Catafract classification

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[AntiokosIII]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

Ok, we read the accounts of Carrhae differently.

I would suggest that what I have said is the accepted reading.

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.

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.

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.

Apparently the Romans feared catafract charges for no good reason.

I don't think they feared them; respected them, yes, but not fear.

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.

[AntiokosIII]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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

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.

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.

[lionheartrjc]

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