okamido

If the cataphractarii/ clibinarii of the mid-4th century held their contos/ lance with both hands, were they relegated to just their knees to control their steeds, and how effective were charges like this?

After the initial clash, did the horseman relinquish his contos and go straight to sword? I imagine that it would be diificult to wield in close quarters.

pugsville

If you cant ride with your Knees you're not a horseman.

Cataphracts dont charge that hard, they normally evolved as a response to Archery, being mostly immune to most bow fire. Against other cavalry armed with spear/javlins/bow/sword they are going to do well.

cachibatches

I can say that in Plutarch's life of Lucullus he metioned that the the Armenian cataphracts were indeed pretty useless in close quarters.

But when he saw that the mail-clad horsemen, on whom the greatest reliance was placed, were stationed at the foot of a considerable hill which was crowned by a broad and level space, and that the approach to this was a matter of only •four stadia, and neither rough nor steep, he ordered his Thracian and Gallic horsemen to attack the enemy in the flank, and to parry their long spears with their own short swords. 3 (Now the sole resource of the mail-clad horsemen is their long spear, and they p563have none other whatsoever, either in defending themselves or attacking their enemies, owing to the weight and rigidity of their armour; in this they are, as it were, immured.) Then he himself, with two cohorts, hastened eagerly towards the hill, his soldiers following with all their might, because they saw him ahead of them in armour, enduring all the fatigue of a foot-soldier, and pressing his way along. Arrived at the top, and standing in the most conspicuous spot, he cried with a loud voice, "The day is ours, the day is ours, my fellow soldiers!" 4 With these words, he led his men against the mail-clad horsemen, ordering them not to hurl their javelins yet, but taking each his own man, to smite the enemy's legs and thighs, which are the only parts of these mail-clad horsemen left exposed. However, there was no need of this mode of fighting, for the enemy did not await the Romans, but, with loud cries and in most disgraceful flight, they hurled themselves and their horses, with all their weight, upon the ranks of their own infantry, before it had so much as begun to fight, and so all those tens of thousands were defeated without the infliction of a wound or the sight of blood. 5 But the great slaughter began at once when they fled, or rather tried to fly, for they were prevented from really doing so by the closeness and depth of their own ranks.

AlpinLuke

It was the encounter with the Northern populations to suggest to the Romans a more important usage of chivalry, and the Punic wars had said something about that ...

It was following those models that they created the "cohortes equitatae". Made by a cohor pedida [Infantry unit] with an attached wing of chivalry.

On wiki you can see a typical light Roman riding warrior

File:Het Valkhof - Reiter mit Pferd.jpg - Wikipedia

Their usage was to hit quickly and come back [usually against the sides of the enemy formation, in this they were similar to the Mongols, to make a parallel, or to the Turkish chivalry which the crusaders met].

The Roman heavy chivalry followed that general tactic with the advantage to be able to get more closed to the enemy and to form also a strong mobile front. And the tactic possibility to enter in enemy infantry formation without a deep defensive organization [without stirrups, relying only on particular saddles, the riders weren't able to break a solid wall of heavy infantry, they had to get close and to "push", but against an organized formation the horses risked a lot, so the heavy chivalry wasn't that efficient in that context].

caldrail

The heavier amroured cavalry of Roman legions were organised to copy and counteract persian horsemen, and might well be considered as less capable. Cavalry tactics used by Romans had traditionally been those we now consider 'light', making use of sopeed and manoever, making passes at the enemy, recconaisance, or pursuing a fleeing enemy. In other words they were mostly a mobile threat and harrasement force - though we often see cavalry stationed on the wings to face off against the opposing horsemen.

Attacks made my cavalry are restricted because contrary to popular myth, horses do not like colliding with what they consider to be solid objects, such as a dense mass of men and shields infront of them. In Roman times, a frontal charge was largely intimidatory and would turn aside with a volley of spears - it just didn't make sense to attempt contact. Attacks on the flanlk or rear were onbviously more dangerous.

Attacks made against enemy cavalry were sometimes made at speed but these were fluid open affairs and we know that both sides habitually opened their ranks to allow the other to pass through rather than risk injury-creating collisions. In fact, we know that cavalry sometimes preferred not to make contact at all. In at least one battle, a cavalry formation simply kept moving in the hope the other would tire first. Mobility was everything.

The problem with the cataphracts/clibinarii was that they were literally heavier. They could not afford to spend all day galloping aroubnd and moved at a canter under normal circumstances for fear their horses would wear out faster. A charge, even with greater protection, was even less likely for that reason.

Further, the Romans did not use a couched lance in the manner of a medieval knight. In the one case we have a record of cataphracts charging, the enemy infantry opened their ranks, let the horsemen in, and annihalited them. Traditionally horsemen used polearms as stabbing weapons in an overarm style - there was little reason to expect a kontos to be used differently, and the development of medieval tactics must be seen as a more gradual process.

using s spatha (the roman cavalry sword) probably wasn't too difficult in the close up melee when contact was made. The horseman had an advantage in height, combined weight of horse and rider. As for controlling the horse I wouldn't know. I imagine that controlling a horse in the midst of a melee was not an easy task with attention diverted to fighting the enemy, and perhaps one reason why penetration of an infantry formation was rarer than peripheral combat with an option to pull away if required.

Shapur

Good post but I think the idea that Roman clibinarii were a response to the Persians and Parthians is a popular myth. The fact that Roman heavy cavalry of this sort first appear on the Danube and the adoption by the Romans of the Draco point to a Sarmatian influence.

Darth Roach

Indeed. The first super heavy cavalry unit was based in Paeonia, to combat Sarmatian incursions over the Danube, IIRC, comissioned in the 2nd century AD.

As for tactics, depends on the era. Early on they employed just lances and close combat weapons, coming in at a quick trot with lances jutting ahead of the formation, but as time progressed they added archery to their list of tactics, and horse armor was largely reduced to the front half of the horse - this evolution closely mirroring changes in cavalry tactics both north of the Danube and in Persia.

Truth be told, average Roman heavy cavalry was indeed better than average Persian heavy cavalry, as shown by the win:loss ratio in the Roman-Persian wars. The Persians, although not lacking in impetus and aggression, were frequently routed by the disciplined Romans.

pugsville

cataphractarii/ clibinarii were always a small minority of Roman heavy cavalry. The usual Heavy Calvary were armed with spears, gradually replaced by lance/bow.

Earl_of_Rochester

I wonder why that style of armour wasn't carried on into the Middle Ages with the Normans etc? It seems that your average Early Medieval footman was worse off than your well equipped Roman.

Cav

I guess riding with the knees would be somewhat like driving with the knees, not very precise, but acceptable to some extent.