Cataphracts

[Patrick Waterson]

Perhaps so - though Ammianus (XVI.10.8 ) uses the terms interchangeably with regard to Roman cavalry.

"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 full-armoured cavalry [catafractarii] (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. Thin circles of iron plates, 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[/i]."

*cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)

At the battle of Argentoratum he similarly uses both terms for the same troop type.

"For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of-mail [clibanario], 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..." - Ammianus XVI.12.22

"Now that had happened for the reason that while the order of their lines was being re-established, the cavalry in coat-of-mail [cataphracti equites], seeing their leader slightly wounded and one of their companions slipping over the neck of his horse, which had collapsed under the weight of his armour, scattered in whatever direction they could ..." - ibid. XVI.12.38

It would seem that for Ammianus, the Roman cataphractus and clibanarius were one and the same.

[Justin Taylor]

Indeed you wonder how much faith to place in his works

His work has suffered terribly from the manuscript transmission. Aside from the loss of the first thirteen books, the remaining eighteen are in many places corrupt and lacunose. The sole surviving manuscript from which almost every other is derived is a ninth-century Carolingian text, Vatican lat. 1873 (V), produced in Fulda from an insular exemplar

But obviously the transmission of his works is not his fault.

[Patrick Waterson]

Indeed, it is a factor to bear in mind, though where he says:

"the cataphracti equites (whom they call clibanarii)"

[cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)]

it is hard to imagine even the dullest copyist mangling this.  The possibility of 'quos clibanarios dictitant' being a later insertion is of course one to consider, though the time frame is quite narrow as most of Ammianus' contemporaries were starting to write in Greek, and subsequent generations of scribes would probably neither know nor care about the difference.

[Mark G]

the archaeologists perceive a clear difference also.

this (previously linked) is labelled as a Clib - and is from the same report as the Cat image posted earlier. 



I'm assuming that the definition has something along the lines of 'armour to the shoulder = cat, armour to the knee= clib'.

where that leaves the front armour only but to the feet, I'll pas for now.

of course, that may just be labelling by a non militarily interested type - Roy cited it as an example of a cat when we discussed images, and it is just grafitti.

[Erpingham]

the archaeologists perceive a clear difference also.

Though, from studying terms for later armour, modern commentators sometimes feel a need to classify arms and armour more than its original owners.

One theory I read somewhere had it (I think working from Ammianus) is that there was an official name (catafract) and a soldiers' slang name (clibanarius).  It used to be said - modern scholarship may have moved on - that the clib got his name from a word for oven, which would fit this theory.  However, this could all have been discredited by now.

[Mark G]

which leaves us in the position of needing to look at whether there is any source evidence that we can use to make a conclusion.

I doubt I will find time, but trawling the slingshot CD(s) may bring some evidence to light via the cats / clibs debate from all those decades ago.

[Patrick Waterson]

Those who read through Ammianus' XVI.10.8 description will have seen:

"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 full-armoured cavalry [catafractarii] (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. Thin circles of iron plates, 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[/i]."

One theory I read somewhere had it (I think working from Ammianus) is that there was an official name (catafract) and a soldiers' slang name (clibanarius).  It used to be said - modern scholarship may have moved on - that the clib got his name from a word for oven, which would fit this theory.  However, this could all have been discredited by now.

Actually that sounds sensible and may be about to be re-credited.    Ammianus' 'cataphract called clibanarius' has his body and limbs entirely covered by armour, so he seems to have drawn no distinction on the basis of variability of coverage.

[aligern]

There is no distinction because it is only modern commentators such as us who need one.  An ancient source does not need to differentiate because they are the cavalry of his time and thus the people he writes for know what he means.
Ammianus could make sense if ALL armoured (man and horse) were Catafracti and some were clibanarii.
And Clibanarrii is official, at least there is a unit in the Notitia!
Roy

[Erpingham]

And Clibanarrii is official, at least there is a unit in the Notitia!
Roy

No-one denies that clibinarius was at some point official terminology , the idea is to suggest a possible origin.  It is possible for soldiers names to become the official name over time.  Also, the Notitia is some time later than Ammianus (I don't know the latest theory, I'm afraid).  So, it is possible that in Ammianus' time, the two words described the same troop type but by the time of the Notitia, tactical or technical evolution may have seen the recognition of separate types.

[Patrick Waterson]

If Ammianus was writing around AD 380 (his account cuts off in AD 378 with the battle of Adrianople), he predates the earliest possible date for the Notitia by 15 years.  However given the way the Notitia treats offices and appointments, not to mention troop dispositions, it looks as if it dates from a decade or so later (c.AD 405).

Interestingly, mentions of 'clibanarii' by Ammianius are confined to Book XVI, chapters 10 and 12 (one use each; two total).  He uses 'catafractarii' eleven times, twice in books XVI and XXV and once each in books XVIII, XIX, XX, XXII, XXIV, XXVIII and XXIX.  The latter was evidently the customary term during his time.

In the Anonymous Valesianus, considered to have been composed c.AD 550, cataphracts are referred to as 'equites ferrati', iron-clad cavalry, in the description of the battle of Cibalae (AD 314 or perhaps 316) between Licinus and Constantine.

[Mark G]

is there anything tactically we can draw from that battle description?

that is the missing part here - more tactical descriptions of usage.

[Patrick Waterson]

Good thinking, Mark.

The tactical description for Argentoratum goes:

"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 with more haste than discretion, and wielding their weapons in their right hands, flew upon our cavalry squadrons; 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 resolutely protected their heads with the barriers of their shields, and with sword thrusts or by hurling darts [tela = missiles] threatened them with death and greatly terrified them." - Ammianus XVI.12.36

Cf. Arrian, Ars Tactica 39: "It is at this point that good horsemanship is especially needed to be able simultaneously to throw at those who are charging in and to give one's right hand side the protection of the shield."

The above passage looks like the German cavalry charging the Roman cavalry, who intriguingly do not use a lance but rather javelins and shield. 

To continue:

"And at this point in the battle the rider drew close to his companion, protecting his sides with the firmness of an infantryman and his front with an unbroken row of shields [parmis], thick clouds of dust arose as various movements occurred, our men now holding, now yielding as the most war-experienced among the enemy forced progress with the pressure of their knees, but with great determination [our men] mingled hand-to-hand [dexterae dexteris = literally 'right side to right side'] pushing shield-boss on shield-boss and the sky re-echoed with the shouts of the victors and the cries of the fallen."

It would seem that Julian's cataphracts at Argentoratum did not use the usual lance but rather the javelin and shield of the standard Roman equites.  They shot at approaching opponents and then engaged hand-to-hand.

Next we should examine the descriptions of cataphracts elsewhere in Ammianus.

[aligern]

i rather suspect that Ammianus  is referring to conventional Roman Scutarii cavalry and their shields and javelins.

Ammianus battle descriptions are very useful, but they are all partial and flawed and problematic if we want to use them as analytical descriptions . that is to say he is not Polybius or Caesar.

even those two paragons leave us puzzles as to what is going on in a battle. I would suggest that at Argentoratum we have a problem as to the composition of the Roman army and as to how it is laid out.
roy

[Patrick Waterson]

This is of course possible; one wonders just how many of Julian's scarce cavalry were actual cataphracts.  Ammianus' excursus on the Germans' inability to harm a solidly mounted cataphract gives the impression they were the predominant cavalry type on the Roman side.

XVI.12.21-22 "And when (just as the above mentioned deserter had told us) they saw all our cavalry opposite them on the right flank, they put all their strongest cavalry forces on their left flank in close order. And among them here and there they intermingled skirmishers and light-armed infantry, as safe policy certainly demanded.

For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of-mail [clibanarius], 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."

*latere forato iumenti = secretly pierce the beast of burden.  'Latere' can mean 'secretly' or 'in the side', and 'secretly' is on keeping with the furtive nature of the approach, while 'in the side' looks strange when we are considering an armoured horse.  The use of 'iumenti' for the cataphract's mount suggests a sturdier than usual animal.


When describing the course of the battle we get the same impression of cataphract predominance:

XVI.12.37: "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, which held the right wing, unexpectedly broke ranks and fled ..."

XVI.12.38: "... Now that had happened for the reason that while the order of their lines was being re-established, the cavalry in coat-of-mail [cataphracti], seeing their leader slightly wounded and one of their companions slipping over the neck of his horse, which had collapsed under the weight of his armour, scattered in whatever direction they could; they would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry under foot, had not the latter, who were packed close together and intertwined one with the other, held their ground without stirring. So, when Caesar had seen from a distance that the cavalry [equites] were looking for nothing except safety in flight, he spurred on his horse and held them back like a kind of barrier."

Ammianus seems not to differentiate between 'cataphracti' and 'equites'.  At the very least, his description implies the cataphracts were the majority cavalry type.

The next description, albeit a not especially helpful one, is from the siege of Amida: the cataphracts are Persian.

"And now through the zeal of all the preparations were completed, and as the morning star shone forth various kinds of siege-works were brought up, along with ironclad towers, on the high tops of which ballistae were placed, and drove off the defenders who were busy lower down. [3] And day was now dawning, when mail-clad soldiers [ferrea munimenta] underspread the entire heaven, and the dense forces moved forward, not as before in disorder, but led by the slow notes of the trumpets and with no one running forward, protected too by pent-houses and holding before them wicker hurdles. [4] But when their approach brought them within bowshot, though holding their shields before them the Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order, and almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark; even the mail-clad horsemen [cataphracti] were checked and gave ground, and thus increased the courage of our men." - Ammianus XIX.7

More Persian cataphracts in the next reference:

" On his first attack the king himself, with a troop of horsemen gleaming in full armour [cum agmine cataphractorum fulgentium] and himself towering above the rest, rode about the circuit of the camp, and with over-boldness advanced to the very edge of the trenches. But becoming the target of repeated missiles from the ballistae and of arrows, he was protected by a close array of shields placed side by side as in a tortoise-mantlet [densitate opertus armorum in modum testudinis contextorum], and got away unhurt. " - Amianus XX.7.2

Note that the Latin 'opertus armorum' indicates a covering of armour, and could simply mean that being surrounded by armoured men kept Sapor from harm.  Shields are not specifically mentioned, though the possibility is not excluded.

In the next description, Julian is facing a Persian army near Ctesiphon.

"The Persians opposed to us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen [cataphracti] 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

Note the horses are described as having leather, not mail or scale, armour.  This may have been intended to provide protection against missiles, but would have been less effective against Roman pila, which may explain how the legionaries bested these opponents in the subsequent battle.  Ammianus does not list the armament carried by these cataphracts.

[Mark G]

what I think we can take from there is

XVI.12.21-22  - further evidence of the vulnerability of cataphracts to anything other than to their front.

XVI.12.37 suggests that this tactic of sending foot skirmishers in with the German cavalry worked.  Those who have read Speidel will be thinking of horse stabbers, I suspect.

the iumenti reference is also interesting.

XVI.12.38 possibly reinforces the belief that mounted men at speed (running) will not make any impact on steady formed infantry - nor seek to try, depending on your views on these things.

Ammianus XXIV.6.8
again references a formation of cataphracts operating in very closed ranks.

The first and last are the most significant.

When you look back to 12.21-22 and the danger from allowing men to get between the horses, this makes perfect sense to see XXIV.6.8 as the simplest way to reduce the risk down to just the two very end horses. - insisting on absolute boot to boot formation when facing formed enemy.

This also stands in complete agreement with the descriptions from Plutarch on Carrhae - close formed and flank vulnerable.

In that respect, a clear example of the earlier and later cats having the same vulnerabilities and the same tactical solution to ensure tight formation
- which we know from horse tactics through the ages, starts out with slow charges or walks to ensure the formation is preserved, and takes many years of development and training before the same formation is able to achieve this with speed - not until one side becomes so consistently defeated at a slow attack do they attempt to remedy this by charging in formation at speed, as the insistence of formation is always the most important thing.

The difference between earlier and later here is that we do have examples of later cats charging at speed - which we do not have from the earlier period (and hence my supposition there is a difference at that level),
one which I think we can logically ascribe to technical changes to the horse equipment and the development of a formalised courtly nobility equipped as cataphracts - which does not exist, and was not as evident under the Parthians.

BTW, is there a better name for the horsemen who only have armour on their front half - but down to the feet of the horse?  these are clearly not what Ammianus means here when he does use the term Clibanarii.