cavaleria romana in zale

8/12/2019 Cavaleria Romana in Zale

1/19

The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry

John W. Eadie

The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2. (1967), pp. 161-173.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281967%2957%3A1%2F2%3C161%3ATDORMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

The Journal of Roman Studiesis currently published by Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sprs.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgSat Jan 12 14:15:07 2008
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281967%2957%3A1%2F2%3C161%3ATDORMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Bhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sprs.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sprs.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281967%2957%3A1%2F2%3C161%3ATDORMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B


2/19

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F R O M A N M A I L E D C AV ALR YBy JOHN W . EADIE

(Plates rx-XIT h e will ingness of the Rom ans to ado pt foreign mili tary practices and to m odify, andhereby strengthen , legionary org anization, equipment, a nd tactics is well-documented an dthas been discussed frequen tly by mo dern scholars . On e manifestation of this pragm aticapproac h, however, has not received the attention i t deserves-viz. their at tem pts duringthe E mp ire to develop an effective cavalry. I n this effort the R omans em ployed a varietyof cavalrymen an d cavalry tactics, bu t one of the most interesting an d certainly o ne of themo st end urin g products was th e mailed cavalry. T h e origin, development and success ofthis force-which became a prom inent branch of the Rom an army after the firs t centu ryA.D.-cannot be analysed withou t some reference to earlier exp erim ents with cavalryequipment an d tact ics in the Medi terranean area . T h e Romans did not invent the heavy-armoured horseman : on the contrary, the innovators were the Assyrians, whose mon um entsuniquely i l lustrate the evolution of cavalry technique in antiquity. l Delineation of theAssyrian developm ent is instructive, for they were required to solve many of the technicalan d tactical problem s which later confronted t he Rom ans. Mo reover, the tactics employedan d the cavalry types created by the Assyrians a re remarkably similar to the later Rom an.T o facili tate comparison of the Assyrian and Rom an experience, in the following assessmentthe equivalent Greek and Latin terminology has been su pplied for each phase in the Assyriandevelopment.

T h e introduction of regular cavalry into the A ssyrian army was effected by th e m iddleof the ninth century B.c., for sculptures at N ilnrud from the reign of Aggur-nasir-apli I1(883-859) depict unarmoured Assyrian moun ted archers, equipp ed with bow and sword,a t tacking enemy mounted archer^.^ T h e appearance of the enemy moun ted archers in thereliefs suggests that the A ssyrian l ight cavalry may have been created p rimarily to c omb atnomadic in va de rs 4. e . th e Assyrians simply responded in kind. Indeed , the Assyrianm o u nt ed a r ch er s ( ~ T I T T O T O @ T ~ Isag i t ta ~ia qz~i ta ta) esemble th e horsemen of the Steppes ,who, according to E. Darko, developed la tactique To uran ienn e '-a com bination ofski lled horsemanship and the ab il ity to use the bow e ffectively whi le m ~ u n t e d . ~echno-logically the Assyrian de velopm ent of cavalry equipm ent a nd tactics was not an unp aralleledinnovation : the nomadic m odel was near to hand and could be adopted. the domesticatedhorse was available through purchase or plunder, and exist ing infintry archers could betrained to fight on horseback. T h e effect of the transition fro m an a rm y of pedites to a nintegrated force was nonetheless revolutionary : against highly mobile archers the con-ventional inf antry ma n would be ne ither safe no r effective.T h e Assyr ian i.rr.rro-ro Crrq~was not, however, the ult imate weapon. Despite hissu~erior obil i tv the unprotected rider was st i l l vulnerable to attack from infantrv archers.Moreover, in encoun ters with other mounted archers-e.g. in the nom adic armies-theAssyrians would not enjoy any advantage. T hu s, to protect their mou nted archers and tomaintain tactical superiority the Assyrians introduced and gradually developed cavalryarmo ur. Evidence of this innovation is fou nd first in the sculptures of Tiglath-Pileser I11(745-727) from Nimrud, which depict a rider wearing a mail shirt constructed of metalplates sewn on to a tunic (pl . IX I .* T hi s part ial ly armoure d horsem an, whose only offensiveweapon was a pike ( the pr imary weapon of the la ter ~o v- ro ~b po l) ,as really a mountedinfantrym an, like the preceding i-rr-rro-ro b~q~. i th th e introduction of a hybrid cavalrymanin th e reign of Se nna che rib (705-681), whose arsenal included th e bow as well as th e pike,

S. P. Tolstov, Drevnij Choresnz (Moscow, 1948)- Byxant ion 18 (1948), 85 ff. : the nomadic riders,summarizedby R.Ghirshman, Artibus Asiae 16 (1953), engaged in the Parthian shot , see Budge, o.c., pl.209-37, 292-319 [my references are to this summary] xxrv ; T. Sulimirski, Revue internationale d histoirf-properly stresses the Assyrian influence. rnilitaire 3 ( I ~ s z ) , 50 ff . on the Parthian shotE. A W. Budge, Assyrian Sc~ilptzrres n the British see M. Rostovtzeff, A J A 47 (1943), 174 ff.Museum (London, 1914)~ ls. xv x x ~ v . R. D. Barnett and M. Falkner, T?ze Scu lpt ur es ofE. Darko, Byxant ion l o (1938), 443 ff also Tiglath-Pileser (London, 1962), pls. ~ I V LXVII.


3/19

62 JOHN W. EADIEa diversified. mobile. and oartiallv arm our ed offensive force-which wo uld be effectivefro m a distance or in 'ha nd -;o -h ad combat-had been achieved in Assyria (pl. I*, z . ~Cavalry equipment brought to l ight by excavations aroun d the Aral Sea, begun in th eI ~ ~ o ' s ,ndicates tha t similar experimentation w ith cavalry tactics and arm our was un der-taken simultaneously by the Massageto-Chora smian peoples of central Asia. Un fortun ately,neithe r the precise natu re of each phase in the deve lopm ent nor th e exact relationship of thisexperimentation to contemDorarv d ev el o~ m en ts lsewhere can be discerned in the archaeo-loiical record, bu t it is cle tha; a distin'ctive Chorasm ian cavalryman evolved by the sixthcentury B.C. According to S. P. T o ls tov and B. Rubin, this cavalryman was the prototypec a t a p h r a c t ( ~ c x - r a ~ p c c ~ ~ o ~r o m ~ c r r a ~ p a o a w ,o cover with mail): i.e. a partiallyarmoured rider, wearing a coat of mail and perhaps a metal helmet, on a horse whose headan d flanks were partially protected by m etal plate^.^ The offensive weapons of the Choras-mian cataohracts and the Assvrian hvbrid horseman were ident ical (bow and ~ i k e ) both\ Icould fire arrows from a distance and then charge with their pikes to engage infantry orcavalry at close quarters. T he y differed, however, in one major respect : the Assyrians, asfar as we know, did no t attem pt to protec t the horse as well as the rider.T o mili tary strategists the c ataphract may have seemed a desirable, even necessary,extension of Assyrian technique, but the additional weight imposed on horse and riderdoub tless created tactical difficulties. T o sup por t th e rider protected by heavy metalarm our a nd to permit mobili ty in b att le a strong, yet agile, horse was required. F. HanEarand others have argued that the requisite cavalry horse was first bred systematically inTuran-the portion of ST est ernAsia nor th of Iran-which Da rko considered th e originalhom e of th e mou nted arc her. According to HanEar (following V . Vitt), the physicalcharacteristics of these Turanian horses can be discerned in the sixty-nine Pazyryk horses,completely preserved in solid ice, discovered in the Altai M ountains on th e E astern borderof Tu ra n. T h e largest of the Pazyryk horses (148-150 cm . in height) must have been quitepowerful : long, high neck ; narrow forehead ; short , s turdy trunk ; solid knees with well-developed joints. Th es e horses obviously would be suitable for cavalry warfare an d couldsup por t a heavy-armou red rider. W het her the Pazyryk horse reflects precisely th e physicalcharacteristics of the earlier Turanian horse, however, cannot be decided ; f rom theevidence we may conclude only that a superior cavalry horse was available in T ur an at leastby th e fifth century B.C . (wh en some of th e Pazyryk horses were deposited ).T h e Tur anian horse or one of i ts descendants probably was known to the Assyrians.Ind ee d, an extraordinarily powerful specimen depic ted on the reliefs of Tiglath-Pileser III-muscular body ; small head ; flowing mane and tail ; rather th in legs, but stro ng knees-isremarkably similar to the Pazyryk horse (see pl. IX 2). From whom and by what methodsthe Assyrians acquired the larger cavalry horse cannot be determined, but it is quite cleartha t thev had secured suitable m ounts for their heavv-armoured cavalrv and thus were ableto so1ve;he problems of th e we ight/po wer ratio by the middle of the ei ih th centu ry B.C. Atabout the same time (certainly by the sixth century) the Chorasmians, who inhabited thewestern e xtrem ity of Tu ra n, also mu st have obtained large cavalry horses.Th at the armoured cavalryman needed both a saddle and s t i rrups for maxi~~zz~nzstability and effectiveness is undeniable. I t is equally clear, however, that an cient armo uredhorsemen could and did participate i n major battles witho ut the benefit of either a saddle orstirrup s. T h e saddle doubtless would have contributed to the rider's manoeuvrabili ty inbattle, but an expert horseman, even if he wore protective armour, could maintain hisbalance by gripping the reins firmly and by th e constan t application of knee-pressure t o the

S. Smith, Assyr ian Scu lp ture s i n t he Br i t i sh description of the Pazyryk horses see 366 ff. and1Wuseunz (London, 1938),pls. xxx~x , LIII ,LVI. pl. XII From this horse the Median horses describedTolstov, loc. cit. ; B. Rubin, Historia 4 1955), by Hdt. 3, 106 and Strabo 11, 13,7 525) and the264-83. This definition of cataphract is derived from heavenly horses of Ferghana may have beenthe first descriptions of Massagetae mailed horsemen descended W. Ridgeway, T he Origin and InjZnencein Hdt. I 215and Strabo 11, 8,6; cf. Polyb. 30,25,9. of the Thoroughbred Horse (Cambridge, 1905), 92 f . ;As we shall see, however, the word cataphract was W W. Tarn, Hel lenistic Mi l i tar y and Na oa l Develop-later applied to cavalrymen who were not outfitted in ments (Cambridge, 1930),7 8 ff. ; Rubin, O.C. (n. 6),the Chorasmian manner. 268-9 ; A.Waley, H i s t o ry T o d a y 5,no. (February, F. HanEar, Da s Pferd i n prahistorischer und 19.551, 5 fffri iher historischer Zei t Wie ner Beitrage zrlr Ku ltz ~ r- Barnett-Falkner, O.C. (n. 4),pi. LXVII.geschichte und Linguistik, X I [I~ss]),55 ff. ; for a


4/19

163HE DEVELOPMENT OF R OMAN MAILED C AVALR Yhorse's flanks. T h e Assyrian horseman-who are depicted ridin g bareback or sitting on asaddle-cloth-probably employed this compensatory tech niqu eag Similarly, the d evelopm entof the Assyrian/Chorasmian cavalry equipment and tactics demonstrab ly was not precludedor necessari ly im peded by lack of s t irrups, wh ich were no t in use any where before the firs tcentury A D I O In short , the technological capabil i t ies of the Assyrians and Chorasmianswere sufficient to perm it th e grad ual refinement of cavalry eq uipm ent an d techniques.The mili tary significance of these innovations was both immediate and enduring, forthe complementary efforts of the Assyrians and Chorasmians to master cavalry warfare-necessitated by the presence of nom adic cavalry on their borders-initiated a variety ofcavalry types w hich served as models for subsequen t cavalry experimentation in the East .By the thi rd century B.C. most of the eastern armies included units of light cavalry(inno-rot6-rat), bu t relatively few states in the East o r W est at tem pted to imitate the Assyrianan d Cho rasmian experiments with mailed cavalry. ll I t is especially notew orthy, therefore,that the Romans, who relied primarily on legionary pedites during the Republic, began inthe early Emp ire to exp erimen t with cavalry equ ipm ent an d tactics and finally created unitsof mailed cavalry quite s imilar to the Assyrian and Cho rasmian mo dels.

Isolated from eastern mili tary developments in the early Republic, the Romans werenot challenged by mailed cavalry until their war with Antiochus 111. Despi te thei rinexperience, the Romans in the batt le at Magnesia were neither awed nor overwhelmedby Antiochu s' 3,000 cataphracts-on th e con trary, th e catap hrac ts proved ineffective againstthe legions.12 T h at the R omans would quickly ado pt the eq uipm ent and tactics of theirdefeated oppo nents, therefore, seems most unlikely. Yet, in the early second century(following Magnesia ? the Roman cavalry was thoroug hly remodelled. According toPolybius (6, 25, 3), writing ca. 150 B.c . the Roman cavalry of his day differed frompredecessors in equipment and apparently in tactics : 6 6; ~aeonrrhlopbsTGV inniwv VGVpiv Eo-rt napanAfioto~rQ TGV Ehhfivwv. TO 6; naAatbv -rrpG~ov% & p a ~ a ~ ~ i x o v ,&Ah' Evi r ~-rr&pt7 paotv ~~tv6irv~uov.. &/loreover, he points ou t th at the Rom ans had recentlyadopted Greek lances (66pcrra = Izastae) an d shields. Qu ite clearly, th e prim ary influencehere was Greek ; the renovation probably was not s t imulated by Roman contact withSyrian cataphracts in 189. Indeed, Polybius seems to describe heavy cavalry not unlikeAlexander's Companions, who wore a leather cuirass and carried as their offensive weapona sho rt thru sting spear (xyston).13 As the hasta certainly resembles the xyston in pu rpose,if no t in size, we may infer tha t the tactics employed by Alexander's Com panion s and thenew Rom an cavalry were qui te s imilar. W hether the Rom an %& pat ,on the other hand , wascon structe d of leather or metal is no t clear. I;.W. Walbank has sugges ted th at this %& patmay be the chain-mail breast-plate (lorica hamata) worn by the first class (pedites : see6,2 3, IS) , perhaps over a leather jerkin . I 4 T h e evidence, in my judgmen t, is not conclusive.Ind eed , that the two breastplates may no t have been identical is suggested by th e use of th eadjective d i h u o t 6 a ~ 6 ~n 6, 23, 15, which do es no t appear in 6, 25 (%&p atalone).Unfortunate ly we do not know whether the Romans a t this t ime possessed horsessuitab le for mailed cavalry warfare. O ur first secu re piece of informa tion regarding t h eOn tjle intryduction of the saddle see W. C y r . 6, 4 I ; 7 I, 2 and Darius (Curtius RufusGunther, Sattel , Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte I I 3, 11, 5 ; 4, , ).(1927-8 , 213. l According to Livy (35, 8, 3)Antiochus armyStirrups of the first century A D in Southern included equitem innumerabilem . . partimRussia : E. H . Minns, Sc y th ians and Gre e k s (Cam- loricatos, quos cataphractos vocant? partim sagittis exbridge, 1913), 50 f. ; M.Rostovtzeff, Iranians and equo utentes et, a quo nihil satls tecti sit, aversoGreeks in Sonthern Russia (Oxford, 1922), 17.1, 130, refugientes equo certius figentes . On the cataphractspl. xxrx ; A D . H. Bivar, Orietztal Ar t n. s. I (1955)~ at Magnesia see Livy 37, 42, ; these units were also61 ,v ~ h oejects the first century B.C. date assigned by used by Antiochus IV, cp. Polyb. 30,25,9.Minns and Rostovtzeff. Han Dynasty stirrup : lS On the Companions see Tarn, O C (n. 7), 71 f.Bivar 62. Indian big toe strap : R. Lefebvre des l F. W. Walbank, A Historical Coninzentary onNoettes, L A t t e lage : le cheval de selle ci travers les Polybius, (Oxford, 1957), 08. For other references6ges (Paris 1931,)~31,pls. 261, 263. to worn cavalry Xenophon,h p u ~ ~ ~ by see C y r .

l1 The Persians evidently were especially fond of 8, 8,22 ; Pausanias I, 1,6 (not metal) ; S u d a , s. v.cataphracts, which were employed in the armies of hpa t = ; Julian, O r . I 37 C-D.Xerxes (Hdt . 7, 84),Cyrus (Xenophon, A n a b . I, 8,7 ; 7rrian fr.


5/19

64 JOHN W. E DIEsup ply of Rom an cavalry horses is contained in G ermanicus complaint that Gau l had beenexhausted by supplying horses (Tacitus, Ann. 2, 5 . Fro m this we may infer that in A.D. 16Gaul was a principal western source of cavalry horses, but it is not at all certain that theseGallic horses were sufficiently large to accom mod ate mailed riders.15 T hu s, th e relationshipbetween horse-supply and cavalry development during the Republic cannot be delineatedsatisfactorilv.T h e second recorded Rom an encounter with eastern cataphracts, near Tigra nocerta on6 October 69 B.c., demonstrated once again the ineffectiveness of these troops against thelegions.16 Som e scholars have argued, however, that catap hract tactics were vindicatedfifteen years later at Carrhae.17 Of the ancient com men tators on the battle of Carr hae onlyPluta rch (Crassus 24-25) an d Dio C assius (4 0,2 2 f f . describe the arm ame nt and tactics of theParthian mailed cavalry. Plutarch, who provides m uch more detail than D io, says that theParthian cavalrymen wore steel helmets and breastplates -roc Mapy~avoGo~F.fipov) ndwere equipped with the K O V T ~ S(long pike) ; their horses were clad in bronze and steelplates.18 T h e Parthians, therefore , employed mailed cavalry similar to th e Chorasm ianprototype.T h e role of th e cataphrac ts in the battle-which was fou ght on a wide, level plain,ideally suited for cavalry manoeuvres-has bee n variously assessed, bu t I doubt that theywere decisive. Certainly the battle turne d on the cavalry engagem ent, bu t this was lost bythe Roman response to the Parthian ruse and the subsequent tactical errors of Publius.Defeated in the init ial skirmish, Publius chose l imited withdrawal rather than fl ight andunwisely took up an indefensible posit ion, where the Romans were vulnerable to frontalassault and were completely exposed to Parthian m ounted archers. l9 It was here, and notin the initial skirmish, that the Rom ans were annihilated. While the Parthian charge fonddescribed bv Dio mav have been effective. there is no reason to believe that the Romanscould have iesisted inhefinitely an attack bi ar ch er s. I n short , the Parthian feint and R oma nmistakes, not the technological superiority or tactics of Parthian cataphracts, defeatedthe Romans. 2T h e disaster at Carrha e served to demonstrate, however, the vulnerability of t he legionsto cavalry attack and th e necessity of stren gthe ning th e Ro ma n cavalry, which ha d beenneglected since the mili tary reforms of M arius. I n response to the cavalry threat, JuliusCaesar a few years before the battle of Carrhae had added Gallic and German equites,together with Cretan and Numidian archers (sagittarii), to his legions in Gaul ; in th e CivilWar he introduced mixed units of equites and antesignani (dite infantrymen), which wereemployed against Pomp eius cavalry.21 Caesar s successors, however, evidently aba ndo nedth e antesignani and relied exclusively on auxiliary equites to repel cavalry attack. Do ubtle ssamong military strategists the invincibility of the legions remained an article of faith-a dogma which precluded for some time the establishment of a regular R oma n cavalry. T hi s

l 5 Cf. Haniiar, O C (n. 7 ), 370 ff. lo The i-ir.rro-ro@~ai evidently operated in conjunc-l6 Plutarch, Lu c . 26, 6 ; 28, 1-7 ;Appian, M i t h . 85 tion with the cataphracts : Dio 40, 15, 2 ; Plutarch,

(which is identical with Plutarch, except that cata- Crassus 25, 4-5. Gabba, in fact , suggests (o.c.,phracts are never mentioned) ; cf. Sallust, His t . frs. n . 16, 67) that the cataphracts could not fight effect-64-66 ; Eutropius 6, 9 ; Festus, B r ev . 15 ; com- ively without the support of mounted archers.mentary by J. van Ooteghem, L . Licinius L ucullus 2 Tarn, O.C. (n. 7 ), 89 ff., believed that the battleMLmoires Acad . Roy ale de Belgique 33, fasc. 4 [1959]), was won by the Parthian mounted archers, whose117 ff. Sallust (fr. 65) says that the horses, as well as reserve supply of arrows was carried by a specialthe riders, were armoured. Eutropius and Festus , em- camel corps. Th e best modern commentary on theploying contemporary terminology, refer to the battle is still A . Garzetti, NI Licinio Crasso,'Armenian mailed horsemen as clibanarii. On the Athenaeunz n.s. 22-23 (1944-5), 45 ff. Gabba, O.C.tactics employed at Tigranocerta see now E. Gabba, (n. 16), 53 ff., 62 ff., 73, argues that the dCb cle atSulle influenze reciproche degli ordinamenti militari Carrhae stimulated un aggiornamento del sistemadei Parti e dei Romani,' in L a Persia e il mondo Greco- romano di combattimento (p. 69).Romano (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 2 Gallic cavalry : B G I, 42, 5 ; B A f r . , 6, 3.1965), 51-73. Professor Gabba's approach to the Germans : B G 7, 13, 1-2 ; 7, 65, 4-5. Sagzttarii :subject of mailed cavalry and his conclusions differ B G z, 7, 1-2. Antesigtzami B C 3, 75, 5 ; 3 84, 3 ;from those enunciated in this paper and will be noted. cp. B G 5, 16-17 antesignani (? )agalnst chariots andl7 For example, Rubin, O.C. n. 6), 273 ff . British cavalry) ; A. von Domaszewski, R E IBut cf. Dio 40, 15, 2 who refers to iv-rroso56sai (1894), 2355-6; E. Sander, Hist . Zeitschr. 179and ~ o v ~ o q b p o ~ , (i.e. for the most (1955), 275 ff. ; M. J. V. Bell, Historia 14 (1965),h wohhh K ~ T U ~ ~ ~ K T O Ipart armoured). Dio may have been thinking of 411 ff .contemporary Roman ~ o v ~ o q 6 p o i contarii or cata-phractarii, who did not ride armoured horses.


6/19

165H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F ROMAN M AILED C AVALR Yresistance to change was not a fatal error, however, for effective cavalry units could berecruited as needed from the provinces. I n fact, this dependence upon n on-Italians and evennon-Westerners was inadvertently a positive advantage : through the enlistment of equitesequipped w ith superior weapons and trained in novel tactics the R oman ar my became m oreflexible. Su ch diversification was essential if the Rom ans were to meet th e acceleratingpressu res on th e frontiers-a menace significantly intensified by th e arrival of th eSarmatians.Driven from their home between th e D on a nd Dnieper in the fourth century , theSarmatian tribes began their long migration to the w est and by t he beginning of the firstcentury B.C. reached the D a n ~ b e .~ " n th is region the Sarmat ians soon acquired a reputat ionas expert cavalrymen, a talent celebrated in monuments and tumuli of the migrationpe ri ~d .~ "n part , their mili tary success may be attribute d to improved weapons-e.g. th ebow reinforced with bone inlay, introduced by the Huns ; the heavy lance, which R omanwriters freque ntly deno mina te contus Sarmaticz~s.24 But Sarm atian cavalry proficiency wasnot unique among the peoples of the Steppes-their perfection of cavalry equipm ent andtechn iques was facilitated b y com mo n nomad ic heritage of violence, migration, an d necessaryimprovization. O n the other hand, the Sarma tian development of heavy cavalry, which theScythians and other steppe peoples did not have, probably was stimulated specifically bytheir contact with Chorasm ian cataphract tactics-i .e. wh en the Chorasmians overran th eSarmat ian terr i tory in the fourth century B . c . ~T h e fi rs t recorded encounter between Rome and th e Sarmat ian tr ibes occurred in88 B.c . bu t a decisive confr ontatio n was delayed for mo re tha n a century-during whic hperiod pressure on the Moesian frontier was relentless, undeterred by Roman punitiveexpeditions. T h e threat was realized late in the reign of Ner o with the arrival of a newSarma tian tribe, the Roxolani, who sett led in t he D anub ian region and conducted raids intoMoesia in A.D. 62 and again in 69.26 Th e Rom an response to this latter incursion is describedby Tac itus (Hist . I , 79), who records that the legio Gallica annihilated the Sarmatiansand drove them into the marshes. I n his account of the batt le, or rather th e rout, we haveth e first reference to the distinctive defensive arm our w orn b y some, if not all, of the 9,000Roxolani horsemen-' tegim en [probably a long coat], ferreis lamm inis au t praed uro corioconsertum '. T he ir offensive weapons w ere th e sword and pike (co?ztus),and w ith favourableweather conditions and on level gro und T aci tus considered their tactics, ap paren tly charge dfond dangerously effective ' ubi per turmas advenere, vix ulla acies obstiterat '. T h eSarmatian defeat is attributed by Tacitus to the ' saevitia hiemis ', but he does recognizetwo intrinsic weaknesses of their mailed cavalry ( I ) wh en the rider was throw n from hishorse the weight of the a rmo ur rendered him defenceless, and (2) failure to carry a shieldmade th e rider especially vulnerable in hand-to-h and fighting. As these liabilities obtain edirrespective of weather conditions, one may question Tac itus' favourab le judgm ent ofSarm atian effectiveness.2 7Xonetheless, Roman respect for their adversaries was justified, for Sarmatian raidsincreased in intensity and frequen cy after A.D. 69. T h e Sarmatians, of course, were not theonly restive tribe in t he Da nubia n region ; the Dacians also coveted Roman terri tory andfrom time to t ime threatened to detach Moesia from the Emp ire. T hu s, the all iance ofSarmatians and Dacians, roba ably effected in the reign of D omitia n, constitute d a clear andpresent danger to Roman control of Moesia. T h e Romans responded quickly and, after aseries of reverses, Dom itian personally took charge of Roma n troops in the area. H is

" On the Sarmatae in general see J. Harmatta, " Sulimirski, O.C. n. 22), 289 ff .Studies on the History o f t i le Sarinatians (Budapest, " Raid (migration ?) of 62 : ILS 986 ; of 69 :1950) ; ,T . Sulimirski, 'T he Forgotten Sarmatians ', Tacitus, f i i s t . I, 79 ; another raid across the Danubein Van~slzed Civrl i rat ions ed. E . Bacon (London, in 70 is reported by Josephus, By 7,4 , 3.1963),~79-98. " Strabo's estimate (7, 3, 17) of the Rosolani-

3 Eor example in the Bosporan kingdom that they were ineffective against a well-ordered andSulimirski, ibid. 284 (pl. g), 289 Rostovtzeff, O.C. well-armed phalanx-and Pausanias' remarks (I, 21,(n. IO), 121, 130, pl. XXIX 5-6) regarding the Taupowxr~~bs@ pa: (supposedly Bow : Sulimirski, O.C. (n. 22), 291 ; but cf. made from mares' hoofs) are, however, misleading :W. McLeod, Phoenix 19 (1965), 2 ff. C o n t us S a n n n - see Harmatta, O.C. (n. 22), 48.t icus Valerius Flaccus 6, 161-2, 256-8 ; Statius,Arlzill 2, 132-4 ; Sllius Italicus, Punica 5, 683-5 ;on these see R Syme, Q 23 (1929), 129 ff.


7/19

66 JOHN W. EADIEpresence did not ensure success. Not even perfunctory praise by Roman poets couldobscure his failure-the campaign ended not in a resounding Roman victory but with thepurchase of peace and fu ture protection from th e D acians and their allies.2sT o a t t r ibu te th i s and o ther Roman ' defeats to the superiority of Sarmatian or Daciancavalry would be an oversimplification-inter alia topogra phy, the skill of barb arian archers,Rom an mistakes, and accident also contributed. Yet the S armatians and Dacians did revealonce again a basic weakness in th e Rom an army-their inade quate cavalry. U nd er th eFlavians military strategists attemp ted t o rem edy this deficiency ; the introduction of unitsof sagittaria equitata is one ma nifestation of their con cern.Auxiliary archers (sagittarii), probably commanded by native chiefs, were enrolled inthe Rom an arm y after the Second Pu nic Wa r and were used increasingly in the late Republicand early Empire. M ounte d archers, on the other hand, appear first in the period of thecivil wars, when 2 Syria n i-rr-rro-r0


8/19

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROM N MAILED CAVALRY 67end of Trajan s Dacian campaigns.32 O ne feature of the T ropa eum , however, has no t beenexplained satisfactorily-the depiction thro ug hou t the mo nu me nt of arm oured Rom an orauxiliary eqz~ites, itherto n ot fo und in th e R om an army.I n m etopes I an d 2, for example, each of th e eqz~ites, ppar ently protected by a mail coatextending to the thighs, carries a long pike, probably a contus, in his right hand (at rest,parallel with th e ground) and w ith his left arm supp orts an oblong shield, which is attachedby a shoulder s t rap (p l . x , I ) . I n metope 4 another of these cavalrymen is seen in actionagainst Dacian infantrymen-with th e pike, raised and directed by his right hand, he isabout to eliminate an unresisting, prostrate opponent.33 His weapon (contus) and tacticsclearly resemble those regularly associated with the contarii, but should we conclude thatthe Trop aeu m figures represent units of mailed contarii introduced by Tra jan T o re-construct events or to identify weapons from artistic evidence alone is always dangerous.In this instance we cannot preclude the possibility that the coats of mail are the result ofartistic misconception or invention. Ind ee d, the fact tha t both equites and pedites wearidentical armour suggests that the artist or art ists at the outset employed conventionaldistinctions-i.e. the Rom ans uniformly wear arm our, their Dacian oppo nents do not. T h eviewer, therefore, would be able to distinguish at a glance the pow erful, victorious Rom ansand their defenceless, defeated oppon ents. As the T rop aeu m probably was intended notonly to comm emorate for ever the victory of T raja n bu t also to serve as a reminde r to localresidents of the continuing Roman presence, such an artistic convention, obviously notnecessarily accurate, may well have been e mployed. I t is entirely possible, therefore, th atthese figures are no t wh at the y seem to be-i.e. mailed contarii.This observation is strengthened somewhat by the fact that members of ala I Ulpiacontariorz~mmiliaria, the only unit of contarii definitely created by Trajan, evidently weren o t a r m ~ u r e d . ~ ~hether the Tropaeum contarii were members of this ala, however,simply cannot be decided. M ore important is the suppo rt provided b y Arrian (Tactica 4),who confirms the existence of contarii unde r Hadrian, bu t does not indicate that they werearm oured . Adm ittedly, neither of these bits of information proves conclusively that theTro paeu m figures are merely unarmoured contarii . O n the other hand, in view of Arrian stestimony, the absence of corroborative data, and possible inaccuracies of the T ro pa eu mitself, i t is equally clear that the m etopes of th e T rop aeu m cannot be adduced as indisputableevidence that mailed cavalry were introduced into the Roman army by T rajan.T h e principal credit for this major cavalry innovation m ust be assigned to H adrian, whocreated th e first regular un it of auxiliary mailed cavalry, the a la I Gallorum et Pannoniorz~mcatafractata (C IL XI,5632). Unf ortuna tely, information regarding the organization and em -ployment of this ala is meagre : it may have been formed by com bining two existing alae, IClaz~diaGallorum a nd I Pannoniorum, w hich were stationed in Moesia in A.D. 99 and 105 re-spectively and evidently disappeared there after ; unde r H adrian i t was comman ded for a t imeby M . h laenius Agrippa (C IL X I, 5632) ; under Antoninus Pius members of this ala upondischarge were granted civ itas (CIL 111, Diploma X L I V ) . ~ ~ven less clear is the precisemeaning of catafractata-how were the mem bers of this ala armoured Som e haveassumed that they were outfit ted l ike the mailed horsemen on Traja n s Column-i.e. bo thriders and horses were encased in lorica plumata (only the face and fingers of the rider andthe ta il , nost r ils , and eyes of the horse remain unprotected-pl. x , z ) . ~ ~hi s assumption, inmy judgment, is neither provable nor probable. T h e identity of the Column horsem en, a

z G. G. Tocilescu, Das M onut?tent von A dam klissi, in the relief above the inscription an unarmouredTrwaeunz Traiani (Vienna, 1895) ; G. Charles- contarius, presumably the deceased, is depicted. I tPicard, Le s Troph des ronzains (BibliothBqu e des dcoles is not clear whether members of ala Longiniana,fran ~ai ses d AthPnes et de Rom e, fasc. 187, 1957), which was stationed in Germania inferior, were391 ff., with a useful bibliography of the controversy, armoured : E. Espkrandieu, Recueil gdndral des bas-391, n . I ; F. B. Florescu, 1Vlonumentztl de la reliefs, statues, et bustes de la Ga ule romaine VIII (rgzz),Adamklissi , Tropaeum Traiani (Bucharest, 1961), in 6292 = CIL XIII,8095 ; cf. 6282,6289 ; C. CichoriusRumanian, with a very brief French summary S.V. ala , RE I (1884), 1250.appended. All three accept the Trajanic date. 5 Cichorius, ibid. 1245-6. Gabba, O.C. (n. 16),Cf. metope 6. 67, suggests that this ala may have been created at theUnits of ala Ulpia : CIL 111, 4183, 4278, time of Trajan s Parthian war-but the evidence, in4341 4359-4362 4369 4370 4378 4379 ; ~111,2162o. my judgment, is not conclusive.Th at members of this ala were not armoured IS On the mailed figures of the Column seeindicated by the stele of Tu r(?) Martinus at Arbal C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs dev Trajanssaule (Berlin,(CIL VIII,9291 ; see Daremberg-Saglio, loc. cit.) : 1896) I, pls. xx x~ , xxvrr ; 11 14, 150 ff., 179 ff.


9/19

I 68 JOHN W. EADIEpro ble m which has long exercised scholars' im aginations, does not concern us here. I t willsuffice merely to po int o ut tha t these horsem en are not Roma ns or R oma n auxiliaries-they,in fact, a re pursu ed across th e scenes (xxxi, xxxvii) by unarm oured auxiliary cavalry-andthu s are not connected in any way with the ala catafvactata. Moreover, although it is truethat the Romans in the past had adopted foreign equipment and techniques without hesi-tation and m ay well have been impressed, even awed, by enemy armo ured cavalry, there isno compelling reason to believe that the Column horsemen (whose authenticity may bedoubted) influenced R oman cavalry development or th at bo th riders and horses in the al acatafractata were completely armoured. O n the contrary, this ala may have been simply auni t of mailed contarii , the product of gradual experim entation within th e Ro man mili tarysystem. 'I'his much is certain : und er H adr ian a t least one uni t of m ailed cavalry wasintroduced into the Roman army-a tribute bo th to the success of barbarian mili taryingenuity and to the Roman capacity, augmented since the reign of V espasian, for relevantcavalry innovation.

After Anton inus Pius' gran t of civitas to mem bers of th e ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorumwe hear nothing furthe r of Rom an alae catafvactatae or ca taphractariiuntil the third century.37I n view of previous cavalry development a nd the ado ption of mailed cavalry by Had rian th isdisappearance is rather surprising. T he re is one piece of evidence, however, which indicatestha t mailed horsemen sti l l fought for Rome unde r M arcu s Aurelius. Th rou gh out the reliefsof the Column of Marcus Aurelius Roman equites, equipped with pikes, are depictedw earing coats of m ail (p l. X I, I ) . ~ ~ A s t hi significantly, not one of th e horses is armo ured.monument purportedly depicts the personnel involved in major campaigns of MarcusAurelius (A.D. 172-175), we may infer that the contemporary Roman cavalry includedmailed, but not totally armoured, units . T h e Romans may have called these units alaecataphractatae or cataph~*actarii , ut they evidently w ere no t arm oured like the earlierCho rasm ian, Syrian, and Arm enian cataphracts-they were in fact mailed contarii. I n sho rt,the Romans a dopted the vocabulary of eastern cataphract warfare, bu t modified the armourto meet Roman requirements.That the cavalry became a prominent, even predominant, part of the Roman army inth e third c entury is well known. T h e chief architect of th e new cavalry corps evidently wasGallienus, who created a highly mobile force wh ich could ma tch m ost of the tactics employedby Rom e's enem ies. Com prising the nucleus of this augmen ted cavalry were the equitesDalmatae, an Clite force of unarmoured horsemen, whose military prowess was universallyadm ired by later writers. T h e equites Dalmatae, however, did not entirely displace th emailed cavalry-on the contrary, the number of cataphractarii apparently increased. T h efollowing units, attested by several inscriptions, were in service during the late third andfourth centuries : eqz~ites ata fr ac ta ~i i ictavenses ; eqzdites catafractarii Ambianenses ; an dseveral nunze~i a tafra ctar ior z~m .~~ n three of the s te lae CIL XI II, 3493, 3495, 6238)dedicated to members of these cataphract units , the cavalry uniform and equipment wornby the deceased are depicted : in none of these reliefs does the equestrian wear full-scalearm our or ride an armoured horse. Inde ed, the horseman of CILXIII,6238 is identical with

Of the third-century units the first, and perhaps 78-9 (LXIII), 9 (LXXIX),1 (XCII),11s (XCIX),128best lmown, is the ala nova firma rniliauia cata- (CVII); see also G. Becatti, Colonn a di ,?Iarco Aur eliofractaria I hilippia~aa, which was recruited in the (Milan, 1957),, figs. 27, 33, 46, 49, 57.eastern provinces in A D 234, was transferred to the 9 On Gallienus' reform and the equites Dalma tae :west under Maximinus and participated in campaigns Cedrenos I, p. 494 (Bonn) ; R . Grosse, Romischeagainst the Alamanni and Germans (235-6), and 1Militci rgeschichte (Berlin, ~ gz o) , 5ff . ; A. Alfoldi,remained in service during the reign of Philip the C A N XII, 16 ff .Arab : C I L 111, 99 = I L S 2771 ; 111, 10307= I L S 4 Pictavenses : C I L 111, 14406a ; Ambiunenses2540 ; XII I, 7323 ; Cichorius, O.C.(n. 34), 1236. (the name is supplied by the Noti t ia Digni tat trm)According to Herodian 8, I , 3, Maximinus re-entered C I L XIII,3493 EspCrandieu, O.C. (n . 34), V, 3941, ;Italy with several units ( turmae? alae?)of cataphracts C I L XIII,3495 = EspCrandieu v, 3940 ; numerr :-ai~r vK C T T ~ ? O & K T W V ~TTTTBWVIA~I-whichought in con- Not i z i e degli Sca v i (189o), 343, nr. 9 = D. Hoffmann,junction with Mauretanian archers. Museum Iie lvet icum 2 (1963), 29 ; C I L v, 6784 ;

8 C. Caprino et al., L a Colonna d i Marco Az~re lio XIII,1848 ; XIII,6238 = Esperandieu VII I, 044 ; on(Rome, 1955) : from the campaign of 172-3, fig. 56 ~zumer iin general see H. T. Rowell, nurnerus,' RE(XLIV); from the campaign of 174-5, figs. 72 (LVII), 17, 2 (1 93 7) ~1327 ff., 2538 ff.


10/19

RS ol. LVII 1967) PLATE IX

I ) N IMR U D , S W . P A LA C E : ASSYRIAN CAVALRY OF TIGLATH-PILESER 111 745-727 B.c. PURSUING A URARTIAN I).2) QUYUNJIG, SW. PALACE MOUNTED BODYGUARD OF SENNACHERIB 705-681 B.c.), HYBRID CAVALRYMEN seepp. 1 6 1 f.)

Photographs by courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum Copyright reserved


11/19

JRS ol. LVII 1967) PL TE X

I) ADAMKLISSI, TROPAEUM TRAIANI CONTARIUS IN TRAJAN'S ARMY,MGTOPE I. 2)ROME, TRAJAN'S COLUMNMAILED HORSEMEN PURSUED BY ROMAN AUXILIARY CAVALRY see pp. 167 f.)

Photographs reproducedfrom I) F. B. Florescu, Monumental de la Admklissi, jig. 132, 2)C.Cichorius, DieRelL s der Trq(21anss6~le,1. xxmii. Copyright reserved


12/19

JRS vol. LVII 1967) PLATE XI

I ) ROME, COL UMN OF MARCUS AURELIUS ROM AN CATAPHRACTARII . 2) DURA-EUROPUS GRAFFITO SHOW INGSASSANIAN CLIBANARIUS CHARGING Se e pp. 1 6 8 , I70Photographs ( I ) by courtesy of Editoriale D omus, Mila n 2) rom R . Ghirshman, ran , Parthians and Sassanians,pl . 636. Copyright reserved


13/19

169HE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN MAILED CAVALRYthe mailed contarii on the Column of Marcus Aurelius-i.e. he wears only a coat of mail andcarries a contus in his right hand. Thus , we have additional evidence that Roman cataphrac-tarii, even in the third and fourth centuries, were simply mailed contarii.Almost all of the units of cataphractarii mentioned in the Notitia Dignitaturn, a docu-ment notoriously difficult to date and assess, are otherwise unknown-the exceptions willbe noted-and it is usually impossible, therefore, to relate them to the units listed above

Orientis : 5, 34 equites catafractarii Biturigenses-comitatenses6, 35 equites catafractarii-comitatenses6, 36 equites catafractarii Ambianenses-comitatenses418, 29 equites cutafractarii Albigenses-comitatenses3I 52 ala prima Iovia catafractariorum, Pampane (under dux Thebaidos; probablycreated bv Di o~ le ti an \~ ~39, 16 cuneus equitu catafractariorum, Arubio (under dux Scythiae;cf. Amm. Marc.28, 5, 6)43Occidentis : 7, 200 equites catafractarii iuniores (under comes B~itanniae)~~40, 21 praefectus equitum catafractariorum, Morbio (under dux Britanniae)The concentration of these units in the east differs markedly from the earlier pattern ofdistribution in the western provinces and probably reflects a policy revision of the fourthcentury-perhaps in response to the challenge of Persian cavalry.T h e following tabulation of extant evidence will illustrate how little we know regardingthe origin and service records of the cataphractarii

Unit Home of known personnel Service recordala Gallorum et Pannoniorumcatafractatae Italy RIoesia inferioralu nova catafractaria Philippians MesopotamiaOsrhoene Eastern province(s)Germania superiorPannonia inferiorArabiaequites catafractarii Pictaoenses Dacia Macedoniaequites cataphractarii AmbianensesNumeri catafractariorum (I)

2)(3)(4)

Belgica BelgicaGallia CisalpinaGallia CisalpinaGallia Lugdunensis (Cisalpina?)Germania superiorThat cataphracts were recruited from both western and eastern provinces is noteworthy-an indication that the eastern monopoly of cataphract warfare gradually was eliminatedwithin the Roman army.45 On the other hand, the service records of the various units,admittedly incomplete, do not provide a consistent picture of cataphract activity. Someuni ts certainly served on strategic frontiers-e.g. Germania superior, Moesia inferior-butothers evidently were stationed in provinces well back from the lirnites-e.g. Macedonia,Gallia Cisalpina. We cannot assume, therefore, that the cataphractarii served exclusivelyin the most critical areas.The Roman development of mailed cavalry was more than matched in the third centuryby the aggressive Sassanians, who repeatedly threatened the critical Syrian limes. Liketheir Parthian predecessors the Sassanians relied heavily on a diversified cavalry corps,which included units of rather bizarre cataphracts-known to the Romans as clibanarii (from~A i p a v o s a covered pot in which bread was baked, i.e. a kind of oven).46 Th is Romandesignation was most appropriate, for the clibanarius, completely encased in scale or chainarmour and riding to battle on the hot plains of Persia, might well be termed a mounted oven.

Probably related to CIL x ~ ~ x units gradually was decreased by ' the practice of493, 3495 (seen. 40). filling up the aux i l ia with recruits from the region in4 W. Ensslin, ' Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diok- which they were stationed (Alfoldi, o.C. n. 39, 211).letian, SBAW phil-hist. Abt., Heft I (1942), 56. " H. Frisk, Griech isches Etynzologisclzes W ivterbuclz4 On cuneus see Grosse, O.C. (n. 39), 51. I (196o), s.v. d i p a v o s . R. 4 Rattenbury , 56 (19421,4 4 Cf. Hoffmann, loc. cit . (n. 40). 1x4, appropriately suggested that clibanarizls be5 Th e national and regional character of auxiliary translated baking-tin man


14/19

I? JOHN W. EADIET h e w o rd clibanarius occurs for the first t ime in SHA, vi ta Alexandr i Sever i 56, 5(purportedly fro m a speech delivered by A lexander Severus on 25 Septem ber, 233) : cen tumet viginti milia eq uitu m eor um (i.e. Sassanian) fudim us, cataphractarios, quos illi clibanariosvocant, decem milia in bello interemimus, eorum armis nostros armavimus . T hi s passagehas been often cited as proof tha t clibanarius is th e Rom an name for the Persian cavalrymanarmed like the Roman cataphractavius . 4 7 Admittedly clibanarius and cataphractarius areinterchanged indiscriminately by som e fourth -centu ry writers, especially Am mia nusMarcellinus, but the two units were differentiated by their armour and were organizedseparately during the fo urth century. M. Rostovtzeff, one of th e few scholars to appreciatethe distinction, explained the simultaneous use of cataphractarii and cliba~zariias an effort' to distinguish the catafihractarii of th e Ro man auxiliarv forces fro m the real clibanarii of th ePersian and later Roman army . . there was a certain difference between the m th ecataphractarii wearing no helmets and using horses not protected by a rmo ur as a rule .48T h e best description of the Sassanian clibanarius is provided by Heliodorus, Aethiopica9, 1 5 . ~ T h eider is almost completely encased in bronze or iro n : a one-piece mask-helmetcovers his head entirely with the exception of eye-slits ; his body, from shoulders toknees, is protected by a mail suit constructed of small, overlapping bronze or iron plates,wh ich are sufficiently pliant to permit f reedo m of m ovem ent ; attached to th e mail coat aregreaves to protect his legs and feet.50 T h e horse is similarly armoured : head covered by ametal plate (1 -rpoy~~w-r r i61ov ) back and flanks protected by a ' blanket ' of thin iron plates( o ~ i ~ c t o ~ a16qp61-rho~ov)legs fitted wi th m etal greaves K V ~ ~ T ~ E S .Only th e horse s bellyand presumab ly his eyes an d tail are unpro tected .Heliodorus description has been corro borate d by th e discovery of the chargingclibanari~l-s T h e a rmour wornra ffito an d con tem p orary h or se -a rm o ur a t D u r a - E u r ~ p u s . ~ ~by th e horsema n of the graffito is strikingly similar to it (see pl. XI, 2) : lorica squama ta coatfrom shoulders to knees ; arms, legs and feet protected by parallel metal rings (loricasegmentata). Heliodorus mask-helm et, however, does not appe ar ; the graffito horsemanwears a conical helmet with a mesh veil attached to pro tect the face. T h e horse is outfittedin th e ma nner described by Heliodorus-only th e hoofs, tail an d eyes are visible. T h a t suc h

armour is not merely the product of literary or artistic imagination was proved by thediscovery, in 1932 at Du ra-E urop us, of several ' blankets , constr ucted of iron plates stitchedto a cloth backing, which were designed to p rotect th e horse s back and flanks.52 T h e li terarydescriptions and artistic representations also detail th e relatively simple weapon s of the thir d-century clibanarius : the long pike (contus) and a sword or dagger worn at the side. I t shouldbe noted that these are also the weapons of the Roman contarius and cataphractarius (i.e.mailed contarius) ; evidently few, if any, of these cava lrymen carried a bow.Some have assumed that the event recorded in the vita Alexand?,i Severi ( that theRom ans after the batt le collected and began to use the Sassanian weapons- eoru m armisnostros armavimus ) m ark s t h e a d o ~ t i o n f clibanarii armour and tactics bv the R omans.53T his is a rather misleading assumption. T h e arms picked u p by the victorious Roman s mayhave included the arm our of the fallen clibanarii, but there is no indication in contem poraryor later sources that the Romans actually used this kind of armour before the reign ofAurelian.I n 272 Aurelian s cavalry, composed entirely of light M aure tanian an d Da lmatia nequites, decisively defeated the Palmyrene clibanarii unde r Zabdas, Zenobia s best general,

4 7 R. Ghirshman, Iran Parthians and Sassanians Grosse, 327 ff. The thighs are exposed. According(London, 1962), 350. Th e Persian equivalent would toHeliodorus, thiswas intended to facilitatemounting,be tanitrik, from tanitr = 'oven ' (A. Christensen, but more probably the break in the amour wasL Em pire des Sassanides [Copenhagen, 19071, 60). designed to ensure stability-by applying the nakedTk e Ezcnvations at Dura-Europus, Fou rth thighs to the horse's flanks the rider could maintainSeason (1933)~218 ; but cf. Gabba, O.C. (n. 16), his balance, even without stirrups (cf. Plutarch, Luc ..65, n. 66. 26, 6 ; 28, 1-7).8 With which compare Nazarius, Paneg. 10,22,4. The Excavations at Dzcra-Europus, FourtkSallust, H is t . fr . 65 and Justin 40, 2, 6-7 mention Season (1933), 13, 207 ff., pl. XXII (2) ; also ineastern mailed cavalry wearing lorica plunznta (cf. Ghirshman, O.C. n. 47), pl. 63c (cf. pls. 69, I Z I ~ ,mailed figures on Trajan's Column, n. 36 supra) . 122 167-6.210-220).On the mask-helmet Amm. Marc. 16, 10, 8 ; i r phoiogra s see C. Hopkins, IllustratedGrosse, O.C. n. 39), 325 ff. ; H. Seyrig, Archaeology 5 London News 183 (2 September 1933), 362.(1952), 69 ; Benndorf, Denkschriften der Kg l. Ak ad . 6 For example, Fiebiger, RE IV ( I ~ o I ) ,22 ;der TViss. ,phil-hist. Cl. 28 (1878), 301 ff. On greaves: F. Altheim, Die Soldatenkaiser (Frankfurt, 1939), 154.


15/19

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAN MAILED CAVALRY I 7 Inear Immae. In this engagement the unarmoured Roman cavalry again proved thatmobility, rather tha n elaborate defensive arm ou r, was essential for victory. Nonetheless,some scholars would approve Alfoldi 's statem ent that Aurelian had learned to respect theclibanarii of Zenobia and [subsequently] introduc ed suc h regiments into the arm y on a largescale .55 I n sup port of this assertion the m ailed figures which appear o n the A rch of G aleriusare usually adduced. But this mon um ent does not provide any firm information regardingAurelian's role in cavalry development-indeed, th e Arc h was erected in th e reign ofDiocletian, whose concern for military reform may w ell have accelerated developm ent of themailed cavalry. 56 Moreo ver, th e mailed figures depicte d are not clibanarii, but cataphractarii:they wear mail coats (scale arm our) extending to th e thighs an d carry a large roun d shieldan d long ~ i k e their horses are no t a r m o ~ r e d . ~ ~h e mailed figures of the Arch are moreA ,appropriately cited as evidence tha t the Ro ma n cataphractarii, perhap s Da cian auxiliaries inthis instance, were simply mailed contarii. T h e figures certainly do not prove tha t Aurelianintrodu ced clibanarii.N or does th e list of vexillationes of clibana rii in the Notit ia Dignitaturn-which almo stcertainly describes military conditions of the late fourth/early fifth century-provideincontrovertible evidence that A urelian was responsible for this innovation

Or. : 5 ,4 0 Equites primi clibanarii Parthi-comitatenses6, 32 Equites Persae clibanarii-palatini6, 40 Equites secundi clibanarii Parthi-comitatenses7, 31 Equites promoti clibanarii-comitatenses7, 32 Equites quarti clibanarii Parthi-comitatenses 87, 34 Cuneus equitum secundorum clibanariorum Palmirenorum comitatenses11, 8 Schola scutariorum clibanariorum (under magister oficiorum)Occ. 6, 67 Equites sagittarii clibanarii (under magister equitum p~aesentalis)~~7, 185 Equites clibanarii (under comes Africae)T h at A urelian created t he equites pronzoti seems probable, bu t the re is no reason to believetha t he a lso int roduced the p romoti c l ib a n a ~ i i .~ ~oreover, i t cannot be demonstrated thatthe remaining eight units were connected in any way with Aurelian.T h e Notit ia Dignitatum, how ever, does i l lustrate succinctly the subsequen t Rom ancommitment to mailed cavalry. The first recorded use of Roman clibanavii in the fourthcentury occurred (312) near the city of Turin, where Constantine engaged the rival armyof Ma xentius, which include d a contin gent (size unknown ) of clibanarii. Con stantineevidently was not unfam iliar with their tactics and indeed respo nded swiftly and effectively.Instruc ting th e centre of his army-which did no t include mailed cavalry-to give way tothe irrevocabilem impe tum hostis he was able to trap the charging clibanarii behind hislines and envelop them. Prevented from tu rning quickly by their stiff armo ur, the surprisedand confused clibanarii were annihilated.G1This failure of the clibanarii may have arrested the development of these units in theRom an arm y, for they evidently were no t used again until the batt le of M ursa (28 September,351). According to Julian, many, if not most, of Constantius' cavalrym en were clibanariiand to the ir success-against una rm ou red equites-Constantius eviden tly owed his victory .62Julian's estimate of the role of the clibanarii, however, may be inflated and misleading ; it is

j Th at Aurelian s army included cataphractarii is 7, 9). On these see Ensslin, o.c. (n. 43), 65 ; Rsuggested by SHA, vita Aureliani 11, 4 ( equites MacMullen, AJA 64 (1960), 30.cataphractarios octingentos ). On the battle K. F. Kinch, L Arc de Triomphe de SaloniqueEutropius 9, 13, z ; Festus, Brev. 24 ; Jerome, (Paris, 189o), pl. VIII, commentary p. 42 a cavalry-Chron. ann. 273, p. [Helm] ; Zosimos I, 50 ; man (Dacian ?), armed with a contus and shield, isG. Downey, TAPhA 81 (I ~ s o ) , 7 ff. Only Festus depicted wearing a coat of mail and riding an un-and Jerome locate the battle at Immae ; Festus alone armoured horse.says that the Palmyrene cavalry were clibanarii. 8 It is doubtful that Parthians = SassaniansAlfoldi, o.c. (n. 39), 218 ; cf. Altheim, o.c. actually served in these units. What happened to(n . 531, 156. clibanarii Parthi

G Th e Notitia Dignitatum lists three armament g This unit, which is not mentioned in any otherfactories (clibanaria) which probably were con- source, evidently was unique-because it provedstructed under Diocletian and were engaged speci- impracticablefically in the production of armour for the clibanarii See Grosse, o.c. (n. 39), 16 ff.at Antioch in Syria (Or. 11, zz), at Caesarea in 6 Nazarius, Panegyr. 10, 23, 4-24> 5 ; but cf. theCappadocia (Or. 11, 28), and at Nicomedia in variant account in Panegyr. 9, 6,3-5.Bithynia (Or. 11, 28 ; cf. Lactantius, De mort. pers. 6 Julian, Or. I, 37 D ; cf. 11, 57 C.


16/19

172 J O H N W. EADIEcontradicted by Zosimos (2, so , who stresses the role of th e sagittari i and does not mentionthe clibanarii . Clibanarii did march in C onstantius triu mp h (357), but fr om this we mayinfer only that these units had fought with t he E mp eror and w ere stil l in service.63T h e battle of Strasbou rg (357), described in detail by Am mian us (16, 12), decided theimme diate futu re of Rom an mailed cavalry. Julian deployed several turmae of cataphra ctariion the right wing, opposite the Alamannic cavalry, which was augmented by pedites dis-cursatores et leves. Wh ile Ro ma n infantry o n the left held fast against the Alam anni a ndwere beginning to push the enemy back, the catafracti equites faltered and suddenly beganto retreat in disorder. According to Am mia nus (16, 12, 37-38), only Julian s interventionprevented a complete rout. Julian could scarcely have applauded the retreat of the cata-phra cts and may well have decided to retire most of these units-even tho ugh the Persiansc on ti nu ed to em plo y ~ l i b a n a r i i . ~ ~cuneus equitum cataphractorum took p ar t in V alentinia n scampaign against the Saxons (370 ?),but in the major batt le of Adrianople we hear nothingof Roman mailed caval ry , c libanar ii o r ~a ta p h ra c ta r i i . ~ ~

T h e record of Roman mailed cavalry in th e fou rth century-with the possible exceptionof th e bat tle of Mursa-clearly was less tha n impressive. T o assess th e tactical effectivenessof mailed cavalry in the Roman army, however, one must examine separately the record ofthe two u n i t s 4 .e . cataphractarii and clibanarii . T hi s separation is essential (if my remark sabove concerning the differences in arm our a re correct), for th e cataphractarius wearing onlya coat of mail obviously could employ tactics different fro m those impo sed up on the totallyarm oured clibanarius astride an equally encu mb ered horse. T h e heavy horses-i.e. smallhead, muscular body, and short, thick legs-used by bot h units could move the ir ridersacross a bat tlef ie ld in a s t raight l ine, but wi thout s t i rrups s tabi li ty was at bes t p r e c a r i o u ~ . ~ ~T hi s deficiency w ould be critical for th e clibanarius, less so for the c ataphractarius, who, ifunseated, at least could st and up and fight.

T h e Rom an cataphractarius is usually depicted-e.g. on the Column of M arcu sAurelius-jabbing at his oppo nen t with a contus held in one hand (see pl. XI, I . As jabbingand thr usting require delicate balance, we may infer tha t the m obili ty of the rider was notentirely restricted by th e coat of mail. Un fortun ately, th e artistic evidence is not sufficientto permit conclusions regarding th e tactics of the clibanarii . W e cannot de termine, forexample, whether th e clibanarizis held the contus in one ha nd or w ith bo th hands.67 I n an ycase, it is difficult to im agine t he clibanarius, whose ar m s wer e co vered w it h lorica segmentata,possessing sufficient stre ngt h and agility to engage in jab-an d-thru st tactics. On ly onetactic seems feasible-charge i fond.68 T h u s th e clibanarius could be expected to performeffectively only und er ideal conditions-on level groun d, in fairly mode rate tem peratu res,16, 10, 8 : ' cataphracti equites graffito, seearc. Galerius, see n. 57 clibanarius-Dura

(quos clibanarios dictitant) . Whether Ammianus n . 51 cf. Cichorius, O.C. (n. 36), pls. x x x ~ XXXVII .equation cataphractarii = clibanarii accurately re- 67 Cataphractarius holding contus in one hand :presents fourth-century usage cannot be determined. Espkrandieu, O.C. (n. 34), V 3940 = CIL X I I I 3495With Rostovtzeff I am inclined to believe that they VIII 6044 = CIL X I I I 6238 ; Column of Marcusw-ere distinguished by their armour. Aurelius, pls. XL I V LVII (see n. 38). Non-Roman6 On Persian clibanarii (= cataphractarii) : Arnm. cataphractarii holding contus in both hands : M.Marc. 19, 7, 4 (siege of Amida, A.D. 359) 20, 7, 9 Rostovtzeff, History of Decorative Painting in(at Bezabde, 360) 24, 6, 8 (against Julian, 363). In Southern Russia (in Russian St. Petersburg, rgrq) ,his discussion of the last encounter Ammianus pls. LXXVIII (I), L X X I X LXXXIV (3) = Minns, O.C.surprisingly says that the horses were protected by ( n . . r o ) , f i g . ~ ~ S , p . M i n n s, f i g. z z q ,p . 314.04;leather coverings : operimentis scorteis equorum Neither the mailed figures of Trajan s Column normultitudine omni defensa . the D ura graffito wield the two-handed contzls.Adrianople : Amm. Marc. 28, 5, 6. Th e 8 Alfoldi, O.C. (n. 39), 208 ff . cf. Gabba, O.C.appearance of cataphractari i and clibanarii in the (n. I 6), 64. One of the mailed figures in scene x x x v 1 1Notitia Dignitatz~m,however, suggests that mailed of Trajan s Column employs the ' Parthian shot -units were reintroduced later in the fourth century. which must have been difficult, if not impossible, toDepictions of large cavalry horses : contarius- execute in full armour. I t should be pointed out,

Tropaeum Traiani, metopes I 11 IV v (Florescu, O.C. of course, that the Column figures may be simplyn. 32, 270 ff.) cataphractarius-Column of Marcus ' the sculptor s interpretation of something heard orAurelius, pls. XLIV LVII passim (see n. 38) EspC- seen, answering to nothing ever actually worn . .randieu, O.C. (n. 34), v 3940, 3941 = CIL X I I I (F. A Brow-n, Excavations at Dura-Ez~ropus, Sixth3495, 3493 ; V I I I 6044 = CIL X I I I 6238 Arch of Season [19361,445).


17/19

T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF R O M A N M A I L E D C A V A L R Y I73a n d against an unimaginative opponent. I n battle, however, the mili tary objective of the.two units w as identical. T h e few literary accounts of their performance indicate clearly th atnei ther the cataphractarius nor the clibanariz~sconfronted enemy mailed cavalry ; both wereemp loyed against unarmou rcd cavalry or infantry.

T o com bat mailed cavalry of bo th types various counter-tactics were devised w hichreduced their effectiveness in batt le. T o stand firm in the tee th of charging mailed cavalryobviou sly invited disaster. T h e best defence, in fact, was an imaginative offence-if th emailed rider could be unseated th e charge d fond would fail. Hence , the opp osing cavalry orinfantry attempted either to trip the charging horses or to attack the exposed areas of horsean d rider-the horse s belly or th e rider s thighs. Alternatively, th e opp osin g force at th eoutset could simulate fl ight and rely upon environmental factors , heat and dust , to reduceth e fighting skill an d endu ranc e of the mailed cavalry. I n almost all of their recordedencounters with enemy mailed cavalry, the Romans employed one or several of thesec ou n te r- m ea su re s a n d w er e v i c t o r i o u ~ . ~ ~I n view of this dism al record of failure th e historian may well questio n th e wisdom of. the Rom an decision to adopt mailed cavalry. I n this, however, the R oma n mili tary leadersdid not act purposelessly. O n the contrary, the decision was mad e in response to increasingpressure on the frontiers and in recognition of the need for a s tronger and more flexiblecavalry corps. Dou btless the R omans were cognizant of the inheren t disadvantages ofmailed cavalry, but they evidently believed tha t some p rotection against barbarian archersan d novel cavalry tactics was essential. I n their view, th e prote ction afforded b y th e coatof mail might well justify ad optio n.T h e evolutionary character of th e Ro m an ado ption of mailed cavalry-a processcomparable in purpo se and development to the Assyrian and Chinese experience-must bestressed. ) Du rin g th e Repu blic cavalry innovation was not required-the legionary pedites,fo r th e mo st part, constituted a satisfactory deterre nt and offensive force. As th e Rom anse x ~ a n d e dnto Gau l and G ermanv a nd encountered res is tance from barbarian bowm en andcavalry, however, mili tary requirem ents changed. T h e init ial Rom an response (creationof the antesignani was conditioned by their legionary experience. But in time-as th eheavv horse was acauired. the skil l of eastern mounted archers became known, and thepractice of recru iting non -Ro m ans as auxiliaries was established-the Rom ans began toexperim ent with various cavalry tactics . U nd er Vespasian the sagittaria equitata appearedby th e reign of Tra jan at least , perhaps un der Vespasian, the contarius had been int roducedan d finally unde r H adria n the mailed contarius = cataphractarius was added. T h e pr incipalst imulus to this development, as we have seen, was the Sarmatian and Dacian pressure onthe M oesian front ier . Th us . a l thoueh th e ~e rs o n n e l f the R oman mai led cavalrv init ia llvand for some time was recruited from th e eastern provinces, Rom an cavalry experimentationclearly was designed to m atch an d defend against the tactics of western o ppon ents.T h e a d o ~ t i o n f t h e clibanarius in the fourth centurv is another matter. Un its of thesehighly specialized horsemen probably were created not only to match Persian tactics-theprim ary stimulus-but also to attain tactical sup eriority vis-d-vis th e m ajority of R om e senemies (e.g. the Alamann i and other western an d eastern tribes). I n any case, i t is qu iteimprobable that the int roduction of the clibanarii, which would create new personnel andarmament problems (attested by the construction of clibanaria under Diocletian), was asaccidental as the auth or of the vi ta Alexandr i Sever i s um e s t s .The Roman experiments with mailed cavalry, especially the clibanarius, ended infailure. I n their at temp t to defy reality, however, the Rom ans dem onstrated once againtheir willingness to adopt foreign military techn ique s an d tactics-even if these weremanifestly impracticable.University of Michigan.

9 See, for example, Plutarch, Luc. 28 ; Appian, 7 The Assyrian response to nomadic cavalry hasMith 85 Justin 40 2, 6 ; Valerius Flaccus 6, been illustrated above ; he interesting Chinese Han)239 41 ; Herodian 15, 2-3 Amm. Marc. 16, 12, parallel is discussed by H. G. Creel, Amer. Hist21-22 ; Gabba, O.C. n. 16), 65. eview 70 1965), 663 R


18/19

You have printed the following article:

The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry

John W. Eadie

The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1/2. (1967), pp. 161-173.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281967%2957%3A1%2F2%3C161%3ATDORMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

1 S. P. Tolstov, Drevniy Choresm (La Chorasmie antique). Essai de recherchehistorico-archologique

R. Ghirshman

Artibus Asiae, Vol. 16, No. 3. (1953), pp. 209-237.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648%281953%2916%3A3%3C209%3ASPTDC%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

3 The Parthian Shot

M. Rostovtzeff

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 47, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1943), pp. 174-187.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194304%2F06%2947%3A2%3C174%3ATPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

24 The Range of the Ancient Bow

Wallace McLeod

Phoenix, Vol. 19, No. 1. (Spring, 1965), pp. 1-14.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8299%28196521%2919%3A1%3C1%3ATROTAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

24 The Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus

Ronald Syme

The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3/4. (Jul. - Oct., 1929), pp. 129-137.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28192907%2F10%291%3A23%3A3%2F4%3C129%3ATAOVF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 2 -

NOTE:The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281967%2957%3A1%2F2%3C161%3ATDORMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648%281953%2916%3A3%3C209%3ASPTDC%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194304%2F06%2947%3A2%3C174%3ATPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8299%28196521%2919%3A1%3C1%3ATROTAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28192907%2F10%291%3A23%3A3%2F4%3C129%3ATAOVF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%28192907%2F10%291%3A23%3A3%2F4%3C129%3ATAOVF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8299%28196521%2919%3A1%3C1%3ATROTAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194304%2F06%2947%3A2%3C174%3ATPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648%281953%2916%3A3%3C209%3ASPTDC%28%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281967%2957%3A1%2F2%3C161%3ATDORMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&origin=JSTOR-pdf


19/19

46 An Ancient Armoured Force

R. M. Rattenbury

The Classical Review, Vol. 56, No. 3. (Nov., 1942), pp. 113-116.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-840X%28194211%291%3A56%3A3%3C113%3AAAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

56 Inscriptions on Armor and the Supply of Arms in the Roman Empire

Ramsay MacMullenAmerican Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 64, No. 1. (Jan., 1960), pp. 23-40.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28196001%2964%3A1%3C23%3AIOAATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

70 The Role of the Horse in Chinese History

H. G. Creel

The American Historical Review, Vol. 70, No. 3. (Apr., 1965), pp. 647-672.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28196504%2970%3A3%3C647%3ATROTHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 2 of 2 -

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-840X%28194211%291%3A56%3A3%3C113%3AAAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28196001%2964%3A1%3C23%3AIOAATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28196504%2970%3A3%3C647%3ATROTHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28196504%2970%3A3%3C647%3ATROTHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28196001%2964%3A1%3C23%3AIOAATS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-840X%28194211%291%3A56%3A3%3C113%3AAAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U&origin=JSTOR-pdf

cavaleria romana in zale

Documents