Ammianus and the Dura graffito translation error?

[Urselius]

Looking at the well known description of cataphracts parading during Constantius IIs entry into Rome in Ammianus I noticed something possibly interesting.

Book 16 ch. 10 -8

"thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti" is usually translated as "protection of iron breast-plates, and girdled with belts of iron". However, limbis is not a usual word for 'belt' in Latin, and literally means "piping" or "border/edge".

If you look at the Dura graffito of a cataphract,

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/gaddis/HS...narius.jpg

then the passage possibly makes more sense, here a mailshirt (thoracum?) is reinforced by a substantial 'girdle' of plates - could this be the 'limbis' - limbus? not a mere iron belt, but a substantial albeit shoulder-less plate cuirass.

Ammianus was describing how complete the armour of the cataphract was, likening them to metal statues. In this context a mere belt of iron, or leather covered with iron plates, would be of no particular relevance. If a belt had been intended then surely Ammianus would have used cingulum or balteus.

[Renatus]

I agree. Lewis & Short gives an alternative meaning of 'a belt, band, girdle'. Therefore, a literal translation could be, 'protected by coverings of breast-armour and girded with iron bands'. I have seen this as meaning that the chest is covered with armour of solid plates or, possibly, scale with the abdomen protected by strips of iron, similar to lorica segmentata.

[Urselius]

I have always found the reconstructions of cataphracts giving the torso a simple covering of a mail or scale shirt unconvincing. Having gone to the trouble of defending the limbs with complex armour of overlapping plates, not reinforcing the defences of the torso would seem to be rather illogical.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Have you also considered Julian's descriptions of Clibanarii?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well, that's assuming Julainus was the Author of Rebus Bellicis

[Renatus]

Well, that's assuming Julainus was the Author of Rebus Bellicis

This has got nothing to do with de Rebus Bellicis. This is what Adrian means:

Julian, Orations I, Panegyric of Constantius, 37D
Your cavalry was almost unlimited in numbers and they all sat their horses like statues, while their limbs were fitted with armour that followed closely the outline of the human form. It covers the arms from wrist to elbow and thence to the shoulder, while a cuirass made of small pieces protects the shoulders, back and breast. The head and face are covered by a metal mask which makes its wearer look like a glittering statue, for not even the thighs and legs and the very ends of the feet lack this armour. It is attached to the cuirass by fine chain-armour like a web, so that no part of the body is visible and uncovered, for this woven covering protects the hands as well, and is so flexible that the wearers can bend even the fingers. (Loeb translation - amended)

Julian, Orations II, The Heroic Deeds of Constantius, 57C
Of these troops some carry lances and are protected by cuirasses and helmets of wrought iron. They wear greaves that fit the legs closely, and knee-caps, and on their thighs the same sort of iron covering. They ride their horses exactly like statues, and need no shield. (Loeb translation)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

My mistake, sorry.

[Urselius]

Thanks for the Julian quotations.

I have noticed that a number of modern authors insert the description of masks into the Ammianus account of the adventus of Contantius II - though he makes no mention of masks (I think he does later in the book in his description of Persian cataphracts though).

[Renatus]

It depends upon which version of the text you are looking at. Until the early 19th century, the accepted reading of the relevant passage was 'quos clibanarios dictitant Persae', 'whom the Persians call clibanarii'. However, from the late 19th century until now, it has been understood that the correct reading should be 'quos clibanarios dictitant, personati . . .', 'whom they call clibanarii, masked . . .'

[daryush]

IMHO the Dura graffito shows an Iranian lancer, with his abdomen protected with lamellar (such as the Toglok Tappeh / Old Nisa lamellae) and his chest covered in scales. This appears to be a fairly common pattern in Iranian armour, especially in eastern Iran and Gandhara in the late Arsacid and Sasanian periods. The same pattern is seen in Panjakent and in Khotan / Kyzyl, although the Kyzyl chest armours are "double breasted" with two separate pectorals marked out, rather than one single piece. I am working on a reconstruction of the 3rd C Iranian "tanurigh" and will update you all when it's done.

[Renatus]

That's interesting. Do you have any images you can show us?

[daryush]

There are some more (actually better ones) in "Armies of Bactria" (Nikonorov) and "Kushan Armour" (Gorelik). Some of the warriors have plate on their abdomens instead of lamellar, some have padding. At Panjakent many warriors also wear leather chest and upper arm defenses which are common in T'ang armours as well.

[Renatus]

Thank you. I have Nikonorov but Gorelik's piece on Kushan armour appears to be an article in a Russian publication, which would be more difficult to get hold of.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

A lot of them seem to have that "Varangian Bra" seen in Byzantine (and even 5th century Roman) art.

[daryush]

Yeah, that's right. The chest harness isn't really seen much in Western Asian armour after the early Sasanian era, but it still appears in Eastern Central Asia (Ushtrushana and Gandhara - and further east) even in the post Sasanian period. But it is absent from Sasanian and Sogdian armament and appears to be just worn by the Kings, eg: on hunting plates.