Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cataphracti and Clibanarii
#31
Hi Paul,
Quote:Robert wrote:
Quote: 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:
I think you underesttimate them Paul. But I was merely drawing attention to that image to show that even long lances can be shown looking much shorter. As artists were known to do when the room failed to depict everything.

Hi Martin,

Quote: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.
I think that's as good a theory as any. We won't be able to find out what the names depicted at first, or after what time they ceased to mean exactly that. So why not!

Does anyone know other Roman troop types that carried a non-Roman name?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#32
Thanks for your kind reception for my theory.

Big Grin

Foreign names for Roman troop types?

Cohortes gaesatorum? from a Celtic spear-type - 'gae' seems to have been a common Celtic term for spear; Cu Chulainn had his gae-bolg and the trans-Alpine 'Gaesatae' fought naked against the Romans at Telamon.

Contarii, from the Greek for a long lance or 'bargepole.'
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#33
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/
Valerius Mexentius from the numerus catafractariorum is indeed depicted wielding his lance with one hand, and holding a shield in the left one. In my opinion, three hypothesis may be provided :

-Valerius Maxentius' weapon is not a contus, but a traditional cavalry spear. i.e. catafractarii are not necessary associated with the contus.
-Valerius Maxentius' shield is strapped to his arm or to his shoulder (like on Taq-i Bustan relief), which allows him to carry his contus with both hands (this seems to have been the case with the latter scutarii clibanarii).
-Valerius Maxentius's weapon is indeed a pike, and he may have used the skill that is called "couched lance" in medieval context. For another occurence in Antiquity, see the relief found at Khalchayan, Uzbekistan, 1st c. A.D. (in Mielczarek : fig. 14, p. 131).

I think that the first hypothesis is the most plausible, cause the shield seems to be a bit too big to be strapped : it would have be rather cumbersome than helpful for the rider. We may add that Flavius Zurdigenuus' gravestone (CIL XIII 1848 - numerus equitum catafractariorum seniorum) doesn't show a contus, but a 2m spear. Eventually, we have no pictural evidence that Roman catafractarii employed contus rather than mere hasta.

Quote: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).

To John Conyard : I would like to know what speed you are able to reach when charging with your contus. What is the weight of your equipment ? Do you think that a caparisoned Roman cob could withstand several charges ? Do a contus is usable more than one time ?

Regards
Maxime
Reply
#34
Quote: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/
Urselius:2mi3idz3 Wrote: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.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#35
Quote: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.

There is no evidence of such a skill in the sources concerning cataphracts, clibanarii, kontophoroi or contarii. The Greek and Roman authors only speak of the cavalry contus as a two-handed lance. And the iconographic depictions never show such a heavy pike wield with one hand.

Quote: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.

That is not what I meant. I was just underlining the fact that heavy cavalry units of foreign origin were not necessary named after their native language, and that the term "cataphracts" did not neccessary applied to "new or converted native units".

You may also be careful with the grivpan explanation put forward by F. Rundgren. In a recent article, V.P. Nikonorov has harshly rejected this assumption which is based on a neologism. He thinks that clibanarius derives from cliuanus, not understood as oven but employed like a synonym of lorica early in the third century (NIKONOROV V.P. 1998, “Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii : Another Look at the old problem of their Identifications”, Voennaia arkheologia, St. Petersburg, p. 131-138).
.
Maxime
Reply
#36
I don't want to get into any debate about nomenclature.

But I will point out you can carry a contos in one hand. But it's better to fight using a two handed thrust for power and control.

The horse will move at the same speed with the contos or without. At a canter that's around 40 kph, at the gallop up to 60kph.

I fear I cannot be sure about the weight of my equipment. Clothing and defensive arnament would be around 20 kg. But I'm guessing.

The horses energy, and it's hooves, have to be husbanded. Some horses are strong and fit enough to play for hours. Others have less energy. My black cob will be good for 30 minutes of hard work. Then he slows down. But last Saturday after a winter of little excercise on mainly grass he did really well to manage nearly 2 hours. A grey mare I was working with would let me know she'd had enough after 90 minutes hard work.

But I suspect the real issue will be around the effects of heat exhaustion. This will accentuate the effects of the weight carried by the horse. Horse armour in a hot climate seems a terrible prospect. Even my simple wool trappings soon make the horse sweat.
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#37
No one knows the true etymology of the word clibanarius as no Classical author ever wrote one down, everyone who comments about it is making a guess, a more or or a less educated guess. No theory on this matter can be definitively proven. The same applies to the use of the word, did it mean a type of soldier different to a cataphract or was merely used as a synonym? No one really knows.

You mention the kontos as if it were a modern weapon like a particular make of assault rifle; I'm sure the kontos differed in length, and in other characteristics, both geographically and chronologically. Also, even if the kontos was only mentioned by Classical authors as being a two-handed weapon soldiers would experiment with the weapon and investigate its potential - long pointy things and what the human fame is capable of doing with them have not greatly changed since Ammianus, so practical investigation is a valid undertaking (isn't this one of the reasons behind re-constuction of antique weapons and re-enactment). Did you know that an assault rifle can be used as a bottle-opener? The Israeli military discovered that a high number of firearms sent for repair had been damaged by soldiers using the breech mechanism to open beer and soft-drinks bottles, all Israeli weapons then had bottle-openers incorporated into their stocks. I think that underestimating the ingenuity of soldiers of any age in what they can do with their kit is fundamentally unsafe.

The Byzantine kontarion, the descendant of the kontos, was used in one hand, and illustrations of it being used one-handedly exist in considerable numbers.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#38
Martin the contos can be used as a bottle as well...

Forgive me if I speak of it as an old friend. When I write of it I'm thinking of my contos in my equipment room. My version changes size and shape every year, but I always paint it blue.
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#39
Not to forget, the Pahlavi word griw-pan means also warrior and given the feudal and caste structure of the Iranian states as the Arsacid Parthians and Persian Sassanids were it was a nomenclature for a member of the warrior caste.

However, I believe, when the Roman soldiers heard that name and encountered those heavy-armored knights in the heat of Mesopotamia the first time they changed it in a dark-humoured mood to the known clibinarius / ovenman. Military slang at its best. :wink:

-----------
I have ever thought of the Roman-made distinction between Cataphract an Clibinarius as following:

Cataphract- rider is armoured, sometimes equipped with a shield, horse is either not armoured or only lightly protected (as a front armour).

Clibinarius- rider is heavy till very heavy armoured, shield is not neccessary, horse is completely protected by some types of armour (maybe a composite form of metal and felt armour).
Gäiten
a.k.a.: Andreas R.
Reply
#40
Quote:Martin the contos can be used as a bottle as well...

Forgive me if I speak of it as an old friend. When I write of it I'm thinking of my contos in my equipment room. My version changes size and shape every year, but I always paint it blue.

Ah! the famous 4 yards of ale!
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#41
Excellent.

I meant "bottle opener", but the word "bottle" opens up more possibilities.
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#42
How long was a cataphract lance? I've heard they were as much as thirty feet long. Is that true?
Ben.
Reply
#43
The longest I've used is close to 5m and that is too long. Currently I use a 4m example, and between 3-4m would be the norm.
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#44
Quote:The Byzantine kontarion, the descendant of the kontos, was used in one hand, and illustrations of it being used one-handedly exist in considerable numbers.

I'm interested in such illustrations. Can you tell me where I can find them ? Which lenght could reach this weapon used in such manner ?

Quote:You mention the kontos as if it were a modern weapon like a particular make of assault rifle; I'm sure the kontos differed in length, and in other characteristics, both geographically and chronologically.

That is not what I think. I just said that the two-handed use of the kontos was the norm in Antiquity, as told by sources.

I agree with you when you say that this kind of spear could change from place to place and from era to era. The most difficult thing when you study it is that Greek authors seem to have employ the world kontos with more inaccuracy than Romans. In the Latin sources, the contus is always a heavy pike that differs roughly from hasta. This is not the case with authors such as Flavius Josephus, Arrianus or Lucian. The first writes (BJ III, 5, 5) that the whole cavalry of Vespasian was equipped with shield, kontos and three or more dorata. Here, kontos seems to be synonym of hasta, and dorata of javelins. On the contrary, in Arrianus (Tact. 4), a javelin is called lonchè, a lance (hasta type ?) doru, and a pike kontos (he precises that this is the main weapon of the Sarmatians). In his Roman infantry depiction, he uses the word kontos for what seems to be a long hasta (a pilum for some scholars), but not a long pike (he uses the words sarisa or doru - which seems to be generic name for spear or lance with him - to describe the weapon of the Macedonian phalanx : Anab. I, 4, 1). Lucian (Alex. 55) uses the same typology with Roman infantry.

The question know is with which lenght a spear could be used for choc cavalry tactics ? Do we have any evidence that a traditional hasta (approx. 1.8 m) was sometime employed for massive frontal charges, as was the case with contus ?

Regards,
Maxime
Reply
#45
There are many depictions of the long cavalry lance being held one-handed. A few examples would be coins of Eucratides I, the Orlat bone plate, the Panticapaeum tomb paintings, the charging Sarmatians on Trajan's Column (the long lance is assumed, since the metal weapons are gone), the Dura-Europas armored horseman graffito, even a couple of Roman horsemen on the Adamklissi monument.

To me the surviving artwork suggests that the long lance was held in the right hand, parallel to the horse's right flank, with the left hand holding the reigns, as the horseman galloped or charged the enemy. The horseman then released the reigns and changed to a two-handed grip shortly before contact with the enemy.

This is suggested in a couple of instances. On one of the Panticapaeum paintings, we see two groups of horsemen charging each other with long lances. The group on the left all hold their lances two-handed, while the group on the right hold their lances one-handed, the other hand on the reigns. Another example is the depiction of Sassanian mounted combat at Naqsh-e Rustam, where we see the Sassanian king about to spear his enemy with a long lance held in both hands, while the enemy horseman holds his lance one handed, the other holding the reigns.

The Orlat plate is a problem since it clearly show horsemen spearing mounted and dismounted opponents with the lance held one-handed "couched" style, the left hand holding the reigns. This could be evidence for the theory that the long lance came in different lengths. Though for what it's worth I should say that while the Orlat plate is an excellent source for military equipment, I have problems with its depiction of actual combat.

Gregg
Reply


Forum Jump: