Byzantine Armies.

[Tobias]

I remember reading somwhere that the Byzantine cataphracts were so heavy that lines were like water when they charged.

Certainly. IF you were an infantryman, with minimal or standard armour, and a squadron of Cataphracti charged your line at about 50 kms an hour, armoured head to toe, could you stand against it lol?

[Lex]

How would the cataphracts or clivanoforii have rated against the knights from western Europe? Which side would have had the better armour, weapons and horses?

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think the matter would boil down to superority of armor, the knight's as being better. Horses can be fairly standard through time except for a few instances. In terms of weaponry, the quality were probably compariable and the particulars not too important nor different (aside from perhaps crossbows).

 

In armor however, the full plate technology behind the knight's armor is a true advance over the scaled versions you see of the cataphracts. The cataphracts would probably end up weighing more and even be less protective than the knights.

[Tobias]

An advantage the Cataphracti might have is being lighter. A fully armoured knight had to be lifted onto the back of a horse because of it's weight, and when knocked out of the saddle or falling over, usually could not get back up ( as was the case at Agincourt)

[Favonius Cornelius]

Hm, so you think that the most heavy armored cataphract was not as heavy? I am thinking that while full plate can be more awkward as you suggest, I think the alloys they eventually used coupled with angular technology actually weighed less than the full coat of iron scale mail and a scaled horse.

[longbow]

A fully armoured knight had to be lifted onto the back of a horse because of it's weight

 

But the Knight probably wouldnt be wearing a full plate suit of armour,they wore chain mail with some plates added to the most vulnerable places like the shoulders and thighs,and of course the Helm.Only the richest Knights could afford a full suit anyway and these were mainly used for jousting tournaments not for battles.

[Tobias]

Both arguments are so sound that i can't really answer to them. The question, then, i would ask is was there a battle when the Byzantine Cataphract faced off against the Medieval European Knight on horseback? If so, was the knight's horse armoured all over like the cataphract, or would it just have a kind of breast plate and mail helmet to protect the neck and head of the horse?

Imagine a cavalry battle and it's initial charge between the Knights and the Cataphracti, you'd feel the earth move then

[Favonius Cornelius]

Speaking of ultimate tank action, did any medieval nations ever attempt to bring back the elephant? A plate mailed elephant would have made for quite a surprise I imagine.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Speaking of ultimate tank action, did any medieval nations ever attempt to bring back the elephant? A plate mailed elephant would have made for quite a surprise I imagine.

 

Impossible. The Muslim world's monopoly on eastern trade meant that Indian elephants were almost impossible to buy in Europe. North African bush elephants, which Carthaginians used, were long extinct.

 

Byzantine cataphract rarely faced European cavalry, and probably never plate armoured cavalry since plate armour was invented rather late in Europe.

[Tobias]

QUOTE(Favonius Cornelius @ Oct 14 2005, 10:58 PM)

 

Speaking of ultimate tank action, did any medieval nations ever attempt to bring back the elephant? A plate mailed elephant would have made for quite a surprise I imagine.

 

 

 

Impossible. The Muslim world's monopoly on eastern trade meant that Indian elephants were almost impossible to buy in Europe. North African bush elephants, which Carthaginians used, were long extinct.

 

Yeah. Besides, even if the European nations did get their hands on some elephants, there would have been little chance of them being able to position and use them in battle to cause more damage to the enemy then themselves, as most of that knowledge would either be solely in the hands of the Persians etc. or extinct.

[george]

There has never been a battle between Kataphracts and western knights.

The only time knights came down to battle the byzantine armies was during the 4th crusade and the the emperor had disbanded the Kataphracts 10 years prior.

[Favonius Cornelius]

What is the worst Byzantininan kataphracts ever met with regards to the various nations to the east, Persians, Turks etc. They probably were equipped like Kataphracts.

[Yoritomo]

Hi all!

 

George,I'll have to disaggre (As a Greek ).Cataphracts were MUCH better armed than the Western Knights(talking about 10-11 century).The word "Cataphract" comes from the Greek word "Cataphractos" which means the person(warrior...)who carries a "Cataphractis"-Byzantine lamelar armor.As we check in the images,a cataphract was armed in a combination of plate armor(legs,arms),lameral armor for the chest and under this one a chain mail,while a European Knight of the same time was armed only with chain mail(full-body though...).Furthermore,the shield of a cataphract was bigger than this of a knight and had metal parts.As for the lances,I don't see a difference between the byzantine and Western lances.Probably you have in mind the typical tournament lance with the hand protector which was used in tournaments.This Western lance was used in war much later-15 century-and it's less comfortable than the normal lance.

 

The only area where a cataphract was less armed than a Western Knight would be the head,since Knights wore heavy full-cover helmets.However,a cataphract would have better vission ability and less weight on his head.

 

Actually,the type of armor used by the cataphracts was a combination of Western and Eastern armor.Only this kind of heavy armor could save a cataphract from cavarly archers carring composite bows-much much much more effective and lethal than any european bow.

 

Same with the horse.Western horses were armed with full chain mail,while cataphract horses were armed with full-lamelar armor(as good as plate armor,but more flexible and maybe lighter).

 

Flavious Constantine,believe me man,you wouldn't like to fight against one of these gayz!They kept away Saracens,Bulgrarians,Avars and much more wild warriors,which means that this kind of expensive clothing they used to wear was just for showing off their wealth .Furthermore,a crusader could be dressed in much more decorated clothes(White robe with red cross was optional,many knights were dressed in bright clothes with the family herald,or just expensive silk robes).Don't compare a cataphract with a legionare.A cataphract was a noble man heavy cavarly warrior of the Byzantine Medieval Empire(not Roman any more ),while a legionare was just a tactical soldier-too poor compared to a cataphract .

 

Cheerz!

[longbow]

An 11th century Norman Knight wouldnt be waring any plate armour he would be in a chainmail suit including a coif.His horse would of had a chainmail chest covering and maybe one for the flanks but in the 11th CE the horse wouldnt have ant face armour,that was much later.The Knights kite shield was designed to protect the riders left side including the leg,thats why its kite shaped,an excellent shield for a rider.The lance's in the 11thCE were basically heavy spears,with this type of lance you can only get the power from the speed of the horse and the riders right arm.The crouched lance (the one with the hand guard) was developed in the 14th CE,this lance is much more powerful as it allows you to get your full body and the weight of the horse behind the blow,much more damaging.

It seems to come down to which is better armour scale or chain? is a scale suit lighter than a chain one? ( i wore a hauberk once and i couldnt believe the weight of the thing) i have no idea,but scale armour looks heavier.

The Norman war horse is a big bugger who's trained to bite and kick the enemy, and he'll allso spin in circles once the Knight has used the lance and is then in the thick of the action.Its spins so it cant get its back legs hamstrung whilst the rider is chopping or bashing the enemy,making it more difficult to bring down.Are the Byzantine horses like this? maybe Tobias knows about Byzantine horses but i havent got a clue .

Pic i found of a less heavily armed cataphract,his horse has no armour.

 

BTW,high Yoritomo

White robes and a red cross were'nt optional if you were a Knight Templar,thats there orders colours.

[Yoritomo]

Hi there!

 

Dear Longbow,you probably missunderstood me .That's what I'm talking about!A 11th Cent Knight wouldn't have a plate armor but chain mail only,while a cataphract was much more heavily armed.

 

Yes,first strike with a lance with a hand guard would be more powerful,but consider this lance would drop the knight down from the horse,while the old style lance would slip into the hand of the Knight.Furthermore,you can handle this last lance in any point of it's lenth,which helps sometimes.

 

I was not trying to compare chain and scale armor to find out which is better...I was just telling that the warrior who wears scale armor is considered heavily armed.And that's true,you can find out that every Eastern heavy-cavarly warrior is covered with scale armor.Chain mail is flexible but less protective than scale.It's weight varries-the rings which it's consisted of would be very small or very big.Scale armor weight also varries-it depends on the material used for the scales and on how big they are.I guess a hardened-leather scale armor would be even lighter than chain mail(but for sure lighter than plate armor AS I SAID BEFORE ).Chain mail will protect the warrior from swords and axes,but not from arrows and lances.A scale armor would be more effective for piercings.Plate armor works as well,but it's heavier and less flexible.

 

A teardrop shaped shield protects a large part of the mounted warrior,and the steel perigramme would not allow the sword strike to brake or stuck on the shield,like it happens with the kite shapedd shield.Also,the upper two corners of the kite shaped shield would let the sword be in contact with the edge of the shield.This does not happen with the round-like edges of the teardrop shield.

 

Not every horse was heavily armored,like the one you show on your picture,however,check the rest of the pictures of the topic.This armor was not cheap at all and I guess not all cataphracts could afford this.Also,this horse carries a heavy rider and it could be quicker without an armor.It depend on what's it's work.It sometimes had to be quick,while in other cases it should be slower,but better protected.No idea about the horse action in battle.Norman horses may have been better at this,since they fought more often with infantry.

 

And,BTW,Your Highness Longbow,we were talking about crusaders in general-not every crusader was in the order of the Holy Temple of Solomon,so that's necessary to wear typical robe of the order .

 

Also,BTW,in Greek Knaos=Temple,Knightes=Templar Order Warrior Knightes...Knight...later any European Warrior of this type.

 

Cheerz!