04-12-2011, 02:15 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote: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.
------------
![[Image: regnumhesperium.png]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3673/regnumhesperium.png)
