|
Post by paulhannah on Feb 3, 2020 10:01:23 GMT
...so what was the point of all that heavy expensive armour? To keep them warm, of course!
|
|
|
Post by j on Feb 3, 2020 10:43:08 GMT
Guess you could rationalise it (if you really want to) as they are packed together closer & thus more arrows will hit their mark?
j
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 3, 2020 12:56:12 GMT
Then spread out a bit and they’ll be just as vulnerable to missiles...plus they won’t need all that expensive heavy armour (and they’ll get to move faster as well).
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Feb 3, 2020 20:57:26 GMT
Tibetans..."I could have 10". Or...ZERO Cataphracts, as one could, optionally, deploy Tibetans dismounted and field about as many Spear elements (10) as a Spartan Hoplite army. --Can't do that in 2.2. Dismount cataphracts?!? NEVER! Then they're just a spearman who has lost his shield. Keep'em mounted and enjoy that extra movement.
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Feb 3, 2020 21:00:14 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 3, 2020 22:17:19 GMT
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...
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Feb 3, 2020 22:25:54 GMT
don't the west sudanese III-69 extending to 1591 AD have the win for latest Cataphract?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 3, 2020 23:05:19 GMT
It looks like you win the prize Mthrguth. Even DBMM has the III/69 West Sudanese (1000-1591 AD) using 4Kn generals and 4Kn ‘Yan Iifida’ after 1390 AD, with no ending date. And since III/69 have themselves as an enemy...cataphracts v cataphracts it is.
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Feb 4, 2020 9:07:59 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 9, 2020 18:34:41 GMT
...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?
|
|
|
Post by AndreasJ on Dec 9, 2020 12:44:04 GMT
...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.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 9, 2020 20:27:29 GMT
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.
|
|