What was the answer to the horse archer-cataphract combo?

What was the answer to the horse archer-cataphract combo?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your own cavalry and staying out of deserts with dubious guides

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Roman armies always had lots of auxiliary cavalry, they must have been no match for the Sassanids.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Romans never lost a field battle against Parthians after Carrhae. Parthians were a literal one trick pony and once Romans figured out that trick they proceeded to demolish the Parthians in every war. It was only after the Sassanids took over that things got more even because Sassanid armies had actually decent infantry and war elephants besides horse archers and cataphracts.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Romans traded slightly positively against the Sassanids overall, mainly due to their superior professionalism and larger standing army allowing for larger field armies (not counting drafted peasants for siege works which were a common feature in Sassanid forces)

        The Romans never lost a field battle against Parthians after Carrhae. Parthians were a literal one trick pony and once Romans figured out that trick they proceeded to demolish the Parthians in every war. It was only after the Sassanids took over that things got more even because Sassanid armies had actually decent infantry and war elephants besides horse archers and cataphracts.

        The Sassanids still mostly relied on their cavalry in field battle. They did have SOME infantry forces that could stand their ground, but those were few and far between.

        They had more and better heavy cavalry than the Parthians. Even so, a Roman army that didn't get caught with its pants down would typically win a pitched field battle against the Persians, they had to use operational maneuver to win.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ginger Shemp on the ground, dying.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >show me your war face

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This picture is so awesome
      There's a Roman vs Celts one that's similarly awesome...

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        those monsters are called lindwurms

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Handgonne apu trying to load bolts while crossbow apu is trying to load bullets is my favorite detail

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            also the archer is sitting in the only hole around, giving him negative accuracy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly not sure. The tactic of heavily armored horsemen slowly advancing in a wedge with guys in the middle pelting arrows directly at the point the wedge will make contact with is going to be hard to counter. I think probably the best way to deal with it is with your own heavy/light cavalry harassing them and trying to break the formation. If you have a unit of heavy infantry shock troops, then you could also keep them in reserve and deploy them to whatever point in the line gets targeted by the cataphracts. Your best chances are going to win the battle before it starts by forcing them to engage with you on your terms, either attacking into fortifications you've set up or across uneven ground.

      Yeah, the eastern Romans adoption of Parthian tactics worked for a time, but it didn't last for long, Arab armies had superior horses that were not held down by weighty armor and could skirmish for days on end with limited water and food
      War is constantly changing landscape

      cataphracts didn't even have stirrups, they couldn't do charges so they weren't as good as you think

      Yeah, the eastern Romans adoption of Parthian tactics worked for a time, but it didn't last for long, Arab armies had superior horses that were not held down by weighty armor and could skirmish for days on end with limited water and food
      War is constantly changing landscape

      The Romans never lost a field battle against Parthians after Carrhae. Parthians were a literal one trick pony and once Romans figured out that trick they proceeded to demolish the Parthians in every war. It was only after the Sassanids took over that things got more even because Sassanid armies had actually decent infantry and war elephants besides horse archers and cataphracts.

      Where do y'all nigbas learn all this stuff?
      Can we get some literature recommendation here?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        PrepHole had a long and prosperous byzantine phase.
        Otherwise a shit ton of military history youtube docs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Archer Jones' Art of Warfare in the Western World. Not perfect, but close; you can't get more comprehensive.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *Art of War
          Not warfare. I'm sleep-deprived.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly not sure. The tactic of heavily armored horsemen slowly advancing in a wedge with guys in the middle pelting arrows directly at the point the wedge will make contact with is going to be hard to counter. I think probably the best way to deal with it is with your own heavy/light cavalry harassing them and trying to break the formation. If you have a unit of heavy infantry shock troops, then you could also keep them in reserve and deploy them to whatever point in the line gets targeted by the cataphracts. Your best chances are going to win the battle before it starts by forcing them to engage with you on your terms, either attacking into fortifications you've set up or across uneven ground.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In my limited understanding of the cataphract warfare of the time they usually skewered some dudes and if the line didnt immediately break they cycles back to get more lances and charge again. So the reserves are almost always gonna be a day late and a dollar short

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the "counter" is to not allow the enemy to engage you in wide open plains/deserts in the first place since this is indeed the perfect pre-gunpowder army in such terrain
    heavy armoured cavalry even proved nigh unstoppable in urban fricking combat in the Fourth Crusade. Taking them on in the open on hard soil/sand is suicide.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't they have polearms to fight cavalry? If they still had spear-armed Triarii would that have been enough?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Something that modern people often forget is how shitty most natural surfaces are to walk on. Tanks have a huuuge footprint with tons of traction and comparatively low ground pressure, but still get stuck in mud, ditches, etc. and can't enter forests or very mountainous terrain.
    If you tried to face horse archers (armored or not) on open flat plains you'd get your ass handed to you, without a doubt. But equally on really stony land, or marshlands, or farmer's plowed fields with furrows full of muck, horses have a hard time. Doubly so if they're carrying 200lbs of rider, armor, weapons, equipment, etc.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Spears and archers

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Total War Rome II is any clue, having my own foot based archers neutralizes them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The recurved composite bows of horse archers had very good range and penetrating power, more so than most other bows in use at the time. IIRC they had comparable power to an English warbow which was 5-6ft long and had a huge draw-weight.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >range
        yes
        >penetrative power
        not really. They'd be more effective at it than a self bow of the same draw weight and size (if such a thing were possible), but longer bows as a rule can push heavier arrows than shorter bows, and that's the best way to improve your penetration. Also, warbow draw weights varied greatly, and english longbows were usually on the heavier end of things, but horsebows were no slouch in that department.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So heavily armored neither you nor your mount can really be hurt
    >Can just walk up to the enemy, plant your spear on his shield, brace, and slowly drive the point through the horse's power
    By Jove how horrifying. No wonder the Romans adopted the way of fighting.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, the eastern Romans adoption of Parthian tactics worked for a time, but it didn't last for long, Arab armies had superior horses that were not held down by weighty armor and could skirmish for days on end with limited water and food
      War is constantly changing landscape

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it didn't last for long
        The Romans had dropped them before the Arabs ever came on the scene, as evidenced by the Strategikon making no mention of them. That said, by the late 9th century, the Romans had brought them back and would continue to use them on and off again until 1453.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bruh Romans faced cataphracts multiple times before in Seleucid, Pontic or Armenian armies and defeated them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Seleucid cavalry flattened the Roman cavalry at Magnesia. Antiochus III then decided to go raid the enemy camp rather than support his infantry. Same mistake he made at Raphia. I really wish Antiochus the Younger hadn't died early, could have been a kino conflict.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A stiff breeze could have flattened the Roman cavalry.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It was really a mix of Parthian Equipment and Germanic cavalry training + tactics that gave rise to Roman Cataphracts which then evolved to become the European knighthood.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Except not really, since Roman Cataphracts were an experimental meme that didn't really go anywhere, much like how they briefly adopted elephants. They ended up just divesting more resources into ranged weaponry to fight cataphracts, which they didn't need to do since by that time, they'd already destroyed all the cataphract armies of the world.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      horses wont charge at a pike wall let alone stakes, and even if they would, the pikes could knock you off the horse, especially if one end is ankered to the ground with a back spike
      on a side note i wonder if there were polearms as long as pikes with wings hooks or prongs so they arent as likely to glance off of armor to make them even better at blocking heavy calvalry charges

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >horses wont charge at a pike wall let alone stakes
        Yes they will. Horses can be made to run at anything. Arabs used to train their horses by running them full tilt at a wall.
        Now, would a modern horse do it? Probably not.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Horses back in the day were real men, now all the horses are so effeminate

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not the horses themselves, it's the training involved. People aren't training their horses for war anymore, so naturally the horses we have around today aren't prepared for it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah they will, horses will charge headlong into certain death if you can train them to
        Horses dont like being surrounded by black powder smoke and the thick stench of blood, the screams of battle and death
        So you lead them through abbatoirs when they're foals, you bang on shields as they walk by and scream, you practice them running into men and walls
        Horses deserve some cred for what they've been though

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair, some of that is breeding. Bronze age horse shouldn't be compared to 19th century horse. Iron age horse was pretty good, tho.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          SOME horses will. A large amount of horses realize the danger of charging into spiky points, and buck their rider.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>So heavily armored neither you nor your mount can really be hurt

      >takes out blunt weapon
      >proceeds to concuss the frick out of you
      >"not hurt"

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    High walls and maxim guns

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cataphracts didn't even have stirrups, they couldn't do charges so they weren't as good as you think

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Romans beat the Parthians several times over the centuries, so the real answer is to not think too deeply into a single poorly planned campaign. The 2 other triumvirs wouldn't have put themselves in such a stupid situation in the first place.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    field obstacle, ditch or spikes

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What was the answer to the horse archer-cataphract combo?
    Why are you building cav archers as byz, are you stupid?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Having your own fricking horse archers and cataphracts

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    fortifications
    stakes
    uneven terrain
    traps, pits, ditches
    pikemen + foot archers
    war elephants

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Artillery and archers.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shooting them with arrows, long pointy sticks.
    Standing on remotely rugged terrain

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Foot archers.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    halb skirm meatshield, bombard canon or onager behind. you don't even need the siege behind tbh, its such a gold heavy combo that you can just spam trash and win economically

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your own horse archers and cataphracts. Thats what the Chinese did to absolutely buttfrick the steppe peoples in their home turf.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they never found a good answer
    they even got fricked by horse archers a 1000 years later

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >never found a good answer
      >won every battle against the Parthians after Carrhae

      Derp

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pay them to fight each other.

        Parthians typically would just retreat into their empire and avoided decisive fights to begin with. That's why the Romans never stayed after sacking Ctesiphon.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Had Crassus maintained his original plan of a wide line instead of concentrating his entire force into a square at the last minute for no fricking reason he would have won Carrhae

    He played directly into their hands

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Camel and skirm.
    Don't have camels, use knights or CA and skirm

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Knights can't catch up to CA, you need light cav/hussars or they'll get into your eco.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    -have enough depth to pull back and lure them into obstacles, traps and hidden units
    -have your own light horse to pursue them
    -use slingers and field artillery to outrange and outshoot them

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    heavy archers and armored spearmen, so you both win the missile contest and the melee

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have any groups in eurasian history tried to fight the horse archer steppe meta by planting lots of trees? England was practically a bog an epoch ago which was gradually carved into a manmade environment over centuries by the locals, it's not historically unprecedented to make your own biomes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Building forts is quicker and cheaper.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >tell me you're a fellow elf without telling me that you're a fellow elf

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have asked myself the same question but with hedges and general land cultivation instead of trees.
      See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocage
      Of course, actually cultivating such landscapes takes a long time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Eastern Europe's answer to steppe horse archers was literally just more castles and forts. Mongolians were shit at besieging them, and usually just tried to wait them out, which didn't work since they had food for surviving years in their cellars.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pike blocks and guns?

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Steady lines and long spears. Horse archers are only dangerous when they have gaps to exploit and cataphracts (pre-stirrup) are only dangerous when their spears are longer than yours.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do you ever get tired of making the same thread over and over?

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What was the answer to the horse archer-cataphract comb-
    >ACK

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only counter to cavalry and mounted infantry are.... your own cavalry and mounted infantry.
    Think about it, you wouldn't send light infantry to fight against armored cavalry or mechanized/motorized infantry would you?

    Pre-industrial warfare predominantly revolved around horses or camels.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really.
      Roman cavalry was legendarily bad in many eras, and they often just paid mercenaries to fill out the ranks without relying on them as a key element, and before the stirrup, it was pretty difficult for mounted soldiers to fight in melee well.
      Beyond that, cavalry was historically beaten by obstacles in their way (caltrops, stakes, barbed wire), or by building strong defensive blocks that the horses wouldn't break through, like the phalanx or pike square.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      big difference between horses and vehicles is that you can mount heavy weapons on vehicles, the same can't be done for horses.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chariot mounted ballistas were a thing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      big difference between horses and vehicles is that you can mount heavy weapons on vehicles, the same can't be done for horses.

      Camel cavalry is superior to horses.

      >hardier than horses and consumes much less water and food and less picky about it's diet.
      >larger wider feet than horses allowing to traverse sand and mud easier than horses.
      >can carry 40% of body weight compared to only 20% of body weight for horses.
      >large and strong enough to mount heavy siege weapons like ballistas and small cannons.
      >taller than horses to give sight and melee advantage over horse cavalry.

      Camels rule and horses deserve to go the glue factory.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        maybe, but they look moronic

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        mounting weapons like that on a camels seems like a very bad idea, you only get worse accuracy/steadiness and a size limitation
        transportation is a different thing of course
        one of the main strong points of bolt shooting torsion and bow artillery is that you can set the aim to a certain point and keep it there, for example between crennelations, enemy artillery positions, gates, chokepoints, maybe even arrow slits
        some medieval springald could only adjust their aim by turning the whole thing and putting wedged under the wheels for elevation, they were not meant to follow targets at all

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *wedges

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *wedges

          also forgot my picrel

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not moving your army into unfavorable terrain without water supply sounds promising.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    use horse-towed mini ballista-mounted carts to snipe them.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pretty sure guns work work well against them

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not fighting on even ground. Holding forts, mountain passes, chokepoints where cavalry advantages are neutralised and cavalry archers aren't able to manoeuvre freely

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *