In message <200505131731_MC3-1-9E03-757A_at_compuserve.com> Andrew Barton writes:
>Donald Oddy:
>
>> I don't see any great technological difference between cataphracts
>> and even 15th Century knights except possibly stirrups which appear
>> at the latest by the 6th Century. The main difference was tactical -
>> the Romans used cataphracts as part of a combined arms force whereas
>> in western medieval europe knights were regarded as the core of
>> the army.
>
>Sassanid Persian armies (contemporaries of the later Roman Empire) were
>built round a core of cataphract cavalry.
Depends which definition of cataphract you're using, they were much
less armoured than the Sarmation and Armenian varieties of cataphract
which are the closer equivelent of the medieval knight. I've always
known the Sassinids and their late Roman equivelents as Clibanari
although I believe there is some argument among latin scholars about
which is which.
However I'm sure this is straying off topic.
--
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------