+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Battle of Andrianople (/showthread.php?tid=4407)
Battle of Andrianople - Theodosius the Great - 12-27-2005
Avete,
Do we know if the Emperor Valens had any cataphracts among his cavalry ? If we don't, would it be logical to assume that he had some cataphract units at the battle ?
Re: Battle of Andrianople - hoplite14gr - 12-28-2005
Andrianople was a depot for auxiliary vavalry in the Middle empire and Byzantium. Valens had only heavy cavalry but most people think that it was Goth elements that were more heavily equiped than the roman units.
Belissarius was reqruiting catafracts in Andrianople but I think this is later.
The catafract option with the romans is mostly a wargamers option.
If our more scholarly friends jnow better I stand corrected.
Kind regards
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Robert Vermaat - 01-03-2006
Afaik he had none with him. But since we can't always tell from units names, it's not 100% sure. However, afaik none of the accounts mentions cataphracts.
Any special reason?
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Theodosius the Great - 01-04-2006
Thank you, both, hoplite14gr and Vortigern.
Quote:Any special reason?
Oh, just wondering why the cavalry were beaten on the left flank. I thought if they were heavily armored they should've been able to take a lot of punishment. But it seems they weren't. And I thought the Eastern Empire was supposed to have a number of cataphracts to counter their Persian counterparts and we know that Valens recalled his field army from Armenia (but I guess without the cataphracts).
The battle could've maybe turned out differently had they been at Adrianople.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Robert Vermaat - 01-04-2006
I don't know if it made any difference if they had been present. The incident at Strassbourg shows that cataphracts could be as skittish as any other cavalry. maybe even more so, they were probably less mobile than ordinary cavarly and therefore more concerned with their own safety.
According to some, the left flank was run off the field together with the right flank, which had moved far too much forward and occupied a position on the left flank as well.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - FAVENTIANVS - 01-04-2006
skittish? what's that?
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Theodosius the Great - 01-04-2006
Well, how about clibanarii ? Weren't they more suited for melees?
Whereas, cataphracts were used mainly for their powerful charge ?
Quote:skittish? what's that?
In this context, in means they tend not to hold their ground for very long.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - hoplite14gr - 01-05-2006
A sucessful cavalry charge is a combination of timing and manouvering.
A "ligter" unit will root a "heavier" unit if it catches them on the flank or with horses blown from their charge.
Also in war moving units can be composed of various element that attched to them by paln or by accident in the way.
Rigit proper formations exist only on the wargamers table.
Kind regards
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Robert Vermaat - 01-05-2006
Quote:skittish? what's that?Skittish means easy to scare.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Robert Vermaat - 01-05-2006
Quote:Well, how about clibanarii ? Weren't they more suited for melees?The main difference between clibanarii and cataphracts (although there is much debate about that) I think is that clibanarii were more heavily armoured. that meant they could withstand enemy fire longer. I doubt it has much to do with the power of the charge. Most heavy cavalry did not charge, only when the enemy's line was broken or weak.
Whereas, cataphracts were used mainly for their powerful charge ?
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Theodosius the Great - 01-05-2006
Quote:The main difference between clibanarii and cataphracts (although there is much debate about that) I think is that clibanarii were more heavily armoured
I have a War Games book with illustrations showing half-armored Byzantine horses - from head to chest - as well as fully armored cataphracts.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - Robert Vermaat - 01-05-2006
Like I said, there's a lot of debate about the terminology. Some think even the Romans did not make a sharp difference between both.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - L C Cinna - 01-09-2006
Junkelmann suggests that the clibanarii might have been some kind of "special" cataphract. like cataphract was the main term for heavily armoured cav and the clibanarii were some special kind.
an eastern variation so to say, heavier armoured. he also suggests that the word clibanarius is of eastern origin and that the frequently mentioned meaning of "cooking pot" was invented by Roman authors later. as they liked to do with many words which sounded like they have a greek root.
Re: Battle of Andrianople - hoplite14gr - 01-09-2006
Klibanio the Byzantine manuscripts refer to as a lamelar type cuirass.
Klibanioforoi are super heavy catafracts wearing the Klibanion over the chain mail and rode fully armored horses (10th to early 11th centyry AD).
KLIVANOS in Greek is th furnace either potter´s or metallurgist´s
I suspect that might be a paraphrace or crude joke about armor in hot climate.
I have serious doubts if super heavy catafracts existed in the roman army from 4th to 6th century AD. I feel real extra heavy cavalry appeared at the 7th century and it was possibly part of the imperial household.
Kind regards
Re: Battle of Andrianople - L C Cinna - 01-09-2006
I know that theory with the greek word. however Roman authors refer to the cataphracts several times saying "cataphracts which the perisans call clibanarii". even ammianus uses this so a greek origin might be doubtful