Originally posted by Xen
not quite right-
No? Shall we have a look?
Your enthusiasm for history is greatI hope it stays with you as you head through tertiary education. However, if you want to be a real history geek, youll 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 hadnt, 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 minutethat 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 youve 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.