![Cataphract[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZMnTHWV.jpg "Cataphract[1].jpg")
Hey can we have a cavalry thread? I have some questions about cataphracts and mounted archery:
-What are the advantages of the 2h lances you often see middle eastern heavy cavalry using? Was it just to remedy the lack of lance rest, or had it other reasons?
-Were cataphracts outdated by the fall of Constantinople? Had the city not fallen to the turks, would they have survived till the arrival of gunpowder small arms?
-What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became outdated.
-Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing? There seem to be something like a gap century between their disappearance until pistoleer cavalry.
>>349089
>Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing?
That is a damn good question. I'd imagine (having not actually looked into it) it having something to do with how hard it is to reload, and keep loaded a crossbow. Or at least one with any power behind it. Especially since at that time when they fell out of fashion, there were more powerful bows being used on horseback, and that's just quicker.
How the hell are you supposed to pull back a crossbow while riding a horse? With just your arms? Then you might as well use a composite bow.
>>349089
>What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor?
Forgot to answer this.
It's to do a couple of key factors. Firstly that plate armour wasn't exactly mobile, so it'd be hard to draw and aim a bow whilst wearing it. Then if you're wearing expensive armour like that, you're going to be making use of it, and the poorer archers in the back aren't going to need it.
>>349089
>What are the advantages of the 2h lances you often see middle eastern heavy cavalry using? Was it just to remedy the lack of lance rest, or had it other reasons?
I guess it offers more support and control of the lance.
>Were cataphracts outdated by the fall of Constantinople? Had the city not fallen to the turks, would they have survived till the arrival of gunpowder small arms?
Heavy armoured cavalry wasn't outdated until the mid 17th century.
>What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became outdated.
When they shot while mounted, they tended to do a very short draw on the bow, this doesn't give good penetration at all especially on plate. But that only applies to cataphracts and it's more of a cultural thing to be a horse archer.
>Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing? There seem to be something like a gap century between their disappearance until pistoleer cavalry.
I don't know this. Crossbows never seem to have been overly popular. There must be something awkward or annoying about them.
>>349089
>What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became outdated.
The guys wearing plate armor didn't do mounted archery in the first place.
>>349265
>Heavy armoured cavalry wasn't outdated until the mid 17th century.
But the cataphracts were also horse archers who used a soft charge tactic instead of the all out charge used in the west. I was wondering whether that was outdated more than heavy cavalry itself. Considering heavier armor and what you say about short draw, one would think the missile softening of the charge hit the enemy wouldn't be much effective.
>>349287
>The guys wearing plate armor didn't do mounted archery in the first place.
But why? The catphracts were as armored as troops could get for the time period, yet they were also archers
>>349261
>Then if you're wearing expensive armour like that
I was under the impression that munition grade armor wasn't that expensive at all tho, and that's already heavier than the cataphracts' mail.
>>349257
>How the hell are you supposed to pull back a crossbow while riding a horse?
A winch? A hook like infantrymen? Perhaps it's just me talking out of my ass, but it feels doable, if only by trained troops.
>>349089
>What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor?
If you've never done any archery, shooting a bow is a pretty precise full body movement (a lot like a golf swing or playing the cello). I would imagine having a few kilos weighing down your arms, head and shoulders would have a detrimental effect on technique and accuracy. This is just my opinion as an archer, not actual historical fact.
>>349089
>-Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing?
They ever were? But my guess is that the really good crossbows were heavy and complicated things, you probably had problems to reload while on a horse.
>-What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor?
I would say that plate is too rigid for the movements to do while drawing a bow. Especially if you also want to turn your body on a horse, for example so you can shoot at somebody behind you.
>>349439
>They ever were?
Yes, from the crusades to the early 15th century more or less. They were used more or less the same way as the pistoleers would: shoot while charging, then switch to the lance, retreat reload retry.
>>349463
This is the first time I ever heard of them used in a grand scale. Can you point me to some kind of unit or a battle in which they were used?
>>349479
>Can you point me to some kind of unit or a battle in which they were used?
I have book sources denoting their utilization in the battle of Al Mansurah during the Crusades, and during the venetian wars for Ferrara. Can't really find the books online, closest I've got is this book which is not one of those I'm referring to: https://books.google.it/books?id=ffa4sBMWFTIC&lpg=PP1&dq=the+military+organization+of+a+renaissance+state&pg=PA72&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>349257
If you have some kind of projection on one stirrup, and a drawing hook on the same side, you could do it by standing up in the saddle.
I also have some questions concerning cavalry
>How did the kingdoms/empires/citystates/whatever get horses? Did they have big ranches or did they get them through taxes?
>Was there a big difference in the quality of the horses? Did the mongols have better horses then the chinese for example?
>How important was cavalry in earlier times (rome, ancient greece etc.)?
>>349479
>>349522
Horse breeding was a big business. The romans had a very important breeding area in the Po plains, cities like Padova and Modena (Patavium and Mutina) were famous for their horse trade.
Define better. The mongols had excellent "endurance" mounts, bred to be more "fuel efficient", but this made them smaller. Horseflesh quality was indeed a big issue tho and not only for wars: certainly lands only began getting plowed once "modern" workbreeds were developed for example. Also I know that for the longest time british horses were considered subpar compared to their continental equivalent, tho it changed by the 18th century or thereabout.
Not as much as in the middle ages, but combined arms was already a thing. Cavalry made up something like 10-20% of each legion (counting the alae).
>>349571
Thanks m8
If I had to guess, it would probably be due to developments in armour and the changing price of metal. When a crossbow powerful enough to be effective is too large to easily load and use on horseback, you won't be using it.
Talhoffer usually depicts mounted crossbowmen and their opponents with little or no armour (here just a helmet, in other manuscripts with cuirass and arm protection, as opposed to full harness worn in some of the sword and lance images). This isn't conclusive, but it might indicate that crossbows small enough to be used on horseback weren't appropriate against enemies with full suits of armour
>>349647
>>349257
Cranquin
>>349089
>-What are the advantages of the 2h lances you often see middle eastern heavy cavalry using? Was it just to remedy the lack of lance rest, or had it other reasons?
Longer lances and stronger impact as opposed to holding it couched under a single arm.
>-Were cataphracts outdated by the fall of Constantinople? Had the city not fallen to the turks, would they have survived till the arrival of gunpowder small arms?
Not really they turks still relied on Feudal heavy cavalry well into the 16th century.
>-What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became outdated.
The people with plate armor weren't horse archers.
>-Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing? There seem to be something like a gap century between their disappearance until pistoleer cavalry.
Mounted Haraquebus people. See pic related.
>>349265
Heavily armoured cavalry was not outdated even in the Napoleonic era. See: Cuirassiers, Carabiniers.
>>349671
>pop pop pop, watching roaches drop
What am I looking at?
>>349479
>>349683
>longer lances and stronger impact
That's wrong. Holding it a slightly different way doesn't make your horse go faster. These kind of lances would not be thrusted.
>>349714
Yes you could. Not all crossbows were the same. Also did you miss the cranequin? The mechanical advantage makes preparing a crossbow easy as hell.
>>349522
Royal stud farms and such. The Teutonic order also had specialized horse breeding farms and so on.
Yes the difference between horses were extreme. An underfed hackney in medieval England might set you back half a pound, a normal but small riding horse for a mounted archer could cost two pounds while entry level war horses started at 10 pounds and royal horses could cost a few times that.
Steppe horses were mostly ponies by todays standard while their lancers might have ridden slightly bigger horses.
Horses have been quite important since they were domesticated, all the ancient civilizations in the Middle East and Ancient Greece had chariot armies, Alexander the great had great cavalry and the Romans depended on cavalry too.
>>349702
No dude that's not what I meant, I mean you can absorb the impact better if you hold something with two hands rather than holding it couched under one.
>>349714
What would be the advantage of a composite bow? Steel ones have a way higher drawweight.
>>349714
Why did every nation ever not used the most useful weapon that existed at the time?
Because reasons. Maybe because they didn't know how to produce then, maybe they didn't see the advantage, maybe only england cared about big bows and stuck to their longbows, maybe they didn't want to experiment, maybe they didn't want to train those troops.
>>349679
No way.
>on horse
>loose my crossbowbow at some spear levy
>turn around and ride off
>pull out this big metal crank that was dangling from the side of the horse
>crank while balancing my crossbowbow and occasionally having to completely stop while taking the reigns of my horse
>finally done
>put cranequin back into leg pouch
>grab bolt from leg pouch
>load bolt
>repeat
Nah. If any crossbows were used that were too powerful to use by hand I could see a goat's foot lever being used. One simple motion and only takes a fraction of the time.
>>349714
>>349726
Sorry I read composite crossbow instead of bow.
Well heavy cavalry using melee weapons is generally more expensive so that's something nobility is automatically going to go for more.
>Wilwolt of Schaumburg rode out to Anelspach all alone to pay a visit to Jörg of Schauburg, his brother (…). On his way back, when he was crossing the Tann-river (…), he was pursued by a soldier/mercenary (lit. raisiger; I will call him soldier form now on, for easyness’ sake), a born swiss, who followed him across the Tann with a loaded crossbow. But Wilwolt, having timely taken notice of that, loaded his crossbow as well, very close to his body so that the soldier couldn’t see it. The soldier came riding at him very fast, shouting at him in a hostile manner, that he should freeze or else he would cut his throat. Wilwolt turned around, laughing and said: „Wow. You’re a funny guy. Don’t you know who I am?“
And as they were standing so close to each other, Wilwolt wanted to fire his crossbow into his face, but he fired too high and only hit his hat, leaving him unharmed. And as the soldier wanted to fire back, his horse hit the crossbow with its head so that the bolt dropped out. So Wilwolt shouted at his opponent who he was, but the soldier was just reaching for another bolt in the quiver. Wilwolt rushed at him with his sword, so that the soldier had to drop the clamped crossbow and draw his sword as well. But Wilwolt had gained his flank and aimed at his armpit (lit. under the arm). The soldier turned to evade the thrust but had to let go of his sword which dropped out of the sheath to the ground. So the soldier had to give up and tell Wilwolt who he was. He said he was a man of Jacob of Landau, and asked his opponent in turn who he was. Wilwolt did that … (Wilwolt wanted the soldier to take and swear an “urfehde”, so that he would swear not to try to harm him ever again and seek no vengeance; the soldier considered this to be a stain on his honour, and was reluctant, even though Wilwolt tried to convince him…)
cont.
>>349771
>Then the soldier pleaded Wilwolt to hand him his [the soldiers’] sword and crossbow because his stud wouldn’t let him mount in the field. [obviously the soldier was afraid that his horse would not let him remount if he dismounted to pick up the sword and crossbow on the ground] Wilwolt concluded that if he didn’t do that, the soldier would believe that he was afraid. So he ordered the soldier to step back a bit, dismounted, ordered the soldier to hand him over the windlass, picked up the clamped crossbow, fired it off (without the bolt), and gave it to the soldier, together with the sword and the windlass. He remounted his horse and both rode to the moisty lake, close to Anolzpach, and the soldier said: I want to see the wood. (?)
He loaded a bolt, Wilwolt did the same, taking the same amount of time to load, and when they were riding through the wood, the soldier turned around and said: It’s not necessary. (..my conclusion is that Wilwolt wanted to take him to the place where he would have to swear the “urfehde” with witnesses being present; the soldier wanted to escape…) The soldier wanted Wilwolt to fire first, but Wilwolt did not throw away his advantage. He knew very well that the soldier was angry because of shame. When the soldier realized that, he followed him without any further resistance.
>>349775
The original text says 'mit winten' which is quite ambiguous so it could mean another loading device.
>>349803
>>349746
Goats foot has pretty shit mechanical advantage desu.
>>349089
>-What are the advantages of the 2h lances you often see middle eastern heavy cavalry using? Was it just to remedy the lack of lance rest, or had it other reasons?
You're a bit steadier if you have to maneuver the lance: Those things are heavier than they look and more or less evenly distributed, they're not easy to weild.
>-Were cataphracts outdated by the fall of Constantinople? Had the city not fallen to the turks, would they have survived till the arrival of gunpowder small arms?
Probably, but I don't know much about 15th century warfare. You do see that medium cavalry role in other powers, so I guess so.
>-What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became outdated.
Because bows in general are pretty useless when there's plate armor. Go look up accounts of Agincourt. There are 0, none, nada confirmed accounts of any men-at-arms killed with arrow fire, and a 140 lb draw weight bow packs a lot more power than any horsebow can. By the time plate armor becomes widespread, people are moving to guns and warhammers, bows are going out of style, for both foot and horse.
>Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing? There seem to be something like a gap century between their disappearance until pistoleer cavalry.
I'm not really sure why they became a thing in the first place desu. I mean I know the French and the Austrians and the like used them in small numbers, but they never seemed to be that effective.
>>349844
>By the time plate armor becomes widespread, people are moving to guns
Makes you wonder what would have happened to ranged combat if gunpowder didn't happen.
>>349726
>What would be the advantage of a composite bow? Steel ones have a way higher drawweight.
Which you can't draw without using your core body! That's my point! Exclamation point!
>>349733
>Because reasons. Maybe because they didn't know how to produce then, maybe they didn't see the advantage, maybe only england cared about big bows and stuck to their longbows, maybe they didn't want to experiment, maybe they didn't want to train those troops.
I assumed everyone who could get their hands on a crossbow could get their hands on a regular bow.
>>349870
Well, you get some chicken and egg effect. One of the primary reasons behind the development of plate armor is because you started seeing guns on the battlefield and people wanted something that could protect them from early firearms.
>>349882
A composite bow isn't a regular bow.
>>349898
Well I wonder at that. It's not like previous form of armor would have been better than plate if guns weren't a thing, plate would have happened regardless imo.
>>349882
>Which you can't draw without using your core body! That's my point! Exclamation point!
I already said I didn't see he typed bow instead of crossbow... dot dot dot
I have some questions about chariots
Why did the ancient greeks/egyptians/assyrian etc. (especially during the bronce age) use chariots instead of normal cavalry?
When did chariots stop being used?
Why weren't the chariots used in medieval europe/asia/india/islam or by the mongols and turkic stepe nomads?
>>350041
>Why did the ancient greeks/egyptians/assyrian etc. (especially during the bronce age) use chariots instead of normal cavalry?
Insufficient control over horses, especially in the form of stirrups or good saddles and the like, it's easier to direct them when you're on a cart.
>When did chariots stop being used?
When you started to get real cavalry.
>Why weren't the chariots used in medieval europe/asia/india/islam or by the mongols and turkic stepe nomads?
Because cavalry> Chariots. A chariot requires 2-3 horses and usually 2 people, only one of whom actually fights while the other one directs the horses. Much better to have 2 guys on 2 horses both fighting, and are nimbler besides.
>>350041
>Why did the ancient greeks/egyptians/assyrian etc. (especially during the bronce age) use chariots instead of normal cavalry?
Original horses were quite small and not great for riding, it was much easier for them to pull than to be ridden
>When did chariots stop being used?
A slow decline until the 1st century AD
>Why weren't the chariots used in medieval europe/asia/india/islam or by the mongols and turkic stepe nomads?
There's no need when you can ride. You need a lot of flat open ground for them too.
>>350041
I can highly recommend this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Bronze-Age-Military-Equipment-Howard/dp/1848842937
Covers armies of those days in some detail and why chariots were dropped.
>>350068
>3 horses
Were 3 horse chariots actually a thing? You olways hear about bigas and quadrigas, but I don't remember even reading about 3 horses.
>>350068
But isn't a chariot better for archers, as you don't have to ride and shoot at the same time? Wouldn't that made them more effective, especially if 3 person would drive one (1 driver, 2 archer)?
>>350088
>Original horses were quite small and not great for riding, it was much easier for them to pull than to be ridden
That myth has been debunked for a while now, the mongols rode those same small horses and so did many other people around the globe.
>>350093
I don't have a source in front of me (at work) But I could have sworn that the ancient Egyptians usually used a 3 horse chariot, and that they were used at battles like Kadesh and such.
>>350096
That's a non sequitur. The fact the mongols developed small rideable horse breeds doesn't imply that the earliest domesticated horses were strong enough to be ridden.
>>350041
>Why did the ancient greeks/egyptians/assyrian etc. (especially during the bronce age) use chariots instead of normal cavalry?
You need horses that were either strong enough to carry a rider on their shoulders and trained enough to let this happen. This didn't come out of nowhere.
Also, military technological advanced are kinda slow, you don't want to experiment on the battlefield if you can avoid it. The first time some assyrian was demonstrating how to ride a horse, everyone else was probably saying: "By Ishar, your father fought in a chariot, your grandfather fought in a chariot and so will you. Now, Tiglath, get down from there or you will break a bone or two!"
>>350109
Want me to link the study?
>>350121
Yes, do.
>>350095
They'll also be slower and not nearly as maneuverable, and one of the first rules of horse archery is not let the enemy get their hands on you.
Plus, again, the fewer men in the battle who aren't directly fighting the better. Why have excess tail you don't need? Tooth is better, so take the horsemen.
![5ae0ec0fa32534db0e41e8eb1b770a67[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KbZ5L4T.jpg "5ae0ec0fa32534db0e41e8eb1b770a67[1].jpg")
>>350133
>Why have excess tail you don't need? Tooth is better
Call me retarded but I don't get the tooth metaphor.
>>350124
T.G.E. Powell, "The introduction of horse-riding to temperate Europe: a contributory note', Proceedings of the Prehistoric society Vol. 37 part 2 (1971), pp. 1-15.
>>350138
Classical Greece
Bitch that ain't even ancient, that's not even bronze age.
>>350148
"Tooth"= Soldiers who directly fight the enemy.
"Tail"=Soldiers who act in some sort of support function but are not actually fighting. Your truck drivers and your medical personnel and your drummers and the like.
The "Tooth to tail ratio" is something you sometimes hear talked about, usually in modern militaries though.
>>349726
Composite bows were more compact than normal bows with the same if not more firepower making it more suited for mounted archery
>>350258
>>350263
>>350273
>>349257
Anyone know if there are any accounts on what the mongols/chinese thought about western warhorses?
>>350350
The Secret History of the Mongols claims that the Mongols thought that Hungarian horses were a little better to their own.
Then again, one of my old history professors claimed that pretty much everything in it is a lie, so who knows?
>>350353
Usually when you lie, you do so to make yourself look better.
>>350350
They probably weren't too different from the horses their own lancers rode.
That said a bunch of Templars or Teutonic Knights did nearly kill the mongol general at Mohi.
>>349089
>-What exactly is the problem with shooting bows while wearing plate armor? It seems like mounted archery fell out of fashion after mail became outdated.
Exfuckingscuse me?
The places that used horse archery: Russia, Middle East, Central Asia, Chinese, Koreans, and Japs, never used plate armor at all. Or at least just partial plate.
And most of those cunts used horse archery well until the 1800's. What declined Horse Archery is the appearance of fast firing and easy to reload firearms.
>>350205
Oh so it wasn't a metaphor, it was jargon. No shit I didn't get it. Thanks bud.
>>350282
>italian mounted infantry in China during the boxer rebellion
>Italy actually fought in China and even got a slice of the country as a colony
I had no idea. You'd think focusing on internal development would have been more proficuous to such a disunited country than partecipating in a dick wving contest for a town on the other side of world.
>>350429
Nope, gotta get some of that fine china ass.
Same goes for England though, they could've gotten Ireland and Scotland but no, they just had to travel far.
>>350493
>gotta get some of that fine foreign ass
Monarchic Italy's foreign policy in a nutshell. Fuck even the propaganda songs are about fucking foreign women.
>>350138
Didn't the Iliad--a story that predates phalanx tactics--feature chariot use?
>>349089
>-What are the advantages of the 2h lances you often see middle eastern heavy cavalry using? Was it just to remedy the lack of lance rest, or had it other reasons?
I don't know exactly, but it had something to do with the lack of stirrups.
>>351625
That's also long before the "classical" period.
>>349089
So what's the deal with Winged Hussars? Did they actually wear those wings into battle, or were they only for parade purposes?
>>349370
>I was under the impression that munition grade armor wasn't that expensive at all tho, and that's already heavier than the cataphracts' mail.
None of it was ever cheap. Which is why everyone wasn't wearing it, or wielding swords.
>>349385
This. I (non-professional) don't mind it in my chainmaille, but having tried it once in full plate, it just doesn't seem like something you could ever really do well. As in, you'd be sacrificing a lot of the protection it offers, just to be able to get that proper range of motion.
>>349522
>Big farms for some. Smaller farms where people bred their own for others.
>Oh blimey yes. Mongol horses were faster and had far more endurance, which is why they were so successful.
>Not so much. Equites were certainly a thing, but Rome underutilised mounted troops. Using them mostly as scouting groups and very light cav., unlike later Chevalier, or even Eastern (Persian/Parthian) examples.
Heaviest you'd get but still find usable would be Conquistador style cuirass, without the arms or helm.
>>349089
What is a 2h lance?
>>349089
am i doing it right friends? :^)
>>349089
>>349251
>-Why did mounted crossbowmen stop being a thing?
I think it possibly has something to do with the penetration power required to beat the better armour of the late middle ages requiring larger and thus harder to reload crossbows. The smaller ones simply weren't that effective any more when everyone on the battlefield was a reasonably well armoured soldier and thus horse archers wouldn't have bothered them as much.
desu, why would you want mounted crossbow archers? What strategic advantage do they have that you'd allocate them a horse? Also, crossbow bolts weren't secured perfectly, I'd imagine it'd rattle and shake quite a bit
>>351662
Ah, I'd mistakenly inferred that you were saying they only adopted chariot use after 323.
>>352084
>you will never see extraordinarily well executed alternate history drawings of knights charging out of helicopters
sadfrog.jpg
Swagnificant
