02-20-2013, 11:11 PM
I think if we carry one discussing Heliodorus and his work's relationship to the veracity of a cataphract description (and if said description is borrowing a conceit or actually referencing a real account) then a split-off might be appropriate.
However, if the discussion moves back to the original issue of Late Roman infantry wearing face-masks, then no!
I follow the opinion that the HA is the product of a single author writing during the period of Theodosius and creating a number of pen-names proporting to be writing under the earlier Tetrarchy. This places the Severus Alexander account in the late 4th century and allows the Axumites and the Merovians a more natural placement. These peoples were simpy not on the Roman's radar, as it were, in an earlier period. But as Nathan has pointed out there are issues here:
Ammianus wrote also under Theodosius some - what? - twenty years after the events he is describing. Julian however wrote his panegyric under Constantius II so that places his text a good twenty years before Ammianus. Julian's account of the siege is echoed in detail by Ephreim so we can assume that in its broad details it is correct. Also the siege of Nisibis (all of them) were icons of the period in terms of Roman defiance against the aggressive actions of Shapur. The inference here is that in general terms people knew about it and therefore both Julian's and Ephreim's descriptions were in some ways accountable. This defiance of Nisibis was one of the reasons Jovian's surrender of it was so galling to the locals who had beaten off every Persian attempt to take that city.
However, where in this broad period lies the Aethiopica? If Heliodorus borrowed from and embelished Julian and Ephreim then after that siege. He also quotes light infantry creeping under the armoured horses and unsaddling the riders - and echo of Ammianus describing Argentoratum. But was that detail known in general terms before Ammianus wrote about it twenty years later? Or perhaps not only is it a literary commonplace - as Robert has alluded to - it is also a common military tactic now used against catafacts?
What I find interesting about Heliodorus is how he seems to sythesise a number of Late Roman tropes or historical details scattered in other contemporary texts. And also adds interesting odd details. For example, did anyone notice his description of the straps used to stabilise the contus? These, I think I remember, have been dismissed as an amateur's imagination however having recently read Mielczarek's study on Cataphracts and Clibinarii I noticed that he points out a similar description of straps used by Polish Hussars to steady the long lance when in an upright position. He argues that Heliodorus has simply seem an arrangement and projected it into a charge position from a rest position.
Fascinating stuff!
However, if the discussion moves back to the original issue of Late Roman infantry wearing face-masks, then no!
I follow the opinion that the HA is the product of a single author writing during the period of Theodosius and creating a number of pen-names proporting to be writing under the earlier Tetrarchy. This places the Severus Alexander account in the late 4th century and allows the Axumites and the Merovians a more natural placement. These peoples were simpy not on the Roman's radar, as it were, in an earlier period. But as Nathan has pointed out there are issues here:
Ammianus wrote also under Theodosius some - what? - twenty years after the events he is describing. Julian however wrote his panegyric under Constantius II so that places his text a good twenty years before Ammianus. Julian's account of the siege is echoed in detail by Ephreim so we can assume that in its broad details it is correct. Also the siege of Nisibis (all of them) were icons of the period in terms of Roman defiance against the aggressive actions of Shapur. The inference here is that in general terms people knew about it and therefore both Julian's and Ephreim's descriptions were in some ways accountable. This defiance of Nisibis was one of the reasons Jovian's surrender of it was so galling to the locals who had beaten off every Persian attempt to take that city.
However, where in this broad period lies the Aethiopica? If Heliodorus borrowed from and embelished Julian and Ephreim then after that siege. He also quotes light infantry creeping under the armoured horses and unsaddling the riders - and echo of Ammianus describing Argentoratum. But was that detail known in general terms before Ammianus wrote about it twenty years later? Or perhaps not only is it a literary commonplace - as Robert has alluded to - it is also a common military tactic now used against catafacts?
What I find interesting about Heliodorus is how he seems to sythesise a number of Late Roman tropes or historical details scattered in other contemporary texts. And also adds interesting odd details. For example, did anyone notice his description of the straps used to stabilise the contus? These, I think I remember, have been dismissed as an amateur's imagination however having recently read Mielczarek's study on Cataphracts and Clibinarii I noticed that he points out a similar description of straps used by Polish Hussars to steady the long lance when in an upright position. He argues that Heliodorus has simply seem an arrangement and projected it into a charge position from a rest position.
Fascinating stuff!
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
