Vicarius Provinciae
Weapons of the late roman era
Yes, it would actually be a good idea. To use this thread, instead of the composition thread.
So where were we... Oh, please use the metrical system for measurements.
And I still fail to see any arms here:http://www.allempires.com/Uploads/Sassanid_K.jpg
Last edited by Blatta Optima Maxima; October 29, 2010 at 01:52 PM.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
that's clearly a Clibanarius holding a Contos. It was aproximately one perch in length or greater (1 perch is the equivilent of our 2.96 meters)
Vicarius Provinciae
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Yes I know what it is, I don't see any arms - how can you state he wields it single handed. And a more accurate name would be a savaran cavalryman (knight). Clibinarius is a roman term.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
oh that's a sassanid guy... didn't know. I've seen it both one and two handed. read the strategikon it offers some insight
Decanus
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
The tombstone of Valerius Maxantius does not support this. He was an eques in a Numerus Katafractariorum, i.e., a cataphractarius, and is shown with a shield, holding his contus one-handed. As to the Roman Clibanarii thread, the assertion that clibanarii are "always" described as shieldless has to be reconciled with the appearance of a sc(h)ola scutariorum clibanariorum in the Notitia Dignitatum and the Theodosian Code, and the inscription in Syria naming a skoutarios klibanarios (see my post #103 in that thread).Originally Posted by Valentinian Victor
Ordinarius
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
From close examination of that photograph I cannot agree that is a shield in the background as its diameter appear to be at least three feet, or even more, much too large for cavalry shields of that date. Without having had the opportunity to examine the shield at first hand I would be loath to say one way or the other, have you managed to examine it in person Renatus?
There has been much scholarly debate over the clibanarii and catafractarii shield patterns given in the Notitia. There is some thought that shields were perhaps employed by those units on equestian parades, much as those full face parade helmets that have been found were worn at such events. In any event, when we have the likes of Ammianus and Julian stating that clibanarii and catafractarii were shieldless I am inclined to give them more credence as they were actually present at battles where such troops were employed.
Decanus
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Unfortunately, I have not had the benefit of examining the tombstone myself. It is in the museum in Worms, so if you should find yourself there at any time I should be interested to know what conclusions you draw from it. That said, I have an excellent photograph of it taken by a friend of mine and the site from which I got the photo that I posted has others taken from different angles. It is difficult to see what the object in the background could be, if not a shield, and I would be diffident about deducing precise dimensions of any weapons from tombstones. So much depends upon the competence of the sculptor, the space available to him and the conventions under which he operated. If you would like to suggest what else it might be, I would be happy to give your ideas serious consideration.
As to what you say about the Notitia, I was not, of course, referring to the shield patterns but to the existance of a unit the name of which implies that it was shield-bearing. If you care to refer back to the post that I mentioned, you will see that, in the light of the evidence cited there, I conclude that it is unlikely that clibanarii normally used shields but that there were specialist units that did and that, in certain tactical situations, regular units might do so as well.
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
My impression (keep in mind that i am not a scholar) is that the rider on the relief is on parade uniform, and is holding his lance over the shoulder and shield on the left hand.
I don´t think it was possible to wield a two handed kontus and a shield of that size at the same time. I could be wrong of course, but i think that the chances that the sassanid developed some kind of impressive way to handle kontus and shield is fairly low. In my opinion something simpler would have been more likely to happen.
My theory is that the sassanids had available a system similar to the stirrup, that allowed them to use couched lance + shield like medieval knigths. It have been noted that shields seems to appear on late sassanid imagery, this could suggest the invention/adoption of this "early stirrup" that allowed the use of a shield, occured at some point during the middle/late sassanid empire.
So in short, i think that in early times most kataphract style cavalry used the two handed kontus, and that later on the discovery of some kind of stirrup allowed these same soldiers to wield the kontus (or a modified version of it) as a couched lance along with a shield. I think that this early stirrup was very likely a development made by some of the steppe nomads, due to their constant dependency on horses for their whole culture, in my opinion they are the most likely candidates to develop improvements about warfare on horseback.
Just my two cents.
Vicarius Provinciae
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Where do I get the strategikon? I don't have it.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Neither do I - i've just read excerpts from it in osprey books and stuff.
you can buy it online though
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
I think the kontos/shield/ twohanded/onehanded thing can be done both with or w/o a shield and it can be done one or two handed probably based on the rider's preference.
Vicarius Provinciae
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
About shield+lance: It could have been wielded with a shield strapped to the left arm (similar to the phalangites use of the shield), so the lance can be wielded two handed. It would be harder to aim the impact with just one arm. When were the couched lance tactics invented anyway?
About lances in general: were the contus (in plural I think it should be contum, but please forgive my ignorance) discarded after impact like medieval shorter lances?
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
That's what I've seen
No they were not - medieval lances were not built the same way as Kontoses rarely shattered on impact.
Primicerius
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
It depends how late the relief is. The Sassanid Empire ran from the 3rd century AD to the 7th century. Late Sanssanid Clibanarius did carry a shield.
Vicarius Provinciae
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
The late sassanid SAVARAN probably also employed stirrups and couched lance tactics. This is a relief from the time of Shapur II, if I'm not mistaken.
Edit: Yes it is from the seventh century, for some dumb reason I forgot.
Last edited by Blatta Optima Maxima; October 31, 2010 at 02:38 AM.
Decanus
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Contus is second declension masculine (pl. conti).
The identity of the king in the relief is uncertain. It used to be thought to be Peroz (458-484) but it is now believed that it is probably Khusrau II (591-628).
Primicerius
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Well that's the interesting question Cocroach. The lance seems to have first evolved with the Skythians. Alexanders Macedonians copied it for their cavalry and it was coming into use amongst the Persians around the same time. Early on the style was to use no shield and hold the lance with both hands. By the middle ages the single handed couch had evolved, so sometime during the dark ages the transition began to occur. How much the single handed counch is helped by fully evoked stirrups I don't know. But certainly stirrups aid melee using a sword. Without stirrups it may have been disadvantageous to drop the lance.
However it is believed Sassanid Clibanarius adopted the shield around the same time fully evolved stirrups appeared.
Wiki puts the relief early 7th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract
A royal inscription etched in rock at the Taq-e Bostan relief located in Kermanshah, Iran. Depicted is Sassanid king Khosrau II (590 to 628 AD) dressed in full cataphract regalia mounted atop his favourite horse, Shabdiz.
Vicarius Provinciae
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
That relief is dated differently by every historian, but I don't think Peroz deserves to be featured in a relief. And I said, forgive my ignorance in latin.
The thread is about weapons, not the Shahanshah depicted in this relief.
Last edited by Blatta Optima Maxima; October 30, 2010 at 04:16 PM.
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
Also lance and bow tactics were evolving in the west at this time - Aetius' use of the Huns taught the Roman cavalry the effectiveness of using the lance and the bow rather than the lance or the sword with a shield. THis tactic, sadly, did not develop in time to have any effect on the encroaching barbarians. They were widespread and probably made up the majority of Aetius' medium cavalry by the time of Chalons.
Primicerius
Re: Weapons of the late roman era
That was very much Phil Barkers opinion, that Aetius was the one that initiated the transformation of general Roman cavalry to lance and Bow. I'm not so sure mayself because because I suspect East Romans may have done it when they rebuilt their armies in the 440's. The Easts shattered field armies were almost non existent in the late 430's, if the Huns had of attacked then there would have been virtually nothing to stop them.
Reply With Quote
