Cataphracti and Clibanarii

[MeinPanzer]

I would agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate lengths from even an intended 'life-size' artistic rendition, hence my use of "about" and the rather approximate figures.....
If you take something even cruder, such as the cartoon-like figures in the Panticapaeum 'graffito' I think you are referring to, it becomes even more difficult, and your example illustrates why, quite well ( see below)
At first glance the Lance/kontos looks huge, but that is because the horse is depicted way too small, and the overall impression is deceptive.....
In fact, the Lance is less than 3 times the length of the rider, in a ratio of 6-2.5.Furthermore, that is the length of the seated rider who is anyway well out of proper proportion. If we adjust to arrive at the proper length of the standing rider, the 2.5 becomes roughly 3.3, and hence the Lance-to-full standing height ratio is 6 to 3.3.

Yes, one of the examples I was referring to is the graffito; the other is from the Tomb of Anthesterios. However, your version there is deceptive as the painting is damaged to the lower right of the rider, right where the butt end of the kontos is, and this is not represented there. The actual kontos was probably longer. In addition, your estimation of the rider increasing in height by almost a third when fully standing is way overblown - a realistic estimate would be perhaps from 2.5 to 2.8 or so, and definitely not above 3.

For the Tomb of Anthesterios, however, we do have the complete kontos shown and figures with more realistic proportions. There the ratio is slightly under 3:1 for the seated figure. Accounting for a standing figure, that would become roughly 2.7:1, and thus 455 cm for the kontos.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There is a passage in Ammianus that got me thinking.

(XVI., 10.8) : "...sparsique cataphracti equites (qous clibinarios dictitant)..."

The Loeb English translation: "...
My latin dictionary says a clibanus is an oven, and from that, (and I know I've seen this somewhere before) it is not a great leap to surmise that "the ovens" or "The oven guys" might be slang for fully armored cavarly especially if serving someplace hot, like Mesopotamia.

Kontos likewise has something (IIRC) to do with pole-vaulting in greek, and again one can see a slang word getting coined out of that.

I can just hear some joker somewhere saying "Here come the oven guys with their pole vaults".

All of that said, I've read the book, and I can't see the name designating a differing role.

I now have images of heavily armoured horsemen with long spears digging into the ground(or their unlucky targets) and being pole vaulted out of the saddle, laying in the heat, cooking in their oven like armour...

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

The actual kontos was probably longer. Oh dear! that just makes it an even less reliable measure...and of course there is no 'probably' about it !!In addition, your estimation of the rider increasing in height by almost a third Uuu...mmm....I actually used the ratio of aprox three quarters, which any seated person can check... when fully standing is way overblown - a realistic estimate would be perhaps from 2.5 to 2.8 or so, and definitely not above 3.

For the Tomb of Anthesterios, however, we do have the complete kontos shown and figures with more realistic proportions. There the ratio is slightly under 3:1 for the seated figure. Accounting for a standing figure, that would become roughly 2.7:1, and thus 455 cm for the kontos. Sorry? ...that doesn't seem right....on my previous reckoning, using seated as three quarters of standing, the ratio becomes 3:1.3333 x 167 cm= 3.75 m! ( 12 .2 ft)....even allowing a longer seated/riding length, say 150 cm against 180 cm standing, gives 2.5 x 167 cm, a fraction over 4 m ( 13 ft)....about the same as my other rough estimate, and around my parameters, and still not "5m minimum" !!
But surely all this goes to prove a point on which we agree, namely that it is difficult to be precise about length from artists impressions which are themselves not accurate?

[/i]

[Conal]

"Who says you can only use it from a frontal position?" - not me ... the author suggested that the one handed position was used against infantry. The forward position would be the most efficient using one hand. I dont see the one handed thing myself... two hands either side of the neck.

"If your shaft is long enough, you can stab and still be out or reach of the opposing spears. From a fairly stationary position, even" - whats the point of the horse then, isn't cavalry about movement, momentum and weight of fire ...shock & awe?

"An enemy breaking ranks to go for you would mean certain death" - sure would but I was assuming a grab from the ranks as after all to stab you must put the kontos within grabbing distance. I dont realy take this seriously as a counter tactic but it was reported that Gallic cavalry tried it when they could get past the flanking protection.

"Your armour (and that of the horse) are there to protect you from missile weapons aimed at you in the meantime" i would still not want to sit of jabbing a kiontos lenght away ... one of those pila might find the weak scale hock:

[Robert Vermaat]

"Who says you can only use it from a frontal position?" - not me ... the author suggested that the one handed position was used against infantry. The forward position would be the most efficient using one hand. I dont see the one handed thing myself... two hands either side of the neck.

I agree. One handed over the horses' head does not seem effective.

"If your shaft is long enough, you can stab and still be out or reach of the opposing spears. From a fairly stationary position, even" - whats the point of the horse then, isn't cavalry about movement, momentum and weight of fire ...shock & awe?

Not necessarily. Cavalry is not meant to smash into an infantry line. A horse gives you tactical advantages due to battlefield mobility and of course an advantage of height combined with a psychological effect.
Cavalry is meant to attack flank or harass the front line. Armoured cavalry was mainly developed against horse archers, so their adavantage lies primarily in dealing with other cavalry, not infantry. But the armour allows you to get closer to the infantry.

"Your armour (and that of the horse) are there to protect you from missile weapons aimed at you in the meantime" i would still not want to sit of jabbing a kiontos lenght away ... one of those pila might find the weak scale hock:

The extra advatage of the armoured cavalryman is that he is less vulnerable to arrows and other light missiles. A pilum is a different thing altogether (as would be a plumbata). I can imagine that cavalry stayed away until these were spent.

[Robert Vermaat]

At first glance the Lance/kontos looks huge, but that is because the horse is depicted way too small, and the overall impression is deceptive

I'm not so sure that the horse is way too small. Look at an image of Marcus Junkelmann's cataphract reconstruction. The contus (his name for it) measures 4.55 m. Notice how the second image makes the lance look much shorter?

[Robert Vermaat]

There is a passage in Ammianus that got me thinking.
(XVI., 10.8) : "...sparsique cataphracti equites (qous clibinarios dictitant)..."
The Loeb English translation: "...scattered among them were the full-armored cavalry (whom they call clibanarii)..."

You missed a word, or alse the Loeb edition did: 'Persae'.
Res Gestae XVI.10.8: "...sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibinarios dictitant Persae.." The point being that the Persians called cataphracts 'clibanarii'. As Paul said, the origin of the word is probably Persian, not the much-cited Greek 'oven'.

This seems to be confirmed by another text, the Historia Augusta, written before Ammianus, which states (Vita Severus Alexander, LVI):
"One hundred and twenty thousand of their cavalry we have routed, ten thousand of their horsemen clad in full mail, whom they call cuirassiers, we have slain in battle, and with their armour we have armed our own men."
(centum et viginti milia equitum eorum fudimus, cataphractarios, quos illi clibanarios vocant, decem milia in bello interemimus, eorum armis nostros armavimus.)

[Alanus]

Robert,

I think the Loeb edition did miss the Parsi, since I only recall "they." Is it possible that clibanarius was simply an Asiatic term while cataphract was European?-- two names for the same cavalryman. As for stabbing out to the side? Wow, at 20 to 40 miles-per-hour, you would be unseated, on the ground, and running for the nearest shield-man.

In these ancient illustrations, we see all forms of poor perspective. As an artist, I'm well aware of it. Perspective, without accurate measurement, becomes sometimes bizzare-- too long a contus, too small an equus. We might look to John Conyard, who actually totes these things, for a definitive, perhaps between 12 and 14 feet long. Wolfram says 12, as if it were the norm. Certainly it was held with two hands, the horse controlled by foot movements just as the steppe archers did.

Poor perspective, as to length, is not just found in graffiti, but in professionally executed paintings I've examined in Rome, Pompei, and Heraculum-- people's heads indicating perhaps midgets, ships with giants lumbering their decks, and fisherman with crowbars. Personally, my length is not always correct either... as attested by three ex-wives.

Apollo-geticallly,

Alanus
A.J. Campbell, artist, horsebow nut, and curmudjeon

[MeinPanzer]

Uuu...mmm....I actually used the ratio of aprox three quarters, which any seated person can check...

The problem here is that you have to judge by how the artist represents the figures seated on their horses and not based on an estimate of a person actually sitting on a horse. Look at the smitten rider - he definitely looks more than three-quarters his full height.

[i][color=blue]Sorry? ...that doesn't seem right....on my previous reckoning, using seated as three quarters of standing, the ratio becomes 3]

Again, I was using a more modest estimate based on the artist's depiction.

[quote]about the same as my other rough estimate, and around my parameters, and still not "5m minimum" !!

My initial estimate was overblown, yes, but your statement that "any [kontoi] larger than 3.6-4m (12 ft- 14 ft ) were just too unwieldy for cavalry in ranks" is clearly not the case, as we have representations of kontoi in the 4.5 m range here.

But surely all this goes to prove a point on which we agree, namely that it is difficult to be precise about length from artists impressions which are themselves not accurate?

Of course, and this should always be kept in mind. This debate is kind of ridiculous for that reason, considering that the artist almost certainly didn't measure a lance out when painting these frescoes and probably just estimated how long he thought they should be!

[Alanus]

MeinPanzer,

I think you and I were typing at the same time.
We came to the same conclusion-- that ancient "artists," and I use the word loosely, were "not accurate most of the time and mostly inaccurate some of the time, but never accurate all of the time."

I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

Wryly,
Alanus
aka Alan, art critic and general hoodwink artist

[John Conyard]

I enjoyed Paullus Scipio's logical approach. I find myself agreeing with all his posts. And I enjoyed Alunus's summery. I fear I have little to add to the artistic perception of length.

But I can add some experience of using a contos.

While moving at speed against cavalry it is easiest to engage targets to the front and the left front. When your opponent gets inside the reach of the contos, drop it and use something else. If moving slowly, normally against formed infantry, it is easiest to use to the left, allowing for a powerful two handed thrust and a quick get away.

The biggest issue in terms of delivering an accurate thrust is the "wobble". My contos was originally by accident 5m long. I just made it as large as I could. In my opinion the length should be nearer 4m so I shortened it. This reduced the wobble and made it easier to hit a small target whist at speed. The wobble is not a serious issue, but it is there. It is reduced by reducing the length of the contos or increasing the diameter of the shaft.

Trotting in to action is not an option since this will just increase the wobble. Either use the contos at the walk or the canter. In a display you will seldom if ever be able to reach a gallop. Since speed is an advantage a blood would hold an advantage over a cob. Larger Persian style horses would be well suited to using a contos. This is really the only time speed is an advantage.

My major concern isn't the head hitting the ground, but the ferule on the end of the shaft. The idea of the end spike going through me in some way makes me concentrate. I am seriously tempted to remove it, since it has little effect as a counter balance. But it does offer some potential to use as a weapon if the head breaks. I have snapped a lance head before, the iron head breaking where the blade narrows into the socket.

It is just about possible to sling the contos over your head or shoulder, to be able to draw and use a bow when stationary. However the contos takes up a great deal of room when slung.

I always feel slightly ridiculous riding along the crowd line demonstrating how you can hold the contos. It is alittle bit like trick riding, but there is very little skill in it. However for amusement I pretend to target individuals in the crowd. When they take a step backwards it's rewarding.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Winston Churchill :wink:

[Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus]

There is a passage in Ammianus that got me thinking.
(XVI., 10.8) : "...sparsique cataphracti equites (qous clibinarios dictitant)..."
The Loeb English translation: "...scattered among them were the full-armored cavalry (whom they call clibanarii)..."

You missed a word, or alse the Loeb edition did: 'Persae'.
Res Gestae XVI.10.8: "...sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibinarios dictitant Persae.." The point being that the Persians called cataphracts 'clibanarii'. As Paul said, the origin of the word is probably Persian, not the much-cited Greek 'oven'.

This seems to be confirmed by another text, the Historia Augusta, written before Ammianus, which states (Vita Severus Alexander, LVI):
"One hundred and twenty thousand of their cavalry we have routed, ten thousand of their horsemen clad in full mail, whom they call cuirassiers, we have slain in battle, and with their armour we have armed our own men."
(centum et viginti milia equitum eorum fudimus, cataphractarios, quos illi clibanarios vocant, decem milia in bello interemimus, eorum armis nostros armavimus.)

Great Jupiter's Balls! My edition of Ammianus does not have "Persae" in it. I'm annoyed. What else is missing?

[Paullus Scipio]

Robert wrote:

Notice how the second image makes the lance look much shorter?

...fortunately, most ancient artists of the time had little or no idea how to depict such things showing foreshortening or perspective correctly, and hence drew things in profile.... :wink:
John wrote:

The biggest issue in terms of delivering an accurate thrust is the "wobble".

....and this wobble is not caused by flexibility in the shaft so much ( the thicker, stiffer shaft and the two-handed steadier grip are why the kontos is an improvement on the kamax or xyston) as by the up and down movement of the horse, which the length magnifies at the tip of the Lance.

This is why, throughout history, the most common Lance length is 9-12 ft (2.75- 3.6 m) or so ( with certain notable exceptions! )....it is simply the most practical length...

[Urselius]

Here's my little thesis:

To return to the problem of cataphract/clibanarii nomenclature, I can see very great parallels between the origins of the very heavy cavalry of Rome and the adoption of the lancer by Napoleonic France. Both were the responses of highly organised military despotisms to an external military paradigm. Napoleon was impressed by the fighting abilities of his lance-armed Polish cavalry, and no-doubt various Roman emperors were similarly impressed by Eastern and Sarmatian armoured cavalry. There are three ways of creating a new form of military unit, raise completely new units, convert existing units to the new function, and lastly adopt foreign units of the new type into your army.

Napoleon used the second and third methods, the Polish lancers of the Vistula Legion were incorporated fully into the French army and a number of French dragoon and chasseur regiments were converted to lancers. Given that, at any one period in time, it is likely that the state treasury will be fully extended paying for existing units it is likely that raising entirely new native units would be the least likely option. No doubt Palmyran, Parthian, Persian and Sarmatian heavy cavalry soldiery were available, due to revolts, defeats etc, from time to time to be adopted into the Roman army. It seems to me that the use of differing names for units of essentially the same type of troops may have depended on the particular conditions pertaining when they were raised, adopted or converted. 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'.

Alternatively the two terms might relate to the predelictions of the reigning emperor at the time of the unit being raised. A bookish 'Hellenist' like Hadrian would be likely to use the Greek term 'cataphract,' whilst a hard-bitten, uneducated, Latin-speaking soldier with a direct knowledge of fighting in the east, like Aurelian, would more probably use a descriptive or slang term in common use within the army and name any units he raised 'clibanarii.'

Of course once raised the names would tend to stick and become traditional to the unit concerned.