Illustrations of Sassanid Persian Clibanarii

[Renatus]

I also thought that Palmyran mailed cavalry were called clibanarii. mile:

Not as far as I am aware

Correction: Festus, Breviarium, 24 refers to Palmyrene clibanarii. However, this is the only source that does and I think that it is anacronistic.

I get that cataphracti is a general term - what I have difficulty with is envisioning the Romans being so very nice in their usage of clibanarii.

Clibanarius/clibanarii occurs infrequently in literary sources, much more in official documents such as the Notitia and in papyri. I know of only four sources in which the term is used for non-Roman troops: Eutropius 6.9 and Festus 15, both describing Armenian cavalry at the battle of Tigranocerta and plainly anacronistic; Festus 24 describing Zenobia's Palmyrene cavalry and also, in my opinion, probably anacronistic; and SHA 56.5, mentioned in earlier posts in relation to Persian cavalry, and also probably anacronistic or just plain wrong. I am struck that Ammianus mentions Persian cataphracti or cataphracti equites on seven occasions and never once calls them clibanarii.

Also, Renatus, the existence of the clibanarii units with non-Roman ethnic names such as. Equites Persae Clibanarii is very suggestive of Romans regarding Persians as capable of being clibanarii.

Yes, but these are Roman units, so naturally they have a Roman name, whatever the ethnic origins of their personnel.

[Dan Howard]

I'm having trouble following. In essence, laymen used both terms interchangeably to refer to heavy cavalry in general, but specific military texts used the two terms to distinguish between native heavy cavalry and foreign heavy cavalry. So cataphractus refers to foreign troops and clibanarius refers to Roman troops but they are both equipped with very similar gear.

[Renatus]

I'm having trouble following. In essence, laymen used both terms interchangeably to refer to heavy cavalry in general, but specific military texts used the two terms to distinguish between native heavy cavalry and foreign heavy cavalry. So cataphractus refers to foreign troops and clibanarius refers to Roman troops but they are both equipped with very similar gear.

I'm sorry if I am not making myself clear. What I am attempting to say is this. There was a type of very heavily armoured cavalry which was called, in general parlance, cataphracti or cataphracti equites. These terms could be applied to both Roman and non-Roman troops. Units of such cavalry in the Roman army acquired the official title of clibanarii. Three writers, as far as I am aware, used the latter term (loosely, I would say) in relation to non-Roman cataphracts. They should not, in my opinion, be our yardstick. Thus, my argument is that we may employ cataphracti or cataphracti equites when referring to any such cavalry but that we would be safer to confine the use of clibanarii to Roman troops only.

[Alanus]

Gentlemen,

This thread has reached an extreme level of pseudo-technical nonsense; and individual nit-picking arguments have little to do with Sassanid Persian Clibanarii... or Cataphracts... or whomever, perhaps men who wear too much overly-heavy armor. What happened to the subject at hand?-- and where are the illustrations? :-x

[Dan Howard]

Prior to this post, I received a PM from a totally anonymous person calling himself "Sassanid.Red." He asked me to close my account. I will not close it, and I don't believe I've offended anyone in the many years I have participated on this forum... perhaps not until this very post. But this sort of argumentation rings hard for elder adults.

Woe be unto thee. Close! Close it now! Begone back to the wastes of Cyrenaica with thee and thy uncouth barbarian ruffians. Thy very presence is offensive to our finer sensibilities. 8+)

[Longovicium]

I'm enjoying it - I enjoy reading any discussion about this vexed topic in the hope that a small nugget might be uncovered which had previously been overlooked. I for one find these posts informative and engaging.

[Renatus]

But this sort of argumentation rings hard for elder adults.

Speak for yourself. I don't think you have many months on me.

[Urselius]

I have difficulty in accepting such a restrictive use of the term clibanarii. It goes against what I have gleaned about human psychology and language use.

I have a mental picture of an ink-stained eunuch from the bowels of a Tetrarch's palace writing something like this: "Athenodorus to Flavius Bainobaudes. Thank you for your missive of the Ides of March describing the action in which 350 of your men were killed or taken prisoner by the forces of perfidious Persia - but can I remind you that the enemy were not clibanarii but cataphracti, as we reserve the former nomenclature solely for our own glorious and ever victorious Roman cavalry." "I trust that when we meet again there will be no repetition of the unfortunate axe incident that followed my pointing out your incorrect use of deponent verbs."

[ValentinianVictrix]

This thread may be of interest to you all-

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-mi...narii.html

[ValentinianVictrix]

I would also like to point out that there are a number of latin texts that refers to infantry wearing 'catafracts' or similar derivatives, i.e. wearing heavy armour. My own opinion is that Catafractarii refers to cavalry with a heavily armoured rider whilst Clibanarii refers to cavalry that not only has a heavily armoured rider but also rides a horse that is armoured.

[Alanus]

I would also like to point out that there are a number of latin texts that refers to infantry wearing 'catafracts' or similar derivatives, i.e. wearing heavy armour. My own opinion is that Catafractarii refers to cavalry with a heavily armoured rider whilst Clibanarii refers to cavalry that not only has a heavily armoured rider but also rides a horse that is armoured.

Adrian,

Your idea sounds rational. However, what we are seeing here on this thread in One More Pointless argument that cannot conclude in a definitive solution. And secondly, this longstanding argument is actually off-topic and has no relation to the title of the thread-- Illustrations of Sassanid Persian Clibanarii. There are several past RAT threads that have hashed this subject to death. That was my original point, and I will stand by it. :whistle:

[Renatus]

I have difficulty in accepting such a restrictive use of the term clibanarii. It goes against what I have gleaned about human psychology and language use.

If a unit had a specific title which, presumably, it bore with pride, I doubt whether it would readily see it bestowed on an enemy. Still, this may be a subject upon which we may have to agree to differ.

My own opinion is that Catafractarii refers to cavalry with a heavily armoured rider whilst Clibanarii refers to cavalry that not only has a heavily armoured rider but also rides a horse that is armoured.

This is a point upon which I think we are in broad agreement. The only difference may lie in that, although I see catafractarii as being more completely armoured than standard Roman cavalry, I believe that, arising out of a different tradition, they were not as heavily armoured as clibanarii and were more versatile.

I enjoy reading any discussion about this vexed topic in the hope that a small nugget might be uncovered which had previously been overlooked. I for one find these posts informative and engaging.

However, what we are seeing here on this thread in One More Pointless argument that cannot conclude in a definitive solution.

No prizes for guessing which I consider to be the more constructive approach.

There are several past RAT threads that have hashed this subject to death. That was my original point, and I will stand by it.

If you don't like how this thread has developed, it isn't compulsory to view it, you know.

[Longovicium]

Alanus, I do see this as on topic: surely in order to present illustrations of Sassanian Persian Clibanarii one must first define such a troop type? Hence, the debate here on whether there were Sassanian/Persian 'Clibanarii' at all. As far as I can follow the posts, it seems debatable that Persians fielded these types as except as catafracts. The word 'clibanarii' exists only in Roman writings referencing heavy cavalry and also four references to 'clibanariae' fabrica (one in the west, three in the east).

One the topic of the earliest recorded use of the word: namely Nazarius as delivered at Rome before the Senate in 321 AD. If the word originated as a slang term or soldier's nickname (Nazarius states that ' . . . in the army, they are known as clibanarii . . .') for the peculiar type of heavy cavalry, then I wonder if it had percolated 'upwards' into official 'army' use some time earlier? My point is that for Nazarius to use such a word before a highly educated and elite audience, with the explanation that it was a known designation 'in the army' and therefore had a semi-official authority to it (note he does not state that it is a slang term or a soldier's coined word but a term used in the army itself) he must have been confidant in using it. If that is the case - and this is speculation, of course - then I might suggest that the word must have been coined somewhat earlier in order for it to 'penetrate' into a conservative and literary mindset of the 'exercitus' or army such that Nazarius was able to use it with confidence. This was not a new word in 321 AD but had perhaps moved from a nickname some time earlier into a semi-official term which finally solidified later into a troop-type and also a weapons' factory.

[daryush]

Alanus - dafuq?

Personally, I see no reason to use (already ambigious) Latin words for describing Iranian cavalry. Sasanian cataphract makes as much sense at Tibetan legionary.

As for the words themselves - cataphract is a Greek word and much older and may just refer to one, or two, layers of armour. Clibinarius IMHO may refer to the practice of wearing maille under a cuirass - a relatively new thing in the 3rd Century. It has a similar word in middle Persian - "tanurig."

[Dan Howard]

I would love to see real evidence of a cuirass being worn over mail this early rather than some dodgy interpretation of an ambiguous illustration.