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

[Patrick Waterson]

I tend to see clibanarii as a subset of cataphracts, rather than a synonym.

Ammianus seems however to use the terms interchangeably.  In XVI.10.8, describing Constantius' parade:

" And there marched on either side twin lines of infantrymen with shields and crests gleaming with glittering rays, clad in shining mail; and scattered among them were the cataphracti equites (whom they call clibanarii), all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men."

In this case one could read it as 'the armoured cavalry (cataphracti equites) subset referred to as clibanarii', but previously at Argentoratum he uses 'cataphractarii' (XVI.12.7), 'clibanarii' (XVI.12.22) and 'cataphracti' (XVI.12.38) interchangeably for the same contingent.  In Julian's Persian campaign and afterwards Ammianus refers only to 'cataphracti' but describes the Persian 'cataphracti' thus:

"The Persians opposed to us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen [cataphractorum equitum] in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horses was protected by coverings of leather." - Ammianus XXIV.6.8

If there is a distinction to be made it might be that 'cataphractarii' aka 'clibanarii' have mailed protection for the horses and 'cataphracti' only leather horse protection, the men being identically protected in each case, but this would rest on the single description in Ammianus XXIV.6.8 plus the supposition that Constantius II's cavalry habitually used mail to protect the horses, although the latter is questionable on the basis of Ammianus XVI.12.22:

"...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 [latere] throw its unsuspecting rider headlong, whereupon he can be slain with little trouble."

Piercing the side would be difficult to achieve against mailed horse protection, but easier against leather.  The armoured cavalry in question is of course the cataphractarii/clibanarii/cataphracti of Ammianus XVI.12.

Though a hierarchy in which the unit is split into troopers and cataphracts, there may be a movement through the ranks from trooper to cataphract and it is from that experienced/elite group the officers come.  I also don't see that as a contradiction from fully equipped file leaders and less well equipped rankers Byzantine fashion, as mentioned by Andreas.

Roman cavalry of the 4th century AD seem to have fielded homogenously equipped units, but there is nothing to prevent a cataphract from being paid more than an ordinary horseman or for that matter being promoted out of the cataphracts to command a file of ordinary horsemen and keeping his title.  I am assuming a 'pecking order' in Roman cavalry in which the cataphracts would be considered superior to ordinary equites and perhaps draw upon the pick of available horsemen for recruits, in return providing where necessary a ready-made pool of potential NCOs for ordinary cavalry units.

[Duncan Head]

Ammianus seems however to use the terms interchangeably.

True, but terminology is not always used consistently. And perhaps he only mentions examples of the clibanarian subset. The existence of a unit called vexillatio equitum catafractariorum clibanariorum (AE 1984, 825 = Speidel 1984) implies the necessity of distinguishing it from catafractarii who are not cliabanarii.

[Patrick Waterson]

The existence of a unit called vexillatio equitum catafractariorum clibanariorum (AE 1984, 825 = Speidel 1984) implies the necessity of distinguishing it from catafractarii who are not cliabanarii.

Which alas brings us no nearer the essence of the distinction, if any.  Ammianus' Persian 'cataphracti' are not referred to as clibanarii, but I do not know if that helps at all.

The 'cataphracti equites quos clibanarii dicant' of Constantius' bodyguard are described thus:

"... all masked [personati], furnished with protecting breastplates [thoracum muniti tegminibus] and girt with iron belts [et limbis ferreis cincti], so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates [laminarum circuli tenues], fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skilfully were the joinings made." - Ammianus XVI.10.8

Might there be a clue in the thoraci?

[valentinianvictor]

I started a post on this very topic on RAT a few years ago which may be of interest to others who did not see it-

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread-17964.html?highlight=the+arms

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Adrian: we are not necessarily the wiser, but certainly a lot better informed!

[Patrick Waterson]

To expand on that comment, I am impressed by Adrian's thorough sourcing, and wondering what can be concluded from it and the subsequent discussion.

It does appear from Julian's panegyric comments that metal-armoured men on metal-armoured horses comprised the basic cataphract/clibanarius configuration, and while there may have been variations, e.g. possible scaling down (sorry) of horse armour towards the latter part of the 4th century AD, the nomenclature does not differentiate well into recognisable sub-types.

One point on which I am convinced Adrian is correct is that during the 4th century AD cataphracts (however designated) formed a substantial part of the Roman cavalry, i.e. a significantly greater proportion than is shown at the time of  the Notitia Dignitatum.  In Maxentius' army and perhaps in Constantius II's they may even have been the majority cavalry type.

[Duncan Head]

One point on which I am convinced Adrian is correct is that during the 4th century AD cataphracts (however designated) formed a substantial part of the Roman cavalry, i.e. a significantly greater proportion than is shown at the time of  the Notitia Dignitatum.  In Maxentius' army and perhaps in Constantius II's they may even have been the majority cavalry type.

I wonder if this links to the Egyptian evidence. Looking at lists of cavalry units in the Notitia you indeed don't see all that many cataphract units; but if there are some cataphracts, maybe even cataphract front ranks, in non-cataphract units, then a battlefield observer may get a different impression.

[valentinianvictor]

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. An interesting fact that came to light during my research was that there was a ban on the trade of iron and iron ore to the Sassanids during the reign of Constantius II because Sharpur II was buying the ore to make 'weapons and armour' which may well have extended to him looking at reequipping the Sassanid Cataphracts in the Roman style.

Also, I've become convinced that those so-called 'Cavalry Parade Masks' that have been found are actually the face masks worn by the Catafractarii/Clibanarii described by both Ammianus and Julian.

[Duncan Head]

Also, I've become convinced that those so-called 'Cavalry Parade Masks' that have been found are actually the face masks worn by the Catafractarii/Clibanarii described by both Ammianus and Julian.

Surely most of them are centuries too early for that? Do we have any surviving fourth-century masks at all?

[Patrick Waterson]

Also, I've become convinced that those so-called 'Cavalry Parade Masks' that have been found are actually the face masks worn by the Catafractarii/Clibanarii described by both Ammianus and Julian.

Surely most of them are centuries too early for that? Do we have any surviving fourth-century masks at all?

This may be a silly question, but how are cavalry face masks actually dated?

On a tangential point, we were recently discussing the origin of 'phrygian cap' style oriental helmets.  Having recently learned of the existence of the Crosby Garrett helmet, we may have a possible answer for that one.

[Duncan Head]

This may be a silly question, but how are cavalry face masks actually dated?

Context, mostly; and artistic style.

The Newstead helmet, for instance, comes from a fort site that was occupied for a relatively short time, in a pit with other Flavian-era finds. The Kalkriese mask was found on the Teutoburg battlesite. Something like the Crosby Garrett helmet, which is an isolated find from a Romano-British but not closely datable context, is mostly dated on style.

[Patrick Waterson]

Good answer.  The Ribchester Helmet is presumably dated by the other objects in the Ribchester Hoard rather than just assuming contemporaneity with Arrian.

The next question is: how many 4th century AD sites do we have which provide samples of cavalry equipment?

Adrian, a question: did you mean that the masks so far discovered were cataphract helmets or that cataphract helmets would have been very similar to these masks?

[valentinianvictor]

I have discussed the issue of the facemasks that have been found with several historian's and whilst some of them are indeed highly decorated, some are fairly plain. They all could be facemasks worn by Catafractarii, which existed in at least the early Imperial period but may have been armoured riders on unarmoured horses.

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?

[Erpingham]

Not really up on Roman helmets but I dimly recall that some of the "parade" helmets are quite thin and not, therefore, a practical defence.  Anyone know whether this is the case?

[Duncan Head]

I have discussed the issue of the facemasks that have been found with several historian's and whilst some of them are indeed highly decorated, some are fairly plain. They all could be facemasks worn by Catafractarii, which existed in at least the early Imperial period but may have been armoured riders on unarmoured horses.

Since the first known reference to a unit of Roman catafractarii (ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata) dates to Hadrian's reign, and the Kalkriese mask appears to have been deposited in AD9, over a century earlier, I have grave doubts about that "all".