Thread 64237868

Who wins?

>>64237868 (OP)
The ninja off stage with the bow, just waiting for one of them to die so he can pick off the other.

>>64237868 (OP)
I flipped a quarter and it said the cataphract wins

>>64237868 (OP)
All else equal, the knight has a better weapon for mounted combat than the cataphract.

>>64238271
Yeah but the Knight has to get closer to hit the guy on the horse while the Cataphrac can just hit the horse.

>>64237868 (OP)
They're basically the same thing.

>>64237868 (OP)
cataphracts are mostly a made up meme in their descriptions and there has never been any evidence they used any of the equipment they are pictured with besides a lance and some sort of body armor. they didn't have a fraction of an impact on contemporary battles that knights did either.

>>64237868 (OP)
The knight has better mobility,better control of his horse and the couched lance is able to deliver more energy and aiming it is easier.

>>64237868 (OP)
me with a katana, slicing them both in twain (like one would with a hot knife through already melted butter) while not even moving a muscle - but merely holding my weapon perpendicular to their breastplates

>>64237868 (OP)
Depending on the era of Knight we might be dealing with a mirror match. On the other hand, if we use later generation knight it's full plate vs chainmail.

>>64238822
They're described widely by Roman sources and we have actual complete sets of Chinese cataphract armor, so not sure why you'd think that.

>>64238900
>and we have actual complete sets of Chinese cataphract armor
into the trash it goes, lol. any chinese artifacts are fake until proven otherwise, especially ones in unrealistically good condition.

>>64237868 (OP)
Knights tend to be very cost efficient in both food and gold that pairs well with other units only really having to worry about certain hard counters.

Cataphracts are far more resource intensive including time but with the necessary upgrades are trash unit remover extraordinaire. They do have a lot more soft counters however which restricts them more to a late game unit once the enemy resources have been depleted.

Now will OP care to actually give us some fucking context?

>>64237868 (OP)
One is dedicated heavy shock cavalry on truly massive and often armored horses, usually wearing full heavy armor themselves. One is a heavy skirmisher that could double as shock cavalry. If it was a tilt between two men of equal skill the Knight wins every time. If it's a running engagement the Cataphract has an edge due to a lighter, faster horse, but only until his horse tires at which point the generally superior stamina of a Percheron or other heavy warhorse, unless we're talking a pre-Baroque horse in which case an Andalusian destrier would probably be quick enough to keep up with the Cataphract.

>>64238930
Sounds like you're prejudiced.

>>64239085
yes i detest chink bugmen in their entirety, except for the tight and willing pussies of their women.

>>64237868 (OP)
The knight is overall superior because stirrups.

>>64239239
Right, so you're a lost cause.

>>64238866
What's in the picture jackass?

>>64239408
This is /k/ anything Chinese is garbage as far as evidence goes, and for good reason.

>>64239239
>>64238930
Retard who isn’t even aware he’s retarded.
Truly pathetic p.

>>64240647
No you’re just a fucking moron

>>64239347
>>>/her/

>>64240662
Post your gun with timestamp chang

>>64240647
Truth, especially anything related to chinese history. 100% lies.

>>64237868 (OP)
Depends on the load out. The mounted Samurai archer or the mounted Mongolian horse archer would kill them both.

>>64240662
>>64240657
>t.

>>64237868 (OP)
>cataphracs

>>64237868 (OP)
That's like asking who would win between a M4 Sherman and a M1 Abrams.

>>64240688
Which matters how? Are they late medieval western european knights? Or maybe early medieval byzantine cataphracts?

>>64238930
Is a cataphract not just Persian cavalry? If they were lamellar or chain armor, how do you know said chinese armor belonged to mounted cavalry? And when you say Chinese armor, do you mean Persians using Chinese armor? Because chinaman cavalry is not a cataphract, that's just a chink.

>>64240802
It refers to a style of lamellar and chain armor worn by both horse and rider. It was developed by the Persians but later copied by pretty much everyone they encountered, including the Chinese.

Generally the mid-tier mobility of things like Mamluk cavalry was superior to heavy Cataphracts or Knights.

>>64240784
>That's like asking who would win between a M4 Sherman and a M1 Abrams.
Cataphracts and Knights existed at the same fucking time.

>>64240639
Honestly, I can't tell. It looks like the knight has chainmail but so much is cover by the cloak, shield and surcoat that the knight could be wearing a breastplate and I wouldn't know.

Considering the helmet I'd guess that the knight is wearing a coat of plates but armor tends to stick around if you take care of it.

>>64240647
Post communist China is garbage. Dynastic China was pretty based.

Or are you incapable of nuance.

Were there any weapons designed to prevent their blades from getting stuck in the enemy, like the later cavalry sabers?

>>64239343
>The knight is overall superior because stirrups.
wait, how did that work? did they just have massive thighs?

>>64242321
Yeah in the fucking desert, veteran Mongol cavalry got rektd by heavy cavalry when they fought them without massive numerical advantage and thats not even a good example because the main advantage of HC is crushing infantry with minimum loses not skirmishing against other cav

>>64242442
Does the thousands of civilians eaten by chinese soldiers count as nuance?

>>64237868 (OP)
If cataphracts were so good, the Chinese would have used them, since they have more exposure against steppe enemies than most other civilizations

>>64243347
and the Chinese did use them

>>64237868 (OP)
What about cuirassiers

>>64243347
Cataphracs are notably not great against steppe bros

>>64243347
Cataphracts are a bad option against horse archers. The horse archers are lighter and faster so they'll just kite the cataphracts.

The proper counter is archers and fortifications. Like these charming walled villages. Horse archers aren't as accurate as foot archer so they tend to get shot to pieces if they can't run down the foot archers.

>>64243347
China's main strategy against steppeniggers was to assimilate them.

>>64237868 (OP)
I don't know, did the later technological evolution win against the earlier one that faded out while the later one went strong?
Sometimes we read arguments like, oh it was just easier to train or equip a bunch of mass conscripts with [later weaponry] that the ancient superior master art was lost.
But they're both armored shock cavalry, they're the last thing anyone compromised on.
Sometimes shit people post is like a 26th future historian arguing that f-35s were expensive and overspecialized but the red baron's airplane was cool as shit and check out his war record, he could easily take an f-35.

>>64238930
I kind of enjoy the conspiracy that all Chinese history is fake even as it derails the thread
I mean they're an autocratic regime that clamps down on information, how would we really know?

>>64242569
Only as much as Pliny the Elder recommending Human Bone Marrow to treat Epilepsy.

>>64238930
Looks like you found a chink in anon's arguement

>>64239074
>Cataphract has an edge due to a lighter, faster horse
Lolno. Theres like 500 years of selective breeding between the parthian virgin vs the chad knight

>>64238965
This was true irl too.

>>64240688
Jap horses were small and weak compared to even the mongol ponies

Me I'm built different

>>64242409
Cataphracts were a thing of antiquity and the early medieval age, even byzantium switched to western knights by the high middle ages.
Those style of knights as shown by OP only became a thing by the 13th century.

>>64238965
knights fucking slay, they're like terran siege tanks.
>>64244708
>they rape my daughters but his great-great-great-great rapebaby grandchildren will be chinese :^)

>>64237868 (OP)
Cataphracs cause the knights will shit themselves into exhaustion or to death due to dysentery not to mention their equipment is not for hotter environments and they are simply not used to such region.
They should have remained in their homelands and worked to improve it from within instead of spreading their version of Abrahamism to the Middle East and to the Baltics.

>>64244833
Was this supposed to be a deflection?

>>64245966
>They should have remained in their homelands
Neatly ignoring the arab conquests and seething about Christ again, i see. How're you doing, rabbi?

>>64245966
Cry more mudslime.

>>64240688
>and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again... Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.

>>64244392
>Cataphracts are a bad option against horse archers
yes right which is why every steppenigger army was a mix of horse archers and cataphracts, and everyone who faced steppeniggers adopted cataphracts into their military

the reality is that horse archers and cataphracts complement each other in a cavalry-heavy force

plus most cataphracts actually carried bows as well.

>>64237868 (OP)
Wasn't this put to the test during the Norman invasion of Byzantium?

>>64245971
Only as much as the cannibalism quip was.

>>64246381
Kinda? Pretty sure that was when the byzantines started hiring Latinikoi as their own western heavy cav

>>64242506
actually yes. I think it was step nomad bones or something where you could se big bone spurs at the leg ligaments before the introduction of the stirups and not after.

>>64244725
they are even proud about every new dynasty burning the old records after coping them.

>>64246354
Actually, we tend to see Horse Archers drop off almost entirely while Cataphracts got heavier and heavier before becoming High Medieval Knights. The reason for this was Castles. More castles were built every decade and very few were being torn down. The end result was that most of the fighting was centered around sieges. Cataphracts adapted well to this since, like you said, they often carried bows but Horse Archers were simply too lightly armored for this kind of fighting.

>>64244725
I mean we do know of instances where imperial chinese "sources" had complete bogus claims like 15th century Zhenge He’s treasure fleet having ships in the 450 feet, 30k ton displacement range. For the record that displacement is in the range of the Essex-class CVs.
So using the term conspiracy theory feels a bit questionable.

>>64246388
Are you seriously trying to paint cannibalism as a normal, reasonable thing here, chinksect? How subhuman can you possibly be?

>>64246568
According to the Ancient Roman writer Pliny the Elder, it was. In the Roman Empire.

So stop playing it up.

>>64246592
>According to the Ancient Roman writer Pliny the Elder, it was
Pliny never claimed that, he considers such things to be vile acts of savages, which you would know had you read those passages.

>>64246402
Anna Komnene says that the Normans were undisciplined, reckless retards whose only tactics were to charge, the problem being that it worked most of the time.

>>64246625
>problem being that it worked most of the time.
lel, always sucks when that happens

>>64246592
Romans detested the idea of human sacrifice, there is no way that fucking Pliny would suggest that was something the Romans did.

>>64239074
the bigger horse means faster in this case. the knights would be able to chase them down

>>64246625
I guess they weren't so retarded then.

the horse

>>64238930
Anta baka?

>>64237868 (OP)
It's not like Cataphracts ever faced knights or anything.....

>>64246884
>What is Agincourt

>>64246533
>Cataphracts got heavier and heavier before becoming High Medieval Knights
knights did not evolve from cataphracts. they evolved from the Germanic warrior aristocracy who fought primarily on foot for a few centuries before that, though earlier still (during the migration period) they did also fight on horseback

>>64247011
Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

>>64247011
a force of french infantry trudged through half a mile of clay-like mud only to run into a line of english infantry behind field fortifications

>>64247059
Which is relevant for sicilian heavy cavalry how?

>>64247062
>how are the French being retarded relevant to a discussion about the French being retarded
Hm.

>>64247075
what french?

>>64247075
Who's going to tell him?

>>64246673
While generally true, there were acceptable situations where the Romans would sacrifice people. They were rare and signs that things were desperate, but they weren't unheard of.

>>64247084
I dunno, I'm too invested in this to ever admit I was wrong. Go ahead and try to use your sorcerer's magic on my brain, it won't work.

>>64247096
>too invested in this to ever admit I was wrong.
Which implies you are aware you were wrong and you'd have to be a schizo to disagree with yourself.

>>64247102
byzantine armor is so neat, surprised it doesn't get more attention
combination of chain, lamellar, cool hats and shields

>>64247102
>>64247121
I'm sorry, what in the fuck is this image?

>>64247102
I tried to find that asian guy holding a power drill to his forehead but could not.

>>64238822
>they didn't have a fraction of an impact on contemporary battles that knights did either.
>literally created because of the disastrous impact foreign catephracts had on Roman forces
>hurdur no impact
retard

>>64247011
>muh agincourt
The Anglo says this whenever he is confused, or frightened, which is often.

Agincourt is a singular battle, in a war England lost to disastrous effect.

>>64247169
The Romans used Greek fire equipped infantry on some occasions

>>64247011
you ever heard the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule?'
it sounds like nonsense backwards logic but Agincourt is a good example.
The flower of the warrior class of the strongest European power were so totally confident that charges fuck hard that they were taken aback when battlefield conditions punished that tactic and created a wild underdog victory that's been celebrated ever since.
This is not evidence that historically a heavy cavalry charge didn't work, it's great evidence that they were known to work and Agincourt was a celebrated exception.
If everyone after Agincourt had scrambled to be exactly like the English army and that became the paradigm of warfare for generations then you could go 'what is agincourt'.

>>64247301
>This is not evidence that historically a heavy cavalry charge didn't work
my favorite military historian repeatedly points out that trained, determined infantry will defeat cavalry head on

>>64247355
I most powerfully and potently believe that because it's a ridiculous liability being 5 feet in the air on top of a tremulous poorly armored animal and trying to swing at shit angles with a pommel pleasuring your ass and your feet tied in stirrups. A peasant swings a grain flail at your horse's delicate bony ankles and suddenly you have 1000 pounds of horse on your chest and now the peasant is prying your visor open with his rusty sharpened spoon.
However. Not only did medieval professional warriors think horses were vital, they would go to the outlandish logistical expense of bringing multiple horses to battle and have servants whose whole job was just to look after the horses and give them new horses when the horses got exhausted or ate it.
So they clearly had some really good reason for shock cavalry. And that reason must have been that other opportunities develop in your average battle that aren't face tanking a line of swiss pikemen head on.

>>64247450
>So they clearly had some really good reason for shock cavalry.
to make the enemy break, thats when the real massacre beings, but only if you can break them, determined infantry will not be broken easily

>>64246592
I wish a could douse every single chinaman in existence in acid before lighting them on fire. Unfortunately industrial equipment usually gets them first but it's still not even a hundredth of the punishment you deserve, you absolute detestable scum.

>>64247121
that's because it's a complete falsehood and forgery. byzantines used the same armor as the rest of europeans and only their heavy cavalry used lamellar chestpiece on top on some occasions.

these drawings are chink-tier fantasy scribbles that are less than worthless because they actively confuse and mislead people.

>>64246539
What's the displacement of the roman megaships built purely for dick contests of the tators though

>>64247522
well, here's my ultimate argument then.
Truly determined infantry are rarer than horses.

>>64247566
if your plan consists of using your aristocracy to run into wall of spears they're likely spent soon and will be unable to effect the outcome

what you want is find a way to attack them in the rear when pinned down by your heavy infantry

>>64247563
it's a mashup of eastern european and asiatic armor styles

>>64247563
What proof do you have? These cite their references, you're just saying
>trust me bro

>>64247578
Here you go, https://byzantinemilitary.blogspot.com/2022/08/byzantine-army-concise-10th-11th.html but there are plenty of archaeological research papers describing and depicting byzantine armor, which is nothing like this fantasy vomit.

>>64247575
I said as much a few lines up in the argument "...other opportunities develop in your average battle that aren't face tanking a line of swiss pikemen head on...",
But I would honestly argue most of the time the wall of spears is nothing. You can give any terrified levy soldier a sharp stick and tell them to stand in a line.
It's entirely possible for a heavily armored knight who's fought 20 medieval battles to say let's charge that spear wall and rout these jackanapes because that's exactly how it worked the last 20 times. If they hold absolutely fast he may be fucked but that may be a very big if.

>>64247565
>built purely for dick contests
biggest roman ships were built for transporting massive obelisks over the sea and nemi ships specifically were basically floating barges sitting in a lake with buildings on top. the latter were estimated to have a displacement of about 1500 tons which is incredibly large for ships prior to the modern age but average to small-ish for big ships during the age of sail.

>>64247603
Right. So the 30k displacement is a great exaggeration, or chinese feet are small.

>>64247608
it's such a great exaggeration that the absolute biggest wooden ships ever built, the American cargo sailboats from the beginning of the last century with a displacement of 10k tons and 350ft length had to be reinforced with steel beams because the hull bent so much on the waves that it let water in.

>>64247622
actually this is short tons, it displaced around 9000 metric tons so it didn't even break five digits.

>>64238930
In the off-chance that its not bait: lamellar is extremely dogshit to preserve unless someone is actively maintaining them. Changs find them in tombs all the time and all thats left of em are crumpled scales on the floor. This is why the only surviving armor pieces from China are ones from Imperial collections from its last two dynasties, the kind worn by Emperors for ceremonies and then put away in some Forbidden City treasury.

The ancient Chinese also treat armor as purely military equipment. They had a military, not a warrior class. They don't go "uoooh armor of my ancesteru" they just go "mk 1, armor" and melt that shit for newer armor.

>>64247640
very convenient for the CCP "historians", isn't it? to make a forgery of a text or a drawing is far easier than to fake the real thing after all.

>>64247289
Got even one physical example of this alleged real weapon?

>>64247593
>It's entirely possible for a heavily armored knight who's fought 20 medieval battles to say let's charge that spear wall and rout these jackanapes because that's exactly how it worked the last 20 times.
arrogance of french knights got few crusader armies killed

>>64247666
Look man, Mao destroyed like 97% of all their culture, they're doing their best!

>>64247666
B8 it is.

>>64247672
how do we know there was the missing 97% in the first place? the whole notion is pretty unfounded.

>>64247687
Because religion is culture, and communism erased it.

It'd be like if someone went to America or the US and fundamentally removed the principles that bind their society together, provide a moral framework for their outlook on the world, and create templates for people to live a fulfilling life. Shit would be all fucked up.

>>64247695
no, i mean that what evidence is there that there was much to lose in the first place? maybe they did lose 10% but the rest is just drowned in fakes today never to be found among manufactured garbage

>>64242431
If you can't recognize the period based on those obvious details then stop posting.

>>64247695
>the principles that bind their society together, provide a moral framework for their outlook on the world, and create templates for people to live a fulfilling life
From what we know about chinese, none of this was ever present in the first place, communism simply fell onto a fertile soil.

>>64247695
>It'd be like if someone went to America or the US and fundamentally removed the principles that bind their society together, provide a moral framework for their outlook on the world, and create templates for people to live a fulfilling life. Shit would be all fucked up.

That would be crazy, glad it didnt happen.

>>64247720
Wrong.

>>64247707
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/china
White people were documenting the funny little yellow people long before Mr. and Mrs. Mao made a big mistake not wearing a rubber.

>>64247726
Right. If there was anything human in chinksects it was bred and raped out of you thousands of years ago.

>>64247725
lMao

>>64238517
they are actually not, conceptually similar, but the Knight has a saddle, stirrups and lance all designed to deliver the full energy of the charging horse through the lance tip or sword swing. The Cataphract does not, he is essentially a heavily armored mounted spearman on an armored mount. Still VERY dangerous, but against the knight hes a at a huge disadvantage since he cannot deliver the same sort of energy. He has to directly kill the horse or rider with thrusts. The Knight-Lancer can simply unhorse him with a charging strike.

The Different is in the design of the saddle(Stirrups and bracing vs not), the design of the weapon (Couch Lance vs Thrusting spear) and the training of the man and horse(Charging through and reforming to charge again leveraging the energy of the charging horse vs simply closing into the melee and a mounted armored fighter) The Cataphract is on slightly better terms in the melee, his armor is as good or better and his armored horse is harder to kill, but if the knight has a single scrap of skill he will never allow it to come to that and will use his superior mobility to keep the fight a matter of repeated charges which the cataphract will nearly always lose, due to his lesser striking power. One solid blow from the lancer will unhorse or kill him.

>>64247729
most cultures of the world have produced a collection of good looking trinkets and baubles over the years, this doesn't demonstrate that china was at all special compared to their peers, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodians or Malays.

>>64247752
Maybe you should read a book instead of looking at the pictures anon. Turns out there's also a really big wall if pictures are your limit, a wall that size has some implications.

>>64247768
i definitely won't be reading any CCP produced garbage, that's for sure. and there's nothing about a long ass stone-faced dirt mound that elevates chinks above their peers.

>>64247775
>CCP produced garbage
see >>64247729
Holy fuck Americans really do think history started in 1942.

>>64247707
China is a very old country. Just compare it to Japan, look how much culture Japan has.

>>64247589
>10th-11th century AD

>>64247102
>1427

Anon this is like being mad at depictions of Agincourt and citing the Bayeux Tapestry or Charlemagne era manuscripts.

>>64247792
wake me up when you have a speck of evidence for them byzantine space blasters that isn't copious amounts of cocaine before that, nigger

>>64247786
see >>64247752
seething about Americans unprompted won't make your shithole look better, zhang

>>64237868 (OP)
Cataphracs, because I can build them from my castles.

>>64247289
what's the sextant do, shoot greek fire at the sun? I'm willing believe some ancient text might have said greek fire was used on land as well as sea and I'd love to read it.
>>64238965
>>64247812
even the same filename, you guys should kiss and see where it goes

>>64247833
>even the same filename, you guys should kiss and see where it goes
My bad, the previous poster can top me.

>>64247833
>I'm willing believe some ancient text might have said greek fire was used on land
iirc there were some clay grenades found but you don't need the special greek napalm sauce to fill them with incendiaries.

>>64247808
I'll spell it out for you. Go read books about China written by white men before the word gommunism was ever invented.

>>64247854
which ones? i need any that specifically describe that special advanced china that we're all missing which wasn't just a bunch of pajeet-tier cannibalistic slavers with a couple of luxury goods for sale.

>>64247833
>what's the sextant do, shoot greek fire at the sun? I'm willing believe some ancient text might have said greek fire was used on land as well as sea and I'd love to read it.

Its a theoretical handheld launcher similar to the ones on ships. We have never found one or a depiction of one but it was said that they used it in a similar fashion, it could mean a number of things, from hand grenades to flamethrowers using the same principles as a supersoaker ie pumpin' and pumpin'

>>64237868 (OP)
The cataphract is non-Christian so the Pope says the knight can use a crossbow on him

>>64248047
fire grenades are attested to from multiple cultures and fire weapons were king in naval warfare but I'm getting kind of frustrated
LOOK AT THIS
IT'S STUPID
LAUGH
LAUGH

>>64247802
>>64247833

Greek Fire list for Anon, >>64248076 your Roman Super Death Ray laser is taken from the Osprey publication "Byzantine Naval Forces 1261–1461" depecting the Battle of the Echinades Islands 1427 and in its info box the authors state that they recreated the space laser based off of "Mameluk example visible in original manuscripts in the former Imperial library of Istanbul".
https://archive.org/details/haldon-greek-fire-revisited/page/n1/mode/2up
Greek Fire, Poisonous Arrows and Scorpion Bombs, Biological and Chemical Weapons in the Ancient World by Adrienne Mayor
A history of Greek fire and gunpowder by James Riddick Partington
The Secret Weapon of Byzantium’, Byzantinische Zeitschrif v66 by Davidson, H. R. Ellis
J. F. Haldon and M. Byrne (1977), ‘A Possible Solution to the Problem of
Greek Fire’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, v70
Secrecy, Technology, and War: Greek Fire and the Defense of Byzantium, 678-1204 by Alex Roland The Age of the ΔΡΟΜΩΝ The Byzantine Navy ca 500-120 by John Pryor and Elizabeth M. Jeffreys
The Byzantine Art of War by Michael J. Decker
A Tenth-Century Byzantine Military Manual the Sylloge Tacticorum by Georgios Chatzelis and Jonathan Harris
Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth, Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century, by Eric McGeer (Praecepta militaria of Nikephoros Phokas & the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos
A Critical Commentary on the Taktika of Leo VI by John F. Haldon
The Taktika of Leo VI by George T. Dennis

>>64245966
Chzexed dubber wubberz.
Still mad that charles rekt you at Tours?

>>64247019
Kniggits evolved from roman QRF garrison forces.

>>64248170
that's a lot of words to say that they made this bullshit up to better sell their LOTR fantasy brochure.

>>64246435
Greeks and romans often described them as bowlegged
>>64246592
So trve xister. Slava Ching Cong!

>>64245966
The regions Europeans were interested in aren't even that hot. Israel is no hotter than anywhere else on the Mediterranean. Never mind that Romans had occupied that land for centuries without issue. It's not like anyone was marching into the middle of Arabia. Hell, even Arabs weren't doing that.

>>64247169
Alexander learned it from the egyptian greek magis, unironically.
>>64247102
Why is standard bearer of the fleet wearing rags on his feet?

>>64247802
You were talking about the armor, now you're talking about space blasters. >>64248170 Anon addressed the space blaster, but when I look at that armor I am not seeing anything dramatic. I am not in a mood to ferret down 15th century byzantine stuff, mine is up to the 1200s or so, but:

>#2
Quilted chestpiece - your own sources cite it and we all know about the quilted aketon shit they had during the 'byzantine dark ages' when they were more cash strapped to equip soldiers. The pteruges are just a question of 'were they still in use at this date', but I know I've seen them for period artwork 2 centuries earlier. That just leaves the kettle helmet (very reasonable), the cuir bouilli gloves and vambraces (reasonable), the shoulder bits (dunno).

#1 is boringly reasonable and standard Western European faire.
#4 is very reasonable ,it's a fucking mail shirt with a quilted vest.
#3 is a bit trickier, but if we have the book it'd likely cite what they are using as references for his armor.

Aside of #3 I am just not seeing what's so utterly unacceptable. It's all very reasonably European/Byzantine kit.

>>64248322
the epaulettes are ridiculous looking, pteurges never looked like that, nor were as long. they are the main distinction in the look of the entire kit and are completely out of place. the author probably wanted to make them look more exotic since generic looking kit doesn't sell but this shit is the worst kind of pseudohistory.

>>64248170
speak of the devil and an academic appears. it could help to quote the text instead of bragging about the girth of your bookshelf professor.
>infantry soldiers armed with handheld strepta shoot fire...
>strepta translates to some pump like thing
fuck me they were really using flamethrower supersoakers? I kneel my basileus.

>>64248370
also, with the steampunk flamethrower and epaulettes the guy looks like some kind of 19th century gadgeteer meme character, just missing a tophat and different shoes.

>>64248370
The book in question is Byzantine Naval Forces 1261–1461. Sadly there's no way of finding it for free but again, you're operating on a
>Dude just trust me bro
When your previous way of proving your claim was +400 years older research that even went back to the 800s. You gotta give me something to work with. Can you post some references from the 1300s or 1400s that you're basing your conclusion on?

>>64248510
i will not, i have absolutely zero respect for the garbage that osprey shits out and their complete disregard for historical accuracy in general. their books deserve to be burned, and the authors' fingers snapped off so they never spread this dirt anywhere again.

if you can't source your shit then shove it up yours, byzantines didn't progress in terms of military technology past copying western euros during that period anyway.

>>64248510
>osprey
>Sadly there's no way of finding it for free
does he not know?

>>64244392
>Cataphracts are a bad option against horse archers. The horse archers are lighter and faster so they'll just kite the cataphracts.

Horseniggers used cataphracts. A lot. If you are a noble horsenig you went to battle as a cataphract while poor horsenigs went about as lightly armored cavalry.

They are where the Chinese got the idea of having their own Cats in the first place.

>>64248680
They did because the counter to horse archers is foot archers. They're more cost effective and don't have to deal with the horse's hoofbeats throwing off their aim. So what Steppe folk did was have their wealthiest and best armored troops charge down foot archers, ether to destroy them in melee or just scare them into scattering.

>>64247854
>White men
Sounds like you're biased.

>>64247008
>The Emperor Alexius fleeting the field at Durazzo, while the Norman victors scoff at him in the background.

How will Byzancucks ever recover

>>64250068
Shortly afterwards he pulled off one of my favourite Byzantine diplomatic maneuvers.
>invading normans are technically vassals of the pope
>eastern roman emperor pays off the holy roman emperor to go to war with the pope in rome
>this works and the normans have to go back to italy to help their liege

>>64247102
>HA! mega duke demetrios! by gods will the day has come to... stavros point that fucking thing away from us were all 3 feet from each other for christ sake... now, DEMETRIOS today you and all those like you will kno... stavros youre leaking that shit all over the place, wha...
>the valve got mashed boss its the little copper bit ere its...
>dont let it light up near the water then itl... dont hold it like that hold it up, UP dont let it...
>its only leaking this way boss its just...
>just put it out put it out, the ember throw it, no not there - where the fuck do you think youre backing off to guard the fucking prisoner or ill shove that banner up your ass
>shit boss it caught fire
>the sand stavros use the sand, NO DONT KICK IT

>>64237868 (OP)
Cataphracts existed for like 1000 years maybe more, like a Parthian Cataphract wielding a two handed Kontos is very different than a Late Roman Cataphract competing against Norman knights.

>>64238822
Impressively retarded.

>>64238826
But what version of Cataphract. A two handed Kontos was a couched lance, and Cataphracts were solid in their bronze reinforced seats.

>>64239074
Most Cataphracts fought on the largest horses of their time, and didn't weild any ranged weapons. They were the original heavy shock cavalry.

>>64239343
For most of history Cataphracts had stirrups.

Knights started military training at 7, what about cataphracts? Say, the late Byzantine ones? Genuine question.

>>64250993
Roman Cataphracts weren't a hereditary warrior class. They were elite professionals. They were standing troops, so their training and equipment were top notch and all would be veterans. Really it would be a dice roll which unit was better. You would probably give the intangibles to the knights. And while sometimes those intangibles turned what should have been huge defeats into absurd victories. But there are just as many if not more battles were impetuous knights were lured into traps or moved out of position to the armies disaster Roman Cataphracts won't do either. The commander has to fuck up.

>>64248546
>This is incorrect
>Look at my proof from 400 years earlier
>No I will not provide more proof fuck you find it yourself
The modern day primitive savage on 4chan, everybody. Nigger who thought the 'what did you say about me you little bitch' navy seal copypasta was something to emulate rather than to find funny. That or you're just from the Graham Hancock school lel.

>>64247169
>>64248317

>>64248317
>>64251322
To answer your question, people didn't wear socks, they wore legwraps and sometimes they wore them on the outside.

>>64251508
Russians atleast as late as last year were still issuing foot wraps for its troops VS socks.

>>64250068
>>64250249
It gets better. He also defeated them on the field using Turks from the nearby sultanate. THEN he went to the Pope and soon after the Normans and other swore fealty to Alexios for the First Crusade.
NOTE: Short term and long term results my vary.

>>64244284
the gun probably helps.
fun fact, the reason chain mail fell out of fashion was because it's worse than nothing if you get shot.

>>64247011
The Normans won at Agincourt.

>>64247355
>>64247450
>>64247522
>>64247566
>>64247575
>>64247593
You both are speculating and don't know how a lot of the major battles went down.

1) well-drilled infantry mostly did not exist in Europe between the fall of the Roman Empire and the eventual re-discovery of Pike Squares by the Swiss and others. Infantry in Medieval Europe mostly fought individually.
2) Knights were pretty good at fighting individually on foot and were often used in this manner
3) The primary advantage of cavalry is in choosing the time and place of battle. Actually bringing an enemy to battle is really hard, and it is even harder when they can outrun you.
4) going back to the fact that infantry in Early Medieval Europe wasn't well-drilled, infantry would lose cohesion when it charged, which made it vulnerable to shock cavalry. It wasn't just during the rout that shock Cavalry was a threat. Stationary infantry, even poorly drilled stationary infantry, could withstand shock charges, but that wasn't generally when the cavalry actually charged.
5) Bows, including Crossbows and Longbows, were the Infantry's actual primary weapon, but most Archers were also trained in hand to hand combat.
6) Bows weren't actually all that dangerous if you had even halfway decent armor or a shield, but you try standing around in the hot sun or the cold rain for six hours while some asshole shoots a bow at you. This is what forced your enemy to either charge you or try to retreat, which is when the Cavalry would try to perform a shock charge. The reason bows weren't all that deadly was because both sides would essentially be firing at their maximum effective range, so they themselves would be harder to hit. Most of the really one-sided fights, like Hastings, Agincourt, were when one side had bows and the other didn't (at Hastings, the Saxons didn't have bows at all, at Agincourt, the French crossbows were mostly out of commission from the rain, while the English were able to use theirs)

>>64251303
post more osprey fanfics and book titles without quotes, son of a nigger whore.

>>64252896
Not only are you very mad, but you are a foreign ESL. And judging from the abstract seething saltiness about depictions of East Romans and a desperate desire that they look exactly the same as Western Europeans and not 'oriental' I'd wager you're either Greek, Turk, or some village rapist gyppo out of Romania. Sad!

Cataphract was literally just an early Knight (with soon to be outdated kit)

>>64247355
Let me guess, your favorite historian is some hack like Lindybeige who also thinks pikemen never fought each other.

>>64252852
o no your retarded.
Ranged weapons were not infantry's primary weapon. You cant even come up with a battle were ranged units did most of the killing between euros. Like if you arent speccing into horse archers ranged units are tertiary. The Brits got lucky a few times when the french decided to be retarded and ranged units dictated the pace of a few battles. But once the french literally trampled that core of proffesional archers even the brits didnt care enough to replace them after Patay.

>>64250993
the OG ones (Persian) were literally just feudal aristocrats fulfilling their obligation to serve in return for land, and trained from an early age. the institution of knighthood wasn't necessarily derived or influenced by the Parthian and Sassanid empires but it was definitely similar, perhaps due to parallel development or some cross-pollination during the late Roman empire

>>64255882
calling something that Caesar fought against just an early knight is fucking stupid. It existed a millennia before the systems that created knights even existed.

>>64238930
Look man I know chinks lie a lot but they had decent medieval armies

>>64251273
So knights are better individually while Cataphracts are more cohesive? I always got the impression that Knights had an ego about them.

>>64237868 (OP)
1 Cataphract (110hp) vs 1 knight (100hp), the knights wins due to 10 vs 9 base attack

BUT in group fights, say 10v10, the Cataphract also deal splash trample damage, so they edge it out here.

You should also consider that its faster to mass knights once you hit castle ages in multiple stables, that being limited to one castle production for cataphracs.

In AoE2 Cataphracts were superior against infantry.

>>64256177
>>64256183
Might want to read the thread. The joke has already been made.

>>64253101
>East Romans
gypsies are the only ones considering byzantines roman, half-nigger mutt.
>and a desperate desire that they look exactly the same as Western Europeans and not 'oriental'
now that you mention it near orientals actually did look very similar too during that period too, nothing like their fantasy depictions with mail and plate, rondaches and scimitars from centuries later. this totally flies in the face of retarded fantasy that quacks like osprey sell to subhuman consoomers like (you) that think that soldiers clad in mail hauberks with pointed metal helmets wielding straight double edged swords are exclusively western european in appearance.

Reenactor here: Couched lances wreck shit.

>>64256051
the system that created cataphracts was basically the same >>64256050

>>64256101
stfu underage retard, holy shit what a worthless post

>>64247008

They didn't.

By the time the Normans arrived in the Mediterranean, the cataphract corps had virtually disappeared from the Eastern Roman military. They were too expensive to maintain and the standards to be considered for candidacy join an alae of the cataphracts were too high that the corps had difficulty replacing losses.