May I make the point that I have made elsewhere that the evidence suggests that clibanarius is a technical term that applies to heavily-armoured cavalry serving in the Roman army and should not be applied to non-Roman troops? These may be referred to as cataphracti or cataphracti equites.
How do you rationalise Ammianus saying, "cataphracti equites, whom the Persians call clibanarii"?
Quote:How do you rationalise Ammianus saying, "cataphracti equites, whom the Persians call clibanarii"?
I don't. That is an outdated reading. Editions of Ammianus up to and including that of Wagner and Erfurdt in 1808 read "
cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant Persae", translated as above. Editions since that of Gardthausen in 1874 have "
cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant, personati", '
cataphracti equites, whom they call
clibanarii, masked'.
Interesting. Would you interpret 'masked' as the defining feature separating cataphracti equites from their specific sub-group clibanarii? This would produce - a general term covering unusually heavily armoured cavalry, cataphracti equites, and a specific term for the same provided with face-masks. Presumably, there would be other distinctions, but perhaps the mask was the most visually striking element of the clibanarius to Ammianus.
A.D.H. Bivar in his paper "Cavalry Equipment and tactics on the Euphrates Frontier" and Professor Richard Frye in his book" The Heritage of Persia" both suggest that the Latin term clibanarius could be a loanword from Middle Persian suggested originally by Swedish Semitic etymologist Professor Frithiof Rundgren of Uppsala University Sweden who thought that there was a possible assimilation of an Iranian term *tanvar, "body-protection," to the Aramaic tannūr, "oven."
I think the Historiae Augustae Scriptores, Alexander Severus 56.6 mentions a victory over the Persians that his troops killed 10,000 of their mailed horsemen who the Persians call Clibanarius and with their armour we have armed our own men. Rundgren also thought there may also have been an Armenian root to the word as well with "grīv-pān" that might have survived in Modern Persian. Trouble with that theory is its strict meaning of "grīv-pān" is "neck guard" but you can't pin down a linguist and the explanation could be using a broader term common in a lot of languages of saving one's neck or life so in general it could mean "life guard".
I also thought that Palmyran mailed cavalry were called clibanarii.
mile:
Regards
Michael Kerr
Quote:Would you interpret 'masked' as the defining feature separating cataphracti equites from their specific sub-group clibanarii?
No.
Cataphracti/cataphracti equites and
clibanarii are the same.
Cataphracti and
cataphracti equites are synonymous and are general terms for this type of cavalry, whether Roman or non-Roman.
Clibanarii are specifically Roman.
Quote:A.D.H. Bivar in his paper "Cavalry Equipment and tactics on the Euphrates Frontier" and Professor Richard Frye in his book" The Heritage of Persia" both suggest that the Latin term clibanarius could be a loanword from Middle Persian suggested originally by Swedish Semitic etymologist Professor Frithiof Rundgren of Uppsala University Sweden
I cannot speak to Prof. Frye's book, other than that it is cited by Bivar in the footnote in which he summarises Prof. Rundgren's argument. I have to say that Bivar does not seem to express much enthusiasm for it. Rundgren's hypothesis is dismissed by the Russian scholar Valery Nikonorov, in the excellent paper cited by Urselius, on the grounds that it is too complicated and is purely hypothetical, suffering as it does from the major drawback that there is no Persian text that supports the proposed etymology. A much simpler explanation is that it derives from the Latin
clivanus meaning 'cuirass'.
Quote: I think the Historiae Augustae Scriptores, Alexander Severus 56.6 mentions a victory over the Persians that his troops killed 10,000 of their mailed horsemen who the Persians call Clibanarius
The SHA is a work of the 4th or even 5th century and is highly unreliable. It cites documents that are generally regarded as forgeries and Alexander Severus' speech to the Senate, in which he makes this claim, is almost certainly one of them. It cannot be regarded as reflecting the language contemporary with the events it describes. Rather, it reflects the terminology and beliefs of the time when it was written. Nikonorov dismisses it as of no value in this discussion.
Quote:I also thought that Palmyran mailed cavalry were called clibanarii. mile:
Not as far as I am aware
Quote:Urselius post=361586 Wrote:Would you interpret 'masked' as the defining feature separating cataphracti equites from their specific sub-group clibanarii?
No. Cataphracti/cataphracti equites and clibanarii are the same. Cataphracti and cataphracti equites are synonymous and are general terms for this type of cavalry, whether Roman or non-Roman. Clibanarii are specifically Roman.
If there was no functional difference between
clibanarii and
cataphracti then why did the Romans only apply the nomenclature
clIbanarii to their own troops? Bearing in mind that some of their own units were named
catafractarii (eg.
Equites Cataphractarii Iuniores) and other units termed
clibanarii had non-Roman ethnic names (eg.
Equites Persae Clibanarii and
Equites I Clibanarii Parthi). It seems to me that, if functional differences were not involved, the two terms were used indiscriminately by the Romans.
Are there any texts where the same author uses both terms?
Quote:If there was no functional difference between clibanarii and cataphracti then why did the Romans only apply the nomenclature clIbanarii to their own troops?
It's the difference between the technical and non-technical. In general speech, one might refer to 'heavy cavalry', whereas, when using military parlance, one might call them 'cuirassiers'. Shifting the goalposts slightly, one might refer in general terms to 'light cavalry' but, when thinking of specific types of such cavalry, one might refer to 'lancers' or 'hussars'.
Quote:Bearing in mind that some of their own units were named catafractarii . . . and other units termed clibanarii . . . It seems to me that, if functional differences were not involved, the two terms were used indiscriminately by the Romans.
You are missing the point of Nikonorov's paper, namely, that
catafractarii and
catafracti (i.e.,
clibanarii) are not the same.
Quote:Are there any texts where the same author uses both terms?
Yes.
Ammianus, 16.10.8:
cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant), '
cataphracti equites (whom they call
clibanarii)'.
Nazarius, Panegyric to Constantine (referring to Maxentius' heavy cavalry), 22.4:
clibanariis in exercitu nomen est, 'in the army they are called
clibanarii; 23.4:
catafractos equites, in quibus maximum steterat pugnae robur, '
catafracti equites, where the greatest strength of the battleline lay'.
Quote:Dan Howard post=361618 Wrote:Are there any texts where the same author uses both terms?
Yes.
Ammianus, 16.10.8: cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant), 'cataphracti equites (whom they call clibanarii)'.
Nazarius, Panegyric to Constantine (referring to Maxentius' heavy cavalry), 22.4: clibanariis in exercitu nomen est, 'in the army they are called clibanarii; 23.4: catafractos equites, in quibus maximum steterat pugnae robur, 'catafracti equites, where the greatest strength of the battleline lay'.
Both of these seem to be examples of what you call "technical" and "non technical". The words have one meaning in general parlance and a different one when speaking in a strictly military context.
Quote:Both of these seem to be examples of what you call "technical" and "non technical". The words have one meaning in general parlance and a different one when speaking in a strictly military context.
I agree with your first sentence. As to the second, it is not that the words have different meanings but that different words have the same meaning.
I get that cataphracti is a general term - what I have difficulty with is envisioning the Romans being so very nice in their usage of clibanarii.
For example, we know that Persian officers and princes sometimes defected to Rome and served in or commanded Roman units. I cannot imagine that such a person would, in the Roman mind, have changed from being a cataphractus into a clibanarius. Also, Renatus, the existence of the clibanarii units with non-Roman ethnic names such as. Equites Persae Clibanarii is very suggestive of Romans regarding Persians as capable of being clibanarii.