed by Nikephorus Phokas in thhe early/middle 10th century in order to regain the Empire's lands from the Muslims,Bulgarians and others.
For centuries they were the heaviest cavalrymen on the planet...
Mongols,central europeans and others created scimilar warriors much later.
But the armor does not win a battle but training and most of all morale.
In 1204 the last 512 of these guys came out to fight 80 knights but they retreated soon enough because their officer sceared ...
Compare these guys with 11th century knights and see what i am talking about...

I thought my friend, that the clibanarii were an elite of the era, but they weren't included in the Thematic Armies....

[frontier-auxilia]

These guys represent the Roman Tagmatic (units in Constantinople) cavalry.
They are known as Clibanarioi or Cataphractoi but they had names (according to their unit)like Scholarii,Hikanati,Excubitores etc..
This spesific style was developed by Nikephorus Phokas in thhe early/middle 10th century in order to regain the Empire's lands from the Muslims,Bulgarians and others.
For centuries they were the heaviest cavalrymen on the planet...
Mongols,central europeans and others created scimilar warriors much later.
But the armor does not win a battle but training and most of all morale.
In 1204 the last 512 of these guys came out to fight 80 knights but they retreated soon enough because their officer sceared ...
Compare these guys with 11th century knights and see what i am talking about...

Well it depends on interpretation . Alexius III don't want to start anything with the crusaders. He probably order the Scholari to stand there to warn them what happen if they mess with Rome. Instead the knight got more balls then expected and rush right in, so the Scholari have to beat a hasty retreat, they are there to warn not fight. That testify for stone hard military discipline then epic fail of the largest proportion . He also have an army that is twice as large as that of the crusaders and he still don't wanna take it out to them. Battle is all about risk but rather than riskin it with a twice as large army with safe haven/ supply and the back with better equipment he coil up like a wuss. Indescisive he is. Or those Scholari week days parade soldiers in overpriced armor more then steal clad deathmachine. To put it in modern analogue like those dudes guarding the buckingham palace. If you pit a squad of these dudes against a squad of SAS i doubt they last.

Actually those armor are actually very important, a knight cannot even touch them even if they charge them head on with a lance. Atleast thats what Timothy Dawson (the author of Byzantine cavalryman) c.900-1204) research indicates. After the battle of Dyrrakhion, Alexios was set upon by a gang of Norman knights. All of them charge the poor man right away . Instead of leaving Alexios dead, he was able to make his escape unscrapped with several lance stuck on his armor like arrows . While many believe this to be Anna's attempt to brag about her awesome brother's super awesome human exploit, research by Dawson shows that this can really did happen if Alexios is dress in full cataphract attire. The man a known reanactor and a skill black smith himself sit on a horse (bigger then the norman's mind you) grab a sharp pointy lance and charged a dummy covered in epilorikon, chain mail and lamellar. Rather then impaling the dummy right away, the epilorikon binds the blade and that inner layer of iron lamellar and chainmail stop the blow entirely. If its man of equal nerve and experience meeting on the same ground. This armor will render him almost untouchable, least he's drag off his horse and beaten to death or some lame deus ex machina comes along.

So Anth please make them tough as hell. After all we can only few one unit in the new patch , plus they cost a lot. Even if some civilisations are willing, i will not paid florins for overdressed week days soldiers .

[Ace_General]

Actually, especially during the early and high middle ages knights where relatively underequiped compared to Arabic Ghulams/Mamaukles and the byzantine Klibanophoroi and Kataphraktoi

The things the Western knights had was the training due to their Elite and noble staus, Aggressiveness, and Morale due to there noble status. Also, the Christian knights extensively used massed charges with lances

Also, knights were usually quite bigger than their opponents due to their protein rich diet and the fact that Northern Europeans are usually taller and Stockier then says Turks or Arabs

If you remember in high school the giant crazy guys that were on the (american) football team who always got in fights and enjoyed hitting people were the guys who ancestors where probably knights

[Herakleios]

The problem about Cataphracts was that it seems Roman only used them on East, and I did not read sources suggest they were used in Europe. After all, late Roman Legions were much more localized and generally not willing to leave their home province too far, and considered there was little need to use extreme heavy cavalries in Europe, particuraly in WRE, it was more possible that no regional troops within Europe that equiped as Cataphracts.

There were Sarmatian communities settled in Gaul and Britain were they provided contingents. More importantly, units of clibanarii were part of both the Scholae guardsmen that replaced the Praetorians and of the palatina palace units, which were also often employed in the comitatus as well. It is also attested to that Constantine used them against Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, that Constantius II also used them in the Battle of Mursa against the usurper Magentius, and that Julian used them against the Alamanni at Strasbourg. The Notitia Dignitatum also mentions 2 units of cataphracts in Britain and two of clibanarii in North Africa (not Europe, but still the West). I do agree that super-heavy cavalry was much more useful in the East than in the West, and was used much more commonly there, but nonetheless, it was used in the West. Besides, the klibanophoros of Byzantium (which are even attested to at the Battle of Manzikert) were indeed heavy cavalry.

For Sarmatians, their cavalries would be more close to Frankish knights during Crusade - mobile enough but still equiped enough armor for shocking value, but not in a Cataphract sense that sacrify mobility in exchange for extreme heavy armor. For this type of cavalries we probably can only classify them as medium cavalries.

Lastly, Companions were quite interesting case, since they were definately "heavy" in their own timeline. But compare with the true heavy cavalries, such as Cataphracts, Companions became more similar as Frankish knights in 11th Century, which can only classify as medium cavalries.

I sort of agree in the point on the Companions. However, bear in mind that the early Roman cataphract, the one that came before the Persian-inspired clibanarii, was modelled on the Sarmatian heavy cavalry and even recruited from it at times. These were heavy in the function that they performed and they were relatively heavily armoured compared to most other types of cavalry of their day. I guess they can be called medium in relation to heavier cavalry: the clibanarii were indeed heavier than those two, and so would be the klibanophoros and the plate-wearing Renaissance knights, but nonetheless, I do think it is a bit anachronistic to call the Sarmatians medium simply because there would later be heavier types of cavalry, I mean, they could have worn no horse armour and use shock tactics like the companions did, but they instead sacrificed such mobility for the sake of protection by employing horse armour.

[konny]

Well, technology problem and the military needs prevented Frankish knights before 13th Century to be "true" heavy cavalries. But then, it seems that it was a global development at that time since both Byzantium and Muslims were using medium cavalries in same time too (units like Mobile Guards). The true heavy cavalries appeared only when plate armor was introudced, hence truly enable cavalries to be invulable to most attacks.

I don't understand your system of classification. All the aforementioned horsemen used the heavyest armour available and fought in shock tactics as much as possible. This makes them heavy cavalry by all defintions. If you wish only those cavalries to be called "heavy" in which horse and ride weighted as much as a 14th Century full plate knight, there would indeed have been none in history before, and none after the 16th Century.

[hellheaven1987]

I don't understand your system of classification. All the aforementioned horsemen used the heavyest armour available and fought in shock tactics as much as possible. This makes them heavy cavalry by all defintions. If you wish only those cavalries to be called "heavy" in which horse and ride weighted as much as a 14th Century full plate knight, there would indeed have been none in history before, and none after the 16th Century.

That was a no actually, at least for Frankish knights during 11th Century. In fact, without a proper warhorse or an armored horse, mailed knights' value was more its mobility rather than its shocking value.

[hellheaven1987]

There were Sarmatian communities settled in Gaul and Britain were they provided contingents. More importantly, units of clibanarii were part of both the Scholae guardsmen that replaced the Praetorians and of the palatina palace units, which were also often employed in the comitatus as well. It is also attested to that Constantine used them against Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, that Constantius II also used them in the Battle of Mursa against the usurper Magentius, and that Julian used them against the Alamanni at Strasbourg. The Notitia Dignitatum also mentions 2 units of cataphracts in Britain and two of clibanarii in North Africa (not Europe, but still the West). I do agree that super-heavy cavalry was much more useful in the East than in the West, and was used much more commonly there, but nonetheless, it was used in the West. Besides, the klibanophoros of Byzantium (which are even attested to at the Battle of Manzikert) were indeed heavy cavalry.

I sort of agree in the point on the Companions. However, bear in mind that the early Roman cataphract, the one that came before the Persian-inspired clibanarii, was modelled on the Sarmatian heavy cavalry and even recruited from it at times. These were heavy in the function that they performed and they were relatively heavily armoured compared to most other types of cavalry of their day. I guess they can be called medium in relation to heavier cavalry: the clibanarii were indeed heavier than those two, and so would be the klibanophoros and the plate-wearing Renaissance knights, but nonetheless, I do think it is a bit anachronistic to call the Sarmatians medium simply because there would later be heavier types of cavalry, I mean, they could have worn no horse armour and use shock tactics like the companions did, but they instead sacrificed such mobility for the sake of protection by employing horse armour.

I remember SigniferOne once corrected me by stating that Samartian cataphracts were no way as heavy as Sassanid cataphracts, with most Samartians had no armor for horse at all. Overall, the name Cataphract might actually have quite broad meaning to represent a class of more heavily-armed cavalries.

[Trax]

The problem about Cataphracts was that it seems Roman only used them on East, and I did not read sources suggest they were used in Europe.

Battle of Strasbourg

[AnthoniusII]

Heavy cavalry story begins in central/east asia minor where strong armenian breeds were developted.
Asyrians had some kind of "heavy" horsemen despite the fact they used chariots. Those that gave a real boost to heavy horsemen were Lydians.
For the 1st time those strong breed horses had some kind of armor and the horsemen had too...
Lydian cavalry was famous and became more powerfull under the rullership of Kroisos. When persians invaded Kroisos kingdom camels gave them the "solution" because the lydian horses were not used to camel smell!
Persians were clever enough to learn from their new subjects and develop scimilar "ellite" cavalry forses.
Persian heavy cavalry men used "camacas"(greek name for their weapon) short/thick spears. They useally had two of them in order to throw the 1st and use the 2nd for shock asault.
Greeks had small horses in their disposal (thessalian breed) and there for the cavalryman was the one that had protection.
After the Phillip's reforms Macedonians used and compiled the "run and shoot" thracian tactic with the thessalian shock one!
But still only the horseman had protection.
Seleucids developed their heavy horsemen with a compilation of the armeno/iranian horses and their armors with heavily armored cavalrymen.
After them Parthians,Sassanids,Romans...
Sassanids and Romans (byzantines)also used the same armeno/iranian horses but developted more heavy armors for them.
Ox leather,bone or metal scales are few of the materials used for such armors.
Klivanophoroi or cataphractoi are descriptions of warriors and NOT units of them. Armenians in middle ages(7th-11th centuries) created some of the most famous heavy cavalrymen.
Those horsemen were the basis for the 10th century Roman cataphract style units such Scholarii,Excuvitores etc.
I saw a pic in a post above.
Do not let the "padde" suit fool you. A "tagmatic" horseman used three (3) layers of armor on him!
Chain mail
Scale or lammelar cuirass and
Badded suit...

We must focus in each era in order to define which cavalry unit is heavy and which is "light".
For an army a horsemen with a large round shield and chail mail may considered "heavy" but in an other army that armor compilation was the definision of a "light" horseman.

the problem about Cataphracts was that it seems Roman only used them on East, and I did not read sources suggest they were used in Europe. After all, late Roman Legions were much more localized and generally not willing to leave their home province too far, and considered there was little need to use extreme heavy cavalries in Europe, particuraly in WRE, it was more possible that no regional troops within Europe that equiped as Cataphracts.

Wrong. Romans use their "cataphracts" (under diferend names)in every front they fought until 1204!
Those heavy horsemen defeated Hungarian and Austrian knights in the battle of Sirmion under the name "Archontopoulla".
Also faught against Normans and Lombard cataphracts in Italy in late 9th and early 10th century (battle of Ofante River).

[Golden Hawk]

Heavy cavalry is not defined by it's armour and equipment, but by it's function...

Heavy cavalry is meant to be the hammer, where as light is supposed to harass the enemy and chase down routers. By my upper statement I mean that any cavalry is considered heavy, if it's function is to cause a rout, rather than to chase off the routers.