The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[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.