In his opening post in this thread, Valentinian Victrix alluded to another forum to which I had made a contribution. This relates to a thread started by him (under the name Valentinian Victor) in November 2009 and which is still going strong. It includes the theories expounded by him above and has inspired lively debate. It can be viewed
here. I do not intend to repeat my comments upon Valentinian's theories; anyone interested can see them by accessing the other forum (I enter the fray on Page 5). What I do wish to do is to combine here three of my posts to that forum (with minor additions and amendments) which, taken together, pretty much encapsulate my views on this subject.
I first looked into the question of Roman heavy cavalry some 20 years ago and have returned to it in the last four years or so. I am especially interested in discovering the differences implied by the terms
cataphracti/cataphracti equites,
cataphractarii and
clibanarii (and their Greek equivalents). This has involved considering over 70 sources - literary, epigraphic and papyrological - some containing multiple references. What follows represents the product of that investigation.
This is not an academic paper, so I will not be going through the detailed evidence and then stating my conclusions. Instead, I will go straight to the results of my research. This can give the appearance of being over-dogmatic but I will try to avoid that by citing at least some supporting evidence. Anyone may ask for my reasoning on any point and I will endeavour to oblige. I will use the English term "cataphract" to refer to heavy cavalry non-specifically; for any particular type, I will use what I consider to be the appropriate Latin expression and this should be understood to include its Greek equivalent. In Latin, the "-
ph-" spelling and the "-
f-" spelling are used interchangeably. I use the "-
ph-" form unless my source dictates the alternative. I will begin by considering the types of cataphract in foreign armies upon which the Romans modelled theirs; secondly, I will deal with the terminology used for the various types; thirdly, I will consider the relationship between
cataphractarii and
clibanarii; fourthly, I will tackle weaponry, particularly the use of bows and shields; and, finally, I will address the psychological effect of
cataphracti upon the enemies facing them. This last will involve repetition of the quotations in the last part of Valentinian's first post but this is unavoidable.
Influences
There were two types of cataphract upon which the Romans modelled the heavy cavalry in there own army. I call these the Eastern type and the Western type.
Eastern
Although the Romans did not adopt this type of cataphract until much later, they first encountered it in the 2nd Century BC in the Seleucid armies of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. The type persisted into the Sasanian period. In its fullest form, the rider wore a face-mask helmet, body armour and segmented arm and leg defences, rode a fully armoured horse and was armed with
contus, sword and bow (principally Heliodorus,
Aethiopica, 9.15).
Western
This type seems to have reached its fullest development in the armies of the Sarmatian tribes. Both rider and horse were armoured; the man was armed with
contus and sword, and did not use a shield (Valerius Flaccus,
Argonautica, 6.231-238; Tacitus,
Histories, 1.79). Tacitus calls the rider's armour
catafractes and says that it was made from scales of iron or hard leather and was so heavy that the man had difficulty getting up when unhorsed. I see it as a form of hauberk. Trajan's Column shows Sarmation cavalry with both horse and rider wholly covered with tight-fitting scale armour. Although obviously unrealistic, this is a clear attempt to render in stone a verbal description of cavalry armoured from head to foot in scale. The riders' helmets are shown as a form of
Spangenhelm.
Terminology
In my opinion, insufficient attention has been given in the past to using the correct terminology when describing this type of cavalry. The result is that terms are frequently used inappropriately or treated as synonymous when they should not be. What follows is my attempt to create a glossary in which these words are given what I see to be their correct meaning and to suggest how they might properly be used in the future.
Cataphracti/Cataphracti Equites
These terms appear to be synonymous and are treated together. They are literary terms used in referring to the Eastern type of cataphract by numerous writers from Polybius to Ammianus, Vegetius and Eunapius. When used in a Roman context they are synonymous with
clibanarii (e.g., Amm. 16.10.8; Veg. 3.23.3). I have identified 56 usages referring to non-Roman cataphracts of this type, against only four occasions when
cataphractarius or
clibanarius are used. These are explicable as certain or probable anachronisms. I conclude that
cataphracti or
cataphracti equites are the correct terms to be applied to non-Roman cataphracts of the Eastern type.
Catafractata
This term is known only in relation to
ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata. The full title of the
ala appears in an inscription setting out the career of M. Maenius Agrippa, who was its prefect in the late-AD120s or mid-130s (CIL XI 5632 = ILS 2735). This
ala is the first cataphract unit known in the Roman army and the first evidence we have for it is in a diploma dated 1st June 125 (RMD IV 235) when it was stationed in Moesia Inferior; it remained in that province until at least the late 150s (RMD I 50). It was formed probably under either Trajan or Hadrian. I favour Hadrian and believe it to have been formed in response to Sarmatian incursions into the province at the beginning of his reign. This being so, I postulate that it was modelled upon the Western type of cataphract, the most formidable foe that it was likely to meet in that theatre, and to have been equipped in almost exactly the same manner. At least, it would have had the most characteristic elements - the hauberk and the horse armour - and would have been armed with
contus and sword.
Cataphractarii
Cataphractarius is a technical term for a particular troop type in the Roman army. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to apply it to non-Roman troops. The evidence is mainly epigraphic and papyrological, although nine units are named in the
Notitia Dignitatum. At the time of the
Notitia (late-4th/early-5th Century), most units were stationed in the East but the type has a distinctly Western bias. Of 19 units known from the
Notitia and epigraphy, 15 can be shown to have originated or served in the West. All inscriptions naming such units have been found in Europe except one and that refers to an
ala (
ala nova firma milliaria catafractaria Philippiana) that had previously served in the West. These inscriptions seem to date from the 3rd and 4th Centuries and the time-lag and change in nomenclature mean that it cannot be demonstrated what connection (if any) this type of unit may bear to that of
ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata. In the case of units having a place-name in their titles, the name is Gaulish, which may indicate that they were building on a Gallic tradition of
contus-bearing cavalry (Arrian,
Techne Taktika, 44.1). Nevertheless, the suffix "-
arius" often shows that a soldier was equipped in a certain manner, e.g.,
sagittarius,
lancearius, etc., and I conclude that here it indicates that the cavalrymen wore
cataphractae similar to those of the Sarmatians mentioned by Tacitus and, on my analysis, by the men of
ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata. From this, I conclude that
cataphractarii were of the Western type of cataphract, although other equipment may have been modified to some extent. In particular, from the representations on tombstones, it seems that the horses were no longer armoured and the men had adopted shields.
Clibanarii
Again, the evidence indicates that
clibanarii were a specific Roman troop type and the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops. They were of the Eastern type of cataphract, as demonstrated by detailed descriptions in Ammianus Marcellinus and Nazarius in which the term is used (Amm. 16.10.8; Naz.,
Paneg., 22.4) and in other sources in which it is not but the meaning is clear (e.g., Julian,
Or. I, 37C-D; Claudian,
in Rufinum II, 355-362). In contrast to the
cataphractarii, where unit titles in the
Notitia Dignitatum indicate an area of origin or service
clibanarii have an Eastern bias. The
Historia Augusta suggests that the type was introduced into the Roman army by Severus Alexander, using captured Sasanian equipment (SHA,
Severus Alexander, 56.5). This is not the most reliable of sources but, in this instance, I am prepared to accept it. As to the etymology of the word, I have never liked the "*
griv-pan" theory, chiefly because the word does not exist in the literature and has to be inferred, hence the asterisk (too often omitted) (see the brief discussion in Bivar 1972, 277n; Nikonorov 1998, 133). Nor do I like the "oven-man" theory. I favour the more prosaic explanation that
clibanarius derives from
clivanus or
clibanus, meaning a cuirass (Anon.,
de Rebus Bellicis, 15.2; Migne PL XIII 637; Migne PG XXXIV 627; see Nikonorov 1998, 132).
Cataphractarii and Clibanarii
It will be apparent from the above that I am not of the school that holds that
cataphractarii and
clibanarii were one and the same. It may be that some at least of those who are of that opinion have been misled by the failure to differentiate between
cataphracti/cataphracti equites and
cataphractarii. Nevertheless, the relationship between
cataphractarii and
clibanarii is a complex one. Both appear in the
Notitia Dignitatum and, where units of both types are included in a field army, the
cataphractarii are listed first. This strongly indicates that not only did they differ but that, of the two, the
cataphractarii were the senior. The difference, I suggest, lies in the way that they were equipped, with the
cataphractarii being the lighter armed, as indicated above. The
cataphractarii probably owed their seniority to their being the older formation, being already in existance when Eastern-style cataphracts were introduced into the army.
Having said this, it seems likely that there was a time when Eastern-style cataphracts in the Roman army were regarded as a type of
cataphractarius, albeit one much more heavily armed than the norm. The term
clibanarius is not securely attested in the literature until its appearance in the armies of Maximin Daia in c.311 (Lactantius,
de Mort. Pers., 40.5) and Maxentius in 312 (Nazarius,
Paneg., 22.4) and the literary expressions
cataphracti and
cataphracti equites do not seem to have found favour with the military. I have found only one unit so named (
arithmou kataphraktôn), in a papyrus dated 26 May 267 (P.Oxy. XLI 2951.19). Therefore, for a time after first having been introduced into the army, such units are likely to have been called
cataphractarii with the addition of some epithet to denote their differing nature. I am toying with the idea that
ala nova firma cataphractaria, the known personnel of which seem to have come from the East, may fall into this category but have not made up my mind yet. The existance of a
vexillatio equitum catafractariorum clibanariorum (AE 1984, 825 = Speidel 1984) points in the same direction. The title of the unit means "clibanarian
cataphractarii" or "
cataphractarii equipped as
clibanarii" and represents an intermediate stage in the terminology before
clibanarius became a title in its own right. Thereafter,
cataphractarius reverted to its former meaning as referring exclusively to the Western type of cataphract, which is how it appears in the
Notitia. This historic connection between the two terms possibly accounts for the notorious passage in the
Historia Augusta, referring to Severus Alexander's alleged defeat of the Sasanian army, - "
cataphractarios, quos illi" (sc.,
Persae) "
clibanarios vocant" (SHA,
Severus Alexander, 56.5). Alternatively, given the nature of the source, it may simply be a mistake. Either way, it has bedevilled the study of this subject for generations. Incidentally, the conjecture that substituted
Persae for
personati in Amm. 16.10.8 was rejected towards the end of the 19th century.
Weaponry
The evidence for the weaponry of the
cataphractarii and the
clibanarii indicates that both were basically
contarii but there are variations that need to be examined.
Cataphractarii
As mentioned before, the Western cataphract upon which the
cataphractarius was modelled was armed with
contus and sword and did not use a shield. Sarmatian and the closely-related Bosporan
contarii, whether cataphract or not, are shown on reliefs and in tomb paintings with the
contus held in both hands and without shields. One of the Sarmatian cataphracts on Trajan's Column is armed with a bow. Roman tombstones of the 3rd and 4th Centuries illustrate a number of changes from the basic model. For instance, Valerius Maxantius, an
eques in a
numerus katafractariorum, is shown astride an unarmoured horse, with a shield in his left hand and holding a
contus in the couched position under his right arm (CIL XIII 6238 = ILS 9208 = Schleiermacher 49).
The tombstone of Klaudius (? Flavius) Ingenuus, a
centenarius in
numerus equitum catafractariorum seniorum, is particularly interesting. Again, he is shown astride an unarmoured horse but he holds his
contus in both hands. He is preceded by a servant holding what may be a sword and is followed by another carrying a shield and a shorter spear (CIL XIII 1848 = Schleiermacher 93). This array of weapons indicates that such units could be quite versatile, operating as
contarii or as regular spear and shield armed cavalry as the tactical situation demanded.
There is a possibility that
ala nova firma catafractaria could have been bow-armed, as well has having the normal
contus. I base this suggestion upon the tombstone of two "brothers" who served in the unit, Aurelius Saluda and Aurelius Regrethus (Schleiemacher 40). The relief shows a single rider astride what again seems to be an unarmoured horse. A photograph taken when the stone was found in 1930, broken in three pieces, seems to show a
contus carried over the shoulder but this is not visible in more recent photographs taken since the restoration of the stone. Behind the saddle is an object which, although damaged, resembles a quiver in shape and position. In his left hand, the rider holds what is usually identified as a shield but which might, just possibly, be a bow. The possibility that the
ala may have been so armed may be supported by the information in the inscription on an altar set up by a decurion in the same unit who had been born at Carrhae in Osrhoene, a province well-known for archery, and who had previously been a
magister in
cohors milliaria Hemesenorum, a part-mounted unit of archers (CIL III 10307 = ILS 2540).
Clibanarii
Parthian and Sasanian rock reliefs depict what are identified as Eastern cataphracts armed with the
contus, which is wielded with two hands, and there is little doubt that this was the principal weapon of their Roman successors. However, consideration must be given to what other weapons may have been used by the
clibanarii, particularly, bows and shields.
Bows
The Parthian and Sasanian cataphracts on the rock reliefs all have quivers and thus were armed with the bow as well as the
contus. The position is less clear with the Roman
clibanarii. A unit of
equites sagittarii clibanarii is known from the
Notitia Dignitatum, stationed in Africa (Occ.6.67), and the unit of
clibanarii previously mentioned as being in the army of Maximin Daia is described as
clibanarii sagittarii (Lactantius,
de Mort. Pers., 40.5). These were evidently specialist units but conclusive evidence of regular
clibanarii being bow-armed is lacking. The passage from Julian's Panegyric in Honour of Constantius cited by Valentinian in the opening post of this thread (Jul.
Or. I, 37A) is suggestive but no more, unless it could be demonstrated that those who the translator calls "cuirassiers" were indeed
clibanarii. An interesting possibility arises if
clibanarius derives from
clivanus or
clibanus (see above). In this case,
clibanarius would mean "cuirass-wearer". The word used by Julian translated as "cuirassiers" is
thôrakophoroi, which means "cuirass-wearers". Thus, if the suggested etymology of
clibanarius were established, it could mean that Julian translated the Latin into Greek to arrive at the word used in his text and that Valentinian's suggestion that
clibanarii were armed with bows could be, at least partially, correct. That said, I am intrigued by the suggestion made earlier in this thread that the Loeb translation upon which he relies may be misleading and I hope to look into this further.
It might be relevant to remember that Vegetius recommended that a third or a quarter of recruits of proven ability should be trained in archery (Veg. 1.15.1). He, of course, was speaking of infantry but similar considerations may have applied to cavalry whose Parthian and Sasanian predecessors had been bow-armed. The existance of units specifically designated as
sagittarii militates against all
clibanarii being armed with bows but the possibility remains that a proportion of those serving in regular units could have been trained horse archers.
Shields
There was much discussion in the other forum on whether
clibanarii used shields or not. Certainly, the Parthian and Sasanian rock reliefs do not show their predecessors using them and Julian, in describing Constantius'
clibanarii, states specifically that they did not need shields (Jul.
Or. II, 57C). However, it is not as simple as that.
The
Notitia Dignitatum displays a shield design for the
equites sagittarii clibanarii previously mentioned (Occ.6.24), although this does not necessarily mean that the shield was a battlefield item. The design could be simply a symbolic way of representing the unit or there could be duties, such guard duty, which required a soldier to carry a shield when not in full clibanarian armour. On balance, a shield would probably be considered an unnecessary encumbrance for a rider needing maximum freedom to manipulate bow and arrows in combat.
More significantly, the
Notitia reveals the existance of a
scola scutariorum clibanariorum (Or.11.8.), which is probably the same unit as the
scola of a similar name mentioned in a decree dated 26 July 389 set out in the Theodosian Code (
Cod. Theod. 14.17.9). This states that the unit had existed since the reign of Constantine. There is also an inscription from Syria naming a
skoutarios klibanarios (SEG XX (1964), 332). This seems clear evidence of the existance of at least one specialist unit of shield-bearing
clibanarii.
It is instructive to look at the older tactical manuals. Asclepiodotus, writing in the late-2nd to early 1st century BC, divides cavalry into those fighting at close quarters, those operating at a distance and those who are intermediate. Those fighting at close quarters he describes as having "very heavy equipment, fully protecting both horses and men with defensive armour", going on to say that this arm of the service was known by a number of names, including "shield-bearing cavalry (
thureophoron), when it, sometimes, carries unusually long shields for the purpose of protecting the mount as well as the rider" (Asclep.,
Techne Taktike, 1.3 - Loeb translations). Arrian, writing under Hadrian, having divided cavalry into
kataphraktos and
aphraktos, i.e., heavy and light armoured, says of the former that some carried oblong shields and were known as
thureaphoroi (Arr.,
Techne Taktike, 4.4).
Thureos is a word used by Greek writers for the Roman
scutum (e.g., Polybius 6.23.2).
To sum up, it seems evident that there were some tactical situations in which shields were used by Eastern-style cataphracts and that some units of
clibanarii were specialists in their use. In general, however, it seems unlikely that shields were habitually used by
clibanarii, although this is not to say that they were not trained to use them should circumstances demand. Definitive evidence is lacking on this point.
The conclusion I derive from this is that
clibanarii were the more heavily equipped, the riders encased in iron from head to toe riding armoured horses, a bit ponderous, perhaps, but psychologically terrifying.
Cataphractarii, on the other hand, although well protected (their title serves as a reminder of the protective and all covering connotations of its ancient Greek origin), were lighter equipped and more versatile, riding nimbler, unarmoured horses and capable of acting both as
contarii or as conventional cavalry.
Psychological Effect
One aspect of the use of
clibanarii and their non-Roman equivalents touched on above is the psychological effect that they would have had upon the opposing forces. I set out below a selection of passages relating to this. I do not claim it to be exhaustive and would be pleased to see any additions that others may be able to make to it. I divide the references into four broad categories, although there is inevitably some overlap between them.
(a)
Plutarch, Moralia, 203 (Lucullus, 2)
His soldiers feared most the men in full armour (
kataphraktou) . . .
Armenian cataphracti at the battle of Tigranocerta, 69 BC.
Nazarius, Paneg., 24.6
When Antoninus . . . made trial of the Parthians in combat, after he had seen their men clad in full armour (
catafractis) he lapsed so completely into fear that on his own he sent the King a letter promoting peace.
Lucius Verus' Parthian campaign, AD 165. The panegyricist has named the wrong emperor.
Cassius Dio, 40.22.3
Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen . . .
The defeat of Crassus by the Parthians at Carrhae, 53 BC. Dio had previously commented that the pikemen (kontophoroi)
comprised mostly kataphraktoi
(Dio, 40.15.2).
(b)
Plutarch, Crassus, 24.1
. . . suddenly their enemies dropped the coverings of their armour, and were seen to be themselves blazing in helmets and breastplates, their Margian steel glittering keen and bright . . .
The battle of Carrhae again.
Ammianus, 24.6.8
. . . the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them . . .
Sasanian cataphracti equites
encountered during Julian's Persian campaign, AD 363.
©
Nazarius, Paneg., 22.4
What a spectacle that is said to have been, how dreadful to behold, how terrible, horses and men alike enclosed in a covering of iron.
Maxentius' clibanarii
at the battle of Turin, AD 312.
Nazarius, Paneg., 24.5
When all had been killed to a man and your soldiers were untouched, people transferred the horror inspired by their armour to wonder at the victory . . .
Maxentius' clibanarii
again.
Libanius, Oration XVIII, 18.37
. . . cavalry so invulnerably equipped as to lend them a terrible aspect . . .
Constantius' clibanarii
, AD 357.
Libanius, Orations LIX. 69-70
. . . the result was that the man was covered in chain mail from his head to the end of his feet, and the horse from its crown to the tip of its hooves . . . You would have said that the name of 'bronze men' was more appropriate for these than for the soldiers in Herodotus. These men . . . entrusted their body to the protection of iron mail.
Shapur II's Persian catafracti.
Ammianus, 25.1.12-13
. . . all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were . . . fitted to their heads . . . Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze.
Sasanian cataphracti
encountered during Julian's Persian campaign, AD 363.
(d)
Heliodorus, Aethiopica, 9.15.5
. . . to all appearances some man made of iron, or a mobile statue (
andrias) wrought with the hammer.
Assumed to describe the 4th century Sasanian cataphractus.
Julian, Oration I, 37C-D
. . . they all sat their horses like statues (
andriantas) . . . An iron helmet covering the face itself gives the appearance of a shiny and glittering statue (
andriantos) . . .
Julian, Oration II, 57C
They ride their horses exactly like statues (
andriantes) . . .
Julian's descriptions of Constantius' clibanarii
at the battle of Mursa, AD 353.
Ammianus, 16.10.8
. . . all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues (
simulacra) polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men.
Clibanarii
escorting Constantius on his entry into Rome, AD 357.
Claudian, In Rufinum II, 357-364
. . . the limbs within give life to the armour's pliant scales so artfully conjoined, and strike terror into the beholder. 'Tis as though iron statues (
simulacra) moved and men lived cast from the same metal . . . each stands alone, a pleasure yet a dread to behold, beautiful yet terrible . . .
Rufinus' clibanarii
, AD 395.
Claudian, On the Sixth Consulship of Honorius, 570-572
"Whence," she would ask, "is sprung that iron race of men and what land gives birth to steeds of bronze? Has the god of Lemnos bestowed on metal the power to neigh, and forged living statues (
simulacraque) for the fight?"
Honorius' 6th consulship was in AD 404.
The significance of these extracts, to my mind, is as follows:
(a) This category relates to the undefined fear inspired by the sight of these warriors and almost certainly encompasses some or all of the elements of the other categories. Dio is more explicit about the effect of the charge of the Parthian
kontophoroi (=
kataphraktoi) at Carrhae but the extreme, if exaggerated, reaction of the Roman forces implies that this was more terrifying than the charge of conventional cavalry.
(b) Vegetius states that the glitter of arms strikes great fear into the enemy, noting that a soldier who neglects his equipment cannot be regarded as warlike (Veg. 2.14.8.). This fear is likely to have been amplified in a force confronted by a mass of men and horses, all covered with shining armour, especially if the effect was as dazzling as the sources imply.
© Some time was spent in the other forum in discussing the extent to which
clibanarii were invulnerable. From the point of view of the opposing infantry, it was the
appearance of invulnerability that counted. Seeing a rider entirely enclosed in armour, with no part of his body visible, could easily have given that impression. The infantryman would have been forgiven for thinking that there was no way of penetrating the armour and, with the horse also protected except for its legs and undersides, getting close enough to wound it, so that it threw its rider, ran a considerable risk of being trampled to death. Some might be courageous or desperate enough to try it but, for many, the chances of overcoming such opponents would have seemed impossible.
(d) This category of references looks upon these troops with an air of superstitious awe. The men and their horses are seen as alien, almost supernatural creatures, not of flesh and blood but of iron and bronze, the riders not humans but living statues. Perhaps significantly, the word used by writers in Greek is
andrias which means not only "statue" but also "a man-like thing." Similarly, the Latin word
simulacrum carries the implication of likeness rather than reality, as well as having other-worldly connotations, meaning also "apparition" and "phantom". The riders seem, by their rigidity, not like men at all but automatons with only an outward semblance of humanity.
These quotations emphasise the psychological effect that the appearance of this cavalry on the battlefield is likely to have had upon all but the most experienced and steadfast infantry, thereby reducing their ability to resist. However, I cannot point to any instance when it was so profound as to induce them to break ranks and run. Others may be able to rectify this deficiency.
Abbreviations & References
AE -
L'Année Épigraphique
Bivar 1972 - A.D.Bivar, 'Cavalry Equipment and Tactics on the Euphrates Frontier',
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972), 273-291
CIL -
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
ILS -
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
Migne PL XIII - J.-P. Migne (ed),
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series I,
Tom. XIII, Paris, 1845
Migne PG XXXIV - J.-P. Migne (ed.),
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Tom. XXXIV, Paris, 1903
Nikonorov 1998 - V.P. Nikonorov, 'Cataphracti, catafractarii and clibanarii: another look at the old problem of their identifications' in
Voennaya arkheologiya: Oruzhie i voennoe delo v istoricheskoi i sotsial'noi perspektive (Military Archaeology: Weaponry and Warfare in the Historical and Social Perspective), St. Petersburg, 1998, 131-138
RMD I - M.M. Roxan,
Roman Military Diplomas 1954-1977, London, 1978
RMD IV - M. Roxan & P. Holder,
Roman Military Diplomas IV, London, 2003
Schleiermacher - M. Schleiermacher,
Römische Reitergrabsteine: Die kaiserzeitlichen Reliefs des triumphierenden Reiters, Bonn, 1984
SEG -
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SHA -
Scriptores Historiae Augustae
Speidel 1984 - M.P. Speidel, 'Catafractarii Clibanarii and the Rise of the Later Roman Mailed Cavalry: A Gravestone from Claudiopolis in Bithynia',
Epigraphica Anatolica 4 (1984), 151-156
![[Image: regnumhesperium.png]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3673/regnumhesperium.png)
