From: José Ramos (jose@kobo.es)
Date: Sun 02 Apr 2000 - 17:39:08 EEST
This is only an interpretation according to my sources. Historians give
conflicting interpretations on the use of lances before the stirrup was
introduced, and the use of gallop by classical cavalry. Warning, this is for
military buffs...
This was briefly discussed some time ago, but I think it can be a good
inspiration for Gloranthan troop types.
The cataphract most people have in mind, in my opinion, is the Maurikian
style, from the 6th century. They were Belisarius' troops, and Robert Graves
made them widely known. However they are really inspired on the roman
Clibanarii, who were a roman version of the Sassanid cavalrymen, an armoured
rider with kontos (long lance, used with both hands) and bow.
Meanwhile the Romans called cataphracts (and even created some of their
own) the Parthian and Sassanid heavy cavalry (on their own influenced by the
Successor Agema heavy cavalry).
So, in chronological order, we have Alexander's Companions, who
supposedly fought with lances, and charged at the gallop. When they became
rich, they continued to be the bodyguard/personal troops of the Successor
states, but the increase of armour and training, specially among the rich
Seleucids, made them change their tactics to close order and contact at a
trot. The Parthians (and many others in the Middle East) used this kind of
troops as the decisive punch, and the as the noble's position in the army.
However their ineffectiveness against infantry made them increasingly
scarce, while a new kind of noble troop, the clibanarius, with bow and
lance, arose in Persia under the Sassanids (very similar to the nomad
nobility, who are expected to charge, besides using archery).
They were the model for the original byzantine kataphraktoi, who should
Let's not forget that the battles between byzantines and normans in
So, do the partially persian Carmanians value the bow (as the persians
I proposed in the past that the classical Carmanians were of the close
be accomplished with lance, bow, sword and mace. The stirrups made this
double role easier, of course. The division of the byzantine army in
territorial and professional forces brought a specialization, where your
armour and weaponry depended on your position in the unit (lighter bowmen on
the back, armoured horses in the front) instead of a homogeneous force. The
fully armoured rider on a similarly armoured horse resurfaced briefly at the
10th century.
Italy were determinant in the latter adoption of the couched lance (with
other influences thrown in). And it is indeed true that the norman charge
had a heavier impact than the 10th century byzantines...
did) or not? Depending on that we will have fully armoured riders and horses
(usually bronze and brass scale, to avoid sweat corrosion, often with
geometric designs and alternating colours), or lighter cavalry with bow and
lance.
order, grinding melee cavalry (following the dark side, with light cavalry,
using bows, representing the light side), while the new lunarized
Carmanians, embracing the opposites, use both the bow and the lance.
Brass scale armour is so Carmanian to be compulsory. And scale or
lamellar is the best horse armour, too.
Of course most of this is a moot point, as SGU seems very advanced, but
I could not avoid the duality Melee and Missile, and seeing the classical
cataphract as a very Lunar concept.
Pentian nobility, specially in Storm Tribes, would be similarly
I remember some convention where the Carmanian knight with bow
equipped, with bow (the nomad weapon, per se, except in Prax) and expected
to melee the enemy when necessary.
astonished the gathered Malkioni knights. And a good thing it is, in my
opinion.
Regards,
Jose
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:14:14 EEST