Military Review

Cataphracts of antiquity. Emergence

88

Persian horseman. IV century BC e. Relief on a tomb from Chan, Turkey. The rider has a helmet, a carapace with a standing collar and pterygs, leggings and a relatively short spear. The horse is protected by a bib, possibly leather. Reproduced by Nurten Sevinç, Reyhan Körpe, Musa Tombuletc. (2001). A new painted Graeco-Persian sarcophagus from Çan.


Entry


Why write about something that has been written a hundred times before you? After all, the topic of ancient cataphracts cannot be called insufficiently illuminated in historical literature. It would seem that the number of articles and books, one way or another touching on the problem, is difficult even to count, the topic is illuminated from all conceivable and inconceivable angles within all sorts of contexts.

Nevertheless, it is practically impossible to find any complete work on cataphracts as a whole. Many authoritative authors describe any specific cataphracts in the context of certain peoples and armies, be they Parthians, Romans, etc. For example, a Russian reader could get acquainted with the subject in the monographs of Khazanov, Simonenko and Nefedkin dedicated to the Sarmatians.

At the same time, professionals do not cover a number of details or cover only briefly, apparently considering them well-known or referring the reader to hard-to-reach articles. Cataphracts of other peoples naturally remain outside the scope of such studies. The specialized articles provide interesting information on individual elements related to the topic - saddles, attack techniques, armor and weapons.

Unfortunately, there have been minimal attempts to put together the available data and rise above the “regional” description of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, as he immersed himself in the subject, the author had the idea that the basic information about the subject could be presented in a small number of articles. If you want, create a kind of reference book in a minimal format. For this reason, the narrative may not seem too cohesive, consisting of separate sketches.

The author did not fundamentally exclude from the popular article references to the opinions of specific researchers, controversial and alternative points of view. Nevertheless, our knowledge of history is, first of all, the current state of historiography with all its contradictions and disputes. As for the framework of this work, then only cataphracts of the ancient period with the fullest possible coverage in time and geography will be considered below.

Terminology. Cataphracts, cataphracts, klibanaria


Fifty years ago, the Soviet researcher Khazanov formulated the distinctive features of cataphracts, which have not lost their relevance to this day.

1. Availability of protective equipment for riders and horses. However, horse protection is not required.

2. Long lance as the main weapon. Swords and bows are auxiliary weapons.

3. Cataphracts formed homogeneous units, therefore cataphracts are not only a technical, but also a tactical and organizational phenomenon.

The last point is very important. Individual heavily armed horsemen did not make the weather. Only a single striking fist, adapted for a crushing attack, matters in this context. Khazanov's formulation became decisive for Russian and partly for Western historiography. Therefore, it seems reasonable to take her for leadership.

Although the term cataphracts is commonly used in historiography, there are other names for heavy cavalry in ancient sources - cataphracts and klibanarii. Therefore, to begin with, let's understand the boring terminology so that the reader does not get confused in the subject.

The word cataphracts (кαταφρακταοι) is of Greek origin and goes back to the Greek verb καταφρασσειν "to cover with armor." The noun "cataphractos" originally referred to large warships since the days of classical Greece. In the second half of the 200rd century BC. in the form кαταφρακτα, this word refers to armor (presumably the armor of a horseman), according to two lists of the Ptolemaic era. For the first time the word "cataphracts" for units of heavy cavalry was used by Polybius when describing the battle of Panion - XNUMX BC. e.

The well-known Russian researcher Nikonorov indicates that the term catafractarii in Roman sources was used only for Roman units and only within a certain time frame: the first half of the 10rd - the beginning of the XNUMXth century. n. e. The only exception is a place in the biography of Alexander Sever, written by Elius Lampridius in the XNUMXth century. n. e., which speaks of the destruction of XNUMX thousand Persian cataphracts, whom the Persians themselves call Klibanarii.

The word klibanarii comes from the Latin clibanus - the armor is more complete than the usual carapace. Klibanarii appear at the end of the XNUMXrd century under Diocletian. The above message from Lampridius gave rise to a controversy: whether the words klibanus-klibanarii are of Persian origin. But no such analogies were found in the Persian language. The Persians themselves called their heavily armed horsemen "savaran" or "aswaran", which means actually "horsemen".

Is there a difference between cataphracts, cataphracts, and klibanarii, besides names?

Cataphracts and cataphracts are usually considered synonyms, with the only proviso that in Russian scientific and popular science historiography the word "cataphractarian" predominates. Nikonorov insists on the differentiation of terms, considering the cataphracts to be specifically Roman cavalry with lightweight equipment in comparison with the Klibanari cataphracts.

As for the Klibanarians themselves, there is a wide range of opinions, and all of them are only hypothetical, since ancient sources do not give a direct answer to this question. Connolly and D'Amato believed that the Clibanarii carried heavier and more complete armor. Khazanov believed that the differences were insignificant, but also noted that later Klibanarii had more advanced protective equipment. According to Milcharek, the cataphracts held the pike with one hand and attacked mainly the infantry, the Klibanari held the pike with both hands and attacked the cavalry, followed by horse archers. Nikonorov and Rostovtsev argued that the Klibanarii horses were covered with armor, while the cataphracts did not.

The fact that the Klibanarians and the cataphracts had differences is evidenced by a Roman document of the late XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries AD. e. Notitia Dignitatum. It lists ten divisions of cataphracts and eight divisions of clibanaries. It seems reasonable to agree with the conventional opinion of experts about the greater degree of protection of the clibanarians, but the specific differences are still not clear and are hypothetical.

In what follows, the material will use the term "cataphracts" in its general, collective meaning. The word "cataphractarius" will only be used in a Roman context. With the boring terminology out of the way, let's move on to more interesting things.

Birth of cataphracts


Various assumptions were made about the homeland of the cataphracts at different times: Iran, Turan (part of the "Iranian world" located in Central Asia), Parthia, Khorezm. Even a brief analysis of these versions takes us beyond the scope of the article, so we will try to track the moment when the characteristic features of cataphracts - the protection of the rider, the horse and the long spear and the action of detachments, merged into an organic whole and entered the arena of history in significant quantities. And the hypothesis of Marek Olbricht will help us in this. It captivates with two points - the author is guided by the criteria of Khazanov and names no less than the exact date of the emergence of this type of cavalry.

Armor for riders and their horses has been known in the East since the days of the Assyrian kingdom. Xenophon in the Anabasis mentions foreheads and breastplates for the Persian cavalry horses of Cyrus the Younger (401 BC). The riders themselves wore armor. As far as can be judged, the Persians practiced dense equestrian battle formations and often sought to solve the matter with hand-to-hand combat (the Battle of Kunax). But their spears were relatively short - about 2 m. Therefore, there is still no reason to consider the horsemen of the Achaemenid era as cataphracts.

A new impetus for evolution was given by the campaigns of Alexander the Great to the East. The Macedonian cavalry itself strove for decisive hand-to-hand combat and was at least partially armed with long spears - dori, horseman sarrissa, the famous xiston. Even without protection for horses (we do not have such information), she demonstrated superiority over the Persian horsemen at Granicus and Issus.


Macedonian horseman. Tomb of Kinch. Source xlegio.ru

Between the battles of Issus and Gaugamela, Darius changed the armament of the cavalry. Diodorus of Siculus writes about this (17.53):

He (Darius - Author) made swords and spears much longer than before, since it was believed that Alexander had a great advantage in this respect during the battle in Cilicia (translation of the author from the translation of Diodorus into English).

Curtius Rufus additionally reports on a significant purchase of protective equipment for riders and horses. Olbricht considers this moment very important - the Persians realized where they were inferior to the conquerors, and made an attempt to change the situation. The new type of rider combined all the characteristic features of the cataphracts - the protection of the rider, the horse, the long spear and joint actions of shock troops. He directly calls the cavalry of Darius at Gaugamela cataphracts.

Although the combat debut of the new cavalry ended in complete defeat, in some episodes the Persian horsemen achieved some success in hand-to-hand combat.

Another detachment of Bactrians, coming closer to the peons and foreigners, forced their fugitives to turn back; a stubborn horse fight ensued. More soldiers of Alexander fell: the barbarians were suppressing their numbers, and in addition, the Scythians themselves and their horses were carefully protected by armor. (Arrian)

It is not entirely clear who here Arrian calls "Scythians", if literally in the previous sentence he was talking about the Bactrians. Perhaps we are talking about the Eastern Scythians-Saks or Massagets, who are mentioned among the contingents of the Persian army. On the right flank of the Persian army, the battle was also stubborn. Thus, it can be concluded that the cataphracts were recruited, among other things, from the Saka-Massagets, Bactrians, Sogdians and Arachot, that is, from immigrants from Central Asia mentioned among those who fought on the left flank.

The further fate of the cataphracts developed according to Olbricht as follows. They formed the contingent of the revolted army of Spitamen along with horse archers and became a condition for his success. After the defeat of the rebels, some of them could get into the army of Alexander and participate in the Indian campaign, since the sources indicate the Bactrians, Sogdians, Dakhs and Massagets who fought in India. Immigrants from the Iranian-speaking world were enlisted in the cavalry of the "friends" - the Getayrs and received, at the direction of Arrian, Macedonian spears.

Archeology also testifies to the fact that Central Asia could have been a hotbed of origin of cataphracts. For example, an image from Humbuz Tepe. Olbricht, perhaps somewhat hastily, interpreted it as a depiction of a cataphract. S. Ivanov points to an obviously short spear and believes that we have before us a horseman of the previous, late Achaemenid period. The horse's rump is covered with large metal plates. The legs of the rider are protected by basket-shaped legguards, which are at the same time protecting the horse from the sides. Laminar protection of the legs below the knee has complete analogies in the later cataphracts.

Cataphracts of antiquity. Emergence
Pottery from Humbuz Tepe. IV-III centuries BC e. The image is based on the article by S. Ivanov "On the issue of heavy cavalry in ancient Central Asia based on the ostracon from Humbuz-Tepe"

In addition to the find from Humbuz-Tepe, the remains of armor from Chirik-Rabat (Kazakhstan) should be noted. This composite developed iron armor of the 2th or late 1962th - early XNUMXrd centuries. BC BC, in addition to small plates with a thickness of at least XNUMX mm, it has narrow stripes, which obviously constituted the laminar protection of the limbs. Tolstov assumed that the longest of these stripes protected the lower part of the warrior's body in the manner of the Roman lorica segmentata. Unfortunately, researchers practically do not work with this remarkable find, but only refer to the work of Tolstov in XNUMX ...

Alas, Olbricht's hypothesis does not explain what happened to the cataphracts throughout the XNUMXrd century BC. e., when they seemed to have dropped out of sight. We know about the Iranian contingents of that time in the armies of the Diadochi, but it does not follow from anywhere that they were precisely cataphracts.

Only in 201 BC. e. cataphracts appear under their historical name in Polybius when describing the battle of Panion in the army of the Seleucid king Antiochus III. Since this war was preceded by the eastern campaign of Antiochus in Parthia and Bactria, some historians, starting with Tarn, attributed Parthian origins to this cavalry.

In 190 BC. BC under Magnesia, Antiochus possessed 6000 cataphracts, which, according to Libya, were at least partially "Median", that is, Iranian origin. It remains to be wondered whether this was a consequence of the military-technical impulse of the XNUMXth century described above. BC e.? Having identified the initial carriers of the new technology - the Sakas and their neighbors, including, possibly, the Bactrians, it is not surprising that it began to spread among the Iranian nomadic tribes, first of all, related to the Sakas. However, such a hundred-year delay looks strange and is only partly explained by the lack of sources.

The existence of cataphracts in the XNUMXnd century BC e., and from the very beginning, there is no doubt. In addition to written evidence, this is evidenced by archaeological finds. For example, items of equipment from the "arsenal" in Ai-Khanum (Greco-Bactrian kingdom), which have an appearance very close to the later forms, which indicates their technical "maturity" and thoughtfulness. At this time, cataphracts suddenly appear as an established branch of the army over a vast territory, which makes it extremely difficult to determine the source of their origin.


Cataphract equipment from Ai-Khanum (Afghanistan). 1 - leg protection (?), 2 - legguard, 3 - shoulder pad, 4 - bib. Cited after Garczynski P. Guillaume O. etc, Campagne de fouille, 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)

Scythian (Scythian-Sarmatian) alternative


Having analyzed Olbricht's hypothesis, let's move from Central Asia to the Black Sea steppes to the European Scythians.

The popular belief about the light Scythian cavalry, who defeated enemies by starvation, has long been refuted as half-hearted. It is now generally accepted that the Scythians, at least by the IV century. BC e. combined horse archers and armed horsemen, striving for a decisive hand-to-hand combat. It seems reasonable to take the next step and check the Scythians of that time for compliance with the criteria for cataphracts.

We know that the amount of armor remains found in Scythian burials is very large. Gulaev states that every fifth Scythian buried in the Middle Don graves wore armor. The researcher reasonably believes that this proportion significantly exceeds the number of aristocrats and testifies to the spread of armor among some of the vigilantes.

Regarding the long spears, the analysis was made by the famous Scythian specialist Chernenko:

The summary includes 28 copies, from 1,65 to 3,2 m long, from the burial mounds studied in the territory of Scythia. Of these copies, 12 are more than 2,2 m in length, that is, they go beyond the usual length. It is very curious that they all come from the excavations of recent years, when they began to pay attention to their length. Almost all of them belong to the XNUMXth century. BC e.

There remained the third criterion - the presence of whole detachments of heavily armed horsemen among the Scythians. The battle of Fat, which took place in 310-309 BC, sheds light. e. and described by Diodorus of Siculus. According to his description, the contender for the Bosporan throne, Satyr, stood at the head of the center of the battle order, leading the allies of the Scythians, and won, thanks to a decisive horse attack. Thus, by indirect signs, one can assume the presence of orders of cataphracts.

Unfortunately, the appearance of these Scythian armored horsemen has to be reconstructed from many separate fragmentary finds. On the other hand, in the neighboring, Savromatsk (early Sarmatian) area, separate time-synchronous finds give a much more complete picture.

In 2000-2009, near the village. Filippovka, Orenburg region, excavations of burial mounds took place. Burial ground Filippovka 1 turned out to be so rich that it received the code name "royal", by analogy with the famous Scythian. Some of the finds have Scythian counterparts. One of the researchers, L. T. Yablonsky, directly points to the Scythian parallels.

The spearheads are massive, leaf-shaped. A spear from mound 4 is placed along the body of the buried. Although the shaft has not survived, due to the presence of an inlet (a forging at the rear end of the spear), it is possible to accurately determine its length - 3,2 meters. Quite a contos cataphract.

Of exceptional interest is the helmet from mound 11. Forged, iron, it is a local imitation of the Greek Chalcidian forms. Moreover, he has no direct analogies at all.

The armor is scaly, iron. The upper edge of the plates was attached on an organic basis. Bone armor was found in mound 29. Its plates were attached to the base with both the upper and lower parts.

The rest of the weaponry is represented by bows, daggers and a pick in poor condition.


Iron armor and iron helmet from the Filippovka burial mounds 1. End of the XNUMXth - third quarter of the XNUMXth centuries. BC e. Cited by Yablonsky L. T. Early Sarmatian knight.

Even the upper dating of the burials falls on the last quarter of the XNUMXth century BC. e. That is, almost simultaneously with Alexander's campaign to the East.

Does all this mean that those buried in the mounds are the first reliably known cataphracts?

We cannot yet speak of this with certainty. No traces of horse protection were found in the burial. It was generally not typical for the early Sarmatians, as far as can be judged from the data of archeology. But, according to Khazanov, this is not an obligatory criterion for being considered a cataphract. The Filippovka 1 burial ground is unique for the Savromat world and cannot serve as a typical example. Nevertheless, the discovery of armed horsemen with Scythian influence in the area adjacent to the Scythians may serve as additional evidence in favor of the fact that Scythia was a possible center for the origin of cataphracts. But again, as in the case of Olbricht's hypothesis, we are faced with a lack of direct information about cataphracts in the XNUMXrd century. BC e., which does not allow building a logical chain to the information we know about cataphracts of the XNUMXnd century. BC e.

conclusions


Although the first direct mention of cataphracts dates back to 200 BC, the available data allow us to speak with a certain degree of certainty about cataphracts from the XNUMXth century. BC e. Perhaps the first such cavalry were received by the Eastern Scythians - the Saks and their neighbors, and, possibly, the European Scythians. Unfortunately, there is a gap in the sources of about a hundred years, during which it is almost impossible to track the development of the phenomenon. This undoubtedly diminishes the value of the argument about the antiquity of the cataphracts. In the II century BC. e. the presence of cataphracts is already quite obvious, and they operate on vast expanses from Afghanistan to Syria.

The next article will consider in more detail the characteristic technical points that determine the appearance of this type of cavalry: saddles, spear length, ramming technique and its effectiveness.

Sources:
Gulyaev. VI Scythians: the rise and fall of the great kingdom. 2006
Ivanov S. S. On the issue of heavy cavalry in ancient Central Asia based on the ostracon from Humbuz-Tepe.
Nikonorov V. P. "Cataphracts" or "Cataphracts". Once again, regarding the two designations of the antique armored cavalry. 2007
Olbricht M. Ya. On the origin of the cataphract cavalry in Iran and Central Asia. 2010
Tolstov S.P. Along the ancient deltas of the Oxus and Yaksart. 1962
Khazanov A.M. Essays on military affairs of the Sarmatians. 1971
Chernenko E.V. Long spears of the Scythians. 1984
Chernenko E. V. About the time and place of the appearance of heavy cavalry in the steppes of Eurasia. 1971
Yablonsky L. T. Early Sarmatian knight. 2013
Garczynski P. Guillaume O. etc. Campagne de fouille 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan). 1978
Mielkzarek M. Cataphracts-a Parthian element in the Seleucid art of war. 1996
Nikonorov, V., Cataphracti, catafractarii and clibanarii: Another look at the old problem of their identifications. 1998.
Potts, DT, Cataphractus and kamandar: Some thoughts on the dynamic evolution of heavy cavalry and mounted archers in Iran and Central Asia. 2007
Sevinç N., Körpe R., Tombul M. etc. (2001). A newpainted Graeco-Persian sarcophagus from Çan.
Author:
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. knn54
    knn54 30 May 2021 15: 37
    +8
    -but in some episodes the Persian horsemen achieved some success in hand-to-hand combat.
    I remember our historian, the class teacher (former 2nd secretary of the district committee, released, allegedly due to illness), one Persian in battle was worth several Greeks, but the motley / multi-tribal army was more like a herd than a flock.
    "In 429 BC. The Scythian king Atey drank peach wine and ate a peach. In a dream he dreamed of a rider with a strange harness on a horse. Waking up in the morning with a terrible hangover, the king ordered him to bring him wine and call the masters. After a detailed description of the harness he dreamed of. the king, the masters were ordered to create it. So the Scythians got stirrups. "
    Without this invention, there would be no cataphracts, and indeed "heavy cavalry as a class. And the famous Saka horse archers (light cavalry) would not have taken place without stirrups.
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 15: 54
      +17
      The cataphracts of antiquity are precisely the cavalry without stirrups.
      There are no stirrups in the presented images.
      In the next article, there will be many times more images. And there will be no stirrups either
      At present, the appearance of stirrups in Europe is recorded quite accurately - the end of the 6th - the beginning of the 7th century AD. In Central Asia, not earlier than the 5th century A.D.
      I talked with reenactors (with one, to be more precise) they confirm this in practice
      1. Xenofont
        Xenofont 30 May 2021 18: 59
        +6
        Many historians struggle with the question of gripping a long spear, given the absence of stirrups and a rigid saddle, which appeared with the arrival of the Huns. Some insist on a one-handed grip, because the other hand holds the bridle, others advocate a two-handed grip and a different way of controlling the horse.
        1. Engineer
          30 May 2021 19: 01
          +7
          Exactly.
          Wait for the next article. we will analyze everything in detail
          1. Xenofont
            Xenofont 30 May 2021 19: 06
            +4
            As far as I understand, the plates of shells from the mounds of the Black Sea region could be glued to the fabric base? It is very interesting, although it is known that the Scythians used glue from sturgeon fish in the manufacture of a composite bow. But there is one problem: humidity.
            1. Engineer
              30 May 2021 19: 13
              +6
              It is unlikely to stick.
              There are holes in the plates. Therefore, it is obvious that

              Horny carapace from the same Filippovka. The iron plates have not been published, you have to look at the second article by Yablonsky, it is not at hand. It is only said that they have only the top row of holes.
              It turns out a corneous carapace - lamellar, iron - scaly.
        2. The popuas
          The popuas 31 May 2021 02: 46
          0
          The horse was controlled by the tilts of the rider's body! yes
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 31 May 2021 19: 03
            0
            Like a bike! wassat
            Try to at least control the dog.
            1. The popuas
              The popuas 1 June 2021 07: 30
              0
              Hmm ... I've been riding horses since I was five! Including without a bridle and without a saddle! It all depends on the temper of the horse and the habits of the rider.
              1. 3x3zsave
                3x3zsave 1 June 2021 22: 59
                0
                Sorry for the harshness, colleague! Happens to me request hi
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 31 May 2021 06: 54
        +5
        In the Musée Guimet in Paris, there are clay figurines of Haniwa horses with stirrups dating back to 4-5 centuries. North Korea and Japan.
      3. PhilipKDick
        PhilipKDick 31 May 2021 10: 15
        +2
        Hello. Great stuff. Thank you so much.
        1. Engineer
          31 May 2021 10: 57
          +2
          Good afternoon)
          Please.
    2. alexey alexeyev_2
      alexey alexeyev_2 2 June 2021 18: 09
      0
      Here it is ... some kind of fig. Thousands of riders and none of them guessed about the stirrups. A heavily armed rider after a collision will immediately fly out of the saddle. In time the king got drunk
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 30 May 2021 15: 38
    +12
    It is strange why this article, based on many sources under the heading Opinion, and not under the heading History. Thank you for the article Denis.
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 15: 58
      +18
      You are welcome. The second article should be more interesting in my opinion. Hope it goes even better.
      The main thing is that they have published.
      Well, about the section, you can be ironic.

      If you are told about the battle of the priests of technomagic civilizations, this is History
      If they poke a pathetic kopanin under their breath, these are opinions

      Do not confuse)
      1. SERGE ANT
        SERGE ANT 30 May 2021 16: 03
        +12
        Thank you for the article, and in which section it is not so important for me personally.
        1. Engineer
          30 May 2021 16: 41
          +12
          That's right.
          Several annoying mistakes and additional content not included in the article
          The Battle of Panion in one of the places is dated as 201, but 200 is needed.
          Chirik-Rabat is actually Chirik-Rabat.
          Gulaev in the body of the article is actually Valery Ivanovich Gulyaev, the author of many scientific and popular scientific works on the history of nomads.
          The battle scene on the sarcophagus from Chan is very close to the image on the gem from a private collection

          On the feet of the attacking Persian are the famous parameridia (parapleuridia) leggings. They were apparently attached to the horse equipment and the rider put his feet through them.
          They are often depicted on reconstructions of the appearance of Persian horsemen.
          For example here

          Now look at the shard of the image from Humbuz Tepe. The legs above the knee are protected by a seemingly similar structure.
          The shard itself is the remains of a "ceremonial" ceramic flask for water.
          This is hardly the only material on armor from the Chirik-rabat burial ground available to historians.

          The authors dutifully rewrite references to Tolstov (he is Tolstov, not Tolstoy), but they seem to be taking no steps towards reconstruction. The grave was plundered and the remains of the armor "baked" together and bear traces of the fire. As if they disappeared from the field of vision altogether.
          The finds at Ai-Khanum (last photo) are dated fairly accurately by coins around 150 BC. At this time, it was burned by the Saki or Kushans-Yuezhi
          Bernard, who excavated Ai-Khanum, objected to the dating of the armor from Chirik-rabat by Tolstov to the fourth or the turn of the 4th-3rd centuries BC. He believed that Tolstov's find was too similar to the samples in the photo and belongs to the same period.
          1. Engineer
            30 May 2021 17: 04
            +8
            Ay-Khanum is the last photo in the body of the article, and the image is the penultimate one
      2. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 30 May 2021 17: 40
        +5
        Well, about the section, you can be ironic.

        Yes, that's all bullshit! Mikhail has half of the articles in this section published.
      3. parusnik
        parusnik 30 May 2021 22: 23
        +7
        battle of the priests of technomagic civilizations
        ..Yes, somehow it becomes a tradition, these things are passed off as history .. laughing
  3. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 30 May 2021 15: 48
    +9
    Scythian cataphracts ... very interesting! There was a case ... while still a schoolboy I managed to read one "historical" book! The action according to the book took place just in the "Black Sea steppes", the war of the Scythians with the Greeks from the "Crimean" colonies was described ... Alas! A lot of time has passed since school, and I do not remember either the title of the book or the author ... but the book is interesting ... I still remember fragments from this book! While reading this book, I first learned about cataphracts, cataphracts ... It was a kind of "shock" for me to learn that there were "knights" in ancient times!
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 30 May 2021 19: 26
      +4
      at Pontus Evksinsky V.Polupudnev? 56g ................................................. .................................................. ..............................................
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 31 May 2021 00: 11
        +3
        Quote: antivirus
        at Pontus Evksinsky V.Polupudnev?

        Judging by many things, yes! In my recollections, one of the main characters was a young Scythian prince who was educated and trained by the Greeks, but returned to his homeland ...
        Thank you ! It is very pleasant to "meet" one of the favorite books of my youth! yes
  4. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 30 May 2021 15: 51
    +6
    Thank you, Denis!
    It became interesting whether the finds from Filippovka were exhibited anywhere?
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 16: 09
      +9
      I don’t know, honestly, but there is something to see in addition to the "golden" daggers
      Belt buckles. The spear barrel, thanks to which it was possible to determine its length, is made of silver. Apart from the hryvnia and bracelets.
      http://millitarch.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/rannesarmatskiy-rytsar.pdf
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 30 May 2021 17: 30
        +2
        In 2000-2009, near the village. Filippovka, Orenburg region, excavations of burial mounds took place.
        Got a little information about Filippovka. I found out that the excavation of the burial mounds has a more ancient history.
        1. Engineer
          30 May 2021 17: 46
          +4
          Attention!
          There are complexes Filippovka 1 and Filippovka 2
          I took the dates from Yablonsky
      2. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 30 May 2021 18: 55
        +7
        Inquired about exhibitions of finds. No gu-gu. Once again I asked about exhibitions, with an even more negative result.
        In such conditions, one can become a "folk historian" by captivity.
        "Russian archaeologists are hiding sensational finds in the archives of the Vatican!" wassat
  5. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 30 May 2021 16: 01
    +4
    Interestingly, recently I was looking for a video on YouTube about cataphracts, I did not find anything much.
  6. Hantengri
    Hantengri 30 May 2021 16: 06
    +8
    Thanks for the interesting material, Denis. I don’t understand, guided by what considerations, did the moderators put a good-quality historical article in Opinions?
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 17: 00
      +8
      All good health.)
  7. foolish
    foolish 30 May 2021 16: 09
    +5
    cataphractarium - ringed armor, klebanarium - plate, no?
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 16: 59
      +7
      I wish it were that simple.
      It is almost impossible to confirm with something.
      Amman Marcellinus in the 16th book of cataphracts wear a clibanarius shell.
      sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant, [personati] thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti, ut Praxitelis manu polita crederes simulacra, non viros: quos lamminarum circuli tenues flexues apti corporis utibus membie ambucbant did

      But what he was is absolutely incomprehensible. The laminar rings in the above text clearly refer to limb protection. It is not clear how the corps itself was defended.
      You can, of course, draw an image from Dura-Evropos, but this is a whole epic, especially since it is not known exactly what kind of rider is drawn there. Parthian, Roman, Palmyrian or Sassanian warrior. The last two are the most likely. But for a normal review, a special article is needed. It is planned, but so far I don't even know how to approach this topic.
      1. foolish
        foolish 30 May 2021 17: 48
        +4
        Denis, not a solid carapace (cuirass), but the scaly armor of the Klibanarius (sewn or otherwise overlapping fixed plates), in contrast to the chain mail of the cataphractaria.
        1. Engineer
          30 May 2021 18: 11
          +5
          Yeah I do not mind. But where does this clarity come from?
          Here is one of the latest works on the topic. I read it

          There is no such unambiguity
          Stele of Valery Roman. 4th century. Numerus division catafractariorum the armor is interpreted as scaly, not chain mail
          Nikonorov, for example, believed and still believes that the armor was just the same.
          1. foolish
            foolish 2 June 2021 16: 34
            +1
            I remember that the Romans first encountered such heavy cavalry in the wars with the Parthians (sorry, all this from memory, since I was interested in this topic for a long time), but attempts to copy a similar type of troops Rome and, especially, Byzantium (klibanos is a stove, the word is not Latin , and Greek), was undertaken later, probably on the basis of scaly armor, which, according to the manufacturing technology (leather lining), is much hotter than the chain mail, which is quite comfortable in terms of ventilation. It was hot for the Greeks in such armor as in a stove in a sultry Middle Eastern climate, which is why they called it and, accordingly, divided it (I repeat again - from memory, therefore, without sources and, alas, I could be wrong ...)
            1. Engineer
              3 June 2021 13: 29
              0
              You see, this is all purely speculative.
              1. I'm not sure that chain mail is more comfortable, because it also requires quilted or leather lining, otherwise it does not protect.
              2. Persian heavily armed horsemen themselves wore chain mail. I will show this in the next article.
              3. The stele of Valery Roman with the image of a cataphractarius has suffered greatly from time to time, but there the armor is rather scaly, and not chain mail.
              1. foolish
                foolish 3 June 2021 15: 49
                +1
                Denis, are you and I (and, perhaps, modern authors, whom you mention) in thought - a cataphractarian, a klibanarius? And any Byzantine or "Sassanian" boy knew exactly who was prancing in front of him ... I'll clarify a little on point 1: rather, not lamellar (because the plates could have paired fastening holes along the upper and lower edges and were attached to chain mail or lining end-to-end, the scaly armor had fastening holes only along the upper edge of the scale-plate, it was attached to the lining with an overlap, a kind of double spaced armor in addition to the lining - in such armor it is both heavier and hotter. the original "classic" Parthian cataphract (as the Parthians themselves called them?) - it was in chain mail armor, a two-handed spear grip, a high saddle ... p. 2 - the armor is depicted, say, scaly, and how is it known that it is a cataphract, and not Again, the same Romans or Greeks-Byzantines could not call foreign soldiers quite correctly, there were examples ... Good health!
              2. foolish
                foolish 3 June 2021 15: 51
                +1
                And of course, I agree - purely speculative, who has seen a living cataphractarian today ?!
              3. foolish
                foolish 3 June 2021 15: 54
                +1
                Denis, are you and I (and, perhaps, contemporary authors, whom you mention) in thought - a cataphractarian, a klibanarius? And any Byzantine or "Sassanian" boy knew exactly who was prancing in front of him ... I will clarify a little on point 1: rather, not lamellar (for the plates could have paired fastening holes along the upper and lower edges and fastened to chain mail or lining end-to-end, the scaly armor had fastening holes only along the upper edge of the scale-plate, it was attached to the lining with an overlap, a kind of double spaced armor - such armor is both heavier and hotter. Who argues, as far as I understand (this is already according to claim 2), the original "classic "Parthian cataphract (as the Parthians themselves called them?) - exactly in chain mail armor, two-handed grip of a spear. High saddle ... p. 3 - the armor is depicted, say, scaly, and how is it known that this is a cataphractarian, and not a Klibanari?
  8. Nurdom
    Nurdom 30 May 2021 17: 30
    +7
    Very informative. A wonderful selection of materials. The most to look for such a thing is not to search! Thank you, I will look forward to continuing.
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 17: 44
      +9
      Wonderful selection of materials

      Thank you.
      I really had to sweat with the images. For example, Olbricht and Milcharek also mention pottery from Humbuz Tepe. They do not have the image itself.
      I found an article by Mambetullaev, who found this shard in the Bulletin of Ancient History from 1977. But it was not there either. Found in a random selection of articles from Academia.edu
      I also found materials about Ai-khanum quite by accident while searching for a drawing of laminar protection. Moreover, a photo of the drawing was found on a Chinese website. Already from the photo I went to the original article of the French in the archive of one of the web resources.

      Everyone thinks that element 1 in the photo of Ai-Khanum is the protection of the hand. And I was sure too. But in the original article in French they are called leg protectors. Unfortunately, there were no reconstruction attempts or everything was lost somewhere in the French segment
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 30 May 2021 17: 54
        +2
        Do you also read French?
        1. Engineer
          30 May 2021 18: 00
          +4
          Unfortunately no. Otherwise I would have traced the fate of the finds
          But with an electronic dictionary, you can understand both French and Latin.
          The find in Ai-Khanum is priceless considering that the place after the departure of archaeologists was plundered clean by local Papuans, who thought that foreigners had found gold.
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 30 May 2021 18: 31
            +4
            the place after the departure of archaeologists was plundered clean by local Papuans, who thought that foreigners had found gold
            What to do...
            "Wild people, children of the mountains" (C)
            If Schliemann is considered the first "black archaeologist" of Europe, what to take from the aborigines!
      2. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 30 May 2021 19: 10
        +5
        I really had to sweat with the images.
        You always have to sweat with illustrations.
        I have a series of articles about the crisis of the Middle Ages ready. Where can I find authentic pictures?
        1. Engineer
          30 May 2021 19: 19
          +5
          Registration of Academia edu. Search for relevant topics in academic articles. You need at least basic English.
          If there is already a series of articles, then the sources are known. Take it from there.
          As I understand it, copyrists are shaking precisely over high-resolution photos. It is not so difficult to borrow schemes and old photos with attribution
          1. 3x3zsave
            3x3zsave 30 May 2021 19: 40
            +4
            Thanks for the link. But, you see, the topic is painfully dumb ...
            1. Engineer
              30 May 2021 19: 49
              +5
              I don't understand, honestly)
              For example, there are miniatures from the Maciejewski Bible and the history of France on the net. The same Shpakovsky freely uses them.
              What are the risks? Well, they ask you to delete the image, the administration will delete it, perhaps even without deleting the entire article. Moreover, non-commercial use, rub it all down.
              1. 3x3zsave
                3x3zsave 30 May 2021 20: 04
                +3
                Oh my God!
                In the Maciejewski Bible, there are no illustrations of the Great Famine of the first half of the 14th century, and there are no illustrations of the plague pandemic. This is in the "Munich Boccaccio", but in the "public domain" version, I have not yet found it.
                1. Engineer
                  30 May 2021 20: 22
                  +5
                  ordnung muss sein
                  https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/ausgaben/thumbnailseite.html?fip=193.174.98.30&id=00092987&seite=4
                  All pages are high resolution, the only drawback is b / w
                  1. 3x3zsave
                    3x3zsave 30 May 2021 20: 52
                    +3
                    Fuck with two! I used this site. The picture that Martyanov gives is not there! Martyanov is lying?
  9. foolish
    foolish 30 May 2021 17: 41
    +3
    I beg your pardon, through the "and", of course ...
  10. Force multiplier
    Force multiplier 30 May 2021 20: 19
    +4
    I liked the article. The most informative text, without water and scholasticism
  11. Undecim
    Undecim 30 May 2021 21: 28
    +5
    The word klibanarii comes from the Latin clibanus - the armor is more complete than the usual carapace.

    I would like to see the source of this interpretation, since the Latin clibanus is a furnace.
    clībănus, i, m., = κλίβανος,
    I.an earthen or iron vessel for baking bread, broader at the bottom than at the top, Plin. 18, 11, 27, § 105; 20, 9, 39, § 99; cf. Col. 5, 10, 4; id. Arb. 19, 2; Cels. 2, 17; 3, 21 al. — As a utensil of the rich, also of silver, Petr. 35, 6.-
    II. Generally, an oven or furnace, Tert. adv. Marc. 4, 30; Sulpic. Sev. Dial. 1, 18.
    A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D.
    1. Engineer
      30 May 2021 21: 54
      +4
      Should have been included in the body of the article.
      The Klibanus is really an oven. But clibanus in the meaning of a carapace has been fixed since the 4th century.
      Passage Ammianus already quoted above
      sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant, [personati] thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti

      fabricae clibanariae are mentioned in Notitia Dignitatum as armor factories in Antioch and Nicomedia.

      Nikonorov, V., Cataphracti, catafractarii and clibanarii: Another look at the old problem of their identifications. 1998.
      1. depressant
        depressant 30 May 2021 23: 29
        +8
        Dear Author, dear colleague Engineer, let me tell you how it was, why the oven))))
        JOKE.
        Imagine that someone bought a metal object in a shop that is important in the household. Expensive, by the way. Therefore, neighbors, relatives and friends gathered to see. They consider, inquire about the properties, and the happy owner says:
        - By the way, the thing has been hardened in the oven, this is not for you huhry-muhry.
        And then the next, already knowledgeable buyer enters the store and demands:
        “I don’t need this, but give me what has been in the oven.
        Time passes. And then buyers say:
        - Give what to bake!
        And the owner of the shop understands them perfectly!
        And after some time:
        - Give the oven.
        And even further, the exchange of views between the owners of the item sounds like this:
        - Is that your stove?
        - Unfortunately, there was not enough money.
        - And I have a stove!
        1. Pane Kohanku
          Pane Kohanku 31 May 2021 11: 08
          +4
          - And I have a stove!

          You know, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, Lieutenant Rzhevsky had a namesake, the same intricate behavior as the character of the jokes. And he became famous for precisely the fact that he portrayed the stove ...

          From wikipedia: "In the Venevsky district of the Tula province in the middle of the 19th century, there lived a nobleman second lieutenant Sergei Semyonovich Rzhevsky, who" behaved recklessly, often very vulgar, and whose jokes often shocked the noble society. Stories about the adventures of the "Venev ugliness" were described in the Moscow tabloid press. He served in the army for only a year and three months, after which he was expelled from service. He did not participate in the Patriotic War of 1812, since he was not yet born then. This is stated in the memoirs of his niece Nadezhda Petrovna Rzhevskaya (née Volkonskaya), published by the Tula Museum of Local Lore.
          From the real adventures of Lieutenant Rzhevsky, described by the princess and found in newspapers:
          Once Rzhevsky dressed for a masquerade stove... He stuck his head into the pipe, made holes for the legs at the bottom of the stove. I stripped naked and climbed naked into the oven, which was made of cardboard. There was a flood in front, an air vent in the back. Around both openings, which were still closed, there were large inscriptions: "Do not open the stove, there is waste in it." In the masquerade, everyone kept themselves very at ease, and such an inscription encouraged everyone to open the stove and look into it. Everyone has seen the naked limbs of a man, front and back. Some spat, others laughed, but the whole hall made noise and crowds began to gather. Sergei Semyonovich just wanted this. The police came and he was taken out in triumph. "


          To the author - Denis, many thanks! Honestly, I didn’t expect it, and I am pleasantly surprised! You see, as it were, everyone has heard something out of their ears about cataphracts, but no one knows the subject thoroughly. what And here is a fairly serious study with sources! Bravo! good And, as dear Alexey Anatolyevich "Sailboat" usually says: "Thank you, we look forward to continuing!" With respect, Nicholai drinks
      2. Undecim
        Undecim 30 May 2021 23: 46
        +5
        Found.
        Clibanariae - workshops which produced equipment used by heavycavalry. Localization of
        cataphractii and clibanarii formations in provinces was strictly concerned in localization of individual
        fabricae which equipped themwith weapon. Three out of four mentioned in Notitia Dignitatum workshops worked in the East of the country where major part of armored ridestationed In western part of Empire there is one fabrice clibanaria certi fi ed, functioned in Augustodunum.
        1. depressant
          depressant 31 May 2021 11: 25
          +4
          Viktor Nikolaevich, but this is kind of given in Russian in the article.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 31 May 2021 12: 31
            +3
            Lyudmila Yakoalevna, the primary source is always more interesting and contains much more information.
        2. Engineer
          31 May 2021 11: 44
          +4
          You are quoting this
          The state factories (fabricae) during the time of tetrarchy
          This work is familiar to me
          Note that clibanariae is not a workshop proper. this definition means specifics. Bronnaya. Apparently a special type of armor was meant because there is still loricaria
          Therefore, an armored workshop, not a furnace
  12. Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 31 May 2021 10: 59
    +5
    Only now, and then at the suggestion of a colleague Anton, I saw your article, Denis. I don't go to Opinions.
    You've done real research, I must say. At first impression, the article looks more like material from any scientific journal. I’ll probably have to re-read it in order to systematize the information available in it.
    In general, informative and interesting. I regard this material as introductory, I suppose it will be even more fun later.
    In general, thanks for the work and for its result.
    1. Engineer
      31 May 2021 11: 19
      +6
      Good afternoon,
      I "ground" the article a little before publication, making it more "popular".
      The article itself is "personal research". The choice of hypothesis about the origin remained behind the scenes - I chose Olbricht. I did the analysis of his opinion myself, I did not find any critical reviews of his article. I also liked it because it occurred to me myself that eastern protective equipment + Macedonian spear = cataphracts. I began to dive into the topic and learned that Olbricht formulated this 10 years ago. Therefore, I gave a brief analysis and the hypothesis itself.
      Scythians - cataphracts. I have not yet met such a comparison. I expressed my thoughts purely, I do not pretend to be the first. Someone may (most likely) have already substantiated it. But in this form I did not come across such a position. Heavy cavalry of the Scythians - yes. Scythian cataphracts - no
      For the sake of their own conclusions, the article was written. It's just not interesting for me to compile.
      Visual material - I tried to find something that usually no one publishes.
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 31 May 2021 11: 36
        +5
        Good at it.
        I already have one question on the article, but first I will need to re-read the article thoughtfully. Perhaps I missed something and the answer is already there. I take a short pause. smile
      2. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 31 May 2021 15: 37
        +3
        I opened the text of the article in the next window and now I will read and ask questions along the way. smile
        The first question.
        The Persians themselves called their heavily armed horsemen "savaran" or "aswaran", which means "horsemen".

        Was the name "aswaran" applied exclusively to heavily armed horsemen or horsemen in general? It seems to me that the question of whether the Persians had a separate name for light and heavy horsemen and, if so, whether these names were of the same root, in this context can be of significant importance.
        The very fact that the Roman chronicler uses the Greek word to define the Persian cavalry, while the Persians themselves are Roman, while they have their own for these purposes, suggests that in this case there was no established specific term for heavy horse spearmen at all even in the XNUMXth century, and they called them as God put it on their souls, not really bothering with terminology, and therefore not really separating one from the other. It happens so - there is a phenomenon, but there is no concept that fully corresponds to it.
        Now about the origin of the phenomenon of cataphracts, regardless of the term.
        Our phenomenon has three distinctive features:
        - protective equipment of the rider
        - long spear as the main type of weapon
        - combining them into separate units for mass use. In fact, it turns out that cataphracts were a separate tactical unit on the battlefield, designed to solve specific tasks, otherwise they do not fall under the category of cataphracts.
        If archeology can help us on the first two points, and it confirms the presence of both protective weapons and long spears in the period before Alexander's campaigns, at least among the Scythians, then the last point causes certain difficulties. Mentioning the decisive importance of a horse attack in a particular battle will not help us in any way to solve this problem.
        Thus, by indirect signs, one can assume the presence of orders of cataphracts.

        The assumption, in my opinion, is very shaky. As far as I understood from the materials of the article, only one long spear was found in the burial ground, and in a burial atypical for that region and for that time. That is, it is too early to talk about mass character. As a counter-hypothesis, the following consideration can be put forward: the long spear was not part of the armament of the deceased, but a symbol indicating his social status, namely the status of a commander. Against the background of ordinary relatively short spears, a long spear could simply serve as a pole for some kind of battle standard, which, when raised to a certain height, contributed to the control of the battle, showing the location of the commander and, possibly, indicating the necessary direction of attack.
        So the earliest reliable information about cataphracts as a phenomenon, I think, should be attributed specifically to Alexander's campaigns. There, for sure, we can clearly observe all the signs of a cataphract - long spears, protective equipment and massive use.
        So "not later", but most likely not earlier, since for the Persians such an innovation was a complete surprise, and in fact they were much more experienced in equestrian combat than the Macedonians.
        The genius of Alexander (or his father) was able to generalize the rich experience of using cavalry by neighbors and create such an instrument on the battlefield, which we now call cataphracts. This instrument was capricious, required fine tuning and skillful use, but that's what he and Alexander.
        However, as far as I understand, this will be discussed in the following articles.
        1. Engineer
          31 May 2021 16: 49
          +2
          Was the name "aswaran" applied exclusively to heavily armed horsemen or horsemen in general?

          Neither one nor the other. This particular concept corresponds very roughly to the Roman equites of the times of the republic. Both the class and the military category are additionally with vague boundaries and internal gradation that cannot be completely reconstructed.
          The very fact that the Roman chronicler uses the Greek word to define the Persian cavalry, while the Persians themselves are Roman, while they have their own for these purposes

          You take the ancient source too literally
          Different options are possible here.
          At Bannikov:
          F. Richardeau notes that a similar analogy can be traced between the Persian word tanur (stove) and its cognate tanurigh (warrior) [430]. The clibanarius is believed to be a Latin tracing of the Persian tanurigh. The analogy seems quite appropriate for a heavily armored warrior who fought in the hot climate of the East.

          But the Persians certainly did not use the word "klibanari". They are the authors of such innovations. They don't need to borrow anything.
          ,
          that in this case there was no well-established specific term for heavy equestrian spearmen at all even in the XNUMXth century, and they called them as God put it on their souls, not really bothering with the terminology

          The terminology was unambiguous, although not unambiguous. For example, one of the subdivisions is called "catafraktrarii klibanaria"
          We cannot restore the original value, but we can at least determine the range of the most probable hypotheses. Hypercriticism is bad for understanding history
          the last point causes certain difficulties. Mentioning the decisive importance of a horse attack in a particular battle will not help us in any way.

          I understand this perfectly, but the Battle of Fate is almost the only one where there is at least some description of the actions of the Scythian contingent. I never called my hypothesis a theory. I everywhere shoved the word "possibly" "by indirect indications."
          I am well aware that there is little data
          You are hypercritical again and demand some stable systemic tendencies. We have a period where all information is fragmentary and each is worth its weight in gold.
          If you think that other strongly hypotheses are better, then you are wrong.
          My hypothesis is argued worse than Olbricht, but better than the same Tarn
          He considered Parthia to be the birthplace of cataphracts. Because before the eastern campaign of Antiochus, his cataphracts were not mentioned, but after they appeared. Why Parthia and not Bactria? Why the Parthians themselves did not mention cataphracts earlier than the 1st century BC? Why, when describing the Battle of Magnesia, there are no Parthians, but there are Dakhi to which the Parthians belong, but only as horse archers?
          Moreover, Tarn is perhaps the greatest explorer of the Hellenistic era.
          As a counter-hypothesis, the following consideration can be put forward: the long spear was not part of the armament of the deceased, but a symbol indicating his social status, namely the status of a commander.

          You see, a spear is a spear. They are poked at the enemy. I will show you how the standards were worn in the next article. )
          As far as I understood from the materials of the article, only one long spear was found in the burial ground, and in a burial atypical for that region and for that time.

          Found only one spear on which the length can be measured. Not typical? Yes, I wrote it myself. I do not prove the presence of cataphracts among the Savromats. I show that the Scythian neighbors had elements of cataphracts with Scythian cultural influence for which I am hypothesizing.
          So the earliest reliable information about cataphracts as a phenomenon, I think, should be attributed specifically to Alexander's campaigns. There, for sure, we can clearly observe all the signs of a cataphract - long spears, protective equipment and massive use.

          There is no mass-scale protective equipment. The Macedonian prodrome is unhurried, as the image from Kinch says. Most likely, the shells were in the royal mud and a little more. The Persians have more armored horsemen, and their panoply is generally heavier.
          However, as far as I understand, this will be discussed in the following articles.

          Unfortunately no.)
          I'm not interested in retelling the history of cataphracts. I decided to write a guide to cataphracts.
          1. Trilobite Master
            Trilobite Master 31 May 2021 21: 00
            +3
            Strange, about three hours ago I wrote a lengthy answer, but it was not published for some reason. Just now I thought to look in, see.
            I will not restore the text any more. I will try to summarize briefly.
            I wrote the first thing that came to mind about the standard. I don't know if the Scythians used spears to wear their banners, pennants or bunchuk.
            Regarding the attitude to sources - everything is complicated for me. Researchers interpret some fragments strictly literally, some completely allegorically. It is difficult to determine how they determine what was important for the chronicler or historian of antiquity and what he conveyed literally and scrupulously, and what he treated less responsibly.
            The "Roman tracing" version is fun and quite viable. As an option, it is accepted. smile
            Quote: Engineer
            But the Persians certainly did not use the word "klibanari". They are the authors of such innovations. They don't need to borrow anything.

            Except for the long Macedonian copies, as you wrote about it.
            In general, of the three distinguished features of cataphract, the third does not seem to be the most important. The first two are relative. Defensive weapons may be lighter or heavier, and some riders may not have at all. Spears can also be shorter or longer, and it will not work to draw a clear line between a simple spear and a cataphract spear. The massive use of a cavalry unit of heavy spearmen, grouped into one squad with approximately one equipment and equally trained - this is already a serious claim that yes, here they are, beloved. That is, the main feature is not in equipment - it is important, but secondary - but in the way such a unit is waging combat.
            At one time, it seems to me, the creation of cataphract units was akin to a revolution in military affairs. And Alexander made this revolution. The Germans produced something similar in the 30s. last century, bringing tanks into separate formations capable of acting autonomously at any operational depth. There were tanks before Guderian, as well as there were heavy horse spearmen before Alexander, but it was under Alexander that quantity turned into quality. The instrument turned out to be strict, requiring long tuning and skillful management, well, that's what he and Alexander are for.
            1. Engineer
              31 May 2021 21: 28
              +2
              In general, of the three distinguished features of cataphract, the third does not seem to be the most important.

              You see, Mikhail, Khazanov specified meaning of the word cataphract. The primary meaning is that the rider, heavily armed in terms of protection, has not been canceled. The whole evolution of cataphracts is the evolution of the protective equipment of the rider and horse.
              And now you, approaching extremely formally to Khazanov's theses, have deprived the cataphracts of this primary meaning. Yeah, the horse's protective gear is optional. Yeah, rider's protective gear is not regulated, anything will do.
              Macedonian hetairas are at best armored with a medium-iron carapace, greaves, helmet ("royal" tomb of Vergina),. Or rather easy - a linen shell and a helmet (Plutarch about Alexander). The Persian rider from the sarcophagus in Chan is armored at Vergina's level, plus his horse is protected. With Parameridia, such a rider will be better armored, and his horse will be even better protected. And for the Macedonians of Vergina, the limit.
              ,
              the main feature is not in equipment - it is important, but secondary - but in the way such a unit is engaged in combat.

              This way of fighting the Persians appeared before

              ... The Persians applied a crushing blow to the mass of cavalry, determining the outcome of the battle at Kunax, and this tactic was applied on both sides. The mass of cavalry, led by the commander, attacks the cavalry of the enemy commander, with the goal of primarily killing him. Alexander literally copied this technique.
              There is no need to pull the owl over the globe. It is quite obvious that the Macedonians lack the weight of armor (especially horse armor) just like the Achaemenid Persians of the spear length. Cataphracts are neither

              Except for the long Macedonian copies, as you wrote about it
              .
              Lampridius wrote about other Sassanid Persians. I meant them, since they (or the later Parthians) invented the Clibanarians as a technology.
              1. Trilobite Master
                Trilobite Master 31 May 2021 22: 21
                +3
                If we put equipment at the forefront, then any discussion about cataphracts and, moreover, the moment of their occurrence, becomes pointless until we clearly define what criteria this equipment should meet, right?
                But my position can be substantiated in another way.
                Cataphracts are warriors. Their main purpose is to conduct combat in a certain way to solve certain problems. In accordance with these tasks, they are equipped. As soon as their equipment, quantity and training grow to a certain level, they master new methods of fighting and can begin to successfully and consistently perform tasks that were previously inaccessible to them - they become cataphracts, regardless of what their contemporaries call them on either side of the front. "Cataphracts" in this case is a conventional temin adopted in historiography.
                The length of the spear is not important. It is important that there is enough of it in order to act as the cataphracts did. The severity of the protective weapons does not matter - as long as it is enough for those actions that are required of cataphracts.
                If the Persians had armored uniformly armed cavalry detachments, the main weapons of which were spears, and the method of fighting was a frontal blow aimed at destroying the enemy's formation in a relatively narrow area, then they had cataphracts.
                Equipment is just a way to facilitate the fulfillment of the main task, it evolves in the wake of military thought, and not vice versa. It can serve as a definite marker of this or that process, but not as its engine, basis. The scheme is as follows: setting a problem - choosing a way to solve it - preparing funds, including training personnel and their equipment. Not the other way around.
                1. Engineer
                  31 May 2021 22: 40
                  +2
                  If we put equipment at the forefront, then any discussion about cataphracts and, moreover, the moment of their occurrence, becomes pointless until we clearly define what criteria this equipment should meet, right?

                  Of course, but you need to know when to stop and not bring everything to the point of absurdity, requiring absolutely precise definitions of the length of the spear and the degree of protection.
                  The length of the spear is not important. It is important that there is enough of it in order to act as the cataphracts did. The severity of the protective weapons does not matter - as long as it is enough for those actions that are required of cataphracts.

                  No, no and NO. Cataphracts are a complex phenomenon. Social, tactical and technological in equal measure. Everything is important.
                  Equipment is just a way to make it easier to complete the main task, it evolves following military thought, and not vice versa

                  I fundamentally disagree. Communication is two-way. Equipment affects military thought and vice versa. Moreover, the former is more likely to prevail. Equipment is associated with the development of the economy, society as a whole and specific technologies. You simplify everything, plus you have some kind of managerial and corporate approach to ancient military tasks that were solved, including taking into account traditions and often at the expense of momentary resources, improvisations.
                  No effort of military thought can improve armor and equipment. It is an organic product of multifactorial evolution. A strong-willed decision can take over individual innovations of neighbors and enemies. But this is the limit.
                  PS I realized with a delay the difference between our platforms. I'm drowning at night looking)
                  You are ready to call any shock cavalry cataphracts. You can forgive and accept, but cataphracts are still a specific phenomenon, a concept, a subset in the set of shock, assault cavalry. You point to the fragility of the boundaries between cataphracts and the rest and thereby dismantle the specifics of the phenomenon in general, but meanwhile it has a quite tangible framework.
                  1. Trilobite Master
                    Trilobite Master 1 June 2021 13: 17
                    +1
                    There is no desire to bring a hundred to the point of absurdity. In this case, I'm really interested. But, even if not bringing it to the point of absurdity, you will still be forced to introduce at least some, albeit vague, border for both the spear and the armor, in order to determine the cataphract in front of you or not. It will be the length or design features of the spear, the material of manufacture, the weight or the specificity of the armor, but some kind of border will be required to be drawn.
                    Quote: Engineer
                    Cataphracts are a complex phenomenon. Social, tactical and technological in equal measure.

                    I proceeded from the definition you proposed. There is nothing "social" in it. Perhaps this definition should be adjusted.
                    But as for the tactical and technological, then I'm ready to argue.
                    Features of combat equipment, of course, depend on many factors, such as the availability of certain resources, the level of development of technologies, economics, natural conditions of the theater of military operations, the number of people who can be involved in a war, removing them from the production cycle, etc.
                    And, of course, you are right here, these features will affect the tactics of the armed forces. If you have Greek fire, you will plan your fight differently than if you did not have it.
                    The thing is different. A change in one or another of the listed factors (for example, the appearance of new resources or a sharp increase in the population) can affect military equipment and tactics only if such a change, or rather, its need, necessity, has matured in the minds of the military, be it a king, a prince or just an ordinary knight, hoplite.
                    That is, the initial impetus for any change is given by a thought that never sleeps. The development of technology can go progressively and imperceptibly, the number of the population can stabilize, all other factors also may not change significantly, but people will continue to look for ways to optimize the process of killing their neighbor.
                    Cataphracts did not appear suddenly, not from scratch. People have long been able to make long spears and heavy armor of various types, and have tamed horses. The emergence of cataphracts is not a consequence of some technological leaps, social upheavals, the development of new resources or other global changes. This is a product of military thought, analysis and generalization of information on the combat use of cavalry for many centuries before the time of their appearance. Their trick is not in the equipment used - this was used both before and after (some had longer spears, and heavier weapons) - but in the way of fighting. Some researchers even speak of them as the first regular cavalry, for which, in my opinion, there are certain grounds. Uniform weapons, and, therefore, training, plus discipline, controllability. I have also heard the expression "equestrian phalanx" used in relation to them.
                    Well, the last.
                    Of course, not all shock cavalry are cataphracts.
                    Quote: Engineer
                    there is a very tangible framework

                    These are the frames that are interesting to me. And we see them in different ways. What do I see as the main difference between cataphracts and other types of shock cavalry? In general, I expected to receive an answer to this question from your articles, but so far I have the feeling that you are in the process of searching for it. I have only a basic hypothesis, formed a quarter of a century ago. The problem of cavalry, its weak side is that by losing speed, it loses all its main advantages. To force the cavalry to stop, to mark time - to doom it to defeat. I had to roll back with losses, turn around, accelerate and attack again. Therefore, the commanders always had the task of how to preserve, prolong the equestrian onslaught until the enemy was completely defeated. It's easier with the infantry - built a deep formation and the rear ones push the first rows forward. It won't work with cavalry. What can be the way out?
                    The only way out is to build up the blow from the depths, but how to do this if the subsequent rows will bump into the previous ones? Again, the only option is to sparse the lines by increasing the number of lines. The system, which can be conventionally called "wedge front". If the distance between the ranks is approximately one horse's body, then lengthening the spear will help those galloping from behind to cover the front ones from the sides, while they themselves will be covered by the rear ones. A strike on the enemy's front will be carried out in stages, as it were, every few seconds, and subsequent ranks will be able to attack already in the gaps pierced by the previous ones, multiplying the chances of breaking through the enemy formation with one blow.
                    In reality, an attack of 90 cataphracts will look like this: ten wedges of nine people each jump at the enemy. A blow with a long spear and a horse is sent to the same place, without reducing speed, after a few seconds a new blow with a spear and a horse is sent to the same place or nearby, after a few seconds - four more times, covering the entire front of the attack. The spear work continues, the horses continue to press until the line crumbles or until the attack is completely bogged down.
                    Earlier than in the descriptions of Alexander's campaigns, such a picture is nowhere to be found.
                    1. Engineer
                      1 June 2021 13: 58
                      +1
                      Cataphracts originally heavily armed cavalry. This is the essence of the concept.
                      The last point is very important. Selected heavily armed horsemen did not make the weather.

                      Apparently it was necessary to highlight this in a separate sentence before Khazanov's theses
                      At Khazanov's
                      In accordance with all sources, without exception, I understand by cataphractaries a certain, chronologically limited order heavily armed cavalry, attacking the enemy in a certain battle formation - in a closely closed formation and with a certain tactical goal (breakthrough, less often coverage

                      And further
                      There are three main features in the armament of the cataphractarii. Their first distinguishing feature was the presence heavy defensive armor.


                      I proceeded from the definition you proposed. There is nothing "social" in it.

                      Khazanov doesn't have it either. But the heavily armed ram-type cavalry implies a high level of development of productive forces, the development of technology, property stratification and a "heroic culture" praising fighters striving to come closer to the enemy face to face.
                      Besides the definition, the phenomenon also has an environment in which it is realized. There are many ways to implement it, and this often obscures the definition, making it incomplete or fuzzy.

                      Earlier than in the descriptions of Alexander's campaigns, such a picture is nowhere to be found.

                      Michael, she is not found anywhere in this form at all)
                      1. Trilobite Master
                        Trilobite Master 1 June 2021 14: 25
                        0
                        Alexander, at least, has long spears and decisive attacks with their use. This is already a cataphract tactic. And in a massive, organized form, it is being used, as I understand it, for the first time. Okay, I agree, Alexander's path will be protocataphracts. smile Due to undeveloped protective weapons. smile Although the royal ooze, probably, can already be considered a subdivision of cataphracts.
                        In the end, the definition of cataphracts can be corrected. smile
                        As for the social component of this phenomenon, it still has to be dealt with. Alexander's cataphracts were hardly recruited at their own expense, although there may be different opinions. Parthian cataphracts - were they even there? smile - also seem to me not entirely as noble warriors-proprietors, equipped at their own expense, but as soldiers serving for a salary and being supported by some nobleman.
                      2. Engineer
                        1 June 2021 14: 44
                        +1
                        And in a massive, organized form, it is being used, as far as I understand, for the first time.

                        The third time I refer to the Battle of Kunax. )
                        You don't want to perceive the concept. Cataphract is the quintessence of protection. He purposefully sacrifices mobility for an advantage in a frontal attack.
                        Gaethaires did not sacrifice their mobility in principle. Alexander chose the linen shell for a reason. His hetairas made wing-to-wing maneuvers at Gaugamela. And outside the battlefield, they carried out a deep pursuit - an unheard-of thing for cataphracts.

                        Among the Parthians and Achaemenids, "feudalism" warriors have a land allotment. Part of the equipment is required from the house for which they serve, part of the equipment is its own.
                        Among the Parthians and Sassanids, cataphracts are first of all to know around which their relatives are crowded and some of the clientele are also cataphracts.
                        Getaira, Sarmatians are a purely retinue culture. These are people who owe everything to the leader. Some were initially full of rogue, not famous for anything except courage, other close relatives of the king with solid wealth. They wear what they will give, buy, rob.

                        To the Romans, cataphracts were initially recruited from contingents of barbarians and defectors. They have their own equipment. Further, centralized supply is deployed according to their model. The units are beginning to enroll Roman citizens and natives of different provinces. Ethnic boundaries are being erased, and centralized supply begins to prevail.
                      3. Trilobite Master
                        Trilobite Master 1 June 2021 15: 05
                        +1
                        I reread Xenophon yesterday. smile
                        Cavalry attack - yes, but not spear. There, Cyrus's cavalry was clearly heavy, but her main weapon was swords. Spears in the description are generally mentioned only as infantry weapons, both from one side and the other. The spear that struck Cyrus was thrown, that is, it was throwing.
                        A decisive frontal attack - yes, an attack of at least a semblance of cataphracts - no.
                        We, as we should, once again ran into a wall impenetrable for the opponent in our discussion. smile It even begins to amaze me how two adults and, in general, not stupid people can evaluate the same facts so differently. Interestingly, at least in something we will get along with you someday? smile
                        Suggesting a break until the next article. By the way, you need to check if it has already come out. smile
                      4. Engineer
                        1 June 2021 16: 30
                        +1
                        The Persian coat is suitable for both combat and throwing)) About 2 meters. Horsemen often had two of these spears.
                        Swords under Kunax are not mentioned at all, except that they were among the riders of Cyrus (Hellenic). The mode of action of the Persian cavalry was reconstructed quite well.
                        PS Darius the Charioteer was also struck by a dart in the midst of Alexander's attack at Gaugamela.
                        Didn't come out, I'm rewriting one of the sections )
      3. foolish
        foolish 3 June 2021 16: 04
        0
        I would venture to argue that it was among the Parthian cavalry that the two-handed grip of the spear was first described, which implied the absence (or actual absence) of a shield and, as a result, serious armor armor
    2. Liam
      Liam 31 May 2021 21: 20
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Clibanarius is believed to be a Latin tracing of Persian tanurigh

      Some comrades advanced in matter believe that the origins lead to the ancient Persian term grivpanvar(grīw-bān)
      1. Engineer
        31 May 2021 21: 43
        +4
        The problem is that if I delve into etymology, then one advanced European will be the first to say "Boredom is mortal, it is impossible to read" laughing
        1. Liam
          Liam 31 May 2021 21: 51
          +1
          ...not for self-interest, but only for clickbait)
          1. Engineer
            31 May 2021 22: 00
            +3
            For clickbait, you need to write about the holy trinity of the topvar
            Stalin-Tsushima - aircraft carrier
            So we will win
            1. Liam
              Liam 31 May 2021 22: 36
              0
              I would lose faith in humanity if you also wedged yourself into this sickening consumer goods.
            2. Undecim
              Undecim 31 May 2021 22: 53
              0
              For clickbait, you need to write about the holy trinity of the topvar

              On topvar "holy trinity" you can count more than one.
              For example "England - Poland - Ukraine".
              And you can combine them.
  • depressant
    depressant 31 May 2021 11: 29
    +7
    Yes, the article does not apply to "easy reading"))))
    I join in thanks to the Engineer!
    Behind us engineers, no armor will rust good drinks wassat )))))
  • faterdom
    faterdom 31 May 2021 16: 38
    +1
    It is not in vain that the armor of the heavy horsemen paid much attention to protecting the thigh.
    According to the data of numerous studies by anthropologists, as Stanislav Drobyshevsky says, according to the numerous wounds and injuries of the femurs, the skeleton can be almost unmistakably attributed to these categories of riders - an occupational disease can be said.
    But if the bones of the lower leg are broken in almost everyone, then the stonemasons, builders of fortresses, monasteries and other pyramids (except for financial ones, of course). And for some reason, the rowers of heavy combat ships.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 4 June 2021 09: 41
    0
    According to Milcharek, the cataphracts held the pike with one hand and attacked mainly the infantry, the Klibanari held the pike with both hands and attacked the cavalry,
    Oh my eyes! Historians (even those that lived before the PC) imagine battles as something like a computer game. The cavalry, in their wonderful dreams, hits where and where the commander wants at the moment. And if those who, according to the historian, "attack the cavalry" meet the infantry, then they, both the Klibanarii and the infantry, simply disperse each in their own direction, looking for their units. Otherwise, you would rather grab the ground with a huge two-handed spear than an infantryman ... And orders across the battlefield are transmitted instantly, apparently through radios, consisting of shit and sticks ...
    The very idea of ​​booking a rider in a way you can never equip an infantryman is self-evident. The infantryman will simply fall from the weight of the armor, which will cover him truly reliably, especially given the poor quality of the then metals and alloys. Well, that is, it will not fall immediately, but give him a march for a couple of kilometers, and the cover. And I really, really want to live, right? So the armor rider cannot be recognized as someone's idea. It's like looking for the author of the club)
    The mass appearance of such horsemen is not connected with military thought, but, as usual, with the economy. Heavy armor and road warhorse. very, very expensive, their cost has spawned in Europe a gang of bastards called knights. You had to constantly move around your bandit khaza (knight's castle, yeah) and constantly loot in order to maintain the level of costs for armor, weapons and horses. In general, the Roman Empire was apparently very rich, since it could afford entire units of such fighters.
    However, the Persians were not poorer, but rather richer, because their azadan was not financed centrally, but was supplied from their own estates (apparently a variant of that very "chivalry", that is, banditry).
    The main weapon used by these horsemen, of course, should be considered a bow. Especially in light of the prevailing idea that stirrups were not known. One blow with a lance, and you fly upside down from the horse. Then, if you’re not killed, you wander across the battlefield with the grace of a beetle pinned to a pin until you collapse from exhaustion. Or you shoot arrow after arrow, causing damage to the enemy, constantly participating in the battle, completely maintaining your mobility.
    Historians are such historians ...