On the last podcast (https://themegpodcast.podbean.com/e/the-meg-podcast-series-5-episode-3-catafracts-and-knights/) we briefly pondered the classification difference between "eastern" and "western" catafracts with, in general, the former being Long Spear, Shove whilst the latter are Long Spear, Devastating Charger, Shove.
This seems to be something from the dawn of the MeG lists and we were not sure why it was.
Begs the question as to whether there is any justification for the difference. What do people think?
Or should they all be Charging Lancer?
Is any classification where they get Shatter correct?
If not broken do not change it
Why change ?
Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?
Quote from: badhabum on March 25, 2025, 08:02:23 AM
If not broken do not change it
Why change ?
Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?
+1
Personally I feel LSp is the right classification, I think very few "ancient" cavalry types should have CL.
In respect of catafracts the question in my mind is as mentioned above - the difference between "eastern" and "western" ones; is DC justified for the latter. That is where the classifications may be broken.
I thought the idea behind the difference was that Western style cataphracts usually had solid targets so were hard chargers while Eastern ones faced horse archer opponents so were likely not to be impetuous because it would just get them into trouble. Or is that just a wargaming post-hoc rationalisation?
Apart from the Seleucid vs Roman battle of Magnesia in 189 BCE, there is very little evidence for cataphracts having much success against Roman legionaries until the Sassanid Persian era. Magnesia may be the exception because it was the first time the legions had faced cataphracts.
Not sure if there are many accounts of cataphracts against other infantry at all. So I suspect there is wargamer post-hoc rationalisation going on here.
Richard
Quote from: tarnowski1 on March 25, 2025, 08:09:47 AM
Quote from: badhabum on March 25, 2025, 08:02:23 AM
If not broken do not change it
Why change ?
Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?
+1
+2
Best,
Antoine
Quote from: lionheartrjc on March 25, 2025, 08:45:43 AM
Apart from the Seleucid vs Roman battle of Magnesia in 189 BCE, there is very little evidence for cataphracts having much success against Roman legionaries until the Sassanid Persian era. Magnesia may be the exception because it was the first time the legions had faced cataphracts.
IIRC at Magnesia, according to Livy, Antiochos' successful attack involved getting onto the flank of the small number of cavalry next to them which helped expose the infantry who then were driven back to the camp in rout.
However, leaving that aside as you say success against Roman infantry after that is pretty much nil until the Sasanid era. Even Crassus' distinctly average army repelled the Parthian catafracts - it was the Gallic cavalry that were defeated by them.
Of course, we then run into a source issue as we have basically zero detail of how the Sasanids defeated the Romans in the C3rd, although (again IIRC) shooting is mentioned at least once but may just be a trope. A bit more detail about the battles against the Palmyrans but still rather sketchy.
Ammianus and Julian (and Libanius?) give us more detail and here we have the Roman infantry taking the fight to the Sasanid cavalry which includes contos armed catafracts - charging the cavalry in fact a number of times.
Quote
Not sure if there are many accounts of cataphracts against other infantry at all. So I suspect there is wargamer post-hoc rationalisation going on here.
Richard
Surely not ;)
For the eastern types the sources are sadly not very helpful. We know that following the fall of the Han and their immediate successors that cavalry, often from steppe invaders or tribes settled under the Han, who were turning to catafracts dominated warfare; however, detail is lacking to say exactly why and it does appear that the native Han troops mostly declined in quality and so would be less resistant anyway.
I'm currently tending to the view that for both eastern and western types that in general Devastating Charger is not really justified. Exceptions do exist of course such as the Jin Iron Pagodas, but in general, no. However, I can't claim to have done an exhaustive investigation so there could be examples out there that would indicate otherwise.
Ahh, I thought you were advocating adding DC to the Eastern types. But you were thinking removing it from the Western types. That is a very different kettle of fish in terms of game play balance. The only time I've used the non-DC cataphracts (with the Di at Ice and Fire) they weren't very impressive ... though of course that could well be due to Operator Error ;)
Quote from: Princeps on March 25, 2025, 08:52:06 AM
Quote from: tarnowski1 on March 25, 2025, 08:09:47 AM
Quote from: badhabum on March 25, 2025, 08:02:23 AM
If not broken do not change it
Why change ?
Cats LS do have their charm, specificity ..so again why change ?
+1
+2
Best,
Antoine
To be clear, any changes would only accompany revisions to the rules.
Richard
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 26, 2025, 09:09:37 AM
I'm currently tending to the view that for both eastern and western types that in general Devastating Charger is not really justified. Exceptions do exist of course such as the Jin Iron Pagodas, but in general, no. However, I can't claim to have done an exhaustive investigation so there could be examples out there that would indicate otherwise.
This is also the view that I am taking.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on March 26, 2025, 09:29:51 AM
To be clear, any changes would only accompany revisions to the rules.
Richard
Reasonable call.
Quote from: daveparish on March 26, 2025, 09:23:06 AM
Ahh, I thought you were advocating adding DC to the Eastern types. But you were thinking removing it from the Western types. That is a very different kettle of fish in terms of game play balance. The only time I've used the non-DC cataphracts (with the Di at Ice and Fire) they weren't very impressive ... though of course that could well be due to Operator Error ;)
I rather like them and have got good use out of them - the lower points means they are game balanced IMO, but you do need to treat them as being a bit different beast than the ones with DC.
IIRC, weren't western cataphracts originally classed without the DC, but had it added due to the +2 charge claim of Roman impact weapons vs cavalry causing the cataphracts to frequently be crippled on impact?
(And leading to veteran Legionaries doing goofy things like launching charges against cataphracts at a claims advantage?)
I could be misremembering, so please correct me if I'm wrong!!!
I think it would severely weaken cataphracts if they were to lose Devastating charge. It seems odd that the mass of an armored man on an armored horse would cause as much impact as standard infantry with a short spear, even without considering the psychological effect. Do we have any reason to think they suffered badly when charging into infantry formations? Because I think that would be the primary effect of the change.
Quote from: Doomsmile on March 27, 2025, 12:01:07 AM
IIRC, weren't western cataphracts originally classed without the DC, but had it added due to the +2 charge claim of Roman impact weapons vs cavalry causing the cataphracts to frequently be crippled on impact?
(And leading to veteran Legionaries doing goofy things like launching charges against cataphracts at a claims advantage?)
I could be misremembering, so please correct me if I'm wrong!!!
Good memory! The change was introduced in 2018.
Richard
Quote from: Manzikert on March 27, 2025, 06:00:05 AM
I think it would severely weaken cataphracts if they were to lose Devastating charge. It seems odd that the mass of an armored man on an armored horse would cause as much impact as standard infantry with a short spear, even without considering the psychological effect. Do we have any reason to think they suffered badly when charging into infantry formations? Because I think that would be the primary effect of the change.
As noted in posts above we are struggling to find examples of where they did well against infantry formations in a straight up charge. Any ideas as to when they generally did well?
I would note that we need to look at the combat overall and not just the Charge Phase - DC only counts there after all.
Quote from: Doomsmile on March 27, 2025, 12:01:07 AM
IIRC, weren't western cataphracts originally classed without the DC, but had it added due to the +2 charge claim of Roman impact weapons vs cavalry causing the cataphracts to frequently be crippled on impact?
(And leading to veteran Legionaries doing goofy things like launching charges against cataphracts at a claims advantage?)
I could be misremembering, so please correct me if I'm wrong!!!
I would note that Roman* infantry frontally charging catafracts successfully wasn't unknown - seems to have been a thing in the C4th; maybe not so much earlier though.
* its always the Romans that create representation difficulties :o :P ::)
Quote from: lionheartrjc on March 27, 2025, 06:13:27 AM
Good memory! The change was introduced in 2018.
I had forgotten that there was a change - mind you I only got properly involved with MeG part way through 2018 ;D However, I do have a vague recollection of a discussion about whether catafracts charged at anything other than a trot.
QuoteI would note that we need to look at the combat overall and not just the Charge Phase - DC only counts there after all.
But gives a +1 to the cavalry, works in terrain and allows shatter "only"
Iwould be very reluctant to change anything concerning the cataphracts. Yes there might be some writings about romans who did resist cats charges ...but remember the winner, the surviving empire writes the history, not the other way round. So the written vision is very partial.
In the end, Crassus was defeated by a combo Cat/horse archer
Roman cats were shock troops
BYZ cats were shock troops and we lack info about Asian cats
Yes hoses and riders were initially armoured to counter steppe bow cavalry but they faced also foot and lacking info is not a reason to forget bthat MEG is a game and if you want a game, you must sometimes allow for the dream and the " who knows let us keep a bamlance in what is a GAME"
Think really hard before changing anything
Quote from: badhabum on March 27, 2025, 08:34:42 AM
Think really hard before changing anything
We always do.
A thesis was written and accepted in 2014 at the University of Leiden, titled "Who were the cataphracts? An archaeological and historical investigation into ancient heavy cavalry in the Near East".
The file is publicly available but too big to be posted on the forum, but can be accessed here (https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2666627/view).
Best,
Antoine
Have seen it before. Not sure it advances us sadly - does show the thinness of the evidence nicely though.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 26, 2025, 09:09:37 AM
For the eastern types the sources are sadly not very helpful. We know that following the fall of the Han and their immediate successors that cavalry, often from steppe invaders or tribes settled under the Han, who were turning to catafracts dominated warfare; however, detail is lacking to say exactly why and it does appear that the native Han troops mostly declined in quality and so would be less resistant anyway.
I'm currently tending to the view that for both eastern and western types that in general Devastating Charger is not really justified. Exceptions do exist of course such as the Jin Iron Pagodas, but in general, no. However, I can't claim to have done an exhaustive investigation so there could be examples out there that would indicate otherwise.
Interesting that you're just hand waving Carrhae away.Yes, the first few charges were repelled, but in the end the catafracts prevailed. It's true that this occurred only after the horse archers weakened the Romans with shooting, but the game mechanics simply outlaw the practical chances that this could be repeated on the tabletop. With Roman shield cover white dice won't succeed fast enough to allow such a result. I mean, the battle was a long one, I understand. Still, removing DC would severely distort this matchup.
At the end of the day Crassus' army was unbroken - somewhat battered and bruised, but not actually defeated in battle. The catafracts beat the Gallic cavalry led by Crassus' son, but did not break the Roman infantry. I guess in MeG result terms you would have a game without an unbroken army, and in a competition setting maybe each side scoring a few points (Parthians more than the Romans).
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 28, 2025, 06:25:38 AM
At the end of the day Crassus' army was unbroken - somewhat battered and bruised, but not actually defeated in battle. The catafracts beat the Gallic cavalry led by Crassus' son, but did not break the Roman infantry. I guess in MeG result terms you would have a game without an unbroken army, and in a competition setting maybe each side scoring a few points (Parthians more than the Romans).
Yes but that does not mean there would not be unbroken TUGS and more than a few points even with both armies unbroken could be 12-12 ( Game speaking )
The roman lost .. :)
Quote from: badhabum on March 29, 2025, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on March 28, 2025, 06:25:38 AM
At the end of the day Crassus' army was unbroken - somewhat battered and bruised, but not actually defeated in battle. The catafracts beat the Gallic cavalry led by Crassus' son, but did not break the Roman infantry. I guess in MeG result terms you would have a game without an unbroken army, and in a competition setting maybe each side scoring a few points (Parthians more than the Romans).
Yes but that does not mean there would not be unbroken TUGS and more than a few points even with both armies unbroken could be 12-12 ( Game speaking )
I think you would be misreading things if you suggested such a game score reflected the days fighting at Carrhae.
Ok, we read the accounts of Carrhae differently.
How does one account for the rapid defeat of the Roman left at Magnesia? Bad dice? Can Panion be squared with ineffective Seleukid catafracts? Why were Parthian catafracts unable to stop a charge into a ditch dug by their nomad opponents (I forget the name of the battle and am on vacation abroad so I can't look it up) and continued to pile into the trap, while continuing to trot sedately forward in a non devastating manner? The desire to nerf western Catafract troops seems founded on the premise that they were not shock troops but units who fenced with long spears after a leisurely approach into melee. Personally I don't see this, but you folks are in charge not me. Apparently the Romans feared catafract charges for no good reason.
Back to Carrhae. I reach a different conclusion from the defeat (but not destruction) of a Roman army of at least 25000 by a force of 9000 horse archers and 1000 catafract cavalry. I do not accept it as evidence that the catafracts were ineffective.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on March 31, 2025, 07:43:10 AM
Ok, we read the accounts of Carrhae differently.
I would suggest that what I have said is the accepted reading.
Quote
How does one account for the rapid defeat of the Roman left at Magnesia? Bad dice?
As mentioned, Livy's account suggests the catafracts getting onto the flank of the infantry after defeating the small cavalry contingent on the Roman left.
Quote
Can Panion be squared with ineffective Seleukid catafracts?
Nobody is suggesting that the Seleukid catafracts were ineffective or would be without DC. Panion is tricky as our information is Polybios criticising another historian rather than a direct battle account. However, at the battle they appear to have defeated the Ptolemaic cavalry and then attacked the Ptolemaic phalanx in the rear; I don't see that removing DC would make these not happen in a MeG game.
Quote
Why were Parthian catafracts unable to stop a charge into a ditch dug by their nomad opponents (I forget the name of the battle and am on vacation abroad so I can't look it up) and continued to pile into the trap, while continuing to trot sedately forward in a non devastating manner?
You're thinking of Sasanids under Peroz in the C5th CE I assume. Frankly this is one of those weird ones that a set of longue durée rules will not specifically cover - although even without DC LSp catafracts would have Forced Charge if within 1 BW. However, you'd need scenario specific rules for the other cavalry regardless of whether the LSp types had DC or not I think to get the course of this battle.
Quote
Apparently the Romans feared catafract charges for no good reason.
I don't think they feared them; respected them, yes, but not fear.
Quote
Back to Carrhae. I reach a different conclusion from the defeat (but not destruction) of a Roman army of at least 25000 by a force of 9000 horse archers and 1000 catafract cavalry. I do not accept it as evidence that the catafracts were ineffective.
They clearly weren't ineffective (and it is not being claimed) as they were important in the destruction of Publius Crassus' isolated cavalry and 8 cohorts (interesting aside, in this part of the battle the account is of the fighting between the Roman cavalry and the catafracts and the infantry are not mentioned). However, IMO there is nothing in the course of the battle that requires them to have the DC characteristic to get the result under MeG.
Without DC the boiler boys are at a disadvantage on the charge without shatter. They are at an equal advantage in melee. That's not a matchup any skilled player would accept routinely. This is why I say ineffective, because there is no reason to think they will win and remain battle worthy given even dice. Win or lose one or both are likely to wind up wrecked.
Thanks for the reminder, I was indeed thinking of Sassanids under Peroz. I don't really understand the remarks you make about the behavior of the Asvaran being hard to reproduce. I agree that the ditches don't work in MeG, but your point assumes the nomads came in and shot from closer range than would be advisable, particularly when a feigned flight was contemplated.
As for Magnesia, I don't have my sources with me, but I do not recall anything but a frontal charge. I will have to look this up when I get home.
As for Panion, the point is that the Ptolemaic cavalry was defeated quickly enough that the phalanx was unable to meet the mounted charge. Such a result becomes rather unlikely without DC and shatter.
I suspect that we are on opposite sides of the debate over catafract cavalry charging at a trot. I know of no ancient accounts which directly support this belief, although it is common to assume such because they fought in close order. There are many accounts of Medieval cavalry lined up in very close order and charging at a gallop.
When you draw a distinction between feared and respected you are splitting a very narrow hair indeed. Why would a charge (resulting in Roman advantage) be respected, if that distinction is so important?
Parthian, Seleukid and Sassanid catafract cavalry were all elite troops, the cream of their armies, even the ones rated average. They were there to smash through the enemy and quite often did so. IMHO the proposed change significantly diminishes their ability to do this and will make these armies less competitive. You think this is more accurate and seem willing to do your best to explain away counter examples. This is discouraging.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on March 31, 2025, 10:21:29 AM
As for Magnesia, I don't have my sources with me, but I do not recall anything but a frontal charge. I will have to look this up when I get home.
Relevant bit online here - https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0144%3Abook%3D37%3Achapter%3D42
Quote
As for Panion, the point is that the Ptolemaic cavalry was defeated quickly enough that the phalanx was unable to meet the mounted charge. Such a result becomes rather unlikely without DC and shatter.
The phalanx was never in a position to meet the mounted charge as it was fighting the Seleukid phalanx and elephants to its front - the cavalry then charged them in the rear.
Quote
I suspect that we are on opposite sides of the debate over catafract cavalry charging at a trot. I know of no ancient accounts which directly support this belief, although it is common to assume such because they fought in close order. There are many accounts of Medieval cavalry lined up in very close order and charging at a gallop.
I have no issues with the idea that catafracts could charge at more speed than a trot, but doing so does not mean they are automatically best represented as DC, that is too simplistic a connection.
I am locking down this topic because quite frankly it is a matter of opinion and it is has become too personal for my liking. MeG won't be ruined, either by keeping DC or by getting rid of it.
An option I am examining is taking away the DC buy adding a +1 claim for Close cavalry charging in good going.
Nothing has been decided.
Richard