+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii (/showthread.php?tid=17964)
Re: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Renatus - 03-01-2013
Quote:Ah okay Renatus. I always thought the Romans had different terms for lesser grades of cavalry tou equate with the Cataphractarius. Appearantly that is not so.If you have any particular terms in mind, please let me know and I will give you my opinion - if I have one!
Quote:But it may not be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean that cataphractarii and archers are the same thing? Because that is the point I am trying to make.I don't think so. As far as I can judge, he is referring to separate units or classes of unit. Better Latinists than I may have a different opinion, of course.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Nathan Ross - 03-01-2013
Quote:It is interesting reading Ammianus' account of Argentoratum... Ammianus has the barbarians realise that no matter how skilful are their cavalry they would be unable to enagage succesfully a cataphract opponent due to the encompassing heavy amour.
That's a good point. So it would seem that the purpose of the clibanarii on the flank was either to advance and drive the enemy cavalry off the field, or hold their position and act as a blocking force, preventing the enemy horsemen from flanking the infantry line.
Does anyone know of any other account of the tactical uses of clibanarii on the battlefield?
Re: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-01-2013
I was particularly thinking of Equites Scutarii and Equites Promoti as comitatensian-grade armored cavalry.
Re: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - koechlyruestow - 03-01-2013
eduard wrote:
But it may not be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean that cataphractarii and archers are the same thing? Because that is the point I am trying to make.
Renatus wrote:
I don't think so. As far as I can judge, he is referring to separate units or classes of unit. Better Latinists than I may have a different opinion, of course.
Well, actually I did use this citation of Ammianus to argue a point to a claccisist from the university (Henk Singor, Leiden) and he agreed with my interpretation: Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii. And Singor specialises in ancient warfare, so he knows all about the acceppted view of cataphracts as specialised shock troops, supposedly relying on their long lances, not on their bows.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - ValentinianVictrix - 03-01-2013
Might I suggest, as the originator of this thread, that people go back and read the first couple of pages as I went to a great deal of trouble and research, assisted by Francis and Michael, and much of what people are now talking about was covered way back when.
This may well answer questions about the 'invulnerability' of Late Roman Catafractarii/Clibanarii and the use of such heavily armoured cavalry in battle, usign original sources.
Re: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Renatus - 03-01-2013
Quote:I was particularly thinking of Equites Scutarii and Equites Promoti as comitatensian-grade armored cavalry.There are several units of equites catafractarii named in the Notitia, as well as an equites promoti clibanarii and a scola scutariorom clibanariorum. I, therefore, think that the units you mention could perfectly well have been designated as catafractarii, if that is what they were.
Quote:Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii.Let me see if I understand your argument correctly. Ammianus mentions cataphractarii and sagittarii in the same sentence and also in the same sentence refers to a single genus of weapon (or, perhaps, soldier depending upon how you translate armorum). You conclude from this that cataphractarii and sagittarii are the same thing or, at least, similarly armed. I do not think that this follows. Ammianus appears more likely to be referring to two different types of unit, the cataphractarii and the archers, and seems to be separating them further by inserting the verb erant between them. Logically, therefore, formidabile genus armorum relates to the last type of unit mentioned and would indicate that the archers were particularly effective.
Re: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-02-2013
I was reading ammianus earlier looking for references to infantry wearing metal armor, and I saw that too. He is clearly referring to seperate unit types in my opinion, especially in the portion regarding the disaster at Amida.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - koechlyruestow - 03-02-2013
ValentinianVictrix wrote:
Might I suggest, as the originator of this thread, that people go back and read the first couple of pages as I went to a great deal of trouble and research, assisted by Francis and Michael, and much of what people are now talking about was covered way back when.
This may well answer questions about the 'invulnerability' of Late Roman Catafractarii/Clibanarii and the use of such heavily armoured cavalry in battle, usign original sources.
I did, and I salute you for sharing all this research with us
However, it could be these excerpts allow for different interpretations. I do not share what seems to be your a priori assumption, that they concern battle reports or journalism. I agree with the suggestion made elsewere that they come most of all from a literary tradition.
And I am not sure about what I perhaps wrongly see as your other a priori assumption, that clibanarii and cataphractarii referred to specific, tactically specialised troop types. It seems to me, and I am not the only one, that these terms are being used in a rather fancifull and haphazard way.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Dan Howard - 03-03-2013
Agreed. The sources seem to use the terms arbitrarily to refer to any kind of heavy cavalry, regardless of the exact equipment they used (as noted earlier, Livy uses it to describe unarmoured cavalry), rather than specific unit types with specific roles.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Alanus - 03-03-2013
Quote:Might I suggest, as the originator of this thread, that people go back and read the first couple of pages as I went to a great deal of trouble and research, assisted by Francis and Michael, and much of what people are now talking about was covered way back when.
I THANK YOU for that original post; very very informative to a Roxolanus like myself. Whatever digressions followed it?-- well, they were digressions beyond the Oven Men. :whistle:
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Renatus - 03-03-2013
Quote:(as noted earlier, Livy uses it to describe unarmoured cavalry)Remind me where, please.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - ValentinianVictrix - 03-04-2013
I'm still toying with the idea that Catafract refers to a heavily armoured rider, whilst Clibanarii referred to a heavily armoured hourse. I have found a number of references in various texts to infantry wearing 'Catafracts' (One such reference being in Vegetius), which relates to body armour, I have seen no such reference to infantry wearing 'Clibanarius' or some other similar term, but I have seen quotes in ancient tests referring to horses specifically referred to as 'Clibanarios', a reference if memory serves is within the pages of the 'De Rebus Bellicis' when discussing the infamous Scythed Chariots.
In this case Catafractarii would refer to heavily armoured riders on unarmoured horses, whilst Clibanarii refers to both rider and hourse being heavily armoured.
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Alanus - 03-04-2013
Quote:In this case Catafractarii would refer to heavily armoured riders on unarmoured horses, whilst Clibanarii refers to both rider and hourse being heavily armoured.
In my view, the idea of a heavily-armored rider on an non-armored horse defeats the whole premise. Roman authors, with the exception of Tacitus, seem rather loose in their gargon; and I believe that Clibinarius and Cataphractus referred to the same style of horseman... riding on an armored horse. :whistle:
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - Renatus - 03-05-2013
Adrian,
We have been down this road before, you and I. Vegetius frequently refers to catafracta in the sense of infantry armour. I see this as a long mail or scale shirt and am inclined to see something similar being worn by the cataphractarii, possibly giving them their name. I agree that there does not seem to be any reference to infantry known as clibanarii. Vegetius does refer to clibanarii mounted in chariots drawn by catafracti equi being used against elephants (Veg. 3. 24. 7) but I take these to be dismounted cavalrymen. I know of no text specifically referring to horses as clibanarii and, if you have any that you can quote, I should be very interested to see them. The de Rebus Bellicis does not refer to clibanarii but catafracto is used in relation to the horse's armour in the description of the Currodrepanus Clipeatus (DRB 14. 5). This may be the passage you are thinking of.
Your final conclusion may be similar to mine, depending upon how heavily armoured you believe the cataphractarii to be. I see them as relatively heavily armoured compared to the regular cavalryman but not as heavily as the clibanarii. I agree with you that their horses were probably unarmoured. I think that we both agree that clibanarii were heavily armoured men on armoured horses. Where we differ, I think, is that I consider that the term 'clibanarius' probably refers to the man alone, with the horse being armoured only by implication.
Re: The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii - koechlyruestow - 03-05-2013
Kai wrote:
Coming back to philology, contrary to your writing the word grivban does exist in Pahlavi. The addition of the var-suffix is what one has problems to safely identify. The Latin words cribanus or clibanus in the meaning of armour are directly derived from grivban. Thus the Clibanarius term has a strong Persian root. This forces historians to take the persae reading into account. There is a nice paper by Ph. Huyse on that if you are interested (Vorbemerkungen zur Auswertung iranischen Sprachgutes in den Res Gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus, in: W. Skalmowski and A. Van Tongerloo (Eds.): Medioiranica, 1993)
I am sorry Kai, but Huyse does not seem to say exactly what you are saying. He mentiones Rundgrens association of the criban (-arius) to the Pahlavi grivpan, New Persian geriban, "neck-guard" (and in what seems to be an analogy with the hauberk - halsberg, "protection for the neck", Rundgren turns this into a horseman's armour), that much is true. However, both consider the association with clibanus to be a "Volksetymologie", and Huyse does not say aything about the later clibanon/clibanion, it might as well come from clibanarius.
Now the West European style of mail hauberk with an integrated mail coif can already be seen on miniatures from the early Carolingian period, so halsberg makes some sense. However, the grivpan / geriban was a seperate piece of armour, sometimes said to be a screen attached to the helmet, sometimes a collar attached to the metallic shirt. It would be quite a coincidence if the Persians made the same connections as the Franks to guarding the neck under such different circumstances. I must say I find Rundgrens connection somewhat forced.
And that is the problem with phylology, language is full of coincidences. For instance, the New Persian word for an oven is tanur, and tanurah denotes a suit of armour, causing a translator of Tabari to describe how a fleeing horseman pelted a pursuer with his helmet, then his shield and finally his field-oven! According to Huyse, these two words are not related either.