I just saw this on Wikipedia. Don't shoot me... but it states there that that was the first time the romans faced them!? Is this the case? i've never heard of Pyrhos having them:dizzy2:
Printable View
I just saw this on Wikipedia. Don't shoot me... but it states there that that was the first time the romans faced them!? Is this the case? i've never heard of Pyrhos having them:dizzy2:
Well, from what I know from EB, I think Wikipedia is wrong.
Off, the top of my head, it sounds suspicious. First time they encountered elephants, definitely, but I don't think the cataphracts had been at all widely adopted by the Hellenistic kingdoms yet, not to mention the most Western of Hellenic kingdoms. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I doubt it.
Nobody ever used catapratchs
Yeah, i know... I think this is the only word in English which i find difficulties to pronounce:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spendios
Cataphract.... Is this better?:beam:
In which article was that? And which language?Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
Give him a break, you know he means: Cataphracts
:laugh4: That too. Anyway, far as I've ever heard about it the first time cataphracts turned up in Hellas - nevermind now being pitted against the Romans - was the Magnesia campaign.
I think what Wikipedia may be getting confused on is the difference between a Cataphract (fully armored) and the shielded Tarantine cavalry. I can't recall a single source that mentioned fully armored Cataphracts being deployed by Pyrrhus, though a ton of coins have been shown off with the shielded Tarantine cavalry which did end up inspiring later Roman cavalry developments.
Not clever and not funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spendios
I think there is a very simple key in understanding this problem in the nomenclature. The cataphract, originally, was never a designation of the oven-men Oriential knights or their armoured horses. The term originally meant "bulwarked" or "protected from all sides" and the Greeks, whenever they were about to describe heavy horse organized in serried ranks, capable of melee and extensively armed and armoured, called them "cataphracts". Basically any heavy cavalry, without a known institution to provide for them a name (Or simply of unknown nature) was flatly called "cataphract". Our only relief in this mess is that not too many forces used heavy horse in this manner, nor utilized the knee-to-knee organization. This gives us a pool stretching from Saka-Scythians, Sarmatians, Pergamenes, Seleucids, Armenians, Parthians, Atropatene... And basically any Eastern power that were tugging for the pieces of the once Achaemenid worldly order.
For the optimally armed and armoured super-heavy horse, we begin to see, by the 1st-2nd century CE the rising use of the term "clibanarii/clibanarius", which may have been derived from the Middle Persian "griwa-pana-bara" or "Grîvpânvar", those who bear neck-guards. This is a much more specific criterion, and gave the clibanarius (Oven-man in Roman; Possible cross-transfer back to Middle Persian with "tannûr" meaning oven inspired by the lamellar or combined lamellar-maille-and-plate cuirass, also known as the klibanion or the "oven"). Scholars have for decades been fighting ferociously over the problems in the nomenclature between terms cataphractii/cataphractarii/clibanarii, but during bulk of this period overlooked the significance of the Iranian origins of the word. The Roman jocular reference and the Middle Persian honourary designation do not necessarily conflict each other. In fact, it actually makes some sense: A Roman learns that the ridiculously well-armed Iranian cavalry name themselves "kribanpar" or some other gibberish which sounds humorously like "clibanar...". And it catches on like a rash. Instead we have observed how scholars try to "Sarmatianize" the word for "cataphract" and instead "Partho-Sassanianize" the word for "clibanarius".
The latter term prevailed and along with it its Iranian origins; The Byzantines strictly ascribed their elite cavalry contingents "Klibanophoros/Klibanophoroi", and the royal guard would become the "Athanatoi" or the "Immortals", which draws heavily upon the Sassanian 10,000 strong heavy cavalry, named "Zhâyedân" (Immortals). Ironically, both appear to be a corruption of the Royal Companions of the Achaemenids, whom also numbered 10,000. Herodotus, even in his grave, the same old joker.
The lesson to be learned is to never, ever, ever, ever, ever underestimate the power behind a fucked up nomenclature, especially if it is well established in academia. I can easily slap two more examples: Persia and Parthia. These are two of the largest cans of worms you can open up within the circles of Iranian studies and belong to a greater issue called the "Iranian nation and the eternal name dispute". I refuse. For the sake of sanity, patience and peace of mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
I'm thinking someone confused Pyrhos with Parthian.
Though I'm not an expert on Kataphraktoi, there is one thing.Quote:
cataphract (from the Greek: κατάφρακτος kataphraktos, plural κατάφρακτοι kataphraktoi, literally meaning "armored", as composed from κατά "completely" plus φρακτός "covered, protected", respectively from φράσσω "to cover, to protect"
When is a cataphract a cataphract? What defines a cataphract? Any heavily armoured kind of horse, or do we only mean the typical fully armour-clad mounted guys with an as fully-armoured horse? One could even say the Êtairoi were cataphracts, but we don't get the typical 'Cataphract' image when we think of them.
As in so many cases dealing with archaic military terminology, we're confronted with the ugly fact people back then simply didn't have the same urge to classify everything into neat well-defined categories we have. Instead we often enough get lexigraphers scratching their heads over a term which meant something quite different a few hundred years ago, and wasn't exactly employed in a very consistent fashion during his day either...
Interesting, I've heard a lot of different takes on the Clibanarii/cataphractii issues, but this one is new to me and seems quite reasonable.
But yeah, nomenclature for ancient armies can be a nightmare. Terms are constantly changing, or staying the same while the things they refer to change, and most ancient historians did not have much of a conception of the history of such terms and just use them in the way they were used to hearing.
You bet. I personally think it's the result of the relatively "elite" intellectual status ascribed to popular historians during the the course of modern history. They relied a lot on abstractions, as was typical of scholars who sought to summarize poorly understood cultures (E.g. George Rawlinson and his "The Seven Great Monarchies"), and it is not until past the age of Max Weber when we finally see social studies continuously reaching new heights and acquiring a somewhat more empirical method, not completely unlike the "Scientific Method". During this age, we begin to see entire circles of studies grow large and influential enough to propel research and maintain scholastics. This is where we usually observe the first signs of conflict. Deprecated, archaic, inaccurate or over-abstracted terminology, most likely firmly established during a long period of published scholastics. Trying to change the order of the day... It's like surfing towards a huge wave, it will end in a lesson of futility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Still, it's usually a good idea to establish a decent definition of what exactly you mean by the funny words you're using for referring to various obscure things. Or that's what they teach in my uni anyway. :sweatdrop:
...and yeah, even proper academicians used to be really lax about that.
Are these heavily armored tarantine cavalry untis in EB ? I'm curious.
And i think it's entierly understandable that people would get confused over the whole naming of these units. But now today i'd be interested what makes a easter cat. a cat. but a wester heavily armored cavalry not cat.
cat. = Cataphract
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by barabinni
I've seen it claimed that if Pyrrhos used cataphracts, they were probably Sarmatian mercenaries. EB includes a Sarmatian cavalry unit in which both the rider and the horse is heavily armoured.
Pretty sure Sarmatians weren't yet anywhere near Hellas those days though. Scythians would be a better bet, but you'd imagine that kind of thing got mentioned somewhere...
Now how much time did you save by abbreviating 'cataphract', and how much time did you lose by explaining your abbreviation?Quote:
Originally Posted by barabinni
Silly people, trying to save two seconds of their time with silly, unnecessary abbreviations, bleh.
As for the subject itself, I myself, as a person with little actual information about the composition of Pyrrhus' invading force, greatly doubt the claims of Pyrrhus using cataphracts, as we tend these days to use the word, in his army, but that , rather, he simply indeed employed some perhaps more-armoured-than-usual cavalry, which lead to the use of word to describe these units.
This issue has been addressed quite thoroughly by Mielczarek in "Cataphracti and Clibanari." The book is poorly translated into english and is poorly edited to boot, but it is the only relatively comprehensive study of heavily armoured cavalry which is somewhat widely available. Basically, the author arrives at the conclusion that what makes a man a cataphract is if he wears heavy armour and is armed with a heavy lance and that an armoured mount is not a requirement to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Mielkczarek's work on the issue, I think, is best complemented by Nikonorov, Valerii P. (1998) Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii: Another Look at the old problem of their Identifications. It has been lauded within Iranian studies and does more than merely saying "cataphractarii and clibanarii are the same". I think that for now, it's actually one of the best works on the issue.
Well said. Think of "w/" for "with" or "T7" instead of "777". Ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
It is indeed a nice complementary work, but it is unfortunately not widely available.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract