Cataphracti and Clibanarii

[Urselius]

Hi,

If you agree that the contus is supposed to be held with both hands, and that the Roman catafractarii use such a weapon, how do you explain CIL XIII 6238's relief : http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/ ... Itemid,94/

Units of foreign origin might be given the name commonly used within their region of origin ie 'clibanarius' - from the Persian "griv-pan" (meaning gorget - neck protection - so in English "gorgeteers" might be a better translation than "cuirassiers") - and new or converted native units may have been called 'cataphracts'.

I don't think so. The ala noua firma catafractaria was raised in the east, probably during Alexander Severus' campaign, from parthian deditici or mercenaries (compare Herodian VI, 7, 8 ; VII, 2, 1 and VIII 1) ; its members seem to have been of Mesopotamian or Osrhoenian origin (see CIL XIII, 7323 and the semitic names on the other gravestones).


Regards

I think a weapon, particularly a cavalry weapon, with only one mode of employment is not an effective weapon. A heavy lance can be used one handedly, you just need to hold it nearer the balance point than if you use it with two hands. Additionally a flexed arm can support considerable asymmetrical weight to the front in holding a lance horizontally, if the bent elbow is held high and used to brace the shaft.

I don't understand your difficulty with "griv-pan," the unit you describe was of Parthian origins, the Parthians spoke an Iranian language and they, whatever the ethnic origins of particular soldiers may have been, were the elite of their kingdom. Any military terms, including unit designations and descriptions of types of troops, are likely to have been in their language not in the language of Semitic auxilliaries.