Kataphraktoi & Klibanophoroi, What is the difference anyway?

[Basileios]

For the previous posts please look here:

SCC Forums

[Basileios]

@tzentri

As far as I red so far the book "The Development of the Komnenian Army: 1081-1180" from John W. Birkenmeier doesn´t realy tell us how the kataphraktoi of Alexios I. reign were equipped, it only tells us that Anna Comnenia discriped them in the Alexiad...
Is there an actual discription of them in one of your other books?

Kataphraktoi seem to cover the whole scale of heavy Byzantine cavalry, may be it would be a good idea to let them "evolve" or create kataphraktoi of very different types!

The muslims didn´t generaly adopt the couched-lance handling of the lance...
may be that´s an indication that the western styl wasn´t that superior after all...
or simply that the lance was used for different purpose...???

[edyzmedieval]

Seldjuks and such used the lance.

Ghoulam Bodyguards and Akinjis are the main cavalry types, and they are with lances.

Basileos,
Get the guys over here! Let's discuss here!

[Basileios]

@edyzmedieval

Right! The muslims had lancers as well, but not all of them used them in the same way as western knights did! As far as I red most Muslim lancers seemed to have used them the "old" way: overhead as a stabbing weapon!

Try to do so, but in some ways the SCC Forum is more comfortable!

[edyzmedieval]

Yeah, but the Akinjis and Ghoulams used them as full power ahead....

Why is SCC more confortable?!

[Basileios]

Full power ahead?

In SCC is fool-prove to upload pics!

[edyzmedieval]

I mean, they used them extensively.

And why is SCC so different from here? I see no difference....

[tzentri]

Well, during that time, the army was in shambles. Alexios making the most of the extremely low quality of the kataphraktoi. Importantly, by this time, the term 'kataphraktoi'(note small 'k') were the term provided to all Imperial heavy cavalry, as opposed to being a more specific term for provincial 1st rate cavalry class back in Basil's day. Military neglect which taken effect by 1050(excluding Issac Komnenos' attempts to restore the army during his reign), coupled with the poor political control and administration following Manzikert, left the Klibanophoroi and Kataphraktoi totally out of the picture when Alexios took the throne after the civil war. 'kataphraktoi', the standard provincial heavies, were all that he had left to build upon, supported by his own pockets in most cases.

Being thematic, they would be on unbarded mounts. It is possible, that without the proper funds to maintain a fully composite army that was centered around the heavy assault cavalry as Alexios may have wanted, incessant raids from Turk and Patzinak alike, may have forced his army to adopt lighter equipment in order to muster and intercept enemy inroads quick enough before widescale damage can be regularly done. When looking at the lists of heavy cavalry equipment throughout the Byzantine history, since most emphasis was placed there, by both general and historian, one can see that the level of armament was not only influenced by the foes that bordered the empire but also by the amount of funding available to the army to respond to such threats.

Ill post a brief sketch of this evolution in the post #2. Take note of empire size and changes in administration that would reflect and tie together what Ive mentioned.

[tzentri]

Below is the reflection of army equipment and the funding given, as well as lands incorporated into the Empire.
(Basileios, theres a comment to you far below, about the lance handling)

***Note. for ease, the regions covered would be in modern terms, as the numbers of the various, and in most cases, now removed, provices, duchies, and protectorates would be too many to properly illustrate this point.***

1. In Justinian's time, Belisarios had command of heavy archers that could fight with lances, armed with long Sassanid-style spathas, and riding quarter-barded horses, in other words, just a peytral for just the chest. Scale body armor was widespread. He had successfully fought against Persian, Vandal, and Goth alike.

Empire siZe - Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Egypt and Libya.
Admin - Late Roman, Agricultural and Urban Merchants.

2. Narses, thanks to his predecessor's conquests, led archer-lancers that were proficient in both horse and foot combat, as his battles proved in Italy.

ES - Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Spain, Sicily, and Italy
A - Late Roman, A & UM.

3. Maurice reformed the cavalry that were reflective of the Avaran styles - long Kontos, reminiscent of the Sarmatians, plus stirrups. Horses were donned in lamellar half-bard, as were the riders themselves. These forces would see most of its action in the Balkans, though, naturally, Imperial forces were found fighting in Persia. In a couple of cases, they were fighting for Persia during civil wars.

ES - Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Spain, Sicily, and Italy
A - Late Roman, A & UM.

4. Inherited and refined, Herakleios defeated Persia with rather large battalions of armored archers, with lance as secondary. Chain mail was predominant. Much Turkish influence existed, such as short straight swords and in archery equipment.

ES - Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Spain, Sicily, and Italy
A - Early Byzantine, A & UM.

5. Nikephoros I led heavier, but Thematic, cavalry lancers against the Bulgar hordes and Arab hosts, with the bow secondary. Horses were half-barded in the front ranks only. They were armored in lamellar with other armor layers supporting it, such as chainmail underneath. Avaran style of helms with aventails of chainmail were incorporarted. Swords of the 'Viking' style, which actually of import from Byzantium, were carried.

ES - Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and lower Italy
A - Byzantine, Thematic, and centralized trading in C'nople.

6. The heavy native cavalry of Phokas, Tzimisces and Basil II were divided into Tagmatic - Central, and Thematic - Provincial, regiments. The 'regulars' were armored in a combination of lamellar and chain, and rode on horses that were half-barded in all ranks if possible. These were lancers that were equally effective in archery during engagements against Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungars, and Khazars. The 2nd Tier, comprised of the Tagmata and the ilk, were mixed units of lancers heavily supported by archery during combat. Their equipment comprised not only of lamellae and chain, but also of splint(greaves and vambraces), plate(such as the steel overshoe), quilted(cushion against mace). For the helm, 3 layers of chainmail covered the face. Their horses were also fully barded in either felt, hard leather, or iron forms of lamellar.

ES - Greece, Cyprus, Crimea, Turkey, Armenia and lower Italy
A - Byzantine, Thematic, and native trading in C'nople

7. Alexios' army was of poor backing, yet he did his best in rebuilding it with what he had left to use. With the 10-11th cent. Tagmata gone, his heavy cavalry reverted to that of close-order lancery. The troops now were equipped in a form similar to the scale coats used by the Sarmations, though with larger scutes, and with traditional Imperial greaves of hardened leather. By the time of Manuel, his grandson, the army was rebuilt, though on a different base. The forces fielded during war with the Normans, Seljuqs, Patzinaks and Kumans, the kataphraktoi were armed much like the Western knights, even adopting the couched lance technique. Armor was also Western, though with Eastern flavor.

ES - Greece, Cyprus, Crimea, Turkey, Armenia and lower Italy
A - Byzantine, Pronoia , and foreign trading in C'nople

8. When John Laskaris fought to reunite the fragmented Imperial states, his cavalry were taking in large influence from the Seljuqs, abandoning broad swords for the Paramenion of 10th and 11th centuries. These swords were single-bladed and curved, similar to the sabres of 19th Cavalry. As far as armor, iron lamellar was rare among soldiers, though more common among the horses. Tech trends went as in so far as adopting brimmed helms with aventails of stripped leather, on top of chain mail hoods, at one end, and simply Italian bascinets on top of fabric hoods on the other. When the Mongols appeared, armor was once again Asian influenced, as some Pronoiars would wear lamellar klibania under chain mail hauberks.

ES - Greece, Crimea, western Turkey
A - Byzantine, Pronoia , and foreign trading in C'nople

9. By the time of Kantekouzenos, native heavy cavalry were generally lesser in shock quality than the neighboring Serbs, of which the Turks used heavily as auxiliaries. Some however, were heavily armored in composite armors of lamellar and chain, thanks to military revival done by Michael VIII and by Kantakouzenos himself. Mounts were also, in some cases, fully barded in iron lamellar. Chausses, Gorgets, and other coverings developed by the Mongols, Western Europe and the Islamic East were finding its way into the list of equipment of the native Byzantine cavalry.

ES - Greece, Crimea
A - Byzantine, Pronoia , and foreign trading in C'nople

10. The last century of Byzantium saw the cavalry being the only real element of the army that had any major standing, not including garrison archers which held perhaps a marginally higher importance. While some were armored - Stradioti, which were seen as 'light cavalry' in Western European comparison, and an even lighter form called Gianitzaroi. These soldiers had a mix of almost polar designs in terms of arms and armor. Some were adopting Western plate mail with straight swords, while others were rarely even using chain mail, but arming themselves with Turkish bow and sabres.

ES - Greece
A - Pronoia (and any soldier that would have found his way into service for the Basileus), Genoan and Venetian trading in C'nople

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Basileios
" The muslims didn´t generaly adopt the couched-lance handling of the lance...
may be that´s an indication that the western styl wasn´t that superior after all...
or simply that the lance was used for different purpose...??? "

The Byzantines up to the reign of Manuel, were largely using the same attack as Muslim heavies - overhead attacks for infantry, underhand for cavalry. Unlike Western knights, Byzantine cavalry were trained to parry with their lances/spears. In the Praecepta, it is suggested that the lancers in the army held their lances in the right hands either at waist level of an underhand thrust or at shoulder level for an overhand thrust.

"So handled, the lance functioned not as an impact but as a fencing or jabbing weapon for horsemen engaged in combat with other horsemen, or in riding down and striking at fleeing foot soldiers. In this connection, it is worth noting that the impact weapons of Byzantine cavalrymen in this period were swords and maces."
--- Sowing the Dragon's Teeth : Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century - Eric McGeer(213)

It would be understandable to conclude that the Muslim lands also followed in this manner, since the couched lance technique was 'rather new', and that during the Norman Wars, the Byzantines, and the Crusades for the Arabs, they both suffered greatly when dealing with a Frankish attack headon. Therefore, yes, the lance in the rest of the world were used differently. It was also this sort of lance-play that differentiated 'knights' from 'heavy cavalry'. Knights would charge at full gallop to develop a solid impact with lances before switching to swords. Heavy Cavalry, on the other hand were more akin to heavy infantry on horseback - parrying with the weapon until the time came for the second or even third weapon to come into play, as the Byzantines taught the Hungarian knights at Semlin. The initial Hungarian charge disrupted the Byzantines, but after they rallied, swordplay become the next event. But after that, the Byzantines pulled out their maces and were victorious.

[Basileios]

I think the reason for all the different views of both the kataphraktoi and the klibanophoroi lies in the fact that the terms are used in different way!

Since the days of the Strategikon (~600 AD) a the term Kataphraktos describes the full range of heavy cavalry or maybe more likely as line cavalry in Napoleonic terms!
On the other hand both Leo VI and Nikephoros Phokas used this term for what they called "true" kataphracts... heavy cavalrymen armed with lance or bow, armoured with both mail coat and klibanion, having armoured horses (at least for the front ranks) etc.
In addition to that there were "kataphrakts of Nikephoros new type" forming the so called kataphrakt wedge and even heavier armoured than the "true kataphrakts".

The term Klibanophoros seems to be used either for the "true kataphrakts" or even only includes the troopers of the kataphrakt wedge...

It should be kept in mind, that the kataphraktoi were originally designed to deal with armies using the bow as its main weapon! Lamellar armour, horse armour etc. seemed to be items to protect its bearer against missles!
And originally all kataphrakts were supposed to be trained as both archers AND lancers... maybe in order to act offensively against horse archers since they were too slow to catch them with lances.