The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Renatus]

Kai,

I'm not trying to reopen our old debate but, for my own satisfaction, I want to be sure that I understand your reasoning on the Persae/personati issue. The following is what I derive from your various posts:

1. V is defective in some way such that the word in question cannot be read directly.
2. Some of the other manuscripts read personati but the majority read Persae.
3. Applying the principle of lectio difficilior, i.e., where manuscripts differ, the least obvious and, therefore, the least frequent reading is more likely to be the original, personati is to be preferred to Persae.
4. This is reflected back to supply the deficiency in V.
5. M is lost apart from a few pages and other fragments but Gelenius used it and we must rely on his version of the text, if we want to recover the form of M.
6. Gelenius made a number of errors and conjectures but his reading of Persae may be a true reading.
7. Consequently, you are reluctant to accept personati in V as being the definitive reading.

If I am mistaken in any of the above, please correct me.

This raises two questions:

1. What is the source of your information as to the defects in V and the readings in the other manuscripts?
2. Is Gelenius' version of the text taken into account on the Persae side of the equation, in making the lectio difficilior assessment?

Regards,
Michael

[ValentinianVictrix]

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.

There is nothing within the translation given by the Head of Classics that contradicts my claim that Clibanarii could be armed with both lance and bow, all it states is that some of them were 'shooting from bows' whilst some of the 'others riding the horses (to the attack)', without making it clear if all the mounted Julian was talking about were clibanarii or not. Of course the Romans could have been employing Parthian tactics of heavily armed and armoured cavalry attacking and being supported by light horse archers, but I dont get the sense this was happening in Julians description.

[Renatus]

I am re-opening this thread simply to say that Valery Nikonorov's paper Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii: Another Look at the Old Problem of their Identifications can be found here:

http://archeo.academia.edu/ValeryNikonor...ifications

Required reading for anyone interested in this subject, in my opinion.

[Robert Vermaat]

Required reading for anyone interested in this subject, in my opinion.

Indeed. Thanks for posting that one Michael.

[Nathan Ross]

I hope nobody minds if I reopen this thread. Some of the points raised here have been discussed elsewhere more recently, and could perhaps do with further exploration.

So far in this thread there has been a lot of debate on the equipment and arms of the later Roman armoured cavalryman, and the etymology of the name, but not so much on their impact. This I take to mean the battlefield uses of men armed and armoured in this way, and perhaps the effect they may have had on counter-development in other arms.

On another thread I quoted Nazarius describing Maxentius' clibanarii at Turin in AD312: "their training for combat is to preserve the course of their assault after they have crashed into (arietare) the opposing line, and since they are invulnerable they resolutely break through whatever is set against them' (Panegyric IV, 23.4)

Constantine defeats the clibanarii by 'drawing [his] lines apart' to 'induce an enemy attack which cannot be reversed'. He then closed his lines again, trapping the enemy horsemen and despatching them with iron-tipped clubs. 'Iron's rigidity did not allow for a change in direction of pursuit'. (Ibid, 24.2).

This suggests that clibanarii were intended to break infantry lines, and trained to do so. Are there any other sources that clearly describe this being attempted?

Alternatively, were there other tactical uses for the heavily armoured cavalryman? If at least some were armed with the bow, were they perhaps intended as mobile archers, perhaps operating at close range and relatively invulnerable to return fire? Or were the bows intended to be used against infantry to open up breaches in the line before charging?

I must stress that this discussion concerns late Roman heavy cavalry specifically, not cavalry in general! ;-)

[M. Demetrius]

I must stress that this discussion concerns late Roman heavy cavalry specifically, not cavalry in general!

Well said, sir.

[Mark Hygate]

..............
Alternatively, were there other tactical uses for the heavily armoured cavalryman? If at least some were armed with the bow, were they perhaps intended as mobile archers, perhaps operating at close range and relatively invulnerable to return fire? Or were the bows intended to be used against infantry to open up breaches in the line before charging?..........

I do not believe it is wrong to begin an analysis from first principles - nor indeed to seek a root cause.

The purpose of armour is reasonably self-explanatory - for protection either for just the rider, or possibly the horse. At a distance even modest armour (including quilted) can stop many light arrows from generally weak bows. Armour is also extremely useful in close quarters, but it should be noted that fully armouring a horse is a practical impossibility and thus a horseman can be increasingly vulnerable if slowed down, and particularly so if stopped. Most cavalrymen have been taught that being stopped means being dead and they normally care for their horses to some extent.

Armour has a downside, generally, in that it is heavy. Whilst horses can come in many shapes and sizes, the development of the larger varieties took many centuries and there was therefore a practical limit to the amount of armour that could be carried in our period, without severe detriment to a cavalryman's speed and manoeuverability.

So, to give one answer to your question, why arm a, possibly, heavily armoured cavalryman with a bow? For one, it allows him to shoot arrows from outside the range of javelins that could otherwise severely injure of kill even through armour, whilst being relatively protected from incoming arrow fire. At the same time he is fairly close to the action and could then exploit any form of opening fairly quickly.

Imagine, if you will, the classic Parthian cavalry mix of roughly 90% light horse archers and 10% 'cataphracts'. This can work extremely well if the enemy have few cavalry and few, if any, archers (I'm obviously thinking Xenophon & Crassus here). The HA can ride around with relative impunity causing minor damage, annoying wounds, tiredness, a lowering of morale and hopefully the break up of any formation - which the cataphracts can then exploit.

However, if the enemy can deploy more cavalry and more infantry archers, the HA can be kept more at bay; hence the likely introduction of a mix of an armoured cavalryman and a horse archer. He won't be as good as a more specialised soldier in his particular speciality, but can be good for both to a lesser, but perhaps not too much, extent.

Another, obvious to some, but there is the old fashioned difficulty of getting a cavalryman off his horse; however an armoured cavalryman still normally moves faster than an equivalent armoured infantryman (certainly over tactical distances) - they can certainly be used to move and hold vital ground until the mass of infantry can get there.

About the only thing that a, heavily, armoured cavalryman is not really used for and that's classic scouting. This tends to be left to the Light Cavalry specialists as they are faster and have more stamina.

M2CW

[Longovicium]

It is interesting reading Ammianus' account of Argentoratum here. If you read the English alongside the Latin here you will see that he refers to both cataphracts and clibanarii as occupying the right wing of the Roman battle-line. The Allemani assemble cavalry against them but use scattered light infantry and skirmishers among them to unhorse and and defeat the Roman mailed heavy cavalry. Ammianus has the barbarians realise that no matter how skilful are their cavalry they would be unable to enagage succesfully a cataphract opponent due to the encompassing heavy amour.

This is a tactic used both in fiction (you knew I was going to bring up the Aethiopica, right?) and history (Crassus, I believe, as well as Constantine). Ammianus is specific in allowing the Allemani to recognise that against Germanic mailed cavalry, cataphracts and clibanarii would triumph. He allows a certain tactical realisation and also a counter-strategy to neutralise that advantage.

section 22, Book 16:

For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of‑mail, must hold bridle and shield in one hand and brandish his spear with the other, and would thus be able to do no harm to a soldier hidden in iron armour; whereas the infantry soldier in the very hottest of the fight, when nothing is apt to be guarded against except what is straight before one, can creep about low and unseen, and by piercing a horse's side throw its unsuspecting rider headlong, whereupon he can be slain with little trouble. 23 Having made this arrangement, they provided their right flank with secret and puzzling ambuscades. Now all these warlike and savage tribes were led by Chonodomarius and Serapio, kings higher than all the rest in authority.

The part 'cavalry in coat of mail' in the Latin is 'clibanario'.

The Roman heavy cavalry collapse suddenly as follows:

Now that had happened for the reason that while the order of their lines was being re-established, the cavalry in coat-of‑mail, seeing their leader slightly wounded and one of their companions slipping over the neck of his horse, which had collapsed under the weight of his armour, scattered in whatever direction they could; the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed close together and intertwined one with the other, held their ground without stirring. So, when Caesar had seen from a distance that the cavalry were looking for nothing except safety in flight, he spurred on his horse and held them back like a kind of barrier.

Section, 38, Book 16. Here the part 'cavalry in coat of mail' is now rendered 'cataphracti' in Latin.

I believe Renatus has looked at whether the collapsing weight issue is the horse or rider collapsing? In other words, is the rider collapsing under the weight of his armour or has the horse collapsed under the weight of its armour? But I might be confusing this thread with the similar one over at the IB forums of Total War?

[Renatus]

Section, 38, Book 16. Here the part 'cavalry in coat of mail' is now rendered 'cataphracti' in Latin.

The Latin actually reads 'cataphracti equites' which, as you know, I equate with clibanarii. We have Ammianus' account of Constantius' parade in Rome, in which he refers to 'cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)' (Amm. 16.10.8 ). So the 'cavalry in coat of mail' are actually clibanarii here as earlier. Nevertheless, Julian did have cataphractarii in his army as well, as their commander is listed as one of those who died in the battle.

I believe Renatus has looked at whether the collapsing weight issue is the horse or rider collapsing? In other words, is the rider collapsing under the weight of his armour or has the horse collapsed under the weight of its armour? But I might be confusing this thread with the similar one over at the IB forums of Total War?

Yes, it was in the other forum. It depends on the reading of the Latin. The version in editions up to 1874 can be translated as referring to the man being overcome by the weight of his armour and the horse falling, whereas the reading in more modern editions translates as the horse collapsing under the (combined?) weight of armour and the man falling.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

If I might say what would be the difference between the 2? I've always interpreted it as Cataphracts had a heavily armored rider, but no horse armour, and Clibanarii had heavy armour on both horse and rider.

[Renatus]

If I might say what would be the difference between the 2? I've always interpreted it as Cataphracts had a heavily armored rider, but no horse armour, and Clibanarii had heavy armour on both horse and rider.

My interpretation of the evidence is as follows:

Clibanarius - A fully armoured man (i.e., with body, leg and arm armour and a facemask helmet) riding an armoured horse and armed with a contus but, except for specialised units, no shield. A technical term, properly applicable only to Roman forces.

Cataphractus - The same but a general term applicable to Roman and non-Roman forces.

Cataphracti equites - The same, again a general term applicable to Roman and non-Roman forces. As far as I can see, this occurs in Latin only in the plural.

Cataphractarius - A less heavily armoured man, wearing a non-facemask helmet and, possibly, a mail or scale hauberk, riding an unarmoured horse and armed with either a contus and no shield or a shield and lance, depending upon the tactical situation. Another technical term applicable only to Roman forces.

Cataphract - An English word that may be applied to either type. However, it may be better to use it only in relation to the more heavily armoured type.

[koechlyruestow]

ValentinianVictric wrote:

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?

Perhaps I missed it and this quote has already passed review, but if there is doubt about Julian implying the cataphracts used bows, how about Ammianus saying about the cataphractarii clibanarii and the sagittarii : 16.12.7 “formidabile genus armorum”, so genus, singular, he seems not to differentiate between them.

[Renatus]

Perhaps I missed it and this quote has already passed review, but if there is doubt about Julian implying the cataphracts used bows, how about Ammianus saying about the cataphractarii clibanarii and the sagittarii : 16.12.7 “formidabile genus armorum”, so genus, singular, he seems not to differentiate between them.

Ammianus does not mention clibanarii at this point. The passage reads:

. . . inter quas cataphractarii erant et sagittarii, formidabile genus armorum.

Literally:

' . . . amongst which were the cataphractarii and the archers, a formidable sort of weapons' (or 'soldiers').

Logically, therefore, the 'formidabile genus armorum' seems to be the archers or their weapons, although it may be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean the cataphractarii and archers acting in combination. Since the whole passage relates to 'equestres . . . turmae', presumably the archers were mounted.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Ah okay Renatus. I always thought the Romans had different terms for lesser grades of cavalry tou equate with the Cataphractarius. Appearantly that is not so.

[koechlyruestow]

Renatus wrote:
Logically, therefore, the 'formidabile genus armorum' seems to be the archers or their weapons, although it may be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean the cataphractarii and archers acting in combination. Since the whole passage relates to 'equestres . . . turmae', presumably the archers were mounted.

But it may not be possible to stretch the interpretation to mean that cataphractarii and archers are the same thing? Because that is the point I am trying to make.