The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Renatus]

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.