First I want to say that I don't take my information from the computer games or from Wikipedia... at least not all of it. I don’t know much about tanks or planes, but still I might know a thing or two about medieval history. And I found out most of it by reading (yeah, that boring and old fashioned manner of gathering information - no search button, no ready-to-chew reviews), before the internet was around. However, since this is not an argument I will specify a few available sources for my points.
Victor, you’re right in one of your statements, about Kerak castle (“Crak des Moabites”, or “Le Pierre du Desert” for the French); I didn’t know about its existence (it’s situated in Jordan, over 100 km South of Amman). I thought they tried to depict “Krack de Chevaliers” in Syria - considered the most important crusader fortress, home of the Hospitallier Knights order. It bordered Saladin’s sultanat and it was also besieged by him without success, so I think my ignorance in the matter is somewhat justifiable.
I said that the Western heavy cavalry, in the XI-XIII centuries was actually not so heavy having two points in mind: the first was to say that they were not at all invulnerable and the second to emphasize that they were not the only heavy cavalry around on that period’s battlefields. Saying that the chainmail armour they used “will do” really doesn’t mean too much, and I don’t thing this is for us to decide. It’s like saying that an APC or an armoured scout vehicle is a tank (on the other hand you can say anything - this is your site and you know best
). The chain armour consisted in a long shirt/jacket protecting the upper half of the body (sleeves included), with a slit below the waist and protecting (to the sides) the legs from below the knees up (or the entire legs when the knight was mounted); to that the armour added a helmet (usually half-spherical, with possible protection for the nose and later for the face). The complete plate armour was a full metal suite, protecting the entire knight’s body (and the vulnerable parts of the horse). So better take a look in here before saying there’s no difference: http://www.knightsandarmor.com/armor.htm
The XI-XIII century knights were better protected then another type of warriors, but they weren’t at all invulnerable. Spears (and Saracen javelins), composite and long bows, swords, maces… almost everything could wound/kill them without to much difficulty (of course with the chainmail attenuating the gravity of the cuts/wounds). The late Middle Age knights’ armour was arrowproof (excepting perhaps the heavy arbalests - but this is debatable) and protecting them with maximal effectiveness against most (all) of the close combat weapons, at least as long as the knight was able to fight. By the way, this complete armour appeared in the XIV-XV century, not in the XVIth, so more than 100 years before any portable fire weapon entered a high-scale use, not to mention the effectiveness of the early versions of this early arquebuses.
“By the fourteenth century, improvements in the range and power of the crossbow had made it an indispensable tool of war, and arguably the weapon of the cities and the seas.
Time and time again in the Crusades, the crossbow, and not force of the knight in melee, proved the decisive factor.”
Source: http://linux2.hit.uib.no/non/echt/budapest/Selfrepr/arms.htm
“Perhaps paradoxically, the cavalry charge became more and more decisive as factors on the battlefield arose that challenged it. The additional weight of heavier armor that would resist crossbow bolts (and, in northwest Europe, longbow arrows) provided additional power for breaking formations. It was an ongoing spiral of offense and defense as relatively light mail gave way to heavy mail, and then mail with pieces of plate , and finally to the knight in full suits of plate armor. Just as archers and polearm-equipped infantry had to adjust to the increasingly heavy armor of the knight with new weapons and tactics, the knight had to cooperate closely with his own formation not only to protect or defeat infantry, but also, and perhaps especially, the opposing knights. It is this set of challenges during the period of the fourteenth- sixteenth centuries that spurred huge changes and developments in weaponry and defensive gear”
Source: http://linux2.hit.uib.no/non/echt/budapest/Selfrepr/arms.htm
For my other point, the kataphractoi WERE heavy shock cavalry, even heavier than the contemporary western knights. I know this from a computer game called Praecepta Militaria, a treaty about the art of the war written by the Xth century Byzantine general and later emperor Nikephoros Phocas; an English translation was reprinted last years in the US. According to that:
“Flanked by lighter-armed cavalry, the decisive attack is launched by a triangular formation of Kataphraktoi -
armed with heavy maces and with riders and horses encased in armour. The kataphraktoi smash their way into the opposing army, aiming for the enemy commander, with the clear intention of causing as much shock and disruption as possible. If the enemy gives way before this onslaught, Phokas gives instructions for the kataphraktoi to maintain good order and leave the pursuit to their lighter colleagues on each flank. If the enemy stands firm, the battle becomes an escalating trial of strength and organisation, with the Byzantine commander carefully feeding extra units into combat as he sees fit. Check also the source: http://byzantium.seashell.net.nz/articlemain.php?artid=fbook_mcgeer
“It was to take another two centuries before Western armour was to approach the quality described in this source. Some of the most basic forms, such as padded garments, were to become European staples in the wake of contact with Levantine cultures during the Crusades”
Source: http://www.levantia.com.au/military/armour.html - you should also check this link for reconstituted images of Byzantine, Muslim and crusader soldiers
Also see some Byzantine (cataphracts) platemail armour and weapons around the XIth century to this link: http://www.shadesmtw.com/cataphracts.htm
You can compare that with the chain armour available for the Western knights in the XII-XIII centuries:
http://www.knightsandarmor.com/, http://www.knightsandarmor.com/armor.htm
And about the computer games (again), “Medieval Total War” (if you were referring to that one), besides the fact that in my opinion is a success as a turn-based strategy game, it presents these historical details in a very realistic manner.
what the f**k???!!??? oh, and how about the Viking ( yes, for those who know history it wil be a shock) that also joins the damn crusade....hahahahhaa