Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

  1. #1
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts











    Introduction


    The Roman cavalry fought at all times with Polearms. They all had different names like hasta, contus, lancea, spiculum, iaculum or tragula. They were used partially to shock or to throw.
    The difference here was in the length of the blade and the length of the rod.

    Experiments like that of Markus Junkelmann have shown that a spear thrown about distances of over 30 meters is very imprecise. Very good results were achieved at distances under 10 meters.
    The spears were thrown in a wheel-shaped motion, so as described in the rider-treatise of Arrianus.
    And indeed, the spear is thrown up and comes down in a swirling motion. This uncontrolled movement aimed greater damage than frontal thrown on one standing block (respectively a shield-wall).
    The test series has further shown that it was helpful to attach the javelins behind the shield - as described by Vegetius concerning infantry. Carry the spears in a quiver proved to be to impractical. However, this should not imply that this was not done.
    In addition the main-lance had to be stored also.
    According to the Strategikon this was solved with a carrying strap.

    One might think that there were different genres of troops. Some have thrown - the others have fought with the main-lance. For the mass of the Roman cavalry however this is not to assume.
    Reliefs of grave stones of cavalry (especially those of Alae) and images on the Trajan column suggest that the equipment was rather uniform.
    Flavius Josephus (jewish war III 5,5) and Arrianus (Taktike 4.7-9) are describing unanimously that the equipment of cavalry constited of shield, helmet, armour, lance, throwing spears and a long sword. Out of line, and not following this rules, are the mounted archer of the Oriens and the Alae of Numidia and Mauretania.

    Throwing spears like the iaculum, spiculum and tragula were probably the same. A noteworthy difference cannot be observed. All of them had a length between 80-120 cm.
    The lancea had a lenght of 150 cm - and a loop was attached to the spear for throwing.

    The prestigious weapon was the hasta. It had a length of 180-270 cm. Those could be thrown or even to stand in close combat. The best results were achieved when this lance was free swung and use in the melee.
    According to many tales and images, it seems to be that one has thrust with this lance in a circular motion from top to bottom.
    (see picture 1)

    Certainly, the lance was used as known from the Middle Ages but also.
    Sculptures on the arch of Orange have shown this (time period of the early imperial age).
    Here, the lance will be clamped between arm and torso.
    This kind of struggle was probably not used very often.

    A lance with 220 cm protrudes only slightly above the head of the horses. Only a lance with more than 3 meters proved to be long enough. Until the 11th Century the spears of the knights were very similar like the Roman Hasta - and were also used in a similar way - namely for a free swinging and thrusting (even for throwing).

    As a source we can therefore point out the Bayeux Tapestry (created round about 1080AD). (see picture 2)
    Only five riders have an inserted spear - 30 other riders use the spear freely over the head.

    There are some indications that in the Roman Republic some experiments were made with a very long spears of 3-4 meters in length. However, it seems that this type of weapon had no significant continuance.





    picture 1: Part of the exhibit at Binchester Roman Fort, County Durham, UK.



    picture 2 : Bayeux Tapestry (created ~1080AD)


    about the Kontos


    During the reign of Traian we hear the first time about the famous kontos - respectively we hear about units called Contarii.
    The Kontos - a lance of 3,5 - 4,5 Meters - copied from sarmatians and/or Parthians.
    Due to weight and the length it was necessary to hold this lance in both hands.
    And because the kontos was used with 2 hands it was more easy to aim and control the lance.
    The Contarii were equipped with a small shield - some of them had probably no shield. Therefore it was highly necessary to imporve the armour of the rider.

    This leads to the new branch of service - called Cataphractii or Clinbanarii - mounted troops copied from parthians, sarmatians or persians.
    Modern reenactments, like that of Markus Junkelmann, have shown that the horse and the weapon were partially more easy to handle than a thrusting spear and a huge shield.
    The right hand holds the spear at the end of the shaft. The left hand takes the lance one meter ahead. tThe left hand kept the reins of the horse also.
    It has also shown that spears over 4.5 meters become inaccurate because the tip moves too much back and forth (or up and down).




    about Long-Range Weapons


    Some words about the long-range weapons.
    Bow and arrow belonged certainly to the late Roman cavalry. In late antiquity, much of the cavalry was equipped with it. However, there were already some individual detachments of equites sagittarii during the late Republican period. Most of them came from the Eastern Mediterranean, especially from Syria, Parthians, Thrakians, Sarmatians, groups from north Africa, also archers composed by Germans and Celts are evidenced.
    from the 1st to the 3rd century we know about 11 alae sagittarii and 17 cohortes equitatae sagittariorum (8 of them were "miliariae" = +/- 1000 soldiers).

    Therfore 60% of the 46 known archery-units of the Auxillaries were mounted or partially mounted - that means 20% of the cavalry serving under roman standards belonged to a unit equipped with the bow.
    Vegetius told us (Epitoma rei militaris I 13) that 1/3 to 1/4 of all new recruits were trained in using the bow. Of coruse, this doen't mean that those recruits served as regular archers. It is more likely that it was a kind of "Plan B" - an option to use regular legionaries as archers if no unit with correspondingly specialists was available.




    About Cataphracts and Clibanarii


    Ammianus
    Res Gestae XVI 10
    8. et incedebat hinc inde ordo geminus armatorum clipeatus atque cristatus corusco lumine radians, nitidis loricis indutus, sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant, [personati] thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti, ut Praxitelis manu polita crederes simulacra, non viros: quos lamminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti ut, quocumque artus necessitas commovisset, vestitus congrueret iunctura cohaerenter aptata.


    8. After these marched a double row of heavy-armed soldiers, with shields and crested helmets, glittering with brilliant light, and clad in radiant breast-plates; and among these were scattered cavalry with cuirasses (cataphracti equites!), whom the Persians call Clibanarii (!), protected by coverings of iron breast-plates, and girdled with belts of iron, so that you would fancy them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, rather than men. And the light circular plates of iron which surrounded their bodies, and covered all their limbs, were so well fitted to all their motions, that in whatever direction they had occasion to move, the joints of their iron clothing adapted themselves equally to any position.



    Another description of a parthian or persian Clibanarius is given by Helidoros in his book Aithiopika/Αἰθιοπικά IX 15:
    A picked fellow of great strength putteth upon him a close helmet made in one piece fitting as tightly as a mask. This covereth his head down to his shoulders, saving that there be holes left for him to look out of. In his right hand is a great staff, bigger than a spear; with his left hand he holds the horse’s reins; by his side hangeth a sword; and all his body is covered with a coat of mail. The mail is made thus. With pieces of brass and iron, as big as the palm of a man’s hand, they make a coat, as it were, of scales, laying the end and sides of each piece upon another — so that the nether part of one goeth over the top of the other — and then they sew them together, and this coat lieth upon every part of the body without any ado. It covers every limb, and gives this way and that easily at each movement; for it hath sleeves and reacheth from the neck down to the knees, saving that necessity compels it to be cut between the thighs, that the man may sit upon his horse. Such is their coat of mail, which beateth off all darts and keepeth off all manner of blows. Over their legs to their knees they pull on a boot which is tied to their jacket. They arm their horses also in the same fashion. About his legs they tie greaves and cover his head with a frontal of iron, while from his back down beneath his belly there hangeth a cloth with metal rings which doth both 273 protect him and by reason of its looseness hindereth not his course at all. Being thus appointed and in a manner forced into his armour the man sitteth upon his horse: marry he leapeth not up himself, but others help him, so encumbered is he with the weight of his arms. When the time of battle comes, he gives his horse the reins and spurs him with his heels and rides upon his enemies at full speed like a man made of iron or a statue fashioned with hammers. His great staff at its pointed end is tied with a cord to the horse’s neck and the hinder end is made fast to its buttocks, so that in the conflict it does not yield but helps the horseman’s hand, who does but guide the same aright. Thus it gives the greater blow and runs through every man it hits, and often carries away two men together pierced by one stroke.


    The date when the text was written is controversial. Some say in the mod 3rd century - others say during the 4th century.
    The pictorial representation of a Clibanarius shown on a Graffito in Dura Europos confirms the description. Shown is a mixed armor. Consisting of segments, scales armor and/or chain armor.


    Let's compare two different sources

    Clibanarii which were obviously a variant of Cataphractae. (see above: Vegetius XVI 10 8)
    [...]sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant[...]

    Cavalry with cuirasses (cataphracti equites!), whom the Persians call Clibanarii

    One of the authors of the Historia Augusta gives some interesting information:
    about ALEXANDER SEVERVS
    part 56: belli, mors.
    Severus speaks to the Senate:
    [...]One hundred and twenty thousand of their cavalry we have routed, ten thousand of their horsemen clad in full mail, whom they call cuirassiers, we have slain in battle, and with their armour we have armed our own men.[...]


    ...let's read the original source text:
    [...]centum et viginti milia equitum eorum fudimus, cataphractarios, quos illi clibanarios vocant, decem milia in bello interemimus, eorum armis nostros armavimus[...]


    That's it. There are 2 interesting things.
    Beside the fact that this short text is matching that of Ammianus (Clinbanarii belonging to the group of Cataphractae) we can note another interesting issue.
    The term Clibanarii is of iranian origin - and the thesis that the term derives from the greek word Klibanos (Oven) is very likely not correct.
    The modern history has, however, revised this wrong derivation - a positive message.




    About equipment and arming


    Concerning the equipment and arming of the Clibanarii we have some interesting results of the researches of J.C.Coulston (from 1986). He came to the result that Clibanarii were exceptionally well armed, with bow and long heavy lance. Probably this branch of service saw his daylight in the region of Mesopotamia and belonged to the upper class of the Cataphractae. They had carried the kontos in both hands - and were therefore not able to carry a normal sized shield.

    Probably they had a shield, probably not - and if they had one then it was very likely just a small one, attached to the upper arm, a so called buckler.
    Cataphractae on the other hand were still equipped with a lance (smaller and reduced in weight) and a normal sized round shield.




    History and Conclusion

    The first time is that we can read about roman Cataphractae is during the reign of Hadrian - in the 2nd century. The earliest mentioned unit is the Ala Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafracta. Surprisingly, this unit was obviously not deployed in the east.

    The number of available troops increast drastically during the 3rd and 4th century.
    The greek term ippeis kataphraktoi - in latin equites cataphracti or catafracti or more commonly cataphractarii - means oringinally "covered rider".
    Many years is was a common believe that the attribute "covered" was only referred to the rider - not to the horse. Furthermore many believed that with the introduction of Clibanarii in the 4th century horses were "covered" the first time.
    But this is not correct.

    Beside that, it is misleading to create a new word for something which was existing within the roman army long time before - namely armored riders.
    The mistake was also made due to misinterpretations of grave stones and the reliefs of the column of Traianus. Long time people thought that the shown armor is made by leather only.

    According Markus Junkelmann there's a text of Arrianus in his Taktika 4.1 which explains that in units of so called Cataphractae the soldier as well as the horse are protected. (not checked yet from my side /pm).

    Even if the design of Clibanarii were of persian origin it is still not evidenced that both units had the same role within the Roman army - or if they really were completely different on the other hand(concerning shield and spear and protection of the horse).

    It is very likely that the old term of Catafracti was a general term to describe heavy cavalry - and the second term "Clibanarii" was a specialized modern unit - sub-ordinated or belonging to the group of Cataphracts.
    The term "Clibanarii" in case of a roman soldier is first time mentioned on a grave stone of the year 300AD (CIL Number not available to me /pm). This stone shows the inscription "catafractarius clibanarius" - which means that the dead soldier was a catafractarius clibanarius.
    Therefore the term "Cataphract" seems to be the general meaning - and the term "Clibanarius" the special one.

    Possibly the equipment of the clibanarius was defined more precisely - while on the other hand the circumference and range of the Cataphractae was wider and more general.

    If this "opening" of tasks and equipment has occurred for the Cataphractae then it is of course possible that this happened again in the case of the Clibanarii after 100 or 150 years of service.
    If there was still a clear distinction in the mid-5th and 6th century is difficult to say. It is possible that both terms were interchangeable, and had at best traditional backgrounds - especially because the term Clibanarios is not mentioned in the Strategikon (written in ~580-600AD) anymore.

    In the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos (witten in 1000AD chapter 61 line 98) you see that the "lancer" (Kontaratoi = mounted lancer) is the description of a medium native Cavalry.
    Furthermore the Taktika and the Praecepta Militaria (written in 965AD) differs between 3 types of troops only. The Kontaratoi, as mentioned above, the Kataphraktoi (some of them equipped with the Klibania, however, they belonged to the Kataphraktoi) and the mounted archers - named as Hippo-Toxitai, probably belonging to the Doryphoroi guard troops.




    Credits and further specialist literature

    The present elaboration was inspired in many ways by Markus Junkelmann - an author who has written 3 amazing books about Roman Cavalry - with the results of his own "reenactment" - which was performed by a large group of historians.

    Even if I have added many own comments, and own researches and own conclusions I must say that the basic foundation is based on the phantastic literature of Markus Junkelmann - which is by the way the most comprehensive work (after the new revision in 2008) available in the book stores. It is, according my knowledge, just available in german. With just 20 Euro for each book (and every book has round about 280 pages!) a quite fair prize.
    The reference of other primary sources and the Quotes of the ancient authors are always clearly given by me in the text - therefore it is not required to list the ancient authors again.

    Die Reiter Roms, Tl.1, Reise, Jagd, Triumph und Circusrennen: BD I
    Marcus Junkelmann
    ISBN-10: 3805310064

    Die Reiter Roms, Tl.2, Der militärische Einsatz: BD II
    Marcus Junkelmann
    ISBN-10: 3805311397

    Die Reiter Roms, Tl.3, Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung: BD III
    Marcus Junkelmann
    ISBN-10: 3805312881

    I wish a nice reading and best regards
    Pompeius Magnus in the name of the complete AoD2-Team

    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; November 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM.

  2. #2
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    text finished
    thread opened

  3. #3

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    What about the famous hippo-toxatai of belisarius????

  4. #4
    Deutschland's Avatar East of Rome Mod Leader
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Posts
    2,025

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    Most interesting. +rep

  5. #5
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    @Deutschland
    many thanx for the rep

  6. #6
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    How Bucellarii Cavalry units must be considered?

  7. #7
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    I'm sorry, Pompeius, though in another tread I was disturbing with my stupid jokes, but now I must tell you that this Mod is really, really interesting.
    May I ask you a question? I'm a wargamer, and most of wargame rules and Army Lists , for the period, define the Bucellarii of Belisarius and Narses equipped with Extra Armor, Lance or Contus, and Bow and Buklers, at this point my question is: How Bucellarii Cvalry units must be considered?
    Heavy Cavalry? Extra heavy Cavalry like the regular Cataphracts? or rather a type of Heavy Cavalry equipped in accordance with the financial possibilities of its Master or in accordance with its ethnic background( Huns, Germans, Sarmatians, Persians...) ?

    Sorry again Pompeius, great work as always! and obviously +rep!
    Hi Diocle,
    your question is fair and not easy to answer.

    The accompaniment (or better the private Comitatus) was tolerated - but not per se allowed during the 5th century.
    During the 6th century we see this that this institution had its peak. During the reign of Justinian we can say that basically all higher officials and generals had its own Comitatus (see BV I 11,30 or II 15,1/ 18,1 / 21,9 / 25,8 / 27,10 /28,3 etc)

    Belisarius had an army of private Bucellarii of probably 7000 men. Valerianus had round about 1000 men. I would say that we are speaking about "exceptions".
    A strength of 400 men was according my research the normal number - like in the case of Narses (Aghatias I 19 ; see notes at the end of the chapter).
    A realistic number if we keep in mind that the nominal strength of roman troops was, at least officially, still 500. This is probably also valid for Bucellarii. Therefore all numbers between 300 and 500 are following this rule.

    We read in the Notitia about a unit called Comites Cataphractarii Bucellarii iuniores. Probably a unit which was transferred after the death of the master into the official troop list. But it's of course difficult to say if all Bucellarii served as Cataphractarii.

    That all of them were mounted is entirely certain - since we don't hear anything about "infantry-Bucellarii".
    In Prokopius BV II 18,6 we get some indirect information about the origin of Bucellarii. Obviously they were of mixed origin - the main body however was composed by Goths. However, also names of Huns, Kappadokians, Kilikians, Isaurians, Persians, Pisidians, Thrakians and Armenians are evidenced.

    The Bucellarii were sub-divided by 2 classes. The Doryphoroi and Hypaspistai. The latin name for those words is still under debatte. Probably it was called Comites and Armigeri (see Seek, Gefolgschaftswesen page 117). The Doryphoroi were basically a group of officers and the leader of groups of Hypaspistai. It is very likely that they formed the close bodyguard of its master as well. If they had another armament or equipment in general compared to the Hypaspistai is difficult to say.
    Probably their appearance was more "shiny" - but that's pure speculation.
    Their equipment (of Doryphoroi and Hypaspistai) in general was for sure the lance (when serving as cataphractii) as well as the bow. I think there is no real difference compared to other roman troops. Some elements of their equipment was for sure of "barbarian" origin (esp. of Gothic or Avaric origin).

    Since the 7th century the System of private Bucellarii was removed. Those troops became official military parts of the empire. As a result, the risk of revolts was paralyzed.
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; September 05, 2012 at 07:06 PM.

  8. #8
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,358

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    As always, excellent presentation and reading
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  9. #9
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    Thanks!

  10. #10
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,045

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    PM is right about the term clibanarii.
    Modern historians strongly believe that the term comes from the Iranian griwbanar or krivpanvar that mean "mounted warrior".
    In fact the basis of both words may come from griva-pana-bara that in real means "the one that wears neck armor". It seams that the early iranian description saw the way the head/neck protection of those warriors as something unique.
    The 1st apearence of the conection of the term clibanarii with the greek word clivanion (oven) may came in Heraclius campaigns in the semi desert battlefields when the greek speaking soldiers of his may wan to describe the unbearable heat that kind of armor gave to the warrior that used it!
    I found an interesting article about the use of both terms of cataphracti and clibanarii and the units (scolae or comitatenses or limitanei) they served in, by Mr .Perikles Deligiannis.
    About the horses.
    Cataphracti/Clibanarii prefered mostly the Armenian and the Nisean breeds (relative breeds).
    But Romans used also the following breeds.
    Tharcian
    Thessalian
    Cappadokian
    Syrian
    Eremvian (Navataea region)
    Sarmatian
    Hunic
    South Italian
    Savinic/Samnitic (for both work and war).
    Lybian (the ancestor of Eremvian)
    Iberian (from Lysitania)
    Asturian (for work and not for war)
    Galatian
    Frisian (modern Holland).

    The horses from Cappadokian,Lybian,Iberian and Erenvian breeds were famous for their speed and their fatique in hot climates but that fatique did not last for long.
    Between Sassanid and Roman empire there was a pact of free trade of Nisean horses even in war times.
    Romans trying to enlarge the breeding of those horses founted two "royal breeding stables" in Constantinople and in Thessaly.
    Thessalian royal stables were destroyed by the Romano Bulgarian wars and the Contantinople's ones by 1204!
    Last edited by AnthoniusII; November 26, 2011 at 08:54 AM.
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  11. #11

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    I always thought Bucellarii were medium cavalry armed primarily with a bow and sword. Although some of the more prestigious units may also have carried a lace wielded using both hands and employed at close quarters.

    I remember watching a re-enactment group portraying the Bucellarii as they may have appeared as part of Belisarius or Narses army.

    As I recall the horse was not armoured in anyway apart from the light protection afforded by a saddle cloth. The rider was equipped with a small round target shield, mail or scale body armour and a plumed or crested helmet. There was also a rider who was supposed to be a veteran who had added splint grieves and splint vembraces to his equipment.

    I was thinking that Belisarius often dismounted his cavalry to act as heavy infantry. Would a dismounted Bucellarii unit be possible in AOD2 ?

  12. #12
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    Hello Char,

    thank you for your question.
    First of all, please don't give so much on so called re-enactments since it is many times performed by non-historians or hobby-historians. I have observed one of the most comprehensive reenactment of Markus Junkelmann. The results are amazing and milestones concerning the historical research - partically coming to complete different results concerning weapons and the art of fighting as repeated like a mantra by other historians.
    But the group of Junkelmann stood and worked together for more than 1 year(!) and was composed by horse-specialists and a large group of historians.
    I'm always surprised when I read that some people try to explain the dress and cloths about THE Bucellarii. I'm surprised becasue the group of Bucellarii was not homogen and was composed by many people (Alans, Goths, Persians - even pure Romans).
    Insofar, the Bucellarii were never existing until the end of the 6th century. From this time on they were troops payed and equipped by the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by char View Post
    I always thought Bucellarii were medium cavalry armed primarily with a bow and sword. Although some of the more prestigious units may also have carried a lace wielded using both hands and employed at close quarters.
    the Bucellarii were semi-private troops. The degree of quality and equipment was always based on available funds of the general. And of course it is also important where those troops came from. If the bulk of your Bucellarii was raised by Isaurians you can expect another kind of equipment compared to a group based on Ostrogothi.
    That all 7000 (!!) cavalry of Belisarius were equipped in the same way seems plausible - but the question about the horse-protection is another issue.
    We can however expect a kind of front-protection the horses (at least for some of those Arithmoi) which was very common in that time era. But that's speculation.
    Concerning the other generals who had just 400 Bucellarii we may expect that those men get the best available equipment.

    I think I gave enough examples in my text of post#1 which shows that all regular roman cavalry units of the late antiquity were basically equipped in the same way - there is no indication that unit X had just swords and bows and unit Y had lances only.
    This would also be unworldly and gives no military use.
    Such specialization was for sure valid for certain barbarian auxillaries and maybe some roman equites serving as archers only - but not per se for roman troops in general.

    The bow was a fixed component of Roman cavalry (was used mounted and dismounted!). A thrusting-spear is according the Strategikon a very normal part of the equipment - therefore I cannot see the purpose to remove that kind of weapon from Bucellarii.

    Quote Originally Posted by char View Post
    I was thinking that Belisarius often dismounted his cavalry to act as heavy infantry. Would a dismounted Bucellarii unit be possible in AOD2 ?
    They acted dismounted when it was necessary due to the situation. But the Bucellarii of Belisarius cannot be taken as a representative unit for all other generals of the empire. The order to dismount cavalry was more performed by Narses - who gave many times those orders to dismount. Those troops were acting as dismounted infantry-archers or they formed a spear Phalanx. This formations were mostly formed by regular roman cavalry or its allies (or mercenaries).

    I'm sure that we can include dismounted cavalry into AoD2 - the idea is very good. But probably no units of Bucellarii - since those groups acted as pro-active mounted bodyguards - and I'm not sure if their number was so high to justify a unit of dismounted Bucellarii - even if some of them fought dismounted "here and there".
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; November 27, 2011 at 12:41 PM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    Quote Originally Posted by Pompeius Magnus View Post
    Hello Char,

    thank you for your question.
    First of all, please don't give so much on so called re-enactments since it is many times performed by non-historians or hobby-historians. I have observed one of the most comprehensive reenactment of Markus Junkelmann. The results are amazing and milestones concerning the historical research - partically coming to complete different results concerning weapons and the art of fighting as repeated like a mantra by other historians.
    But the group of Junkelmann stood and worked together for more than 1 year(!) and was composed by horse-specialists and a large group of historians.
    I'm always surprised when I read that some people try to explain the dress and cloths about THE Bucellarii. I'm surprised becasue the group of Bucellarii was not homogen and was composed by many people (Alans, Goths, Persians - even pure Romans).
    Insofar, the Bucellarii were never existing until the end of the 6th century. From this time on they were troops payed and equipped by the state.



    the Bucellarii were semi-private troops. The degree of quality and equipment was always based on available funds of the general. And of course it is also important where those troops came from. If the bulk of your Bucellarii was raised by Isaurians you can expect another kind of equipment compared to a group based on Ostrogothi.
    That all 7000 (!!) cavalry of Belisarius were equipped in the same way seems plausible - but the question about the horse-protection is another issue.
    We can however expect a kind of front-protection the horses (at least for some of those Arithmoi) which was very common in that time era. But that's speculation.
    Concerning the other generals who had just 400 Bucellarii we may expect that those men get the best available equipment.

    I think I gave enough examples in my text of post#1 which shows that all regular roman cavalry units of the late antiquity were basically equipped in the same way - there is no indication that unit X had just swords and bows and unit Y had lances only.
    This would also be unworldly and gives no military use.
    Such specialization was for sure valid for certain barbarian auxillaries and maybe some roman equites serving as archers only - but not per se for roman troops in general.

    The bow was a fixed component of Roman cavalry (was used mounted and dismounted!). A thrusting-spear is according the Strategikon a very normal part of the equipment - therefore I cannot see the purpose to remove that kind of weapon from Bucellarii.


    They acted dismounted when it was necessary due to the situation. But the Bucellarii of Belisarius cannot be taken as a representative unit for all other generals of the empire. The order to dismount cavalry was more performed by Narses - who gave many times those orders to dismount. Those troops were acting as dismounted infantry-archers or they formed a spear Phalanx. This formations were mostly formed by regular roman cavalry or its allies (or mercenaries).

    I'm sure that we can include dismounted cavalry into AoD2 - the idea is very good. But probably no units of Bucellarii - since those groups acted as pro-active mounted bodyguards - and I'm not sure if their number was so high to justify a unit of dismounted Bucellarii - even if some of them fought dismounted "here and there".
    The re-enactment group I referred to are one of the UK biggest and have featured in films and documentaries, I have no doubts concerning there historical accuracy. Although I do of course take on board your points regarding the general quality of such groups who are not professional and may be historically suspect. I may have confused the Bucellarii I saw with the Bucellarii featured in AOD2, maybe I saw a recreation of a later regular unit or just a very well equipped group of Bucellarii. I understand that these units could vary in appearance, armour and ethnicity after reading your article.

    Im glad that you would consider adding a dis mounted cavalry unit to the mod.

    Once again I would like to commend your work on AOD2 and on this article, good points, well made and informative.

    Thanks for the reply.
    Last edited by char; November 28, 2011 at 07:20 AM.

  14. #14
    tomySVK's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    1,838

    Default Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts

    I really like history lectures, they are well researched, easy to read and they always offer something new to learn. Also AoD2 is going to be epic mod, so thank you and other team members for your great work.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •