The arms and equipment of Late Roman Clibanarii

[juvenus]

You guys will not stop for one second and absorb what I'm trying to tell you.

Cataphracts were not medieval knights!!!
The German infnary at Strasbourg dived under the lances.......let me repeat again......under the lances!!!

Maybe you should cool down for a second, ha?

Medieval knights charged at the gallop,, Cataphacts did not and moved at the trot. There is little point in a shield unless he dismounted to fight on foot. He either used a bow and the kontos with 2 hands.It was vital to keep unbroken infantry at a distance or his horse would be taken down.

We are perfectly aware of this. All I'm saying is that none of us was actually there. We don't even know for sure the origins of their names and you give yourself the right to explain their tactics with 1000000% certainty (that's how it sounds at least). And in all diversity within the Roman army, can you claim with 100% certainty that no cataphract style cavalry used a shield?
An absence of proof isn't a proof in itself-never forget it. All we know about them are the few scarce sentences from Ammianus, Libanius and Julian.

Besides it sounds appallingly stupid that any cavalryman, even the most heavily armoured, would ever simply chill out on his horse and let the arrowheads hit him all over the torso! Would you do it? I wouldn't. What if an arrow is heading towards his head? I guess that some of you will now say: "Well, what the heck, he's wearing the facemask. There's no reason for worry". Do you really think it's such a cool fun to be hit in your torso by an arrowhead (or 10 arrowheads, or even more...), even if your dear Ammianus & Co. tell you that your armour makes you invulnerable.
In the eastern warfare dominated by archery, it seems quite possible that some of the cataphracts used the small shields wrapped around lower arm or upper arm. An arrow hit may likely produce a kind of shock (due to sudden and likely painful impact) or even displace a rider from a horse.

.....Or, you really, but really, believe there's such a thing as an invulnerability in combat.

Are you aware that a relatively close range impact from the 5.56 (7.62 sniper match grade ammo easily kill) in the best body-armour available to present day infantry is likely to break your chest bone, even if it doesn't penetrate it (believe me, my girlfriend's brother serves in the Serbian military spec force "Cobras")?
Still, no one says to an infantryman: "Don't worry for you're an invulnerable warrior. Just let them hit you from all sides".
The comparison isn't the most accurate, but it gives you a clue that-only because something won't kill you, it doesn't mean you should let it hit you all over your body.

[Gäiten]

Boys, keep your professionalism.

First I wrote that a kontos bearer could handle a small shield, not that all Sassanian cavalry was ever equipped with shields. And that heavy cavalry was equipped with a lot of different weapons.

As with Sassanian cavalry there was a variety of equipment with them and the the main taks for lancers was not to fight infantry, it was to protect the horse archers for attacks from other lancers.
True and proven steppe warfare that was the base for Iranian/Sassanian cavalry warfare, either.

However, there is still debated if the Sassanian Clibinarii used shields from the 3rd century. Some researchers believe that the reliefs of Bishapur showing the triumph of Shapur I shows Sassanian nobles with small shields (see attached pic Bishapur_relief_2_5, figure to the right, right upper side short under his shoulder is a circular object).

Even Ammianus make some statements about elite warriors equipped with shields. And the Sassanian elite warriors were noble cavalrymen.

First, during the Siege of Bezabde, Shapur II was protected by somewhat of a shield "testudo" by his body guards. These guards were mounted.

Second during Julians siege of Pirasabora A. mentions Iron Men equipped with shield.

And now to the second pic (4-5th_century_Persian). It shows a Coptic wall painting, 4th-5th century, called "Pharaoh`s Army crossing the Red Sea" (in-situ Al-Bagawat, Egypt). It shows cavalry and infantry equipped in an un-Roman manner. Two figures are equipped with the forward-cureld Phrygian cap, something very popularly associated with Persians (for more examples of that see Arch of Galerius and Column of Arcadius). The cavalry is equipped with shields.

Furthermore, you have to consider the development of the Clibinarii. First they were very Parthian.
But with ongoing decades they had to develop new tactics and equipment.
Due my researches I believe, while fighting the Romans in the 3rd and 4th century they field few shield-equipped lancer cavalry, but with the increasing threats of invading nomad steppe tribes (Huns, Chionitae, Hephtalites, Turks), they had to transform.

Instead of fighting more infantry-based armies now horse archers were the main threat to them. The superheavy cavalry was in disadvantage, too slow. So they decreased the armor but giving them additional protection by using a shield. Finally that transformation was finished in the 6th century. From then on you can read many descriptions that Sassanian clibinari were equipped with shields.

Same for the development of the Roman cataphracts.

[wulfgar610]

Besides it sounds appallingly stupid that any cavalryman, even the most heavily armoured, would ever simply chill out on his horse and let the arrowheads hit him all over the torso! Would you do it? I wouldn't. What if an arrow is heading towards his head? I guess that some of you will now say: "Well, what the heck, he's wearing the facemask. There's no reason for worry". Do you really think it's such a cool fun to be hit in your torso by an arrowhead (or 10 arrowheads, or even more...), even if your dear Ammianus & Co. tell you that your armour makes you invulnerable.
In the eastern warfare dominated by archery, it seems quite possible that some of the cataphracts used the small shields wrapped around lower arm or upper arm. An arrow hit may likely produce a kind of shock (due to sudden and likely painful impact) or even displace a rider from a horse.

.....Or, you really, but really, believe there's such a thing as an invulnerability in combat.

Well I said before, test it out. Make a dummy, armor and shoot arrows at range and see how far you get. You find at range arrows and bolts of the period won't get through proper riveted chain maile backed by layers of leather and linen. You'll succeed some of the some of the time at very close range, but not at a distance.

An arrow at best, is one ounce of flimsy material traveling at 40 M/S at initial velocity. If it was a lead ball, I might be worried. A crossbow would be more effective with a more solid bolt. But even then the maximum effective range was 150 feet, or half the length of a small soccer field. The only thing effective with spent arrows is possibly on the morale of the target.

Do you really think it's such a cool fun to be hit in your torso by an arrowhead (or 10 arrowheads, or even more...), even if your dear Ammianus & Co. tell you that your armour makes you invulnerable.

Beats having your horse taken out from under you and getting trampled to death on the ground.

You're think of classical warfare from the standpoint of the individual. It had very little to do with the individual. It was all about a mass of men keeping order and using the methods that win the day.

The time you allow the individual to act on his own account, is the time your formation falls to pieces in disorder.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Would you do it?
.....Or, you really, but really, believe there's such a thing as an invulnerability in combat.

Are you aware that a relatively close range impact from the 5.56 (7.62 sniper match grade ammo easily kill) in the best body-armour available to present day infantry is likely to break your chest bone, even if it doesn't penetrate it (believe me, my girlfriend's brother serves in the Serbian military spec force "Cobras")?

Considering I'm an insane sociopath that loves combat and bloodlust, yes. Also, I've managed to find a tungsten-titanium alloy that can withstand an Impact from a 20mm high explosive round with only minor bruising, unfortunately it would be extremely expensive making it impractical for widespread use unless we conqured china, the world's largest tungsten supplier. Also, 7.62 mm? Were talking semi-armor piercing minigun rounds here (1 round is 10 bucks..., let alone a few housand)

[wulfgar610]

Reviewing the effects of modern weapons on Cataphracts doesn't prove anything into regards ancient warfare. A spent bolt that doesn't penetrate the armor I agree could cause a painful bruise, maybe even a disabling injury. But it beats what is going to happen to the enemy when he routs. It was pursuing the defeated enemy that killed multitude more than the formal battle.

[Valentinian Victor]

Reviewing the effects of modern weapons on Cataphracts doesn't prove anything into regards ancient warfare. A spent bolt that doesn't penetrate the armor I agree could cause a painful bruise, maybe even a disabling injury. But it beats what is going to happen to the enemy when he routs. It was pursuing the defeated enemy that killed multitude more than the formal battle.

There has been some modern research into the effects of missile fire during the ancient period and the numbers of actual casualties caused. What may well astonish readers is that in the main, proportionally few casualties were caused in the missile exchanges, especially when it was infantry firing on infantry. There accounts in Ammianus, Julian and Libanius where when the Romans were victorious in battle the numbers killed were only in the hundreds, yet the broken enemy had casualties in their thousands. Ammianus and Vegetius both stated that most deaths are caused by the pursuers on the pursued. I think too many people are swayed by the accounts of English Longbowmen at Agincourt and Crecy, where the weapons used were vastly different and therefore any comparison is negligible.

Anyone who states they do not believe the statements of the ancient authors, who in some cases were eyewitnesses to the very things they were making claims for, must then back up their claims using what sources?

I will bite my lip here and make a reply to Gaiten, I have seen the various Sasanid and Parthian reliefs covering the 3rd to 5th Centuries AD. The vast majority show Parthian and Sasanid cavalry thrusting their spears two handed at the enemy. I personally dont remember any shields being shown, but most riders have a long sword and a bow case with bow. A number of historians state that those figures who are not on horses are not dismounted Clibanarii/Catarfractarii, but are the Sasanid infantry mentioned by Ammianus, Julian, Libanius etc.

[Gäiten]

It is better you will bite your lip.

[juvenus]

Considering I'm an insane sociopath that loves combat and bloodlust, yes. Also, I've managed to find a tungsten-titanium alloy that can withstand an Impact from a 20mm high explosive round with only minor bruising, unfortunately it would be extremely expensive making it impractical for widespread use unless we conqured china, the world's largest tungsten supplier. Also, 7.62 mm? Were talking semi-armor piercing minigun rounds here (1 round is 10 bucks..., let alone a few housand)

No you wouldn't
Well, may I suggest you to apply for the Discavery TV's show "Adrenalin junky"?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'd Rather not...

[Renatus]

I came upon this thread some days ago and, as this is a subject that greatly interests me, would like to offer some comments on it. Before I do so, however, being a newcomer to the forum, I should present my credentials. I have been a student of the Roman army for nearly 40 years with an inclination towards the later period. I first looked into the question of Roman heavy cavalry some 20 years ago and have returned to it in the last three years or so. I am especially interested in discovering the differences implied by the terms "cataphracti/cataphracti equites", "cataphractarii" and "clibanarii" (and their Greek equivalents). This has involved considering over 70 sources - literary, epigraphic and papyrological - some containing multiple references. I hope that this will be deemed sufficient to enable me to make a useful contribution to the debate.

Before I set out my own ideas, I would like to comment upon some pronouncements in the previous discussion that seem to me to be questionable.

1.

I have postulated that the terms ‘catafract’ and ‘clibanarii’ were a reference to the rider and horses i.e. the riders were the ‘catafractarii’, whilst the armoured horses were the ‘clibanarii’. I base this on some part on the description of what may be the ‘Currus Drepanus’ in action within Vegetius, where the Latin text calls the chariot horse riders ‘catafractos’, and the armoured horses ‘clibanarious’. Other Latin works I have call infantry in armour ‘Catafractos’, which to my mind states men in heavy armour, as other troops within the same works are quoted as just wearing ‘lorica’. I think that where ‘catafracts’ are mentioned then the writer is talking about heavily armoured men probably on unarmoured horses, when they talk about ‘clibanarii’ they mean heavily armoured men on equally armoured horses. This would make clear the passage in Ammianus where at the Battle of Strasburg he talks about ‘catafractarii et clibanarii’ i.e. there were heavily armoured riders on both armoured and unarmoured horses.

(a) I assume that the reference to Vegetius is to Veg. 3.24.7 (detailing one of the tactics recommended against elephants). If so, it is incorrect. That passage speaks of a pair of "catafracti equi" hitched to a chariot upon which are "clibanarii" armed with sarissas with which to attack the elephants. This is the reverse of Valentinian Victor's postulation.

(b) I cannot find the phrase "catafractarii et clibanarii" in Ammianus' account of the battle of Strasbourg. A reference would be helpful.

2.

It's worth noting that
even Constantine's catafractarii were considered to be invulnerable in an
assault, and they may well have been similar to his opponents heavy cavalry.
It's also apparent that there was a great many of them at least on his oppenents
side, enough so that special weapons and tactics had to be devised against them.

I do not believe that the passage from Nazarius' panegyric supports the suggestion that Constantine had heavily armoured cavalry in his army. The translation of "sumis" as "you take over" is misleading as it can be interpreted as meaning "take over command". If this were correct, the passage in its context would make no sense. The panegyricist is saying, in effect, "the greater the challenge, the nobler the deed". It would be pointless for him to say that Constantine took over command of a portion of his army that is never mentioned again. What he is more likely to be saying is that Constantine "took on" the most formidable part of Maxentius' army, the clibanarii.

3.

Not exactly. "Grivpan" was an old form of armored neck protection (the Achaemenid heavy cavalry wore it) and the warriors wearing that were called "Grivpanvar", what the Greek made to "Grivpanvarios". You may see a certain similarity to "Clibanarios", what IMHO was a slang by Western troops taunting the enemy inside their "hot" gear

I have never liked the "*griv-pan" theory, chiefly because the word does not exist in the literature and has to be inferred, hence the asterisk (too often omitted) (see the brief discussion in Bivar 1972, 277n). Nor do I like the "oven-man" theory. I favour the more prosaic explanation that "clibanarius" derives from "clivanus" or "clibanus", meaning a cuirass (de Rebus Bellicis 15.2).

4.

The second picture is almost correct, except there is proof in two ancient sources for the horses armour to be either scale or mail, and the riders did not wear helmets, but had a metal face mask, read Ammianus' description of Constantius II arrival in Rome for a very good description.

I am surprised that no-one has pounced upon this. The notion that a heavily armoured cavalryman, likened to a human statue, who is invulnerable to wounds and does not need a shield, should go into battle bare-headed is, to say the least, improbable. Ammianus does not mention helmets because he is concentrating on the more striking elements of the riders' armament. He does not mention weapons or horse armour either.

5.

I can only reitterate that the ancient authors were adamant that catafratarii and clibanarii did not use shields as they were invulnerable to normal weapons. Constantine I and Constantius II used specialist troops armed with clubs studded with iron knobs whose blows were directed to the heads of the horses, not to kill them, but to stun them so that they threw their riders.

The chief targets of the clubmen were the riders, not the horses. A careful reading of Nazarius' panegyric makes it clear that the were aiming for the riders' heads and Libanius refers specifically to them striking the riders' temples.

6.

Why does Ammianus and Vegetius claim another way to deal with them was to mix light infantry with the less heavily armoured cavalry and those infantry tasked with diving under the clibanarii/catafractarii lances and stabbing at the horses unprotected belly/legs?

Ammianus, yes (Amm. 16.12.21-22); Vegetius, no (unless you can provide a reference).

That's enough for now. I will save my own ideas for a later posting.

Reference
Bivar 1972 - A.D.Bivar, 'Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972), 273-291.

[JackDionne]

Thank you for your input, I for one will be keeping an eye on this thread. Rep points to you sir.

[Renatus]

Thank you for your input, I for one will be keeping an eye on this thread. Rep points to you sir.

Thank you very much.

A couple of brief additions to my earlier post:

1. In Post #47, juvenus cited a post in another forum by Manuel I Komnenos. This is a straight lift out of Wikipedia and includes, " The term first appears substantively in Latin, in the writings of Sisennus: '... loricatos, quos cataphractos vocant ...' ". By "Sisennus", I assume the writer means L. Cornelius Sisenna, praetor in 78BC. His histories survive only in fragments and I do not find the quoted passage in any of them. It is found, however, in Livy 35.48.3. The reference appears to be wrong.

2. I was much impressed by the photograph of the clibanarius posted by Magistri Militum FlaviusAetius (#27). With the addition of a face-mask helmet for the rider and neck-armour for the horse, it would conform pretty much with how I imagine a clibanarius would have looked. Does anyone know which re-enactment group he belongs to?

[juvenus]

Hi Renatus and welcome to the TWC!

I have never liked the "*griv-pan" theory, chiefly because the word does not exist in the literature and has to be inferred, hence the asterisk (too often omitted) (see the brief discussion in Bivar 1972, 277n). Nor do I like the "oven-man" theory. I favour the more prosaic explanation that "clibanarius" derives from "clivanus" or "clibanus", meaning a cuirass (de Rebus Bellicis 15.2).

Exactly. I also posted that in some of my previous posts. It does seem as the most logical solution.

I am surprised that no-one has pounced upon this. The notion that a heavily armoured cavalryman, likened to a human statue, who is invulnerable to wounds and does not need a shield, should go into battle bare-headed is, to say the least, improbable. Ammianus does not mention helmets because he is concentrating on the more striking elements of the riders' armament. He does not mention weapons or horse armour either.

Not true that no one pounced upon this irresistibly improbable stupidity. Take a look at my post 81.
I can't believe that any front-line soldier would go into combat without shield-unless he was unable to afford one.
And the notion of the so-called invulnerability is the most appalling indeed.

I'll be glad to hear your further opinion. Feel free to post all your ideas.
So, can you tell us what, in your view, those terms (clibanarii and cataphractii) precisely refer to?

[wulfgar610]

Hi Renatus and welcome to the TWC!
Not true that no one pounced upon this irresistibly improbable stupidity. Take a look at my post 81.
I can't believe that any front-line soldier would go into combat without shield-unless he was unable to afford one.
And the notion of the so-called invulnerability is the most appalling indeed.

Come now, medieval history is full of expensive Japanese, Chinese and European heavily armored soldiers fighting without shields.
Ask the samurai why they don't carry shields?, or European pikemen or pole armed men not carrying shields?

[Valentinian Victor]

I came upon this thread some days ago and, as this is a subject that greatly interests me, would like to offer some comments on it. Before I do so, however, being a newcomer to the forum, I should present my credentials. I have been a student of the Roman army for nearly 40 years with an inclination towards the later period. I first looked into the question of Roman heavy cavalry some 20 years ago and have returned to it in the last three years or so. I am especially interested in discovering the differences implied by the terms "cataphracti/cataphracti equites", "cataphractarii" and "clibanarii" (and their Greek equivalents). This has involved considering over 70 sources - literary, epigraphic and papyrological - some containing multiple references. I hope that this will be deemed sufficient to enable me to make a useful contribution to the debate.

Before I set out my own ideas, I would like to comment upon some pronouncements in the previous discussion that seem to me to be questionable.

1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentinian Victor
I have postulated that the terms ‘catafract’ and ‘clibanarii’ were a reference to the rider and horses i.e. the riders were the ‘catafractarii’, whilst the armoured horses were the ‘clibanarii’. I base this on some part on the description of what may be the ‘Currus Drepanus’ in action within Vegetius, where the Latin text calls the chariot horse riders ‘catafractos’, and the armoured horses ‘clibanarious’. Other Latin works I have call infantry in armour ‘Catafractos’, which to my mind states men in heavy armour, as other troops within the same works are quoted as just wearing ‘lorica’. I think that where ‘catafracts’ are mentioned then the writer is talking about heavily armoured men probably on unarmoured horses, when they talk about ‘clibanarii’ they mean heavily armoured men on equally armoured horses. This would make clear the passage in Ammianus where at the Battle of Strasburg he talks about ‘catafractarii et clibanarii’ i.e. there were heavily armoured riders on both armoured and unarmoured horses.

(a) I assume that the reference to Vegetius is to Veg. 3.24.7 (detailing one of the tactics recommended against elephants). If so, it is incorrect. That passage speaks of a pair of "catafracti equi" hitched to a chariot upon which are "clibanarii" armed with sarissas with which to attack the elephants. This is the reverse of Valentinian Victor's postulation.

(b) I cannot find the phrase "catafractarii et clibanarii" in Ammianus' account of the battle of Strasbourg. A reference would be helpful.

Valentinian- I will answer each question individually-
A) You really need to read both the latin and English translations of the relevant sections in both Vegetius the 'De Rebus Bellicis'. I have discussed this on other sites with historians who agree that the descripition in Vegetius of the anti-chariot device and the scythed chariots in 'De Rebus Bellicis' are one and the same animal. I urge you to read the latin versions for a comparison.
b) Unfortunately I culled this quote from an old 19th Century book and so the translation may well not correspond to the latin in Rolfe's translation.

2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentinian Victor
It's worth noting that
even Constantine's catafractarii were considered to be invulnerable in an
assault, and they may well have been similar to his opponents heavy cavalry.
It's also apparent that there was a great many of them at least on his oppenents
side, enough so that special weapons and tactics had to be devised against them.

I do not believe that the passage from Nazarius' panegyric supports the suggestion that Constantine had heavily armoured cavalry in his army. The translation of "sumis" as "you take over" is misleading as it can be interpreted as meaning "take over command". If this were correct, the passage in its context would make no sense. The panegyricist is saying, in effect, "the greater the challenge, the nobler the deed". It would be pointless for him to say that Constantine took over command of a portion of his army that is never mentioned again. What he is more likely to be saying is that Constantine "took on" the most formidable part of Maxentius' army, the clibanarii.

Valentinian- The trouble with latin is that we can all take various words as having various meanings depending on context. Your quite right that 'sumis' could mean either 'you take over' and also 'take over command' and my reading and others of this section in Nazarius, as the translators appear to agree with, is that Constantine had cavalry as heavily armoured as his opponent and it was those he led into an attack on his opponents similar cavalry. Why on Earth would Constantine attack his opponents heavily armoured horsemen with those that were inferior?

3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gäiten
Not exactly. "Grivpan" was an old form of armored neck protection (the Achaemenid heavy cavalry wore it) and the warriors wearing that were called "Grivpanvar", what the Greek made to "Grivpanvarios". You may see a certain similarity to "Clibanarios", what IMHO was a slang by Western troops taunting the enemy inside their "hot" gear

I have never liked the "*griv-pan" theory, chiefly because the word does not exist in the literature and has to be inferred, hence the asterisk (too often omitted) (see the brief discussion in Bivar 1972, 277n). Nor do I like the "oven-man" theory. I favour the more prosaic explanation that "clibanarius" derives from "clivanus" or "clibanus", meaning a cuirass (de Rebus Bellicis 15.2).

4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentinian Victor
The second picture is almost correct, except there is proof in two ancient sources for the horses armour to be either scale or mail, and the riders did not wear helmets, but had a metal face mask, read Ammianus' description of Constantius II arrival in Rome for a very good description.

I am surprised that no-one has pounced upon this. The notion that a heavily armoured cavalryman, likened to a human statue, who is invulnerable to wounds and does not need a shield, should go into battle bare-headed is, to say the least, improbable. Ammianus does not mention helmets because he is concentrating on the more striking elements of the riders' armament. He does not mention weapons or horse armour either.

Valentinian- I have not said that they were bare headed, rather I should have stated I believe that they wore probably a mail coif with a face mask attached. You need to read Julian's description of Clibanarii to compare with the description Ammianus gives as well.

5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentinian Victor
I can only reitterate that the ancient authors were adamant that catafratarii and clibanarii did not use shields as they were invulnerable to normal weapons. Constantine I and Constantius II used specialist troops armed with clubs studded with iron knobs whose blows were directed to the heads of the horses, not to kill them, but to stun them so that they threw their riders.

The chief targets of the clubmen were the riders, not the horses. A careful reading of Nazarius' panegyric makes it clear that the were aiming for the riders' heads and Libanius refers specifically to them striking the riders' temples.

Valentinian- I'm afraid I am going to totally disagree with you here. It would be virtually impossible to hit a rider on the head, most riders would be too high up to hit unless your club was about 6 feet long! I know having riden horses in mock combat myself. Nazarius has been interpreted by many others as the clubmen stunning the horses which in turn throw their riders.
6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentinian Victor
Why does Ammianus and Vegetius claim another way to deal with them was to mix light infantry with the less heavily armoured cavalry and those infantry tasked with diving under the clibanarii/catafractarii lances and stabbing at the horses unprotected belly/legs?

Ammianus, yes (Amm. 16.12.21-22); Vegetius, no (unless you can provide a reference).

Valentinian- Here is the relevant quote from Vegetius-

If your cavalry is not equal to the enemy's it is proper, after the ancient custom, to intermingle it with light infantry armed with small shields and trained to this kind of service. By observing this method, even though the flower of the enemy's cavalry should attack you, they will never be able to cope with this mixed disposition. This was the only resource of the old generals to supply the defects of their cavalry, and they intermingled the men, used to running and armed for this purpose with light shields, swords and darts, among the horse, placing one of them between two troopers.

One could argue that ordinary Roman Equites would be unable to deal with Clibanarii the same as obviously the Goths at Strasburg were unable to do so without mixing light infantry with them.


That's enough for now. I will save my own ideas for a later posting.

Reference
Bivar 1972 - A.D.Bivar, 'Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972), 273-291.

[Valentinian Victor]

Whilst most of the 'doubting Thomas' out there would like to believe that Late Roman Clibanarii must have had shields, based on no evidence other than their own private theories, the evidence, from both literary sources and pictorial shows Clibanarii without shields. If you can prove otherwise using both ancient sources and pictorial evidence then please post those references. And dont go quoting the Catafratarii/Clibanarii shield patterns from the Notitia!!!

[Renatus]

1.
Valentinian- I will answer each question individually-
A) You really need to read both the latin and English translations of the relevant sections in both Vegetius the 'De Rebus Bellicis'. I have discussed this on other sites with historians who agree that the descripition in Vegetius of the anti-chariot device and the scythed chariots in 'De Rebus Bellicis' are one and the same animal. I urge you to read the latin versions for a comparison.
b) Unfortunately I culled this quote from an old 19th Century book and so the translation may well not correspond to the latin in Rolfe's translation.

2.
Valentinian- The trouble with latin is that we can all take various words as having various meanings depending on context. Your quite right that 'sumis' could mean either 'you take over' and also 'take over command' and my reading and others of this section in Nazarius, as the translators appear to agree with, is that Constantine had cavalry as heavily armoured as his opponent and it was those he led into an attack on his opponents similar cavalry. Why on Earth would Constantine attack his opponents heavily armoured horsemen with those that were inferior?

4.
Valentinian- I have not said that they were bare headed, rather I should have stated I believe that they wore probably a mail coif with a face mask attached. You need to read Julian's description of Clibanarii to compare with the description Ammianus gives as well.

5.
Valentinian- I'm afraid I am going to totally disagree with you here. It would be virtually impossible to hit a rider on the head, most riders would be too high up to hit unless your club was about 6 feet long! I know having riden horses in mock combat myself. Nazarius has been interpreted by many others as the clubmen stunning the horses which in turn throw their riders.

6.
Valentinian- Here is the relevant quote from Vegetius-

If your cavalry is not equal to the enemy's it is proper, after the ancient custom, to intermingle it with light infantry armed with small shields and trained to this kind of service. By observing this method, even though the flower of the enemy's cavalry should attack you, they will never be able to cope with this mixed disposition. This was the only resource of the old generals to supply the defects of their cavalry, and they intermingled the men, used to running and armed for this purpose with light shields, swords and darts, among the horse, placing one of them between two troopers.

One could argue that ordinary Roman Equites would be unable to deal with Clibanarii the same as obviously the Goths at Strasburg were unable to do so without mixing light infantry with them.

Valentinian, to avoid this reply being too cumbersome, I have edited out the passges in your reply that replicate my original post, leaving only your responses. I have retained my original numbering for ease of reference.

1.
(a) I regret that I do not see the relevance of this response. Whether or not Vegetius is referring to the Currodrepanus is neither here nor there. The question is whether you were correct on your original post in saying, " the Latin text calls the chariot horse riders 'catafractos', and the armoured horses 'clibanarious'. You were not. Vegetius calls the horses 'catafracti equi' and the riders 'clibanarii'. For what it is worth, the author of de Rebus Bellicis uses none of these terms.

(b) I would like to have the details of this book, so that I can satisfy my curiosity.

2.
I agree that in Latin words can have various meanings; it is the context that determines which is the most appropriate. As to 'sumo', of the alternatives offered by Lewis & Short, I suggest that "To take (by choice), to choose, select" or "To take as one's own, to assume, claim, arrogate, appropriate to one's self" are the ones that apply. The point is that Nazarius' text is a panegyric the purpose of which is to praise Constantine. It is no praise to say that he took control of a part of the army which, on the face of it, contributed nothing to his victory. The praise lies in his devising a tactic that defeated the most formidable part of the enemy army. That is why I say that, in the context, the obvious meaning of "sumis" is that he took to himself the task of overcoming Maxentius' clibanarii.

4.
I don't think that Julian's description helps very much. It simply says (in the Loeb translation) that the cavalrymen's heads and faces were covered by a mask. You can have them wearing a mail coif, if you like. I prefer to think that, in the case of a warrior whose whole protection rested on the strength of his armour (I'm not getting into the "shield, no shield" argument at this stage), it is more credible that his head should be protected by the solidity of a helmet. I suggest that the reason for Ammianus' not mentioning it is that, for him, it went without saying.

5.
I think that you exaggerate but no matter. Clubbing the horses may well be effective against armoured cavalry and, indeed, some of the clubmen at Turin may have used the technique, but that is not what the source says. You have helpfully quoted Nixon and Rodgers' translation of Nazarius (Post #12) and it is clear to me that the passage commencing "Thus our men assailed ..." and ending "... confused slaughter of horses ...) refers to the clubbing of the riders "especially on their heads". The subsequent reference to the horses throwing their riders relates to their pain "when their vulnerable parts had been discovered". I suggest that this means that they had been stabbed in the belly. Libanius, or.59.110 specifically refers to the riders being struck on the temple.

6.
The reference is Veg. 3.16.5-7. I thought that you might have had this in mind but it is not specific to tactics against armoured cavalry; it applies to any situation in which cavalry is deficient compared with that of the enemy, for whatever reason. The use of "fortissimi" indicates that armoured cavalry could be involved but the tactic is not excusively for use against them. I agree with you entirely that, if the Romans thought such tactics were effective, they would have used them; they were nothing if not pragmatic.

[Valentinian Victor]

Valentinian, to avoid this reply being too cumbersome, I have edited out the passges in your reply that replicate my original post, leaving only your responses. I have retained my original numbering for ease of reference.

1.
(a) I regret that I do not see the relevance of this response. Whether or not Vegetius is referring to the Currodrepanus is neither here nor there. The question is whether you were correct on your original post in saying, " the Latin text calls the chariot horse riders 'catafractos', and the armoured horses 'clibanarious'. You were not. Vegetius calls the horses 'catafracti equi' and the riders 'clibanarii'. For what it is worth, the author of de Rebus Bellicis uses none of these terms.

Valentinian- The relevance is that within the text of Vegetius there are references to infantry wearing 'catafracts' or 'catafractos'. The riders in the latin text of 'De Rebus Bellicis' are also referred as 'catafractos'. I have discovered a number of ancient authors referring to infantry wearing either 'catafracts' or 'catafractos', and this is a strong implication that 'catafract' was a term used to describe heavily armoured infantry. Clibanarii appears to be a term in the main used to describe heavily armoured horses.

(b) I would like to have the details of this book, so that I can satisfy my curiosity.

Valentininan- Its an Bohn's Classical Library copy of Ammianus, probably quite hard to source now.

2.
I agree that in Latin words can have various meanings; it is the context that determines which is the most appropriate. As to 'sumo', of the alternatives offered by Lewis & Short, I suggest that "To take (by choice), to choose, select" or "To take as one's own, to assume, claim, arrogate, appropriate to one's self" are the ones that apply. The point is that Nazarius' text is a panegyric the purpose of which is to praise Constantine. It is no praise to say that he took control of a part of the army which, on the face of it, contributed nothing to his victory. The praise lies in his devising a tactic that defeated the most formidable part of the enemy army. That is why I say that, in the context, the obvious meaning of "sumis" is that he took to himself the task of overcoming Maxentius' clibanarii.

Valentinian- I think the text is not explicit enough to make a judgement that will either satisfy yourself or myself, we will have to differ on this point.
4.
I don't think that Julian's description helps very much. It simply says (in the Loeb translation) that the cavalrymen's heads and faces were covered by a mask. You can have them wearing a mail coif, if you like. I prefer to think that, in the case of a warrior whose whole protection rested on the strength of his armour (I'm not getting into the "shield, no shield" argument at this stage), it is more credible that his head should be protected by the solidity of a helmet. I suggest that the reason for Ammianus' not mentioning it is that, for him, it went without saying.

Valentinian- There is a much better description in Ammianus where he describes Sasanid Clibanarii and their armour, with their face masks. He obviously equates them to being similar to the Late Roman Clibanarii. I'm not adverse to the idea that a helmet may have been worn, and the 'Sutton Hoo' helmet and various Roman Equites 'parade' helmets that have been found that have face masks attached, so there is some evidence of their existance. As to the whether they had shields or not, both Ammianus and Julian are explict they did not, and both authors saw Late Roman Clibanarii up close and personal. If we cannot believe them then where is the counter evidence?

5.
I think that you exaggerate but no matter. Clubbing the horses may well be effective against armoured cavalry and, indeed, some of the clubmen at Turin may have used the technique, but that is not what the source says. You have helpfully quoted Nixon and Rodgers' translation of Nazarius (Post #12) and it is clear to me that the passage commencing "Thus our men assailed ..." and ending "... confused slaughter of horses ...) refers to the clubbing of the riders "especially on their heads". The subsequent reference to the horses throwing their riders relates to their pain "when their vulnerable parts had been discovered". I suggest that this means that they had been stabbed in the belly. Libanius, or.59.110 specifically refers to the riders being struck on the temple.

Valentinian- I again feel we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I have thrown my lot in with those historians who state that its the more logical interpretation that it was the horses who were clubbed rather than the rather odd situation of having the difficulty of having to club the riders on the head, riders who can dodge the blows whilst their mounts cannot by the way.

6.
The reference is Veg. 3.16.5-7. I thought that you might have had this in mind but it is not specific to tactics against armoured cavalry; it applies to any situation in which cavalry is deficient compared with that of the enemy, for whatever reason. The use of "fortissimi" indicates that armoured cavalry could be involved but the tactic is not excusively for use against them. I agree with you entirely that, if the Romans thought such tactics were effective, they would have used them; they were nothing if not pragmatic.

Valentinian- Its not stretching a point to note that Vegetius may have had a copy of Ammianus to hand, he does say at the end of the full translation/latin text that he compiled his 'epitome' from a number of works. So he may have noted that Ammianus stated that the way the Germans felt was best to deal with Clibanarii was to mix infantry with the lesser armoured cavalry and these infantry were tasked with stabbing at the unprotected underbellys of the horses.

[Renatus]

Valentinian, I will reply to your comments using my original numbering.

1.
(a) There are a number of points here that I will take in turn.

(i) Vegetius does indeed use "catafracta" for infantry armour but he uses "catafractos" only once in the expression "catafractos milites" (Veg. 3.24.9) where it is an adjective qualifying "milites". I don't think that this is as definite as you would like it to be.

(ii) The riders in de Rebus Bellicis are not referred to as "catafractos". A "catafract"-derived word occurs only once, in the description of the Currodrepanus Clipeatus (DRB 14.5), where "catafracto" is used in relation to the horse's armour.

(iii) Could you let me have the references to the ancient authors that you mention? They may assist my own research.

(iv) I am sorry but I do not agree that this is implies that infantry were known as catafracts. They could have been but I would need to see much stronger evidence to be persuaded. All that I know of is the passage in Vegetius mentioned above, which probably refers to infantrymen, and SHA, Aurelian 34.4, "cataphractarii milites", which could be infantry or cavalry.

(v) At risk of repeating myself, I cannot agree that "clibanarii" describes the horses. "Clibanarius" and its derivatives occurs comparatively infrequently in the literary sources. Nazarius uses it for the horse-and-rider combination but Vegetius uses it for the men alone and Ammianus, having used it in relation to Constantius' escort in Rome, goes on to describe the armour of only the men. If you have specific evidence of its being used in relation to the horses, I would like to see it. My impression is that it is a term that actually refers only to the men but carrying the implication that the horses would also be armoured.

(b) I have found it on the Internet. All I need now is a page reference.

2.
I agree but I am sorry not to have persuaded you by the logic of my argument.

4.
I think that you may have Amm. 25.1.12 in mind. This is good but does not help resolve the helmet issue. However, I now have something that may. I said that Julian's description did not help very much. The Loeb translation of the relevant passage reads, "The head and face are covered by a metal mask" (Julian, Or.1. 37D). I accepted this until I realised that "kranos" (Julian's word) means "helmet", not "head." Not having enough Greek to resolve this dilemma, I enlisted the assistance of a former Head of Classics at my old school. His literal translation is, " the helmet - of iron - worn on the face itself." This strengthens the pro-helmet case considerably. Perhaps Julian is more helpful than I thought!

5.
I have had a slight change of heart. I still hold to the view that the clubmen attacked the men and not the horses but I now think that it is not correct to say that they aimed specifically for the head. I think that the better interpretation of the passage is that the riders were disabled by blows struck to them generally but that those that happened to strike the head were particularly effective. In short, the tactic was to bludgeon them from their horses, let the blows land where they might. A hefty wallop with an iron-bound club is likely to do damage, wherever it lands. I don't know that the riders could dodge very easily anyway. The sources seem to suggest that they were pretty immobile.

6.

Valentinian- Its not stretching a point to note that Vegetius may have had a copy of Ammianus to hand, he does say at the end of the full translation/latin text that he compiled his 'epitome' from a number of works. So he may have noted that Ammianus stated that the way the Germans felt was best to deal with Clibanarii was to mix infantry with the lesser armoured cavalry and these infantry were tasked with stabbing at the unprotected underbellys of the horses.

I think that this is stretching things a bit. The technique is much older than the battle of Strasbourg. Caesar attributes similar tactics to the Germans in Bell.Gall. 1.48.5-7 and Frontinus (one of Vegetius' named sources) states that Caesar himself adopted something similar at Pharsalus (Front. Strat. 2.3.22).

[Renatus]

In my first post (#90), I mentioned my research into Roman heavy cavalry and promised to set out my ideas in a later post. It has taken me longer than I expected to get round to this but I am now ready to do so. I also take the opportunity to comment upon themes that have emerged during the earlier discussion - the relationship between cataphractarii and clibanarii, and weaponry, particularly the use of bows and shields.

This is not an academic paper, so I will not be going through the detailed evidence and then stating my conclusions. Instead, I will go straight to the results of my research. This can give the appearance of being over-dogmatic but I will try to avoid that by citing at least some supporting evidence. Anyone may ask for my reasoning on any point and I will endeavour to oblige. I will use the English term "cataphract" to refer to heavy cavalry non-specifically; for any particular type, I will use what I consider to be the appropriate Latin expression and this should be understood to include its Greek equivalent. In Latin, the "-ph-" spelling and the "-f-" spelling are used interchangeably. I use the "-ph-" form unless my source dictates the alternative. I will begin by considering the types of cataphract in foreign armies upon which the Romans modelled theirs; then I will deal with the terminology used for the various types; finally, I will tackle the themes that I have mentioned above.


Influences

There were two types of cataphract upon which the Romans modelled the heavy cavalry in there own army. I call these the Eastern type and the Western type.

Eastern
Although the Romans did not adopt this type of cataphract until much later, they first encountered it in the 2nd Century BC in the Seleucid armies of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. The type persisted into the Sasanian period. In its fullest form, the rider wore a face-mask helmet, body armour and segmented arm and leg defences, rode a fully armoured horse and was armed with contus, sword and bow (principally Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 9.15).

Western
This type seems to have reached its fullest development in the armies of the Sarmatian tribes. Both rider and horse were armoured; the man was armed with contus and sword, and did not use a shield (Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, 6.231-238; Tacitus, Histories, 1.79). Tacitus calls the rider's armour "catafractes" and says that it was made from scales of iron or hard leather and was so heavy that the man had difficulty getting up when unhorsed. I see it as a form of hauberk. Trajan's Column shows Sarmation cavalry with both horse and rider wholly covered with tight-fitting scale armour. Although obviously unrealistic, this is a clear attempt to render in stone a verbal description of cavalry armoured from head to foot in scale. The riders' helmets are shown as a form of Spangenhelm.


Terminology

In my opinion, insufficient attention has been given in the past to using the correct terminology when describing this type of cavalry. The result is that terms are frequently used inappropriately or treated as synonymous when they should not be. What follows is my attempt to create a glossary in which these words are given what I see to be their correct meaning and to suggest how they might properly be used in the future.

Cataphracti/Cataphracti Equites
These terms appear to be synonymous and are treated together. They are literary terms used in referring to the Eastern type of cataphract by numerous writers from Polybius to Ammianus, Vegetius and Eunapius. When used in a Roman context they are synonymous with clibanarii (e.g., Amm. 16.10.8; Veg. 3.23.3). I have identified 54 usages referring to non-Roman cataphracts of this type, against only four occasions when "cataphractarius" or "clibanarius" are used. These are explicable as certain or probable anachronisms. I conclude that cataphracti or cataphracti equites are the "correct" terms to be applied to non-Roman cataphracts of the Eastern type.

Catafractata
This term is known only in relation to ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata. The full title of the ala appears in an inscription setting out the career of M. Maenius Agrippa, who was its prefect in the late-AD120s or mid-130s (CIL XI 5632 = ILS 2735). This ala is the first cataphract unit known in the Roman army and the first evidence we have for it is in a diploma dated 1st June 125 (RMD IV 235) when it was stationed in Moesia Inferior; it remained in that province until at least the late 150s (RMD I 50). It was formed probably under either Trajan or Hadrian. I favour Hadrian and believe it to have been formed in response to Sarmatian incursions into the province at the beginning of his reign. This being so, I postulate that it was modelled upon the Western type of cataphract, the most formidable foe that it was likely to meet in that theatre, and to have been equipped in almost exactly the same manner. At least, it would have had the most characteristic elements - the hauberk and the horse armour - and would have been armed with contus and sword.

Cataphractarii
Cataphractarius is a technical term for a particular troop type in the Roman army. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to apply it to non-Roman troops. The evidence is mainly epigraphic and papyrological, although nine units are named in the Notitia Dignitatum. At the time of the Notitia (late-4th/early-5th Century), most units were stationed in the East but the type has a distinctly Western bias. Of 19 units known from the Notitia and epigraphy, 15 can be shown to have originated or served in the West. All inscriptions naming such units have been found in Europe except one and that refers to an ala (ala nova firma milliaria catafractaria Philippiana) that had previously served in the West. These inscriptions seem to date from the 3rd and 4th Centuries and the time-lag and change in nomenclature mean that it cannot be demonstrated what connection (if any) this type of unit may bear to that of ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata. However, the suffix "-arius" often shows that a soldier was equipped in a certain manner, e.g., sagittarius, lancearius, etc., and I conclude that here it indicates that the cavalrymen wore cataphractae similar to those of the Sarmatians mentioned by Tacitus and, on my analysis, by the men of ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata. From this, I conclude that cataphractarii were of the Western type of cataphract, although other equipment may have been modified to some extent. In particular, from the representations on tombstones, it seems that the horses were no longer armoured and the men had adopted shields.

Clibanarii
Again, the evidence indicates that clibanarii were a specific Roman troop type and the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops. They were of the Eastern type of cataphract, as demonstrated by detailed descriptions in Ammianus Marcellinus and Nazarius in which the term is used (Amm. 16.10.8; Naz., Paneg., 22.4) and in other sources in which it is not but the meaning is clear (e.g., Julian, Or. I, 37C-D; Claudian, in Rufinum II, 355-362). In contrast to the cataphractarii, where unit titles in the Notitia Dignitatum indicate an area of origin or service clibanarii have an Eastern bias. The Historia Augusta suggests that the type was introduced into the Roman army by Severus Alexander, using captured Sasanian equipment (SHA, Severus Alexander, 56.5). This is not the most reliable of sources but, in this instance, I am prepared to accept it.


Cataphractarii and Clibanarii

It will be apparent from the above that I am not of the school that holds that cataphractarii and clibanarii were one and the same. It may be that some at least of those who are have been misled by the failure to differentiate between cataphracti/cataphracti equites and cataphractarii. Nevertheless, the relationship between cataphractarii and clibanarii is a complex one. Both appear in the Notitia Dignitatum and, where units of both types are included in a field army, the cataphractarii are listed first. This strongly indicates that not only did they differ but that, of the two, the cataphractarii were the senior. The difference, I suggest, lies in the way that they were equipped, with the cataphractarii being the lighter armed, as indicated above. I will consider this when I come to deal with the weaponry. The cataphractarii probably owed their seniority to their being the older formation, being already in existance when Eastern-style cataphracts were introduced into the army.

Having said this, it seems likely that there was a time when Eastern-style cataphracts in the Roman army were regarded as a type of cataphractarius, albeit one much more heavily armed than the norm. The term "clibanarius" is not securely attested in the literature until its appearance in the armies of Maximin Daia in c.311 (Lactantius, de Mort. Pers., 40.5) and Maxentius in 312 (Nazarius, Paneg. 22.4) and the literary expressions "cataphractus" and "cataphractus eques" do not seem to have found favour with the military. I have found only one unit so named (arithmou kataphraktôn), in a papyrus dated 26 May 267 (P.Oxy. XLI 2951.19). Therefore, for a time after first having been introduced into the army, such units are likely to have been called "cataphractarii" with the addition of some epithet to denote their differing nature. The existance of a vexillatio equitum catafractariorum clibanariorum (AE 1984, 825 = Speidel 1984) points in this direction. The title of the unit means "clibanarian cataphractarii" or "cataphractarii equipped as clibanarii" and represents an intermediate stage in the terminology before "clibanarius" became a title in its own right. Thereafter, "cataphractarius" reverted to its former meaning as referring exclusively to the Western type of cataphract, which is how it appears in the Notitia. This historic connection between the two terms possibly accounts for the notorious passage in the Historia Augusta, referring to Severus Alexander's defeat of the Sasanian army, - "cataphractarios, quos illi" (sc., Persae) "clibanarios vocant" (SHA, Severus Alexander, 56.5) - which has bedevilled the study of this subject for generations.


This post has become rather long-winded. I will deal with the weaponry in a separate post.


Abbreviations & References

AE - L'Année Épigraphique
CIL - Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
ILS - Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
RMD I - M.M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas 1954-1977, London, 1978
RMD IV - M. Roxan & P. Holder, Roman Military Diplomas IV, London, 2003
SHA - Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Speidel 1984 - M.P. Speidel, 'Catafractarii Clibanarii and the Rise of the Later Roman Mailed Cavalry: A Gravestone from Claudiopolis in Bithynia', Epigraphica Anatolica 4 (1984), 151-156