04-11-2011, 02:29 AM
Hello Kai,
I am not at all disappointed by your critique. One should not post to forums like this if one is going to resent informed criticism. That said, I will try to deal with your comments, taking them in turn.
I have indeed made assumptions but these are based on evidence. If Polybius says of the kataphraktos hippos of Antiochus IV that both horses and men were completely armoured "as the name indicated" (Polyb. 30.25.9) and Heliodorus describes cavalry similarly equipped and calls them kataphraktoi, I think that I am entitled to assume that they are referring to broadly the same type of troops, namely, heavily armoured men on armoured horses, especially when numerous writers in the intervening period use similar terms. Of course, some of them might have been mistaken but it is for those who believe that I am in error to produce the evidence to disprove my theories.
If I interpret your comment upon the element of time correctly, you are saying that there are many references to non-Roman cataphracti because the Romans were late-comers in the introduction of this type of cavalry. This misses my point. I am trying to get away from the tendency to apply cataphractarii and clibanarii to non-Roman troops and to emphasise that the vast bulk of the evidence demonstrates that cataphracti or cataphracti equites are the appropriate terms to apply to foreign heavy cavalry.
I accept that the SHA is probably to be dated to the late 4th century. That is one of the reasons for the incorrect terminology in Severus Alexander 56.5. I am doubtful, however, if the author was copying Ammianus; if he was, he erred in referring to cataphractarii instead of cataphracti equites and Persae instead of personati (see below). I believe that, although the alleged speech by Alexander to the Senate is probably forged and the claims made in it are preposterous, it nevertheless conceals a kernel of truth. I would not be so confident were it not for the fact that Herodian (who was a contemporary) mentions kataphraktoi hippeis in the army of Maximinus Thrax five years after Alexander brought that army to Europe from the East.
On the issue of Persae/personati, I must disagree with you fundamentally. Personati is not a conjecture; it is a reading in V which is the oldest, and only independant, surviving manuscript. As I understand current scholarship, it is believed to be a transcript of M and should, therefore, not differ from it very much. Gelenius used M to produce his edition but apparently made many alterations of his own, the introduction of Persae probably being one of them. Some bits of M have been found but none covering this passage. Modern editions of the text follow V in this respect and, until the relevant portion of M turns up and proves me wrong, I will follow them.
On your final point, I think you misunderstand me. As far as I am concerned, cataphracti and clibanarii are the same. The distinction that I draw is between cataphracti/cataphracti equites and clibanarii on the one hand and cataphractarii on the other, cataphractarii being lighter equipped and more versatile and arising out of a different tradition.
Regards,
Michael
I am not at all disappointed by your critique. One should not post to forums like this if one is going to resent informed criticism. That said, I will try to deal with your comments, taking them in turn.
I have indeed made assumptions but these are based on evidence. If Polybius says of the kataphraktos hippos of Antiochus IV that both horses and men were completely armoured "as the name indicated" (Polyb. 30.25.9) and Heliodorus describes cavalry similarly equipped and calls them kataphraktoi, I think that I am entitled to assume that they are referring to broadly the same type of troops, namely, heavily armoured men on armoured horses, especially when numerous writers in the intervening period use similar terms. Of course, some of them might have been mistaken but it is for those who believe that I am in error to produce the evidence to disprove my theories.
If I interpret your comment upon the element of time correctly, you are saying that there are many references to non-Roman cataphracti because the Romans were late-comers in the introduction of this type of cavalry. This misses my point. I am trying to get away from the tendency to apply cataphractarii and clibanarii to non-Roman troops and to emphasise that the vast bulk of the evidence demonstrates that cataphracti or cataphracti equites are the appropriate terms to apply to foreign heavy cavalry.
I accept that the SHA is probably to be dated to the late 4th century. That is one of the reasons for the incorrect terminology in Severus Alexander 56.5. I am doubtful, however, if the author was copying Ammianus; if he was, he erred in referring to cataphractarii instead of cataphracti equites and Persae instead of personati (see below). I believe that, although the alleged speech by Alexander to the Senate is probably forged and the claims made in it are preposterous, it nevertheless conceals a kernel of truth. I would not be so confident were it not for the fact that Herodian (who was a contemporary) mentions kataphraktoi hippeis in the army of Maximinus Thrax five years after Alexander brought that army to Europe from the East.
On the issue of Persae/personati, I must disagree with you fundamentally. Personati is not a conjecture; it is a reading in V which is the oldest, and only independant, surviving manuscript. As I understand current scholarship, it is believed to be a transcript of M and should, therefore, not differ from it very much. Gelenius used M to produce his edition but apparently made many alterations of his own, the introduction of Persae probably being one of them. Some bits of M have been found but none covering this passage. Modern editions of the text follow V in this respect and, until the relevant portion of M turns up and proves me wrong, I will follow them.
On your final point, I think you misunderstand me. As far as I am concerned, cataphracti and clibanarii are the same. The distinction that I draw is between cataphracti/cataphracti equites and clibanarii on the one hand and cataphractarii on the other, cataphractarii being lighter equipped and more versatile and arising out of a different tradition.
Regards,
Michael
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
