Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:16:25.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

John W. Eadie
John W. Eadie
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The willingness of the Romans to adopt foreign military practices and to modify, and hereby strengthen, legionary organization, equipment, and tactics is well-documented and thas been discussed frequently by modern scholars. One manifestation of this pragmatic approach, however, has not received the attention it deserves—viz. their attempts during the Empire to develop an effective cavalry. In this effort the Romans employed a variety of cavalrymen and cavalry tactics, but one of the most interesting and certainly one of the most enduring products was the mailed cavalry. The origin, development and success of this force—which became a prominent branch of the Roman army after the first century A.D.—cannot be analysed without some reference to earlier experiments with cavalry equipment and tactics in the Mediterranean area. The Romans did not invent the heavy-armoured horseman: on the contrary, the innovators were the Assyrians, whose monuments uniquely illustrate the evolution of cavalry technique in antiquity. Delineation of the Assyrian development is instructive, for they were required to solve many of the technical and tactical problems which later confronted the Romans. Moreover, the tactics employed and the cavalry types created by the Assyrians are remarkably similar to the later Roman. To facilitate comparison of the Assyrian and Roman experience, in the following assessment the equivalent Greek and Latin terminology has been supplied for each phase in the Assyrian development.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 1-2 , November 1967 , pp. 161 - 173
Copyright
Copyright ©John W. Eadie 1967. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Tolstov, S. P., Drevnij Choresm (Moscow, 1948)Google Scholar—summarized by Ghirshman, R., Artibus Asiae 16 (1953), 209–37, 292–319Google Scholar [my references are to this summary]—properly stresses the Assyrian influence.

2 Budge, E.A W., Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum (London, 1914), pls. XV, XXIVCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Darko, E., Byzantion 10 (1938), 443 ff.Google Scholar; also Byzantion 18 (1948), 85 ffGoogle Scholar. On the nomadic riders, engaged in the ‘Parthian shot’, see Budge, o.c, pl. XXIV; Sulimirski, T., Revue Internationale d'histoire militaire 3 (1952), 450 ff.Google Scholar; on the ‘Parthian shot’ see Rostovtzeff, M., AJA 47 (1943), 174 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Barnett, R. D. and Falkner, M., The Sculptures of Tiglath-Pileser III (London, 1962), pls. XIV, LXVIIGoogle Scholar.

5 Smith, S., Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum (London, 1938), pls. XXXIX, XLIII, XLVIGoogle Scholar.

6 Tolstov, loc. cit.; Rubin, B., Historia 4 (1955), 264–83Google Scholar. This definition of cataphract is derived from the first descriptions of Massagetae mailed horsemen in Hdt. 1, 215 and Strabo 11, 8, 6; cf. Polyb. 30, 25, 9. As we shall see, however, the word cataphract was later applied to cavalrymen who were not outfitted in the Chorasmian manner.

7 Hančar, F., Das Pferd in prähistorischer und früher historischer Zeit (Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik, XI [1955]), 355 ff.Google Scholar; for a description of the Pazyryk horses see 366 ff. and pl. XII. From this horse the Median horses described by Hdt. 3, 106 and Strabo II, 13, 7 (525) and the ‘heavenly horses of Ferghana’ may have been descended: Ridgeway, W., The Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred Horse (Cambridge, 1905), 192 ff.Google Scholar; Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (Cambridge, 1930), 78 ff.Google Scholar; Rubin, o.c. (n. 6), 268–9; A. Waley, History Today 5, no. 2 (February, 1955), 95 ff.

8 Barnett-Falkner, o.c. (n. 4), pl. LXVII.

9 On the introduction of the saddle see Gunther, W., ‘Sattel’, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte II (1927–1928), 213Google Scholar.

10 Stirrups of the first century A.D. in Southern Russia: Minns, E. H., Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge, 1913), 250 ff.Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, M., Iranians and Greeks in Southern Russia (Oxford, 1922), 121, 130, pl. XXIXGoogle Scholar; Bivar, A. D. H., Oriental Art n. s. I (1955), 61Google Scholar, who rejects the first century B.C. date assigned by Minns and Rostovtzeff. Han Dynasty stirrup: Bivar 62. Indian ‘big toe’ strap: des Noëttes, R. Lefebvre, L'Attelage: le cheval de selle à travers les âges (Paris 1931,), 231, pls. 261, 263Google Scholar.

11 The Persians evidently were especially fond of cataphracts, which were employed in the armies of Xerxes (Hdt. 7, 84), Cyrus (Xenophon, Anab. 1, 8, 7; Cyr. 6, 4, 1; 7, 1, 2) and Darius (Curtius Rufus 3, 11, 5; 4, 9, 3).

12 According to Livy (35, 48, 3) Antiochus' army included ‘equitem innumerabilem … partim loricatos, quos cataphractos vocant, partim sagittis ex equo utentes et, a quo nihil satis tecti sit, averso refugientes equo certius figentes’. On the cataphracts at Magnesia see Livy 37, 42, 1; these units were also used by Antiochus IV, cp. Polyb. 30, 25, 9.

13 On the Companions see Tarn, ox. (n. 7), 71 ff.

14 Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I (Oxford, 1957), 708Google Scholar. For other references to θώρακες worn by cavalry see Xenophon, Cyr. 8, 8, 22; Pausanias I, 21, 6 (not metal); Suda, s. v. θώραξ = Arrian fr. 20; Julian, Or. 1, 37 C-D.

15 Cf. Hančar, o.c. (n. 7), 370 ff.

16 Plutarch, , Luc. 26, 6Google Scholar; 28, 1–7; Appian, Mith. 85 (which is identical with Plutarch, except that cataphracts are never mentioned); cf. Sallust, Hist. frs. 64–66; Eutropius 6, 9; Festus, Brev. 15; commentary by van Ooteghem, J., L. Licinius Lucullus (Mémoires Acad. Royale de Belgique 33, fasc. 4 [1959]), 117 ffGoogle Scholar. Sallust (fr. 65) says that the horses, as well as the riders, were armoured. Eutropius and Festus, employing contemporary terminology, refer to the Armenian mailed horsemen as clibanarii. On the tactics employed at Tigranocerta see now Gabba, E., ‘Sulle influenze reciproche degli ordinamenti militari dei Parti e dei Romani,’ in La Persia e il mondo Greco-Romano (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1963), 51–73Google Scholar. Professor Gabba's approach to the subject of mailed cavalry and his conclusions differ from those enunciated in this paper and will be noted.

17 For example, Rubin, o.c. (n. 6), 273 ff.

18 But cf. Dio 40, 15, 2, who refers to ἱπποτοξόται and κοντοφόποι, τὰ πολλὰ κατάφρακτοι (i.e. for the most part armoured). Dio may have been thinking of contemporary Roman κοντοφόροι = contarii or cataphractarii, who did not ride armoured horses.

19 The іπποτοξόται evidently operated in conjunction with the cataphracts: Dio 40, 15, 2; Plutarch, Crassus 25, 4–5. Gabba, in fact, suggests (o.c, n. 16, 67) that the cataphracts could not fight effectively without the support of mounted archers.

20 Tarn, o.c. (n. 7), 89 ff., believed that the battle was won by the Parthian mounted archers, whose reserve supply of arrows was carried by a special camel corps. The best modern commentary on the battle is still Garzetti, A., ‘M. Licinio Crasso,’ Athenaeum n.s. 22–23 (1944–1945), 45 ffGoogle Scholar. Gabba, o. c. (n. 16), 53 ff., 62 ff., 73, argues that the débâcle at Carrhae stimulated ‘un aggiornamento del sistema romano di combattimento’ (p. 69).

21 Gallic cavalry: BG 1, 42, 5; BAfr. 6, 3. Germans: BG 7, 13, 1–2; 7, 65, 4–5. Sagittarii: BG 2, 7, 1–2Google Scholar. Antesignami: BC 3, 75, 5; 3, 84, 3; cp. BG 5, 16–17 (antesignani (?)against chariots and British cavalry); von Domaszewski, A., RE I (1894), 2355–6Google Scholar; Sander, E., Hist. Zeitschr. 179 (1955), 275 ff.Google Scholar; Bell, M. J. V., Historia 14 (1965), 411 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 On the Sarmatae in general see Harmatta, J., Studies on the History of the Sarmatians (Budapest, 1950)Google Scholar; Sulimirski, T., ‘The Forgotten Sarmatians’, in Vanished Civilizations, ed. Bacon, E. (London, 1963), 279–98Google Scholar.

23 For example in the Bosporan kingdom: Sulimirski, ibid. 284 (pl. 9), 289; Rostovtzeff, o.c. (n. 10), 121, 130, pl. XXIX.

24 Bow: Sulimirski, o.c. (n. 22), 291; but cf. McLeod, W., Phoenix 19 (1965), 2 ffGoogle Scholar. Contus Sarmaticus: Valerius Flaccus 6, 161–2, 256–8; Statius, , Achill. 2, 132–4Google Scholar; Italicus, Silius, Punica 15, 683–5Google Scholar on these see Syme, R., CQ 23 (1929), 129 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Sulimirski, o.c. (n. 22), 289 ff.

26 Raid (migration ?) of 62: ILS 986; of 69: Tacitus, Hist. I, 79; another raid across the Danube in 70 is reported by Josephus, BJ 7, 4, 3.

27 Strabo's estimate (7, 3, 17) of the Roxolani—that they were ineffective against a well-ordered and well-armed phalanx—and Pausanias' remarks (1, 21, 5–6) regarding the Σαυροματικὸς θώροξ (supposedly made from mares’ hoofs) are, however, misleading: see Harmatta, o.c. (n. 22), 48.

28 Martial 9, 101 mentions three victories over the Sarmatians—‘cornua Sarmatici ter perfida contudit Histri’—and in 7, 6 celebrates Domitian's ‘victory’ of A.D. 92; see also Dio 67, 7, 4; Suet., , Dom. 6, 1Google Scholar (campaign of 84). On the Dacian wars see Salmon, E. T., TAPhA 67 (1936), 83 ffGoogle Scholar.

29 CIL XVI, Dipl. 35, 42, 57, 77; see H. van de Weerd and P. Lambrechts, ‘Note sur les corps d'Archers au Haut Empire,’ Laureae Aquincenses Memoriae V. Kuszinsky dicatae (1938), 229–42 = Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R., Die Amber in der alten Welt I (1964), 661–77Google Scholar; Gabba, o.c. (n. 16), 69 ff.

30 See Daremberg, /Saglio, , Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines I (1887)Google Scholar, s. v. ‘contus’ (R. Cagnat).

31 On Trajan's decision to invade see Dio 68, 6, 1; Salmon, o.c. (n. 28), 83 ff.; Lepper, F. A., Trajan's Parthian War (Oxford, 1948), 106 ffGoogle Scholar.

32 Tocilescu, G. G., Das Monument von Adamklissi, Tropaeum Traiani (Vienna, 1895)Google Scholar; Charles-Picard, G., Les Trophées romains (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 187, 1957), 391 ff.Google Scholar, with a useful bibliography of the controversy, 391, n. 1; Florescu, F. B., Monumentul de la Adamklissi, Tropaeum Traiani (Bucharest, 1961)Google Scholar, in Rumanian, with a very brief French summary appended. All three accept the Trajanic date.

33 Cf. metope 6.

34 Units of ala I Ulpia: CIL III, 4183, 4278, 4341, 4359–4362, 4369, 4370, 4378, 4379; VIII, 21620. That members of this ala were not armoured is indicated by the stele of Tur(?) Martinus at Arbal (CIL VIII, 9291; see Daremberg-Saglio, loc. cit.): in the relief above the inscription an unarmoured contarius, presumably the deceased, is depicted. It is not clear whether members of ala Longiniana, which was stationed in Germania inferior, were armoured: Espérandieu, E., Recueil général des basreliefs, statues, et bustes de la Gaule romaine VIII (1922), 6292Google Scholar = CIL XIII, 8095; cf. 6282, 6289; Cichorius, C. s. v. ‘ala’, RE I (1884), 1250Google Scholar.

35 Cichorius, ibid. 1245–6. Gabba, o.c. (n. 16), 67, suggests that this ala may have been created at the time of Trajan's Parthian war—but the evidence, in my judgment, is not conclusive.

36 On the mailed figures of the Column see Cichorius, C., Die Reliefs der Trajanssäule (Berlin, 1896) 1, pls. XXXI, XXXVIIGoogle Scholar; II, 14, 150 ff., 179 ff.

37 Of the third-century units the first, and perhaps best known, is the ala nova firma miliaria catafractaria Philippiana, which was recruited in the eastern provinces in A.D. 234, was transferred to the west under Maximinus and participated in campaigns against the Alamanni and Germans (235–6), and remained in service during the reign of Philip the Arab: CIL in, 99 = ILS 2771; III, 10307 = ILS 2540; XIII, 7323; Cichorius, o.c. (n. 34), 1236. According to Herodian 8, 1, 3, Maximinus re-entered Italy with several units (turmae? alae?) of cataphracts—αἱ τῶν καταφράκτων ἱππέων ἶλαι—which fought in conjunction with Mauretanian archers.

38 Caprino, C. et al. , La Colonna di Marco Aurelio (Rome, 1955)Google Scholar: from the campaign of 172–3, fig. 56 (XLIV); from the campaign of 174–5, figs. 72 (LVII), 78–9 (LXIII), 99 (LXXIX), 110 (XCII), 118 (XCIX), 128 (CVII); see also Becatti, G., Colonna di Marco Aurelio (Milan, 1957), figs. 27, 33, 46, 49, 57Google Scholar.

39 On Gallienus' reform and the equites Dalmatae: Cedrenos I, p. 494 (Bonn); Grosse, R., Römische Militärgeschichte (Berlin, 1920), 15 ff.Google Scholar; A. Alföldi, CAH, 216 ff.

40 Pictavenses: CIL III, 14406a; Ambianenses (the name is supplied by the Notitia Dignitatum): CIL XIII, 3493 = Espérandieu, o. c. (n. 34), V, 3941; CIL XIII, 3495 = Espérandieu V, 3940; numeri: Notizie degli Scavi (1890), 343, nr. 9 = Hoffmann, D., Museum Helveticum 20 (1963), 29Google Scholar; CIL V, 6784; XIII, 1848; XIII, 6238 = Espérandieu VIII, 6044; on numeri in general see Rowell, H. T., ‘numerus,’ RE 17, 2 (1937), 1327 ff., 2538 ffGoogle Scholar.

41 Probably related to CIL XIII, 3493, 3495 (see n. 40).

42 Ensslin, W, ‘Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diokletian, SBAW, Phil-hist. Abt., Heft I (1942), 56Google Scholar.

43 On cuneus see Grosse, o.c. (n. 39), 51.

44 Cf. Hoffmann, loc. cit. (n. 40).

45 The national and regional character of auxiliary units gradually was decreased by ‘the practice of filling up the auxilia with recruits from the region in which they were stationed’ (Alföldi, o. c, n. 39, 211).

46 Frisk, H., Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch I (1960)Google Scholar, s.v. κλίβανος. Rattenbury, R. M., CR 56 (1942), 114Google Scholar, appropriately suggested that clibanarius be translated ‘baking-tin man’.

47 Ghirshman, R., Iran: Partitions and Sassanians (London, 1962), 350Google Scholar. The Persian equivalent would be tanûrik, from tanûr = ‘oven’ (Christensen, A., L'Empire des Sassanides [Copenhagen, 1907], 60)Google Scholar.

48 The Excavations at Dura-Europus, Fourth Season (1933), 218; but cf. Gabba, o. c. (n. 16), 65, n. 66.

49 With which compare Nazarius, Paneg. 10, 22, 4. Sallust, Hist. fr. 65 and Justin 40, 2, 6–7 mention eastern mailed cavalry wearing lorica plumata (cf. mailed figures on Trajan's Column, n. 36 supra).

50 On the mask-helmet: Aram, Marc. 16, 10, 8; Grosse, o. c. (n. 39), 325 ff.; Seyrig, H., Archaeology 5 (1952), 69Google Scholar; Benndorf, O., Denkschriften der Kgl. Akad. der Wiss.,phil-hist. Cl. 28 (1878), 301 ffGoogle Scholar. On greaves: Grosse, 327 ff. The thighs are exposed. According to Heliodorus, this was intended to facilitate mounting, but more probably the break in the armour was designed to ensure stability—by applying the naked thighs to the horse's flanks the rider could maintain his balance, even without stirrups (cf. Plutarch, , Luc. 26, 6; 28, 1–7Google Scholar).

51 The Excavations at Dura-Europus, Fourth Season (1933), 13, 207 ff., pl. XXII (2); also in Ghirshman, o. c. (n. 47), pl. 63c (cf. pls. 69, 121b, 122, 163–6, 219–220).

52 For photographs see Hopkins, C., Illustrated London News 183 (2 September 1933), 362Google Scholar.

53 For example, Fiebiger, , RE IV (1901), 22Google Scholar; Altheim, F., Die Soldatenkaiser (Frankfurt, 1939), 154Google Scholar.

54 That Aurelian's army included cataphractarii is suggested by SHA, vita Aureliani 11, 4 (‘equites cataphractarios octingentos’). On the battle: Eutropius 9, 13, 2; Festus, Brev. 24; Jerome, Chron. ann. 273, p. 222 [Helm]; Zosimos I, 50; Downey, G., TAPhA 81 (1950), 57 ffGoogle Scholar. Only Festus and Jerome locate the battle at Immae; Festus alone says that the Palmyrene cavalry were clibanarii.

55 Alföldi, o. c. (n. 39), 218; cf. Altheim, o. c. (n. 53), 156.

56 The Notitia Dignitatum lists three armament ‘factories’ (clibanaria) which probably were constructed under Diocletian and were engaged specifically in the production of armour for the clibanarii: at Antioch in Syria (Or. 11, 22), at Caesarea in Cappadocia (Or. 11, 28), and at Nicomedia in Bithynia (Or. 11, 28; cf. Lactantius, De mort. pers. 7, 9). On these see Ensslin, o. c. (n. 43), 65; MacMullen, R., AJA 64 (1960), 30Google Scholar.

57 Kinch, K. F., L'Arc de Triomphe de Salonique (Paris, 1890)Google Scholar, pl. VIII, commentary p. 42: a cavalry-man (Dacian ?), armed with a contus and shield, is depicted wearing a coat of mail and riding an unarmoured horse.

58 It is doubtful that Parthians = Sassanians actually served in these units. What happened to III clibanarii Parthi?

59 This unit, which is not mentioned in any other source, evidently was unique—because it proved impracticable?

60 See Grosse, o. c. (n. 39), 16 ff.

61 Nazarius, , Panegyr. 10, 23, 4—24, 5Google Scholar; but cf. the variant account in Panegyr. 9, 6, 3–5.

62 Julian, Or. I, 37 D; cf. 11, 57 C.

63 Amm. Marc. 16, 10, 8: ‘cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)’. Whether Ammianus' equation cataphractarii = clibanarii accurately represents fourth-century usage cannot be determined. With Rostovtzeff I am inclined to believe that they were distinguished by their armour.

64 On Persian clibanarii ( = cataphractarii): Amm. Marc. 19, 7, 4 (siege of Aniida, A.D. 359); 20, 7, 9 (at Bezabde, 360); 24, 6, 8 (against Julian, 363). In his discussion of the last encounter Ammianus surprisingly says that the horses were protected by leather coverings: ‘operimentis scorteis equorum multitudine omni defensa’.

65 Adrianople: Amm. Marc. 28, 5, 6. The appearance of cataphractarii and clibanarii in the Notitia Dignitatum, however, suggests that mailed units were reintroduced later in the fourth century.

66 Depictions of large cavalry horses: contarius—Tropaeum Traiani, metopes I, II, IV, V (Florescu, o. c. n. 32, 270 ff.); cataphractarius—Column of Marcus Aurelius, pls. XLIV, LVII, passim (see n. 38); Espérandieu, o. c. (n. 34), V 3940, 3941 = CIL XIII, 3495, 3493; VIII, 6044 = CIL XIII, 6238; Arch of Galerius, see n. 57; clibanarius—Dura graffito, see n. 51; cf. Cichorius, o. c. (n. 36), pls. XXXI, XXXVII.

67 Cataphractarius holding contus in one hand: Espérandieu, o. c. (n. 34), V, 3940 = CIL XIII, 3495; VIII, 6044 = CIL XIII, 6238; Column of Marcus Aurelius, pls. XLIV, LVII (see n. 38). Non-Roman cataphractarii holding contus in both hands: Rostovtzeff, M., History of Decorative Painting in Southern Russia (in Russian; St. Petersburg, 1914)Google Scholar, pls. LXXVIII (1), LXXIX, LXXXIV (3) = Minns, o. c. (n. 10), fig. 218, p. 304; Minns, fig. 224, p. 314. Neither the mailed figures of Trajan's Column nor the Dura graffito wield the two-handed contus.

68 Alfoldi, o.c. (n. 39), 208 ff.; cf. Gabba, o. c. (n. 16), 64. One of the mailed figures in scene XXXVII of Trajan's Column employs the ‘Parthian shot’—which must have been difficult, if not impossible, to execute in full armour. It should be pointed out, of course, that the Column figures may be simply ‘the sculptor's interpretation of something heard or seen, answering to nothing ever actually worn …’ (F. A. Brown, Excavations at Dura-Europus, Sixth Season [1936], 445).

69 See, for example, Plutarch, Luc. 28; Appian, Mith. 85; Justin 40, 2, 6; Valerius Flaccus 6, 239–41; Herodian 15, 2–3; Amm. Marc. 16, 12, 21–22; Gabba, o. c. (n. 16), 65.

70 The Assyrian response to nomadic cavalry has been illustrated above; the interesting Chinese (Han) parallel is discussed by Creel, H. G., Amer. Hist. Review 70 (1965), 663 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.