The arms and equipment of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Renatus]

Yes, let's get back to the topic.

I believe, as other historians have also pointed out, that the Catafractarii/Clibanarii present at the Battle of Strasburg had both riders and horses in full armour, hence the reason they broke when one of the officers was killed whilst being thrown and the horse crushing him due to the weight of its armour.

The passage in Ammianus has been interpreted as meaning the rider was killed when the horse fell on him, as historians fail to see how a rider can be crushed by his own armour!!!

Ammianus is explicit, he states crushed by the weight of the armour, not trampled etc.

This interpretation of the incident during the battle of Strasburg seems to be based upon an outdated edition of the Latin text. Up to about 1874, editors of the text rendered the relevant passage as "et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso", in which "labentis" related to the horse and "oppresso" related to the man. This is the text used by Yonge in his 1862 translation in the Bohn series. From 1910, editors seem to have changed this (doubtless for sound philological reasons) to "et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labente, pondere armorum oppressi", in which "labente" relates to the man and "oppressi" relates to the horse. This is the version followed by Rolfe (Loeb) and Hamilton (Penguin) in their translations. Thus, whereas the older editions had the man affected by the weight of his armour and the horse falling, the more modern editions have the horse suffering from the (probably combined) weight of armour and the man falling. This being so, the premise of recent posts on the subject has been rendered obselete by modern scholarship.

Lest this should simply transfer the "crushing" debate from the man to the horse, it is necessary to consider the meaning of "opprimo", the parent verb of "oppressus". This word has a variety of meanings, one of which is, indeed, "crush". However, this is principally in the figurative sense of "overpower" or "subdue". Other significant meanings are "sink", "overcome", "overwhelm", "weigh down", "wear out", "weaken" and "exhaust". Any of these could quite properly be applied to a horse (or, if one insists on following the old texts, a man) suffering from the effects of heavy armour and, probably also, heat exhaustion, without invoking the notion of his having been crushed to death. Indeed, the Latin of neither the old nor the newer versions says anything of anyone being killed or of a horse falling on its rider. These are simply glosses on the part of the translator.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso

please translate, I don't know that much latin!!! I can make out something about horse armor pressure

[Valentinian Victor]

Yes, let's get back to the topic.







This interpretation of the incident during the battle of Strasburg seems to be based upon an outdated edition of the Latin text. Up to about 1874, editors of the text rendered the relevant passage as "et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso", in which "labentis" related to the horse and "oppresso" related to the man. This is the text used by Yonge in his 1862 translation in the Bohn series. From 1910, editors seem to have changed this (doubtless for sound philological reasons) to "et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labente, pondere armorum oppressi", in which "labente" relates to the man and "oppressi" relates to the horse. This is the version followed by Rolfe (Loeb) and Hamilton (Penguin) in their translations. Thus, whereas the older editions had the man affected by the weight of his armour and the horse falling, the more modern editions have the horse suffering from the (probably combined) weight of armour and the man falling. This being so, the premise of recent posts on the subject has been rendered obselete by modern scholarship.

Lest this should simply transfer the "crushing" debate from the man to the horse, it is necessary to consider the meaning of "opprimo", the parent verb of "oppressus". This word has a variety of meanings, one of which is, indeed, "crush". However, this is principally in the figurative sense of "overpower" or "subdue". Other significant meanings are "sink", "overcome", "overwhelm", "weigh down", "wear out", "weaken" and "exhaust". Any of these could quite properly be applied to a horse (or, if one insists on following the old texts, a man) suffering from the effects of heavy armour and, probably also, heat exhaustion, without invoking the notion of his having been crushed to death. Indeed, the Latin of neither the old nor the newer versions says anything of anyone being killed or of a horse falling on its rider. These are simply glosses on the part of the translator.

I have to correct you here and state I was using both Rolfe and my own translation of the latin text in this debate, I only use the Bohn and Penguin editions (you of course know that the Penguin edition is heavily abridged?) where there is a possible dispute or uncertainty in the translation. I have to say many scholars and historians now distrust Rolfe's translation, in the main because he leaves out more than he translates, or choses his own interpretation that is in variance with what is now known. The fact that oprrimo can translate in various ways is always going to be a problem with latin words, and each translator can take the word different meanings in different ways. My own, and other modern scholars as well, are that the clibanarii horse either was injured, or stumbled, throwing the rider forward and then the horse fell on top of him, crushing him with its weight. This was recorded as happening a number of times to medieval knights so I see no reason why it should not happen to equally armoured Clibanarii.

And for my other arguments I will state that I use the Loeb translations for LIbanius and Julian, Heathers translation of Themistius etc.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Clibanarii usually would have been more heavily armored than knights.

[Renatus]

et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso

please translate, I don't know that much latin!!! I can make out something about horse armor pressure

Something like: "and one of their comrades collapsing with the weight of his armour over the neck of his falling horse". Not a very elegant translation, I admit, but pretty literal. Anyway, we may not have to worry about the old editions any more, now that Valentinian Victor has said that he was speaking from his own translation of one of the newer versions.

I have to correct you here and state I was using both Rolfe and my own translation of the latin text in this debate, I only use the Bohn and Penguin editions (you of course know that the Penguin edition is heavily abridged?) where there is a possible dispute or uncertainty in the translation. I have to say many scholars and historians now distrust Rolfe's translation, in the main because he leaves out more than he translates, or choses his own interpretation that is in variance with what is now known. The fact that oprrimo can translate in various ways is always going to be a problem with latin words, and each translator can take the word different meanings in different ways. My own, and other modern scholars as well, are that the clibanarii horse either was injured, or stumbled, throwing the rider forward and then the horse fell on top of him, crushing him with its weight. This was recorded as happening a number of times to medieval knights so I see no reason why it should not happen to equally armoured Clibanarii.

And for my other arguments I will state that I use the Loeb translations for LIbanius and Julian, Heathers translation of Themistius etc.

Correction accepted: my apologies. However, I would very much like to see your actual translation of this part of Rolfe's text. Do you agree with my comments on the grammar? If not, where do you think I have gone wrong?

Of course horses could fall on clibanarii, just as they have fallen on their riders over the centuries. The point is: Why make life difficult for yourself by inventing a scenario that is not apparent from the text? All we need to know is that the man was unhorsed. You can imagine why the rest of the cataphracti equites panicked, knowing what was likely to happen to them if they suffered a similar mishap and, further, having been previously reminded that they were not as invulnerable as they might have thought by seeing their commander wounded.

On your last paragraph, when you are not under so much pressure at work and can get back to your books, I should be very grateful to have the references. I must confess that I am still struggling with your reasoning. As I read it, you used to think that cataphractarii and clibanarii were different but you then read some texts describing armoured men on armoured horses and this somehow changed your mind. I don't get it.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

thanks renatus.

[Renatus]

Remember him? RAT tracked him down in Australia. For more pictures and discussion see:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...it=+clibanarii

Unfortunately, what look like having been some interesting photographs seem no longer to be available.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

good work renatus.

[wulfgar610]

Clibanarii usually would have been more heavily armored than knights.

Generally was the case. But the European "knight" as known was fully in vogue by the 8th century. Continual up armoring occurred with increasing use of plate in the 13th and 14th centuries. Far from ending the reign of the "knight" gunpowder weapons stimulated them to wear even heavier armor called "ammunition plate".
But "knights" often dismounted to fight on foot and almost exclusively so in the 100 years war. The heavy cavalry charge came back into vogue in the late 15th century using that heavy guarded balanced lance illustrated in movies. (something I find annoying with MTW, since they use that lance way too early I think?)
Horse armor seems to have varied but in the renaissance extremely heavy horse armor was used on occasion and perhaps extensively by the Spanish.
There would be heaps of MTW players who would know the subject a hundred times better than me.

It appears Knights became ever heavier until they were so heavy it became counter productive. A counter trend of lighter cavalry types was seen in European armies as well.

The "classic" era of the European Knight seems to have culminated with the romantic literature of the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I fond this online, good for a 3rd century representation of clibanarii

[Renatus]

The conclusion I derive from this is that clibanarii were the more heavily equipped, the riders encased in iron from head to toe riding armoured horses, a bit ponderous, perhaps, but psychologically terrifying.

I would imagine in a late Roman context, a combined arms approach on the battlefield where light and regular cavalry would harass and flank the line infantry in a similar manner, with the cataphracts and clibanarii presented in all their exotic armour as much for psychological effect as actual combat effectiveness.

One aspect of the use of clibanarii and their non-Roman equivalents, touched on in the above posts but not developed, is the psychological effect that they would have had upon the opposing forces. I set out below a selection of passages relating to this. I do not claim it to be exhaustive and would be pleased to see any additions that others may be able to make to it. I divide the references into four broad categories, although there is inevitably some overlap between them.

(a)

Plutarch, Moralia, 203 (Lucullus, 2)
His soldiers feared most the men in full armour (kataphraktou) . . .
Armenian cataphracti at the battle of Tigranocerta, 69 BC.

Nazarius, Paneg., 24.6
When Antoninus . . . made trial of the Parthians in combat, after he had seen their men clad in full armour (catafractis) he lapsed so completely into fear that on his own he sent the King a letter promoting peace.
Lucius Verus' Parthian campaign, AD 165. The panegyricist has named the wrong emperor.

Cassius Dio, 40.22.3
Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen . . .
The defeat of Crassus by the Parthians at Carrhae, 53 BC. Dio had previously commented that the pikemen (kontophoroi) comprised mostly kataphraktoi (Dio, 40.15.2).

(b)

Plutarch, Crassus, 24.1
. . . suddenly their enemies dropped the coverings of their armour, and were seen to be themselves blazing in helmets and breastplates, their Margian steel glittering keen and bright . . .
The battle of Carrhae again.

Ammianus, 24.6.8
. . . the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them . . .
Sasanian cataphracti equites encountered during Julian's Persian campaign, AD 363.

(c)

Nazarius, Paneg., 22.4
What a spectacle that is said to have been, how dreadful to behold, how terrible, horses and men alike enclosed in a covering of iron.
Maxentius' clibanarii at the battle of Turin, AD 312.

Nazarius, Paneg., 24.5
When all had been killed to a man and your soldiers were untouched, people transferred the horror inspired by their armour to wonder at the victory . . .
Maxentius' clibanarii again.

Libanius, Oration XVIII, 18.37
. . . cavalry so invulnerably equipped as to lend them a terrible aspect . . .
Constantius' clibanarii, AD 357.

Ammianus, 25.1.12-13
. . . all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were . . . fitted to their heads . . . Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze.
Sasanian cataphracti encountered during Julian's Persian campaign, AD 363.

(d)

Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 9.15.5
. . . to all appearances some man made of iron, or a mobile statue (andrias) wrought with the hammer.
Assumed to describe the 4th century Sasanian cataphractus.

Julian, Oration I, 37C-D
. . . they all sat their horses like statues (andriantas) . . . An iron helmet covering the face itself gives the appearance of a shiny and glittering statue (andriantos) . . .

Julian, Oration II, 57C
They ride their horses exactly like statues (andriantes) . . .
Julian's descriptions of Constantius' clibanarii at the battle of Mursa, AD 353.

Ammianus, 16.10.8
. . . all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues (simulacra) polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men.
Clibanarii escorting Constantius on his entry into Rome, AD 357.

Claudian, In Rufinum II, 357-364
. . . the limbs within give life to the armour's pliant scales so artfully conjoined, and strike terror into the beholder. 'Tis as though iron statues (simulacra) moved and men lived cast from the same metal . . . each stands alone, a pleasure yet a dread to behold, beautiful yet terrible . . .
Rufinus' clibanarii, AD 395.

Claudian, On the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, 570-572
"Whence," she would ask, "is sprung that iron race of men and what land gives birth to steeds of bronze? Has the god of Lemnos bestowed on metal the power to neigh, and forged living statues (simulacraque) for the fight?"
Honorius' 6th consulship was in AD 404.

The significance of these extracts, to my mind, is as follows:

(a) This category relates to the undefined fear inspired by the sight of these warriors and almost certainly encompasses some or all of the elements of the other categories. Dio is more explicit about the effect of the charge of the Parthian kontophoroi (= kataphraktoi) at Carrhae but the extreme, if exaggerated, reaction of the Roman forces implies that this was more terrifying than the charge of conventional cavalry.

(b) Vegetius states that the glitter of arms strikes great fear into the enemy, noting that a soldier who neglects his equipment cannot be regarded as warlike (Veg. 2.14.8). This fear is likely to have been amplified in a force confronted by a mass of men and horses, all covered with shining armour, especially if the effect was as dazzling as the sources imply.

(c) Some time was spent in this thread in discussing the extent to which clibanarii were invulnerable. From the point of view of the opposing infantry, it was the appearance of invulnerability that counted. Seeing a rider entirely enclosed in armour, with no part of his body visible, could easily have given that impression. The infantryman would have been forgiven for thinking that there was no way of penetrating the armour and, with the horse also protected except for its legs and undersides, getting close enough to wound it, so that it threw its rider, ran a considerable risk of being trampled to death. Some might be courageous or desperate enough to try it but, for many, the chances of overcoming such opponents would have seemed impossible.

(d) This category of references looks upon these troops with an air of superstitious awe. The men and their horses are seen as alien, almost supernatural creatures, not of flesh and blood but of iron and bronze, the riders not humans but living statues. Perhaps significantly, the word used by writers in Greek is "andrias" which means not only "statue" but also "a man-like thing." Similarly, the Latin word "simulacrum" carries the implication of likeness rather than reality, as well as having other-worldly connotations, meaning also "apparition" and "phantom". The riders seem, by their rigidity, not like men at all but automatons with only an outward semblance of humanity.

These quotations emphasise the psychological effect that the appearance of this cavalry on the battlefield is likely to have had upon all but the most experienced and steadfast infantry, thereby reducing their ability to resist. However, I cannot point to any instance when it was so profound as to induce them to break ranks and run. Others may be able to rectify this deficiency.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Great post + rep
If I saw a few hundred Clibanarii coming at me I'd my pants too.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Thank you for that, Renatus - a very comprehensive list of quotations. I can't think of anything to add to it from my meagre sources.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

This one supports both theories about the shield

[Renatus]

I reckon that those with shields are ordinary cavalry.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yeah, but not all clibanarius horses are armored, ive seen pix of unarmored ones.

[Renatus]

You're moving on to contentious ground there. You know my views. Clibanarii are Roman and both men and horses are fully armoured. I would like to know the pictures that you refer to; I suspect that they may be Sasanian rock reliefs.

To get back to the picture that you posted, the riders with shields are relatively lightly armoured, having only body armour reaching no lower than the waist. I don't think that they can be regarded as clibanarii by any definition.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, but it's still a pretty good representation.

[Renatus]

In my post #151, I quoted a number of passages to illustrate the psychological effect that the sight of cataphracti might have upon opposing forces. Here is another.

(c)

Libanius, Orations LIX. 69-70
. . . the result was that the man was covered in chain mail from his head to the end of his feet, and the horse from its crown to the tip of its hooves . . . You would have said that the name of 'bronze men' was more appropriate for these than for the soldiers in Herodotus. These men . . . entrusted their body to the protection of iron mail.
Shapur II's Persian catafracti.

[juvenus]

what a comprehensive list of quotations! excellent job Renatus!