Aluminium's AoK Unit Modifications

Originally posted by Xen

not quite right-

No? Shall we have a look? ;)

Your enthusiasm for history is great—I hope it stays with you as you head through tertiary education. However, if you want to be a real history geek, you’ll have to learn to check sources religiously. For example, I already knew all the information that I posted about Cataphracts, but I checked it anyway, in four different sources. If I hadn’t, then I would have been running the risk of some irritating guy making himself look cool by posting a variety of sources refuting what I had written.

Hey, wait a minute—that gives me an idea… ;)


Originally posted by Xen

Clibinarius and cataphract were utterlly interchangable troops, but of either it seems that it was clibinarii who were the light of the two, being used more in ranged cavalry tactics

Historians are not sure of the exact distinction between the two terms:

*From ‘The Complete Roman Army’ by Adrian Goldsworthy (Professor of History at Oxford), p.205:

‘In units of cataphracti and clibanarii the rider and often the horse were heavily armoured. The distinction between the two terms is now obscure.’

But, the majority opinion is definitely that Clibanarius is a kind of heavy Cataphract (i.e. a very heavy cavalryman):

*From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract):

‘In addition to ordinary cataphract types they sometimes fielded a very heavy type called a clibanarius (pl. clibanarii), named after an iron oven due to their enclosed metal armor.’

*Check out the Webster Enterprises Website (http://www.geocities.com/webenterprises.geo/tinpics.html) for pictures of three Cataphract models and a more heavily armoured Clibanarius.

*From the (very well researched) essay ‘THE EFFECT OF SASANID PERSIA ON LATE ROMAN EQUIPMENT AND STRATEGY’ (http://scissorblades.tripod.com/StrategoiAristos/id8.html)

‘The development of clibanarii, who were even heavier (so it is thought(48)) than cataphracts, was a Sasanid-influenced development. The Sasanids had been using this super-heavy cavalry…’


Originally posted by Xen

A)one of the main differences between a cataphract and a night is the use of the Kontos, a type of pike, weilded with both hands, and used in a melee type fasion, as opposed to the lance, which was simply pointed and held forwards for a single cavalry charge

I think you’ve been confused by a bad source about the lances/spears of Cataphracts. ‘Kontos’ is the Greek version of the Latin word ‘Contus’, meaning ‘heavy spear/lance’. A pike is an infantry weapon.

*From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract):

‘Equipment and tactics varied, but cataphracts generally wore heavy armor of mail, horn, or thick quilted cloth, carried a shield, sat on an armored horse, and charged with lances in a tight knee-to-knee formation.’

*From ‘THE EFFECT OF SASANID PERSIA ON LATE ROMAN EQUIPMENT AND STRATEGY’ (http://scissorblades.tripod.com/StrategoiAristos/id8.html)
‘…heavy cataphract cavalry units were introduced in the reign of Hadrian(47). These fought by charging with heavy lances.’

*From ‘Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome’, quoted at http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/gd5/1998.01/2960.html :

‘We know from contemporary authors that the cataphracts were excep-
tionally well protected by iron armour, needed no shield, were armed
with a 12-foot long lance called a Kontos, and charged ponderously at
the trot on horses…’

*From ‘The Complete Roman Army’ by Adrian Goldsworthy (Professor of History at Oxford), p.138:

‘…the contus, a spear some 3.65m in length and held in both hands by a shieldless rider. This appears to have been first adopted in the 2nd century AD and only ever equipped a small number of specialist alae

*From ‘Warfare in the Ancient World’ by General Sir John Hacket (Professor of Classics at the University of London) ,p.102
‘…the two-handed lance (kontos).’

*From ‘Warfare in the Ancient World’ by General Sir John Hacket (Professor of Classics at the University of London) ,p.200
‘Hadrian formed the first regular unit of (cataphracti), armed with a heavy lance (contus).’


Originally posted by Xen

B)after the reforms went into place putting bows on cataphracts in the first place, it was not an occasional sight to see a bow- it was a mandoatroy one

C)I have never heard of an axe being used as a side arm- but would not be surprised if cataphracts had both a swoard, and a mace- depednding on the trooper individual wealth

There was no standard equipment for Cataphracts. ‘Cataphract’ is a generic term like ‘hussar’ or ‘grenadier’, describing a large number of similar units fielded by many different nations. The exact equipment depended on the nation and the time.

*From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract):

‘The cataphract was a type of heavy cavalryman used throughout the Middle East and adjoining regions from late antiquity up through the High Middle Ages…Nations deploying cataphracts at some time in their history included the Armenians, Byzantines, Parthians, Pergamenes, Romans, Sarmatians, Sassanids, and others...Equipment and tactics varied…’

*From this site (http://www.historifigs.com/20mm_ancients.htm), you can even order a model of a Byzantine Cataphract fighting with a battle-axe. ;)
 
that said, you attempted rebuff says nothing- you saud that clibnarri were the heavy of the two- there is no proof of that, and considering it was Cataphracts who survived intot he period of the rise of heavy cavalry, it certainlly points to it being the heavy of the two

and that said, just because a figure company makes a fiugure of somthing dose not mean its completelly- accutarat- i often use figures to illustrate how I want a unit done- but if I want it done, it usually means I knwo all about the tye of troop by then, and can make an educated judgment of if somthing is accurate enough to my tastes- and i stll haven heard of any axes being used

On the topic of the contos

a spear is a spear is a spear- a pike is mearlyl a large one- a distinction can be made between a lance and a spear- but between a classical pike and a spear? no
 
Xen, you seem very young and immature.

There are people in this world, and on these boards, with a great deal more knowledge than yourself, and by that I mean not simply factual knowledge, for facts are the sort of vanities that absolutists cling to. No, I mean the sort of knowledge that comes from real study, comparative study, analytical study. Not simply the devouring of this's and that's.

Do us (and hey, why not, yourself) a favor. Get syncretic. And then learn to question yourself. I get the impression you spend a lot of time alone, and this is a valued outlet for you. So it baffles me that you can't use the potential relationships on this board to be challenged and bettered, and thereby learn to challenge and better your self.

Moreover, acquire some humility. It'll get you further in life, and less alone. And it'll help you with that vexing moving target that is certitude, because you'll see that certitude doesn't even exist, and that you're just fooling yourself.

If you could only see how nice some of your critics are trying to be to you.

Regardless, please show some respect for your elders, or just people in general, if you wish to invoke any for yourself.

Last, if you're gonna fashion yourself a message board scholar, please try to be more thorough and self-critical in your work. The slipshod assertions and emphatic, childish retorts are tiring for those of us who have our own children to raise.
 
I suggest you ask merelyl the friends i have on CFC how i act in actual conversation over the internet, as i doubt you'll ever meet me, or the people a I care for in my daily life in person- but i assure you, they alone would refute just about everything you have assumed about me, but dont take my word for it, go ask them.
 
looks great i'm gonna try to use them if i can.
 
Ah, Aluminm, can't wait for the janissaries, good work so far man :goodjob: :thumbsup:

-----

:lol: Xen is quite a bit stubborn but I laughed when I read this part:

I get the impression you spend a lot of time alone, and this is a valued outlet for you.
 
Redking said:
Xen, you seem very young and immature.

There are people in this world, and on these boards, with a great deal more knowledge than yourself, and by that I mean not simply factual knowledge, for facts are the sort of vanities that absolutists cling to. No, I mean the sort of knowledge that comes from real study, comparative study, analytical study. Not simply the devouring of this's and that's.

A fact is a fact until proven otherwise. Rather than being a "Drive-By" Critic, maybe you should actually point out where Xen's wrong.
 
Rhye and SoG: Regardless of whatever faults Xen and Redking have that debate was in March; there's no reason to bring it back alive after such a long time. Don't pull the stake out and you should be ok. ;)
 
Top Bottom