History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Tee Kay]

So this book I'm reading pretty much implied that WWI was won in the Balkans. How much truth is there to that statement?

It's true that the Balkan powers called it quits before Germany, which could not have been good for German morale, but then the German military situation turned dire well before the Bulgarian armistice.

 

[Domen]

Phrossack,

The Parthians at Carrhae only sent in the cataphracts after weakening the Roman infantry with thirst, confusion, and millions of arrows.

So what ???

Are you "blaming" Parthian cataphracts for not being "brave enough" and charging into the fray only after "softening" Roman ranks with arrows ???

It is like "blaming" tanks (or even infantry) for being sent to attack only after artillery preparation and air assaults by dive bombers, in modern times.

Remember, that at Carrhae there were only mere 1,000 cataphracts (and 9,000 horse archers) facing over 40,000 Roman soldiers.

On average, 1 cataphract against over 40 Roman soldiers.

Attacking with 1,000 men (no matter infantry or cavalry and no matter how elite) against 40,000 prepared and unweakened men is always a suicide.

This is why obviously they needed to make good use of their 9,000 horse archers before finishing the job with cataphract charges.

At Kursk the Germans sent their Panzer Divisions to attack only after "softening" Soviet defenses with artillery and Stuka bombers. Yet still they lost, because Soviet defenses were very strongly fortified, manned by numerically superior forces, and the Soviets also had their own tanks ready to counterattack.

Your example is not any proof that cataphracts were "not meant" to fight against infantry.

I did not claim that cataphracts were expected to fight against infantry alone. Of course combined arms tactic is always more efficient.

Such a combined arms tactic was, for example, the idea of using heavy cavalry in cooperation with missile cavalry.

 

[gay_Aleks]

While we're on topic of horse archers and etc, I've got a question:

What made the Mongolians so successful - horse archery or logistics? Or was it both?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Phrossack,

The Parthians at Carrhae only sent in the cataphracts after weakening the Roman infantry with thirst, confusion, and millions of arrows.
So what ???

Are you "blaming" Parthian cataphracts for not being "brave enough" and charging into the fray only after "softening" Roman ranks with arrows ???

It is like "blaming" tanks (or even infantry) for being sent to attack only after artillery preparation and air assaults by dive bombers, in modern times.

Remember, that at Carrhae there were only mere 1,000 cataphracts (and 9,000 horse archers) facing over 40,000 Roman soldiers.

On average, 1 cataphract against over 40 Roman soldiers.

Attacking with 1,000 men (no matter infantry or cavalry and no matter how elite) against 40,000 prepared and unweakened men is always a suicide.

This is why obviously they needed to make good use of their 9,000 horse archers before finishing the job with cataphract charges.

At Kursk the Germans sent their Panzer Divisions to attack only after "softening" Soviet defenses with artillery and Stuka bombers. Yet still they lost, because Soviet defenses were very strongly fortified, manned by numerically superior forces, and the Soviets also had their own tanks ready to counterattack.

Your example is not any proof that cataphracts were "not meant" to fight against infantry.

I did not claim that cataphracts were expected to fight against infantry alone. Of course combined arms tactic is always more efficient.

Such a combined arms tactic was, for example, the idea of using heavy cavalry in cooperation with missile cavalry.

Well the whole point of horse-based warfare, like the kind practiced by the Parthians and other steppe peoples, (apart from simple mobility across the country) is to draw out and separate army units where they can be engaged away from their support, and a local superiority of force can be applied. When the Romans stood still, they were sitting ducks. When they tried to attack, they would get separated or lose their strength of numbers and get smashed from behind or the sides. When they entered the testudo formation to protect themselves from arrows, they became incapable of contesting hand to hand combat effectively, so the cataphracts charged them. When they prepared for their fighting lines, they became vulnerable to arrows from the horse archers.

To stretch this logic to the Eastern Front parallel, it would be Manstein's practice at Kharkov, a few months before Kursk. When the Soviets attacked south and west toward Zaporozhe, Manstein allowed his defense to give and retreat with the Soviet tide instead of holding fast to every inch of terrain. The result of this was that the Soviets overextended themselves, and Manstein's smaller force was able to deal with Soviet units in a manner which maximized his numbers able to attack and minimized their numbers able to defend. This is, in effect, the modern application of the "horse archer/cataphract" principle at work at Carrhae.

A slightly more tortured example could be made out of the climax of the Polish-Bolshevik War, but that was really a situation which arose out of circumstance, not out of purposeful strategic practice on the part of the Polish Army.

 

[Flying Pig]

That was Napoleon's practice, and Lee's at Chancellorsville - the whole is more than the sum of its parts, so disintegrating the whole into its parts weakens it massively.

To achieve a local superiority is the point of warfare in general (not just of horse-based warfare), maybe except for the "drawing out" part.

Indeed - the 'drawing out' part is the innovation, since it doesn't require global superiority. Indeed, that might be said to be the function of tactics - to make the local odds more favourable than the global odds.

 

[Domen]

Well the whole point of horse-based warfare, like the kind practiced by the Parthians and other steppe peoples, (apart from simple mobility across the country) is to draw out and separate army units where they can be engaged away from their support, and a local superiority of force can be applied.

To achieve a local superiority is the point of warfare in general (not just of horse-based warfare), maybe except for the "drawing out" part.

It just happens so, that more mobile units tend to be better in achieving a local superiority and in separating enemy units than less mobile units.

When the Romans stood still, they were sitting ducks. When they tried to attack, they would get separated or lose their strength of numbers and get smashed from behind or the sides. When they entered the testudo formation to protect themselves from arrows, they became incapable of contesting hand to hand combat effectively, so the cataphracts charged them. When they prepared for their fighting lines, they became vulnerable to arrows from the horse archers.

Exactly, and this is why heavy cavalry + missile cavalry is such a deadly combo.

Missile component could also be found later in Medieval armies of Europe (mounted crossbowmen and horse archers), and in Early Modern armies.

In the battle of Grunwald in 1410, both armies included mostly cavalry, but both armies had more of mounted crossbowmen than of heavy lancers.

In Polish armies of the 1600s most of cavalry were melee-missile (missile weapons being firearms* and recurve bows) and played support roles for Husaria.

But in Polish-Lithuanian cavalry of the 1600s there was no "strict" missile specialization. Most of cavalry were melee-missile - not strictly missile.

*Firearms used by cavalry included pistols, bandolets, cavalry carbines, arquebuses, and various long firearms (rusznicas, muskets, etc.).

That was Napoleon's practice, and Lee's at Chancellorsville - the whole is more than the sum of its parts, so disintegrating the whole into its parts weakens it massively.

Indeed - the 'drawing out' part is the innovation, since it doesn't require global superiority. Indeed, that might be said to be the function of tactics - to make the local odds more favourable than the global odds.

To stretch this logic to the Eastern Front parallel, it would be Manstein's practice at Kharkov, a few months before Kursk. When the Soviets attacked south and west toward Zaporozhe, Manstein allowed his defense to give and retreat with the Soviet tide instead of holding fast to every inch of terrain. The result of this was that the Soviets overextended themselves, and Manstein's smaller force was able to deal with Soviet units in a manner which maximized his numbers able to attack and minimized their numbers able to defend. This is, in effect, the modern application of the "horse archer/cataphract" principle at work at Carrhae.

Exactly.

It is amazing how all these basic principles of warfare remain largely unchanged throughout history, despite constant evolution of military technology.

It seems that so far the most signifcant revolution in warfare, which affected principles of war more than all previous changes, has been Air Force.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And even over the length of air warfare, the principles have not changed so dramatically. With the more widespread use of stealth technology, pilots in a future war may find themselves once again engaging in line-of-sight dogfights, unable to shoot down their opponents over the horizon.

I suppose the next great revolution will be in space war, if it indeed comes to that. But I'm optimistic that we will at least have sorted out those things amongst humanity by the time that's possible. Other species, OTOH...

 

[Phrossack]

You still haven't attempted to support your claim that cataphracts were mainly anti-infantry, Domen. Did you get it from the book whose cover you posted? If so, what were the relevant quotes, and what were the author's sources?

 

[Domen]

Yes - I got it from this book, or precisely from another book, which cites this book (historians like to cite each other).

Later I will provide the relevant quotes (I have the book which cites this book, but I don't have this particular book).

===========================================

Meanwhile another history question not worth its own thread:

Was there such a thing like Japanese racial ideology during WW2 ???

Did the Japanese see themselves racially superior over the Chinese, just like the Germans saw themselves racially superior over the Russians?

In World War 2, of course.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes. The Japanese very much saw themselves as a 'master race'. They had both a destiny, and a natural right, to an empire in Asia and the Pacific.

 

[Tee Kay]

Meanwhile another history question not worth its own thread:

Was there such a thing like Japanese racial ideology during WW2 ???

Did the Japanese see themselves racially superior over the Chinese, just like the Germans saw themselves racially superior over the Russians?

Yes. Very much yes. Wartime propaganda taught that Asians were superior to all other races, and the Japanese the finest, purest race of them all. Actually the Japanese fought a holy war, 'cause the Emperor was supposed to be divine, and the Yamato Race descended from the gods, and it was their divine right to take over the world. They were also obsessed with eugenics and the only reason Japan didn't go as far as the Nazis did was because the most extreme ultranationalists opposed it on religious grounds (Japanese people being divine therefore perfect and should not be messed with by mortal scientists).

By the way, a lot of this survived in North Korea, where Kim Il-sung basically took Japanese racial theories and replaced "Japanese" with "Korean". It explains a lot of North Korea's history and current situation.

 

[CaptainLost]

You still haven't attempted to support your claim that cataphracts were mainly anti-infantry, Domen. Did you get it from the book whose cover you posted? If so, what were the relevant quotes, and what were the author's sources?

Well, correct me if I'm wrong--but cataphracts were heavily armored and armed with lances for charging. Doesn't that seem more anti-infantry than anything else? Cataphracts were slower than other cavalry, so there was no point in them trying to attack cavalry, unless the other cavalry was just as slow as them. So it seems logical cataphracts would have been used for anti-infantry purposes.

 

[Phrossack]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong--but cataphracts were heavily armored and armed with lances for charging. Doesn't that seem more anti-infantry than anything else? Cataphracts were slower than other cavalry, so there was no point in them trying to attack cavalry, unless the other cavalry was just as slow as them. So it seems logical cataphracts would have been used for anti-infantry purposes.

Bear in mind that the armored horsemen usually agreed to be cataphracts (it's not a terribly consistently applied term) weren't always strictly lancers, as many of them carried bows in addition or in lieu of lances. Many Sassanid cataphracts were known to carry bows, eastern steppe peoples sometimes employed heavily armored horsemen with bows, and the Romans/Byzantines seem to have picked up on the practice, too.

They wore heavy armor because it made them very hard to kill, and also likely because it was a glorious-looking status symbol. Armor is useful to protect against infantry and cavalry alike. The fact that they were probably slower than lighter horsemen doesn't mean that they couldn't or didn't engage them; it just meant that they couldn't pursue as effectively if the enemy fled. Their slow speed didn't keep cataphracts from fighting other horsemen any more than the equipment of heavy infantry kept them from engaging light infantry, or cavalry, or anything else that was faster than them.

The armor of cataphracts would have given them an advantage over lighter cavalry, all other things being equal, which gave the cataphracts more options. They could charge the enemy's horsemen and, all things being equal, would probably either kill or scatter them in the end. They could stick to the flanks of their own infantry and protect them from cavalry charges. If the enemy infantry were weakened, already engaged, or had their flanks or rear exposed, cataphracts could attack them, too.

The weight of armor could be a real hindrance if cataphracts pursued the enemy at speed; at Immae and Emesa, the Palmyrene cataphracts exhausted themselves by running around chasing the Romans too much and were defeated. It would make sense to me if cataphracts advanced on the enemy at a brisk walk or a steady trot. Cavalry bodies tend to advance like that to avoid tiring their horses prematurely and to keep in good order. Cataphracts, with their armor, would have been more concerned with tiring their horses, and would have been less vulnerable to missiles during a steady advance than lighter horse.

Moreover, if cataphracts had bows, they could drive off enemy cavalry with archery without even needing to charge. They could protect their army from horse archers because their bows could keep at bay, or kill and maim, lighter horse archers, while their heavy armor protected them from arrows. If the horse archers were foolish enough to charge they would be badly outmatched by cataphracts. Cataphracts could also weaken the enemy with arrows to prep for a charge, as well. They had a lot of options.

Another reason cataphracts were probably expected to prioritize fighting cavalry is their origin. They seem to have originated with eastern peoples like the Sakae, Sarmatians, and various other Iranic peoples who fought mainly as cavalry against other cavalry. Cataphracts have noticeable advantages over other types of cavalry in combat with them, and while they're not very good at pursuit, that's what light cavalry is for.

 

[CaptainLost]

I think I can make a definite conclusion to all this:
In essence both you and Domen are right. At first, caraphracts, like Seleucid or Parthian ones, were meant for fighting infantry--for example, the Parthians vs Roman legions. These early cataphracts worked alongside separate horse archers.
Then, later on (with the Sassanids, Byzantines, etc), since armies with cataphracts were fighting mainly cavalry instead of infantry, the cataphracts evolved to be the bow-and-lance-wielding guys we've been discussing, who probably mostly fought cavalry, as you said.
So it's unlikely early would've been intended to fight cavalry, and also unlikely later cataphracts would've been meant for fighting infantry.

 

[Flying Pig]

Phrossack makes a very convincing case for putting it the other way around. Certainly, European knights spent most of their time practising hurting other cavalrymen, so it's not unreasonable that other heavy cavalry might have done the same. Certainly, it seems rather odd to add armour and a bow to cavalrymen to make them good at charging into infantry, since prolonged close combat and shooting are jobs usually better done by the infantry.

 

[Phrossack]

I think I can make a definite conclusion to all this:
In essence both you and Domen are right. At first, caraphracts, like Seleucid or Parthian ones, were meant for fighting infantry--for example, the Parthians vs Roman legions. These early cataphracts worked alongside separate horse archers.
Then, later on (with the Sassanids, Byzantines, etc), since armies with cataphracts were fighting mainly cavalry instead of infantry, the cataphracts evolved to be the bow-and-lance-wielding guys we've been discussing, who probably mostly fought cavalry, as you said.
So it's unlikely early would've been intended to fight cavalry, and also unlikely later cataphracts would've been meant for fighting infantry.

Well, it's important to remember that Parthian cataphracts weren't some new type of horsemen meant to fight Roman footmen. The Seleucids before had had cataphracts, and supposedly the Achaemenids had as well. But the Parthians were originally a steppe people with all that implies, meaning that they were originally mostly cavalry. Steppe peoples frequently used both large amounts of light horse archers and smaller amounts of better-armored heavy horsemen, occasionally including cataphracts. When the Parthians took over Iran and more or less settled down, they kept a lot of that cavalry tradition alive, only now they had the wealth and resources to equip their heavy cavalry with all-encompassing metal armor. While they fought the Romans a lot, some of their biggest threats were the routine incursions of other steppe peoples who were mostly cavalry. The best way to counter mounted raids is with cavalry of your own, and cataphracts (especially those with bows) would have been very effective at driving off light horse archers. Not that they could chase them effectively, but there's light cavalry for that and in any case chasing "fleeing" horse archers frequently just leads you right into a trap.

Phrossack makes a very convincing case for putting it the other way around. Certainly, European knights spent most of their time practising hurting other cavalrymen, so it's not unreasonable that other heavy cavalry might have done the same. Certainly, it seems rather odd to add armour and a bow to cavalrymen to make them good at charging into infantry, since prolonged close combat and shooting are jobs usually better done by the infantry.

Thanks!

The comparison with European knights is an interesting one, because while they and cataphracts certainly had a lot of major differences, they were both mostly noblemen called to join a temporary campaign rather than full-time professional soldiers paid and equipped by the state for a specific combat role. They had to bring their own kit, and being nobles, preferred to fight mounted and with the best equipment they could afford (their wealth varied wildly, but nobles could often afford good warhorses, weapons, and plenty of armor). Fighting as fully armored horsemen demonstrated their status and wealth, and also made them rather deadly. Aristocratic horsemen like to gain renown, possible wealth, and a battlefield advantage by going against their counterparts, other aristocratic horsemen, when possible and permitted.

Of course, not all cataphracts were Parthian, or noblemen, for that matter. But even without the aristocratic impetus to combat against equals when possible, cataphracts were still very well suited to beating enemy cavalry first, and scattering infantry second.

 

[Masada]

Being resistant to death also helped matters, I'd imagine.

 

[Domen]

The book I quoted says that Roman cataphracts were meant mostly to fight against infantry, not that this applied to all cataphracts throughout history (remember that cataphracts existed for 1800 years). The Romans had a distinction for cataphracts and clibanarii, the latter being mostly against cavalry. In Non-Roman armies units called clibanarii didn't exist, so their anti-cavalry role was also played by cataphracts.

As for the Parthians, the Seleucids and the Achaemenids - neither of them were the first ones recorded by sources to use cataphracts. That goes to the Scythians and the Massagetae, in 530 BC, when cataphracts under Tomyris defeated the Persian army and killed Cyrus II. Achaemenids adopted cataphracts from their steppe enemies but 1) it is unclear when and 2) they never had them in significant numbers, unlike later the Parthians, the Seleucids and the Sassanids. At Gaugamela Alexander's Hetairoi did not face them.

The first confirmed by sources appearance of cataphracts in the Roman army was in 130 AD, but they started to be used in large numbers after the 210s AD. Roman encounters with cataphracts were not only in the East (Parthian, Seleucid, Palmyrene, Mithridatic, Sassanid, etc. cataphracts) but also along the Danube, where they fought against the Roxolani in 60 - 68 AD and then in the Dacian wars. Maybe such Roxolani foreigners recruited to the Roman army following the 117 AD treaty between Emperor Hadrian and King of the Roxolani Rasparaganus were the first cataphracts of Rome, while later they started to recruit citizens of the Empire as cataphracts. In the Middle Ages cataphracts continued to be used by Eastern Romans.

The last time Byzantine cataphracts were used on a large scale was in the 13th century.

So the 13th century ended the 1800 years long military history of cataphracts.

BTW - cataphracts were also used in China, but I don't know whether the Chinese developed them independently or adopted them from the western direction. Or the other way around.

noblemen called to join a temporary campaign rather than full-time professional soldiers

Being a nobleman and a full-time professional soldier aren't mutually exclusive things. Just like today being from a middle class family and a profesional soldier is also not impossible. Roman cataphracts were full-time professional, paid soldiers. But I don't think that they were recruited mostly from peasants.

at Immae and Emesa, the Palmyrene cataphracts exhausted themselves by running around chasing the Romans too much and were defeated.

In the Roman account of the battle of Emesa I haven't seen anything indicating that it was exhaustion which caused the defeat of cataphracts. The account is actually rather clear, that it was the loss of cohesiveness and the dispersal of their formation (they were chasing the Romans and dispersed themselves in the process, instead of keeping their formation intact), followed by a sudden Roman counterattack.

As for Immae I haven't read about that battle yet, but I will check this too.

Another reason cataphracts were probably expected to prioritize fighting cavalry is their origin. They seem to have originated with eastern peoples like the Sakae, Sarmatians, and various other Iranic peoples who fought mainly as cavalry against other cavalry.

Indeed, but on the other hand the first recorded use of cataphracts was in 530 BC against the Persian army of Cyrus II, and that army was mostly infantry (like all Persian armies in that early period).

Bear in mind that the armored horsemen usually agreed to be cataphracts (it's not a terribly consistently applied term) weren't always strictly lancers, as many of them carried bows

Roman cataphracts = strictly lancers. Sagittari clibanarii were Roman armoured horse archers.

 

[Domen]

Armoured Roman cavalry (note the size of horses - horse breeds available in Ancient Europe were usually smaller than later in Medieval Europe):

Spoiler :

Though of course this is a modern painting, so we can't be sure whether its author accurately depicted horses used by Roman heavy cavalry.

==================================

Edit:

Maybe I was wrong that the history of cataphracts ended in the 13th century.

Here is a picture showing a heavy horseman of the Kingdom of Baguirmi (1522 - 1897):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Baguirmi

He (and his horse) are using padded leather armour.

BTW - one of several methods of holding a lance during charge (this one is among the less well-known ones):

Here another method (this one is probably the more well-known ones today):

And here a lance inside a tok (tok being attached to saddle), which was a useful tool for using very long lances:



Ancient cataphracts were often holding their lances in both hands (yet another method of using a lance):

Bayeux tapestry shows lances and spears being used by Norman knights both underarm and overarm:

Here we can see the first lancer attacking infantry with lance underarm:

And here several lancers attacking infantry with lances overarm:

Here Assyrian cavalry using spears overarm:

 

[Flying Pig]

I'd be unconvinced - horses are often shrunk in artwork to emphasise the rider. Pictures like the below emerge from the Middle Ages, but actually measuring the armour used by horses makes them seem about the size of modern riding horses. The Parthenon frieze is another good example of this device.

EDIT: A modern riding horse:

Spoiler :

EDIT 2: A lot of what I can find places them somewhere between 12 and 14 hands, mostly on the upper end of that bracket, which is a few inches shorter than a modern horse but not by much.