Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clibanarii equipment and tacitcs?
#1
Can anyone tell me anything about The equipment a clibanarius would have had and the names? and what were their tactics?
Reply
#2
My tactics would be:-

1/ Argue for hours about the definition of clibanari.
2/ Impress everybody with my shiny equipment.
3/ Shoot lots of arrows at the enemy foot.
4/ If they show signs of unhapiness, then charge.
5/ If they run away, then enjoy myself.
6/ If they don't run away, start again at point 3.
7/ If I met another cavalryman, sit down and admire each others equipment.

That should cover it.
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#3
You missed a few:

Run away if anyone approaches carrying anything remotely like a club.

Run away if an officer looks like he might slip out of his saddle.

Wear women's clothing quite a lot. :lol:
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#4
To be serious there isn't a very great deal that can be definitively said about clibanarii, it isn't even clear that they were at all differentiated from cataphracts. Ammianus calls a unit of cavalry by both of the names, cataphract and clibanarius, within the same sentence.

Much of what is taken as received wisdom about Roman extra-heavy cavalry is, if traced back far enough, actually conjecture on the part of various modern commentators.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#5
We are on to my first point already :lol:
John Conyard

York

A member of Comitatus Late Roman
Reconstruction Group

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.comitatus.net">http://www.comitatus.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.historicalinterpretations.net">http://www.historicalinterpretations.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com">http://lateantiquearchaeology.wordpress.com
Reply
#6
Kool! Next comes the preening in shiney equipment phase!!!!! :lol:

After that I will need to go get something! :roll:
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#7
Only if you are not one of the stealth cataphracts!

Ever wondered why a Roman general apparently winning a battle suddenly dies thus reversing a whole civil war - stealth cataphracts every time.

Julian the Apostate, not killed by a Christian zealot - a Persian stealth cataphract.

Not a lot of people know that.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#8
FWIW, I have a little book that seems to have been translated from a Polish original that argues that a cataphract was armed to attack infantry, while a clibanarius was equipped to attacking other horsemen. A cataphract would use a spear that was held low in one hand and possibly attached to the horse's kit with a strap to help maintain position, allowing the use of a shield for protection, while a clibanarius would use a kontos with two hands and rely on his heavier armor to protect him (hence the "oven man" name). The more stationary spear of the cataphract was of heavier construction to withstand the impact of smashing into an infantryman in a charge, including a more massive spearhead to maximize penetration, while the kontos of the clibanarius was thinner and lighter for maneuverability in the spear "duel" with another cavalryman.
The argument was long and involved and fairly interesting to me, but I can't say that I really bought it. The author used the Polish Hussars as a reference for much of his argument.

BTW, Julian was killed by an Antiochene who was offended by "The Misopogon" and really did hate beards!!!
I compensate for my ignorance by being obtuse.
- Bill M. (me)
Reply
#9
So what equipment did they have and what was the names of the gear?
Reply
#10
Quote:FWIW, I have a little book that seems to have been translated from a Polish original that argues that a cataphract was armed to attack infantry, while a clibanarius was equipped to attacking other horsemen.
That seems to be Mielczarek, Mariusz (1993): Cataphracti and Clibanarii, Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World, Oficyna Naukawa, Lódz.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#11
Yes, Robert is right about the book, thank you.

As far as equipment and names...I know what WE call them, not sure what some of them would have been called back in the day!

Long Sword - Spatha (Latin term)
Long Thrusting Spear, probably used with two hands - Kontos (Greek)
Cuirass - Lorica, probably either Squamata (scale) or Hamata (mail)
(not sure if those terms were used in Roman times, do know that the term Segmentata was invented centuries later)
Segmented, Riveted Helmet - the German term Spangelhelm in common in modern use (especially when there are more than two segments), no idea if there was a special Latin term...believe this basic type actually came from the Sarmatians, Parthians, and Persians rather than the Germans
Arm and Leg Guards - I see the term Manica for segmented arm guards, don't know the provenance...no idea for leg guards

Hope this is somewhat helpful!
I compensate for my ignorance by being obtuse.
- Bill M. (me)
Reply
#12
Thank you Virtus BTW in latin it's Contus
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii ValentinianVictrix 81 23,593 03-12-2013, 01:47 AM
Last Post: Alanus

Forum Jump: