# Sassanid Cataphract vs Teutonic Knight



## Fang (Oct 28, 2011)

Who takes this? Both are mounted and have their traditional and standard war gear.


----------



## Solrac (Oct 28, 2011)

I dunno, I'm going to go with the German Knight here, unless the sassanid cataphract is as fully armored as the teutonic knight.

Hey TWF/Fang, I take it from that past thread I made about the samurai against the sassanid warrior, you are of Persian/Iranian descent yourself, aren't you?


----------



## Glued (Oct 28, 2011)

Cataphracts have scale armor, Teutonic Knights have plated armor.

I'm going to have to go with the cataphracts though, they were said to have a special type of "Damascus Steel" made from a vanadium iron alloy.

Also what type of weapon is the knight wielding, a flail or a sword?


----------



## Fang (Oct 29, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> Cataphracts have *scale armor*, Teutonic Knights have plated armor.



Depends on the era in Sassanian Persia.

Under Khosrou I/II, they were more composite units who wore slightly lighter scale or ringlet armor but were more specialized in mobility; ie halberds, bows, stabbing swords, and axes or poleaxes.



Under Shapur, they were heavy armored calvary (although both are, the earlier ones were literally proto-knights except as soldiers instead of warriors) and shock troops.



> Ammianus Marcellinus, a noted Roman historian and general who served in the army of Constantius II in Gaul and Persia, and fought against the Sassanid army under Julian the Apostate, described the sight of a contingent of massed Persian cataphracts in the 4th century:
> 
> "… all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze."





> I'm going to have to go with the cataphracts though, they were said to have a special type of "Damascus Steel" made from a vanadium iron alloy.
> 
> Also what type of weapon is the knight wielding, a flail or a sword?



Certainly their metal work was beyond most civilizations at the time.


----------



## Solrac (Oct 29, 2011)

Fang didn't answer my question if he was really persian/iranian or not.


----------



## willyvereb (Oct 29, 2011)

Well, if it's a company of cataphracs vs a company of knights, the latter would win IMO.
The knights revolutionized the tactic of cavalry charge, making it similar to the enemy being pulled through a bulldozer. In comparison the heavy cavalry of the eastern nations was little more than the light cavalry with better equipment. The sheer momentum of the knight's charge and the fact their armor made arrows almost ineffective was their two trump cards.

Anyways, this is not an army vs army battle. Neither about the Turkish cavalry. Unlike what I said above, I think in an 1-on-1 fight the Sassanid Cataphract would win. Why? Because cataphracts classically have bows and arrows. Yeah, again it seemingly makes no sense. I said that the armor of the knights made arrows useless. True...but only at large scale. 

The thing is that despite the knights had heavy armor, their horses weren't so lucky. The horses rarely had any armor and thus became the archers' favorite target. So if the cataphract shoots down the horse, the Teutonic Knight is going to end up on foot (or dead, if he isn't lucky enough). Even if the knight survives the fall, he must face a mounted heavy cavalry on foot. Honestly, he has no chance following that.


----------



## Fang (Oct 29, 2011)

willyvereb said:


> Well, if it's a company of cataphracs vs a company of knights, the latter would win IMO.



Cataphracts are essentially knights. Except far better disciplined, trained as soldiers, and generally more efficient. 



> The knights revolutionized the tactic of cavalry charge, making it similar to the enemy being pulled through a bulldozer.



The European concept of "Knights" was used by Persian nobles and during the feudal stages of the Sassanid Empire and other Iranic or Iranid people (Alans, Samaratians, Scythians, Saka, Persians, Parthians, Medes, etc...), centuries even millenniums  before the Europeans were aware and adapted it.

Anyway the concept of using heavily armored and mounted units as "shock troops" was used by the Parthians and Persians against the Romans, Byzantines and tribal peoples and other enemies for centuries (3rd century BCE to 7th century CE) now. Knights did not invent or innovate that concept.



> In comparison the heavy cavalry of the eastern nations was little more than the light cavalry with better equipment. The sheer momentum of the knight's charge and the fact their armor made arrows almost ineffective was their two trump cards.



Wrong. Heavy Calvary and Cataphracts are being erroneously used for the same term. There's also a significant difference between them. Cataphracts are heavily armored with scale and plate mail from Rider to horse, and virtually immune to the blades of heavy infantry, even those which specialize in calvary countering such as spearmen and poleaxe men. 

Again: 





> “*All the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skilfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would have thought them held fast by clamps of bronze.*”



Heavy cavalry were made up of men-at-arms who could afford horses and light or scale armor and the equipment to support it but primarily served as the blunt end showering enemies with armor-piercing arrows and specially targeting other light calvary units or infantry. 



> Anyways, this is not an army vs army battle. Neither about the Turkish cavalry.



Did you call Sassanids...Turkish? 



> Unlike what I said above, I think in an 1-on-1 fight the Sassanid Cataphract would win. Why? Because cataphracts classically have bows and arrows. Yeah, again it seemingly makes no sense. I said that the armor of the knights made arrows useless. True...but only at large scale.



Cataphracts are not just armed with bows and arrows. 

- four meter long lances
- poleaxes 
- stabbing swords
- heavy shield on the left armor for protecting against spears and arrows
- composite bows that were recorded to pierce through heavy legionnaire armor with "precision, strength, and speed"
- and a Parthian breed horse that can be fully dressed in armor through "steel and bronze" and support its heavily outfitted rider as well.


----------



## willyvereb (Oct 29, 2011)

You're right. Actually, the two cavalry have little difference in weight class but more in the way of their tactics. The cataphracts lacked the heavy "justing lance" used by their Western counterparts. The knight's lance was thick and allowed to transfer a good portion of the momentum to the top, meaning more power. That's why the knight's charge was truly devastating. In comarison the cataphracts had the same elongated spear-like lances used ever since the ancient times. 

That's where the difference really comes in. In a full on collision between an army of charging knights and cataphracts, the former would come out as victorious. Perhaps if the cataphracts use their bows to soften up the lines, the result might be different but that's shaky due to the late medieval knights having the formidable plate+chain combo for armor.

Anyways, back to the topic:


Fang said:


> Did you call Sassanids...Turkish?


TWF, you need to work on your reading comprehesion a little. My first example was the era of crusades, so Western knights vs Turkish cavalry. Then I got back to the main topic AKA Sassanid Cataphract vs Teutonic Knight. That's why I mentioned that the thread wasn't about an army vs army battle and neither about the Turks.



Fang said:


> Cataphracts are not just armed with bows and arrows.
> 
> - four meter long lances
> - poleaxes
> ...


Okay, my bad. Upon re-reading my post I worded it wrong. Of course the cataphracts are not limited to bows. They are almost like a swiss knife of various weapons. But the only thing that matters that they carry bows and are skilled horse archers. 

Seriously, unlike in fiction, melee combat in real life is a complete mess. Unless one side has the overwhelming advantage, you can't declare a victor. Since you use two random members from the Sassanid cataphracts and Teutonic Knights respectively, it's even worse. Individual skills matter a lot in melee combat.Even if say one side had somehow better training, it means little when it concerns the actual combat between just two people.

Both knights and cataphracts are heavily armored and have weapons good enough to penetrate these armors. There are pros and cons in the equipment of both sides but because of the reasons I explained above, it's useless to list them. If the Sassanid cataphract and the teutonic knight fights in melee the outcome will be just random. Whoever was more lucky or saw more battles would win. Since we used random members, we get random results as well. So I say it the second time, let's ignore this.

If both cavalry charges at each other with full speed, I give this to the Teutonic knight. His skill in justing and his heavier lance would give him the obvious win...well, given if they hit. But that's true to both sides. And if they miss then we're back to the beginning. Melee and random results.

But if the cataphract even has a bit of brain he would use his bow. I don't think the cataphracts are capable of shooting backwards like some nomad civilizations did (including Hungarians). Generally, the knights' horses were unarmored. If the cataphract manages to shoot down the horse before the knight reaches him then it's an obvious victory. Even if the knight won't get under his falling horse (which is likely to happen), he will be forced to fight on foot against heavy cavalry. Yeah, it's another way to say suicide.


----------



## Endless Mike (Oct 29, 2011)

Can't you actually stage this battle in Age of Empires II?


----------



## Nevermind (Oct 29, 2011)

So, which particular era for both are we talking about for this fight? 6th century Cataphract vs Crusades-era Knight?


----------



## eHav (Oct 29, 2011)

Endless Mike said:


> Can't you actually stage this battle in Age of Empires II?



Teutonic knights in aoe2 would murder pretty much anything short of archers and ranged units. they were slow as hell but they were little tanks with like 10 melee armor or something. archers would pick them apart tho.

The cataphracts were mounted so they would loose to the teutonic knights in aoe2 even with their racial aoe dmg i think its what they have.


In real life i have absolutely no idea


----------



## I3igAl (Oct 29, 2011)

Nevermind said:


> So, which particular era for both are we talking about for this fight? 6th century Cataphract vs Crusades-era Knight?



4th century cavallerist versus unarmed pastoral minister from our time  ?

Haven't read the whole thread, so there may have been things I overlooked...

Seriously so, the German Knights are hard to scale, they are a catholic order and no uniform military unit.
I would still go with the knight so. 
The cataphract armor may have been from damaszen steel, but that is overrated. They were german blades from similar materials in Antike times.The technique got lost because people could make good blades in one layer of steel. So the material of the armor is superior but not some magic supersteel, that will allow to win.
Both should be trained well.
It could go either way since the cataphract has a lance, which could end it in one charge, but I will still give the majority to the knight.


----------



## pikachuwei (Oct 29, 2011)

Knight's armour < Arrows

That's what the Mongolians said


----------



## Fang (Oct 29, 2011)

willyvereb said:


> You're right. Actually, the two cavalry have little difference in weight class but more in the way of their tactics. The cataphracts lacked the heavy "justing lance" used by their Western counterparts. The knight's lance was thick and allowed to transfer a good portion of the momentum to the top, meaning more power. That's why the knight's charge was truly devastating. In comarison the cataphracts had the same elongated spear-like lances used ever since the ancient times.



The Kontos, the 4-meter long lance was strong enough to routinely impale multiple Roman and Byzantine heavy infantrymen on it and not break. Persians were trained in this heavily.  There was nothing elegant about a 12-15 foot sword stabbing through your chest and ripping through your spine.



> That's where the difference really comes in. In a full on collision between an army of charging knights and cataphracts, the former would come out as victorious. Perhaps if the cataphracts use their bows to soften up the lines, the result might be different but that's shaky due to the late medieval knights having the formidable plate+chain combo for armor.



I'll pul a cavalry charge in the positive on the cataphracts who are trained as an actual unit of soldiers and wield kontos and pole-axes and heavy shields as well as mail/steel armored horses over knights any day. 



> Okay, my bad. Upon re-reading my post I worded it wrong. Of course the cataphracts are not limited to bows. They are almost like a swiss knife of various weapons. But the only thing that matters that they carry bows and are skilled horse archers.



The bows may be important but its not what gives the Cataphract the advantage. A massive lance that can take out multiple armored heavy infantry on it, pole-axes that can easily kill horses and other heavy armor units, and several stabbing swords will play a bigger role in it.



> Seriously, unlike in fiction, melee combat in real life is a complete mess. Unless one side has the overwhelming advantage, you can't declare a victor. Since you use two random members from the Sassanid cataphracts and Teutonic Knights respectively, it's even worse. Individual skills matter a lot in melee combat.Even if say one side had somehow better training, it means little when it concerns the actual combat between just two people.



I know that. Sassanid cataphracts apparently had to use the lance properly, be more then capable with composite bows and arrows, being apt swordsmen, and know how to use the shield as well as being a more then effective horsemen. And all of these guys are lesser or greater noble house members owning their own fiefdoms. 



> Both knights and cataphracts are heavily armored and have weapons good enough to penetrate these armors. There are pros and cons in the equipment of both sides but because of the reasons I explained above, it's useless to list them. If the Sassanid cataphract and the teutonic knight fights in melee the outcome will be just random. Whoever was more lucky or saw more battles would win. Since we used random members, we get random results as well. So I say it the second time, let's ignore this.



Ok.



> If both cavalry charges at each other with full speed, I give this to the Teutonic knight. His skill in justing and his heavier lance would give him the obvious win...well, given if they hit. But that's true to both sides. And if they miss then we're back to the beginning. Melee and random results.



And in the same accordance, tourney jousting is not the same as spearing or lancing down an enemy combatant in war. In a joust, two knights travel down a liner path without diverging or maneuvering on a parrallel path at each other. You can not hope for the same result against an opponent fighting you in a war. The Romans claimed the Cataphracts and the Cibilanari were uneffective at this, but they continued to more and more use heavy calvary and their own varients of Cataphracts during the wars with Ascarids and Sassanids.



> But if the cataphract even has a bit of brain he would use his bow. I don't think the cataphracts are capable of shooting backwards like some nomad civilizations did (including Hungarians).



What your referring to is called the Parthian Shot. Which the Sassanid dyynasty and other Persian or Iranian people used after Ascarids fall.


----------



## Glued (Oct 29, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> Knight's armour < Arrows
> 
> That's what the Mongolians said



That is because the Mongols hard armor piercing composite bows.

The French crossbow ended knighthood.


----------



## Nevermind (Oct 29, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> Knight's armour < Arrows
> 
> That's what the Mongolians said



The Mongol invasions happened in the 13th century. I doubt their bows could pierce the plate armor that started to appear in the 14th and especially the ones that came to the fore in the 15th centuries.



Ben Grimm said:


> That is because the Mongols hard armor piercing composite bows.
> 
> The French crossbow ended knighthood.



Meh, longbows and crossbows actually couldn't penetrate plate armor even at 50 yards or less (though the horses were fair game).

Economics ended knighthood more than anything else.

As for the match I tend to agree with willyvereb, it would come down to training and experience more than anything else.


----------



## pikachuwei (Oct 29, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> That is because the Mongols hard armor piercing composite bows.
> 
> The French crossbow ended knighthood.



did'nt Fang say the Cataphracts have composite bows?

and I'd think that bows would be able to pierce plate armour, if not at 50 m, at least within 20~30m. Even if that isn't much of a range advantage, it is still a bonus for the Cataphracts against the knights.


----------



## Glued (Oct 29, 2011)

pikachuwei said:


> did'nt Fang say the Cataphracts have composite bows?
> 
> and I'd think that bows would be able to pierce plate armour, if not at 50 m, at least within 20~30m. Even if that isn't much of a range advantage, it is still a bonus for the Cataphracts against the knights.



This is what a Mughal Composite bow can do to two layers of plate armor

[YOUTUBE]3WZQoWUDLSg[/YOUTUBE]


----------

