https://www.academia.edu/1264318/Cataphracti_Catafractarii_and_Clibanarii_Another_Look_at_the_Old_Problem_of_Their_Identifications
Another article that i thought people might be interested in. (It was a good week in my digest from academia.edu)
David
He finds that cataphracti and clibanarii are one and the same, which is fine and supports our earlier conclusions. He believes cataphractarii to be armoured men on unarmoured horses, but does not consider how he would distinguish them from equites.
Another intriguing study is Zuckerman's Le camp de Sosteos et les catafractarii (http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1994/100pdf/100199.pdf) which finds that in at least one unit in 4th-century Egypt, ala III Assyriorum, catafractarius was a rank, senior to eques and below decurio. Z's interpretation is that there were more cataphracts than we'd think, because some men in "ordinary" regiments wore cataphract equipment.
could catafractarius have been the rank held by a file leader? Heavier armour would have made sense for the man at the front
Interesting suggestion; and I see it is the interpretation of wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turma#Empire
QuoteIn the late Roman army, the turma and its structure were retained, with changes in titelature only: the turma was still headed by a decurio, who also led the first ten-strong file, while the other two files were led by subaltern catafractarii, in essence the successors of the early Empire's duplicarii and sesquiplicarii
- citing Erdkamp's
Companion to the Roman Army.
This intriguingly hints at formations with cataphracted troops in front and perhaps less-well-armoured horsemen behind.
If this were the case it could somewhat change our understanding of later Roman cavalry.
Well, Zuckerman certainly does think that the catafractarii replaced the duplicarii and sesquiplicarii, as the wiki quote suggests. And at the end of the article he does note the presence of individual catafractarii in several units in Egypt with non-cataphract titles: as well as ala III Assyriorum there's ala II Herculia, ala I Abasgorum, ala V Praelectorum. So it's not just the one regiment. Unfortunately that level of evidence tends to be lacking outside of Egyptian papyrus records, so we can't tell if the practice was widespread, just Eastern, or even just Egyptian. Z does also note that these are all frontier units, and suggests that the counterpart to forming all-cataphract units in the field-armies was up-armouring "gradés" - NCOs? - in the old-style alae.
Just thinking about the Ptolemaic Greek cavalry with extra armour to cope with the arrows of their southern neighbours, is there any chance of a connection?
Given that the Roman development was as far as we can see a C4th AD innovation, and the Ptolemaic felt-covered cavalry C3rd BC, I'd say no.
(For those who haven't come across these felt-caparisoned Ptolemaics, http://tabulaenovaeexercituum.pbworks.com/w/page/14246762/Ptolemaic is probably the easiest place to look.)
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 13, 2016, 12:04:48 PM
Well, Zuckerman certainly does think that the catafractarii replaced the duplicarii and sesquiplicarii, as the wiki quote suggests. And at the end of the article he does note the presence of individual catafractarii in several units in Egypt with non-cataphract titles: as well as ala III Assyriorum there's ala II Herculia, ala I Abasgorum, ala V Praelectorum. So it's not just the one regiment. Unfortunately that level of evidence tends to be lacking outside of Egyptian papyrus records, so we can't tell if the practice was widespread, just Eastern, or even just Egyptian. Z does also note that these are all frontier units, and suggests that the counterpart to forming all-cataphract units in the field-armies was up-armouring "gradés" - NCOs? - in the old-style alae.
I haven't read the OP article yet, but if Patrick is right that it leaves unclear how
cataphractarii's equipment differed from
equites', that would suggest another interpretation - the NCO's were equipped the same as everyone else and simply got a snazzy trendy title.
Further possibility, essentially retrojecting Maurikian practice - the back ranks might lack even the relatively light armour nominally expected of
equites, but the special effort was made to keep the file leaders up to standard, thus making them armoured as against the part- or un-armoured back ranks.
So Duncan, in addition to Phil's Bw(X)/(I) innovation for DBMM Hussites et al, are we now heading toward LIR Kn(X)/Cv(O) only in Egypt in the next DBMM lists...?
(apologies in advance to those not fluent in DBx speak)
One difficulty with the idea of cataphractarius/catafractarius as a file leader is that in Ammianus XVI.12 the term is used for a troop type:
"Already the beams of the sun were reddening the sky, and the blare of the trumpets was sounding in unison, when the infantry forces were led out at a moderate pace, and to their flank were joined the squadrons of cavalry, among whom were the cuirassiers [cataphractarii] and the [horse] archers, a formidable branch of the service." - Ammianus XVI.12.7
A few dozen sections later, he does it again:
"Now there fell in this battle on the Roman side two hundred and forty-three soldiers and four high officers: Bainobaudes, tribune of the Cornuti, and also Laipso; and Innocentius, commander of the mailed cavalry [cataphractarios ducens], and one unattached tribune, whose name is not available to me." - idem XVI.12.63
The only other mention of cataphractarii in Ammianus is once again in Julian's Gallic army:
"And to avoid any delay, he took only the cataphractariis and the ballistariis ..." - idem XVI.2.5
These 'cataphractarii' are described as 'clibanarii' in XVI.12.22:
"For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our 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 ..."
So we may be back to just the one heavily armoured cavalry type, conceivably called 'cataphractarii' in the western army and 'cataphracti' in the eastern, or maybe 'cataphracti' is just a useful short version occasionally employed. If so, I am not sure what to make of Zuckerman's idea about the duplicarius and sesquiplicarius each being replaced by a catafractarius. There is of course the possibility that, as he suggests, some individuals in ordinary cavalry units were up-armoured, this in addition to the existence of official homogenously armoured cataphractarii/cataphracti/clibanarii units.
Just a thought but reference is made to the units mentioned being border troops (limitaneae?). Maybe their role did not call for the whole unit to be equipped the same? Cataphracts wouldn't exactly be ideal for patrol and pursuing raiders.
I tend to see clibanarii as a subset of cataphracts, rather than a synonym.
QuoteJust a thought but reference is made to the units mentioned being border troops (limitaneae?). Maybe their role did not call for the whole unit to be equipped the same? Cataphracts wouldn't exactly be ideal for patrol and pursuing raiders.
That doesn't fit so well with Z's idea of
catafractarius being a
rank. He reckons that's clear from records of promotions; ordinary troopers get promoted to
catafractarius and then from that rank to
decurio, and the old "NCO" ranks like
duplicarius that previously sat in that position in the hierarchy seem to have disappeared.
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 14, 2016, 09:08:06 AM
That doesn't fit so well with Z's idea of catafractarius being a rank. He reckons that's clear from records of promotions; ordinary troopers get promoted to catafractarius and then from that rank to decurio, and the old "NCO" ranks like duplicarius that previously sat in that position in the hierarchy seem to have disappeared.
He knows this stuff better than most, certainly me. 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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 14, 2016, 09:08:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 14, 2016, 10:30:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 14, 2016, 11:41:29 AMAmmianus 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.
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 14, 2016, 11:53:46 AM
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?
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
Thanks, Adrian: we are not necessarily the wiser, but certainly a lot better informed! :)
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 19, 2016, 09:20:42 PMOne 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.
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.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 20, 2016, 09:49:27 AMAlso, 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?
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 20, 2016, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 20, 2016, 09:49:27 AMAlso, 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_Garrett_Helmet), we may have a possible answer for that one.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 20, 2016, 11:21:40 AM
This may be a silly question, but how are cavalry face masks actually dated?
Context, mostly; and artistic style.
The Newstead helmet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_Garrett_Helmet), which is an isolated find from a Romano-British but not closely datable context, is mostly dated on style.
Good answer. The Ribchester Helmet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
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?
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?
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 21, 2016, 12:42:22 PMI 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".
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 20, 2016, 09:49:27 AM
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.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 21, 2016, 12:42:22 PM
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.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 21, 2016, 04:37:18 PM
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 20, 2016, 09:49:27 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 23, 2016, 11:04:00 AM
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: RichT on December 23, 2016, 03:05:04 PM
'articulo' goes with 'in ipso' and has its 'point of time' meaning - "And in this period of the battle".
I shall accept that.
Quote
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.
Quote
'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."
Quote
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.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on December 23, 2016, 01:43:16 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 21, 2016, 10:16:50 PM
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.
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.