Constantine\'s Cataphractii

[Alanus]

The Orlat battle plaque has cataphracts wearing what seem to be lamellar hauberks and I interpret the Sarmatians as shown on Trajan's Column as being the artist's attempt to reproduce a verbal description of man and horse being covered with scale armour, which implies that it was pretty all-embracing.

Certainly, a lot of armor covered the rider right down to his knees, just as we see on the Orlat Plaque and the (nearly humorous) representation on Trajan's Column. The armor's length, and subsequent weight, depended on physicality. We don't really know who was represented in the Orlat illustration, although it's dramatically accurate. These cataphracts were perhaps the Wusun and Kushans (the Yue Chi) fighting each other as documented by Sima Quan. When we examine Cherchen Man (proto-Kushan), we see a person who stood 6 feet 2 inches tall. Steppe diet (heavy on meat and milk, with no grain of vegetables) accounted for a robust physical size. A man like that could wear armor to his knees.

On the other hand, a Roman ate less meat and a lot of bread, giving him a smaller stature. I stand 5 feet 9 inches tall (and shrinking), aka Romanesqe. For that reason, I removed 8 inches of the lower half of my armor... simply to get it within the 75-pound range. Like I mentioned, wearing heavy armor beyond 3 hours in the sun becomes life-threatening. It's like being in an oven. (Sound familiar?) For that reason, I believe ancient battles were not extended affairs. Perhaps half a day at most. Even a Sarmatian sword will wear you down. Some of them, just as described by Tacitus, were a full 46 inches long, far longer than a spatha. The Orlat Plaque shows these swords wielded with one hand; but after a few hours, necessity required two hands. To fit my physicality, my sword is only 38 inches long. How you arm and armor yourself depends on how big a man you are. The same requirements must be carried over to mounts, and that's why I believe significantly robust horses were the order of the ancient day.

[Renatus]

Thanks, Alan, that's very interesting. Do I infer, then, that your armour originally extended pretty much to your knees? The next question is, would it have made a difference if you had been mounted, rather than on foot? Could you then have coped with the extra weight? If so, perhaps that might explain Tacitus' comment that the Sarmatians were almost invincible when mounted but that there were none so cowardly when on foot. It is not that they lacked courage but that, rather, when they were unhorsed the weight of their armour meant that physically they could not fight for any length of time.

[Alanus]

Yes, it originally came down fully to my knees. The weight of full armor really tells on the shoulders; and even on horseback, it must have been trying after wearing it for half a day. On foot it's even worse. It "pulls you down." I've not been wearing any type of haubric or quilted undergarment, and that would help. When you're unhorsed you're fighting at great disadvantage, and this occasioned Tacitus' comment. He was spot-on. It took me half a decade to get this full kit together-- first the akinakes and sword (which can literally cut a sheet of falling paper), then the Trajan's Column styled helmet, and finally the combination of lamellar, scale, and chain mail. It was a very expensive proposition, and we can see why there could never have been many cataphracts within each tribe. Only the richest Sarmatians (or Romans) could afford it, especially when you consider the upkeep of two mounts of choice stock. Most Sarmatians, then, (as we also see in the Roman cavalry) were horse archers and lighter equipped.

Amazingly, in the Duro Europa drawings, we also see the addition of manica, perhaps even leg armor down to the ankle. These were big and rugged boys. Figure it out-- I weigh 155 pounds, but when fully armored and armed I weigh 230 pounds. A larger man could carry heavier armor, also add in the horse's armored caprison, and you have a full-fledged Sherman tank riding at you. (Also note from the Orlat Plaque: the contus was not always held in the two-handed stance.) ;-)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Don't forget, you're not trained in wearing the armor every day either.

[Alanus]

Well, that's true. I wear the armor "on occasion," basically for historical talks and when I'm with Legio III Cyenaica. I'm in good physical condition, but I'm also 72 years old. Perhaps the oldest reenactor here on RAT. The resident geezer. :woot:

Nonetheless, I'm an analytic research historian. It's one thing to talk about cataphract armor from the safe confines of a classroom desk, and yet another experience in actually knowing what it feels like. That's a big problem with academics. They theorize reality into a fitted cardboard box. Hardly anyone knows how much armor actually weighs and what freedom of movement you physically have or don't have. A professor can say, "It weighed about 75 pounds," but he really can't grasp the physical impact of that much weight. It's just another historical abstract.

If you want the true impact of historical reality, you have to stand at Ground Zero. I was shocked by the fact that once upon the ground, flat on your back, it was no easy task to get back to your feet. That hammered it home. Tacitus was precisely correct.

[Michael Kerr]

Well, that's true. I wear the armor "on occasion," basically for historical talks and when I'm with Legio III Cyenaica. I'm in good physical condition, but I'm also 72 years old. Perhaps the oldest reenactor here on RAT. The resident geezer. :woot:

So I take it that if you were riding around Northern Gaul in around late 440s with that other old Alan warrior Goar as an auxiliary for the last 40 years, that you would want a big strong well bred gelding with just a little bit of spirit but not too much as opposed to a smallish pony who would struggle carrying you, as your favourite mode of transportation in that heavy suit & assorted weaponry till you could retire on some confiscated Armorican land holding that you have been promised for some time. 8-)

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Except his armor dates to the 2nd Century AD.

A soldier of Goar would have looked like a Roman cavalryman, because he probably was. The nature of the settlement in 442 was they were settled as "Military Veterans", like the Roman soldiers were, which seems to indicate they were serving in professional Roman units rather than as a Foederati attachment. After their settlement they became Laeti/Foederati.

[Alanus]

That seems to be true. The original promise was made shortly after the winter of 406-407 and we finally see a settlement in 442, or about the length of time a Roman cavalryman would serve until retirement. Apparently Goar received his orders from the Praefect of Gaul, and his attachment (described by Germanus' friend and biographer) would have been a Roman unit, albeit chuck-full of barbarians. And as Michael notes, yes, his personal mounts would have been substantial enough to carry his weight and that of his armor. I would think the horses used by Ecdicious and his heroic cavalry were also larger than average Gallic stock, although his armor would have been lighter than what I wear.

[Renatus]

Amazingly, in the Duro Europa drawings, we also see the addition of manica, perhaps even leg armor down to the ankle. These were big and rugged boys.

This has reminded me of Heliodorus' description of the Persian cataphract: a man picked for his bodily strength, who had to be lifted into the saddle by others and who, when unhorsed, lay like a log. Your experience adds reality to what has sometimes been dismissed as merely a literary commonplace.

[Alanus]

Renatus,

I think you just hit a big nail on the head. It wasn't my intention to deride academics; where would we be without thoughtful essays based on knowledge? But I have trouble with a few, both Kulikowski and Heather, who have dismissed ancient authors for so-called literary exaggeration. Yet, I have found much of Heliodorus and Herodotus fairly accurate; and when Herodotus, in particular, described something outlandish he qualified himself by stating something like, "But personally I don't believe it." Heliodorus' description of the Persian cataphract is a case in point. Armor was far heavier and constraining than today's scholars believe. When you were toppled and hit the ground at 20 miles per hour you were close to dead meat; and on a hot day (perhaps the Persian average) you were dead meat. You can't discover that reality while sitting in an office. ;-)

[Renatus]

Heliodorus' description of the Persian cataphract is a case in point. Armor was far heavier and constraining than today's scholars believe.

There is another telling detail in Heliodorus' description. He says that the only part of the cataphract's body unprotected by his armour was the thigh and that only so far as was necessary for mounting his horse. I assume he means the inner thigh to allow some grip and possibly the back of the knee for flexing. In describing the subsequent battle, he goes on to say that, when the cataphract was unhorsed and unable to rise unaided, the enemy infantry wounded him in the thigh, the very place uncovered and probably all that they could get at easily. The intention, no doubt, was to hamstring him or to sever the femoral artery.

[Alanus]

The two most vulnerable spots are the armpit and thigh, both unprotected to allow movement of the limbs. Here is the famous graffitio from Dura-Europos; and we see full leg armor, perhaps something similar to manica.

[attachment=10929]dura_europos_cataphract2.jpg[/attachment]

In all cases, this form of armor is strapped to the appendage from the underside which would leave a vulnerable area exactly as Heliodorus mentioned. The development of cataphract armor dates back to the Sarmats and Massagetae (much to the chagrin of Cyrus), and it simply became heavier and heavier until the rider could no longer function once unseated. It all happened 600 years before Constantine's cataphracts and 1,700 years before the classic Medieval knight rode into legend.

Here is a reconstruction of the oldest heavy armor found. The individual is Sarmat, a culture living north of the Massagetae in the steppe-forest region east of the Ural. Even his weapons are "modern," already a long sword, plus the deadly "eared" bow that would demoralize the army of Crassus 200 years later.

[attachment=10930]DSC_0020_2014-10-09.JPG[/attachment]

[Vindex]

Also, I'd like to know if the "white spotted" sport has shown up in Britain. That would be Vindex's forte.

Sadly your white spotted Andalusian is actually a dappled grey horse which will go whiter with age. I have yet to discover anything which can say categorically that dapples were meant instead of spots as it is a significant difference in the gene pool.

The fact that spotted they came from Iberian stock is hard to dispute, however, as the wild Mustangs are amongst the biggest pool of spotted and multi-coloured horses, later bred as Appaloosas, Paint (Overo), and "patched" horses (which we in the UK call piebald and skewbald. Until recently, these have been considered as "common" blood - ie no thoroughbred blood - but good horses for their tasks and roles nonetheless).

The Conquistadors took horses to the Americas, so they came from the Iberian stock, This is why I favour polo ponies from Argentina and Chile - they can be almost pure "Iberian" blood and potentially as close to a Roman cavalry horse you can get due to hardiness, temperament, agility, stamina and strength.

[Alanus]

Thanks for the input, Moi

I knew these horses were actually gray with white dappling, but I used the ancient term "white-spotted." This coloring is "180-out" from a white horse with black spots. I just find it interesting that the color shows up particularly in the Spanish and Akhal Teke breeds, which hints of an eastern genetic infusion. No doubt, it's wide spread... sort of like Haplo-group R1a1.

[Vindex]

Try this one...
[attachment=10935]533764_10150708707363346_162607093345_9255735_382310679_n.jpg[/attachment]