"Clibinarii - how were they armed?" Topic

Something has been puzzling me for a while- Clibinarii, whether Persian or Romano-byzantine, are often represented by a mounted man with a long spear, and a slung bow, or alternately firing a bow, without a spear.

If armed with both weapons, how did he use his bow? he can't throw away his spear (not only wasteful, but tacticaly he charges in with it after he has fired away his arrows). I guess the spear had to be put into some sort of long 'quiver' style holder, but haven't seen this depicted on figures, or indeed in art.

Does anyone know how this worked?

And yes by my name, you might expect I should know, but I don't!

Good question.
One thing I do know is that clibanari have shields as well as kontos for charging. Based on the Osprey and Montvert sassanid books by the way.

Ian Heath's book published years ago by WRG (Armies and Enemies of Ancient Rome, iirc, I don't have the book in front of me), was much more descriptive than any of the later Osprey books. As I recall, he showed a thong/strap in the middle of the lance (kontos) shaft, which was used to sling the lance over one shoulder while throwing darts or shooting the bow. The shield was not a large affair and could be either slung at the saddle or worn on the arm while using the kontos two-handed. There was of course a bowcase if the clibanarius was bow-armed, and cases of darts if that was the missile weapon in place of a bow.

You raise an interesting question that has received a lot of attention in the pages of Slingshot, the Society of Ancients monthly journal, over the years. I do not believe that there is a consensus on the manner in which clibanarii were armed, whether Roman/Byzantine or Sassanid other than that they were better armoured than most cavalry. Certainly some units described as clibanarii are armoured horsemen with kontos, bow and shield while others, particularly later Sassanids are armoured horsemen armed with bow and shield and relying on massed archery rather than the charge with lance. If memory serves, I do not recall an instant where kontos armed clibanarii are described as using their bow in battle. Keep in mind that the bow was a symbol of the aristocracy in Sassanid Persia. I think it is generally agreed that Late Roman and Sassanid clibanarii would often ride armoured horses. It seems that it depends on the era in terms of armament. The bow certainly seems to be the weapon of choice in the later 4th - 6th centuries. Hope this helps a little. You might check the SOA website and see if there is an index of articles. Back issues of Slingshot are available.

"And yes by my name, you might expect I should know.."

Not really. "Clibin-" isn't a root in Latin. And using a neuter ending is... different.

But you're not alone. The number of wargames figure manufacturers that use the misspelling "clibinarius" is almost as great as those who get it right, with "clibanarius" or "klibanophoros".

Allen

Clibanarium:

I am sooooo glad that someone finally asked this question.

I have been reading the fictional "Belisarian" series written by David Drake and Eric Flint and the only thing they mentioned was an initial charge, the discarding of lances and archery as they break away.

It just didn't make sense to resort to the bow only after the lance was broken in a charge. A fall-back position with ready lances waiting would also make sense.

The Early Romano-Byzantines employed cavalry that used both kontos and bow. they used the bow to harass and soften up the enemy, then went in with kontos to finish them off once they were shaken. I have seen several representations that show the Kontos being slung on the back while using the bow via a loop-strap attached to the shaft. It makes sense to me as I personally can't see another way both weapons could be employed by the same rider.

As for the Roman "Clibanarius". There is the theory that the Roman clibanarii did not use the bow at all. In this theory the Cataphractii were the Sarmatian model Kontarii, while the Clibanarii were the Persian model cataphracts. The "Clibanarii Sagitarii" are one unit singled out as archers precisely because they HAVE got bows, implying that possibly other Clibanarii units did not. This is the theory that I subscribe to. :)

regards, Scutatos

Hi

I thought it was clear from period illos that bow varied according to province. Easterners usually display a bow, western forces often ahve dart cases.

R

Basically there is no definitive evidence for the armament and armour of the various catafractarii and clibanarii units in the Roman army.

Things are quite confused and not helped by inscriptions such as the "catafractarii clibanarii" one (excuse spelling) from the late C3rd/early C4th and of course Ammianus' famous "the catafracts they call clibanarii".

For wargamers it has not been helped by the mis-naming of C5th and later Roman/Byzantibe cavalry as "catafracts" in wargaming literatue when they were not called that historically.

BTW for Rocky I think that the darts for cavalry was based on a misreading of Byzantine manuals that actually referred to the infantry.

Hi Guys,

I think some of the confusion stems from semantics and not just from our historical ignorance. For example, most people use the latin term "catafractarii" to mean armoured cavalry. "Clibanarii" is the latinization of a foriegn term that may or may not mean the same thing. If Ammianus, and other historians, are either confused or use the terms interchangably, then we cannot expect any better nowadays. Like Nick G. states, the modern wargaming distictions between Cataphractarii and Clibinarii may not have had any historical precedence.

Ralph

"I have been reading the fictional "Belisarian" series written by David Drake and Eric Flint and the only thing they mentioned was an initial charge, the discarding of lances and archery as they break away.

It just didn't make sense ..."

IIRC it is the "Belisarian" series which describes a fight between two cavalry units as ending up in a dismounted brawl because none of the participants could stay in the saddle due to lacking stirrups...

All in all, I wouldn't put too much faith in Drake's and Flint's knowledge about ancient combat :-(

Regards,

Oerjan

Hi

I disagree about the martiobarbulii. The weapon appears first on sarmation cav, is mentioned in ammiunius. I havent seen a refrence in Infantry until the 7thc. Sort of backwards?

R

IIRC the only specific weapons attributed to Sarmatian cavalry are the contos, swords and bows with the latter little used in cavalry combat.

Do you have the Ammianus reference? I hope it is not just the translated term "darts" rather than the actual latin as this often gets used for the general latin term "tela". Authors like Ammianus are usually non specific and mix their terms about for literary effect.

As for infantry reference the obvious one is Vegetius who describes the two legiones in Illyricum - the Ioviani and Herculiani - as using martiobarbuli. The context is that this is during the reign of Diocletian.

Nik

Hi

I have only read Amminanius in a Latin dual translation at the Denver Public Library(it was a lost collectable and I found it, they let me read but not copy!).

so, aging memory, but reading it did get me to BUILD various martiobarbuli to throw. As a gamer, no source I had was specific on them. Later talking to Phil Barker, who had dug up one as an archeologist, I offered that I thought the British library system had more than I had seen in the way of specifics. He said not and then grilled me ON the experience(in a very polite british way).

Long way of saying that I haven't relied on "Penguin" translaters. Nik, haven't we discussed in earlier threads the problem of sloppy translations of specific roman military terms? I thought we had.

My prejudice is that I don't trust Vegitius at all. I don't refer to him ever. Too many problems. Outside of "bit V" do you know of a refrence to Martiobarbuli before Scutati in the6th c? Not arguing, just asking.

Rocky

I'm sure we have discussed sloppy translation before, it crops up fairly regularly. Problem is I can never remember who has discussed it before and most people (not unnaturaly) rely on translations only.

IMO Vegetius is very useful but you obviously need to bear in mind his work is an epitome and thus a compilation of various sources. The current standard translation from Liverpool University Press (Milner IIRC) has lots of useful foot notes about the various souces or what are thought to be the sources. Basically on this issue I don't think there is any reason to doubt Vegetius' account. Also the fact he mentions them suggests use by the end of the C4th at the latest (based on the current dating of V).

But to answer your question I can't think of any other :-)

Hey! I was told that Clibanarius means "oven". The name was appropriate for this troop type because they roasted themselves if they had to sit in the hot sun for any length of time.

Can anyone confirm this?

Yep, I read that somewhere too, but can't recall where.

κλιβανοφόροι (Klibanophoroi), trans "oven-bearers" from the Greek κλίβανος – portable oven.

The troops usually called clibanarius etc were probably derived from the Central Asian tradition of mounted fighting.

You start with a mounted archer, often with a two handed lance/spear for melee. These then adopt armour for man and horse. Horse armour appears to be primarily an anti-archery defence (linked to the adoption of massed frontal 'shower shooting' techniques to supplement the 'gallop past shooting heavy arrows at picked targets' techniques. If the technology is available long, heavy swords and circular shields (fist grip) are a common replacement for the lance. Lancers who feel that they are getting out-shot move to charging tactics, this leads to more broken lances and a reliance on sword/shield (rather than the light sword also carried) for the rest of the melee. This generates the lance, bow, sword, shield, horse armour cavalry seen in the Roman/Sassanid wars.

more or less……

I have it in mind, that somewhere, I read that "cataphract" means "cooked kitty", too, so there you go, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses"….

Greek "κατάφρακτος" = "enclosed, completely protected, fully armored"
Latin "cataphractus" = "armored, mail-clad"

Greek "κλιβανοφόροι" = "camp oven-bearers"
Latin "clibanarii" = Latinization of "κλιβανοφόροι"

Salve,
Scott

Now why does your Greek work and mine didnt… I feel victimised

IIRC Clibanarii/Cataphractarii (or whatever) could be refering men with lance or bow or both (and other weapons) on half or fully armoured horses.

At some places and times they were one combination, at other places and times they were another.

The use of the words varied across time, author and location. eg "κατάφρακτος" originally meant 'covered', but was often used for 'enclosed'; thus it was used for decked warships, and became a term meaning 'protected'; then it was used for 'armoured'…..

There are no hard and fast, exact, translations for these words (which is why translation is part art).

Diocletian – I use the ancient fighting technique of "cut and paste." ;-)

Cheers,
Scott

If you are asking to comply with current war gaming lists, Sasanid warriors should be either the fully armoured on fully armoured horses with lance or fully to less fully armoured on fully to less fully armoured horses with bows. Sword and maces seem to have been standard across the board, both possibly having religious significance.

I believe that they should all be bow armed, as is Bourne out by Ammianius and almost all sculptures and rock carvings. As for shields, this seems to be a very contentious issue but i believe that, given depictions of contemporary cavalry armed with a shorter lance and shield (Taq-e Bostan, sorry dont buy the "its a Sasanid Kind dressed up as a Byzantine" line), or with the shield mounted to the shoulder (Sogdian wall paintings, i know not Sasanid but very closely related), coupled with their appearance on the muster list issues by Khosrau II, that they could be used, certainly later in the period.

My tuppance worth, i think that they are more likely to be happy to be using lance (short or long), bow, sword, mace or lasso, Irranic horse riding traditions were far greater than the Rum counterparts (who had documented issues raising enough numbers of troops able to use lance and bow). We have depictions of kings using one or all of these items in war or hunting (the proving ground for many a young nobleman's battle skills across most civilisations). However that is my opinion off the back of reading what i have been able to get my hands on (primary translations and archaeological images), however i am no history scholar and do not have the time to read every thing that i would to give a more considered opinion.

As for using both, I am with Doug, in that the lance must have had a sholder strap of some description, though i do not know of any historic depiction or description of this in context.