43 replies to this topic

[DuncanHead]

The interesting thing about this is that Chorasmia was the area that in the Han corresponded to the kingdom of Kangju

I don't think Chorasmia and Kangju are exactly the same area, as you seem to imply. Chorasmia is centred on the Amu Darya delta south of the Aral Sea; Kangju seems to be north of the Syr Darya: "Tashkent plus the Chu, Talas, and middle Jaxartes basins" according to John Hill at http://depts.washing..._shu.html#sec17 Neighbours, but not the same place. In fact, I have occasionally wondered if Kangju should be identified with the Massagetai.

The Chorasmians were not nomads but rather agriculturalists - it has been suggested that the cataphract was developed by them to counter steppe light cavalry (e.g. the Xiongnu?).
Is there then a link between the Chorasmians and Kangju?

They are all part of a broad Iranian-Saka culture. The Chorasmians come into the picture chiefly because of two pieces of art excavated in Chorasmia: a fragment of terracotta relief showing part of an apparently fully-armoured cataphract cavalryman, dated (I believe by the excavator) to the 4th-3rd century BC, and so (if the dating is correct) the earliest example of the full cataphract panoply; and another fragment given the same date, showing an unarmoured cavalryman wielding his lance in both hands - if dated correctly, perhaps the earliest representation of the cataphract's two-handed kontos. I have no idea what criteria were used for the dating, nor whether dates assigned in the 1970s still hold up.

If so, then this would add a new dimension to the participation of Kangju cavalry reinforcements on the Xiongnu side during Chen Tang and Gan Yanshou's siege of Zhizhu Chanyu's fort. It would suggest that the Han armies had come into contact with cataphract cavalry in the form of Kangju armies.

Whether or not the Kangju were cataphracts, the Han would have come into contact with Kushan cataphracts, surely. The Yuezhi had probably not adopted cataphract equipment when they migrated west, but the figure on the Khalchayan relief (probably 1st century AD) and other evidence suggests they would have had it by the time Ban Chao encountered a Kushan army.

The surprising thing, to me, has always been why China and the eastern nomads seeemed to adopt the cataphract panoply so much later than everyone else.

The Seleucids would have gotten the cataphract from the Achaemenid Persians conquered by Alexander.

The normal theory is, rather, that the Seleucids got the cataphract from the Parthians: the first time that kataphraktoi hippeis are mentioned in any Greek source is in Polybios' account of the battle of Panion in 200 BC, a few years after Antiochos III's eastern campaign which temporarily subdued the Parthians - hence the implication that he got the new style from them (or from the Graeco-Bactrians, whom he also fought against). Although there are descriptions of Achaemenid cavalry with partial horse-armour for the head and chest only - see Xenophon's description of Cyrus the Younger's guard in the Anabasis - the case for the Achaemenids having the complete cataphract panoply is not very strong at all.

Edited by DuncanHead, 05 October 2005 - 10:32 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"Is there then a link between the Chorasmians and Kangju? If so, then this would add a new dimension to the participation of Kangju cavalry reinforcements on the Xiongnu side during Chen Tang and Gan Yanshou's siege of Zhizhu Chanyu's fort. It would suggest that the Han armies had come into contact with cataphract cavalry in the form of Kangju armies."

Cheng Tang's description of the western armies seem to generalize them as similar in equipment and tactics. Kang Ju wasn't in Kharizmia, they were further east, they only appeared in Chinese historical records at approximately after Yue Zhi migrated.


"No, this isn't true at all. Parthian cataphract armour was primarily iron, with bronze sometimes being used for the horse-armour. See Plutarch's description of the Surena's cataphracts at Carrhae: "When they had sufficiently terrified the Romans with their noise, they threw off the covering of their armour, and shone like lightning in their breastplates and helmets of polished Margianian steel, and with their horses covered with bronze and steel trappings." Cf also the Graeco-Bactrian iron cataphract armour from Ai Khanum in Afghanistan, whcih is probably close to Parthian styles.
"

I'm actually refering to the Parthian army of Mithridate the second's time which is during Han Wu Di, I'm sure the contents differed later. Yet I have not seen a source that claimed they were primarily iron, they all seem to indicate that iron only make up parts of the armoured men, the helmet was the only Steel part I herd. So there is a breastplate of iron too. while the majority of the scales worn were said to be bronze, as for the horse, its actually a combination of bronze, iron and leather.
But to jump out of that time, the Latter Han armour were real folded steel, still superior in quality.

Nor were they lighter than later Chinese types. Representations of Parthian cataphracts (at Dura, Tang-i-Sarwak and Firuzabad) indeed shows more complete armour than most Chinese 4th-6th century representations.

3rd-4th century isn't a cataphract dominant time in China, the Murong Yan were the earliest finds of heavy cavalry with stirrups, and they were clearly covered with armour over most of the body. Not convering limbs and waist is not an indicator of weight, these parts weigh little. The Age of fragmentation cavalries actually had two layers of armour, the inner scale and an outer breastplate. A much better prove would be their actual weight, and the Later Wei-Sui cavalry of the Age of Fragmentation has cavalry armours weighing over 60ib of folded steel, thats the only time when heavy cavalry start to dominate Chinese battle fields, and thats largely due to the introduction of stirrups.

[Yun]

Thanks for the info on the Chorasmians, DuncanHead.

I don't think Chorasmia and Kangju are exactly the same area, as you seem to imply. Chorasmia is centred on the Amu Darya delta south of the Aral Sea; Kangju seems to be north of the Syr Darya: "Tashkent plus the Chu, Talas, and middle Jaxartes basins" according to John Hill at http://depts.washing..._shu.html#sec17 Neighbours, but not the same place. In fact, I have occasionally wondered if Kangju should be identified with the Massagetai.

According to my Historical Atlas of China, Kangju straddled both the north and the south banks of the Syr Darya during the Western Han. I recognize that Chorasmia is slightly to the west, south of the Aral Sea, but Chinese records do not locate any state in that area, leading me to wonder if it was also under Kangju control. The Massagetae are usually placed on the north of the Aral Sea; according to Mallory and Mair in "The Tarim Mummies", some scholars have tried to link the Massagetae with the Yuezhi (Kushans) by equating "massa" with the "da" (great) in Da Yuezhi. However, in the pre-Han period, the Yuezhi were actually still living on the Gansu Corridor.

[Wujiang]

For one thing they have complete limb armour, whereas most Chinese representations seem to be unarmoured below the elbow

On the contrary, the Suoyin (索隱) written by Sima Zhen in the Tang dynasty clearly wrote :

“…謂以鐵為臂脛之衣...”
“…clothing for the arms made of iron...”

[DuncanHead]

On the contrary, the Suoyin (索隱) written by Sima Zhen in the Tang dynasty clearly wrote :

“…謂以鐵為臂脛之衣...”
“…clothing for the arms made of iron...”

Interesting, but does it necessarily mean covering for the whole arm? Most art shows shoulder-armour covering down to the elbow, yes, but nothing below it. I wouldn't deny that vambraces were sometimes worn, but they don't seem to have been typical.

[DuncanHead]

I'm actually refering to the Parthian army of Mithridate the second's time which is during Han Wu Di, I'm sure the contents differed later. Yet I have not seen a source that claimed they were primarily iron, they all seem to indicate that iron only make up parts of the armoured men, the helmet was the only Steel part I herd. So there is a breastplate of iron too. while the majority of the scales worn were said to be bronze, as for the horse, its actually a combination of bronze, iron and leather.

I'd be interested to know what your sources are, then, because I don't think there is much contemporary evidence at all for Parthian armies that early. Most of the ancient sources seem to suggest iron as standard, though, like Plutarch, they are later than this precise period. I see no reason to believe that they weren't already using the same "Margianian steel" as a few decades later - especially, as I said, in light of the comparison with the Bactrian gear from Ai Khanum, which is iron and dates to c. 150 BC, earlier than Mithridates II.

But to jump out of that time, the Latter Han armour were real folded steel, still superior in quality.
3rd-4th century isn't a cataphract dominant time in China, the Murong Yan were the earliest finds of heavy cavalry with stirrups, and they were clearly covered with armour over most of the body. Not convering limbs and waist is not an indicator of weight, these parts weigh little. The Age of fragmentation cavalries actually had two layers of armour, the inner scale and an outer breastplate. A much better prove would be their actual weight, and the Later Wei-Sui cavalry of the Age of Fragmentation has cavalry armours weighing over 60ib of folded steel, thats the only time when heavy cavalry start to dominate Chinese battle fields, and thats largely due to the introduction of stirrups.

The stirrups would certainly make a difference, though of course that wouldn't apply to the original Han-Parthian comparison.

While limb-armour may be relatively light, it could make a lot of difference to the horseman's vulnerability whether he is completely protected or whether his limbs are exposed - for example, against archery.

But the main point is that the Parthian cataphracts are much more heavily armoured than anything in the Han army; and, even though they are numerically a small part of the army, they are an important part. The tactical system relies on co-operation between horse-archers and cataphracts.

[DuncanHead]

According to my Historical Atlas of China, Kangju straddled both the north and the south banks of the Syr Darya during the Western Han. I recognize that Chorasmia is slightly to the west, south of the Aral Sea, but Chinese records do not locate any state in that area, leading me to wonder if it was also under Kangju control.

Ah! Looking further, I find that Hulsewe and Loewe, in their study of Han shu chapters 61 and 96, locate Yü-chien (Yujian in pinyin?), one of the "five lesser kings" of Kangju, in Khwarezm/Chorasmia. So you may well be on to something here, Yun.

There's a brief summary of Chorasmian history in Edgar Knobloch, Beyond the Oxus (Lomdon 1972), which draws on Soviet archaeological work up to that date - for Chorasmia, SP Tolstov and his pupils. Knobloch says:

"Next to the sites of the 'settlements with inhabited walls' period are numerous sites of the so-called Kangha, or Kang-yue, period. Kang-yue, according to Chinese sources, was a vast empire, but no such name is found in other records. Some scholars are inclined to believe that it means Khorezm between the Achaemenid and Kushan periods."

"Kang-yue" must be Kangju - it would be K'ang-chü in the Wade-Giles most English writers were using back then, but if Knobloch's transliterating via a Russian transliteration, anything could happen!

The Massagetae are usually placed on the north of the Aral Sea; according to Mallory and Mair in "The Tarim Mummies", some scholars have tried to link the Massagetae with the Yuezhi (Kushans) by equating "massa" with the "da" (great) in Da Yuezhi. However, in the pre-Han period, the Yuezhi were actually still living on the Gansu Corridor.

Tarn regarded "Massagetai" as meaning "Great Saka Horde" - "Maha-Saga-somethingorother", I suppose. Which may or may not be true, but as you say, can't really connect them with the Great Yuezhi! They must have reached as far south as the Syr Darya at some point to have been opponents of the Achaemenids, but whether they still extended that far in later centuries I don't know.

[Wujiang]

Interesting, but does it necessarily mean covering for the whole arm? Most art shows shoulder-armour covering down to the elbow, yes, but nothing below it. I wouldn't deny that vambraces were sometimes worn, but they don't seem to have been typical.

Actually it only means it covers the forarm. The upperarm is protected by the pibo.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

"I'd be interested to know what your sources are, then, because I don't think there is much contemporary evidence at all for Parthian armies that early. Most of the ancient sources seem to suggest iron as standard, though, like Plutarch, they are later than this precise period. I see no reason to believe that they weren't already using the same "Margianian steel" as a few decades later - especially, as I said, in light of the comparison with the Bactrian gear from Ai Khanum, which is iron and dates to c. 150 BC, earlier than Mithridates II. "

I've came across it a long time ago, and I am not able to locate it right now. But all the sources I seen all mention the armour of the Parthian to be a combination of iron, bronze, and leather. None of which indicate iron is the most dominant element. Perhaps you can give me a source which says such?

While limb-armour may be relatively light, it could make a lot of difference to the horseman's vulnerability whether he is completely protected or whether his limbs are exposed - for example, against archery.

But the main point is that the Parthian cataphracts are much more heavily armoured than anything in the Han army; and, even though they are numerically a small part of the army, they are an important part. The tactical system relies on co-operation between horse-archers and cataphracts.

Again, its the efficiency(quality included) that matters, not the weight. And I still like to hear about the weight of the Parthian cataphracts. 3 kingdom armour already reached a well developed state, capable of resisting heavy crossbow bolts. As for forearm armour, I have yet found evidence which shows that they didn't exist during the Han. But one thing is clear, Cataphracts did not take on an important role until the 4th century, and thats coincidated with the introduction of metal stirrups.

[TMPikachu]

Did parthian cataphracts use bows? Would armored sleeves in the style Parthians used have hindered the use of bows for Han?

[DuncanHead]

None of which indicate iron is the most dominant element. Perhaps you can give me a source which says such?
Again, its the efficiency(quality included) that matters, not the weight. And I still like to hear about the weight of the Parthian cataphracts. 3 kingdom armour already reached a well developed state, capable of resisting heavy crossbow bolts. As for forearm armour, I have yet found evidence which shows that they didn't exist during the Han. But one thing is clear, Cataphracts did not take on an important role until the 4th century, and thats coincidated with the introduction of metal stirrups.

As for sources, well, there's the Plutarch passage that I already cited, which suggests that iron is the main material at the time of Carrhae - "breastplates and helmets of polished Margianian steel, and with their horses covered with bronze and steel trappings". Most accounts (Cassius Dio and Justinus, for instance)mention their full armour but don't bother to say what it was made of. I don't think there is any good information on armour weight, because there simply isn't much Parthian armour surviving, and I can't think of any written source that mentions weight. What is clear is the extent of the coverage, which is total.

Yes, the introduction of cataphracts in China does, as far as we can see, coincide with the introduction of the stirrup. It's interesting that that linkage doesn't seem to happen elsewhere. Parthian and Sasanian and Kushan and Seleucid and Roman cataphracts seem to have been important and effective - if perhaps not dominant, they were always just one part of a tactical system with other troop-types - before the introduction of the stirrup.

Did parthian cataphracts use bows? Would armored sleeves in the style Parthians used have hindered the use of bows for Han?

Parthian cataphracts certainly carried bows, there are a few contemporary illustrations that show them as well as some literary references. How easily you can shoot a bow with that sort of armour I don't know; they don't seem to have been the main weapon of the cataphracts, just a secondary one. On the other hand, those illustrations of Han cavalry I've seen tend to show either spear/halberd or bow, not (unlike some later Chinese cavalry) both. That suggests to me that the Han were already using a combination of horse-archers and shock cavalry, so for the shock troops, cataphract gear wouldn't be a disadvantage.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

The latter Han heavy cavalry might not have complete covering of the body, but they do cover a great portion of it. The horse also had armour and they are close to a cataphract in nature.

[Wujiang]

Just a question first guys, does "Late Han" mean before or after the Emperor effectively lost his power to Dong Zhou, Cao Cao and others like them ? Because if we are talking about Han as in anything before Cao Pi took the throne, the later Han armour does cover everything.

[GuanYu]

A little bit off-topic but from historical accounts, weren't the economic and diplomatic exchange between both Han and Parthia always rather peaceful? LOL it was the annoying Romans that always aggressed and tried to conquer Parthia.

Edited by GuanYu, 20 October 2005 - 02:13 AM.

[warlordgeneral]

---

Edited by warlordgeneral, 31 March 2013 - 03:35 AM.