The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[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?