Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts
Originally Posted by Diocle
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
Originally Posted by char
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.
Originally Posted by char
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.
Re: [Historiae] ...about Roman cavalry, Clibanarii and Cataphracts
Originally Posted by Pompeius Magnus
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.
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.