Slitherine

As the Notitia Dignitatum noted,there was a unit called Equites sagittarii clibanarii,a comitatenses vexillation,in the Magister Equitum's cavalry roster and under the command of the Comes Africae.I think such unit should be treated as armoured horse archers in the FoG rules.A vexillation of the Late Roman Army in 4-5th Century consisted 600 men approximately,and the Notitia Dignitatum was considered correct about the Late Roman Army up to the 420 AD of the western parts,perhaps should add two armoured horse archer units to the Roman 379-424 AD list?

In the past (without any other evidence apart from the name of this single unit - as far as I am aware), the Equites sagittarii clibanarii had been proposed (by no lesser wargames luminary than Phil Barker of Wargames Research Group) to justify a sort of "cataphract-lite" unit with lance and bow.

I like your suggestion better.

rbodleyscott wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:07 pm In the past (without any other evidence apart from the name of this single unit - as far as I am aware), the Equites sagittarii clibanarii had been proposed (by no lesser wargames luminary than Phil Barker of Wargames Research Group) to justify a sort of "cataphract-lite" unit with lance and bow.

I like your suggestion better.

Thanks mister,but I think they used lances or not is still unknown because lack of evidences.So it's more or less depends on the design choice.And Romans described any fully armoured cavalry as "clibanarii"or"cataphractarii"so maybe the best choice is treated them as horse archers and adjust their armour ratings(Well armoured or fully armoured,the latter will significant affect their manoeuvrability but will give them boosts in melee and when face the projectiles).

However, in the next chapter, "Distributio Numerorum", it just lists as "Equites clibanarii" below "Intra Africam cum uiro spectabili comite Africae". But other units' sagitarii are not omitted. One theory of course could be the scriptor missed the word. Or perhaps it's just clibanarii.

melm wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:00 pm However, in the next chapter, "Distributio Numerorum", it just lists as "Equites clibanarii" below "Intra Africam cum uiro spectabili comite Africae". But other units' sagitarii are not omitted. One theory of course could be the scriptor missed the word. Or perhaps it's just clibanarii.

Most likely because the Medieval&Renaissance scriptors messed some words caused the Inconsistencies in manuscripts like this,The Notitia Dignitatum had varied versions of manuscripts.If according to the list of Magister Equitum's cavalry roster(Magister Equitum Praesentalis)then Equites sagittarii clibanarii is correct,he's the cavalry C-in-C on the west after all.

melm wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:00 pm However, in the next chapter, "Distributio Numerorum", it just lists as "Equites clibanarii" below "Intra Africam cum uiro spectabili comite Africae". But other units' sagitarii are not omitted. One theory of course could be the scriptor missed the word. Or perhaps it's just clibanarii.

Good point. I had forgotten that that was part of the argument against clibanarii with bows.

Dux Limitis wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:01 pm Most likely because the Medieval&Renaissance scriptors messed some words caused the Inconsistencies in manuscripts like this,The Notitia Dignitatum had varied versions of manuscripts.If according to the list of Magister Equitum's cavalry roster(Magister Equitum Praesentalis)then Equites sagittarii clibanarii is correct,he's the cavalry C-in-C on the west after all.

Undoubtedly it is a copyist's error, but in which section? Errors are errors, they don't prioritise getting the senior commander's version correct. Which is more likely, that the Roman Empire had a single unit of clibanarii with bows, and that the omission of the "sagittarii" from the Distribution Numerorum is the error, or that the apparently unique "Equites sagittarii clibanarii" is the copyist's error?

It is pretty obvious that the latter is more likely to be true, because the Romans weren't great ones for uniquely equipped units. So the only question is whether we give the other interpretation the benefit of the doubt as an option.

I will give it some further thought. In any case, any change has missed the forthcoming update and will need to go in a future one.

rbodleyscott wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:31 am

Dux Limitis wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:01 pm Most likely because the Medieval&Renaissance scriptors messed some words caused the Inconsistencies in manuscripts like this,The Notitia Dignitatum had varied versions of manuscripts.If according to the list of Magister Equitum's cavalry roster(Magister Equitum Praesentalis)then Equites sagittarii clibanarii is correct,he's the cavalry C-in-C on the west after all.

Undoubtedly it is a copyist's error, but in which section? Errors are errors, they don't prioritise getting the senior commander's version correct. Which is more likely, that the Roman Empire had a single unit of clibanarii with bows, and that the omission of the "sagittarii" from the Distribution Numerorum is the error, or that the apparently unique "Equites sagittarii clibanarii" is the copyist's error?

It is pretty obvious that the latter is more likely to be true, because the Romans weren't great ones for uniquely equipped units. So the only question is whether we give the other interpretation the benefit of the doubt as an option.

I will give it some further thought. In any case, any change has missed the forthcoming update and will need to go in a future one.

I think the more later some bucellarii often mastered with both lance and bow,so it might not too wired the late 4th century-early 5th century Roman army got one such unit like this(And not big,just a vexillation),so I think they were noted in senior commander's version was because their uniqueness.Besides,after I read the manuscripts of the Notitia Dignitatum again I feel it's may not likely the scriptor's error but some abbreviation rules we don't know,as the equites iuniores scholae secundi scutarii simply noted as scutarii,equites citrati seniores noted as citrati seniores but the equites armigeri seniores only noted as armigeri(Which in contrary to the former)in the rosters of their local commanders(And other Inconsistencies there don't have place to list).Maybe because the "Clibanarii"is their overall type so they were noted as clibanarii in Comes Africae's roster?

Dux Limitis wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:32 pm I think the more later some bucellarii often mastered with both lance and bow,so it might not too wired the late 4th century-early 5th century Roman army got one such unit like this(And not big,just a vexillation),so I think they were noted in senior commander's version was because their uniqueness.Besides,after I read the manuscripts of the Notitia Dignitatum again I feel it's may not likely the scriptor's error but some abbreviation rules we don't know,as the equites iuniores scholae secundi scutarii simply noted as scutarii,equites citrati seniores noted as citrati seniores but the equites armigeri seniores only noted as armigeri(Which in contrary to the former)in the rosters of their local commanders(And other Inconsistencies there don't have place to list).Maybe because the "Clibanarii"is their overall type so they were noted as clibanarii in Comes Africae's roster?

Perhaps so.