Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii: Another Look at the Old Problem of ID

[nikgaukroger]

Both Julian's and Ammianus' descriptions of the Catafractarii/Clibanarii are so almost identical that I would say they are talking about one and the same thing. Ammianus also described the Sassanid Cataphracts he saw in action and the riders description is almost identical to that of the Roman riders. This either means that the Romans copied the Sassanids or the Sassanids copied the Romans.

Given that the Sasanids were continuing on from the Parthians I think that any suggestion that the Sasanids might have copied catafracts from the Romans is, shall we say, odd.

[Patrick Waterson]

Its interesting that there is at least one tombstone of a Catafractarius which shows the rider with a contus and a large round shield, the horse appears unarmoured. Perhaps the other difference between a Catafractarius and a Clibanarius is that the Catafractarius' horse was unarmoured and the rider bore a shield whilst the Clibanarius was not only fully armoured but so was his horse and he needed no shield as attested to by both Julian and Ammianus?

Ammianus' cataphractarii/clibanarii/cataphracti at Argentoratum apparently have shields (parma) which they use to defend themselves, just to complicate things.

Both Julian's and Ammianus' descriptions of the Catafractarii/Clibanarii are so almost identical that I would say they are talking about one and the same thing. Ammianus also described the Sassanid Cataphracts he saw in action and the riders description is almost identical to that of the Roman riders. This either means that the Romans copied the Sassanids or the Sassanids copied the Romans.

Given that the Sasanids were continuing on from the Parthians I think that any suggestion that the Sasanids might have copied catafracts from the Romans is, shall we say, odd.

I think what Adrian is implying is not that the original inspiration for a fully-armoured man on an armoured horse came from the Roman Empire (I am sure he knows about Parthians and Seleucids), but rather that the style of cataphract armour in use in the 4th century AD is similar enough to have perhaps been imitated by one power when seen used by the other.

[valentinianvictor]

Patrick, where are you seeing that as this part in Ammianus implies that Julian's Clibanarii did not have shields, unlike the Germanic cavalry they faced-

'For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of‑mail, must hold bridle and shield in one hand and brandish his spear with the other, and would thus be able to do no harm to a soldier hidden in iron armour; whereas the infantry soldier in the very hottest of the fight, when nothing is apt to be guarded against except what is straight before one, can creep about low and unseen, and by piercing a horse's side throw its unsuspecting rider headlong, whereupon he can be slain with little trouble.'

'Norant enim licet prudentem ex equo bellatorem cum clibanario nostro congressum frena retinentem et scutum, hasta una manu vibrata, tegminibus ferreis abscondito bellatori nocere non posse, peditem vero inter ipsos discriminum vertices, cum nihil caveri solet praeter id quod occurrit, humi occulte reptantem latere forato iumenti incautum rectorem praecipitem agere levi negotio trucidandum.' Amm Book XVI, 12, 22-23

And yes, the heavily armoured Clibanarii that Constantius II created appear to have inspired Sharpur II to create similar troops himself,  hence his attempting to buy iron and iron ore from the Roman Empire until this was banned by Constantius.

[Patrick Waterson]

Patrick, where are you seeing that as this part in Ammianus implies that Julian's Clibanarii did not have shields, unlike the Germanic cavalry they faced ...

From Ammianus XVI.12.36-37, which seems to be misinterpreted as being infantry action:

"[36] So, when the call to battle had been regularly given on both sides by the notes of the trumpeters, they began the fight with might and main; for a time missiles were hurled, and then the Germans, running forward [cursu] with more haste than discretion, and wielding their weapons in their right hands, flew upon our cavalry squadrons [nostrorum equitum turmas]; and as they gnashed their teeth hideously and raged beyond their usual manner, their flowing hair made a terrible sight, and a kind of madness shone from their eyes. Against them our soldiers [actually pertinax miles, singular, 'the dutiful soldier'] resolutely protected their heads with the barriers of their shields [scutorum], and with sword thrusts or by hurling darts [tela = missiles] threatened them with death and greatly terrified them."

Unless Ammianus is suffering from terminal discontinuity, these Germans are attacking the Roman cavalry, who protect their heads with their shields (logical for cataphracts, whose masks would be the most expensive and hardest to repair part of their kit; ordinary cavalry doing this would leave themselves vulnerable).

If these are indeed shielded cataphracts, this opens up a new avenue of enquiry, for Arrian's cavalry exercises have hitherto been assumed to apply only to ordinary equites, any cataphracts then or later being assumed to be contarii, lance-bearers.  If however some Roman cataphracts used ordinary cavalry armament (javelins, sword, shield) then that assumption no longer applies.

The next section is even more enigmatic.  The italicised portion I think maybe mistranslated.

"[37] And when in the very crisis of the battle the cavalry [eques, singular] formed massed squadrons valiantly and the infantry stoutly protected their flanks by making a front of their bucklers [parmis] joined fast together, clouds of thick dust arose. Then there were various manœuvres, as our men now stood fast and now gave ground, and some of the most skilful warriors among the savages by the pressure of their knees tried to force their enemy back; but with extreme determination they came to hand-to-hand fighting, shield-boss pushed against shield, and the sky re-echoed with the loud cries of the victors or of the falling. And although our left wing, marching in close formation had driven back by main force the onrushing hordes of Germans and was advancing with shouts into the midst of the savages, our cavalry [equites], which held the right wing, unexpectedly broke ranks and fled; but while the foremost of these fugitives hindered the hindmost, finding themselves sheltered in the bosom of the legions, they halted, and renewed the battle."

In detail, "the cavalry formed massed squadrons valiantly and the infantry stoutly protected their flanks" is a loose and, as I see it inaccurate, rendering of "articulo eques se fortiter conturmaret, et muniret latera sua firmius pedes," which actually means:

The cavalryman, himself as a joint in the strongly deployed turma, protects his sides as firmly ('firmius' is a comparative) as an infantryman,

i.e. a cavalryman deployed as part of a squadron in close formation has the same individual 'flank security' as an infantryman because of his armoured comrades on both sides.  He is also not forming a 'front of parmis joined together' but the men of the squadron are each individually guarding their fronts with their artissimis parmis, their close-held or small-sized parmis, shields.

The 'various manoeuvres' with men now standing fast and now giving ground, are consistent with cavalry action, and a further clue is the knees:

".. some of the most skilful warriors among the savages by the pressure of their knees tried to force their enemy back ..."

Try forcing back an infantryman by the pressure of your knees and you will at once perceive how impossible this is (really, try it).  However cavalry guided their horses by knee pressure and putting the knees to the horse would be effective at impelling it forward in an attempt to force back an enemy already in contact.  Even pushing your own knee against an opposing rider's knee can have an effect (it can cause him to mis-signal his horse), and this would be feasible with individual horsemen 'dexterae dexteris miscebantur' (right sides up against right sides) and 'umbo trudebat umbonem' (shield boss shoving on shield boss).

Hence Ammianus XVI.12.36-38 seems to be describing the cavalry action (38 is when the Roman cavalry break while re-dressing lines), and the Romans are not only fully armoured but also have shields.

The implications are that the idea of all cavalry masks being for cataphracts may not be as far-fetched as it seems: if the best men at Arrian's horsemanship exercises are awarded masks, can this be linked with later evidence for ordinary cavalry being promoted to the 'rank' of cataphract?  I would be much happier with this idea if Arrian actually said that in addition to the mask the best troopers were upgraded to cataphracti/cataphractarii, but if he had we would not be discussing the point here.

Strange as it may seem, there is even a possibility that the Kalkriese mask may have been worn by a cataphract, albeit not one directly in Roman army service.  Before his disastrous appointment to Germany, Varus' previous governorship had been in Syria.  Here he would have had plenty of opportunity to see cataphracts around and may well have been tempted to enlist a few as his personal bodyguard.  If these accompanied him back to Rome and on to Germany, then finding a mask at Kalkreise should be no surprise: following Varus' suicide, any surviving cataphract bodyguards would have tagged along with what was left of the army.

This is of course somewhat speculative, and we should be wary of drawing premature conclusions, but I think it may constitute a line of enquiry worth exploring.

[valentinianvictor]

Patrick, I see where you are coming from but I believe the action that you are referring to is in fact the 'normal' Roman Equites cavalry and not related to the Catafractarii/Clibanarii who both Julian and Ammianus claimed needed no shield and who in addition were stated as 'being invulnerable to normal weapons'. Ammianus clearly makes a distinction between the Equites and the more heavily armoured cavalry when describing the flight of the Catafractarii/Clibanarii who Julian had to personally rally as their flight had caused the right wing cavalry as a whole to temporarily flee before being rallied and returning to the fray.

[RichT]

In detail, "the cavalry formed massed squadrons valiantly and the infantry stoutly protected their flanks" is a loose and, as I see it inaccurate, rendering of "articulo eques se fortiter conturmaret, et muniret latera sua firmius pedes," which actually means:

The cavalryman, himself as a joint in the strongly deployed turma, protects his sides as firmly ('firmius' is a comparative) as an infantryman,

I think not.

'articulo' goes with 'in ipso' and has its 'point of time' meaning - "And in this period of the battle".
Then follows a succession of clauses:
- eques se fortiter conturmaret - "the cavalryman strongly deploys himself by squadron"
- et muniret latera sua firmius pedes - "and the infantryman more firmly defends his flank"
- frontem artissimis conserens parmis - "making the tightest front of shields"
etc
'Firmius' is a comparative (more firmly) but there is no comparison with pedes, which is nominative. Note the positive - comparative - superlative progression of the clauses.

And so on. I would once again very strongly urge not changing a published translation without very good cause.

[Patrick Waterson]

'articulo' goes with 'in ipso' and has its 'point of time' meaning - "And in this period of the battle".

I shall accept that.

Then follows a succession of clauses:
- eques se fortiter conturmaret - "the cavalryman strongly deploys himself by squadron"
- et muniret latera sua firmius pedes - "and the infantryman more firmly defends his flank"
- frontem artissimis conserens parmis - "making the tightest front of shields"

Unfortunately this makes no sense.  Roman infantry are not involved here: they are either beating the tar out of the Germans on the left or awaiting their turn in the centre.

'Firmius' is a comparative (more firmly) but there is no comparison with pedes, which is nominative.

One would presumably expect 'pedem'.  However pedes is plural, for either infantrymen or feet, and is the accusative form as well as the nominative.  Hence 'as firm as footsoldiers'.  With your input, one can extend this to: "As firm as footsoldiers with tightest-fronted (or 'locked') shields."

Note the positive - comparative - superlative progression of the clauses.

Indeed, as one would expect when they continue referring to the same subject, i.e. the cavalry.

Patrick, I see where you are coming from but I believe the action that you are referring to is in fact the 'normal' Roman Equites cavalry and not related to the Catafractarii/Clibanarii who both Julian and Ammianus claimed needed no shield and who in addition were stated as 'being invulnerable to normal weapons'. Ammianus clearly makes a distinction between the Equites and the more heavily armoured cavalry when describing the flight of the Catafractarii/Clibanarii who Julian had to personally rally as their flight had caused the right wing cavalry as a whole to temporarily flee before being rallied and returning to the fray.

This is possible, as it does seem that at least some ordinary equites formed part of Julian's cavalry contingent, notably the 'tribune' who, in XVI.12.39, recognises Julian and "pallore timoreque perculsus (pale and struck with fear) rode back to renew the battle."  If he really could be seen to be 'pale' then he could not have been wearing a mask and would presumably be from an ordinary unit of equites.

I had however formed the opinion that the cataphracti were the majority type in Julian's cavalry lineup, given Ammianus' frequent references to them.  In XVI.2.5 Julian takes only the cataphractarii and ballistarii with him for a rapid march through Autun-Auxerre-Troyes.  In XVI.12.22 Ammianus notes the difficulties of German cavalry fighting Roman clibanarii in the context of the Germans putting their cavalry on their left and reinforcing them with infantry.  In XVI.12.63 he mentions the loss of Innocentius, leading (ducens) the cataphractarii, but no other dead cavalry leader; Innocentius is presumably the cataphracts' leader who is slightly wounded in XVI.12.37.

In XVI.12.7 he notes that Julian's cavalry consisted of 'inter quas' (among which) 'erant' (were) cataphractarii and sagittarii, implying some other category in addition.  The question in my mind is why, given his general emphasis on cataphracts throughout, he should choose at Argentoratum to describe the Germans fighting not against the cataphracts but only against the otherwise anonymous ordinary cavalry.

Of course, if the cataphractarii/clibanarii/cataphracti were all shieldless then any idea of them being able to do Arrian's cavalry drills and hence qualify to wear the 2nd century AD and earlier cavalry masks regrettably disappears out of the window.

[RichT]

No Patrick, you are wrong. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but a lot wrong with persisting in error to the point of appearing discourteous and foolish. Drop it, please. And a very Merry Christmas to you, and to all.

[Patrick Waterson]

And a Merry Christmas to your good self.  Hmmm, I see what you mean: the plural of pes is identical to the singular of pedites.

OK, back to the drawing board on that one.

[Patrick Waterson]

Finally pinned down what was niggling me about that particular passage (XVI.12.37).

Our translators are correct (and thanks to Richard for pointing that out) about Ammianus giving a sweeping view of the battlefield, with the cavalryman 'squadroning' (conturmaret) and the infantryman self-protecting (muniret), but this bit needs refinement:

"and the infantry stoutly protected their flanks by making a front of their bucklers joined fast together"

The Latin is:

et muniret latera sua firmius pedes, frontem artissimis conserens parmis

Latera sua is the individual infantryman's side as opposed to his unit's flank.  What Ammianus means is that the infantry have adopted a stance with the left leg forward and the body at an angle so that the left side is facing the foe, and this is what the closely-serried 'front' of shields (parmae, round shields) is protecting.  Artissmus conserens parmis, i.e. with most closely-serried shields, appears to be a Latin periphrasis of the Greek synaspismos, usually rendered as 'locked shields'.  The Roman infantry's parmae are thus at least touching and perhaps even overlapping.

Looking again at the scuta (long shields) used by the cavalry in XVI.12.36, the Latin is:

scutorum obicibus vertices tegens

i.e. covering (tegens) their heads (vertices, highest points) with the barriers (obicibus, from obex, barrier, hindrance) of their shields (scutorum)

This is what makes me wonder whether these cavalry are in fact mainly cataphracts, on the basis that ordinary equites would presumably be using their shields to cover more than just the head, whereas for a cataphract his main concern in a fight would presumably be for his mask, not just because of the trouble and expense of repairs, but also because a hard blow might shift the mask and cause him to lose the limited field of vision he possessed.

A curious omission by Ammianus in this battle is any reference to cataphracts using lances.  This may of course have been a detail his audience would take for granted but it seems strange that Ammianus with his literary bent, should miss a chance to describe cataphracts thundering into action and spitting wild-eyed, wild-haired German riders on their lances.

[Duncan Head]

Ammianus' cataphractarii/clibanarii/cataphracti at Argentoratum apparently have shields (parma) which they use to defend themselves, just to complicate things.

And in https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01135338/file/These_Corentin_MEA.pdf, figure 2 on p.243 is the stele of Valerius Maxentius of a vexillatio equitum catafractariorum - from, by the look of it, Germany - with lance, shield and knee-length or longer armour, riding an unarmoured horse.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting. Furthermore, the preceding and following representations show a cavalryman from the ala nova Firma catafractaria and a circitor of a vexillatio  equitum  catafractariorum - and they both have bows!

It looks as if there is yet much for us to learn about Roman catafractarii.