Cataphracts

[Erpingham]

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.

Do we know that they had a separate name or existed in separate units?  Is it possible that contemporaries called them less-well armoured cataphracts (or clibanarii).  From the above examples, Ammianus seems not to distinguish by name between cataphracts with metal-armoured horses and those with leather armour.

[Mark G]

I cannot see how there could not be a different name for them.

[Patrick Waterson]

There seems to be no description of this type in Ammianus: I give his remaining cataphract references (omitting the one about the crocodile).

XXV.3.4 "While he was hastening to restore order there without regard to his own peril, a Parthian band of mailed cavalry [cataphractorum Parthicus globus = a tight formation of Persian cataphracts] on another side attacked the centre companies, and quickly overflowed the left wing, which gave way, since our men could hardly endure the smell and trumpeting of the elephants, they were trying to end the battle with pikes and volleys of arrows [contis et multiplicatis missilibus]."

'Parthian' here means 'Persian': old habits died hard.  This is the battle in which Julian forgets or omits to put on his armour.  The 'contis' are not pikes but lances, which we would expect cataphracts to carry.  More interesting is where the many missiles are coming from: elephants, supporting archers or the cataphracts themselves - Ammianus gives the latter impression.

The action continues:

"But while the emperor rushed hither and thither amid the foremost ranks of the combatants, our light-armed forces [succinctior armatura = prepared troops] leaped forth against them and hacked at the legs [suffragines = hams, hocks] and backs of the Persians, and those of the elephants."

It appears that Julian had arranged for specially detailed troops to do a bit of hamstringing.  It is possible the Persian mounts were unprotected from the rear, or that their leather protection was not proof against close-quarter combat.

Following Julian's death in battle, the Roman army retreated.

XXV.6.2 "But when we accordingly were just beginning to leave, the Persians attacked us, with the elephants in front. By the unapproachable and frightful stench of these brutes horses and men were at first thrown into confusion, but the Joviani and Herculiani, 2 after killing a few of the beasts, bravely resisted the mail clad horsemen [cataphracti equites]. [3] Then the legions of the Jovii and the Victores came to the aid of their struggling companions and slew two elephants, along with a considerable number of the enemy."

Yet another fight between Persian cataphracts and Roman infantry ends in favour of the latter after an initial elephant fracas.

Back to the western front.  In XXV.5.6 Roman forces are trying to ambush an army of raiding Saxons, get it wrong and are saved by some cataphracts.

XXV.5.6 "For, excited by the sound of the approaching Saxons, some of our men rushed out before the proper time; on their sudden appearance the savages raised terrible howls, and while the Romans were hastening to steady themselves, they were put to flight. Presently, however, they halted and massed themselves together, and as their dangerous plight gave them strength (though somewhat impaired), they were forced to fight; but after suffering great losses they were routed and would have perished to a man, had not a troop of mail-clad horsemen [cataphracti], which had been similarly stationed on another side, near a byway, to cause danger to the savages as they passed by, been aroused by their cries of terror, and quickly come to their aid."

This tells us little except that cataphracti are still in use as of AD 369-370.

Back to the eastern front.

XXIX.1.1 "At the end of the winter Sapor, king of the Persian nations, made immoderately arrogant by the confidence inspired by his former battles, having filled up the number of his army and greatly strengthened it, had sent his mailed horsemen [cataphracti], archers, and mercenary soldiers [plebem = masses, not mercenaries] to invade our territories."

And cataphracts were still in use among the Persians as the majority heavy cavalry type, perhaps even the majority cavalry type, as of AD 371.

Conclusions - while it is possible that Ammianus may be simplifying, we seem to have cataphracts, undifferentiated from clibanarii, as a main Roman and principal Persian cavalry type.  The Persians carry 'conti', lances, and seem also to use missiles, unless Ammianus is referring to a contribution made by supporting archers.  The Roman cataphracts are less well described, except at Argentoratum, where the impression one gains is that they used the standard javelin/shield/sword combination of standard Roman cavalry (equites).  Whether this would be true of Roman cataphracts in an eastern army is less clear.

[Andreas Johansson]

Does the Latin original of the last quotation allow us to tell whether those archers are on foot or horse? It occurs to me that if they're horse archers, that army sounds distinctly, well, Parthian.

[Patrick Waterson]

Ammianus has Sapor command an army of "cataphractos et sagittarios et conductam miserat plebem" - cataphracts, archers (not differentiated between foot and horse; conceivably both or either, although the earlier Roman trick of accelerating infantry as they approach archers* would presumably not work against the mounted variety) and massed, mobilised lower orders.

*XXIV.6.11: "... the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks."

This is from the battle near Ctesiphon, where Ammianus gives Persian dispositions as:

"[The cavalry] was backed up by companies of infantry [in subsidiis manipuli locati sunt peditum = contingents of infantry were in reserve/support], who, protected by oblong, curved shields covered with wickerwork and raw hides, advanced in very close order. Behind these were elephants, looking like walking hills, and, by the movements of their enormous bodies, they threatened destruction to all who came near them, dreaded as they were from past experience."

One does wonder if these infantry would be the 'sagittarii', the speed and direction of Julian's invasion presumably having made it impossible to assemble the 'lower orders' as yet during the campaign.  In this engagement, the Persian cavalry contingent seems to be all cataphracts, if we take literally Ammianus' description:

"The Persians opposed to us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen 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 [equorum multitudine omni defensa] by coverings of leather." - Ammianus XXIV.6.8

[Mark G]

In Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (4th), of the few illustrations of armoured horses.

the Cataphract horse is taken directly from Dura (see above)

and the two identified as clibanarii are both half armoured - one with and one without stirrups.

the stirrup less clib is Sassanid, and the stirruped one is byzantine.

Which I suspect is where my vague notion that Clibs were half armoured came from originally, just as I suspect Ammianus etc. are where Roys belief that there is no difference between clibs and cats came from.

the text on the riders is interesting too, suggesting a clear functional difference between clibs and cats in later Sassanid armies, but I'm out of time, someone else will have to post.

[Mick Hession]

I don't believe that AEIR's depictions represent Phil Barker's current thinking - certainly, 4th century clibanarii and cataphracts are treated identically in his current rules (close order unshielded lancers with full armour for man and horse - SHC, L in old WRG-speak). I dropped out of Ancients for about 15 years so am unaware of what prompted the rethink.   

I've a vague recollection of the clibinarii/cataphract debate from Slinghots of the early 1980s so you'll probably find something on the CD. At that time Phil (naturally) defended the AEIR reconstruction on the basis that clibanarii have a shield pattern listed in the Notitia Dignitatum; as SHC in those days didn't have shields then he assumed lighter armour for the clibinarii and extrapolated backwards from 7th century Byzantine gear. However that equipment is now believed to have derived from Avar practice so late Roman half-armour barding is something of a red herring.

Regards
Mick

[Mark G]

interesting.

from memory of earlier, the Sassanid rider text I referred to has the Clibs (half armoured) on the flanks of the cats (full armoured) as a standard tactical deployment.

Have we any evidence either way on that?

The shielded or not aspect is a bit pointless, I think - rules no longer differentiate that, not would they particularly care about whether a rider had his face covered or not as they did in the old WRG days
- but if there is a clear tactical deployment, it would certain fit with the direction this thread is going

- namely, that there was a difference in usage - and that it may come down to the ability of the half armoured men to defend to their flank better, and wheel and move faster than their fuller armoured cousins.

I think I am right in saying that DBMM does not really reflect a difference between the two types of cavalry when caught to their flank, so in that respect, Phil would have no need to differentiate between them. 
Alternatively, he may have concluded that Clibs and Cats are the same, which then just leaves the question of what he thinks about half or full armoured horses.

half cats, anyone?

[Mick Hession]

From memory, he now believes the two to be identical in both role and equipment (and wearing full horse armour; I don't think there's any pre-Avar evidence for half-armour). IIRC his current thinking on the topic is outlined in his note to the DBMM Late Roman army list but I don't have it to hand. I'll check this evening.

BTW isn't the half-armoured Sassanid clibanarius itself now somewhat discredited, at least as being standard equipment in any way? AFAIK it appears in only one relief, and that of a king who had spent time in Byzantium so may simply be reflecting his own individual preference. 

Regards
Mick

[Mark G]

Could be, but if so, where did Phil get the idea that there was a tactical employment to them from when he wrote AEIR

and what about the Byzantine ones?

[Mick Hession]

Given that he doesn't provide references in the book you'd need to ask him. But the latest edition of AEIR dates from around 1980, reflecting 1970s research, so his thinking has probably moved on. 

By Byzantine, do you mean the post-Avar half-armoured lance/bow chaps or the more extensively armoured Klibanphoroi of the 10th century who I believe _did_ have a distinct tactical role as a battering ram in the centre of the line, flanked by conventional cavalry?

Regards
Mick

[Erpingham]

Could be, but if so, where did Phil get the idea that there was a tactical employment to them from when he wrote AEIR

Knowing Phil Barker only by reputation, it is very unlikely he just made it up.  It will have come from his research but, because he was always reluctant to reference his stuff, it is hard to know where.  It is probably an interpretation of a primary source (Roman, Byzantine or Sassanian) but as we know from threads like this one, without the source it is hard to say whether the interpretation is correct.  I would be concerned that the original refers only to non-cataphract cavalry being placed on the flanks, which sounds something like Mick's reference to Byzantine manuals - maybe a place to start a search?

[aligern]

the tactical role o
fir Byzantine tenth century cataphracts  (Nikephorians) is from a Byzantine manual of the time. i think its nikephoros Ouranos, but don't cite me on that. i have it on the shelves nd ould look if i matters a lot. i recall they were to be deployed in wedge for line breaking and that is dirt of ow thy are used against the Rus at Dorostolon. I remember that is in Leo the Deacon.
The late Byzantine manuals describe troops that are called menaulotoi who are specific anti cataphract spearmen with stout pears. that implies that the Byz Arab enmies have Cats too and in the first Cusade there are troops called Agulanoi, armoured men on armoured horses who wield maces.
However, i doubt that Parthian or Sasanian cataphracts are designed to take out lose order infantry. It is much more likely that theirprimary ole is to combat horse archers and that would mean that the armour was inportant, but they don't necessarily form up lose and may ell move quite rapidly on the battlefield.
That makes them analogous to later steppe cavalry with barded horses, who wold look to push back horse archers by a rapid advance.
roy

[Mark G]

On those Byzantines.

Is there any evidence that they had a half cat (armour at the front, nothing at the back of the horse)?

If there is doubt about the Sassanid provenance, and little to support the Byzantines either, it closes off a large part of the cats / clibs conundrum.

[Patrick Waterson]

Byzantine types are out of my current horizon, so it is over to our Dark Ages experts for this one.