Cataphracts VS Medieval Knights
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лют 2019
- Classical antiquity and Medieval times compared and explored in details in this presentation on two of the most powerful cavalry troops the world has ever seen.
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
Metatron-153...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
amedeo.capor...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
Links to the other "Versus" videos:
• How Did The Romans Bea... How Did The Romans Beat The Greeks?- Legions Vs Phalanx, Gladius Vs Sarissa
• Roman Empire VS Chines... Roman Empire VS Chinese Empire
• Roman Legions VS Japan... Roman Legions VS Japanese Armies
• Late Medieval Army VS ... Late Medieval Army VS Roman Imperial Army
• Knight vs Samurai - Ac... Knight vs Samurai - Accurate Historical Comparison
• Viking VS Legionary Viking VS Legionary
• Roman Empire vs Cyrodi... Roman Empire vs Cyrodilic Empire - Skyrim Historical Comparison
• Crusader Army VS Roman... Crusader Army VS Roman Legion
• Chivalric Code vs Bushidō Chivalric Code vs Bushidō
Cataphracts are better for the most part, because they get deffensive terrain bonuses and have a -25% against cities instead of -33%.
lol
But knights got that movement speed and damage
@@quickpawmaud Yeah... But you don't get that feeling Theodora gets when she can fortify a mounted unit.
Lololol love it !!
jajajajaja
Cataphracts are better because they have “Logistica” which causes them to have trample damage against adjacent enemy units.
AOE 2 Reference, points for you mad lad
Ha! I got what you did there ;)
@@James_008
Thanks man.
Don’t forget discounting Spear line attack bonus, but you do have to remember they can only be created at the castle so it is harder to amass them.
@@basilmaciolek3557 Then you do not have halberdier upgrade. That is a huge hit. They also lack the blast furnace upgrade which makes them very weak in late game.
Now that I can play bannerlord this has become relevant to my interests
Lol in here cuz of that game too
Vlandian knightsl beats imperial knight all day every day
@@drilonsyla2021 well Vlandians are proto-Swadia, I'd be disappointed if their cav was worse than the infantry focused faction.
Glad I'm not the only one. lol
@@TripleBarrel06 actually, Vlandias are proto-Rhodoks ;) Part of surviving Empire evolved into Swadia. Which deosn't make any sense since Rhodoks didn't had cavalry. But hey, here's TW logic for ya ;)
A cataphract costs 70 food and 75 gold, trains for 20 seconds.
The knight costs 60 food and 75 gold, trains for 30seconds
But the cataphract has the hidden trample mechanic.
Cataphract costs 75 hammers and has 15 combat strength. It requires horseback riding technology.
Knight costs 120 hammers and has 20 combat strength. It requires chivalry technology.
Cataphracts also negates anti cav bonuses
Also anti-infantry bonus is massive. They are much better than knights, even though they lose 1v1 vs paladin.
Bro, your Cataphracts dont even have shields...so my Banner Knights run right through them.
Horses was a thing up to late XX century.
My dad was a mounted soldier in war (independence war of Angola) in the 1970's. He is a portuguese and was a true portuguese dragoon in late XX century. Of couse in modern days, the horse almost always is just a veicle, but if you are trapped when mounted you can fight with a rifle from a horse back. Normally you use the advantage of speed of the horse and encircle your foes, get on foot and fight normally (we are talking about gerrilas in central Africa).
Cheers from Brazil, folks.
MPLA?
Interesting that this is effective even in a national liberation war involving a European power.
Luiz Alexandre don’t the Canadians still use a mounted unit? Certain they are famous for it as well.. can’t be 100% on that 😂
@@Wanderingwalker-ke6mg IIRC the Mounties are Canada's federal police.
@@Wanderingwalker-ke6mg Yeah the mounties are a police force
"They're warriors clad in metal. But what metal?"
*HEAVY METAL* (Saxon's Crusader starts)
*Christopher Lee enters the chat*
Cataphracts also used bows, they always carried it on their horse, when the situation allows it they will rain down arrows to weaken the lines before charging.
The problem with this video is that you are comparing Hellenistic-roman era cataphracts with 13th century medieval knights. Although a retropespection of the history of cataphracts might be necessary, there were indeed medieval cataphracts that existed in the same timeframe with early knights. The cataphractoi and clibanophoroi of the eastern roman empire that continued till 1453.
1) They did had stirrups, in fact they were the first ones since they had numerous confrontations with Avars.
2) They did not had what we now call knightly high saddles
3) They were far more versatile, because they were trained to use lance, mace, bow and sword
4) They wore many layers of armour. A) Kavvadion, a form of gambeson made of linen or raw silk, stuffed with wool or cotton. B) chain mail C) klibanion or Lorikion lamelar or scale armour D) some times they wore on top of all that an Epilorikion which was something like a light gambeson made of silk with ornaments and designs.
That level of protection was unmatched by the average early norman knight. There is a report of Alexios surviving unscathed the simultaneous attack of three norman knights from two sides.
5) The horses were heavily something uncommon among the early norman knights.
6) They carried two swords. One staight edge (Spathion) and one single edge curved one (Paramerion). The Paramerion was probably the first form of what we came to know as the saber.
The major difference between the easter roman cataphracts and the frankish knight was that cataphracts were part of a recruiting system in the empire not a chain of feudal allegiances. There was a central authority, centres of military training and specific kind of troops comming from each region. Much like in ancient and imperial Rome. In that sense there was uniformity in equipment and we might say that there were also formal colored coded uniforms for each squadron. Plus the cavalry and infantry were trained to work together and cover each other in actions. They even had medical units and technical stuff like engineers and blacksmith that replaced broken weapons and even had prefabricated scales and chain links to patch up armours. This is more like a classic roman (or even modern) perception of warfare.
I'm so happy to read this and to know that I'm not the only one (in the comments section) to know these things.
I dont know if this comment is right but i loved reading it ty
You're absolutely right and I'm glad I read your comment. This video was standard the history channel.
Fun fact:
The use of knights by the Byzantine empire became more common after the siege by the crusaders in 1204, meanwhile this year is also the year that the best horse bread for recruiting Cataphracts when extinct
@@Lucifer_Morningstar_F4LL1N1 yep this pretty much. Any Cataphracts that were even left used by the Byzantine splinter states were in small numbers and only afforded and ridden by the nobility if there was any as far as I recall.
Spoiler: the armored heavy cavalryman wins.
Ohhhhh nooooo!!!
Not necessarily. Early knights lack barding. Cataphractii could simply stab their horse with their lances, and outreach their weapons (early Knights seldom use long lances).
@@chakfungcheung3318 The joke is that both are armored heavy cavalrymen. Still, he messed up, cause it could be a draw.
@@elzian4975 Oh sorry I totally missed the joke LMAO, I kept thinking he is talking about armoured knights
My rhodoks would beg to differ
Byzantium used cataphracts up until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Although, yes cataphracts and knights are significantly different. The core similarities are, that, both are heavily armoured, heavily armed, shock cavalry. Through the interactions between “mainland” Europe and the Byzantine Empire, by way of commerce, warfare, and mercenary service in the Byzantine military, the cataphracts of Byzantium could have provided a prototype from which the heavily armoured Medieval European knight evolved.
There is some archeological evidence, that, the Sarmatians had stirrups around the 1st century AD, or even a bit earlier.
Yes, indeed. Stirrups ( or their precursor thing ) were around much earlier than we thought. Some history experts claim to found evidence not only near Europe regions, but in Asian regions too.
Considering, that the precursor huns may had something similar already like that for ... idk. A long time.
Edit: the Greek polis states had some early full armored models of units too btw. They were really heavy and expensive, but offered a lot of protection.
@@xSoulhunterDKx The stirrup was invented in China in the last few centuries BCE and spread westward through the nomadic peoples of Central Eurasia. The archaeological evidence of stirrups were found in Chinese tomb from as early as 4 BCE.
The paired stirrups were widely popular in China for a long time, A funerary figurine depicting a stirrup dated AD 302 was unearthed from a Western Jin dynasty tomb near Changsha proves the wide use of stirrups in China. Historians speculate the huns and other normad tribes passed the use of stirrups from China to Europe much later in Medieval era.
"Shock cavalry") it's so funny when gamers talk about history)
Soldier Breakneck : Actually, shock cavalry is actual a proper military tactic. Shock cavalry is, generally, heavily armoured cavalry specifically to charge straight through the enemy ranks creating openings to be exploited by infantry and/or light cavalry. This concept is illustrated, in its extreme, by the use of elephants in warfare, basically a four-legged tank, either to smash through the enemy infantry, or make them break ranks and run. The Shock Tactics in warfare are, when, heavy cavalry or heavy infantry are used in specific maneuvers and tactics designed to put the enemy under severe psychological and physical stress, in order to break their will to stand and fight. Hence, the shock in shock tactics, and its associated specialist shock troops.
@@salavat294 bro, There is no term "shock cavalry" in original history resources, and military history at all. That we could say with confidence. That is term from computer games, especially from Total war series)
When we are talking about classical and late Middle ages we even have no term "cavalry" in it's later understanding, we have only two basic military concepts: mounted feudal militia forces (all who have battle horse and weapons - knights, their mounted armed servants, heavy mounted sergeants and so on). And dismounted "others", who have no money for horse, who can't took a full value of campaign and battle. That people used mostly in sieges and defendings of castles and cities, guarding the train etc. That were realities of medieval times. No special types of "shock", "storm" troops, no special tactics with combinations of cavalry and foot soldiers and so on. That came later in renaissance. In medieval nearly all battles started and ended with attack of heavy mounted forces. That gradation of soldiers were made for computer games, to make it more interesting and tactical. It would be not very interesting to play having only "knights, peasants, and archers" where knights easily outclasses everything on the battlefield. I tried to explain, Sorry for my English I am not a native speaker.
And now I know why the Cataphractii Terminators are called "Cataphractii."
Heavily armored, and slower than their later counterparts.
Heeey warhammer
the virgin frankish knight vs the chad sassanid cataphract
🤣🤣 underrated meme comment
Virgin assanid cataphract vs chad holy knight
@@kyubikitsune974 The Chad mamulek vs the Virgin "holy" knight
Blitzkrieg
Can you say what is that ? What does "chad" mean?
This comment is late but the virgin Parthian heavy spearmen versus the chad Saxon Thegn
(I'm sorry)
but what's my gran's eyes got to do with knights?
That reminds me of my mom when I was little being autistic about age of empires 2
And why are grandma's eyes covered in iron?
Hahahahaha!
I feel like I've missed something. Care to share? :)
@@Papadragon18 cataracts
OMG with the level of indepth analisis you go with your videos, you should have already reached earth core....
Ahahah
One very important aspect to consider when comparing late antiquity/early medieval cataphracts with high/late medieval knights is the role they played in society - not just the social station of the men who were cataphracts or knights but the role of the armoured monuted warrior itself. Cataphracts were almost exclusively an arm of the military of a strong state with a centralized government, and their function was almost exclusively military. Knights and men-at-arms were different. Their function was to a large degree to act as a monopoly of violence for the landed nobility, their military duty in service of a king or high nobility was secondary. A knight was most often tasked with protecting and keeping the peace of the land that he or his liege lord owned (and occasionally harrassing the peasants of the neighboring lands) As such he was expected to be quick and mobile (hence barded horses being fairly uncommon) while also being able to fight against a numerically superior opponent with much worse training and equipment (hence the much better armor protection of the knight himself ) The common image of large units of mounted knights charging at other knights in open battle was a rare exception. A much more realistic image of a knight in action would be as part of a much smaller group, riding down rioting peasants, chasing brigands off the land or as part of a chevauche burning down villages and crops and slaughtering the local population.
Cataphracts were elite soldiers. Knights were a strange combination of economic elite, riot police and a para-military death squad.
"economic elite, riot police and a para-military death squad"
Well, while they were all that, the Knights were - also - elite soldiers in the battlefield. Considering their results compared with their relative low numbers in the overall army (generally 1/20th to 1/10th of the army) they were the most effective and useful unit.
@@xenotypos True, but my point is, that we often tend to look at knights solely as soldiers, which is a huge mistake, simply because that wasn't their primary reason for existing.
Pitched battles were exceedingly rare during the Middle Ages - and battles where mounted knights could be employed to their full potential even more so. Their value as fast-moving raiders was far more important in war than their value in open battle.
Knights became ubiquitous, because they fit well into the societies of high- to late Middle Ages, not because they were some kind of unbeatable super weapon ('cause they weren't)
@@Finkeren i have a counter example. During the Norman wars in Sicily, italy, Byzantium and the crusades the norman knights frequently fought in big pitched battles and routed armies many times their size. Like at Civitatae, dyrrachium, Cerami or even Nicaea or Antioch. Again they often didnt fight other cavalry units unless you count the sultanate of Rum which was a totally different military tactic so this still kinda proves your point. But still i would love to learn your thoughts on this and possible differences between norman knights and later European aristocratic knights
@@arawn1061 it's not that mounted knights weren't an important, even essential, part of most European medieval armies, and obviously they often played a key part in the pitched battles at the time.
My point is, that this military function was not the main reason for their existence, and the European knight was not really a product of any specific military need at the time but rather a product of the social and economic structures at the time.
It depends on your Era. Your definitions could be interchangeable just based on the Era.
In order to have a mounted warrior, we must first invent the universe.
Are those Chaos and Bretonnian Knights on the shelf?
Yes :)
Yup.
Eat yer heart out Bretonnia!
media.discordapp.net/attachments/307357320239906837/543977818552401921/20190210031324_1.jpg
Among the Imperial Knightly Orders on this picture are: Knights of Morr, Knights of the Black Bear, Knights of the Griffon, Reiksguard Knights, Knights of the White Wolf, Knights of the Everlasting Light (poor guys... cursed with sudden and embarrassing deaths), Knights of the Everlasting Flame, Imperial Knights...
High elf spearmen and swordmasters of hoeth , if I’m not mistaken
It's always sad when you find out someone you look up to has a drug addiction. Goddamn plastic crack.
It is interesting to see the early medieval Roman cataphracts, circa the 10th century under the Macedonian dynasty, especially in contrast to classical antiquity cataphracts. The armor and weapons were heavier and more advanced (medieval Roman lamellar klibanion is a beautiful thing to see), the tactics were more refined, and the horse breeds were more specialized (Nisean crossed with Thracian and Cappadocian crossed with Arabian). They were trained so well that they could charge directly into a disciplined infantry formation and expect to break it. The tactic became so dominant that the Romans ended up having to develop a counter once the Arabs began to copy them, inventing an entirely new kind of spear and tactical usage for it.
Certainly late antique and medieval Roman cataphract formations favored mixed armaments in an integrated formation. The manuals are quite clear that different ranks or portions of the formation would bear different arms. Roman cataphracts had stirrups since the end of the 6th century and good military saddles since even earlier. Interestingly, the most evolved formations (those in the manuals of Nikephoros II Phokas) use spears for the flanks of a wedge (rather than the point, as might be expected), favoring maces for the front of the wedge. I assume that spears for the flanks are to help drive the enemy line apart while the maces at the front bash their way through anyone who tries to stand against the formation, while the center and rear of the wedge would have bow-equipped cataphracts providing supplemental fire (likely supported by lighter horse archers deployed to either side at the same time that the wedge is advancing). The combination of all these factors was designed to inhibit a defensive line and allow the wedge to force a gap, which would be exploited by lighter cavalry (possible less well armored provincial cataphract formations, or even basic medium cavalry without horse armor and with only a lorikion or bambakion for the rider).
As for swords, they were distinctly a sidearm for late antique and medieval Roman cataphracts. The standard was a cavalry spatha (with a rounded point to reduce accidents), but over time a second sword was added to the panoply in the form of a paramerion, essentially a saber. Between the spear, the mace (likely with at least one spare), the bow, the sword (or swords if the rider has one of each type), and at least one ax (sized for hand-to-hand and for throwing), a late antique or medieval Roman cataphract would be a veritable walking arsenal.
I no longer have the source, but I remember reading that the late Roman cataphracts used their long-hafted maces to strike spear shafts, further opening up a path for the wedge to basically just trot unstoppingly over any infantry unit in front of it. (And of course we can infer that even if you survived a mace-blow to the head due to your helmet, if you were knocked over or significantly stunned, it meant almost death by trampling)
On top of that, the empire was already incorporating archers into their infantry formations to great effect: warbows at close range shooting at distracted infantry who needed to worry about not opening their guard to the infantry in front of them protecting said archers (to say nothing about the potential of targeting anyone who spoke up to give orders)
We can assume the mixed archers in the cataphract units served a similar purpose while also providing some way to retaliate against ranged attackers.
Knights may have been shock troops, but cataphracts are a juggernaut you can send right through enemy lines toward the enemy's commanders.
I'll take the one not hard countered by a disciplined pike block any day.
@@dynamicworlds1 The medieval Greek eventually phase out their outdated cataphract in favor of knight wiht heavier lance.
@@wolfremus2521 and how did that work out for them?
@@dynamicworlds1 Pretty decent for a rump state.
@@wolfremus2521 Actually the only reason they switched to knightly tactic is because they lost their horse breeders(That were in Anatolia). They were than forced to use mercenary cavalry and eventually lost the ability to restore their old traditions, and hence had to copy the Western ones.
This does not mean thought that Cataphracts were weaker than knights, only that they did not have the money, manpower and expertise to use them.
Lucky kids in Sicily get to sit in a classroom with this guy.... Had I had a teacher like him, my life would have been much different...
You still wouldn't have paid attention
I always appreciate the extreme detail and work you put into every video
Is... is that a tv playing a video of a fire? It seems like Metatron would have caught on fire already if it were real...
You know damn well he is fireproof!
If you ask me, he's been on fire for a long time now, making awesome videos on a regular basis.
definitely on fire in this video
@@cult_of_odin Yes I'm fire proof. My beard gives me +100% fire resistance and +10% axe damage
@@metatronyt I would assume a beard that magnificent would also grant at least +3 to faith as well.
He Protec
He Attac
But most of all
He's a Cataphrac
Edit: Holy Crag it blew up like the twin towers more than expecc
Edit Edit: I was a younger man in an age which I did not know it was a meme but Saggy and Rinnzu, your dropping with me to hell boys
@Mike Li DEUS VULT
damn straight
Can someone please explain to me the origin of this meme?
THIS COMMENT!
@Mike Li DEUS VULT!!!
Cataphracts get hidden bonus vs infantry with trample damage.
I absolutely love this format for your videos. I enjoy the way you expose the context of the topic and how you present your conclusions. You speak concisely and clearly; add that to the illustrations and your editing and I can keep my attention on the video.
Excellent work @Metatron
Great video content. My favorite little piece of info I learned was the attachment on late armor used as a lance rest, very cool!
Always thanks for watching pal!
When I think of the cataphracts it makes me wonder what kind of logistical train that would have followed a cataphract. A 12th century knight has his squire, his riding horse, his destrier and his mule/donkey, but a cataphract has armor over his warhorse and most of his own body, how many beasts of burden is required to carry that armor on and how many slaves/servents does he need to put that armor on himself and his horse.
From the reading I've done, the assumption is that each cataphract will have a servant (or each group of four with share one if they're poor), and each will have a mount, a remount, and a pack mule. When their generals weren't idiots, they'd wear armor on the march and train for the environments to which they are going to be deployed, but not every general was willing to suffer the complaints of the men (and whole armies were destroyed as a consequence). The Roman army had specific recommendations for supply trains and such, too. For instance, a cataphract should have two quivers, one with 60 arrows and one with 40, and the supply train should include more arrows in bundles of 40 each for rapid distribution to the men during battle. They should also have a selection of shorter, heavier arrows (essentially bolts) for use at short range against especially armored targets, using an arrow guide to make the shorter ammunition compatible with their bows. Those who were bad shots with a bow should use darts or javelins instead.
Amusingly, the logistical corps of the medieval Roman army was the Optimates. They were formerly an elite regiment that backed a rebellion and lost. They were demoted from elite super-heavy cavalry to mule handlers.
@@matthewneuendorf5763 - Very interesting
When reading about the Commaches post adoption of the horse (the horse was obtained from the Spainish) but pre introduction of firearms (Firearms were given to enemies of the Commaches by the French from New Orleans in the 1700s) the Commaches used horses differently in that time period compared to the post firearm period. During the prefirearm period the Commaches adopted heavy cavalry not the light cavalry they were known for in the 1800s. In the late 1600s and into the 1700s the Commaches adopted heavy leather armor for their warriors and horses to protect both from arrows and spears. Like medevil knights, they were reported to use four horses, one to ride, one to carry their armor, one for an assistant and finally their "Charger". The "Charger" was saved for use in actual combat. Thus any Comanche warrior of that time period always had no less then four horses. This seems to be the number needed by any armored horseman to be effective for it was how knights rode into combat, again with at least four horses.
It is also clear that the Commaches did not learn their horsemenship from the Spainish for the Commaches trained their horses to be mounted in the right not the left (The Spainish mounted their horses on the left, for that is how it had been done since men with swords carried those swords on their left side). The Commaches learned you could ride horses from the Spainish but had to learn how to do so on their own. Since the Commaches had no swords their trained their horses to be mounted on the right side.
Thus four horses per heavy cavalry seems to be the world wide norm, again one for the knight to ride, one for an assistant to ride, an assistant to both help dress the armored cavalryman and to take care of the horses, one to carry the armor for both horse and armored horseman and the actual Charger to be used in battle. Many knights and Commache leather armored horse warrior took more, but four was the bare minimum. Four also tended to be the most any one man can control as a horse holder in a combat situation (US cavalry tactics of the late 1800s was to dismount and fight on foot with every fourth man to stay with the horses while the other three cavalymen attacked on foot).
@@paulmentzer7658 i really dont know much about the subject. Could you please tell me te source of that info if you have it? It sounds really interesting.
@@paulmentzer7658 Remember Ghengis Khan required his mounted soldiers to arrive with (at least) four horses. You're on to something. And those warriors were very light and mobile. It's like having a tank: you backup trucks and equipment are often overlooked.
Finally! One of the videos I've been expecing since the creation of this channel! I loved this video!
A fellow Highborn Elves player, a man of culture as well ^^
Love how you tell this history its like you were there.
your students are very lucky, man. A+
Thank you!
Is Metatron actually a teacher for his day job? If so how do I join his class?
Yes; i believe he teaches at a university in Sicily; don't know what subject.
sucking to the man ego
@@metatronyt I recommend you read this - Arms and Armor from Iran by Dr. Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani
Thanks for educating me as always, Metatron. I never heard about a Cataphract. That's what is amazing about history. There is so much to know and it’s because you can't know everything. Thank you, Sir Metatron!
Excellent video, as always Metatron
@Metatron I love your videos! You make medieval history and the like very accessible and in a very interesting and entertaining way. Please keep up the hard work!
I love your films. You have amazing ideas for content and You speak so fluent in english that helps me to understand these films. My english is not that good as You can see but thanks to You i can learn more about history and this language.
As always polish people will say:
Greetings from Poland :)
16:40
Hold on a second. Cataphracts did use stirrups. They were around until the XI century at least. You can even see them pictured with stirrups at 15:07.
He's comparing with the cataphracts from antiquity. Thus his examples up to the Romans.
But I'd be curious of a comparison between knights and "medieval" cataphracts now, even if their role wasn't exactly the same.
@@xenotypos Fair enough. It is just that there are many illustrations of Byzantine cataphracts intermixed. Hence my pondering.
Thank you for your comment!
Great video Metatron! Loved the background on the history of cavalry
Good video and interesting comparison!
Also love the addition to the interior (fireplace).
The virgin banner knight vs the CHAD IMPERIAL ÉLITE CATAPHRACT
Omg thank you, thank you, grazie mille for this video, Metatron!!! Man, I've been waiting for ages for a decent video on Cataphracts and you delivered just that! Your students must be the luckiest people in the world. #fanboy
I'm glad you liked it
Injections are usually made from eggs (so they can retain many egg proteins) but there are 💉 that can be made without, if your child is allergic (not that it likely, especially if you introduce many foods early).
Autoplay put my comment under the next video 😅, I thought I was watching the advert on the end of a video when I sent it 😔
fiona fiona Lol
fiona fiona I’ll keep that in mind
Excellent video!
Informative and entertaining.
Really loved it!
I found this video really enjoyable to watch, nice job.
Another nicely informative and well illustrated video. From the the Fourth Crusade 1204 until the fall of Constantinople 1453, about 250 years heavy cavalry still calling itself cataphracts and medieval knights were contemporaneous. Presumably the technology was similar and only strategy and tactics differed. Any comments.
Hmm. Depends. I mean tehnology is adopted based on tactics and vice versa.
@@nottoday3817 That's why I said 'similar' not 'same'. I should have said "Presumably the technology was similar and only strategy and tactics differed 'greatly'. The Ottomans were already using muskets by 1453, if I'm not mistaken.
I think there’s a big difference between Roman cataphracts and knight, for the former being a elite soldier while the latter a noble class, commander can train and control their soldier to fit the army, while knight would have the army revolves around them to do their thing.
Such characteristics would mean huge difference on the battlefield and serve as totally different asset.
Wonderful research! Your enthusiasm is inspiring! Thank you very much!
Very interesting, well put together and clearly presented. Thank you, good Sir.
nice video of a fire place, mat
Knights have more pierce armour, more HP and are generally stronger. It’s also somewhat slow and costly to upgrade to Paladin but being trained out of stables you can more easily mass them. Cataphracts have an attack bonus vs infantry including special armour against anti-cavalry infantry attacks such as pikes and halberds. The upgrade to Elite Cataphract is also cheaper and quicker, but they are produced out of castles and their use is more situational. They get countered by archers.
Very interesting video again. Thanks, Metatron.
Great video!!
Thank you for your time.
great topic!
What is your opinion on this statement: cataphracts, especially early cataphracts are heavy cavalry, not primarily shock cavalry.
Kataphraktoi - tanks of the premodern battlefield.
I see no difference, cavalry that could charge toward group of infantry due to their mount conditioned to be warhorse is technically shock cavalry regardless heavy or light in armament. Cataphracht might gallop less than other heavy cavalry but their role still same as breaking the stalemate of line infantry.
I mean, he literally says it in the video - they were heavy cavalry, but they weren't utilized in the role of shock cavalry. Though they were perfectly equipped to do it. It's sort of like squares and rectangles. Up until pretty recent history, all shock cavalry was heavy cavalry, but not all heavy cavalry is shock cavalry.
@@gso619 ", all shock cavalry was heavy cavalry"
There are lot of shock cavalry that lightly armored, their value was more the ability to unstable the formation through the use of lance. Macedonian companion cavalry, Khalid's mobile guard, Polish hussar. These were the kind of cavalry that could gallop throughout battlefield without easily tired and wield lance to break formation from flank.
@@cool06alt Lightly armoured cavalry could provide shock value, but if only in the flanks or rear, why would the commander not use melee cavalry instead? For example the Companion cav, is hybrid cavalry for both usages, not pure shock cavalry. Their lances are light lances used to jab only, as they could not withstand a charge that would break them. Also, without saddles and stirrups riders could get knocked off a horse easily, so they do not do that at the era.
Great work you have done and very well explained ty
Your channel just got recommended to me because I love history including history of language. Insta sub. Great content!
The Rome - Total War mod "Europa Barbarorum" which is super nerdy and made by actual historians mentions that in nowadays Armenia cataphract archers were established to counter the steppe archers from the east.
I just noticed Metatron likes Warhammer Fantasy :) I see High Elves, Warriors of Chaos and my personal favorite, the Bretonians!
allways learning something from you， thx mate
Great video. Thank you sir!
But the Cataphracts were still used well into the high and late middle ages the Byzantines used them the Seljuks used them even the Ottomans used, so there certainly was an evolution on the equipment used by Cataphracts.
Not as much and substantialy as knights. In fact it was very minimal. The reason some peoples and states still deployed cataphracts as late as the 15th century, is because they could simply not afford better equipped armies. The Byzantinians in particular had that problem during the peak of their decline. Cataphracts were antiquated by that point. Another explenation is simply seeing greater value in quanity over quality. Fielding a smaller force of fully armoured nobles with latest armor & weapon tech, was more costly.
@@lkvideos7181 this is a wrong argument .. there are prices for metals and they are almost the same for both .. prices for casting and crafting which was cheaper if they hire knights since they paid for Thier own equipment .. the real reason is time and dedication in training and crafting and maintaining the armour .. armies would deploy ctaphracts because they don't have time (which is currency of war btw) .. the only full armoured riders that rise above ctaphracts are mamlukes and european knights .. both were warrior classes who were responsible for training themselves and creating Thier own equipment .. samurai gets a mention too but Thier armour was inferior since they didn't have access to that much metal (but still produced cool armour) .
It has little to do with the relative price of raw material. It comes down to how the steel is processed, technique and effort applied to craft, shape and reinforce the armour, and all the other components, like padding and chain mail that was worn underneath the plate for extra protection, that made the full package so expensive.
Metalwork of 15th century steel plate and late 15th-early 16th century full plate was more advanced than of any other type of armour.
What the knight invested and carried around his body and horse in that period, was worth a fortune. It also varied by region. Your local production in some random area of Europe, was probably not as good as say regional centers like northern Italy / Milan or western Germany / Cologne.
Yes all those expenses were carried by the knight himself, otherwise I think most regents would have had trouble to even afford them.
You are right about time. However, it was not as much a solutiuon and especialy cheap one to hire brigand armies and free companies as people may think. I would argue that many times it was less inconvenient and risky to train and equip an army in lesser time, at the cost of overall quality. Here's why:
The issue with hiring mercenaries is reliablity and cost. Especialy in that period, brigands and free companies were more notorious for being more troublesome than not, and had a very mixed reputation.
Furhermore you had to supply and feed them, otherwise they would simply forage your lands. In worst case, plunder towns.
The other main issue is availability.
Just because you want to employ a well equipped and reputable free company, doesn't mean you can do precicely that whenever you want. Maybe all that's available in your reach does not meet your requirements.
You would either have to wait, which could take months or years, enter negotiations and pay the nation that currently employs the force you need, or try to simply outbid said country. Which could be a problem because of their reputation. All of it was related with high expenses. Another issue with mercenaries is that they ultimately fight for self benefit. When things are going sour for you, there is a greater chance of them abandoning your cause, unless you pay them a greater fortune to risk their lives for you.
In that time, you could have also raised more troops.
@@lkvideos7181 you explain things well but you havent said why byzantines for example chose mercenaries and state raised armies over knights .. while inferior mercenaries cost more than knights since you need much more of them .. or inferior cataphracts need state raised horses and armor and armies .. its because knights in most cases were not available at all .. they were rare and sparse ..you would need a good amount of time to gather enough knights for one campaign .. while byzantine campaigns were frequent east and west and north .. the only one that could gather enough knights to his cause was the pope .. so byzantines preferred cataphracts .. later in time mercenaries equipment got better and they cost less than state raised armies so they relied on mercinaries .. the proof of what i say is that byzantine emperors frequently asked popes to rally an army .. since popes can gather a big army of knights with minimal cost or even for free if they promise future gains in the campaign .
it was almost the same in egypt for mamluks .. mamluk knights were not as sparse since they were all in egypt .. but thier alligiances were many and they had different agendas so no king in livant or iraq could gather enough of them .. they only gathered for imminent threats like the crusades or the mongol invasion .
One can also note that the Roman cavalry was deeply influenced by Celtic cavalry. In fact, Continental Celts invented the saddle that the Romans used after the conquest of Gaul. This is also opposed to the chariots of Britain, which comes from an earlier Celtic expansion. Gaulish swords were also longer to fit cavalry combat and influenced the later Roman spatha.
Interestingly, Celtic cavalry was limited to the nobility, which is similar to what we see in the Middle Ages, but Gaulish cavalry units still couldn't do full on charges like their medieval counterparts for two good reasons: the lack of stirrups and the lack of heavy armour.
The most ancient chariot has been found in a bronze age dig in khazakistan of almost 3700 years ago, into the walls of an ancient city (Arkaim) of Indo-Iranic culture
For most of history cavalry is composed of nobility. Horses are expensive and professional armies were rare.
Maybe light cavalry, but celtic horsemen were shit compared to their eastern couunterparts. Celts never had anything like cataphracts. All that's borrowed from the Iranians
I love the in depth view on the actual history of the mounted warriors. Its so amazing how they have evolved over thousands of years.
I love your videos. So informative.
i had hoped you would mention the invention of specialised saddles and stirrups earlier in the discussion that allowed knights to couch lances and stay in the saddle on impact. This was obviously key to the difference in ancient vs late classical and early medieval cavalry. This was absolutely crucial for the ability of cavalry to have shock value charging infantry in line. A prerequisite even. Nothing to do with training of horses
"The first thing you think of when talking about calvary is a medieval knight."
Me thinking of the rough riders.
Always in enjoyable my friend. Keep up the good work.
Good content - you are passionate about what you do!
"Cataphracts VS Medieval Knights (And brief History of Mounted Warriors)"
Hmmm
Mounted archers win
“We need some more context.” Matt Easton
@Shlomo Shekelberg Isn't that a fitting description for english people in general?
Love your channel !!
Another great presentation. Thanks.
I didn't know you were into Warhammer? I love it :)
When you say "Roman" cataphract, are you including Byzantine cavalry such as the Cataphract formations under Nikephoros Phokas?
Thank you for the great video!
After a second cool video, I subbed, cheers and keep it up
When I think of cavalry, I usually think of winged hussars... most of the time. The rest of the time, either samurai or knight/men at arms.
WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
Winged hussars vs knights?
For me the first thing that comes to mind is mid to late 19th century U.S. Army cavalry: rifles and pistols instead of swords or lances.
I used to think of traditional knights. And then the Winged Hussars Arrived (death from above, make their enemy kneel)
for me it's spanish conquistadores or classical knights followed by Amazigh/Numidians and then Mongols.
You gotta paint your Warhammer models
nothing is sadder than unpainted armies.
Carbonado Melted figures cause of pissed eives
@Tekstil Art *loser.
yeah he's a loser with 320 000 people subscribed to his channel.
@Tekstil Art Yeah, what a loser. A guy who makes a living teaching and talking about his favorite subjects, who lives out his hobbies and isn't afraid to play games and have fun. A guy who's clearly enjoying life and what it has to offer.
Yeah - what a loser...
Thanks. That was interesting. I was generally aware of the differences but the details were nice to have.
.
What a great video, very well done.
The Medieval Palfrey was always a stallion. Records show that breeding ferocity into horses sometimes meant that after charging and breaking the line it was terribly difficulty pull the animal up. This happened at the Battle of Hastings for example.
Reminds me of age of empires 2... Feelsamazingman
Wololo
The online community is still alive. Pro tournaments are being played.
I've been meaning to get back to it but because me and my friends suck the games take hours haha
@@enkiimuto1041 same, except my friends don't want to play it :///
Same
Very informative and very entertaining. Thank you very much.
Well done, great art work. Informative
The saying isn't "cataphract in shining armor" so I rest my case
A knight in shining armour is a man who never had his steel fully tested
You take that back
@@nottoday3817 gottem
@@cheesychipmunk8382 hes right tho
Or he wins so many battles he can always afford new armor.
One of the points that I hear a lot of people who study history argue is tanks are constered calvary forces. General George pot use tactics comparable to what Hannibal used at the battle of Caine. to this day tank crews wear spurs as ceremonial dress.
The first tank regiments in most countries were converted hussar or dragoon regiments and carry on those traditions and honours.
@@SonsOfLorgar ty. That helps a lot for me.
@Joseph Sosa People just cannot let go of the past. War never changes in the ideea of basic principles like the importance of logistics, morale, combined arms and such(mostly the things written by Sun Tzu in the Art of War). However 90% of warfare has chaned forever. It makes no sense to compare an armored formartion with cavalry. A tank can take targets up to one km. And several ones at once if they are close. And that was early days of WW2. By the end of it, a tank could hit stationary targets at over 2km, sometimes even 10km for some SPGs/Tank Destroyers(like ISU-152)
The tank is a heavy breakthrough machine meant to cross all terrains. Wheras cavalry needed a really good time to be effective(like no muddy soil, no obstacles). I mean, I cannot even start to compare those things. They are just different. The whole warfare strategy is different.
I love those ancient military miniatures on the shelves in the back ground. I once made many like them, when young, mostly when shut in for the winters :)
Great video, I learned a lot. 👍
But in Roman republic the equestrians were somewhat nobility if I remember correctly.
The name meant both a type of noble and a military unit yes.
Don't they just break off as soon as they skirmish mercenary horsemen?
Yes, and they were disbanded after the campaigns against Hannibal because they were so God awful at being cav units.
It's because they originally were to provide horse mounted troops or formed them
Regarding the use of cavalry in antiquity. What about the Macedonias? Were they more of an exception with their hammer and anvil tactics?
thessalians had to develop their cav because they were facing mostly hoplites...
so they abandoned the javelinand instead went for a meleecav version, that could charge.
@Cegesh i think he means shockcav, not hammer and anvil...
macedonia addopted this warefare from persians, there are usualy no evidance of even riding horse as a warrior or massanger unit in ancient europe, its more likely that the greecs and macedons did were not used to mount a horse or tame them, its said alexander was the first europian who tamed a horse personaly in early stage of life. although persian soldiers had to learn horse taming, archery and aswim, from their early ages, arround age of 12. since persia and parthia were located at great stepps of Iranian platoe and caspian sea there been hundreds of wild horse hords in the wild, and they were easy to find. macedonia was a part of persian empire for decades and its belived they were the first europians who been kapeble to tame and saddle a wild horse and first evidance seen arround the time of persian domination over south east europian nations.
@Cegesh idiot, get out there and see
@@KeyhaneBishomar he is right dude.
Excellent video!!! Cheers
Another great video
That's one nice fireplace lol
Nice video Metatron, can your next vid be on the Italian Wars?
There were quite a few wars in Italy my man
@@cheesychipmunk8382 yes, and they are largely ignored in the history curriculum of schools in other european countries, so a video on at least some of the wars between city states in what became modern Italy would be very interesting.
@CHEESY CHIPMUNK
By “Italian Wars “ I mean the series of wars that ravaged Italy from the years 1494 - 1559, which are commonly known as the “Italian Wars”. Which in my opinion are the most important series of wars in post Roman Italy, and these wars tend to be overlooked by most historians and history enthusiasts so it would be cool if a video was made on them.
Very enjoyable Thanks for sharing!
I keep learning from these videos
What about the medieval cataphracts of the Byzantine Empire?
You never talk about the Byzantine Empire...
Well its arguably technically still the Roman Empire to be fair xD
Yes, but in a way different time period.
@@DennisOfDragons true enough, and it's different enough to warrant its own discussion. I was mostly making a joke as metatron loves his Roman stuff. Figure if we phrase it that way he might be more likely to do a video on it :)
*Eastern Roman Empire. Very few academics still say "Byzantine Empire."
because they lost
Do a video on the Janissaries. I've always been curious about them.
They are quite famous for taking down Sultans
Thanks mate I've always wondered this
Some amazing artwork here, as well.
Are those High Elves over your top right hand shoulder??? It's a little sad that I can still recognise that, God I miss Warhammer Fantasy (you know, the good Warhammer)
Age of shitmar? To be honest i don't care about it anymore, i really just prefer the dark and gritty regular fantasy
Why would the 12th Century knights not use any barding when the technology is available? Archery and javelins are so common around this era, and one projectile is all it takes to kill a horse, which is a knight's most precious and expensive investment.
Difficult to say but they didn't. It probably wasn't easy to kill a horse as you might think, that's my take on it.
@@metatronyt I would support your argument that the knight sacrificed the barding for mobility and speed (which is the deadliest part of cavalry), but then why the knight would bear such unproportionate heavy armour while the horse bear NO ARMOUR at all, it's weird. Without barding a knight really could not perform the heavy cavalry role of charging a infantry formation head on, especially when a lot of infantry of the era wield bows and spears, and have heavy armour themselves. It makes the knight, which supposed to be heavier, more vulnerable than a footman.
Several reasons, I should think.
The first being; expense. It is most usually one of the most important reasons why a certain weapon isn't adopted on a wider scale.
Secondly, we know that heavily barding a horse constricts it to a degree, at least in regards to endurance. A horse wearing armour will be slower and tire quicker. I seem to recall that Byzantine Cataphracts fighting western knights were routinely defeated due to how much more manouverable the western knights were, and how much more force they could charge with due to their speed.
Thirdly, a very conjectural reason, but it might be worth factoring in. As you say, the horse was a very precious and expensive piece of equipment. Especially in the west. As I recall, the best horses were generally considered to come from Spain and the Middle East, reaching up to Anatolia(Modern Turkey), which means that for quite some while, a good horse was far more rare a commodity in the west than it would in the east(remember, Spain was held, either almost entirely, or in par, by the Moslems for a very long time). Which means that if you fought against a man with a horse, you might actually not want to kill the horse if you can avoid it, and instead take it for yourself.
Fourthly, again, this is conjecture on my part, but bear with me.
Cataphracts, and similar cavalry types, were generally not found in the west. At all, really. They were mostly found in the east, in Syria and beyond, until the Romans adopted the concept, and even then, they were mostly used in the eastern provinces of the empire. Why could this be?
My guess, is that the armour of the Cataphract, while protecting against spears, javelins, and the like, initially came about as a defence against arrow fire. In the east, armies were more often composed of cavalry, and most importantly, mounted archers, largely due to the terrain of the area. And arrow fire over long distances kill indiscriminately. They might kill the horse as well as the rider. The fact that such units were so common in the east suggests that the access to good horses was far greater as well, which means that horses themselves were more expendable. Therefore, you didn't really care if your arrow would hit the rider or the horse - either way, the threat the rider posed would be dealt with.
So if you're fighting as a lancer, and actually want to charge the enemy, you're going to have to armour your horse as well. Sure, you might charge a bit slower, but you'll be able to charge without you and your horse turning into a stumbling pin cushion. And from that the Cataphract evolved. This wasn't a kind of threat that the western knights would face on a large scale until much later, excepting the crusades, during which the crusaders might well have adopted parts of the eastern fashions of warfare. I doubt it would be of greater interest to the historians of the time, and it would probably be done at a very small scale, but one could imagine they did.
Now, I don't know if all of the above holds true. But these are my guesses, and I think they worked in concert, rather than only one of them being a reason.
@@chakfungcheung3318 Depends a lot on perspective. Let's think about the likely enemy a knight squadron would face vs the ones a cataphract would be used to. Knights(not heavy cavalry, but knigts, meaning mounted nobility as Metatron says-especially WESTERN mounted nobility) would mostly face men at arms bands or low numbers of semi professionals. The cavalry charge was mostly used as a 'shock tactic'. Meaning their purpose would be to rather break the enemy formation and cause routing. Their greatest fear would actually be a counter charge by enemy knights or some pallisades and archers. In facing with enemy knights you do not want to aim for the enemy horse, but rather for the rider on top( one argument is simple trigonometry, you want to hit something lower than you, your reach decreases. Another is the impact while dealing with the horse). So, basically, a knight was the number one weapon against another heavy mounted unit.
Cataphracts on the other hand, had to face a much larger variety of enemies. And the cavalry of those people was also mixed, having heavy lance units, horse archers etc. The probability of enemies throwing projectiles at them and their horses was much larger. As for encounters between enemies of cataphracts(light cavalry) and Knights, well, we do not know much about them. The ones we have most detail about were from the 1st Crusade. And they were rather inconclusive. As the speed of the lightness of Arab mounted troops meant they could not be easily caught in a charge while their projectiles were mostly ineffective against western knights. And for the rest of the history, well, they kinda tried to stay away from each other, which usually played in the favour of the easterners as they had a full army to rely on, not just a good core
Furthermore, we also need to consider the training of their footed enemies.
Knights were mostly a medieval thing. Footed soldiers were mostly composed of men-at-arms, basically your Bob the farmer, John the butcher and Steve the Blacksmiths brother taking up whatever they could find, train against the air for 3 weeks during the campaign and then being placed on the battlefield facing knights in full metal armour coming at them at 30kmph or more. Most commonly they would rout and then get cleared out by enemy infantry.
Cataphracts were used as far as I remember for lie 1000 years(with some of the last greek kingdoms using them against Rome in the Mithriadic wars). In the Eastern World, armies were a much more 'standing' thing. Soldiers were professional or semi-professional, not just commoners grabbing stuff and going to war. If they would be faced with cavalry, they would be trained on how to deal with them. I mean, Romans or even Macedonians had to deal with freaking war elephants. Does anyone think a cavalry charge would affect them too much? The legions would most likely eat them alive.
Love the videos! Lol and the Sword Masters of Hoeth behind you 😀
I'm watching this in December, the fireplace gives this a festive feel. 😊