Alright Veeky Forums, this is fucking with me...

Alright Veeky Forums, this is fucking with me. The Eastern Roman cataphracts of the 6th century were known to use both lance and bow. But when the cataphracts were using the bow, where in the fuck did the big-ass lance go? Did they manage to store it on their person somewhere for later use? Did they even carry both at the same time?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asawira
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>big-ass lance go?
It broke? Most probably on the first person it hit?

So does that mean that the cataphracts never used their bows before they did their charge? I thought that they'd shoot to weaken the enemy before finishing them off with a well placed charge.

Got any examples of them using both weapons?

Or at least their bow when they still have their spear?

> where in the fuck did the big-ass lance go? Did they manage to store it on their person somewhere for later use?

Some cataphracts bows and some used lances but when not carrying lances, they were kept with the baggage train.

Side Note: in S.M.Stirling's “Emberverse” stories, the characters use a leather “boot” attached to the saddle to store the lance on the horse, yet keep it ready for quick deployment. I’m not aware of any historical army doing this, which is kinda odd, as it seems like a no-brainer?

I thought I read that the cataphracts were supposed to do that in the Strategikon but after re-reading the part I thought said that, it turns out they're only supposed to be able to use both overall, no mention of actually switching between the two weapons actively in battle.

Having some sort of lance container attached to the saddle does make sense, and as for why there's no record of any army actually doing this, all I can say is I saw someone post somewhere that apparently such a detail was considered too obvious to even mention? Honestly I don't fucking know

Anyway the main reason I'm interested in this is I'm working (slowly) on a fictional work where one of the armies has cataphracts based on the eastern Roman ones and in concept art I've drawn them storing their lances on their backs while shooting but I thought to myself "There's a decent chance that that's fucking retarded"

>storing their lances on their backs while shooting

Yeah, that ain't going to really work. Too awkward, especially when wearing armor and would catch on tree branches and such, spilling the rider.

Another “Emberverse” reference; the bicycle mounted pikemen have two-piece pikes, making them much shorter and easier to carry, using a kinda socket and collet to attach the two parts together.

Also; heavy crossbows that use an old style ratcheting car jack mechanism to cock the prod.

i have no idea catphract even used bows

The two-piece pike at least seems plausible, the Macedonians used two-piece sarissas so I imagine something similar could be done for the lance.

It seems more often that the cavalry one might call a cataphract (both rider and horse armored) would strictly stick to lance and close-combat weapons, but there are records of at least the 6th century Romans and also the Mongols having cataphracts that could use bows

It was supposedly part of their core doctrine. Hit target with arrows, charge in when they're in disarray, pull back and repeat.

Polish pancerni (and even hussars on occasion) carried both lances and bows but I’ve never read any reference as to what they did with their lances when they were using their bows.

At least with the Romans though, this pattern seems to have not lasted very long. Can't really say why that was the case, maybe it ended up being not so effective for them. But then it looks like the Mongols were consistently doing something like that centuries later

>tfw age of empires lied to me yet again

Maybe the bows were the secondary weapon? Charge with the lance, lose the lance during the charge, employ the Parthian shot while regrouping for a saber charge or retrieving a new lance?

It's ok user, I too have been deceived by vidya--R:TW made me think that Urban Cohorts were elite uber infantry that could kill anything and everything

Pancerni were primarily light armored horse archers, (even into the gunpowder era) who were used to tear up enemy formations prior to the charge by the hussars, then using their lances afterward to run down the retreating enemy.

Still, they're always shown with both bows and lances and no reference as to where or how the lances were stored/carried.

They didn't swithc out. Eastern romans, at least, had the opther men in a wedge using lances and the inner men (who also ha dless armor) shooting.

The shooting weakens the section of line before contact and means EVERYONE is killing at all times.


We know that switching form lance, to bow, to sword, in various orders, WAS practiced as part of training for other cavalry, however. This was imporatn for defeating people like the avars who would not od well in close combat with settled horse, but who needed to be shot at.


>all I can say is I saw someone post somewhere that apparently such a detail was considered too obvious to even mention?
There are manuals that essentianlly say "and make sure they're got stirrups and avar type weapons and riding tack."

A rider of the day would know what that meant, nobody wrote down details.

It came back into vogue once the west fell. When you need to kill steppe nomads, you ideally want armored cavalry, and being able to shoot AND charge is important.

>tfw want to go as a kataphrakt to a Renaissance Fair
>tfw pulling that off would cost upwards of $15,000 for all the fucking chainmail you'd need+a horse that could carry it all
>nobody would know who you were supposed to be even if you did do it

Being a Byzantineboo in America is suffering.

Right, it was in vogue in the 6th century and generals like Belisarius and Maurice made good use of them for sure. I was referring to some time after those guys, like the Komneian period I think is where you stop seeing reference to that but I could be wrong

I think that's more of a reflection of the general collapse of the Empire more than anything else. After the Angeloi took over, they just couldn't afford that kind of heavy cavalry anymore.

Oh that makes more sense. Yeah since the Mongols kept heavy cavalry that could also fight as archers for a long time I assume it was almost always useful to have.

The Byzantine calvalry in the late 5th to 8th century was heavily modeled off the Sassanid cataphracts and both the medium and heavy cavalry. Usually the kontos/lance was stored on their laps while they gallooped or mounted on a skirt on their mounts sides while they unloaded with recurved composite bows before storing their crossbows or bows and pulling up their kontos.

Byzantines probably did the same shit.

Your fucking servant handed it to you.
>Return from plinking.
>BOY FETCH ME MY LANCE WE GON CHARGE.

>mamluks were true successors of persian cataphracts
Prove me wrong

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asawira

They quite literally are successors to the Sassanid cataphracts unlike the Mamluks, being Persian nobles who converted to Islam but were still employed as heavy cavalry. .

>He distincts people based on ethnicity rather than culture
Hahaa what a fag

>distincts
>he can't spell
Hahaa what a fag

But seriously, the Asawira were literally turncoat and at least partially Muslim converted Persian low-level nobles who made up the normal ranks of Sassanid cataphracts and were used by the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphs till the early to mid 8th centuries.

I said successors not continuers

Yes? And what makes the Asarvan serving the Arabs not successors? And both words in this context mean the same thing, they continued on serving the same role with the same prestige and the same benefits in the Caliphate/Arab empire as they did before under the Sassanid/Persian empire.

maybe they just put it on the side of the horse?

So mamluks are also successors right, you are not proving otherwise.

Or they had some sort of servants like squires?

I proved their less worthy of that belief in contrast with the fact that literal Sassanid cataphracts served the Caliphs in the same function for longer period of time before the Mamluks even existed even after the fall of the Sassanid Empire.

Literary this.
Armed and often armored servants who also take care of spare horses, ammo and weapon.
It was light cavalry and their lances were short and could be also thrown.
You want winged hussars for comparisons. For them spare lances were transported and stored on carts and they have armed commoners or lesser nobles who serve them.

> It was light cavalry and their lances were short and could be also thrown.

No, they weren’t throwing their lances.

> You want winged hussars for comparisons.

Sure, and there was a whole stock of extra lances back in the baggage train for hussars but the nature of the pancerni mission, meant they were frequently way out front doing reconnaissance or roaming along the flanks and couldn’t just ride back and get a lance as needed.

Same deal with the cataphracts, albeit for different reasons. too heavy to have the horse do anything but walk when not attacking, and the routes they took meant that other men riding up to hand them shit likely got shot to death.

the good thing about orthodoxy is ur in just the right position to breed godtier cavalry lines being able to benefit from the steppe, gaul-celt, arabia, NA, & w/e the fuck through india is. ur at the crossroads of civilisation. and the ones that succeeded in that area all had something in comon in that what they chose to pick and put their eggs into the baskets of cavalry, knowledge, wisdom, silver, empire, technology; civilisation. at least pre armada days. gunpowder & navy.

Anyone got a scan of Strategikon?

Don't forget the scale, helmet, gauntlets, greaves and padding!