Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5th century cataphract from France- help needed
#16
Maybe the Cataphractarii Seniores became the Equites Taifali, who were also in Northern Gaul/Britain?
Reply
#17
Quote:Maybe the Cataphractarii Seniores became the Equites Taifali, who were also in Northern Gaul/Britain?

Why?

The Taifali appear to have already been in existance before the 5th Century, Ammianus mentions at least one Taifali unit, possibly the Auxilia Palatina unit and there is a good chance the Equites Taifali unit was also in existance at about the time he wrote as well.

It's possible that the Catafractarii Seniores could have been destroyed at a number of battles, Ad Salices and Adrianopolis are just two that spring to mind, more likely Adrianopolis.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#18
Quote:
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=328022 Wrote:Maybe the Cataphractarii Seniores became the Equites Taifali, who were also in Northern Gaul/Britain?
Why?
I agree, why? There would be no need to suppose a change in title of one unit into a totally different one. providing, of course, that we would have a 'lost' name of Equites Taifali cataphracti seniores or something, but that would be idle speculation. Moreover, with the 'sister' unit still extant in the ND, we can be fairly certain of the original unit name.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#19
Quote:It's possible that the Catafractarii Seniores could have been destroyed at a number of battles, Ad Salices and Adrianopolis are just two that spring to mind, more likely Adrianopolis.

If the location of the stone's anything to go by, they were a western unit - so one of the east v west civil war battles (maybe Frigidus in AD394, the Save in 388, or even Mursa in 351) would be a likely venue for their destruction (and might explain why they were not reformed, if they'd fought for the losing western side).

Alternatively, they could just have ended up stationed on the lower Rhine, and been 'lost' with the relevant section of the ND!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#20
They could have also been destroyed in the crossing of the Rhine in 406, or during the Rebellions in Gaul from 406-411. Or in the civil war of 423-425.

@Vermatt and Valentinan
I see your point, I'm just saying since both were heavy cavalry units it's possible they could have been related, but only theoretically.
Reply
#21
Quote:
ValentinianVictrix post=328023 Wrote:It's possible that the Catafractarii Seniores could have been destroyed at a number of battles, Ad Salices and Adrianopolis are just two that spring to mind, more likely Adrianopolis.

If the location of the stone's anything to go by, they were a western unit - so one of the east v west civil war battles (maybe Frigidus in AD394, the Save in 388, or even Mursa in 351) would be a likely venue for their destruction (and might explain why they were not reformed, if they'd fought for the losing western side).

Alternatively, they could just have ended up stationed on the lower Rhine, and been 'lost' with the relevant section of the ND!

The ND shows that there were many cross postings, the Batavi Seniores is shown in both the Western and Eastern halves of the ND being just one example, as are the Regii.

Quite a few Western units went with Julian on his Sasanid venture and some may have remained in the East. Richomeres took Western units with him during the 370's at Gratian's request in order to aid Valens when the Goth's turned nasty after crossing the Danube. These units fought several battles against the Goth's including Ad Salices and Adrianopolis. There were many opportunities for the Catafractarii Seniores to have been destroyed before Theodosius took up the purple. A number may have escaped to have formed the numerus.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#22
Here are some questions for the epigraphists and, perhaps, the linguists. The K of Kl(audius) in this inscription looks like an oddly executed Greek kappa; the chevron (if I may call it that) is set too high up the vertical line. There is a similar, perhaps more accurate, character further down in karissimo. Harl, in the article that I mentioned above, gives the name as Fl(avius) but in that case the F is decidedly strange and (as Diocle in another forum has remarked) is preceded by a perfectly good E, so there is no reason for the stonecutter to have cut an F in a different form. Karissimo can also be spelled with a C but there are instances when both C and K occur in the same inscription, as here coniugi karissimo. A particularly nice example of the same formula with C and kappa is AE 1985, 110 below. In the present inscription, cataf(ractariorum) is spelled with a C but there are examples in which the same word is spelled with a kappa, e.g., CIL 3, 10307 = ILS 2540 or CIL 13, 6238 = ILS 9208. However, the use of kappa for K is not universal and there are inscriptions in which K is rendered in the form with which we are familiar, e.g., AE 1993, 1584 (in that case, in Greek skorpion).

So, to get to the questions, why are there all these variations? Are C and K pronounced differently, in which case, why should the same word be spelled with either letter? If they are not, why should both letters appear in the same inscription? Why should a Greek letter be used, when a Roman letter, although rare, is available? Is it a matter of local variation? Are there, perhaps, dating implications?

http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/foto/F023655
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Information Needed: Roman Scabbard, Arles France in the Rhone River 1st Century ad Pointer 1 577 02-14-2019, 12:25 PM
Last Post: chaf69

Forum Jump: