- The Library -

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Yeah that image has produced some scathing comments on various FB sites. Much as Rava is a good artist, I am afraid that his ship designs are quite poor in terms of scale and proportions. In his defence, he is working to the author's concepts and they can be 'odd' to say the least!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

D'Amato's "Roman Army Units in the Eastern Provinces" has some great images, including ones of original artefacts.

[Gäiten]

Osprey`s sneak preview of upcoming titles in 2018:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Roman Standards & Standard-Bearers (1): 112 BC–AD 192
Roman unit standards played an important role, both ceremonially and on the battlefield. With the armies of the late Roman Republic and early Empire continually engaged on the frontiers, the soldiers selected for the dangerous honour of carrying them were figures of particular renown and splendour.
Standard-bearers wore special armour, with the heads and pelts of animals such as bears, wolves, or even lions draped over their helmets and shoulders. The standards themselves varied greatly, from the legion's Eagle and imperial portrait image to various cohort signa, flags (vexilla) and even dragon 'windsocks' (dracones) copied from barbarian enemies and allies.
This first volume of a two-part series by Roman army expert, Rafaele D’Amato examines these vital cogs in the Roman army machine that drove its soldiers to conquer the known world.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Roman Heavy Cavalry (1): Cataphractarii & Clibanarii, 1st Century BC–5th Century
From the army of Marc Antony in the 1st century BC onwards, Roman generals hired Oriental heavy armoured cavalry. After Trajan's victory over Sarmatian tribes in his Dacian War, in about 110 AD the first units of these cataphractarii or 'clibanarii' began to be absorbed into the Roman army proper (the latter being a slang term, from their supposed resemblance to iron stoves). Other tribes of the steppes (Iazyges, Roxolani, and Alani) continued to clash with Rome's allies and the Romans themselves on their north-east frontiers, culminating in the Marcomannic Wars of the 170s AD, in which they were defeated by Marcus Aurelius. Thereafter some 8,000 entered Roman service as hostage-soldiers, and 5,500 were posted to Britain. These troops, both from the northern steppes and the Persian frontiers, continued an ancient tradition of using heavy armour (occasionally, even for their horses) and long lances, and fighting in compact formation for maximum shock effect. They were quite distinct from conventional Roman light cavalry, and they became ever more important during the 3rd-century wars against Parthia (Persia), both to counter Parthian cavalry and (from the reign of Galienus in the 260s AD) to form a mobile strategic reserve. After the fall of the Western Empire this tradition would continue uninterrupted into the Byzantine period, which will be the subject of a second book.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Etruscans 9th–2nd Centuries BC
Ancient Rome had deep roots in the 'Villanovan' culture that we call today the Etruscans. Their long-lived civilization can be traced to 900-750 BC in north-west Italy. They were a sea-faring people trading with and competing against Greek and Phoenician peoples, including the Carthaginians. They were also a great land-based power, especially in the 'Classical' period, where they expanded their power north into the Po Valley and south to Latium. In the 6th century BC an Etruscan dynasty ruled Rome, and their power extended southwards to the Amalfi coast. In 509 BC the Romans rose up to expel their kings, which began the long 'Etruscan twilight' when their power was squeezed by the Samnites and, most especially, the Romans.
Drawing on archaeological evidence including warrior tombs, paintings, sculptures, and fully illustrated throughout, this study examines one of the early rivals to Ancient Rome.

[Diocle]

Gaiten, I don't want to seem heretic in this place devoted to Late Antiquity, but may I say that "The Etruscans 9th-2nd Centuries BC" is for me the most intriguing one?

[Gäiten]

I think we both are heretics then ...
The Etruscans are a title from Osprey I have hoped for some time.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I really hope the art is on par. Their art for Roman Cataphracts has always been pretty disappointing.

Some of the recent ones I've acquired and read:

The Last of the Romans - Bonifatius - Warlord and Comes Africae
The Rome that did not Fall - The Survival of the East in the Fifth Century
Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411-533
The End of the Western Roman Empire - An Archaeological Investigation
The Roman West AD 200-500 - An Archaeological Study

I strongly recommend all of these.

[Renatus]

Roman Heavy Cavalry (1): Cataphractarii & Clibanarii, 1st Century BC–5th Century
From the army of Marc Antony in the 1st century BC onwards, Roman generals hired Oriental heavy armoured cavalry. After Trajan's victory over Sarmatian tribes in his Dacian War, in about 110 AD the first units of these cataphractarii or 'clibanarii' began to be absorbed into the Roman army proper (the latter being a slang term, from their supposed resemblance to iron stoves). Other tribes of the steppes (Iazyges, Roxolani, and Alani) continued to clash with Rome's allies and the Romans themselves on their north-east frontiers, culminating in the Marcomannic Wars of the 170s AD, in which they were defeated by Marcus Aurelius. Thereafter some 8,000 entered Roman service as hostage-soldiers, and 5,500 were posted to Britain. These troops, both from the northern steppes and the Persian frontiers, continued an ancient tradition of using heavy armour (occasionally, even for their horses) and long lances, and fighting in compact formation for maximum shock effect. They were quite distinct from conventional Roman light cavalry, and they became ever more important during the 3rd-century wars against Parthia (Persia), both to counter Parthian cavalry and (from the reign of Galienus in the 260s AD) to form a mobile strategic reserve. After the fall of the Western Empire this tradition would continue uninterrupted into the Byzantine period, which will be the subject of a second book.

This does not look encouraging. The author seems to fail to distinguish between cataphractarii and clibanarii and to subscribe to the 'ovenman' theory.

[Diocle]

This does not look encouraging. The author seems to fail to distinguish between cataphractarii and clibanarii and to subscribe to the 'ovenman' theory.

For newcomers, fortuitously passing by here, this is the Latin for "oven": "clibanus, -i", noun, masc., II decl.

SINGULAR
Nom. clibanus
Gen. clibani
Dat. clibano
Acc. clibanum
Abl. clibano
Voc. clibane


PLURAL
Nom. clibani
Gen. clibanōrum
Dat. clibanis
Acc. clibanos
Abl. clibanis
Voc. clibani

Yes, the analogy with "clibanarius" is hard to bypass.

This is the Tomb of the baker Marcus Vergilius Eurysaces, it's in Rome and it represents the deceased's workplace,
that is, a Roman oven, I think it may be of some help in this case:

[Renatus]

You forget de Rebus Bellicis, 15. 2: 'lorica vel clivanus'. V and B are interchangeable in late Latin, so clibanarius need mean no more than 'cuirassier'. There is no need for fanciful etymologies.

[Diocle]

As you like, as you like, but, .. after this horribly hot Italian summer, let me state loud and clear that if I found myself in some place in Syria or Mesopotamia, under the mid day Sun, on a ing big war horse, fully enclosed within a rigid cuirass, made by tubular casing of bronze or iron, covering my arms, my legs and my entire body, the first thing I'd say would be: "Cristo santo! Questo è un forno!", that in Latin should sound something like .."Christus sanctus! Hic est clibanus!"

I understand that this can't be taken as a historical proof of anything, so, not even of the supposed difference between "catafracti" and "clibanarii", but for my personal way of thinking history, it's more than enough.

[Gäiten]

Fascinating, just the mentioning of Cataphract and Clibanarius has a discussion begun.

BTW I believe the announcement text has not to be written by the author.

[Renatus]

the supposed difference between "catafracti" and "clibanarii"

None, in my opinion.

BTW I believe the announcement text has not to be written by the author.

Well, let us hope that whoever wrote it got it wrong.

[Gäiten]

None, in my opinion.

Interesting.
My opinion is the level of armour made the difference (Clibanarii being the "double"-armoured).

Well, let us hope that whoever wrote it got it wrong.

If not, we are free to *shout* our displeasure ...

[Renatus]

My opinion is the level of armour made the difference (Clibanarii being the "double"-armoured)

To make myself clear, I regard cataphracti/cataphracti equites and clibanarii as being similarly armoured. Cataphractarii are more lightly armoured, although still more heavily than normal cavalry.

[Diocle]

To make myself clear, I regard cataphracti/cataphracti equites and clibanarii as being similarly armoured. Cataphractarii are more lightly armoured, although still more heavily than normal cavalry.

In my humble opinion, it may be possible that the issue about Clibanarii/Catafractari needs to be analyzed into a four-dimensional historical space, that is, perhaps time passing plays some role in the use of such military terms. In the elapsed time from Hadrian's reign to Maurikios' empire, it's possible the definition of Extra-Heavy Horse has found new connotations.

Trying to be clearer, an example: we know for sure that an imperial "Cuirassier" in 1618 looked very different if compared to a "Cuirassier" in 1664, as we know well that the term "Light Horse" deeply changed during the same time span, so that what once was a "Light Horseman" had now turned into a "Cuirassier" fifty years later; so, why excluding such transformations in military terminology also in the Romans case?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Renatus]

If you look at the Notitia Dignitatum you will see that there are units of cataphractarii and of clibanarii. It is logical to assume that there is some difference.

[Gäiten]

Hmm, what about opening a thread for a discussion about Cataphracts and Clibanarii?

----------

And here the next Osprey preview. Here the new titles of the Campaign serie for the Ancient era (if you are interested in other eras, here is the link:
https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/Big_Reveal_2017_CAM/)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mutina 43 BC
In the confusion following the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, civil war broke out between Mark Antony, who saw himself as a legitimate successor to Julius Caesar, and the forces of the Senate allied with Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son and heir. Caesars’s old legions found their loyalties divided between the two Caesarian leaders and fighting on opposite sides in the struggle.
Mutina 43 BC covers the events of this civil war in 43 BC when Antony, having confined the consul Decimus Brutus around Mutina, found himself sandwiched between the three legions of Decimus Brutus behind the walls of Mutina, and the relieving armies of the consuls and Octavian. Antony decided to launch an attack on one army before the two consuls could join forces.
On 14 April, with his back to Forum Gallorum Antony fell upon the consular forces. While the veterans of both sides fought splendidly, Antony himself led the centre and routed his enemies. Unfortunately Antonius had no time to consolidate the victory or regroup his army. On 21 April Antony was heavily defeated in a fearful battle below the walls of Mutina, nothing more subtle than a slogging match involving Caesar’s hardened veterans on each side. Octavian took command of the consular forces, refusing to assist Decimus Brutus, and marched on Rome once more. Antony, defeated but not routed, was forced to abandon the siege of Mutina and cross the Alps into Gallia Transalpina.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Caudine Forks 321 BC
In her long history, Rome suffered many defeats, but none was as humiliating as the Caudine Forks in 321 BC. Rome had been at war with the Samnite League since 328 BC. The rising powers vied for supremacy in central and southern Italy, and their leaders were contemplating the conquest of all Italy. The new Roman consuls of 321 BC were the ambitious, but militarily inexperienced, Veturius Calvinus and Postumius Albinus. They were determined to inflict a massive blow on the Samnites but their troops were instead surprised, encircled and destroyed. The survivors were forced to retreat under the yoke in a humiliation worse than death.

For the Ancient era I am somewhat disappointed.

[Renatus]

Hmm, what about opening a thread for a discussion about Cataphracts and Clibanarii?

You may be right although, if this leads to another interminable argument with Diocle, I am not much in favour of it. My views are pretty comprehensively set out in this thread, so I am not sure that I have much to add:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...man-Clibanarii

[Diocle]

You may be right although, if this leads to another interminable argument with Diocle, I am not much in favour of it.

My nick has been quoted, so I've the right to write a direct answer to Renatus' post.

"Renatus this is a unilateral statement from my part: I officially declare the end of any possible future argument with you ..

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

.. of course, I'm too old to change my mind on Latin pronunciation, but I can assure you that others, and not you, are the targets of my eventual arguments on this site.
In my opinion, in fact, you're a good man, a nice person and one of the most interesting posters of TWC, with an encyclopedic knowledge about Late Roman military history, which is one of the matters I love more, so, I don't see why I should have any form of hostility a priori against you, or against your positions.
So, in faith, I can assure you that you won't have anymore any argument with me and, even though I have no incense to burn for the occasion, consider this is something more than just a promise.

VALE."

Gaiten, I don't know you, but for me the bloodbath of Mutina is one of the most interesting battles of ancient history, let me add that in my opinion Osprey has found a good string of subjects this year. Thanks for sharing the titles.

[Gäiten]

Well I remember the heated discussion in this thread.

Diocle, I agree that Mutina was a bitter fought battle.
However, I would like to have another Late Empire campaign as to the Battle of Mursa 351AD, the Battle at the Harzhorn 236/237AD, the Battle of the Abrittus 251AD, Julian Apostata`s Persian Campaign 363AD.