Were Late Roman Clibanarii armed with lance/bow?

[ValentinianVictor]

I have found the following passages in Oratation I and Oratation 2 in the works of Julian-

`So they charged again as though the battle had only just begun, and gave a
wonderful display of daring and heroism. For some hurled themselves full on the
enemy's swords, or seized the enemy's shields, others, when their horses were
wounded and the riders thrown, at once transformed themselves into hoplites. The
usurper's army meanwhile did the same and pressed our infantry hard. Neither
side gained the advantage, till the cuirassiers by their archery, aided by the
remaining force of cavalry, who spurred on their horses to the charge, had begun
to inflict great loss on the enemy, and by main force to drive the whole army
before them.'
Julian `Panegyric In Honour of Constantius' pg95

'For when he reached the open country and the plains of Paeonia, and it seemed advantageous to fight it out there, then and not before the Emperor drew up his cavalry separately on both wings.
Of these troops some carry lances and are protected by cuirasses and helmets of wrought iron mail. They wear greaves that fit the legs closely, and knee-caps, and on their thighs the same sort of iron covering. they ride their horses like statues, and need no shield.'
Julian 'The Heroic Deeds of Constantius' pg153

Both passages relate the the Battle of Mursa.

The Clibanarii appear to have been dual armed with both lance and bow, shieldless riding armoured horses.

The interesting bit is that the 'cuirassiers' (the usual English translation of Catafractarii/Clibanarii) were able to inflict 'great loss upon the enemy' by supporting the rest of the Roman cavalry by bow fire alone.

Would this be a case for Late Roman Catafractarii/Clibanarii being BW*?

[batesmotel]

The rules authors seem to treat his troops type as Armoured cavalry, bow, sword since this is the way they have classified the Sassanid equivalent since it appears that the bow is their primary weapon and the sword classification certainly means they can get mixed in as well.

Chris

[nikgaukroger]

Without seeing what the original latin actually said you'd be silly to draw conclusions.

[ShrubMiK]

Interesting though, takes me back to 6th edition, and would make some of my figures properly representative once more

>The rules authors seem to treat his troops type as Armoured cavalry, bow, sword since this is the way they have classified the Sassanid equivalent >since it appears that the bow is their primary weapon and the sword classification certainly means they can get mixed in as well.

True. The difference being though that the original supposition that clibanarii on both sides had (part-)armoured horses and both lance and bow has not changed symetrically. Sassanids are now assumed to have been primarily bow armed with few lances, Romans lance armed. Even if you assume they still had bow (which would explain that pesky Clibanarii Sagittarii unit title!) it still does not mean that they should necessarily be classified in FoG with bow capability of any sort - e.g. contrast Sarmations vs. Avars.

And if the horses are believed to be fully armoured, it sounds reasonable to be cataphracts than cavalry. And there's already a special case for bow-armed cats in one or more of the Byzantine lists.

Not that I'm saying any change is needed!

Assuming that one body of troops wearing "cuirasses" (an item of equipment) and another body of troops referred to as "cuirassiers" (which has no relevance for the time - it is a projection of more modern terminology back into the ancient world by a translator and doesn't seem to be a good fit for archers) in separate passages are one and the same might be a bit reckless.

It's also worth noting that, in the second passage, having gone into significant detail of the equipment carried by these troops, no mention was made of bow.

[ValentinianVictor]

Without seeing what the original latin actually said you'd be silly to draw conclusions.

It's in Greek, of which I have practically no knowledge of how to translate, unless the words are latinised, and even then I only know a few military equipment terms!
I believe the reason they are translated as 'cuirassiers' is because the Greek text calls them 'Katafractoi' or something very similar.

[ValentinianVictor]

Interesting though, takes me back to 6th edition, and would make some of my figures properly representative once more

>The rules authors seem to treat his troops type as Armoured cavalry, bow, sword since this is the way they have classified the Sassanid equivalent >since it appears that the bow is their primary weapon and the sword classification certainly means they can get mixed in as well.

True. The difference being though that the original supposition that clibanarii on both sides had (part-)armoured horses and both lance and bow has not changed symetrically. Sassanids are now assumed to have been primarily bow armed with few lances, Romans lance armed. Even if you assume they still had bow (which would explain that pesky Clibanarii Sagittarii unit title!) it still does not mean that they should necessarily be classified in FoG with bow capability of any sort - e.g. contrast Sarmations vs. Avars.

And if the horses are believed to be fully armoured, it sounds reasonable to be cataphracts than cavalry. And there's already a special case for bow-armed cats in one or more of the Byzantine lists.

Not that I'm saying any change is needed!

Assuming that one body of troops wearing "cuirasses" (an item of equipment) and another body of troops referred to as "cuirassiers" (which has no relevance for the time - it is a projection of more modern terminology back into the ancient world by a translator and doesn't seem to be a good fit for archers) in separate passages are one and the same might be a bit reckless.

It's also worth noting that, in the second passage, having gone into significant detail of the equipment carried by these troops, no mention was made of bow.

Actually, Julian's description of the same heavily armoured cavalry in Oratation I is also a bit different-

'Your cavalry was almost unlimited in numbers and they all sat their horses like statues, while their limbs were fitted with armour that followed closely the outline of the human form. It covers the arms from writs to elbow and thence to the shoulder, while a coat of mail protects the shoulders, back and breast. The head and face are covered by a metal mask which makes its wearer look like a glittering statue, for not even the thighs and legs and the very ends of the feet lack this armour. It is attached to the cuirass by fine chain-armour like a web, so that no part of the body is visible and uncovered, for this woven covering protects the hands as well, and is so flexible that the wearers can bend even their fingers.’
Julian ‘Panegyric In Honour of Constantius’ pg97

This is almost identical to the description given by Ammianus, who, like Julian, saw Clibanarii both up close and in action-

‘And there marched on either side twin lines of infantrymen with shields and crests gleaming with glittering rays, clad in shining mail; and scattered among them were the full-armoured cavalry (whom they called clibanarii), all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skilfully were the joinings made.’
Amm XVI 10, 8

As I said, in both Oratation I and Oratation 2 he was describing the troops at the same battle. He appears to have composed the second Oratation some time after the first one and its reflected within the text as he has a much more hardened attitude towards Constantius, who he would soon go to war against.