Cataphract, Clibanarii, whatever, against Infantry

[Alanus]

Um, you lost me

Evidently Recondicom is trying to equate medieval battles between cavalry and infantry with your original question about cataphracts vs infantry. I'm not sure how accurate the comparison is, because cavalry tactics in this late game were dissimilar to those employed a millenium previous, with the exception of Alan II's charge (and faked retreat) against the foot at Hastings. 8)

Cataphract tactics were designed as an initial big punch, no more, as used in Asia and some extent in late Roman Europe. I'm thinking of the charge by Sangiban and his Alannic horse against the Hunno-Gothic minions of Attila at Chalons. The historians, right up to Creasy, got that one wrong, all claiming that Sangiban could not be trusted by Aetius; and therefore his Alannic cavalry was placed in mid-formation. Cataphacts charged centrally, going back to tactics employed by the earliest Sassanian elite horsemen, probably back to the Parthians or even Tomyris vs Cyrus.

Historians record Sangiban as fighting "indecisively" and finally retreating-- exactly the correct tactic, falling back and luring the enemy into a void where it can be attacked by both flanks. To help answer your question, thus remember that early Roman, Sassanian, and Partian, heavy horse were often employed as "bait' in conjunction with a disciplined foot... not neccessarily as a glorious routing machine.

As for Jordans to Creasy. Sometimes, you have to excuse the bullshit... no matter where it comes from. :roll: