Chinese cataphracts

[ShrubMiK]

Having got to grips with MeG in mid-to-late 2020 I started building a Chinese Northern Wei army. At that time IIRC the heavy cavalry could be taken as mounted polearm/armoured horse/shooty cavalry; or cataphracts? I wasn't entirely sure how good the shooty version would be, but it seemed like something that might make these armies a little bit unusual and therefore an interesting option to try.

Then real life intervened for 15 months plus and I am just now picking up MeG again, and naturally picking up my part-completed army...the heavy cavalry were the next thing in the paint queue...and I see they can now be cataphracts only.

(Note - this is not a complaint or criticism...I'm just interested! A big part of the fun IMO is using different armies as they are (in the rules and lists..the reality is of course uncertain), against historical opponents. I'll just use my figures as cataphracts, which was always going to be an option anyway.)

I was wondering what the thinking/interpretation was behind this change? I couldn't find anything mentioned looking back over old forum posts, or list change notifications.

I'm certainly not an expert on this era and region, but I have seen illustrations of well dressed cavalry from this era which are less than fully armoured, on which I assume the Lurkio ranges were based. And there are surviving figurines that represent some form of all round horse covering but with rider less than fully armoured. I guess these might be taken to be part of the "tribal auxiliary" cavalry, but seem dressed, armed, and protected at a level beyond that?

Secondary question: the lack of devastating charger for Chinese cataphracts (and other Asian catphracts in general?). Is this due to a perceived difference in their equipment and/or how they fought, or an game artifact of getting interactions right between troop types within this region and era?

[lionheartrjc]

On the first query - why no option for other than cataphracts, Nik can answer better than I can - but basically there wasn't any evidence to support the interpretation (which was due to my lack of knowledge of the sources).

On the second query - the lack of devastating charger.  I think it is mostly about getting the interactions right.   Our western sources on cataphracts tend to focus more on the charge.  Eastern cataphracts were often facing skirmishing horse archer opponents where you probably want to be more controlled, but this may be more due to the lack of available eastern sources. One estimate is less than 10% of Chinese military manuals (such as Sun Tze - Art of War) have actually been translated into English.  This and the different nature of eastern texts makes it very difficult to know how many eastern armies fought.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

On the first query - why no option for other than cataphracts, Nik can answer better than I can - but basically there wasn't any evidence to support the interpretation (which was due to my lack of knowledge of the sources).

Well the Mtd Polearm went because there was no evidence for it.

I did suggest that the ArmHrs/Prot should still be an option along with ArmHrs/FArm - there is a topic in the List Sandpit on Northern Dynasties cavalry (and one on Southern Dynasties) with pictures; you were not convinced though. I still think it is a plausible option - just the same as they currently are but with less armour for the rider.

On the second query - the lack of devastating charger.  I think it is mostly about getting the interactions right.   Our western sources on cataphracts tend to focus more on the charge.  Eastern cataphracts were often facing skirmishing horse archer opponents where you probably want to be more controlled, but this may be more due to the lack of available eastern sources. One estimate is less than 10% of Chinese military manuals (such as Sun Tze - Art of War) have actually been translated into English.  This and the different nature of eastern texts makes it very difficult to know how many eastern armies fought.

Richard

This one has had me wondering on occasion. I think that there is a good argument that the catafracts that invaded China in the C4th CE were more effective against infantry than those that fought in the west, which could lead you to having the eastern ones with the DC and the western ones without - i.e. the opposite of what we have now.

[lionheartrjc]

There you go - clear as mud.

To be fair, the Western ones were often charging Roman legionaries (almost always unsuccessfully), the Eastern ones might have been charging less effective infantry.
I am trying to think of any description of cataphracts in the ancient sources who weren't charging Romans or Byzantines!  (Sure there must be some....)

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

There you go - clear as mud.

Like a lot of the Chinese stuff 

I'd suggest another look at the possibility of ArmHrs/Prot option though - probably for the Xianbei Kingdoms through to the Northern Dyansties, and maybe the Western Wei/Northern Zhou.

[martymagnificent]

Love my Jurchen 'Iron Pagodas', those guys brake for no-one.

Martin

[ShrubMiK]

Interesting discussion, thanks!

I now see that in late 2020 Nik supplemented his Chinese cavalry eye-candy thread with some more traditional-style cataphracts, so maybe I would have had more of a heads up on this if I hadn't stopped paying attention to  these forums around that time

Out of interest, I was looking back over old army lists (which as everybody knows are the fully official go-to reference work for 50 years or more of changes in archaeological/textual consensus ).

Old-skool WRG lists have them as full-fat cataphracts. Although there is the option for generals only to be EHK rather than SHC.

I seem to have now got rid of my old DBM lists, probably didn't survive the purge last time I moved house 

DBMM and FoG both have options for any or all to be either cataphracts or lesser armoured. DBMM doesn't highlight this as a different interpretation to previously, or discuss why, so I'm guessing maybe it was a change in DBM.

[ShrubMiK]

Aha, wait a mo...the Hutchby/Clark army list book for WRG 7th Ed. (published 1992) seems to be where bow-armed plus horse armour comes into the picture.
Nortehrn and Southern Dynasties lists has Nobles which may be SHC or EHK, plus some mandatory HC as well. All of these are lance armed but can (all or none, including SHC) optionally add bow.

[nikgaukroger]

In the DBM lists they could be Kn(X) or Kn(F) in the Northern Dynasties list - the latter based on the lesser armour depicted for some men.

[lionheartrjc]

Aha, wait a mo...the Hutchby/Clark army list book for WRG 7th Ed. (published 1992) seems to be where bow-armed plus horse armour comes into the picture.
Nortehrn and Southern Dynasties lists has Nobles which may be SHC or EHK, plus some mandatory HC as well. All of these are lance armed but can (all or none, including SHC) optionally add bow.

I wasn't aware of this when I worked on the list.  The problem with the army list books as a source is that they can be unreliable.

[ShrubMiK]

Sure, I'm not saying anything in previous lists should just be taken as gospel. And since I don't know much about D. Hutchby and S. Clark (without an 'e') it is hard to know how much weight to put on these lists. But it does seem to be a WRG publication. And they do say in the intro that they had a lot of input, support, and encouragement from Duncan Head.

Interestingly, they also say that Duncan "is preparing a volume on the Orient in a similar Armies and Enemies format for WRG." Now if that book existed I would definitely buy it! But as far as I know it never appeared?