Sassanid Cataphracts vs Medieval Knights

Who?

  • Cataphracts?

    Votes: 15 46.9%
  • Knights?

    Votes: 17 53.1%

  • Total voters
    32

The Imperial

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
4,253
3rd rock from Sol
Who would win in a battlefield, with equal amount on each side?

The invincible cataphracts or the legendary knights in shining armor?
 
Jan 2011
131
Romania
I'd actually have to go with the knights.

Both fighters embody the same principle (heavy armored rider) except the knight has better armor (plate vs. scale/chain), better weapons (medieval lance vs. kontos), better horsemanship tools (afaik sassanids didn't use stirups).
 

Salah

Historum Emeritas
Oct 2009
23,284
Maryland
Grudgingly voted for the knights. It'd be a messy battle though.
 

The Imperial

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
4,253
3rd rock from Sol
Cataphracts fought as soldiers, disciplined and battle tested.
Knights fought as warriors, proud, egoistic and usually massacred enemy levy peasants. When knights fought each other, it would be like a battle in a boxing ring. But Sassanids would obviously rush into help their comrades. Retreat, regroup and attack. Knights were rather- fight to glory or to death type....
And the cataphracts advanced battle tactics.
 
Jan 2011
110
Cataphracts - they are more organized and would win victory through collective action. At the Knights do not have discipline.
 

plutoboyz

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
5,436
Hinterland
a Sassanian Cataphract have an advantage in ranged combat. they usually carry composite bow. they use it before charging enemy. they would kill knight's horse first from a far.

besides, which cataphract do you mean? Grivpanvar? Savaran? or Pushtigban?