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.