Europe's Strongest Cavalry Cataphract

 The Byzantine army, of course, inherited the Roman army in the early days, but as time goes by, it's heavily influenced by the Avars. Of course, the Byzantines have a 4:1 bogey ratio, but the core of tactics and strategies on the battlefield was cavalry. This is even evident in the Byzantine guerrilla style of defense. From the 5th to the 8th centuries, I prefer heavy infantry because there are many Roman traditions left. But hiring a large number of Tutons and Huns realized the usefulness of cavalry, and after Emperor Maurice and Heraclius, who carried out military reforms often mentioned in this bulletin, introduced a unified agricultural system called the pronoia in the 6th and 7th centuries, the Byzantine army was able to provide essential farmland for cavalry. (The farmland, by the way, was not inheritable.) Later, this becomes a social problem.) And as we get into the 9th century, the cavalry, which starts to increase dramatically in the military from the beginning of the 8th century, becomes the main force.   By the 9th century, archers had fallen in position within the Byzantine army. The reason is that mid- to long-term soldiers were easier to train than archers. For this reason, the stereotypical form of the Byzantine army, which we call established in the 9th century and written in the 10th and 11th centuries, extends to providing a prototype of medieval history in Western Europe. Of course, it's hard to say that the Byzantine mid- to long-term disease is all due to Islam, but at least some of the armaments and their strategic use taxes are imported from the Islamic world. The tradition of mid- to long-term Islamic disease can be found in Iran before the spread of Islam. (To help you understand the game, in Rome Total War, the ultimate cavalryman of Parthia is Ketuckficto. It's in Iran. Anyway, you need to know the history of games these days^^) By the 9th century, the Byzantines were operating separately between mid- to long-term soldiers and archers. Mid- to long-term soldiers are trained by themselves based on the farmland provided, and archer soldiers hire mercenaries. The reason was that, as I said above, it was harder to train archers. Then, with the help of the compound recurbed bow, which was introduced in the 9th century, you were able to self-cultivate the archers. So what came out is Kettlefrector. Usually, mid- to long-term soldiers think that they only charge, but they were not Kettlefreeters. The Byzantine Kettlefreeters were armed with bows, spears, swords, daggers, chain armors, thin iron plates on top of them, iron helmets, and wooden shields with iron frames around their waist. Of course, the horse's head and chest were also covered in ironclad. He's got a bow^^ Of course, it didn't work as a result. Kettlefrector was never active alone. There were always three or four mid- to long-term soldiers (whether mercenaries or their own forces) in one Keterfrector unit. These mid- to long-term soldiers were uniquely called the Imperial Guard. (This is one of the most mysterious parts of Byzantine history to me.) --^ The Emperor's SS called the Vanguard Elite and the mid- to long-term soldiers of the Tuton Knights who chased Kettlefrector called the Imperial Guard. No one knows if it's like this or if it's actually like this when it's translated into English. I don't think there's a problem with the transmission of meaning in Latin --^) The main role of the Kettlefighter was a shockable charge, so just because they carried a bow doesn't mean that the mercenary archers hired by the staff disappeared. When you talk about Kettlefrector, you have to compare it with the article. There's a difference between Kettlefrector and his Western-made copy. First of all, Kettlefrector's armament is about 20% to 30%. This was because the horses' armor was heavier, and Kettlefreighters carried standby weapons such as Hubbard and Pike. And the horses of the Kettlefreeters were distributed crossbreeding by the state from Arabia. And by contrast, the words of the Western European knights were actually taken from anywhere. Kettlefreacher's horses are trained from an early age in weight-bearing education and skills needed in battlefields (e.g., foot soldiers stepping on foot). In the case of Western knights, they didn't raise horses very carefully. This is due to the differences in tactics between the two sides, and although Western European knights put more importance on individual battles, training was very important because Kettlefreighter went around the battlefield in a camp. Both Kettlefreeters and knights were, of course, the elite of society. Both sides were trained to fight when they were young. That's why Ketterfreacher also escorted the Vanguard elite when they were unable to protect the Imperial family on the battlefield. And of course, so did the article. The speed of the Kettlefrector was the equivalent of a medium-armed knight, even though it weighed much more. The speed of the two was not much different. Of course, Kettlefreeters were much faster than the bizarrely armed Western European knights from the mid-14th century. The reason for this is... the difference in the quality of the words and the number of people doing it was much higher. Kettlefrector's basic strategy was to rush. If they met an archer or an infantryman on the battlefield, they just charged head on and crushed him. What if you meet other cavalry? If the enemy is a mid- to long-term soldier who is more armed than they are (you may not believe it, but Islam actually operated a mid- to long-term soldier, which is about Ketterfrector, or even more armed). The problem is, there wasn't a lot. --^) Usually, the Keterpreter was more mobile, so it turned to the side and made it impossible to fight, and the mid- to long-term soldiers were similar in speed, and there was no mid- to long-term soldiers at the same time, so they were able to win without any problems. Even this ridiculously powerful unit had a natural enemy. It was called a light soldier. Now, let me point out... Usually, mid- to long-term soldiers are natural enemies of infantry. a heavy infantryman armed with a standby force It wasn't for Kettlefrector. They were trained groups, not individually fighting groups like knights and samurai, so they knew when and how to attack heavy infantry. If you're armed and you're more mobile... In other words, heavy infantry can be much easier enemies if they attack in groups. But they were really troublesome. In fact, Islamic heavy infantry (Ghaznavid, Nubia, and Syrian heavy infantry are famous) were often beaten in front of Ketterfreeters. It was never a strange scene to see a heavy infantryman being slaughtered by Kettlefrector in the Byzantine War against Persia or the Islamic War. Perhaps the Knights of the Holy Roman Empire should have learned to write to the Swiss spearmen. --^ (FYI, the Swiss spearmen and the bootmen who were natural enemies of cavalry in the 15th century were fundamentally different from the existing heavy spearmen. The existing heavy cavalry were literally like the Greek Falancs and could not be stopped unless they were on a head-on charge.) Well, their armament, their horsemanship, their training were all one of the best mid- to long-term soldiers of the time, but what really made them the best was their fighting spirit. Once again, for example, in the Medival Total War, there's only one unit that's able to fight properly after being flanked by more than one person. The Royal Knights, the best unit in France, also run away with a white flag^^ Of course, games are games --^ By the way, whether you look at the Arab's or the Byzantine's, Kettlefreighter always fought in the lead in the losing war, in the winning war. There's a lot of talk about fighting spirit that the Arabs admired.