Gondorian Mounted Units
Now, lets look at the Cataphracts. These guys were the dominant heavy cavalry of the Ancient world and carried over in the Byzantine Empire.
Composition
Manpower
In combat it appears that the Byzantines used the equivalent of 800 to 1,600 cavalry stationed around their infantry formations, divided into 4 sections. That range is the result of the variations in the size of the Banda over time. One was placed on each side while two were placed behind. The cataphracts were grouped into 400 – 500 strong formations and held in reserve until their charge would have the most impact. So it makes sense that for our purposes they would be the ones held behind the infantry line. The remainder would be the light cavalry into 300-400 strong formations on the wings.
The Byzantine Banda was a unit of 200 soldiers for infantry and between 50-100 for cavalry. It appears that the cavalry units of the Roman Empire tended to be closer to 30 troops, so I will use the 30 number for their unit size. This is reinforced by the 120 soldier size for the tactics I describe below.
Equipment
The uniqueness of these cataphracts does not end with their tactics. Apparently, they also wore leather and gambeson armor instead of the metal armor of knights or even the cataphracts of other societies. Also, unlike knights, the cataphracts were from the rural middle class rather than part of the nobility. So, in this respect the armor makes sense. However, we see plate armor for the average soldier, Gondor has full knights and the government provides land and allowances to mounted troops higher than the rest of the army. Given this it seems unlikely that better armor would not be used. Granted, given the poverty of the Gondorian government, I suspect that the historical armor would be what the light cavalry would use.
This then begs the question of what the cataphracts themselves would wear. In real life, they wore primarily scale armor. This is small plates laced together on top of a leather undergarment. Variations of this involved plated mail - which has plates between the sizes of full plate armor and scales attached to a mail coat. Lamellar armor was used too, and is basically scale armor with just much bigger scales. Normal mail was common as well. The cliff notes version is any armor in the grey area between simple gambesons and full classic plate armor was desired by the cataphracts. Over it they would wear a light cotton coat and heavy cloak. These tended to be cheaper and easier to make while also giving protection during the charge and decent movement in full armor. They could still weigh 88 pounds though. Their armor was also brightly painted in their unit colors. Mail and cotton surcoats were also added to the horse.
Often, armor was removed from the back. This protected the riders during the charge – when they needed it most – while saving on weight. The heavy armor and use of side arms meant shields were often dropped as well. Helmets typically covered the entire head and neck, sometimes only with small slits for the nose and eyes. Their helmet though was super tall with horse hair attached to the top and dyed the color of their unit. Mail would be draped from the back to cover the neck. Their shield was a small, oval design that was strapped to the left arm- called a thyreos.
The Byzantine saddles were innovative for the time, allowing for all the weapons of the cataphracts to be carried on it when not in use. For our purposes the cataphracts of Gondor would need stirrups. Horse archery does not require saddles exactly. But they do allow for stirrups. Stirrups have tow major benefits for the horse archer. The first is allowing them stand up and angle themselves. Not only does this allow for more flexibility in where one aims, the knees help absorb the shock and movements of a horse at full gallop. The benefit here is that the person can keep their bow steadier, also increasing accuracy.
The other major benefit to the stirrup is the ability of the archer to plant themselves in them in a way that more replicates standing on the ground. Any person is going to be able to fire a higher draw weight bow when they have the firmness of standing on the ground. Stirrups naturally will not perfectly replicate the value of ground enough to allow the horse archer to fire bows with draw weights equal to or greater than infantry. But they can get closer. This comes from the fact that when on ground, it is possible to contort the body in ways similar to a weightlifter that 1) allows for pulling more weight without hurting the spine and 2) more muscles can be used. The stirrup allows the horse archer to stand up a tiny bit and brace themselves with more solid footing - conferring these benefits as much as possible. Thus the archer can rely more on just their upper body strength.
Weaponry
Byzantine cavalry were armed with bows, lances and broadswords. Cataphracts were often deployed in the Late Roman Empire with heavy darts used to break through the front ranks of enemy, or they could be outfitted with bows and lances for this purpose.
The primary weapon was a 4.37 yard lance. It was so large it needed to be held with both hands. Chains that connected it to the horse allowed the full power of the galloping charge to be transferred to the unfortunate target. These charges were powerful enough to hit two men and even penetrate mail armor. This meant the standard infantry the cataphracts would be going up against would be in a tough spot. This lance was lighter than later versions and the way they were held did less damage than a knight charge. But this lance could also be thrown if needed. They also were armed with maces, axes or swords – sometimes a bow.
The light cavalry tended to be much more specialized. They were either archers, slingers or lancers. They were literally mounted light infantry. So, we can assume a padded shirt for armor, a composite bow and ax as a side arm. The bow would be replaced with a lighter spear that could be more easily thrown.
Nikephoros Phokas, On Skirmishing, Ch. 2, in George T. Dennis (ed.), Three Byzantine Military Treatise, (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2008), p. 153.
Driel-Murray, C. van; Connolly, P. (1991). The Roman cavalry saddle. Britannia 22, pp. 33–50.
Ammianus Marcellinus, (353 AD) Roman Antiquities, Boox XXV pp. 481
As noted in the recurve bow section, mounted troops would use that type of bow. I suspect that either the Syrian bow or the Ottoman "tekne kuram". These were much more geared to the lighter arrows that would be of great use for mounted troops. But this goes even further. The focus on rapid fire means that one of the reloading techniques used in Turkish armies involved holding 5 arrows in each hand as one shot. This does allow for faster shooting, but mandates that the arrows be thinner so one can fit more in each hand. The "tekne kuram" specifically was set up for rapid fire of light arrows. I suspect that this would be a case of cultural diffusion, in that I think the Cataphracts of Gondor would be quite familiar with what works for Rohan - their ally and the superior horse culture.
The Archer guild that was set up in Ottoman Constantinople had classifications for archers that could shoot 610, 680, 750 yards. The few men that could hit 820 were locval celebrities. In order to keep in their classification, they needed to continue to shoot targets at that distance. Failure led to being downgraded. These people were the top of their professions. So we can assume that all soldiers would aim to be reliably able to shoot at a minimum 610. the ability to hit 850 would be theoretically possible. But in real combat, ranges of closer to 500 to 550 would be more likely.
Tactics
Byzantium used cavalry as a tool to stop raiders. They needed this to concentrate at high speed in order to intercept invaders as soon as possible. Fast moving archers were used as a supplement for the same reasons. Heavy infantry were primarily used for garrisons. They somewhat mixed the heavy and light cavalry roles, using their bows to harass the enemy while also well equipped to handle strong charges.This mixing was credited with allowing the Byzantine Empire to defeat cavalry units using only spears and swords, backed only by archers on foot. They used the threat of their cavalry to force enemies into tight, defensive formation better for protecting against cavalry charges. This had the side effect of making them more susceptible to arrow fire. Thus, either way the enemy lost with this combination.
The later Seljuk Turks used a similar model. Their cavalry was much more lightly armored though. They used waves of arrows to inflict heavy losses on their enemies. Then, they would charge with their lances and swords. Their speed meant that it was difficult to stop them. Only trapping them between two hostile formations or a natural obstacle could really work. Otherwise, they would simply scatter and continue to rain down arrows in the process. This made them effective against poorly armored infantry, but the better protected Crusader knights proved much harder to kill for these troops. This was true even in the case of mail armor. Though, these horse archers were devastating against crusaders unfortunate enough to be caught in the open and surrounded.
For horse archers, there are two main means to fire. The first is forward on the side of the horse opposite their dominant hand (the left side for right handed people). The other is perpendicular to the horse's body, again on the opposite side to the dominant hand. But not all people have the same dominant hand, nor do all targets neatly present themselves on the ideal side of the horse. Hence the need for ambidextrous training. But the point remains. These angles provide solid opportunities for the archer to strike as they charge at the enemy or ride along the front of the enemy.
Though the Partian shot - aiming directly behind the horse while it keeps going forward - is universally used in all cultures with horse archers. Just as with the normal forward and side shots, the Partian was useful while attacking infantry in normal assaults. Just when they had turned away from the enemy. Though it was quite good in feigned retreats. Or regular retreats.
Another formation developed by the Dutch and adopted by the Swedish military was “interlarding the horse”. Here, large groups of cavalry were massed with groups of musketeers mixed in between mounted units. The musketeers had longer range than the pistols used by mounted troops. This allowed the musketeers to provide cover fire and break up enemy formations. Then, the cavalry could return to their traditional shock charge. In this method, only the front rank would fire. All the rest would use their melee weapons, using their pistols in emergencies. The French refinements to the system saw their cavalry firing their first pistol at 54 yards and their second at 27 yards. They would use the countermarch idea to maintain fire – essentially a return to the caracole. However, once it came time for the charge, they would get to 22 yards before they shot their second pistol. At that point, they would draw swords and charge boot to boot. The closeness between friendly troops to each other and to the enemy meant there was less loss of cohesion or variations in speed to dissipate the energy. A wall of horse hit the enemy and the mounted troops would slash and hack at the poor infantry attacked. Higher speed charges and the hit of the second rank could bulldoze the affected enemy troops.
Such charges were so tightly packed that individual horsemanship was not much of a factor. Swordsmanship was a heavy part of the attack, as lances were really just for the initial contact. After that, swords were the primary weapon. Swords were one handed to allow for holding the reins at the same time. Slashes were aimed at the head. Blood running into one’s eyes could disable a person easily and cause psychological turmoil for the soldier and their nearby allies.
This system could work quite well even in medieval armies. The main difference that I see for our purposes here is there is no reason a fire en masse doctrine could not be used. Archery allows for this more than firearms and increases the total firepower available. I would keep the get in close idea though. This results in the infantry providing cover fire aimed at protecting the cavalry and breaking up enemy ranks. As the charge gets in close, they let out a volley or two of arrow fire then charge at full speed with lances. The cavalry of Fredrick the Great relied exclusively on the power of speed, aggression and shock to win. Should the arrow volleys of the French be used at the 54 and 22 yard marks in the charge, this could magnify that effect.
In this system, it would make sense to reserve the caracole focused units on the flanks for light cavalry and to keep the main cavalry units at the center heavy. The Swedes used gaps in infantry ranks to allow for cavalry reserves to move up to exploit routs. Such a system means Gondor would see the masses of Landsknecht organized infantry spaced with heavy cavalry between them.
In this system, they were deployed as a combined arms unit in their own right, especially when they were armed with bows. Even then, it appears the use of dedicated archers was common to support them. In some cases, attacks from these units would be able to surround an enemy and pelt arrow fire down from all sides. When used against the Roman Legions, survival required the “tortoise” formation that encased the entire unit in shields. The down side is that they lost their mobility and ability to attack back. Yet lances and spears could still penetrate inside. At this point, it was just a matter of maintaining fire until the charge got in close. This fire and movement system allowed for a cataphract and horse archer combination to defeat a Roman Army 4 times its size. The initial Persian version normally used less powerful bows that mainly harassed the enemy though high volume of fire and incapacitating limb wounds. By the time the Byzantine Empire adopted cataphracts, more powerful bows were used that more frequently able to outright kill.
The Byzantines were fond of using their cataphracts to fire on their target as they advanced. When the enemy ranks looked sufficiently weakened to break through, then they would charge. The ranks in the back of the cataphract formation would continue to fire. Should the targeted formation close ranks – a tactic effective against charges – they would be more vulnerable to the arrow fire. Thinning the ranks out would decrease the power of archery against them but make charges much more powerful. The result was the enemy having to choose which death they preferred.
It must be noted that cataphracts were deployed in battle similar to how I describe the “Swedish Landsknecht” would use the interlarding the horse tactic. Unmounted missile troops would be placed on the flanks of the cataphracts, which allowed for cover fire and breaking up the enemy formation. I mention this to say that the use of cataphracts is consistent with the Swedish Landsknecht formation without straying too far from history.
They did differ significantly from other mounted troops tactically however. The front rows would fire into the enemy ranks. Then, using maces (instead of lances) in the front four rows, the cataphracts would move into the enemy formation. Then, in another unique move is the use of the wedge formation, as this is the only case I have found of it being used. The other major change was hitting the enemy formation at a medium trot instead of a full charge. Arrow fire instead of the charge was meant to break the enemy. But its desired outcome is the same – a decisive battle winning hammer blow. The attack was to create gaps in the enemy lines that the rest of the army could exploit while the cataphracts aim for the commanding officer.
Like all light cavalry, the Byzantine verion would specialize in scouting and skirmishing while screening against enemy skirmishers and scouts. This second use was especially important when the enemy scouts were light cavalry as well – these tended to be too fast for the cataphracts to be able to catch. The ideal was also to send the light cavalry out on raids specifically to do damage to the enemy lands.
When they attacked, as stated before, they were supported and proceeded by volleys of arrow fire. However, they also were more commonly used in flank attacks or envelopment attacks. The frontal assaults were left to the infantry. This was especially well suited when the other army also had strong cavalry. Due to the power of a solid spear and shield wall to resist a charge meant that frontal attacks or simply holding the center by heavy infantry could cause gaps to open in the enemy lines. Into this breach the Cataphracts could charge.
Another alternative would be to have the mounted troops on the wings to ride up and fire on the enemy flanks – then retreat while still firing on them. This would continue until the enemy was baited into pursuit. Meanwhile, the cavalry stationed in the rear of the formation would get into a good hiding spot and wait. The enemy would become winded and weakened from losses, exhaustion and lower morale and discipline due to the harassing fire. At this point they found themselves now caught between two heavy cavalry charges on their flanks that the had to stop to deal with. This in turn opened up the opportunity for the wing cavalry to turn around and attack again. Yeah, it was brutal.
In real life, tactics exploiting the ranged firepower of cavalry over the melee power of the lance charge grew out of the need to overcome massed pike formations of the Swiss and the firepower of tercio formations. Thus, we can turn to those same armies and time periods to get an idea as to how Gondorian cavalrymen would fight against Easterlings and Dwarves. Keep in mind that this, like above has to rely on replacements of “pistol” with “bow” to work.
One tactic that was common at the time was called the Caracole, which aimed to bring the most firepower as possible on a range of enemy formations. It started with a formation 6 ranks deep and between 6 to 20 files across. The troops would advance at a slow trot, get to around 30 yards and fire on the enemy. Sometimes this was done en masse, sometimes it was done by ranks. With pistols, firing en masse seems rather dangerous for the front ranks. But this is much more possible with archery. The front ranks could fire and retreat to the rear to reload and make way for the next rank to fire. This seems to lose the advantages of speed and mass that mounted troops have. The advantages are that it is safer and allows for continuous fire raining down on the enemy. Bows have higher rates of fire than early pistols, so the fire en masse version seems to be a solid option for Gondor. In real life, this tactic could theoretically disrupt the enemy formations by causing disorder and confusion more than actual deaths. Only when huge numbers were deployed could large causalities be obtained. The result is I would expect Gondor to use the 20 file version just to be on the safe side. This then means that the basic unit for cavalry in Gondor’s professional army would be 120 mounted troops. Traditionally, cavalry used for caracoles were put on the flanks for protection and only seriously used to pursue the enemy once they started to flee. Especially in a military with Cataphracts serving as the brute force cavalry based on lance charges at the enemy center, this Caracole idea seems like a suitable role for the light cavalry.
Training
But it is important to note that horse archers would be obvious targets for the enemy. Their higher speed meant they could run the length of the enemy front ranks quite quick too. Both of these reduce the time that the horse archer has to hit their enemy. Then there is the size of the horse that means they cannot get the same density as infantry archers. As discussed in the section on Longbows, density of fire is critical. If horse archers have less time and numbers to increase the damage they do, they need to increase the number of shots per minute per archer.
But this could be difficult. A full draw takes time to pull off, which slows down the archer. If they don't draw all the way, they will risk not shooting hard enough or far enough. But if they try to draw too fast, they risk injuring themselves. Too slow and they lose their military usefulness. This again is where solid training came in. Then there is the need to pull arrows from their quiver. This is compensated to a degree with holding some of the arrows in hand while shooting. Basically, to be a skilled horse archer required significantly high technique in shooting the bow - not just the ability to aim it.
Some claims suggest that with 60 pound bows, it is possible to hit 15 shot bursts, sometimes using up to 12 arrows in the archer's hands. But this is noted for weakening the grip, making accuracy and power suffer. For stronger bows and in battlefield conditions, this seems way to impractical to be used. Instead, 3 or 4 arrows held in the same hand as the bow would be used in battle. Some archers are able to hold arrows in the hand they draw the string with, but again this is impractical in battle. This would be the same hand one uses for sword fighting. This means that using the draw hand for holding arrows risks needing to drop valuable ammunition when changing weapons. The impractically large numbers would probably be the ideal in competitions and training, but not in battle.
Several training techniques were used to practice horse archery. The first was attempting to shoot a gourd placed at the top of a 25 foot mast while riding past a t full gallop. Alternatives were used with a bird in a cage or tied to the mast. The objective was to hit the lock or tether so that the bird was freed. The likely objective was to practice hitting targets at the top of towers. Though this could be quite dangerous. One person collided with the mast with enough force to kill both horse and rider.
The other was to ride past targets on the ground and shoot them. Based on Arab training manuals, the starting point was 31 yards apart, being shortened to 5.4 yards. This practice also started with a weaker bow and transitioned to a stronger one as the archer got better. Basically, one needs to draw the bow all the way in order to be useful militarily. So this training method demands not just better speed and accuracy, but also works on the draw techniques one would use in real combat. Otherwise, this would risk injury. This is further extended to 5 targets on each side. While this is extremely unlikely to be replicated in real combat, it is almost assured to make the archer more than skilled enough to handle said combat.
Ottoman drills for cavalry incorporated shields, maces, swords and bows. Plus they demanded the soldier be ambidextrous. Sometimes, this meant switching hands during a single target practice run. Others had the archer shoot the target while riding towards it then hit it again while riding way. The next target was to be hit by their sword, the next was the gourd on a mast target. Over 20 different drills were conducted to cover all the diverse skills this demands. The most complex involved switching back and forth between all three weapons, twirling the mace, un-stringing and restringing the bow and hitting the gourd targets. The result is a wide range of skill to promote a high degree of versatility in battle. Basically, their horse archers had a pretty intense training program.
Other cultures used similar drills, with the main differences being that only the bow was the only weapon drilled. The Koreans used only 3 targets. The Chinese used more targets, but they were each spaced further apart - 100 yards instead of 30. Though this was more of an entrance exam for beginners. As the Gondorian army would get its archers from normal recruitment, I would not be surprised if a similar course (3 targets, 100 yards apart) would be used to test recruits. Then, the Ottoman regimen would be used to train those who passed.
In the Ottoman Empire, there were large areas set up to practice horse archery. Often public displays of skill were held in these on top of training. Archery was held in high regard, so martial artists and athletes would compete against each other. Many became celebrities and these events drew large crowds.
Korea supplies us with a possible training technique and competition/sport. A big wicker ball was dragged behind a horse. The horse archers would fire at it. Each participant had their arrows dipped in dyes. This allowed the hits to be attributed to each person.
Remove these ads. Join the Worldbuilders Guild
Comments