Earliest use of Cataphracts

Quick question:
As per OTL, when would be the earliest that cavalry horses would become strong enough to allow for cataphracts? Iron armor is not a must, a bronze armored cataphract is fine, I just need to know the rough time period.
 
Probably around fourth century to get the closest stuff to what we think of as cataphracts today (in terms of how much was heavily armored).
 
It wasn't really a "horse" issue, it was a technology issue, which prevented cataphracts from appearing earlier than they did.

The Nisean Horse, the first breed known to be capable of carrying a fully armored cataphract, was developed by the Medes and was certainly in existence by the 7th century BC, and probably earlier. The Achaemenid Persians fielded proto-Cataphracts in the 4th century BC (some of them fought in the war against Alexander the Great).

However true Cataphracts didn't really come about until the development of the solid-tree saddle, which greatly reduced the stress on a horse's back which carrying a heavily armored man would cause. This didn't come along until around 200 BC in Asia, and in the west, the Roman "4-horned" saddle (the earliest solid tree saddle known to exist in the west) didn't appear until around 100 BC. The Indo-Iranian tribes (Sarmatians and Parthians) were apparently the first to develop a good solid-tree saddle, and not coincidentally, the first to develop cataphract cavalry.
 
What would it take, for say, the Phoenicians to have effective cataphracts around the time of the Punic Wars? They were the fleet providers for the Persians while in possession of Tyre. What is the earliest cataphract use might spread into Libyan kingdoms? During the Punic wars Lybian mercenaries also with cataphracts might have convinced Carthage to use such units more.

Essentially, I'm trying to make a Carthage based civilization that survives and continues to give Rome competition well into Imperial times. This requires way more than cataphracts obviously, but cataphracts are a start.
Carthage cannot conquer Rome - but as long as it exists Rome will compete with it. I am trying to see if some early version of empirical reasoning can be absorbed into one of these civilizations. This, plus the competition will spur on technological developement.
 
How well will super-heavy horses do in the Maghreb? You'll note that of the native powers, even the Mamluks did not armor their troops to the extent that the Byzantine and Persian cataphracts did.
 
What would it take, for say, the Phoenicians to have effective cataphracts around the time of the Punic Wars?


So you basically want cataphracts riding over the legions, is that it?

Why don't you think the Romans would adapt and innovate against such a threat? After all, when the Punic War started Rome basically had no navy at all yet it reversed engineered a wrecked Carthaginian ship, added the corvus to the design, built several fleets, lost more sea battles than it won, learned from the battles it lost, and went to win all three wars on both land and sea.

The question here just isn't whether Carthage develops cataphracts but whether Rome becomes stupid.
 
So you basically want cataphracts riding over the legions, is that it?

Why don't you think the Romans would adapt and innovate against such a threat? After all, when the Punic War started Rome basically had no navy at all yet it reversed engineered a wrecked Carthaginian ship, added the corvus to the design, built several fleets, lost more sea battles than it won, learned from the battles it lost, and went to win all three wars on both land and sea.

The question here just isn't whether Carthage develops cataphracts but whether Rome becomes stupid.

Would cataphracts be that effective against a disciplined Roman legion at all? I'm no military expert by I always thought that a Phalanx provides a good defense against all forms of cavalry besides horse archers, and Roman legions simply developped further the concept of a phalanx (thinking of a "turtle")?
 
So you basically want cataphracts riding over the legions, is that it?

Why don't you think the Romans would adapt and innovate against such a threat? After all, when the Punic War started Rome basically had no navy at all yet it reversed engineered a wrecked Carthaginian ship, added the corvus to the design, built several fleets, lost more sea battles than it won, learned from the battles it lost, and went to win all three wars on both land and sea.

The question here just isn't whether Carthage develops cataphracts but whether Rome becomes stupid.

Actually I think Hannibal's elite Iberian cavalry was very heavily armored. Covered in chain mail, or something. Ah, here's a description:

The Iberian heavy cavalry was what hannibal had with him at Cannae. They were (obviously) far superior to the Roman cavalry of the time, made more so by their status as a western sort of very heavy cavalry (think cataphractarii) with barded horses and high quality mail or scale armor. Their only handicap was the smaller spear and shield they carried.

Also there was another group of elite troops back at Carthage called the sacred band:

The Sacred Band of Astarte was a cavalry unit that wore iron armor and carried a 3.5m lance. They fought in the Greco-steppe manner with a two handed lance. Their horses were barded with iron lamellar. Their horses were a mix of the african (arabian) breed and the andalusian (iberian) breed. They were on a par with Hetairoi or Granpavar (elite) cataphracts, but were trained from birth as property of the temple. A predecessor of the Mamluk, essentially, but from the second and third sons of noble families.

They were held back at the battle of zama by hannibal's political enemies though.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-44039.html Where I copied those descriptions. Sorry i can't do better at this hour.


So yeah, Carthage had super heavy horsemen which were well used in the hands of at least Hannibal. Really if you want a TL where Carthage challenges rome longer, your best bet is probably a change in Carthaginian politics. Say the sacred band are not held back at the battle of zama and go on to crush the roman cavalry. Then they come from behind and ruin the roman's day.
 
I think the answer is in why the Nisean horse was bred up as early as 700BCE in the first place.

My guess is that the Medes or whoever found that their regular horses were too vulnerable to arrows and not fast enough when carrying armoured men tasked with the charge/melee. In response they bred up a horse for the charge/melee which was fast when carrying an armoured man and protection themselves. So I'd guess that the cataphract was used as soon as Nisean horses were available.

As for the Phonecians using them, I doubt it. Cavalry works best in ranching country where the horses are bred and the recruits are grown. This is why the loss of Anatolia was such a blow to Byzantium, they lost the horse beeding ranches and the men who had spent their lives working on and with horses. Lebanon is not good ranching country.
 
So you basically want cataphracts riding over the legions, is that it?

Why don't you think the Romans would adapt and innovate against such a threat? After all, when the Punic War started Rome basically had no navy at all yet it reversed engineered a wrecked Carthaginian ship, added the corvus to the design, built several fleets, lost more sea battles than it won, learned from the battles it lost, and went to win all three wars on both land and sea.

The question here just isn't whether Carthage develops cataphracts but whether Rome becomes stupid.

See the OP carefully. Cataphracts won't defeat Rome. In fact, if Carthage got any closer to defeating Rome it would bring down the full wrath of the legions. Carthaginian states simply need to survive. Of course the Romans will innovate -that's the whole point. Carthage will undergo massive changes in politics. All the divergence needs to do is let Carthage survive
the Punic Wars without as much damage. The entire point is with these two powers competing, the rate of innovation will increase from OTL.
 
See the OP carefully.


The original post mentions nothing about Rome, Carthage, or innovation.

Cataphracts won't defeat Rome.

That's what you don't understand. Carthage must defeat Rome is Carthage is to survive. There can be no centuries long stand-off.

This isn't the case of Rome and Parthia whose distant provinces are separated by a desert. This is a case of two imperial commercial powers whose heartlands are on the shores of the same sea. Both states are vying for the same territories, the same client states, and the same markets. One is going to come out on top and they other is going to see it's capital torn down and the land beneath sown with salt.

In fact, if Carthage got any closer to defeating Rome it would bring down the full wrath of the legions.

Exactly. Carthage defeats Rome in a few battles with cataphracts, Rome innovates, and Carthage is destroyed. In fact, if you replace the word "cataphracts" with "triremes" in that last sentence you're looking at actual history.

Carthage had neither the manpower or strategic depth to hold off Rome for any lengthy period of time. Their only chance is to sucker punch the Romans as Hannibal attempted because, if the fight last longer than one round, Rome will get off the mat and knock Carthage out.
 
What would it take, for say, the Phoenicians to have effective cataphracts around the time of the Punic Wars? They were the fleet providers for the Persians while in possession of Tyre. What is the earliest cataphract use might spread into Libyan kingdoms? During the Punic wars Lybian mercenaries also with cataphracts might have convinced Carthage to use such units more.

cough* Elephants? *cough
 
Top