CATAPHRACT

             Volume VIII in the GREAT BATTLES OF HISTORY SERIES

Review
By Lodovico Badali

INTRODUCTION

Cataphract covers the time of the great reconquest of the Western part of the Roman Empire under the command of the Emperor Justinian in the middle of the VI century B.C. The game covers the major battles fought by the two greatest generals of Justinian ( Belisarius and Narses ) against the Persians, the Vandals, the Goths and the Franks. 
The military simulations often forget this period and there are few good games, which a player can find on this topic. There are several reasons for this lack of good games: the difficulty to design a game due to the lack of good sources, the battles that are often a confusion clash of tribal hordes against a disciplined army, the past of the Roman legions and the future of the Medieval Cavalry. We find Cataphract not only is a good game ( in the best series on the warfare before the gunpowder ) but even a game that allows the players to give a look at this important and at the same time unacknowledged period of the political and military history.

THE MAIN TOPICS OF THE GAME

The period described in Cataphract is a moment of change not only in the European history but also in the history of the warfare. During the Greek City-States, the heroic deeds of Alexander the Great, then the Hellenistic States and the Roman dominance, the centre and the backbone of an army was the heavy infantry armed with swords and heavy protected by armor. The role of light infantry ( the skirmishers ) armed with bows and other kinds of weapons capable of missile fire and with light leather protections was only to support the heavy infantry. The light infantry was used before the battle to reduce the fight capability of the enemy and then these units moved fast beyond the protection of the heavy infantry. The light infantry, due to its mobility and versatility, was the best army to create confusion in the enemy lines before the opposite heavy infantry clashed in a hand-to-hand battle. Its role was only of support. The same is true for the cavalry with several differences. Apart for the Persian heavy armoured cavalry and the use of elephant, by the Indian army and the Carthaginian one, the mobile units, the cavalry, have to support the heavy infantry protecting the flanks and pursuing the enemy routed units in order to surround the enemy. Usually an army had its cavalry corps divided in two parts: the first one on the left flank, the second on the right flank. The primary objective of the cavalry corps was to defend the flanks of the army against the enemy cavalry and then, after defeating the enemy cavalry, to surround the enemy heavy infantry, usually deployed in the centre. In both cases, the cavalry had a secondary role, even if of the greatest importance, and its employment depended by the situation of the heavy infantry on the battlefield. As it is easy to understand, the result of a battle was almost completely, in the hand of the heavy infantry. 
During the Middle Age, the bulk of an army was its heavy cavalry and the infantry, often composed by untried peasants, had only a support role. The light infantry, the archers, was employed in several manners, but its role remained exclusively of support. A cavalryman heavy armoured on a horse, often covered by armour, was practically unassailable by an infantryman and only with the long bow and the crossbow, it was possible to inflict heavy losses to the cavalry. The major risk, that a cavalryman had, was to be unseated: with his heavy armour, he was unable to get back on his feet and in this position, he was an easy pray for the infantry. The infantry often lighted a fire under the unseated cavalryman to burn him inside his armour: besides, there were special instruments, called “ Knitting Needles “, which the infantry used to pierce the cavalryman across the slits of his helmet. 
Another great difference between an army of the Ancient Era and an army of the Middle Ages is the number of men. In the first case, in several battles only one side had more than one hundred thousand men: in the second one, an army difficultly reached five or six thousand men. This means that a battle in the Middle Ages has less problem of command chain and a less number of intermediate levels of command from the OC to the troops. 
Cataphract describes the time between the two eras in which there were still some aspects of the ancient warfare, mixed with the first appearances of a new way of fight. The main topics are: the infantry, the cavalry, the missile weapons and the chain of command. 
INFANTRY
There are three types of infantry units: light infantry, medium infantry and heavy infantry. 
The light infantry, fast units without or at least with leather protections and armed with bows ( simple or composite ), is similar to that of the previous centuries and its main duty was to delay the enemy inflicting losses with its bows and then to run away under the protection of more powerful units. There is not great difference of employment respect of the skirmishers of the Roman legions, apart for the most effective composite bow. 
The medium infantry is the real successor of the infantry of the Roman legion. It is less armoured than its ancestor, less trained and less effective: it is not the bulk of an army. However, it is protected by leather armor and by shields and it can be used effectively not only against light or medium infantry, but also even against the heavy infantry and the cavalry ( especially light or lancers ), the unique exception is the cataphracted cavalry. The medium infantry normally has no missile weapons, but it has a good mobility and great possibility of employment. It can be used to protect the flanks or against other infantry units, even the heavy ones: in a defence position, the medium infantry can stand for one or two turns against the enemy cavalry inflicting several losses, before the own heavy cavalry gives the decisive stroke to the enemy cavalry. In other words the medium infantry has capable to play several roles and it is of great support for the cavalry. Naturally, everything depends on the overall situation on the battlefield and on the skills of the players.
The heavy infantry is nothing else than dismounted heavy cavalry, so we will write about it in the paragraph dedicated to the heavy cavalry.
CAVALRY
There are three types of cavalry in Cataphract: Light Cavalry, Lancer Cavalry and Heavy ( often cataphracted ) Cavalry.
The light cavalry units are, for the most part, armed with bows ( often composite bows ), they are light armoured: a kind of mounted light infantry. The light cavalry has great mobility ( nine MPs ) and a great firepower. Its best employment is as support for the heavy cavalry, as mounted skirmishers and in all the situations in which it is important to have a force with great mobility. Light cavalry is very effective in missile fire, but even in hand-to-hand combat it can be of great support against infantry or cavalry ( not heavy, however ) when the enemy units have already suffered some hits and their TQ is lowered. 
The lancer cavalry is a kind of medium cavalry: it is light armoured ( but much than the light cavalry ), often armed with bows and with great mobility. The use of lancer is similar to that of the light cavalry even if they are slightly more effective in hand-to-hand combat. Some lancer cavalry units ( for example, the Persian Cadisegi Lancers ) have not missile capability, so their only employment is in shock combat. This fact reduces their effectiveness because they can be used only against light units and in a support role without using them as mobile missile units.
The heavy and cataphracted cavalry are the bulk of an army and in this period, its role is similar to that of the heavy infantry during the past centuries. The difference between heavy and cataphracted cavalry is not the heaviness of the armor but the kind of armor they have. The first one is protected by an armor more rigid that often hampers the movements during the close fight. The second one is protected by a scale armor that allows to move the legs and the harms more freely during the missile fire and the hand-to-hand combat. The best cataphracted units are armed with the composite bow and they have great efficacy in hand-to-hand combat as well in missile fire. The heavy cavalry is now what the heavy infantry of a Roman legion or of a phalanx was. The heavy cavalry is a mobile weapon that can be used during the whole course of a battle, either as a breaking force, or as powerful wall in defence. 
At every moment, during the fought, the heavy cavalry can dismount and become heavy infantry, similar in all respects to the heavy cavalry except for a minor mobility. The decision to use the heavy cavalry as infantry is often let to the players and much depends from the situation and from the importance to have a mobile force of great effectiveness during the several phases of a battle. 
It is clear that the heavy/ cataphracted cavalry is the ancestor of the Medieval heavy cavalry and it marks the transition from the warfare in the Ancient World to the new warfare in the Middle Age. 
THE MISSILE WEAPONS
The most part of units ( infantry or cavalry ) in Cataphract are missile capable. There are four types of weapons: the throwing axe, the javelin, the simple bow and the composite bow. 
Only the tribal infantry units are armed with the throwing axes, which are very effective but have a range of only one hex: in addition, a unit armed with throwing axes has only one shot. This kind of missile weapon can be very dangerous for the enemy units, but if it fails the first and unique shot, there is not another possibility. 
Only the foot units use javelin: this weapon is similar but not identical to the pilum of the Roman legions. The javelin is very effective but, as the throwing axe, has a range of only one hex; the main difference is that a unit armed with javelins has not only one shot, even if it is easy to go out of ammunitions. Differently from the units with the throwing axes, the units with the javelins can reload and in this way, these units have more missile fire capability: however, the one hex range of the javelins restricts their employment. The units armed with javelins are much suitable in defence or protection roles against infantry units, than in an attack’s role. 
The simple bow is used by foot and mounted units: it is the same bow of the past centuries. It has a range of four hexes, but it is very effective only at a range of one hex. The simple bow gives a good firepower to the units, which has a great number of shoots and can reload if out of ammunitions. However, the simple bow is of old conception, it remains a good missile weapon and can be effectively used against all the kinds of enemy units, mounted or not. It is effective either in defence and in attack and the use of it depends mostly by the unit armed with it. 
The composite bow is the ultimate missile weapon of the era. It remained the most effective missile weapon until the long bow and the crossbow. It has a range of five hexes and its efficacy is at its best at a range of three or four hexes: it is capable to inflict two cohesion hits to an enemy unit. The composite bow is especially used by mounted units, normally heavy or cataphracted cavalry, and in same cases by foot units ( by dismounted cavalry units too ) or by light cavalry units. It is the best missile weapon you can have and it can be decisive in several situations, in defence or in attack. Often a unit, armed with this kind of bow, is able to inflict a number of hits to an enemy unit to render it unable to sustain a hand-to-hand combat. If your army is poor of this kind of weapon, it is important to take your units out of the range of the enemy composite bows, if you do not want to be destroyed before to reach the enemy for shock combat. 
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
In Cataphract, the chain of command is very simple and, in respect of the previous centuries, it is easier to manage. This is due to three facts: the reduction of the armies, the great mobility of an army based upon the cavalry and the lack of good and experienced staffs of officers ( this last fact represents a very great difference from the well trained and experienced officers of HQ of a Roman legion ). 
The reduction of the armies during the last centuries of the Roman Empire is evident if you compare the number of units involved in a great number of battles, covered by the past volumes of the Great Battle of History series, to that of the units in a typical battle in Cataphract. This means not only the lack of human and industrial material, but also even the reduction of possibility to arm and to maintain a large army. The problem to maintain a large and efficient army was present to the emperor Justinian and the lack of resources often impended his plans. In game’s terms, not only the players have fewer units on the map, but also even the map is smaller ( normally one-half of a map of normal dimension ). These facts reduce the time to complete a game and often a battle is resolved in few turns because it is necessary to destroy fewer enemy units in order to compel the enemy to withdraw. On the other hand, the battles in Cataphract are easer to manage and a player has few units to control and few dice rolls. 
The second important fact is the great mobility of an army based upon the cavalry. The Roman legions ( the same is true for the Macedonian phalanxes ) had their bulk in the heavy infantry and this meant the necessity to coordinate well all the movements and fought. With the predominance of the cavalry as backbone of the army, what became much important was the simplification of the chain of command in order to give more freedom to the single units to act as they wanted. Moreover, an army was often composed by mercenaries’ units that were under the direct command of a commander who not always respected the orders of the OC: at that time, to see some units to desert during a battle was not so rare. With a rigid chain of command, all the advantages of the mobility of the new warfare should be nullified and the cavalry should lose its greatest advantage.
The third and the most important difference is due to the lack of good staffs of officers. During the centuries of the Roman Empire, each legion had experienced and well-trained officers of HQ: they were the indispensable aides for a commander and gave him the possibility of an extended and efficient control over the soldiers. When a player manages the counter of Caesar, this one represents not only Caesar himself but all his staff too. It is unthinkable that Caesar or the emperor Trajan could do the same things without their optimum officers of staff: but a good staff officer needs years of experience at all the level of command. This is possible only in a great power with a great army, which is always under “ pressure “ and used continuatively. The game Cataphract shows an age of transition, when the Ancient World was finished but the Middle Age not yet born, an age of passage in which even the great Byzantine Empire was only the shadow of the ancient Roman Empire. At that time, it was difficult to have good staff officers for many reasons, not last the fact that often an army was dismissed after a battle due to the lack of money to maintain it. 
We have to aspect the Napoleonic age to find again the great officers of HQ of the Ancient World.

THE SCENARIOS

There are seven scenarios in Cataphract ( one is a naval battle ): only two really interesting: Dara and Callinicum. Here we will write about the two scenarios of Dara and Callinicum.
DARA
AD 530, near the city of Dara, in Mesopotamia, the general Belisarius must face the Persian army, about two times greater. The Byzantine player has three great advantages: the ability of his commanders ( Belisarius is a rock! ), the powerful composite bow ( the major part of his units are armed with it ) and the defence position in the trench near the wall of Dara. However, he is greatly outnumbered by the Persians. Obviously, his battle is a defence battle, but during the game same good occasions for counterattacks could arise. It should be a non-sense to move towards the Persian line in clear terrain without any benefit, in face of an army double in size. So the Byzantine player has to aspect the Persian attack with patience and then, only after to have inflicted several losses to the Persian, the time arrives to counterattack the weakened Persian units. Here the superiority in command becomes evident and the composite bows’ use before the shock combat shows all its power. 
For the Persian player the attack is mandatory and he has only the number as ally. It is not an easy job to successfully attack and rout the Byzantine army, but it is not impossible. The first important step is to manoeuvre the army in order to put it in position for the attack, which has to be massive using all the units. We think the best deployment is to have all the cavalry units in the centre and the infantry on the flanks: the commanders have to be moved in order to be stacked with cavalry units and they have to be able to give command to all the cavalry units. When the time comes, the entire cavalry force has to move and attack at the same time the Byzantine line behind the trench: the slower infantry units can be employed to protect the flanks against the possible Byzantine counterattacks. It is very important that the Persian units remain out of the range of the missile weapons of the Byzantines during the preparation for the frontal assault. When all the units are deployed in their starting position, only one thing remains: the attack. Before to reach their targets, the Persian units must move in clear terrain under the fire of the Byzantines and it is inevitable that these units suffer some hits, but the great superiority in number can make the difference in hand-to-hand combat. The Persian player must resolve the battle in one or two turns of assaults: after, the victory becomes very difficult to achieve. The system gives many unforeseeable actions ( momentum, trump and others ), which are impossible to calculate: so, all the plans can be wrong, but this is not a good reason to do nothing or to act without attention.
CALLINICUM
This scenario is the most balanced and both the two players have their chances of victory. Like in Dara, the Byzantines have better commander, better troops and the advantage of the large use of the composite bow and the Persians have an army one and half time greater. The difference is that the battle is fought in clear without any field protection, so the Byzantine player cannot stay on defence and wait what the Persian does. This is a battle of attacks, counterattacks and of great mobility. The skill of the players is decisive here and to manoeuvre better than the adversary the own troops is the key of the success. In this battle, the Byzantine player must use several times his superior leadership and this means a great number of momentums and trumps: it is natural that there are many risks in doing so, but it is a necessity. On the other hand, the Persian risks less, but he is compelled to move quickly and efficiently a greater army with commanders of medium level. A decision made at the wrong time or a bad dice roll can make the difference and they can compromise all the good actions of the past turns. Callinicum is a battle of great emotional tension restricted in few turns. Due to the small number of units and the necessity to act rapidly, the game is resolved in few turns and it can reach a conclusion in less than two hours. 

As conclusion, we can write that Cataphract is not only a good game ( as the others in the series ), but it has great importance in covering a time of the warfare often forgotten ( with great precision and historical accuracy ).