Board Thread:Roleplay Ideas/@comment-26295802-20160222014740/@comment-26347028-20160222190142

Edacnik wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote: Draugluin the werewolf wrote: A; agreed

B: how do you know they're better? as for how good Cataphract armour was it really doesn't matter owing to the fact that they wore several layers of different armour (Chain as well as Lammellar as well as leather) it does very well compare with plate armour seeing that the cataphracts superiority only disapeared in the reneiscance.

C: that depends on the shape of the shield + see above

D: how on earth do you know?

E: true

I'm not saying this aggressively so don't go overboard but you do have to admit that cataphracts were at least equal to your western knight although it would probably take several to fight a knight of Dol Amroth Cataphracts were designed for mobility, which is why they didn't wear restrictive armours like plate. Even layered armour like that doesn't work, and they didn't wear mail - it didn't exist to them. This is the East, and even Empires aren't amazing. There just isn't a whole lot out there to get at. And no, they weren't the equal of a Knight at all. They're medium, at best. Knights are extremely heavy shock cavalry, with restrictive armour and strong horses. Cataphracts are medium, with unrestrictive armour and fairly weak horses. So yes, it would very much take several. Especially mounted archers, who can get around the movement restrictions if they're good enough. No... Cataphracts are the heavy Calvary. And, if you want to make this earth standards, your western knights would only have about 100-1000 or so; and get destroyed by pure en mass. They're medium, at best. Byzantines had better, yes. But you're nowhere near their prowess. And, by Earth standards, you don't have Cataphracts. Simple as, and certainly not any more than I have Knights - especially with the plate armour you claim them to have. It just makes no sense, the East being far behind in technology and all.