This is only an interpretation according to my sources. Historians give conflicting interpretations on the use of lances before the stirrup was introduced, and the use of gallop by classical cavalry. Warning, this is for military buffs...
This was briefly discussed some time ago, but I think it can be a good inspiration for Gloranthan troop types.
The cataphract most people have in mind, in my opinion, is the Maurikian style, from the 6th century. They were Belisarius' troops, and Robert Graves made them widely known. However they are really inspired on the roman Clibanarii, who were a roman version of the Sassanid cavalrymen, an armoured rider with kontos (long lance, used with both hands) and bow.
Meanwhile the Romans called cataphracts (and even created some of their own) the Parthian and Sassanid heavy cavalry (on their own influenced by the Successor Agema heavy cavalry).
So, in chronological order, we have Alexander's Companions, who supposedly fought with lances, and charged at the gallop. When they became rich, they continued to be the bodyguard/personal troops of the Successor states, but the increase of armour and training, specially among the rich Seleucids, made them change their tactics to close order and contact at a trot. The Parthians (and many others in the Middle East) used this kind of troops as the decisive punch, and the as the noble's position in the army. However their ineffectiveness against infantry made them increasingly scarce, while a new kind of noble troop, the clibanarius, with bow and lance, arose in Persia under the Sassanids (very similar to the nomad nobility, who are expected to charge, besides using archery).
They were the model for the original byzantine kataphraktoi, who should be accomplished with lance, bow, sword and mace. The stirrups made this double role easier, of course. The division of the byzantine army in territorial and professional forces brought a specialization, where your armour and weaponry depended on your position in the unit (lighter bowmen on the back, armoured horses in the front) instead of a homogeneous force. The fully armoured rider on a similarly armoured horse resurfaced briefly at the 10th century.
Let's not forget that the battles between byzantines and normans in Italy were determinant in the latter adoption of the couched lance (with other influences thrown in). And it is indeed true that the norman charge had a heavier impact than the 10th century byzantines...
So, do the partially persian Carmanians value the bow (as the persians did) or not? Depending on that we will have fully armoured riders and horses (usually bronze and brass scale, to avoid sweat corrosion, often with geometric designs and alternating colours), or lighter cavalry with bow and lance.
I proposed in the past that the classical Carmanians were of the close order, grinding melee cavalry (following the dark side, with light cavalry, using bows, representing the light side), while the new lunarized Carmanians, embracing the opposites, use both the bow and the lance.
Brass scale armour is so Carmanian to be compulsory. And scale or lamellar is the best horse armour, too.
Of course most of this is a moot point, as SGU seems very advanced, but I could not avoid the duality Melee and Missile, and seeing the classical cataphract as a very Lunar concept.
Pentian nobility, specially in Storm Tribes, would be similarly equipped, with bow (the nomad weapon, per se, except in Prax) and expected to melee the enemy when necessary.
I remember some convention where the Carmanian knight with bow astonished the gathered Malkioni knights. And a good thing it is, in my opinion.
Regards,
Jose
Powered by hypermail