Cataphract, Clibanarii, whatever, against Infantry

[Aulus Perrinius]

I apologize if this is the wrong place

My question is how many battles do we know of where Cataphracts (Fully armoured men on armoured horses with lances, maces and bows, and let's forget about the big terminology debate for now) fought solid infantry (Any side/instance you can think of) and how did they perform?

[Alanus]

I apologize if this is the wrong place

My question is how many battles do we know of where Cataphracts (Fully armoured men on armoured horses with lances, maces and bows, and let's forget about the big terminology debate for now) fought solid infantry (Any side/instance you can think of) and how did they perform?

Also as an aside question what were the size of Cataphract horses?

The intricacy and obtuseness of your two-pronged question must account for the lack of answers.

There's a fairly good description, I think, of the Parthians against Crassus. In that instance, some cataphracts skewered more than one man with a contus. The battle between Cyrus and Queen Tomyris was probably fought with cataphracts on both sides, but it was won by a savy recounter in a narrow ravine... according to Julius Frontinus. Tacitus recalls an ice battle in which the Alanic cataphracts, who could not manouvre, were defeated by Roman infantry.

The Persians had a larger breed of horse, the name escapes me at the moment but I think it was the Nisson (sp?), not the car or donut. :roll: The Alans (aka Massagetae) had probably developed the "Vandalusian," a popular movie horse and the same one used for the haute echole in Vienna. The Bashkir and Al Takal were probably cataphract horses, but the breeds were altered by the addition of Arabian bloodlines.

I don't really think a cataphract's horse had to be large as much as it had to have strong bone structure. Therefore, a 14-hands horse such as the Welsh Cob would carry a well-armored man. John Conyard would know far more than I do.

[Ron Andrea]

Gildas (5 c.) mentions Roman cavalry flying like eagles against invaders from Britain's north, but he may have been referring to their ability to manuver quickly, rather than a specific battle. Of course, it may also have been Gildas' imagination which was flying as many have recounted that--over a long distance--men a foot move faster than men mounted.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I apologize if this is the wrong place

My question is how many battles do we know of where Cataphracts (Fully armoured men on armoured horses with lances, maces and bows, and let's forget about the big terminology debate for now) fought solid infantry (Any side/instance you can think of) and how did they perform?

Also as an aside question what were the size of Cataphract horses?

The intricacy and obtuseness of your two-pronged question must account for the lack of answers.

Ouch, dude there's no need to be insulting

[Alanus]

I wasn't being insulting, nor was it intended as such. Only truthful. Aulus' opening question of this thread stood unanswered for four days.

Some insights on the size and type of horse used by cataphracts can be found (currently) under "The Sub-Roman British Cavalry." A hardy, nearly weather-proof, horse with strong bone structure would be the ideal candidate.

Ron, what is an "extended period"? If I were a foot-soldier, I would rather try avoiding 10 infantrymen running at me than 10 cavalrymen! Even if I could run the Marathon. :lol:

[recondicom]

ALMOGAVARES (from the Arab. Al-Mugavari, a scout), the name of a class of Spanish soldiers, well known during the Christian reconquest of Spain, and much employed as mercenaries in Italy and the Levant, during the 13th and 14th centuries. The Almogavares (the plural of Almogavar) came originally from the Pyrenees, and were in later times recruited mainly in Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia. They were frontiersmen and foot-soldiers who wore no armour, dressed in skins, were shod with brogues (abarcas), and carried the same arms as the Roman legionaries--two heavy javelins (Spanish azagaya, the Roman pilum), a short stabbing sword and a shield. They served the king, the nobles, the church or the towns for pay, and were professional soldiers. When Peter III. of Aragon made war on Charles of Anjou after the Sicilian Vespers--30th of March 1282--for the possession of Naples and Sicily, the Almogavares formed the most effective element of his army. Their discipline and ferocity, the force with which they hurled their javelins, and their activity, made them very formidable to the heavy cavalry of the Angevin armies. When the peace of Calatabellota in 1302 ended the war in southern Italy, the Almogavares followed Roger di Flor (Roger Blum) the unfrocked Templar, who entered the service of the emperor of the East, Andronicus, as condottieri to fight against the Turks. Their campaign in Asia Minor, 1303 and 1304, was a series of romantic victories, but their greed and violence made them intolerable to the Christian population. When Roger di Flor was assassinated by his Greek employerin 1305, they turned on the emperor, held Galhpoh and ravaged the neighbourhood of Constantinople. In 1310 they marched against the duke of Athens, of the French house of Brienne. Walter of Brienne was defeated and slain by them with all his knights at the battle of Cephissus, or Orchomenus, in Boeotia in March. They then divided the wives and possessions of the Frenchmen by lot and summoned a prince of the house of Aragon to rule over them. The foundation of the Aragonese duchy of Athens was the culmination of the achievements of the Almogavares. In the 16th century the name died out. It was, however, revived for a short time as a party nickname in the civil wars of the reign of Ferdinand VII.
AUTHORITIES.---The Almogavares are admirably described by one who fought with them, Ramon de Muntaner, whose Chronicle has been translated into French by J. A. Buchon, Chronioues etrangeres (Paris, 1860). The original test was reprinted and edited by K. Lanz at Stuttgart, 1844. See also the Expedition des "Almugavares" ou routiers catalans en orient, de l'an 1302 a l'an 1311 by G. Schlumberger (Paris, 1902). (D. H.)

This article is from the 1911 edition of an encyclopedia, which is out of copyright here in the U.S. It is in the public domain and you may copy, download, print and distribute this work as you see fit. Melissa Snell (translator).

[Aulus Perrinius]

Um, I'm not sure how relevant Almogavres are to the discussion at hand

[recondicom]

Um, I'm not sure how relevant Almogavres are to the discussion at hand

I thought the translation was long….
How about…?
Almogavar: foot soldier
Angevin Armies: heavy cavalry
Battle of Cephissus: Cavalry vs foot soldier

From Ramon Muntaner (my translation +…Ramon (Ray) describes the exact event with details).
To introduce his troops in Byzantium, Roger D’flour challenges anyone (cavalry) to a duel by choosing the best cavalry knight VS anyone of his troops (chosen by the Knight.) The duel started with the Knight charging the foot soldier. And so… close your eyes and open them again and you see the Knight on the ground and the foot soldier on top of him ready to slain him… nothing happened because the Almogavar showed restrain ( …he was ordered not to kill him)

From “La fuleria”
An ongoing historical review by me.
The recent discoveries in the South US of wild horse herds conducting military routines of old cavalry Forts gives veracity to the old legends. The almogavar was a magician for it is said that he could recognized a horse. And so… he had whistles and spells; he made sounds that could stop a horse and make him turned away. But mostly… was about the stare. If the horse saw the stare; the horseman was lost for the almogavar was a beastmaster.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Um, you lost me

[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:

[recondicom]

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

Leg I Adiutrix. After all (check your Alas.)

[Robert Vermaat]

Um, I'm not sure how relevant Almogavres are to the discussion at hand

Nothing. Very different cup of tea.
As often before, Manuel simply likes to come in with all kinds of information not directly related to the discussion. And again, he simply copy-pasted a text from the internet into the discussion. A piece of text that has no direct bearing on the question discussed here.

[moderator mode] Manuel, if you have nothing to contribute, please refrain from entering the discussion. [/moderator mode].

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

The Persians had a larger breed of horse, the name escapes me at the moment but I think it was the Nisson (sp?), not the car or donut. :roll:

Yes, the Nisaean horse, great big powerful breed.

There aren't many examples of cataphracts charging directly into infantry because they weren't really suited for that purpose.
Alexander didn't use cataphracts, obviously, but as the story goes he led his heavy cavalrymen on a charge right at the Sacred Band of Thebes during the Battle of Chaeronea and, as Diodorus of Sicily said, "succeeded in rupturing the solid front of the enemy line and striking down many."

I'm skeptical of this story, for the record.

[Alanus]

Yes, the Nisaean horse, great big powerful breed.

Yuh, that's it! Thanks, Justin.
There are a few other breeds, some of which are quite old. Archaeologists have found horses of 15 hands in the "Scythian" graves in the Altai. These probably go back to the time of Alexander. Quite frankly, I believe that the pastures of Ferghana were the ground of these horse's descendants. If so, the mounts were bred by either the Saka or Tokarians, and probably the original stock of the famed "heavenly horses" purchased by the Chinese. This is speculation, but not entirely goofy. :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Did the infantry of M. Antonius not face up to and frustrate the attempts of the Parthian horse archers and Cathphracts?
Albeit on a long retreat? There was a battle where the infantry formed up on a hillside, and waited until the Perthian patience dissapaited and they attacked, only to be severly mauled by the heavy infantry who did not foolishly charge down the hill.

Can't recall if that was one of the skirmishes on Antonius' retreat, or if I am thinking of another campaign.