The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Kai]

Unfortunately it is almost certain that Heliodorus was long dead before Libanius, Julian, Ammianus, Claudian etc wrote their works!

Why is that “almost certain“? I hope it is not the Wikipedia-entry making you sure of it (the English one, that is. The French dates him into the 4th century, the German makes no definite statement). Actually we have zero hard data on when Heliodorus lived.


M. Fussilo, DNP-online:
“The only certain information on his life emerges from a sphragís at a point in the novel which would today be designated as the ‘paratext’: H., as a ‘Phoenician from the city of Emesa, from the house of the descendants of Helios, as son of Theodosius, called himself Heliodorus’. The name H. may be an appropriate pseudonym for an author whose work praises the god Helios, yet the personal statement must surely be correct. The chronology is controversial: Rohde dates the work to the reign of the emperor Aurelian (AD 270-275), who declared the cult of Sol a state religion [1. 496-7]. Others date him earlier, but not before the death of Elagabalus (who came from Emesa), and equate H. with the Arabian sophist H. [7], who died in 240 and is mentioned by Philostratus (Soph. 2,32) [2]; this possible dating produces a connection with the latter's ‘Life of Apollonius of Tyana’ and the neo-Pythagorean circle of Iulia Domna. A further dating to the 4th cent. AD is based on the similarity between the Syene episode in the 9th book of the Aithiopiká and the account of the siege of Nisibis in the year 350 by the later emperor Iulianus (Julian Or. 1 and 3) [3]. However it is not ruled out that, as a notorious novel reader, he imitates H. here (the problem is exacerbated by the existence of further Greek and Syrian sources) [4]. This last dating fits in with the statements of the historian Socrates, according to whom H. was bishop of Tricca and wrote the Aithiopiká in his youth (Socr. 5,22).”

1 E. Rohde, Der griech. Roman und seine Vorläufer, 21914
2 F. Altheim, Helios und H. von Emesa, 1942
3 M. Van der Walk, Remarques sur la date des Éthiopiques, in: Mnemosyne 9, 1941, 97-100
4 T. Szepessy, Die Neudatierung des Heliodoros und die Belagerung von Nisibis, in: Acta XII Eirene 1975, 279-87
5 J. Winkler, The Mendacity of Kalasiris and the Narrative Strategy of Heliodoros's ‘Aithiopika, in: YClS 27, 1982, 93-158
6 M. Fusillo, Il romanzo greco, 1989
7 O. Weinreich, Der griech. Liebesroman, 1962.


One could add the description of the field battle resembles the battle of Strasbourg in quite a lot details too, such as the slipping under the armoured horses to stab their bellies.




As for the archery, it is an all too quick conclusion the Romans also emulated the Iranian archery equipment for the heavy cavalry. This equipment was a symbol of nobility and rule in Iranian culture, thus the depiction of it on Iranian rock reliefs is not surprising. However even here it is seldom if ever actually used in combat. Written evidence on the use of bows by super-heavy cavalry usually seems to come from later Sassanid times, save a few isolated notes like the one of Plutarch about Surenas having (not using) a bow at the battle of Carrhae (Crassus 30,2).
Arrian actually directly says skirmishers fight from a distance like the Parthians without kontoi (edit: my Greek is getting garbled :???: ; but it is Tactica 4,3.)

I do not deny the Parthian cataphracts using the bow from time to time, e.g. when maneuvering into position or retreating, but for the regular and primary use of archery, the armour was heavy too heavy and hot. If horses collapse under this armour in Strasbourg, what happened in the near/middle east then… Cataphracts are not mobile enough serving as horse archers regularly.

Sassanid horse armour was usually quite a lot lighter, the rock reliefs showing non-metallic (Firusabad) or half armour (Tang-e Bostan). The sole (?) surviving relief from Parthian times, Tang-e Sarvak, depicts full metallic lamellar armour, btw.
When the combination of horse-archer and lancer becomes notorious, in the 6th century, we seldom hear of horse armour. By that time, Roman and Persian cavalry was very similar anyway.


On a last note, if every Roman clibanarius e.g. had a bow already, why should the ND specifically list Equites Clibanarii Sagittarii? ;-)
ND Text