02-25-2013, 08:56 PM
I hope nobody minds if I reopen this thread. Some of the points raised here have been discussed elsewhere more recently, and could perhaps do with further exploration.
So far in this thread there has been a lot of debate on the equipment and arms of the later Roman armoured cavalryman, and the etymology of the name, but not so much on their impact. This I take to mean the battlefield uses of men armed and armoured in this way, and perhaps the effect they may have had on counter-development in other arms.
On another thread I quoted Nazarius describing Maxentius' clibanarii at Turin in AD312: "their training for combat is to preserve the course of their assault after they have crashed into (arietare) the opposing line, and since they are invulnerable they resolutely break through whatever is set against them' (Panegyric IV, 23.4)
Constantine defeats the clibanarii by 'drawing [his] lines apart' to 'induce an enemy attack which cannot be reversed'. He then closed his lines again, trapping the enemy horsemen and despatching them with iron-tipped clubs. 'Iron's rigidity did not allow for a change in direction of pursuit'. (Ibid, 24.2).
This suggests that clibanarii were intended to break infantry lines, and trained to do so. Are there any other sources that clearly describe this being attempted?
Alternatively, were there other tactical uses for the heavily armoured cavalryman? If at least some were armed with the bow, were they perhaps intended as mobile archers, perhaps operating at close range and relatively invulnerable to return fire? Or were the bows intended to be used against infantry to open up breaches in the line before charging?
I must stress that this discussion concerns late Roman heavy cavalry specifically, not cavalry in general! ;-)
So far in this thread there has been a lot of debate on the equipment and arms of the later Roman armoured cavalryman, and the etymology of the name, but not so much on their impact. This I take to mean the battlefield uses of men armed and armoured in this way, and perhaps the effect they may have had on counter-development in other arms.
On another thread I quoted Nazarius describing Maxentius' clibanarii at Turin in AD312: "their training for combat is to preserve the course of their assault after they have crashed into (arietare) the opposing line, and since they are invulnerable they resolutely break through whatever is set against them' (Panegyric IV, 23.4)
Constantine defeats the clibanarii by 'drawing [his] lines apart' to 'induce an enemy attack which cannot be reversed'. He then closed his lines again, trapping the enemy horsemen and despatching them with iron-tipped clubs. 'Iron's rigidity did not allow for a change in direction of pursuit'. (Ibid, 24.2).
This suggests that clibanarii were intended to break infantry lines, and trained to do so. Are there any other sources that clearly describe this being attempted?
Alternatively, were there other tactical uses for the heavily armoured cavalryman? If at least some were armed with the bow, were they perhaps intended as mobile archers, perhaps operating at close range and relatively invulnerable to return fire? Or were the bows intended to be used against infantry to open up breaches in the line before charging?
I must stress that this discussion concerns late Roman heavy cavalry specifically, not cavalry in general! ;-)
Nathan Ross
