11-21-2014, 07:01 AM
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.
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.
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
