Cataphracts & clibanarii

[discovery1]

Question:What was the difference between Cataphracts & clibanarii? A book(Roman Warfare) I have open isn't too shure if they were. Could someone enlighten me please?

[Dead Moroz]

I've read an article about it recently. The word "clibanarii" appeared in Late Empire time (III-V centuries AD). The author of that article - he is well-known Russian scientist - surmised that cataphracts (cataphractarii) were supporting cavalry drafted in east of Roman Empire, and clibanarii were regular heavy cavalry in Roman and Persian armies. Also he wrote that there were no clear differences between clibanarii and cataphractarii.

Update: I confused names when wrote this post. Changed to correct. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Viva Las Vegas http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-disguise.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-drummer.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-disguise.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

Actually the there is a bit of difference when talking about the eastern roman cataphracts and clibanarii,the cataphracts carried a bow,lance sword and acted as supporting cavalry,while the clibanarii were the heavy shock cavalry...I'm no expert at this,so you might want to wait an answer from Kataphraktoi(a member in this forum)hes more knowledgable than me on this matter.

[Rosacrux]

The cataphractoi derive from the Roman cataphractarii and were used throughout the history of the eastern roman Empire (Byzantium), at least up to the 12th century. The name cataphractoi was not a unit distinction, rather than a descriptive generic name for armoured cavalry. In the greatest part of the Byzantine history, catapractoi have been a well-armored cavalry unit, using bow, lance, mace and/or sword, with a partly (or non) armored horse.

The Klivanarioi, OTOH, were an evolution of an early Roman cataphract heavy lancer, modelled on the Persian cavalry by the same name. The Klivanarii were extinct by the 6th century and reappeared during the 10th century. Extremely heavy cavalry, all-armoured rider and mount, using lance. Strictly shock cavalry. Their name seems to derive from the "klivanion", their heavy armored shirt. They were abandoned after the Themata institution were abandoned (dunno if they were strictly Thematic - probably not).

[Nowake]

So Klivanarioi suits better the Medieval unit.

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Mar. 02 2004,10:27)]So Klivanarioi suits better the Medieval unit.
No It just seems because of conformity of armour. But ancient clibanarii & cataphractarii and medieval knights are totally different units really. Knights can (and tend to) fight in one by one combat. Clibanarii and cataphractarii (in Roman era) was shock, charge troops destined to act in large groups. The main purpose of them was to break the enemy's lines. They were like cavalry phalanx. They always were defeated when were attacked from flanks/rear or when they were separated from each other.

[biguth dickuth]

Rosacrux i think that Klivanarioi were not a thematic army, but were a part of the central army of constantinople, namely, part of the "Tagmata".
I could be wrong though...

About what Dead Moroz said, i think you are right about the comparison between medieval knights and "klivanarioi" but somewhat wrong about the "kataphractarioi".

The later were more like medieval knights as they were able horsemen who could stand even on their own as they could efficiently use a variety of weapons, instead of just charging with a lance. Their main difference from knights, however, was that they were professionals and more disciplined than the knights and also, probably, less "brave" and risky, which had to do with the fact that they were regular army rather than individual, valour-seeking landlords.

[Rosacrux]

Biguth Dickuth,I, think you are right about the Klivanarioi being mainly imperial troops (Tagmata, Scholaes) but their demise seems to coincide with that of the Themata... perhaps it's a matter of cost, since they were extremely expensive to maintain and the Imperial trasury was in dire condition after the thematic system crumbled.

As for any resemblance with the medieval knight, the Byzantine cavalry was disciplined, professional (more or less) army, not individuals seeking glory, the favour of their monarch and/or loot, like the med. knights were.

So, any direct comparison between them is not really feasible.

I think that one on one, the high and late medieval knights (the one using plate armour and all) were better fighters, individually, than their Byzantine counterparts. But - all things equal - no knight army of the west could face an organized force of Byzantine cavalry and win, at least not up until Manzikert... after that, Byzantion was a mere shadow of it's former self and the army went down first - it costed too much money and without the rich Anatolian provinces, money was not easy to come by.

But it's interesting to note that Byzantine forces (consisting of standard infantry, few cataphracts-likes and of mercenaries) managed to win many times the armies of the western feudal lords that took over the largest part of Greece after the fall of Constantinople to the "crusaders" in 1204.

[Hakonarson]

both Cataphracts and Clibanarii were armoured cavalry - and the terms are virtually interchangeable in the long term.

There were cultures where the Clibanarii were fully armoured men on fully amoured horses (eg Sassanid Persian, East roman Empire), but in other cultures these were cataphracts (eg Parthian, Armenian).

ditto with partly armoured men on partly or even unarmoured horses - the East Romans called these Kataphractoi.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]As for any resemblance with the medieval knight, the Byzantine cavalry was disciplined, professional (more or less) army, not individuals seeking glory, the favour of their monarch and/or loot, like the med. knights were.

So, any direct comparison between them is not really feasible.

I agree with you on your points about the medieval knights and the byzantine cavalry and i think i kinda pointed it out too. Perhaps you are right that we can't compare them because of the different socio-economical circumstances under which they were "bred". However, i just tried to compare them as fighters and soldiers.

Anyway, i agree with the rest of your points. It was the loss of asia minor that diminished the capability of the Byzantines to gather well-trained armies.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 03 2004,02:14)]both Cataphracts and Clibanarii were armoured cavalry - and the terms are virtually interchangeable in the long term.

There were cultures where the Clibanarii were fully armoured men on fully amoured horses (eg Sassanid Persian, East roman Empire), but in other cultures these were cataphracts (eg Parthian, Armenian).

ditto with partly armoured men on partly or even unarmoured horses - the East Romans called these Kataphractoi.
Maybe, but it is sure thing that the cataphratcs used bows, so ..

[spmetla]

The Cataphracts are more like the Boyars are in game than anything else I can imagine, except highly disciplined.

[The Wizard]

As Rosacrux has already stated, the difference between cataphractii and klibanarii is simply there function and their equipment as a derivement of that function.

In the traditional sense of the word, cataphractii are armoured horsemen with partially armoured horse, using bow, lance, sword, mace and sometimes even more weapons. They were extremely well trained and disciplined, and were the first true multi-purpose cavalry. Seeing them on the field was not good, for there is nothing worse than a horse archer that can break a unit that isn't even prone to breaking

Now a clibanarius is an extremely heavily armoured horseman, same for his horse. Using lance and sword, the only two weapons of a lancer, they were there to charge and break units, like the later knights. They are what is depicted in MTW as "kataphraktoi", but they were only present in Nikephorian Byzantine armies, and were soon thereafter abandoned again.

The two terms are oft used through each other.



~Wiz

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Nowake @ Mar. 03 2004,02:26)]
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 03 2004,02:14)]both Cataphracts and Clibanarii were armoured cavalry - and the terms are virtually interchangeable in the long term.

Maybe, but it is sure thing that the cataphratcs used bows, so ..
So did Persian and Byzantine Clibanarii

Byzantine Klbanarii historically had the front ranks armed with maces, the flanking men armed with lances, and the men at het rear were on half armoured horses and armed with bows - all are Klibanari

BTW "cataphract" means "armoured" - the ancients refer to cataphract warships (those that have a deck over the rowers), cataphract archers (armoured archers on foot), etc.

"Clibanari" apparently comes from the Persian for "oven", and is presumed to be a reference to the effects ofthe sun on a fully armoured man and horse

[kataphraktoi]

I HATE BYZANTINE WRITINGS

Simply because they adopt many classical usages in their military descriptions.

Anyway,

Harks is correct about the distinctions between Kats and Klibs.

And they are used interchangeably indiscriminately and frustratingly enough.

Grrr.

Kats are heavy cavalry
Klibs are super heavy cavalry

Think of it that way and you'll never go wrong until some Byzantine source written by a non-military writer fudges it . GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

Clibanarii - oven boys
Klibanophori - same as above
Klibanion - "cuirass" of lamellar
Klibanoi - oven

Cataphractii - armoured
Kataphraktoi - same as above

Good nite

[The Wizard]

Fact is; Persians (as in: Sassanids) used their clibanarii as heavy shock cavalry after the reforms in the 5th century. That is why they later succumbed to the Arabs, who used fleet foot archers that the slow Sassanid lancers, so effective against Roman armies, couldn't catch.

Of course, there were many other reasons why the Sassanid dynasty fell, but from a military point of view that is the reason.

Clibanarii and cataphracts changed so many times and in authentic writings the terms are so often confused that we don't truly know what was what. :\



~Wiz

[Hakonarson]

That's pretty simplistic - clibanarii were a small fraction of hte Persian army - msot of it was massed horse archers.

And most Arabs were swordsmen and spearmen.

Of the Arab conquest armies it was said by someone "Befoer the Prophet 1000 Persians could defeat 10,000 Arabs, now 1000 Arabs can defeat 10,000 Persians" - Islam gave purpose and solidity to Arab armies that they had never had - instead of melting away at hte first reverse they would keep fighting until the enemy melted away.

[The Wizard]

No;

after some time the Sassanian main force that won the battles became these lancers. They were the ones that became more and more important within the armies, leaving horse archery to levies from the eastern holdings. Horse archery wasn't made very important by them, especially from the 5th century and on.

Also, the fact that the Arabs won so easily was the fact that they were unified, that they were determined as a sort of Arab "crusaders" (forgot the real word for an Arab holy war of conquest), and the fact that, since the Sassanian shahshanshah Yadzgerd III, merely a boy, had lost a great deal of his influence after the turmoil that Heraclius' beautiful counterattack caused, saw his empire at the mercy of his viziers and the Arabs. It fractured, broke, and was subsequently conquered by Khalid ibn Walid's forces.

The backbone of the spah was its heavy cavalry "in which all the nobles and men of rank" underwent "hard service" and became professional soldiers "through military training and discipline, through constant exercise in warfare and military manoeuvres". From the third century the Romans also formed units of heavy cavalry of the Oriental type; they called such horsemen clibanarii "mailclad [riders]", a term thought to have derived from an Iranian *griwbanar < *griwbanwar < *griva-pana-bara "neck-guard wearer". The heavy cavalry of Shapur II is described by an eye-witness historian as follows:

"all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skilfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would have thought them held fast by clamps of bronze".

Also:

In due course the importance of the heavy cavalry increased and the distinguished horseman assumed the meaning of "knight" as in European chivalry; if not of royal blood, he ranked next to the members of the ruling families and was among the king&#39;s boon companions.

And:

The Sassanians did not form light-armed cavalry but extensively employed-as allies or mercenaries-troops from warlike tribes who fought under their own chiefs. "The Sagestani were the bravest of all"; the Gelani, Albani and the Hephthalites, the Kushans and the Khazars were the main suppliers of light-armed cavalry. The skill of the Dailamites in the use of sword and dagger made them valuable troopers in close combat, while Arabs were efficient in desert warfare.

Generally, Sassanian armies relied heavily upon their heavy cavalry, who functioned as horse archers, shock forces and heavy troops. Infantry was limited to digging siege tunnels, constructing siege equipment, and guarding the baggage train. Horse archers were Arab and Eastern Persian levies (Kushans, Sagestani, and more of the peoples described above), not seen as important and therefore limited to a simple supporting role, not, as with Mongols (and to a lesser degree, Parthians), a pivotal role. That was reserved for the heavy cavalry.



~Wiz

[Leet Eriksson]

actually the arabs had practically no horse archers when they were in war with the sassanians,most of their cavalry used javelins as a form of ranged weapon,and the arabic archers used arabic longbows wich were very hard to manufacture and were similiar to the british one,but was insignificant to the arabic general,thanks to them it just vaporised into thin air in the 750&#39;s.

As for the form of warfare,an Arabic poet said about khalid bin al waleed"he would hit the skirmishing persians,and skirmish the hitting romans" implying that Khalid knew exactly how to fight and against who,he would use skirmish tactics against the byzantines and use shock tactics against the persians.Khalid was not an idiot,after all he won 119 battles before and after islam,and even when fighting the muslims

The reason he won against the byzantines and persians was becuase he was always accompanied by 2 of the prophets companions,Salman the persian and Suheib the roman,both of them served in their respective armies before coming to arabia and both knew how to fight.

[Hakonarson]

Wizard I&#39;m not sure why your wrote "No" at the start of your reply - which was very nive BTW - it&#39;s entirely in line with what I said.