Talk:Cataphract

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

The cataphract finally passed into history on May 29, 1453, when the last nation to refer to its cavalrymen as cataphracts fell.[citation needed]

citation needed?? Ever heard of what happened at that date mate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.28.31 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I came across a picture a while back of an East-Asian (possibly Korean?) cavalryman fitted out like a cataphract. Anyone know what these might have been called, so that I can find out more about them? Searches along the lines of East Asian heavy cavalry aren't turning up anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 00:54, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


I changed the meaning of the word cataphract in greek (i.e. 'closed from all sides'). Being a native greek speaker :-) i know what the words mean.

Regards, Stelios

Ancient Greek is different from Modern, remember . . . UnDeadGoat 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The "heavy edit to remove the incorrect Byzantine specificity" was by me. (Unfortunately my dial-up connection isn't very reliable, and Wikipedia no longer preserves logins across dialups, so I didn't notice that I was no longer logged in when I did the edit.) -- B.Bryant 08:35 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Camels have another drawback as cataphract transports: they tire very quickly when heavily loaded. Boys of eight to ten years old are used as jockeys in Middle Eastern camel races.

From a dup, possibly useful bits:

Horsemen who constitued Bizantine and Persian Heavy Cavalry. Cataphracts were of high social rank and were mainly nobles.
The byzantine cataphract (circa late 800s a.d.) had extremely advanced equipment for his time. He was armed with a recurve horsebow that was slung across his back when travelling and a quiver of arrows at the left hip attached to the saddle by the means of a leather thong. This bow was far more powerful than the bows used by the common archers. It was made of a strong wood and laminated with thinner strips of springier wood. This gave it a huge armour peircing punch that could pierce a shield at a fairly close range. The cataphracts were also armed with a long-sword. This was of high spring steel and was suitable for both quick thrusts and wide slashes due to its light weight and high manuverability.
The heavy cavalry was also armed with a long lance. This was strong enough to take a heavy impact yet light enough to be flung at an enemy.
The cataphract had a round shield or perhaps a longer kite shield of the Norman type. Also this awesome soldier had extremely high quality armour, even for later times. He was wrapped in scale armour or chain mail that covered him from head to knee. His horse also had a scale or chain barding that covered it's whole body and even plate armour riveted to the neck.

His helmet was of the conical type with a nasal to protect his face.

Stan 23:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's important the copyright info can be found for the recent picture uploaded to accompany this article... Nick04 14:13, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Introduction

I think the introduction is blurry. The term Cataphract was used until the Middle Ages, not only in Antiquity, so not only by the "Greek and later Latin speaking people", but by states such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Kingdom of Spain to designate the heavy armoured cavalry. AdoniCtistai 11:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I support merging in Heavy cavalry. Tom Harrison Talk 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I support merging this article in Heavy cavalry too. AdoniCtistai 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be keept, as long as it strictly refers to the history of Greek heavy armoured cavalry, to be something simmilar to the article Hippeis. However, this could cause confusion, as the term Cataphract had ceased to be used soley by the Ancient Greeks, or only by Greek speakers. AdoniCtistai 13:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Currently Oppose merging due to thsi article being much larger than the Heavy cavalry article. It would be a shame to loose information on the Kataphraktoi and at the same time I fear that the merger would drown the Heavy cavalry's general meaning in Cataphract information. Similar reason I sure why the Knights article was not merged with the category article. It would be nice though to incorporate elements from this article and the myriad of other armoured horse articles within the Heavy cavalry page to flesh it out.--Dryzen 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose this merger because heavy cavalry ought to be expanded to include the whole of its history, not just its Roman and Persian history. Cataphract is not synonymous with heavy cavalry. Knights were also heavy cavalry, for example. Srnec 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Cataphract is not synonymous with heavy cavalry" - than please tell me what are the differences, by copy-pasting from the article? And if you suggest to "expand heavy cavalry as to include the whole of its history, not just its Roman and Persian history" than wouldn`t we get to the same proposale I`ve made, as for this article to strictly refer to the history of Greek heavy armoured cavalry, pretty much like Hippeis does? AdoniCtistai 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose for the same reason. Stephen Aquila 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - cataphract is an expansion of a particular type of heavy cavalry. The entry should be amended to remove unnecessary duplicate information that already exists under heavy cavalry. Deathwing 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"cataphract is an expansion of a particular type of heavy cavalry" - which "particular type" ? You could either argumentate with your own words, or copy-paste from the article. AdoniCtistai 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is big enough to warrent the maintainment of its own independence.--KrossTalk 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And to contain what? Phrases like "The term, being a purely military one, should be seen from a literal point rather than a practical one"? Than I ask again, what is the difference between cataphract and heavy-cavalry? This is soooooooooooo funny!!!!!! I was the one who proposed the merge, and I was too the one which eidted the article in an attempt to make it more clear. I was the one who changed the beggining of the article. Here is how it looked like before I changed it LOOK!. Can you read what is says: "The word cataphract (from the Greek κατάφρακτος) was what Greek- and later Latin-speaking peoples used to describe heavy cavalry." So, for THE THIRD time, what is the difference between cataphract and heavy cavalry? AdoniCtistai 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Today the term cataphract is only used to describe the heavy cavalry of the Greeks, Romans, and Persians of Antiquity and the Byzantines of a later date. It never describes the knights of the Middle Ages, though they were certainly heavy cavalry, not light. Furthermore, would the term "cataphract" be used to describe the heavy cavalry elements used in some Germanic armies, like that of the Ostrogoths? While cataphract may originally be merely the Greek for heavy cavalry, it is clear that today it would not be used to describe much other than the cavalry of the Hellenised world. See the article on heavy cavalry. Srnec 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Oppose. Serves pretty much the same purpose as knight, dragoon, sipahi and hussar. Like pointed out by others, cataphract is a type of heavy cavalry. It's no different than keeping siege engine and trebuchet separate. Peter Isotalo 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary def. of Cataphract

Cat·a·phract n. (kăt"ȧ*frăkt)

  1. (Mil. Antiq.) Defensive armor used for the whole body and often for the horse, also, esp. the linked mail or scale armor of some eastern nations.
  1. A horseman covered with a cataphract.
I wonder if a Knight would be included in this? lol.... AdoniCtistai 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Archers and slingers, cataphracts, and spears. Milton.

  1. (Zoöl.) The armor or plate covering some fishes.

I would like to point out that cataphracts (or at least, what many scholars translate the armoured cavalry dating vaguely from the 4th to 8th century to) where also used in China roughly from the last years of the Three Kingdoms Era to the Early Tang when the heavily armoured cataphract horse was superceded by the much faster horse archer.

Semi-Lobster 9:20 04 November 2006

[edit] Counter -tactics

Quite a nice article this - I think that a small section on tactics used to neutralise Cataphracts would add value too - how did people fight against them? Having said that - the article is quite long anyway.--Gavinio 10:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cavalry effective against tightly formed infantry?

Hi, i was wondering how effective a cavalry charge was against infantry in general? More specifically disiplined men who are in a tight formation that maybe the Romans would have fought in or phalanx-like tightness? I was under the impression cavalry would not charge headlong into infantry that stands its ground, yet the article gives examples of the cataphracts charging masses of infantry like the romans even when in the testudo formation. It also says they would have cavalry charge infantry in "knee to knee" form, which i take to mean side by side? i thought cavalry had to have a good amount of space to manuver so there was by necessity a lot of space between horses? finally the article makes mention of cavalry charging, reforming and charging again. My question is once you commit your horse to the initial charge how are you able to disengage it from the melee and get away? it would seem that if you penetrated into the infantry formation and they didn't run then you'd have a hard time wheeling your horse 180 degrees and getting away. did they only charge formations a couple to a few ranks deep? seems like any deeper and the cavalry would be caught and bogged down by the people around it. thanks Dmcheatw 23:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The short answer to the question of "is cavalry effective against infantry" is that it depends on the infantry and the cavalry. With excellent discipline, such as the Romans were famous for, then cavalry had a hard time being effective. But Europeans made cavalry the dominant military unit for nearly a thousand years. If it was easy to make cheaper to equip and train infantry units defeat them then this would not have occurred.
If a cavalry unit charged disciplined infantry that did not break then the cavalry would wheel away before making contact. That last part answers your other question about multiple charges. A cavalry unit that failed to do so, such as the result of insufficient discipline and/or coordination, would get attacked by the infantry.
If the cavalry penetrated into the infantry formation then it was hard for the infantry to survive. Being on horseback is such an advantage against infantry. And the morale issue is important. Being overwhelmed by men on thousand pound steeds and clad head-to-toe in metal armour is rather demoralizing.
"Knee to knee" is possible amongst well disciplined cavalry that have trained together. In fact it makes the cavalry charge more effective, because there are no openings to be exploited by the enemy.

Mercutio.Wilder 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, as noted in the article, missile fire was used prior to the charge to make the infantry formation loosen Mercutio.Wilder 04:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
almost forgot about this thread. thanks for the responses, that was pretty much along the lines of what i was thinking but i've never worked with horses to any great extent so i wasn't sure how the situation actually would play out.Dmcheatw 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How did Cataphracts charge

Hi all, greetings from Bulgaria! There are a couple of things I was wondering about, concerning heavy cavalry (more precisely it's tactics) and I assumed (correctly) that the article about cataphracts could help me. So - was it ever an accepted tactic for the cavalry to engage units of infantry, which did not rud but stood their ground during the horsemen's charge? Were lances discarded after the initial impact with the enemy, or they were often used as a primary weapon during the following melee?

The lances were supported by a chain attached to the horse's neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse's hind leg, so the full momentum of horse was behind the thrust. One reason for this was the lack of stirrups; although the Roman saddle had four horns to secure the rider (Driel-Murray & Connolly), the impact of a lance might well unseat them.

This seems interesting and logical, but on both of the illustrations in the article the horsemen are holding their spears with high rear end and blade facing downward. I cannot imagine how the spear could be strapped to the horse's rear leg to prevent unseating the rider upon impact.

I have never come across any mention of chains, the assertion is not referenced (unlike the horned Romano-Celtic saddle), the whole idea sounds impractical to me.

The long kontos-kontarion lance was usually wielded with two hands, which is why many cataphracts had either no shields or just a small one strapped to the upper arm.

Nikephoros II Phokas re-introduced the super-heavy cavalryman to the Byzantine army. These were called the klibanophoroi and were heavily protected with mail, lamellar, splinted and soft (quilted) armour, and rode armoured horses. They were very expensive and were few in number. They were drawn up in a blunt wedge formation with lighter armoured mounted-archers in the centre. Their role seems to have been to deliver a mounted shock to break open the enemy's formation after which more conventional cavalry would be used to exploit the break-through.

Urselius 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The formatting of the article

I don't like it. The introduction (that part of the article, above the "content") is far too big for a section, aimed to provide basic definition of the thing that is being explored in the following article. "Equipment, tactics and history" could also be split, because virtually the whole article is concentrated under this headline.

Best regards :)