Were the Hetairoi superior (in rank) to the Cataphracts(those employed by their own armies)?

[Pooploop]

I'm not talking about their combat abilities but their social standing and military ranking. I mean you've got these superbly and heavily armored and armed horsemen but somehow they weren't considered (stress here, I'm talking about perspectives not actual battlefield performance) superior to what was basically their "older" versions - the Hetairoi - even if they most likely belonged to the same class. I'm highly resistant to the idea that Hellenistic cataphracts were somehow separately trained, raised, and envisioned as a completely different division to the Companions. Weren't Hellenistic cataphracts basically Hetairoi with more encompassing armor and horse armor? And if the usage of horse armor or better personal armor was becoming widespread throughout the Near East, why wouldn't those who were classified as Companions "upgrade"? If we are past a possible intermediary period when all cataphracts were being recruited only from other kingdoms and tribes (therefore allies or auxiliaries), a period where the "idea" of the cataphract was just being introduced, and that we are now in a period where their "style" and equipment were becoming "in vogue" among the elites of the standing army, wouldn't all Hetairoi more or less morph into semi or full cataphracts? Instead of two different "units" or styles and equipment of fighting on horseback, there would be the elites who had the complete set of personal armor and horse armor (those who'll seem to be cataphracts) and those who couldn't or didn't want to purchase or wear the complete set (those who'll still look like the older Hetairoi). When reading some stuff about Antiochus the Great, one will come upon passages describing their cavalry as uniformly "magnificent" blah blah blah. There's no distinction among the elite cavalry of separating into two groups or styles of fighting. They just charge and kill people in close quarters.

My main underlying concern in all of this is that the idea of an "experiment" division that is completely separate from division that originally did its job, and that they were equipped better than that original division, and the original division will strictly keep their original equipment and not even try to use the new equipment, is a very modern idea of an army. The moment the idea of Hellenistic cataphracts came into practice, the very best and richest of the Companions would have been the first to purchase and try out the better personal armor and horse armor. In fact, in game terms, that means the moment Hellenistic Cataphracts become available, there should be an armor upgrade for the personal bodyguards of the general so that they can get horse armor or better personal armor as well. The concept that the men with more expensive and better looking armor being outranked by men with less expensive and more archaic styles of armor is very unlikely.

However, this is just my opinion and my readings about Antiochus are limited, so if there are those who understand this topic better, please enlighten me.

[wermez]

I think that role of the cataphract is to be used mostly against enemy heavy infantry.

[Kilo11]

I think that role of the cataphract is to be used mostly against enemy heavy infantry.

I am also no historian, so this may be way off, but I do have knowledge of military and political structures, and could imagine that the idea Wermez is getting at might explain it. I mean, if there is a cavalry for breaking into heavy infantry lines, it'll need to be armored and armed to the teeth. However, if you can opt for a more mobile unit which is less likely to be smashed to bits against lines of spears/swords/shields, then it would be sensible to take that option. Since the higher ranked fellows would have more options, they would plausibly opt to be in the more mobile likely safer Hetairoi, rather than in the Kataphraktoi who were thrown into the fray as hard as possible. Just my two cents though.

[Roma_Victrix]

I am also no historian, so this may be way off, but I do have knowledge of military and political structures, and could imagine that the idea Wermez is getting at might explain it. I mean, if there is a cavalry for breaking into heavy infantry lines, it'll need to be armored and armed to the teeth. However, if you can opt for a more mobile unit which is less likely to be smashed to bits against lines of spears/swords/shields, then it would be sensible to take that option. Since the higher ranked fellows would have more options, they would plausibly opt to be in the more mobile likely safer Hetairoi, rather than in the Kataphraktoi who were thrown into the fray as hard as possible. Just my two cents though.

Hmm...then how does one explain that the nobility of the Parthian and Sasanian dynasties of ancient Persia fought as cataphracts? The Romans needn't adopt the same policy of recruiting well-to-do Romans as cataphracts, but this idea of yours is at least contradicted by the contemporary Persian example. I'm suddenly very curious to see an academic source clarifying this about the Seleucids.

[Kilo11]

Hmm...then how does one explain that the nobility of the Parthian and Sasanian dynasties of ancient Persia fought as cataphracts? The Romans needn't adopt the same policy of recruiting well-to-do Romans as cataphracts, but this idea of yours is at least contradicted by the contemporary Persian example.

Hmm. Could be a cultural difference, with the eastern nations putting more stock in a leader who literally leads the army to battle, but that is just an ex post explanation to handle your point, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

This does seem like a tricky thing then. Because the intitial question from Pooploop is a very good one: If Kataphaktoi are better armored and armed than Hetairoi, and ancient militaries were usually structured such that the highest ranked soldiers (ranks being understood as civil rank, not exclusively military ones, since the nobles were the ranking officers) got the best gear, then why would companion cavalry use anything other than Kataphaktoi gear once they had ever seen it? Shouldn't that style of cavalry have migrated west rather rapidly then?

A guess: could it be that western armies had more/better phalanx formations, demanding that the heavy cavalry be more mobile to counter that? The eastern kingdoms then would I guess be dealing more with spears, but not necessarily phalanx formations, so ultra-heavy cavalry could just pound them without being skewered too much in the process.

I'm suddenly very curious to see an academic source clarifying this about the Seleucids.

Unfortunately, I have no academic sources. To my regret, I am not an historian.

[Sar1n]

Hmm...then how does one explain that the nobility of the Parthian and Sasanian dynasties of ancient Persia fought as cataphracts? The Romans needn't adopt the same policy of recruiting well-to-do Romans as cataphracts, but this idea of yours is at least contradicted by the contemporary Persian example. I'm suddenly very curious to see an academic source clarifying this about the Seleucids.

Cataphracts aren't end-of-all cavalry of antiquity. While excellent in charging through arrow fire and smashing the infantry to bits, they're not very mobile, and not great in engagements against enemy cavalry. Besides their speed, cataphract armour hinders use of ranged weapons, especially javelins (it doesn't appear to be that big hindrance for cavalry bows). While Parthians and Sassanids relied on lower ranked horse archers and skirmishers from areas with significant cavalry tradition to keep enemy cavalry occupied, in macedonian style such classes fought as infantry, and it was mostly matter for nobles (and mercenaries) to deal with enemy cavalry before flanking the infantry pinned down by phalanx.

Thus, hetairoi and similar cavalry remained in use, as they were more suited for engaging enemy cavalry.

Edit: Forgot to mention important thing. It appears that Persians used cataphracts differently than Seleucids. While for Persians, cataphract charge was the final, decisive act of battle, usually ordered after enemy was sufficiently softened up by skirmishing, Seleucids used them in a manner similar to war elephants, as first wave of attack, intended to disorganize enemy infantry before meeting the phalanx.

[Hellenikon]

I'm not an expert, but i'll try to answer you.

The hetairoi (noblemen basically) by the time of Antiochos Megas were equipped as both kataphraktoi and xystophoroi, there were divisions of each one. Then you had the lesser non-hetairoi regiments, which also provided these two kinds of cavalry. The alexandrian hetairoi, an armored lancer, never outright disappeared because it fulfilled a different role than the cataphracts - namely being way more flexible and faster, a precision weapon.

[wermez]

Yes, like the crews of todays main battle tanks. Hard, dirty job.

[wermez]

During the fights between christian states and ottomans in 14th 15th and 16th century, ottoman and tatar akinjis easily outmaneuvered european heavy knights.
When you and your horse are clad in iron armor from head to toe with tiny slits for eyes, you could not catch enemy light horseman when you are chasing him and they could easily catch you when you are running from them.
Also heavy armor tires you and your horse more quickly and fighting spirit is diminished unlike that of the young enemy mounted bandit whose goal is to knock you down or arrest you with lasso, rob and cut off your head.
That is why hungarians and russians created and employed hussars and cossacks, to fight against akinjis. Super heavy cavalry are useful only in offensive.

Sources? Konstantin Mihajlovic, Memoirs of the Janissary, book from late 15th century.

Konstantin was miner from Novo Brdo, city in Serbian Despotate that fell under Ottomans in 1455. Civilians of the city were massacred except young girls and boys, who were taken into harem and slavery. Strongest boys were chosen to be janissaries. Konstantin fought as janissary in numerous ottoman campaigns but he never forgot his christian origins and defected to the Hungarians willingly, living his days in Poland and writing a book where he advised christian rulers how to defeat ottoman war machine. He advised abandoning heavy super-armoured cavalry concept and keeping generals away from leading charges and taking risk.

I guess that cavalry matters were similar in hellenistic age. In Carrhae horse archers were decisive in defeating romans, not cataphracts. During Napoleons invasion of Russia cossacks did a lot more than cuirassers. And without IS2 tank Soviets would still win the war, but without T34, they would lose.

[Mamlaz]

During the fights between christian states and ottomans in 14th 15th and 16th century, ottoman and tatar akinjis easily outmaneuvered european heavy knights.

Not really.

They were often times outmanouvered themselves by traditionally armored knights and massacred to a pulp because of their light armor.

See battles like Bileca, Vrpile, Dvor, Una etc.


Also;

"In 1279, 200 horsemen* from the garrison of Margat used this tactic against the 5000** Muslims who were trying to prevent them from ravaging the neighborhood of Crac des Chevaliers. The Hospitallers, knowing it would be suicidal for them to confront this force in the open, therefore allowed themselves to be chased until they had almost reached Margat itself before turning on the Muslims and routing them with the loss of only one mounted sergeant." - Unknown Crusader Castles, page 72, Kristian Molin

*Hospitaller knights

**exaggerated number, but still

When you and your horse are clad in iron armor from head to toe with tiny slits for eyes, you could not catch enemy light horseman when you are chasing him and they could easily catch you when you are running from them.
Also heavy armor tires you and your horse more quickly and fighting spirit is diminished unlike that of the young enemy mounted bandit whose goal is to knock you down or arrest you with lasso, rob and cut off your head.

Right, which is why the dumb Ottomans decided it was smart to waste immense resource into levying tens of thousands of sipahis of their own, who very often had more horse barding then their western buddies and roughly equal weight in body armor.


This light trumps heavy meme has got to stop.

There is a reason so many armies wasted so much immense resources into raising heavy armored troops.

That is why hungarians and russians created and employed hussars and cossacks, to fight against akinjis. Super heavy cavalry are useful only in offensive.

No, they did not create those troops, those troops were formed by people who could not afford heavier equipment.

There is no evidence that they were purposefully lightly armored.

Sources? Konstantin Mihajlovic, Memoirs of the Janissary, book from late 15th century.

Konstantin was miner from Novo Brdo, city in Serbian Despotate that fell under Ottomans in 1455. Civilians of the city were massacred except young girls and boys, who were taken into harem and slavery. Strongest boys were chosen to be janissaries. Konstantin fought as janissary in numerous ottoman campaigns but he never forgot his christian origins and defected to the Hungarians willingly, living his days in Poland and writing a book where he advised christian rulers how to defeat ottoman war machine. He advised abandoning heavy super-armoured cavalry concept and keeping generals away from leading charges and taking risk.

That is not how you cite a source.

Quote the statement please.

I guess that cavalry matters were similar in hellenistic age. In Carrhae horse archers were decisive in defeating romans, not cataphracts.

They were actually equal in importance.

Re-read the primary sources.

The cataphracts not only repeatedly charged to cause casualties, they also prevented the Romans from forming testudos, and according to Dio, testudos made Romans basically impervious to arrow fire.

During Napoleons invasion of Russia cossacks did a lot more than cuirassers.

Because there were a lot more of them.

And without IS2 tank Soviets would still win the war, but without T34, they would lose.

...because there were a lot more of them.

Just like the other arguments about light cavalry vs heavy cavalry;

because there were a lot more of them.

[Pooploop]

So if that's the case Sar1n, the Seleucids really did envision the cataphracts as a completely separate and distinctly equipped and trained melee cavalry force? However, that's where I can't completely agree. If the Hetairoi were to adopt cataphract gear, even if partially (like ring-arm armor, or gorgets, or an armored skirt or plated pants, or just a quilt over the horse with metal only to protect the steed's chest), and to an outsider view "look" basically like other cataphracts, would that really detract from their ability to function as a reserve strike force or a counter to enemy cavalry (side-note: were Hetairoi even the primary response to enemy cav? I'm sure the Macedonians preferred the xystophoroi or allied horse like Thessalians or Thracians to engage the bulk of hostile cav; the Hetairoi were the picked reserve to kill enemy commanders and shatter enemy armies as a whole)? In fact with the increasing length of the sarissas used in phalanx engagements and the mass volleys from all sorts of projectiles common in eastern warfare, one would say the natural trend would be, above any cultural or traditional norm, to get better armor for oneself and one's horse? If anything, your comparison of Parthians to the Eastern Hellenistic Kingdoms would actually call for the elite melee cavalry of the latter to deck themselves out with more armor. As the Greeks had to deal with less mobile, more compact, and more close-combat oriented foes (heavy infantry or pikemen), horse armor would be a massive boon. The Parthians, on the other hand, had to deal with foes that could run away way more effectively, meaning too-heavy armor is a no-no. And, there's the problem of "definition" or "classification", which I mentioned earlier. Wasn't it more likely that horsemen we modernly and separately identify as cataphracts or hetairoi were all raised from the same social class, given the same training, given the same type of steeds, and were accustomed to the same-ish equipment? The exact role they would play in battle would only slightly differ if the kit and animal they fitted themselves out with was more expensive and complete, that in itself dependent on their personal wealth or the wealth of their patron. Also, those horsemen, with the added protection, could, hypothetically, now have multiple roles, sometimes acting as a reserve, or as battle-openers.

Going back to my original point, which addresses less of battlefield performance and more of rank and equipment that goes along with it; would the highest ranked companies of companions deliberately NOT purchase and use cataphract equipment, even if partially? I mean how much more stuff does a Hetairoi need (already one of heaviest types of kitted out cavalrymen in Europe and the Near East) to make observers perceive them as Cataphracts?

Finally, the so-called bad usage by the Seleucids of cataphracts may actually support my idea that they were all just far more heavily armored hetairoi. Their commanders' mindset (possibly) of still classifying them as hetairoi bait them into making mistakes of giving these horsemen tasks that were more suited to cavalry who didn't tire as easily as cataphracts. My limited knowledge on late Seleucid military cavalry blunders is summarized by "their heavy horse got winded and fatigued".

P.S. Clarification, the hetairoi I'm referring to are of the late hellenistic era that were exposed to cataphract type horsemen.

P.P.S. Late Hetairoi across the Hellenistic world have adopted that high saddle right? Because if hetairoi of EB2's era were still stuck with their old blanket, then I retract my views and am firmly supporting the idea that cataphracts and hetairoi are two distinct forces. That saddle is so important in keeping one's seat during and after a charge.

P.P.P.S If my thoughts on the matter ever get translated into changes in EB2, the only thing I'd advocate for is that the companions (as a distinct force or as bodyguards) can get armor upgrades in the form of horse armor (NOT NECESSARILY METAL, could be some sort of quilted or padded protection), or better limb armor. The changes stated must only be allowed once Hellenistic cataphracts as a unit can be regularly recruited by faction in use. The end-look and end-defence-stats of these upgraded companions will be similar or slightly better than a unit already firmly in existence in EB2: Baktrian cavalry. I mean, that unit is basically what I'm advocating was the look of all Late-Hellenistic Hetairoi exposed to eastern heavy cav styles: a hetairoi cavalry man with armored limbs atop a steed with horse armor.

[Pooploop]

Hmmm Wermez, your use of the Ottoman Empire actually supports my original opinion. Remember that I'm asking whether the lighter Hetairoi (comparatively to cataphracts) outranked their more heavily armed brethren. Outranked not in actual battlefield performance but in the prestige in their command chain (or eliteness of units). Are you telling me that the Qapukulu and Sipahis of the House of Osman were lightly armored? Are you telling me they deliberately fought in akinji fashion? They who were considered the elite of the elite (except the Janissary death squadrons, but they were more of a suicide unit)? The Hetairoi, being, originally, the reserve strike force and personal protectors of the king are of similar status to the Ottoman noble horsemen. That's why, when a new "fashion" of cataphract type horsemen would have become popular, wouldn't those companions be the first to purchase and try out the new, more encompassing equipment? Thus, my posited answer to my question is that no, the hetairoi did not outrank cataphracts because they became the cataphracts. There were just, internally, differences in the completeness of their armor and horse armor. However, in the end, this is just my opinion.

On the subject of the effectiveness of light or heavy cavalry, it's a bad idea to insinuate that light always beats heavy (and that being ONLY good in offence is a bad thing). For me, no matter if a soldier chooses to fight in a loose, fluid fashion or a close, compact style, having better or more armor is always a good thing. It only starts to be bad when the armor starts serious fatigue problems or stifles your sense of sight and sound. Both of which can be mitigated by a good command, communication and reserve system. For me, the reason why "ultra-heavy" (itself a misconception, good plate armor had a very spread out weight and afforded full range of movement to fighters) cavalry of Europeans seemed to fail during the Ottoman ascendancy was because of the horrible leadership and leadership systems of the various European principalities. The disaster at Adrianople was less because heavy cavalry sucked but more because the French were pigheaded buffoons (the nobility in particular). Also, you are discounting the multiple victories of Christian heavy cavalry (e.g. Vaslui) over the Ottomans, and the complete defeats of the Moors by the Reconquista. If used properly (especially with RESERVES), heavy cavalry can regularly inflict devastating losses on enemy troops - I mean, look at the Polish hussars.

Finally, why, for me, the insinuation that light is largely better than heavy is wrong is provided by the very states you used as examples. The Ottomans, are you sure they didn't have extensive heavy cavalry (their ghulams come to mind before 1400's, and after, as I've said, their Sipahis and Qapukulus?)? The Parthian victory at Carrhae required BOTH light and heavy troops to pull it off, as a large percentage of the arrows fired by the Parthians did not immediately cause casualties (roman armor and their shields remember?). The cataphracts limited the general area the Romans were willing to maneuver (as the threat of the damage they could inflict on separated smaller groups, whether in attack or retreat, forced the romans on the united, static, defensive) and the damage they DID inflict on the Romans with their charges was immense, both to bodies and morale. As for the Curiassers, and heavy horse in general during the Napoleonic era, you'll need to consult someone else for more details, but the abilities of those armored horsemen impressed their enemies enough that they all adopted their protection at the later part and after the end of the wars.

So, light is not better than heavy. They each have tasks that they do better than the other, and either may be needed more in certain situations, but usage of both to their full capacities is best.

[QuintusSertorius]

I think their equipment is irrelevant in a consideration of their status. The Hetairoi, like other elements of the Agema, were from the family of the king, and those aristocratic families closest to them (often by ties of inter-marriage between families). That is the foundation of their status, not how they happen to turn out in battle. Early on especially, those cataphracts are not even Makedonians, so how their wealth has no bearing on whether or not they are part of the inner circle of the king and his philoi.

[Pooploop]

But Quintus, wouldn't those Seleucids have adopted some equipment from those heavily armed eastern horsemen? However, in light of your statement that: "those cataphracts are not even Macedonians", I'm going to have to rethink my idea. If they weren't, and if these cataphracts were all basically favored/noble auxiliaries or allied horse, then that would explain the distinctness of equipment and style in usage of the two groups - the hetairoi and the kataphraktoi.

[Sar1n]

But Quintus, wouldn't those Seleucids have adopted some equipment from those heavily armed eastern horsemen? However, in light of your statement that: "those cataphracts are not even Macedonians", I'm going to have to rethink my idea. If they weren't, and if these cataphracts were all basically favored/noble auxiliaries or allied horse, then that would explain the distinctness of equipment and style in usage of the two groups - the hetairoi and the kataphraktoi.

QS is right. At Magnesia, significant number of cataphracts were Galatians equipped by Antiochus.

From your posts, it seems that you're not aware just how much were cataphracts encumbered by their gear. Don't forget, those weren't late medieval warhorses. Even Nisean breed would be severely limited in speed, maneuverability and endurance. In fact, in hellenistic usage the heavy gear of kataphraktoi proven to be a hindrance more often than it was advantageous.

Hetairoi were expected to defend the king as much (or more) as lead the attack. For that role, lighter, multi-purpose gear was better. Also, a little clarification...even if Hetairoi adopted some elements of cataphract gear, they would never be indentified as such. Always as Hetairoi or Agema. It was an important distinction, both social and military.

[QuintusSertorius]

Why? They're already using a system which works for the way they fight, more armour is not automatically better.

[betto]

maybe they just renamed some favored (pampered) units of cataphracts to match the name of old elite using breatplates but keeping the rest of the body and the horse covered by squamata or hamata as any cataphracts of that time period.

[Hellenikon]

The cataphracts that Antiochos the son led at Panion, and Antiochos Megas led at Magnesia, were likely both of the hetairoi class.

About their role, the issue with them is that they were inflexible, when isolated or disrupted they would be overwhelmed or neutered, respectively. At Magnesia the seleucids used a lot of inflexible corps that needed support badly: phalanxes, elephants, chariots, cataphracts. All of those were powerful, but not by themselves, they needed support from other units to fulfill their role effectively. With so many different inflexible elements, it's no wonder the battle turned out as it did.

[Pooploop]

However Sar1n, in Magnesia, the King led the agema, the cataphracts, and the hetairoi as one body against the same targets. Thus, one can say these cataphracts were not released at an earlier stage of the battle, or told to charge only at a specific type of foe, or only unleashed at the last stage of the clash. That then means that the cataphracts were not so encumbered that they were not considered incapable of keeping up with the Companions. Conversely, that also means that the agema and the hetairoi were expected to have nearly the same impact as the cataphracts in a head-on clash against infantry and cavalry! Of course, you can say the Seleucids simply used them wrong, but in Magnesia they did their job well, until the elephants ran amok and disrupted their foot. Reading about the battle proves your point that the chroniclers always distinguished between the three types of cavalry, but the moniker kataphraktoi might not necessarily mean they were far(faaar) more heavily armored than their melee cav. brethren (consider their usage). The term "kataphraktoi", would it refer more to the fact to the type of armor they used - mail? Would the composite cuirasses of the Agema fare so poorly compared to mail, and if they barded(medieval term, I know) their horses, would the Companions not be close to equaling the prowess of cataphracts in charge and melee?

I guess all of this can be solved if someone were to produce some sort of mustering decree by the Seleucids of that era that pertains to the equipment held necessary for men in positions of the Agema or the Hetairoi. But, Quintus and you Sar1n have at least driven home the point that of the elite melee cavalry of the Hellenistic East, there exist three distinct classes in which the kataphraktoi was one. As to how superior (or equal?) was the kataphraktoi (the Hellenistic one) in melee combat and charging compared to the other two divisions, and as to whether or not those two divisions ever tried to adapt kataphraktoi gear (even partially) and (more importantly) fighting style I hope others will be able to provide sources.

Extra Queries: Aside from Galatia, from where-else did the Seleucids recruit their cataphracts? Also, as Gauls on horseback, did they carry shields or were they retrained in the two-handed lance style?
My small hope that the beauty of the Baktrian cavalry style (just lancers not bows) be potientally spread to other Hellenistic Kingdoms is gone now. Is my request for horse armor (as armor upgrades) for the companions too inaccurate and fantasy-ish?
Exactly what was the momentum capable of being generated by heavy barge-pole (not Western Mediterranean) cavalry of the time? Not comparable to Medieval cavalry at all?

[Rad]

My opinion on the usage of armor is that one must consider ALL the facts before making a decision.
What are you doing? Are you in an ambush, a skirmish, siege, open battle?
What do you want to do? Hold ground? Advance towards the enemy? Flank the enemy?
What's the terrain like? Is it flat, hilly, mountainous, marshy?
Who holds the more favorable ground, you or the enemy?
What's the fighting style of your army? What's the fighting style of your enemy?
Who has the greater numbers, you or the enemy?

Making grand statements about how armor is the best/worst is just plain wrong.
Here's what I can conclude from all the time I spent learning history - generally, armor works well, but not always. Sometimes, it can be one of the reasons that contributed to loss - usually because the enemy knows what is needed to deal against armor and has the resources and capability to do so. Most of the times though, it's a major factor in the victory/survival of the army, and the individual soldier. Almost all of the French knights at Agincourt survived the freaking hailstorm of arrows the English put up. Why? Because they had decent armor. They lost the battle handsomely because the English had far better leadership, far better overall battle plan and the terrain favored them.

If it didn't prove cost effective, people wouldn't have spent centuries developing armor to the level of quality, functionality and craftsmanship that 15th and 16th century European plate easily portrays. Will more armor be better in every conceivable situation? Certainly not.

Personally, I don't like heavy armor. A helmet and a shield would be fine for me, thanks. However, if I knew I had to hold the line against an enemy, especially one armed with missile weapons, you could be sure that I would try to get my hands on as much of the stuff as possible. Everything matters.