As we are discussing cataphracts, does anyone else think the following is a bit odd:-
In DBA Bows have a combat factor of 4 against Cavalry and against 3Kn (not all ‘knights’ had heavy armour...think of Alexander’s Companions or the Goths at Adrianople in 378 AD). But Bows also have a CF of 4 against 4Kn cataphracts... ...so what was the point of all that heavy expensive armour to protect horses from bowfire, when they are just as vulnerable as unarmoured Cavalry and 3Kn when shot at?
Ah, but in DBA it’s the effect that counts, and a CF of 4 against mounted seems to work fine. (Still, one would have thought that Bows having a CF of 3 against totally armoured cataphracts would have been more appropriate)
Just a thought...
Stevie I have long thought and suggested this.
Bow having a CF of 4 against mounted reflects that the main target area is the horse itself. Cataphracts have armoured horses and armoured riders, therefore bow fire is not as effective, therefore CF of 3. But hey, I just roll dice and make poor decisions .... not necessarily in that order.
One way to look at it stevie is that the cultures armoring their horse were facing more powerful bows - Asiatic compound bows, the longbow, etc.
Therefore it was just a matter or the classic penetration vs protection arms race.
I presume, paul, that keeping them warm is a reference to the old theory that cataphract derived from a reference to a 'baking oven?'
As to a reduced missile combat factor against cataphracts, you would then have to deal with the fact that many of the Asiatic CV have armored/barded horse as well as European knights with mail or plate armoring of their horses.
And then there is the complicating factor that those CV with armored horses are just as fact as those that aren't so burdened...
If I'm not mistaken, the honour of being the last cataphracts in Asia (and second to last cataphracts overall) goes to the Tangut "irron sparrowhawks" of the Xixia (III/67), which can be fielded up until the Mongol conquest.
...the honour of being the last cataphracts in Asia...goes to the Tangut "iron sparrowhawks" of the Xixia (III/67), which can be fielded up until the Mongol conquest.
Inevitably, a collect-the-whole-set mentality sets in here. Who here has a III/67 Hsi-Hsia army? If so, how did you build it?
I've got one. It's made from Essex figures, a mix of Tibetans (from their old T'ang range) and Mongols for the mounted, and Sung for the foot.
Returning to Agulani, the only source for their existence seems to be the Gesta Francorum, which enumerates them among the various nations making up the Seljuk armies at Dorylaeum (1097) and Antioch (1098). The latter lot are described as numbering three thousand, wearing complete armour, riding completely armoured horses, and refusing to use any weapons but swords.
Funny enough I've been researching them as they are a useful ally for the Khitan Liao, with which they allied to fight the Sung.
The Xi Xia have several earlier influences in their region, previously the T'ang had ruled their territory imposing a Chinese influence which was replaced by the Gokk Turks and Uigher then later the Tibetans. Sources describing the foot dressed in Turkic coats and their Cavalry also in long coats of armour on armoured horses. I've interpreted this as an army which still had Asian influences but with Turkic style Cavalry and possibly Late T'ang style infantry and Tibetans representing the iron hawks. With no defined sources ready any mongol,Turkomen,Tibetans,Chinese,Khitan or Juchen range of the period could be used to represent them.