Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii
#76
Quote:
Dan Howard post=332147 Wrote:(as noted earlier, Livy uses it to describe unarmoured cavalry)
Remind me where, please.
There has been no response to my request, which is not surprising as no-one in this thread has made any such assertion. The one relevant comment is this:


Quote:Livy uses catafract to describe the heavily armoured Seleukid cavalry where man and horse have armour
which to entirely the opposite effect.
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)
Reply
#77
Eduard wrote:

Ammianus says a (singular, one) type of weapon when referring to the cataphractarii and the sagittarii.

Renatus wrote:

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.

While those cataphractarii were actually no good at all? You see, I do not mean similarly armed, it could be a whatdoyoucallit, two words for the same thing. Julianus is writing literature, not a battle report. It seems to me it could very well be a very old literary clichée, of which I cannot come up with the name, where you give superfluous different words that mean the same thing, or superfluous descriptions for something that already encompases those descriptions. You know, a commander mobilises his heroes and daring men, or he asks for a wel equipped and fierce unit of guardsmen. It does not mean he mobilises two kinds of people, heroic people and daring people, because that's the same difference. And he doesn't ask for those guardsmen because the last time they sent him badly equipped, sissy guardsmen, it just looks better to add something to just guardsmen. So it could perhaps mean that, flippant use of the term notwithstanding, to Julian cataphractarii and sagittarii were one and the same thing.
Reply
#78
Quote:While those cataphractarii were actually no good at all?
Of course not. Just because one unit may be particulary good at what it does, does not mean that another unit is no good at what it does.


Quote: You see, I do not mean similarly armed, it could be a whatdoyoucallit, two words for the same thing.
'Tautology' may be the expression that you have in mind. I am afraid that I cannot agree with you. Cataphractarii and sagittarii are completely different types of unit and are attested as such. In fact, unless you were to argue that they were similarly armed and organised (which you say that you do not, at least so far as armament is concerned) and, therefore, one and the same thing, I cannot see how using the two terms can possibly be tautologous.
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)
Reply
#79
Well, that is just the discussion I am having with ValentinianVictrix. You both seem to have the a priori assumption that all these names refer to specifically armed, equipped, trained and organised units, tactical specialists. I am not so sure they are attested as such. I am suggesting that these names seem to be used rather haphazard, and are perhaps only very roughly or even not at al connected to a tactical specialisation, but rather to local tradition, fashion, the origin and history of the unit, the eccentricities of the emperor and his officers at the time, and stuff like that. A bit like Napoleon's carabiniers or Wellington' s light dragoons. So no, not similarly armed, but simply two words for "cavalry".
Reply
#80
I fear that this may have to be a topic upon which we must agree to differ. There are numerous units that appear to be designated by their weaponry and it would be curious if this was without relevance.
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)
Reply
#81
Do you think so? Let's forget about the above-mentioned carabiniers without carabines, or light dragoons without muskets, let's take something less remote. How about the Roman Spear-bearers and Shield-bearers of the 6th century CE? The names were relevant alright, but they referred to status, not to weaponry. Same with the Sword-bearers and the Mace-bearers of the Persianate Muslim dynasties.
Reply
#82
Actually, the term "clibinarius" is quite straight-forward. These men were such poor bakers that everyone hated their tastless and hard bread. They had to wear armor or they would have been killed by irate customers. :woot: 8)
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Byzantine armour, arms and equipment Gladius Hispaniensis 16 6,880 06-24-2012, 06:42 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs
  Roman cataphractarii and clibanarii tombstones Julian Apostata 7 4,627 07-17-2011, 01:21 AM
Last Post: Julian Apostata
  Clibanarii equipment and tacitcs? Steakslim 11 2,664 12-13-2008, 11:48 PM
Last Post: Steakslim

Forum Jump: