02-01-2011, 01:10 AM
I don't suppose too many people remember the thread I put up, the one entitled 'The Arms and equipment of Late Roman Clibanarii'?
That contains a number of descriptions of clibanarii in combat, and also the fact that it appears even Roman clibanarii were dual armed with both contus and bow.
I suspect that clibanarii combat was something along these lines-
The clibanarii would slowly ride up to the enemy until at bow range. They would then loose off a couple of volleys of arrows, which would hopefully cause the enemy to waver, before switching to the contus and then moving in at a speed no higher than an easy canter. They could not charge at the rate seen in movies as the armour was so heavy that the horses would have become 'blown' on contact and if they did not punch through the enemy they would not have had the stamina to get away.
Descriptions from both Roman and non-Roman sources would appear to indicate that the riders were fixed onto the saddles and therefore stirrups were totally irrelevant. Its also been argued that the spearhead of the contus was almost a foot long and fairly wide, which enabled it to be both thrust and also swung in a chopping motion (before you doubt this Far Eastern cavalry armed with polearms could do this with ease!).
Its almost certain that clibanarii were an anti-infantry weapon as its impossible to see how they could engage normal heavy cavalry or light cavalry who could easily ride away from their much heavier opponents. Having said that, we have this curious statement in Vegetius Book 3, 23 'Armoured cavalry ('cataphracti equites') are safe from being wounded on account of the armour they wear, but because they are hampered by the weight of their arms are easily taken prisoner and often vulnerable to lassos. They are better in battle againt loose-order infantry than against cavalry, but posted in front of legionaries or mixed with legionaries they often break the enemy line when it comes to comminus, that is, hand-to-hand, fighting.' (Milner 2001).
For an examination on how difficult even heavily armoured cavalry such as clibanarii would have found taking on infantry who remains steady I would heartily recommend this to you- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FT...Rance2.pdf
That contains a number of descriptions of clibanarii in combat, and also the fact that it appears even Roman clibanarii were dual armed with both contus and bow.
I suspect that clibanarii combat was something along these lines-
The clibanarii would slowly ride up to the enemy until at bow range. They would then loose off a couple of volleys of arrows, which would hopefully cause the enemy to waver, before switching to the contus and then moving in at a speed no higher than an easy canter. They could not charge at the rate seen in movies as the armour was so heavy that the horses would have become 'blown' on contact and if they did not punch through the enemy they would not have had the stamina to get away.
Descriptions from both Roman and non-Roman sources would appear to indicate that the riders were fixed onto the saddles and therefore stirrups were totally irrelevant. Its also been argued that the spearhead of the contus was almost a foot long and fairly wide, which enabled it to be both thrust and also swung in a chopping motion (before you doubt this Far Eastern cavalry armed with polearms could do this with ease!).
Its almost certain that clibanarii were an anti-infantry weapon as its impossible to see how they could engage normal heavy cavalry or light cavalry who could easily ride away from their much heavier opponents. Having said that, we have this curious statement in Vegetius Book 3, 23 'Armoured cavalry ('cataphracti equites') are safe from being wounded on account of the armour they wear, but because they are hampered by the weight of their arms are easily taken prisoner and often vulnerable to lassos. They are better in battle againt loose-order infantry than against cavalry, but posted in front of legionaries or mixed with legionaries they often break the enemy line when it comes to comminus, that is, hand-to-hand, fighting.' (Milner 2001).
For an examination on how difficult even heavily armoured cavalry such as clibanarii would have found taking on infantry who remains steady I would heartily recommend this to you- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FT...Rance2.pdf
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
