The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Renatus]

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

[Kai]

Don’t worry, I agree that there was a difference at least in the genesis of cataphractarii and clibanarii, probably there was even a difference in their equipment and tactics, but those differences could easily blur for various reasons (no uniform equipment, development in time etc).

I also do not doubt that Polybius and Heliodorus had similar heavily armoured cavalry in mind, even though I certainly would not make too much out of the translation of te prosegoria, which simply means Polybius is likening the original meaning of the word katafraktos (i.e. covered) to what he sees. Maybe he even had to explain this to his readers, because they were not familiar with them. Heliodorus wrote katafraktoi hippeis btw.


What I do object is the almost technical distinction in the use of the terms cataphracti (=eastern, non-Roman) and clibanarii (exclusively Roman) you make as far as I understood.


My point is that the term cataphract is much older than clibanarius, and both were, for most of the time when being used by authors, not contemporary. Thus the term cataphract can be read mostly in times, when the Roman did not have such troops, and in the time they were fielding this heavy cavalry in large numbers, the term cataphract seldom if ever shows up. Consequently the predominance of this term describing eastern, non-Roman super-heavy cavalry is no evidence for it to be a technical term for the non-Roman super-heavy cavalry or for clibanarius naming exclusively Roman troops.

In order to prove your clibanarius=exclusively Roman/cataphract=eastern, non-Roman notion you require a synchronic argument, because distinction is not (primarily) a development in time (i.e. diachronic). A million sources from the 1st century BC would be as insignificant as 56 sources for your notion. You have to start your observation at the time when the Romans also had this troop type and authors were using the term clibanarius.

This leads you strait into the fourth century. And how many cataphracti (plus Greek renditions) vs how many clibanarii (plus Greek renditions) you get here is the interesting question.

Do I find eastern super-heavy horsemen called clibanarii (which should not be according to you)? Easy enough: according to Eutropius (6,9) and Festus (15), Tigranes mustered Clibanarii against Lucullus, and I am fairly certain they were as eastern as they could get
The same would apply to the "many Clibanarii" of Zenobia (Festus 24, don’t be fooled by the ambiguous English translation, beside the Latin original Zosimus confirms the Palmyrean reliance on them; 1,50,3, calling them neither cataphracts nor clibanarii).
What about cataphracti used for Roman super-heavies? Easy to find as well thanks to the Panegyrici Latini, you know. Of course, Ammianus Marcellinus provides other examples too (16,2,5; 28,5,6), and he is not alone as you pointed out.

I mean with such evidence, if anything, we should conclude cataphracti and clibanarii are mostly interchangeable even in the eyes of the most militarily experienced authors.
In the 5th and 6th century you do not hear much about cataphracts anyway. So applying the name of the Clibanarii to non-Roman troops, as it is done in antiquity, does not seem fundamentally wrong to me.


On a more specific note, I am aware that Gelenius made some errors as far as we can compare – which I must stress is not much. We have precisely six pages left of the Hersfeld manuscript (M), found in Marburg. And if you insist on using the precise term, reading "personati" is a so-called lectio difficilior (more difficult choice), which in textual criticism of philologists is to be preferred. However neither is it an absolute rule, nor should historians rely on it.
Definitely I would not build a crucial part of an argument on it. Especially in the case of Ammianus Marcellinus scholars cannot and do not ignore Gelenius if the question depends on the exact wording.

The more crucial a point in an argument is, the more safe and compelling it should be and I for one do not feel compelled.

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.

You leave a bit puzzled for in my understanding it is not the audience’s task to disprove the author, but it is the author’s task to convince the audience.

[Renatus]

Kai, I think that the best way of dealing with your post is to treat the paragraphs as if they were numbered 1-11 and deal with them in turn.

1. There seems to be one thing at least that we agree upon, although I feel that the blurring that you mention may be between the cataphractarii and the ordinary cavalry. Perhaps cataphractarii disappear in the 5th century because the ordinary mailed cavalry came up to or near to their standard.

2. Thank you for the mention of katafraktoi hippeis in Heliodorus. Do you have Aeth. 9.14.3 in mind? If not, could you let me have the reference, as I would like to add it to my collection? The other five references that I have found are to kataphraktoi.

3. You do not mention that I also apply cataphracti to Roman "super-heavies", although I assume that this is because it is not relevant to your criticism of my argument. You seem to acknowledge it in para. 7.

4. It is self-evident that cataphracti is the older term and that the usage of this and clibanarii is, for the most part, non-contemporaneous. However, you are wrong to say that cataphracti seldom, if ever, shows up after clibanarii came to be fielded in numbers. There are references in Nazarius (one in relation to Parthians), six in Heliodorus (I take him to date to the 4th century), seven in Ammianus and one in Eunapius (all relating to Sasanians).

5. Are you saying that I have to ignore all evidence prior to the 4th century? If so, I am afraid I do not agree. As far as I am concerned, the use of cataphracti and its equivalents by many authors over many years establishes the terminology.

6. 4th century usage: non-Roman cataphracti etc., 15; Roman cataphracti, 5; Roman clibanarii, 5; non-Roman clibanarii, 4 (see below). These are literary references only.

7. I am aware that Eutropius and Festus refer to the kataphraktoi (Plutarch) at Tigranocerta as clibanarii but they were writing in the 4th century and plainly using the term anachronistically. I would say the same of Festus' use of the term in relation to Zenobia's troops, given the absence of any other contemporaneous evidence for the use of clibanarii when referring to the Palmyrene army. Would it be legitimate for us to apply a term to an event that occurred some three centuries before the term was coined? I would say not.

8. I have said from the outset that cataphracti and clibanarii are interchangeable terms in relation to Roman forces. However, the former is a literary term, whereas the latter is the official one. This is demonstrable by the fact that several units of clibanarii are named in the Notitia Dignitatum but no cataphracti.

9. & 10. Do I understand you to say that philologists may strive to achieve the best reading of a text but historians are at liberty to ignore it, if it does not conform to their preconceptions? If so, it is an argument that I do not find attractive. I frankly do not understand your problem with personati. On current readings of the text, Ammianus applies this to Constantius' clibanarii and we have the independant testimony of Julian that Constantius' clibanarii were masked. What do we have in support of Persae? The SHA. And, before you accuse me of cherry-picking, I would not be looking to the SHA for cataphracti being introduced into the Roman army by Severus Alexander without the support of Herodian 8.1.2. Do not forget that Gelenius' version of Ammianus was published in the same volume as the SHA. I would suggest that his reading of the former was influenced by his knowledge of the latter.

11. I think that you are being a little disingenuous; you know very well what I mean. The author's task is to present his evidence and to try to persuade the audience of the validity of his case. It is then for those of the audience who disagree with him to present their counter-arguments with such supporting evidence as they may have. What I ask is that, if you know of any evidence that tends to disprove what you disparagingly call my "notion", you let me have it.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Renatus,

As far as I am concerned, the use of cataphracti and its equivalents by many authors over many years establishes the terminology.
[..]
I am aware that Eutropius and Festus refer to the kataphraktoi (Plutarch) at Tigranocerta as clibanarii but they were writing in the 4th century and plainly using the term anachronistically.
[..]
I would say the same of Festus' use of the term in relation to Zenobia's troops, given the absence of any other contemporaneous evidence for the use of clibanarii when referring to the Palmyrene army. Would it be legitimate for us to apply a term to an event that occurred some three centuries before the term was coined? I would say not.
[..]
I have said from the outset that cataphracti and clibanarii are interchangeable terms in relation to Roman forces. However, the former is a literary term, whereas the latter is the official one.

This is what I meant to say. You have strived to set some sort of standard by comparing the evidence, which is very good and (mind you!) I do not say that you are wrong. You may very well be right. But what I say (and Kai too, I think) is that you cannot be sure if such a standard indeed existed. It’s possible (and again, I refer to the terminology used when describing weapons) that ancient authors did NOT use such a standard at all.

You have established the terminology you say, but of course you only have proposed a hypothesis. But you then establish that Eutropius and Festus use the term clibanarii anachronistically. Here of course, you should keep in mind that you don’t know for sure that it is only your hypothesis that established what the terms should be, and that the possibility exists that you are wrong. Therefore, you can’t really accuse these authors of anachronisms, because the context of the terminology is merely a hypothesis.

I once fell into the same trap when I accused Ammianus Marcellinus of using the (in my opinion anachronistic) term ‘gladius’ for a spatha. Of course Ammianus used more archaizing terms (such as ‘antesignani’, or Parthians when he describes the Sassanid Persians), but I later learned that ‘gladius’ was not uncommonly used in 4th century sources, even when it’s clear that a spatha was meant. You don’t even want to begin discussing spears, because it’s evident that, over a period of 400-500 years, absolutely no standard terminology existed. I’ll add to this the terminology used (or better: not used) for body armour; there is no know official word for a lorica segmentata, to name but one. And on close scrutiny, the terminology for other body armour is equally lacking.

In that light, if only in my personal opinion, it’s not easy to establish that a terminology for armoured cavalry did in fact exist, after all, to such an extent that ancient writers knew about it.

[Renatus]

When I say that Eutropius and Festus use clibanarii anacronistically in relation to the battle of Tigranocerta, I mean that they are using a 4th century AD term in a 1st century BC context. It is the opposite of the Ammianus situation that you describe.

I accept, of course, that I am advancing a hypothesis and that it might not attract universal acceptance. All I will add is that the evidence in its favour seems to me to be strong and that, as hypotheses on the subject go, it is as good as any and better than some.

[Kai]

Michael, I need to clarify this. I object to this: "clibanarii were a specific Roman troop type and the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops" in conjunction with: "cataphracti or cataphracti equites are the correct terms to be applied to non-Roman cataphracts of the Eastern type".
The term clibanarii is applied to non-Roman troops, also in an anachronistic way, which makes even more obvious that contemporary authors did not think "the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops", as you do. That is the point, not what you think should be applied to the objects they were describing in the object's contemporary vocabulary – a vocabulary which (again: of course) does not know the term clibanarius.
The term cataphracti is applied to Roman troops, and its continued application to non-Roman troopers is simply because it was around for a longer time. Sticking to the fourth century, I would not defend the statement it was seldom if ever used. However history does neither end in the fourth century, nor in 476 nor today. There are not many cataphracti/katafraktoi to be found in the sixth century e.g.

If you argue all this is no problem because you want a distinction between "official" terminology and literature without the need to stick to this terminology - then I have trouble understanding how you are going to prove that. There is no consensus on the ND being an official document to say the least (!) and trying to find official terminology in literature will not be fruitful and certainly not compelling.

Apropos compelling... my problem with personati is that I cannot accept a reading as historically important just because it appears not as often as persae in manuscripts (=lectio difficilior) without being skeptical about it. I would like to separate what argument is made:
The philological argument is that persae can be read more often than personati, and that is it, despite the only one having access to the best manuscript read it differently. The historical argument you make is that masked troopers are attested elsewhere. No one ever doubted that. Equally strong is the historical argument that a connection between clibanarii and persae exists. You may not like it, but it is there in the SHA. Further it is reinforced by the mass of clibanarii-units with the persae and parthi-epithet and the possible etymology of grivbanvar. Coming back to philology, contrary to your writing the word grivban does exist in Pahlavi. The addition of the var-suffix is what one has problems to safely identify. The Latin words cribanus or clibanus in the meaning of armour are directly derived from grivban. Thus the Clibanarius term has a strong Persian root. This forces historians to take the persae reading into account. There is a nice paper by Ph. Huyse on that if you are interested (Vorbemerkungen zur Auswertung iranischen Sprachgutes in den Res Gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus, in: W. Skalmowski and A. Van Tongerloo (Eds.): Medioiranica, 1993)

It is not my opinion that "historians are at liberty to ignore" the efforts of other disciplines. Wow, do I really make that impression :mrgreen: ? On the contrary I think we have no liberties at all. This is my problem.
We are obliged to be critics and skeptics. That is precisely why one must not set one single reading as definite, if another is possible. Again, that is what historians do, especially when the wording is important. Research in German studies e.g., especially onomastics, would be plain silly accepting one reading as definite in the Ammianus manuscripts.

All I opt for is a little less definite statement, and as "official" terminology cannot be found in panegyrics, history, or whatever the ND is, your only resort are legal texts. Some people even doubt that...

Regards
Kai

PS: I may have forgotten a smilie in the last paragraph of my previous post. Lighten up.

[Renatus]

The term clibanarii is applied to non-Roman troops, also in an anachronistic way, which makes even more obvious that contemporary authors did not think "the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops", as you do. That is the point, not what you think should be applied to the objects they were describing in the object's contemporary vocabulary – a vocabulary which (again: of course) does not know the term clibanarius.

That Eutropius and Festus use clibanarii anachronistically says little other than that the term existed in their day and that it helps to identify the sort of troops to which it might apply, if used in its proper time. One may speculate as to why they used it in such a way but, as both were writing abbreviated histories, it is possible that they were using it as a shorthand term that would be understood by Valens, where brevity took precedence over semantic niceties. What would tend to disprove my theory would be the use of the term in relation to non-Roman troops by an author writing of his own day. Ammianus is a case in point. If, as you are keen to assert, he attributes a Persian origin to the term, you may care to reflect upon why he passes up seven opportunities (eight, if you include his description of the defenders of Pirisabora - Amm. 24.2.10) to apply it to Persian troops during Julian's 363 campaign.

The term cataphracti is applied to Roman troops, and its continued application to non-Roman troopers is simply because it was around for a longer time.

My point exactly: the term is established as applying to non-Roman troops by long usage.

... my problem with personati is that I cannot accept a reading as historically important just because it appears not as often as persae in manuscripts (=lectio difficilior) without being skeptical about it. I would like to separate what argument is made:
The philological argument is that persae can be read more often than personati, and that is it, despite the only one having access to the best manuscript read it differently.

I am not sure that I understand this but, if you are saying that there are manuscripts that have Persae rather than personati, I should like to know which they are. When I look at the apparatuses of modern editions, I find that Persae is ascribed only to G and G, of course, is not a manuscript anyway.

Equally strong is the historical argument that a connection between clibanarii and persae exists. You may not like it, but it is there in the SHA.

It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is the fact that the limitations of the SHA demand that its more contentious statements require to be backed up by evidence from elsewhere. This certainly applies to Severus Alexander's alleged speech to the Senate. The only support for its supposed Persian etymology for clibanarii is the disputed passage in Ammianus but resort to that would lead us into a circular argument.

Further it is reinforced by the mass of clibanarii-units with the persae and parthi-epithet

I am not sure that one Persae and three Parthi (with another inferred) constitute a "mass" but, whatever their ethnic origins, these are Roman units so, of course, they have a Roman title.

The Latin words cribanus or clibanus in the meaning of armour are directly derived from grivban.

I will have to put you to strict proof of this assertion. Can you give me a reference for the use of cribanus?

On the contrary I think we have no liberties at all. This is my problem. We are obliged to be critics and skeptics. That is precisely why one must not set one single reading as definite, if another is possible.

That is all very well but, ultimately, having weighed all the possibilities, you have to come off the fence and make a choice. My choice is to prefer a 9th or 10th century manuscript uncontaminated by the meddling of a 16th century editor.

Michael, I need to clarify this. I object to this: "clibanarii were a specific Roman troop type and the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops" in conjunction with: "cataphracti or cataphracti equites are the correct terms to be applied to non-Roman cataphracts of the Eastern type".

Having said all the above, if this represents your settled opinion, I wonder if we are not wasting each other's time. You reject my fundamental proposition; I am not persuaded by your counter-argument. I will not convince you and it is unlikely that you will convince me. Before long, this discussion will be in danger of degenerating into a sterile reiteration of entrenched positions. Should we not, perhaps, agree to differ and turn our attention to more profitable pursuits?

[Kai]

Come on, Michael, if that was really your opinion you would not have taken apart my last post like that, would you? You don’t need to worry about wasting my time. 8)

With regard to the taking apart my post I get the impression you are overly zealous in doing so, because you did lose vital information thereby - e.g. Huyse’s paper I referenced on the Clibanarius-etymology including the part on the clibanus where you can find more about this "assertion". Admittedly I have to be more precise saying that clibanus only later was used, and that incorrectly, while in the beginning we more often read of clibanum, also being the more correct word.

What indeed is a bit of a waste is going for the tradition of Ammianus Marcellinus’s text, but anyway. Besides Gelenius, whose work does count as manuscript in philology - sorry, rules are set by the philologists - we have fifteen manuscripts, most of them dating to the 15th century.

C Colbertinus Parisinus Latinus 5821
D Vaticanus Latinus 1874
E Vaticanus Latinus 2969
F Florentinus Marcianus I V 43
H Parisinus Latinus 5819
K Caesenas Malatestianus XIV 4
N Neapolitanus Parisinus Latinus 6120
P Petrinus E 27
Q Corvinianus Mutinensis (Lat. 425, VI G 21)
R Vaticanus Reginensis Latinus 1994
T Tolosanus Parisinus Latinus 5820
U Vaticanus Latinus Urbinas 416
V Vaticanus Latinus 1873
W Venetus Marcianus 388 Bess.
Y Vaticanus Latinus 3341

V is especially important, as it is the oldest surviving one, which was the basis of most of the other manuscripts. It was recognized to be at least partially corrupt by its discoverer Poggio Bracciolini already in 1449. Its frequent lacunae and spurious letters are a good reason why it is dangerous to rely on it alone and make counter reading extremely important. This is where lectio difficilior enters: incapable of reading the original clearly (note the "uncis inclusi" in the more complete apparati, to which Loeb does not count btw), the reading used most seldom by copyists is preferred as superior. This is how personati came into modern editions of the text.
Poggio failed where Gelenius succeeded: convincing the monks of a monastery on Hersfeld to hand him over the local manuscript (called M today). Gelenius reading may not have been perfect but that, just like in case of the corrupt V, is no reason to discard it.
The fragments of M found in Marburg or more recently in Kassel number less than 10 folios, which proved Gelenius was not fantasizing but indeed had an older manuscript independent from V. It is also noteworthy that his changes were mostly conjectures as the fragments show. They also revealed mistakes, not nearly enough to discredit Gelenius though.

Short: V does not read personati clearly, the minority of copyists did. Despite repeating myself: it is only a lectio difficilior. As I said before as well, to me this is in no way a compelling argument, especially with Gelenius around. Building on that is thus unacceptable to me, and I am wondered you put so much weight on it – all the more when I with the argument I present make the impression of being at the "liberty to ignore" something, implying rather strict adherence to academic conventions...


If Ammianus noted the Iranian origin of clibanus or not, the latter being assumed by Huyse, is completely unrelated to the truthfulness of this etymology. This etymology is also completely unrelated to SHA, which makes it the opposite of a circular argument. It is, after all, a philological argument, while the note of the SHA is historical as in presenting that the Persians called these troopers clibanarii, as would be Ammianus if the respective reading is correct. Unless the SHA copied from Ammianus, that makes three unrelated points going in the same direction although if by itself none is 100% safe.
Equally I cannot offer an argument why he used or not used a term, at least none I would consider convincing even for me, much less for anyone else. Same would go for the speculations about Eutrop and Festus. Getting back to a factual basis what remains is simple: they did not think "the term should not be applied to non-Roman troops", as you do.
Just not to forget it, four out of eight clibanarii units having an eastern epithet, five actually when including the Palmyrean unit, is quite a lot to me. You are free not to call it mass anyway.


On a lighter note, of course you can convince me. Otherwise discussions would be terribly boring. I am just hoping you got more in your sleeves than the likes of a fuzzy, disputable reading and trying to get an "official" terminology out of historical or panegyric texts. Concerning official terms, legal texts, or epigraphics offer a much more intriguing way of getting them, imho.

regards
Kai

[ValentinianVictrix]

Whilst the debate is both informative and enjoyable, I fear its rather drifted away from my original intent, and that was the discussion around what the arms and equipment of the Late Roman clibanarii actually were.

From my side I still incline to the belief that the riders were covered from head to toe in metallic armour, and that the horses were also covered in metallic armour. The riders had a long spear/lance, did not have a shield, appear to have worn a metal face plate, and possibly had a bow. There main impact on the battlefield appears to have been psychological.

Any other thoughts?

[Kai]

Well, Adrian, I do think finding out "official" terms has some value. We do not call every Roman soldier legionary because they have citizenship, e.g.
And actually I think the idea of Michael could be true, since Clibanarius seems to be the only term coming up in legal texts and inscriptions – of course, my knowledge in these fields is far too limited to make a statement I would defend, and the argument in historical texts and panegyrics ...you know.

Operating with terms, "official" or not, has limits as well. While I agree to your definition of a Clibanarius in the fourth century I would have to turn it down for the sixth, when there is hardly evidence for Roman horse armour although Clibanarii units were around (and despite a wealth of sources including incredibly detailed narratives). Developments of soldiers and their equipment over time are natural even if the term may remain the same.

Sometimes terms are simply odd, remember the Cuirassiers. How many troopers called Cuirassiers by their contemporaries have ever worn leather armour?

Regards
Kai

[Renatus]

Kai,

This topic seems to be moving on, so I will not try to drag it back. However, could you give me the page range of Huyse's paper, so that I can get a copy from the British Library?

Regards,
Michael

[Kai]

Here you find his whole bibliography, maybe some other papers are interesting for you as well, but the one in question is under III.12

http://www.iran-inde.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/pubHuyse.pdf

regards
Kai

[Renatus]

Kai,

Thank you for the bibliography.

And actually I think the idea of Michael could be true, since Clibanarius seems to be the only term coming up in legal texts and inscriptions . . .

While I agree to your definition of a Clibanarius in the fourth century I would have to turn it down for the sixth, when there is hardly evidence for Roman horse armour although Clibanarii units were around (and despite a wealth of sources including incredibly detailed narratives).

It is nice to think that I might be right about something! Could you let me have the references for the legal texts and inscriptions that you have in mind? They could add to my own researches. Likewise, for the 6th century sources and narratives. I am not good on that period.

Regards,
Michael

[Renatus]

It would be great if somebody with a real knowledge of classical Greek could comment on this.

Until we find such a person, may I offer my support for your interpretation, Jens? The translation which is available on the internet (Wright's 1913 Loeb translation) is not quite accurate, as you spotted.

I would even (tentatively) suggest that, for poetic effect, Julian first mentions force A (οἱ θωρακοφόροι, "the cuirass-wearers") and force B (τὸ λοιπὸν τῶν ἱππέων πλῆθος, "the remaining multitude of horsemen"), then reverses the order, mentioning force B (οἱ μὲν ἐκ τόξων βάλλοντες, "some shooting from bows") before force A again (ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπελαύνοντες τοὺς ἵππους, "others driving-on their horses"). Just an idea, and certainly not necessary to support your conclusion, Jens.

I mentioned in my first post in this thread (#286514) that I was intrigued by the suggestion that the Loeb translation was misleading and that I hoped to look into this further. When faced with a problem of Greek translation, I consult a former Head of Classics at my old school and seek his opinion. I asked him for his translation of this passage and he came up with the following (inelegant, he says, but as close to the Greek as he could make it):

"And the war was in the balance, until the breastplate-wearers and the remaining number of the knights, some shooting from bows, others riding the horses (to attack), began to kill many, and to pursue all strongly . . ."

I asked for his comments on the Loeb version ("the cuirassiers by their archery") and Dr Campbell's suggestion that Julian may have reversed the order of the tactics employed by the two parts of the cavalry force for poetic or rhetorical effect (chiasmus). His response was that the Loeb is too specific and that he did not think that Julian was striving for a chiasmus, this being narrative, not rhetoric.

The upshot seems to be that, while not going all the way with Dr Campbell, he endorses Jens Horstkotte's and Dr Campbell's opinion that the Loeb translation is inaccurate. What Julian appears to say, therefore, is that the two elements of Constantius' cavalry engaged Magnentius' army but without assigning particular tactics to either one.

[Brainstorm]

excellent thread!