Apparently when Constantine was going after Licinius for the last time he had about 10,000 cavalry? Were all cataphracts veterans or experienced cavalrymen? Or was it a matter of being rich enough to have horses, barding, and armor for yourself?
I'm intrigued by cataphracts, since the research I've done on the horses of the time indicates that they rode the equivalent of Camargues, or Fell and Dartmoor ponies. 15hh is not a bad size for a warhorse, since medieval destriers were ideally 16hh or 15hh. But 15hh was the tallest a Roman warhorse could get, and some were 13hh, genuine ponies. Ponies decked out in full armor with field oven men on their backs locked shield to shield with each other in a charge.
I know that cataphracts were inspired by Persian forces and absorbed somewhat as a result. They were slow, tired easily, and heat exhaustion was a real concern. I'd like to know how they transported things (was it like a knight, where you had spare horses to carry things, or was the armor kept in baggage carts?) Could a men enter the army as a cataphract, or did one enter as a low-ranking cavalarymen who did rounds as a scout or in light cavalry maneuver before graduating?
The 3rd century horse armour from Dura Europos would have fitted a horse from 14.2 to 15 hands. This is a definitive answer to your question; Roman horses from 14.2 hands to 15 hands were considered robust enough to operate armoured with a, presumably, armoured rider.
Roman cataphractarii and clibanarii were just, as far as we know, soldiers like any other. They would have been paid a salary (much of it in food) and their equipment and horses would have been supplied by the state. I know that Byzantine writers of the 12th century noted that Cuman horse archers rode and fought on the same horse. That this was remarkable strongly suggests that Byzantine cavalry normally rode a different horse (=palfrey) when on the march to that which they fought on (=destrier). Earlier Roman heavy cavalry may have done the same, but I don't know of any direct evidence for this.
Quote:Earlier Roman heavy cavalry may have done the same, but I don't know of any direct evidence for this.
During the principate roman equites had 1 horse, the NCOs 2 and the decurio 3 horses; plus some common spare horses for the ala. This was perhaps different for cataphracts, which were introduced in the early 2nd century with the Ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum Catafractata in Moesia. So the sarmatian influence was most propably as important as the parthian one.
It makes sense, that cataphracts transported their armor with mule, a 2nd horse or via oxcarts of the baggage train. But I don't know of any source with detailed info. Mule makes most sense for me in terms of costs, speed and flexibility.
I also remember that cataphractus in late empire became a NCO title/rank. So perhaps after all 2 horses?
Cataphracti and Clibanarii (and the differences between them) have been discussed a number of times. It might be worth picking through these threads if you have the time:
Constantine almost certainly had cataphracti in his army - there was a unit of them apparently based at Ambianis (Amiens) in the 3rd/4th century, and based on a couple of tombstones they were plausibly ethnic Sarmatians, or descended from Sarmatians - perhaps prisoners of war settled as laeti in the region.
It's maybe interesting that the orator of panegyric IV, describing the battle of Turin in AD312, contrasts the Constantinian armoured cavalry (cataphracts) with the Maxentian clibanarii. This might have been a rhetorical touch, to play up the formidible strength of the enemy, but it might suggest that the heavier type of cavalry was only being used by Maxentius at that point. Bearing in mind their poor showing in the battle, Constantine may not have adopted them into his own armies. This would explain why Julian, in his panegyric to Constantius II, claims that this emperor personally introduced clibanarii to the Roman army in the 340s.
I'd be wary of estimated troop numbers in ancient sources, and ten thousand cavalry sounds like a lot. In any case, they would certainly not all have been cataphracts. The late Roman auxilia had a cavalry component (light horse?), and there are far more references in ancient sources and inscriptions to equites dalmatae, sagittarii and mauri (for example) than to cataphracts. The imperial guard of the day were the (probably mounted) units of Scholae, which included horse archers. The notitia dignitatum (which probably preserves the skeleton of the Constantinian army arrangement) lists only eight or nine catafractarii units, and most of them in the east. That might mean there were only three or four thousand of these horsemen in the entire Roman army, and Licinius may have had far more than Constantine.
Incidentally, I believe the 'oven man' idea (for the name of the clibanarii specifically) is perhaps mistaken. The term seems to derive from a Greek word similar to clibanos, and meaning 'enclosed'. This is related to the word cataphractos, meaning 'covered'. The 'field oven' of the same name was actually a bit like a tagine dish, and cooked food by enclosing it, but the connection was perhaps only coincidental. A clibanarius was a man fully enclosed in armour, whereas a cataphractarius was just 'covered' in it!
Quote:Incidentally, I believe the 'oven man' idea (for the name of the clibanarii specifically) is perhaps mistaken. The term seems to derive from a Greek word similar to clibanos, and meaning 'enclosed'. This is related to the word cataphractos, meaning 'covered'. The 'field oven' of the same name was actually a bit like a tagine dish, and cooked food by enclosing it, but the connection was perhaps only coincidental. A clibanarius was a man fully enclosed in armour, whereas a cataphractarius was just 'covered' in it!
I won’t buy into the Cataphracti and Clibanarii debate too much but I have always thought that catafractii were formed to attack infantry formations while Clibanarii on the other hand were for attacking cavalry formations.
The need for bigger horses for heavily armoured cavalry probably accelerated in the empire after contact with the heavily armed Roxalani cavalry formations in mid 1st century AD. From the end of the Dacian wars the Romans paid an annual subsidy to the Roxolani north of Lower Moesia for peace for many years and part of the conditions probably included recruits, hostages and horses for the Roman army.
These horses would have been larger than normal steppe ponies which were bred for toughness, manoeuvrability and speed to carry the lightly armed horse archer while Sarmatians probably bred larger horses to carry the more heavily armoured Roxolani lancer as the lance or contus seemed to be the primary weapon and not the bow. However the Romans probably had an organised breeding programme for larger and stockier horses to carry heavier cavalrymen and this program was probably influenced by the addition of larger Celtic and Iberian stock as opposed to eastern breeds and the smaller German horses.
I have to agree with Nathan that it is very doubtful that Constantine had 10,000 cataphracts.
In regards to how a man enters the cavalry there is an entry in a fragment “P. Dura, 11 5, frag. a.” Below. But whether he would be a citizen or an auxiliary I have no idea.
Quote:Whenever a pedes was upgraded to be an eques in a cohors equitata, he would require a mount ; a document from Dura dated to A.D. 232 seems to refer in part to pedites, who had been facti équités ; a heading reads in part equos acceper and is followed by the names of nineteen men listed by their centuries ; this would seem to refer to a list of men, who had been upgraded and had received a horse, now that they were équité
Although size would matter for a cataphract horse I suppose that thirteen hand horses would have been prevalent in other forms of Roman cavalry if they passed other selection criteria as written by ancient Roman writers like Virgil, Arrian, Vegetius and Tacitus who stated that the selection process for a Roman horse includes being spirited and having strength and endurance. Virgil wrote below.
Quote:As we have assumed that the horse to be bought is intended as a war horse, it must be tested in all the particulars, that war tests it in, namely leaping over ditches, jumping over walls, rushing up and springing off banks, and also in galloping up and down hills and on a slope.
In his manual Arrian describes in detail several manoeuvres of the Roman cavalry, whereby they wheeled, turned, circled, and also rode in a straight line and at an angle; all this was done at various speeds but mostly at the gallop. Vegetius states that the horses were to be trained and exercised in swimming in both sea and river water. Dio records that the horses of the Romans were trained to kneel or lie down, while the infantry formed the testudo around them. Tacitus notes that the Roman cavalry trained their horses to execute various turns, unlike the Germans.
Arrian confirms that Hadrian instructed the Roman cavalry to
Quote: learn all the half and quarter- turns used by the Sarmatian and Celtic cavalry
.
The horse would also have to be taught to stand still, while the rider mounted it.
Writing near end of 4th century Vegetius wrote of the excellent suitability and toughness of the smaller Hunnic and German horses for warfare but whether it was a cataphract horse or a light cavalry mount is unknown. But he rated the Hunnic horse as the most suitable for warfare.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
All of this information is fantastic, thank you! Forgive my miscalculation of 10k cataphracts, I meant 10k cavalry total. Cavalry was 8%-10% of an army, and Constantine, when he went after Licinius, apparently had about 130,000 men at Adrianople in 324. A portion of his cavalry had to be light cavalry and skirmishers.
Are there more detailed accounts of Adrianople and Chrysopolis? Both battles were a rout for Licinius, so maybe there just wasn't much to record. I know a low water crossing played an important part at Adrianople and that Licinius chose to meet Constantine on the field at Chrysopolis instead of staying inside the city. And the labarum scared Licinius a lot.
Would Constantine have fought on horseback? He was an accomplished horsemen, but perhaps it wasn't very safe for him. Not as safe as being on foot with your elite guard.
Panegyric IV (by Nazarius, given in Rome in March 321) describes Constantine leading the cavalry at both Turin and Milvian Bridge. He also appears as a cavalry commander in his battles against Licinius. Panegyric XII (Trier, 313) describes the emperor fighting in the front line during the night battle at Verona, apparently without anyone recognising him, which suggests he was on foot. The orator isn't happy about Constantine endangering himself! ("Does smiting an enemy become you, emperor?")
Incidentally, the complete panegyrics are online here - a fabulous resource!
Quote:Are there more detailed accounts of Adrianople and Chrysopolis?
Our main accounts of the Constantine/Licinius battles come from Zosimus, Eusebius (who provides few concrete details) and the anonymous Origo Constantini Imperatoris (Part 1 of the Excerpta Valesiana). Zosimus was writing in the 5th-6th century but drew on the 4th century writer Eunapius of Sardis, while the Origo is believed to date from c390. That the two accounts are contradictory is no surprise!
Here's Zosimus on Adrianople (AD324):
[Constantine] raised a force of a hundred and twenty thousand foot, and ten thousand horsemen and sailors... Advancing with his infantry from Thessalonica, he encamped on the bank of the river Hebrus, which runs to the left of Adrianople. At the same time, Licinius drew up his army in order of battle, extending from a mountain which is above the town two hundred stadia, as far as the junction of another river with the Hebrus; thus the armies continued opposite to each other for several days.
Constantine. observing where the river was least broad, concerted this plan. He ordered his men to bring trees from the mountain, and to tie ropes around them, as if he intended to throw a bridge over the river for the passage of his army. By this stratagem he deluded the enemy, and, ascending a hill on which were thick woods sufficient to conceal any that were in them, he planted there five thousand archers and eight hundred horse.
Having done this, he crossed the Hebrus at the narrowest place, and so surprised the enemy that many fled with all their speed, while others, who were amazed at his unexpected approach, were struck with wonder at his coming over so suddenly. In the meantime, the rest of his army crossed the river in security, and a great slaughter commenced. Nearly thirty thousand fell; and about sunset Constantine took their camp, while Licinius, with all the forces he could muster, hastened through Thrace to his ships. Zosimus, Historia Nova, II
All Zosimus's figures should be taken with a pinch of salt, imo! This is the much shorter account from the Origo:
Licinius... covered the slopes of high mountain near Hadrianopolis with a huge army. Hither Constantine turned his march with his entire force. While the war went on slowly by land and sea, although Constantine's army had great difficulty in scaling the heights, at last his good fortune and the discipline of his army prevailed, and he defeated the confused and disorganised army of Licinius; but Constantine was slightly wounded in the thigh. Then Licinius fled to Byzantium...
No mention of a river crossing, and in Zosimus no mention of scaling a mountain! In fact they are probably describing different battles - the one in the Origo sounds a little like Zosimus's description of the earlier battle of Cibalae, which was apparently fought on a hill. The Origo sets Cibalae on a plain instead, but gives a much lower figure for Constantine's army at the battle: 20,000 men to Licinius's 35,000.
Following the naval battle in the Hellespont, Chrysopolis gets a brief mention by both authors. Here's Zosimus:
A sharp engagement taking place between Chalcedon and the sacred promontory, Constantine had the superiority; for he fell on the enemy with such resolution, that of a hundred and thirty thousand men, scarcely thirty thousand escaped. When the Byzantines heard of this, they immediately threw open their gates to Constantine, as did the Chalcedonians also. Licinius after this defeat went to Nicomedia with what horse were left him, and a few thousands of foot.
And the Origo:
Then Licinius began a battle at Chrysopolis,being especially aided by the Gothic auxiliaries which their prince Alica had brought; whereupon the army of Constantine was victorious, slaying 25,000 soldiers of the opposing side and putting the rest to flight. Later, when they saw Constantine's legions coming in Liburnian galleys, the survivors threw down their arms and gave themselves up.
So both seem to agree about that one at least, although note the discrepancy in the numbers of enemy slain!... Eusebius of Pamphilia, in his Life of Constantine, provides a vague overview of the campaign, concentrating on the spiritual and miraculous aspects. The following anecdote (related by the emperor himself!) apparently took place during the Chrysopolis battle:
[Constantine] selected those of his bodyguard who were most distinguished for personal strength, valor, and piety, and entrusted them with the sole care and defense of the standard. There were thus no less than fifty men whose only duty was to surround and vigilantly defend the standard, which they carried each in turn on their shoulders. These circumstances were related to the writer of this narrative by the emperor himself in his leisure moments, long after the occurrence of the events: and he added another incident well worthy of being recorded.
For he said that once, during the very heat of an engagement, a sudden tumult and panic attacked his army, which threw the soldier who then bore the standard into an agony of fear, so that he handed it over to another, in order to secure his own escape from the battle. As soon, however, as his comrade had received it, and he had withdrawn, and resigned all charge of the standard, he was struck in the belly by a dart, which took his life.
Thus he paid the penalty of his cowardice and unfaithfulness, and lay dead on the spot: but the other, who had taken his place as the bearer of the salutary standard, found it to be the safeguard of his life. For though he was assailed by a continual shower of darts, the bearer remained unhurt, the staff of the standard receiving every weapon. It was indeed a truly marvelous circumstance, that the enemies’ darts all fell within and remained in the slender circumference of this spear, and thus saved the standard-bearer from death; so that none of those engaged in this service ever received a wound. (Eusebius Pamphilius, Life of Constantine, VIII-IX)
All these sources are online, and make for interesting reading:
The above answers are well-tempered and spot-on, particularly from Nathan and Michael. For the most part, cataphract armor and techniques developed through Roxolani Sarmatians, rather than from the Persians. Horses from 14 to 15 hh were the norm, but height was secondary to hardiness, maneuverability, and the ability to carry the extra weight of armor. The latter has intrigued me to the point that I have gathered and wear a complete cataphract's kit. Its weight, including sword and helmet, amounts to 75 pounds; and once downed to the ground, it's difficult to quickly upright yourself. I believe cataphracts had a second horse, perhaps bought with their own money, and these animals were probably expensive. Emperor Hadrian's prized mount was a Roxolani horse, Wudi the emperor of China referred to his Sarmatian stock as "Heavenly Horses." We are looking at steppe horses on "both sides of the fence," and I have yet to be convinced that Celtic breeds were ever developed as heavy horse.
But then again, I'm just the resident Barbarian ;-) mile:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Quote:It's maybe interesting that the orator of panegyric IV, describing the battle of Turin in AD312, contrasts the Constantinian armoured cavalry (cataphracts) with the Maxentian clibanarii.
I believe I know what makes you think this but, if I am right, it is based on a probable mistranslation in In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. As I read Nazarius' panegyric, only Maxentius had the heavily armoured cavalry known variously as clibanarii, catafracti or catafracti equites in his army.
Quote:I won’t buy into the Cataphracti and Clibanarii debate too much but I have always thought that catafractii were formed to attack infantry formations while Clibanarii on the other hand were for attacking cavalry formations.
This is Mielczarek's theory. It does not stand up to examination.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
I posted a photo of it four or five months ago on the Show Your Sarmatian Warrior Impression thread. The outfit is reasonably accurate except for the upper arm protection which actually came from a set of segmentata. I just wanted to be protected in a vulnerable area where a sword or arrow hit seemed plausible. Those two steel leaves should be replaced by two flexible rows of lamellar, but I need to find a craftsman to do it. :unsure:
Here is another pic from a different angle. This is early-- Roxolani-- as described by Tacitus.
PS: If you wear this armor for more than three hours, you sweat and feel like you're going to pass out. It's absolute Hell to wear and hangs heavier than a wagon-load of anvils. :dizzy:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Quote:...a probable mistranslation in In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. As I read Nazarius' panegyric, only Maxentius had the heavily armoured cavalry known variously as clibanarii, catafracti or catafracti equites in his army.
Crikey, you could be right!
It is a strange passage (IV,23.3). In the Nixon & Rodger translation: "You yourself [i.e. Constantine] take over the mailed cavalry, where the greatest strength of the opposing battle line lay. Their training for combat is to (etc)" But the subject of the second sentence is clearly the Maxentian clibanarii... so whose are the 'mailed cavalry'? The N & R footnote mentions 'Constantine's own cataphracti' - but are they?
The Latin is Catafractos equites, in quibus maximum steterat pugnae rubor, ipse tibi sumis. His disciplina pugnandi ut (etc)
This is a vital point for the understanding of the battle of Turin - did Constantine command his own cavalry (whether catafractos equites or not) at the centre of his line, opposing the Maxentian clibanarii? If he did not, then the clibanarii were charging at the infantry centre of Constantine's force, and it was the infantry who were armed with the clubs, as in Aurelian's battles, rather than the cavalry.
mile:
