We have a ton more episodes in the works with our friends at Imperium Romanum so stay tuned. In the meantime you can watch awesome episodes on their channel like this one on Roman foods: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0PaORdCEFqI.html . What episodes do you want to see next?
These cataphracts would go on an actual triumph for their commander Flavius Belisarius on order of the Roman Emperor Justinian, the first one in half a millennium to be outside the imperial family, not seen since the Roman Republic.
terrifying other horses with strange equipment shouldn‘t be underestimated. Typically my riding club would put on a christmas play on horseback every year and certain pieces of costume had to be presented to the horses beforehand, so they wouldn‘t freak out later. However, we also have to remember, that a lot of modern horses are a lot more sheltered than a work horse would have been in those days. And with horses as flight animals, their amount of experience they have with new stuff is very important. Anything unknown seems dangerous to them. But even today, some horses who go out in traffic a lot, don‘t have to have seen EVERYTHING in order to not freak out over it. After a while they settle down and start trusting their riders. In short, it takes a lot of experience for a horse to just be ok with strange sights like that.
It always amazes me that horses were ever considered for war considering how skittish they are. for such large animals everything seems to terrify them
@@jakobinobles3263 Somewhere in the 70s there was a "science" show in german TV that argued we should have taken the elefant. It ran just after a Western movie and I still imagine some scenes with elefants instead of horses. Ie the "hero" jumping from the whorehous balcony onto his steed. Well okay, running since now the steeds shoulders are at first floor hight. Indians racing in circles around the wagon train....
@@jakobinobles3263 wish they had tamed the mammoth 🦣 there is one American bison that was trained as a saddle animal. European elk and American moose could have been tamed also and are big enough to carry a man.
I‘m guessing that since according to a Russian study done on foxes, it takes about 40 (!) generations until a wild animal becomes domesticated to the point of being a pet, with an inbred sense of wanting to please and seeking human contact, only those animals that were manageable even in their wild state would commonly be kept around for long enough to one day make the jump from being a food source to being a working animal… which of course means that mammoths and the like wouldn‘t have been an option. I don‘t know how the domestication of elephants got started, but other than them, usually all working animals, like horses and oxen, would have been kept for generations as strictly food sources, until some crazy person came up with the harebrained scheme of tying them to a wagon and having them pull it. And then some other delusional idiot, probably either on a wager or a bender or possibly both, got on their backs and decided to ride around. But these early examples would have been a lot smaller than modern day horses or cattle, that today we wouldn’t put anyone over the age of 12 on, so a lot more manageable by a healthy, very fit, probably male, adult person.
That part about frightening the enemy horses with your horse's armour is an interesting point. I had never considered that before, but it makes a lot of sense.
They definitely are remarkable, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Check out their channel: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0PaORdCEFqI.html
God I love Channels like this on RU-vid. This is where the real value of the platform is! History and science channels! It's such a wholesome and insanely in-depth community. No one ever talks shit about another, there's all kinds of really cool collaborations happening between people with academic knowledge and people with practical experience, leading to all kinds of really interesting new insights.
Mail hauberks were gradually being implemented from the 3rd century onwards but might be more limited to eastern Kataphractarii units. The problem with scale armor is the added weight and heat distribution. When compared to mail hauberks, scale falls short heavily in heat distribution. This is important because you don’t want your Kataphractarii units to suffer from heatstroke. Mail hauberks dissipate the heat faster as the rings having plenty more openings dissipates the heat faster. Though there is a way to get rid of the issue with heat. Cloth helmet covers are placed over the helmets to prevent heat buildup. Both riders and man cover themselves with cloth over their armor to not just disguise themselves and confuse the enemy into thinking they are light cavalry but to also prevent their armor from baking under the sun. General Suren used this brilliant tactic in disguising his Kataphractarii units in the battle of Carrhae. From a distance none of the romans could tell they were heavy shock units until it was too late.
More limited to East ? you have the sources for this ? for heat depends, as in the West it can heat in summer too, so probably they have their ways to cool the things, also, no one really knows if the Romans try to ''disguise'' their cavalry, one enemy using one different tactic don't means much compared to the majority of Battles who the Romans fights agains the Parthians and their sucessors the Sassanids who they don't ''desguise'', so much of this is speculation, and we have reports of Romans prefering to use Mail over Scale because the comfort, same apply to renacters today, so weight is not so problematic, and worse, reports that Scale is more heavy and clumsy than Mail, and the name ''Hauberk'' is wrong, this is a Late Ancient and Medieval term and Mail who in general tend to have long sheeves like the Late Roman Army Mail, so they tend to use probably more Scale over Mail because it is cheap, aesthetically and more easy to repair than Mail, so is complex, same for Plate, who they use, but not Full Plate, it is called ''Manica'', probably only truly Heavy Cavalry will use this, not partially armored ones ones, also, depends the cloth, cotton is very common in the East like Silk compared to the West, in the case they need to use a cloth to neglect the sweat who will be caused by the heat, so much of this is pure nonsense as speculation as i say, even contradictory, no one really knows.
You might be misinterpreting modern translations that talk about "mail clad" cavalry for Eastern cataphracts. Mail clad could refer to either chainmail or scalemail because the term mail is often ambigiously used in English. The evidence suggests that Eastern cataphracts were mostly using small plate armors like scale (and later lamellar by the early medieval era) rather than chainmail. Furthermore, full plate armor is the worst form of armor for heat distribution yet full plate was still used to cover both man and horse for the most heavily armored European cavalry in the late-late Middle ages and the Rennisance. You can cover small plate, full plate, and chainmail all the same with cloth to prevent the armor from baking under the sun.
@@marcelosoaresdasilva2691 If you’re gonna be pedantic about terminology, you might as well call it ‘Hamata’ instead of mail/maille, as that too is a much later term.
This was an incredibly fascinating look into the “late” Roman army and its cavalry. Almost no one seems to care about the later Roman military and they usually just deride them when they are compared to the legions of the Principate. Roman soldiers were just as tough and capable in the later periods as their earlier counterparts and it’s great to see a live reenactment of the Roman military of the Dominate period of late antiquity.
The armies of Belisarius were superior to the old Legions by a country-mile. His Cataphracts, that is the Armored Mounted Archers that also used lances/swords, accompanied by the non-archer Clibanarii, were well-nigh invincible in most terrain. His cataphracts combined the shock and survivability of the armored knight with the speed and firepower of the Steppe mounted archers. The Romans still employed heavy infantry but were much more maneuver oriented and skilled at using cavalry and infantry in tandem. Belisarius' 10,000 cavalry conquered the Vandalic Kingdom where much larger armies of heavy infantry failed.
Yeah, the Late Roman Army was still a formidable force, but it faced a death of a thousand cuts: Internal political corruption, reliance on foreign mercenaries instead of auxiliaries to supplement the legions (since Caracalla made all free men Roman citizens), better-equipped and -organized barbarian factions, attacks on numerous fronts, and the loss of land (and thus tax base) to invaders and mercenaries that insisted on being compensated for their service.
I like that these collaborations with Imperium Romanum focus usually on auxiliary cultures and military logistics rather than general tactics. Giving us the overview of the cost of actually having to field and manage an army.
A collaboration on the Varangian Guard would be cool. Those reenactors were better than Hollywood, Great video.
2 года назад
I loved this video, just half a month ago I was reading about the wars of the time of Justinian I the Great and now seeing how the most important unit of his conquests is recreated, fighting within the campaigns of Belisarius and Narses, I glad to have seen it. The Roman Cataphracts were so versatile and their formations were able to successfully take on any of the enemies of their time, either from a distance or in close combat.
Why underrated? Everyone used these in some way. Arabs, Turks, Mongols and all of Europe from Spain to Russia. Heavy Cav was the King of the Battlefields up until the 19th century or even up to WWI.
Can I make a small suggestion? I haven't seen anything directly or purely on Notitia Dignitatum on RU-vid. It's such an important document of the late Empire, it seems surprising that there is nothing really on RU-vid, giving that hundreds of subjects have been covered a dozens, if not hundreds, of times. I would love to know more but I'm too busy reading about the Scottish Dark Ages atm! 😄
@@InvictaHistory could you maybe do some work on Gallienus. He had a lot of problems with the borders and this live history could best showcase them, perhaps a “day in the life of Gallienus’ mobile cavalry”
It's a broad term which generally applies to armoured cavalry. But there were tons of variations. We've started to cover these in our Units of History series.
Don't be frusttrated, look it up. ;) As Invicta answered above, there is no defining answer, thanks to the Roman habit of refusing to coin terminology.
All this weight ... its really impressive that the horses could run around for an entire day with all this heavy equipment and the fully armed rider on top of it. This horse is obviously neither trained or bred for battle but you can still see the the force that must press it down with how heavy it steps and how uneasy it moves.
I was always under the impression that the type of soldier you depicted was called a "clibanarius" and that they were based on the Sassanid heavy cavalry.
Nobody knows what the difference was between terms Clibanarius and Cataphractarius.We only know that there must have been some as both terms are occassionly mentioned by ancient writters together which would not make sense if those terms were completely interchangeable.Theory has it that Clibanarii were perhaps the most heavy class among Cataphracts,were both man and his horse were clad in armour while it is known that in case of Cataphracts horse was not necessarily always clad in armour and despite that it was still considered a cataphract.Clibanarii securely existed in Roman army by early 4th century and most likely already during 3rd but it is only with Constantius II when Roman heavy cavalry was reportedly reformed directly after Sassanid model.
When I was younger I used to own and ride horses. What I could never understand was why the saddle was so slippery and also why I had to use stirrups. It wasn't mentioned in the video, but you can clearly see how the Romans didn't use stirrups and the four pillars on the saddle could be used for these ancient riders to lean over and be more secure. I just think that modern horse riding equipment is just not the same as it was back then. I would love to ride a horse with these ancient way instead. I also like how the Roman cavalry wasa encouraged to learn how to fall off properly as well as how to mount and dismount the horse. Nowadays it seems when you got to riding school they are terriefied of you falling off, so much so you never learn how to properly do it. In fact learning to fall off properly is what allows you to expand your courage and skills further.
4:11 It is so sad to see such a common misinformation in such a good documentary: The rings should be riveted together, instead of just closing the gap by hand which is shown here.
That was great! Nice to see all the period armour and barding, and really interesting to hear all about how these units operated. I also watch Modern History TV which specializes in medieval history and I learned a bit about how knights went about their business and the similarities are quite eerie.
How do they switch weapon from lance to bows/javelins (or vice versa) when mounted? Are there any straps or something to store the lance / shield on the horse?
Shields can be slung over the horns of your saddle, javelins, arrows and your bow are already strapped to your horse. You drop the lance (if you don't need it anymore because it broke) or stick it in the dirt (if you want to come back to it) or you just don't bring it in the first place, simple as that. It's a modern misconception that all troops always carried all their armaments into battle, after all, even though you own an umbrella you don't lug it everywhere on a sunny day....
it always boggles my mind that many of their complex, complicated stuff (f.e. chainmail, aqueducts) were in use for centuries, but they still had no stirrups. Roughly speaking, 2 dangling somethings on the side of a horse.
Because you simply don't need them. Stirrups are overestimated in modern literature. Even in the Renaissance and Baroque period riding masters taught their students without stirrups and only after they were able to perform nearly all the exercises they received stirrups. They do help but are not mandatory. As example Georg Simon Winter von Adlersflügel 1666 I think? come to mind, as well as Manoel Carlos de Andrade 1790. I know for sure that Andrade had his students ride every exercise without stirrups first since I just read him a couple days ago ^^
Also its not just stirrups for the feet, when you put stirrups on a horse you're potentially putting all the rider's weight on those two places, and so you need a more complex harness for the saddle to properly distribute the weight, or the horse could be injured/saddle could become dislodged. Its more the harness that took time to develop.
@@peterspatling3151 Yes, you don't need them. And yes, their importance is probably inflated, by a lot. Especially when you look at sources that want to put the stirrup on the same level as the creation of the wheel or the printing press to help spread modern civilization. But from a modern point of view, I think that it's still interesting that the romans or parthians/sasanians didn't invent them (earlier). We know for a fact that the romans completely changed their whole military drill and equipment multiple times throughout history, and we also know they put a lot of effort to min/max the effectiveness of their troops, so even something as simple as the stirrup may have been, based on what we know about the romans, a small but simple invention to improve their troops, even if it's just by 1%. For the parthians/sasanians, they had a pretty big number of cavalry and were famed for their horse archers and cataphracts. Again, a stirrup may have been helpful, even if it's just a very simple tool. Now here's why in my opinion, the stirrup is really not as important (at least for most of history) as people want us to believe - We know for a fact that the macedonian companion cavalry charged head on into their enemies, lances down, on nothing more but a blanket under them. And we know for a fact that a lot of light cavalry was very effective, despite not having stirrups. The parthians and all the nomads of the eurasian steppe were able to pull off the what's now known as the parthian shot without stirrups. And the heavy cavalry of antiquity was able to do their duty without stirrups too. Otherwise it would've been invented a lot earlier. That's why I doubt the claim of those people who say that stirrups are on the same level as the wheel or the printing press, because we know for a fact (again) that the mongols would've been able to pull off their tactics without stirrups, too. It may have been easier with stirrups, but in no way did they have the impact people want us to believe they had. Now we both talk about a time where cavalry was not as heavily armored as during the (late) middle ages, so it may be that our opinions are biased. But at least before the knights as we know them showed up, cavalry was able to do their duty without stirrups. And when the cavalry turned from heavy shock units to "light" (yes I know that the cavalry still had pretty decent armor, but not comparable to plate armor, and their tactics changed from shock unit to harassing the enemy again, hence the light) cavalry again, we have the same phenomenon that stirrups weren't necessary to do their duty. I'd really like to get a third opinion of someone who has more in-depth knowledge about the middle ages and the heavy armored knights of that period to see if stirrups were more important for those people as for the people in different time periods.
Stirrups aren't that usefull without a bucket saddle and you don't need punch out of having a bucket if you haven't spent allot of time selective breeding super powerfull horses. A Roman catapharact horse would probably be considered small buy a late medieval knight. A late medieval knight charging on a roman saddle would probably fall off his horse as soon his lance collides with something he can't pierce.
It's shown in artwork and there are records of some doing it. There's nothing in particular preventing knights from carrying this kind of weapon. In any case, if you look at other cultures, halberds, glaives, and various other polearm-headed lances are very commonly used. The Chinese were using these types of weapons all the way to WW2.
@@andrewsuryali8540 I've yet to find any historical depictions of european knights using polearms, or weapons resembling polearms while mounted (except lances of course), though I am aware that the Chinese apparently did this, as well as the stranger weapons shown used two-handed in the Maciejowski Bible, though I'd be very interested if you could provide some links to such depictions.
I see a good F1 analogy in this. High performace. They are the most highly skilled and have the most expensive equipment. They have individual liveries. They even both need pit crews.
Nice depiction of historical equipment and explanation of the logistics issue. However, I strongly suspect this cataphract is missing two pieces of equipment. For himself, a mail shirt with at least three-quarter length sleeves and a hem that goes to mid thigh. For his horse, some form of chest collar to protect it during a charge and also from kicks from other horses.
Correct. The vital organs of the horse are 2nd most important to protect. (First being the face, as a blinded warhorse is "retired." IE put down.) Most cataphracts with "partial" horse armor - prioritized the front, not the rear. Could be the reenactors just weren't finished with the costume at the time of this video's making. (That chanfron is a work of art though!)
Is there a reason the belt goes on before the sword? I'm doing roman reenactment as an legionary and we do sword first and belt over it to lick it in place. Awesome video, buddy!
The reason most likely is that although it seems more practical to do it like you mention Roman artworks across centuries are showing it quite persistently as in the video.
sly snake face masks were used by classic roman cavalry mainly for performing elaborated manoeuvres called Hippika Gymnasia, but ellenistic, parthian, Sassanian and roman clibanari were often wearing metal face masks in combat. There are iconographical and literary sources confirming this fact.
I think this underestimates the amount of armour that late Roman heavy cavalry used - but it does make the vital point about armoured horse shoes, without such protection a horse could be crippled by cheap caltrops (bits of sharpened metal) on the battlefield.
Can’t imagine the amount of total work in the making any of these armor types. From miners to smiths, plus the growers of raw materials for cloth, dye, paint, etc etc etc. and you haven’t even started making armor yet, just gathering materials!!!
Fascinating; so if we take a battle of a videogame or battle plan, how would this look like in practice? it would seem that building a base or foragering is more important than the "Big Fight" that works as a "Narrative" standpoint.
I'm pretty sure that Invicta did one or two pretty decent videos about exactly that topic quite some time ago. Check out "Roman Army Supply Lines and Logistics (Overview)" and "Threats to Roman Army Supply Lines and Logistics in Wartime". "How to Raise a Medieval Army" could have some information about that topic, too. And yes, watching those videos pretty much shows that foraging, a secured and working supply line and decent fortifications played a much bigger role than the battle itself most of the times.
Question for Invicta: When Rome made all free men citizens, what happened to the legions? Were the former auxiliary cohorts formed into legions? Were the legions abolished?
Nothing happened. It took until the end of the century before new legions were created (smaller) and the old legions were split up into smaller sized regiments. But that was unrelated to Caracalla and his edict. Non-Romans were still used in the army, within the ranks but later on also in their own units. So in summary, the legions were not abandoned, the auxilia units remained as well.
@@robertvermaat8949 were the smaller units still called legions? What were the new regiments called? Were the new auxilia the foederatii or is that something else? Thanks for the answer btw
@@huntclanhunt9697 As usual the Romans did not care about our modern wish for correct terminology.. 😅 Both old and new unit were named legion, which also became a generic name. But an old-style cohort could in the 4th c be as large as a new-style legion.. we are still unsire of the strength of the latter.
@@huntclanhunt9697 foederati were a form of contract-based foreign settlers who received land and defended it for the Romans. Sometimes they supplied soldiers, sometimes they defended a border.
Excellent question, the Romans have tons of distinct Auxiliary regiments in the Principate, so what happened to them in the 2nd century and Late Empire ? if we check the Notitia Dignatatum we see that the have tons of Auxiliary regiments and some traces their origins to the Principate like the Batavii.
The Cataphracts of Belisarius, that is the armored mounted archers, were perhaps the most powerful force of their time and not equaled until gunpowder. They combined the shock or armored cavalry with the firepower of Steppe horse archers. When used as a combined arms unit with heavy infantry it is a difficult combination to defeat as the Vandals, Goths and Persians found out.
people who knew full well what horses were, were terrified of them when used in warfare... now imagine being some south american native and the portugese and spanish come over with fully armored warhorses and war dogs.. and you have never seen a horse in your life instant shit your pants
You should not be surprised by it-especially because they are mounted troops.Some types of roman cavalry used large shields but heavy cavalry usually only small ones or not at all.We know the reason why from Romans themseves.Cataphract using contus(very long spear) and a bow could not effectively used also large shields so they only used small one which they had attached across shoulders or directly to arm(so they were not in need of hand grip and had both arms free to use bow and lance).Hewiest cavalry used no shields at all.Again-we are informed that Romans saw them so well protected by their body armour alone that they had no need of shield.
i really think that the lamellar armor for an horseman would be much more effective if the scales are upside down because the majority of the spear trusts wold be in that direction
These really were the prototype knights. They had the wealth, the combat experience, the elan and gentry. With all the armor and offensive equipment, one cataphract could easily take on a detachment of infantry with ease. The only issue with Cataphracts is the amount of sheer preparation is needed to upkeep them. Come to think of it, even the Romano Brits had a unit of them operating in the northern part of England after the exit of the Western Romans from Britannia. With that said, these elements of the cataphracts were the stuff of legends in the form of King Arthur defending against the Saxon invaders
@@عليياسر-ذ5ب Yes you are right. Those Sarmatians were stationed in Roman Britain since 175 AD and they used the draco banner as their standard, which was a Sarmatian battle standard in their homelands. This Sarmatian standard continued to be used in Anglo Saxon armies as a continuation of that legacy that was carried by the Romano British prior to being assimilated with the Saxon chieftains and kings. These Sarmatian heavy horse were considered Cataphracts as they had scale armor cladding from rider to horse. The Late Roman army mobile field armies such as the Comitatenses that were usually lead by the Magister Militum of the region, for example Gallia for Gaul or Italiae for Italy had an assortment of heavy infantry to medium and light and a detachment of medium cavalry to heavy cavalry in the Cataphracts and Clibinarii. So the Arthurian Romano British army probably had that assortment as well that of being somewhat similar to the Late Roman formations
Just a small critique. Wouldn't you have your sword strap on and then the belt after to affix the scabbard in place? I personally know what it's like to have something floppy jiggle around and it's quite annoying.
I have a question. The narration states that the sword is usually hanging over the right leg, but the guy is wearing it over his left. I just kind of thought "Oh, maybe he's left handed" but the shield also went on his left, meaning he's right handed, meaning he'd be cross-drawing. Wouldn't that be unweildly with a shield on a horse? I will freely admit I know little about the subject, and asked my partner who knows a lot more about it than I do (weapons and armour and fighting tactics of various historical periods is a specialist interest of his), but he couldn't explain it either.
Spathae were always carried on the left due to them being longer - a gladius (hanging on the right) can be drawn with the right hand, but that is not possible with the longer spatha. Therefore it hangs on the left. Also, by the 4th c. AD all swords had switched to the left side, presumably bc all swords were spatha, including for the infantry.
@@robertvermaat2124 Time: 10:07. Narration: "Another strap was then added over his shoulder to hold a scabbard, which hung over a rider's right leg." Time: 10:24. Video shows armoured man putting the strap over his shoulder with the scabbard hanging over his LEFT leg. I am aware that longer swords were generally cross drawn BECAUSE they were longer, my partner went into great detail about the topic. But this doesn't explain the discrepancy between what I'm seeing and hearing, and the possible implications of the discrepancy. My question is, admittedly, poorly worded because I struggle with putting the thoughts into words, especially when it's a question. I can happily accept that cross-drawing on a horse with a shield is/was a normal thing because I freely admit this isn't my specialist subject. But the disparity between the visual (which suggests cross-drawing) and the audio (which suggests the opposite) is creating much confusion in my brain.
06:38 when ever i see reenactments, the first thing i say is about the uniforms/clothing... an this in particular could off been the real deal, because main history tells us that all roman soldiers look a like.
