Historical question about Kataphraktoi

The unit description for Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi:
"They passed into history when most of the unit was bribed by Pompey during his conquest of the east. They formed the basis for the Romaioi kataphraktoi of later ages."

What I wonder is: Did those units ever actively fight for the Romans? Wikipedia claims that the romans did not deploy their own cataphracts until the reign of Hadrian, about 200 years after the end of the Seleucids. Was there a particular reason for not using them earlier, especially considering that they (supposedly) had proven decisive at the battle of Panium?

The reason I am asking is that I wonder if it would be at all historically plausible for the romans themselves to raise them as auxilliaries or have a client state in the former Seleucid domains provide them.

Actually I have doubts about it myself (I did not write it myself), but it is after all the first encounter of proper cataphracts by the Romans, so it had to have an impact. I was more under the relation that Partho-Sassanian conflicts against Rome would have been more decisive to the creation of a Roman cataphractarius and as hinted from Roman sources, these cataphracts were specifically mentioned "Clibanarii", a term that has caused much needless confusion. That's my take on the whole issue, though.

By what I've read of it the Romans first copied the Sarmatian cataphracts they encountered during the Dacian wars (Trajan, wasn't it ?) - ie. likely just hired a bunch of them lock stock and barrel - and later nicked the rather heavier version they called clibanarii off the Sassanids. The two types of armoured cavalry apparently coexisted, the Clibanarii being the senior "elite" formation attached to the Emperor and the Cataphtacti the less impressive pattern also found as part of regional garrison armies.

Originally Posted by Watchman

By what I've read of it the Romans first copied the Sarmatian cataphracts they encountered during the Dacian wars (Trajan, wasn't it ?) - ie. likely just hired a bunch of them lock stock and barrel - and later nicked the rather heavier version they called clibanarii off the Sassanids. The two types of armoured cavalry apparently coexisted, the Clibanarii being the senior "elite" formation attached to the Emperor and the Cataphtacti the less impressive pattern also found as part of regional garrison armies.

You've got a valid point. This is also duly noted by those who have studied later Roman cavalry terminology, however looking at the meaning and origin of the names, vis-a-vis to equipment and when these designations were used, we can't be very definite. Cataphract is Greek, Clibanarius is... Well, don't slam me, but there is reason that it is Persian (Griva-Pana-Bara, Grivpanvar, or simply neck-guard-bearer) that somehow found its way into Roman vocabulary, a spoof meaning "ovenman". The Greeks/later Byzantines called this "Klibanophoros". Some do indeed say that the Clibanarius was the heavier version... But I just can't see how, because Maurice in his Strategikon describes the Persian Clibanarii as an essentially armoured horse-archer with the frontal barding of the Armenian-Byzantine style, and in relation to the Parthian cataphracts of Carrhae that were told to have been armoured with steel, and the horses "covered with plates of steel"... Now you have all the Clibanarius/Cataphractarius confusion in a nutshell

I've read the Sassanid heavies changed over time. Early on - you know, around the time they toppled the Parthians and proceeded to pick fights with the Romans - their cataphracts/clibanarii were basically just really heavily armoured copies of the Parthian pattern (the extra armour apparently came as a rude surprise to the Romans in early encounters), and this was the one the Romans ripped off. Later the Sassanids apparently determined the fully armoured lancer to be a little on the tactically limited side, especially once the Romans started employing comparable troops as a foil and got better at various other countermeasures. So they started employing a sort of superheavy horse-archer instead - a heavy cavalryman who could provide his own fire support and shoot holes in enemy ranks himself, but still with enough armour to act as a shock trooper. The horse barding was presumably lightened in the interests of lowering equipement costs and improving the mounts' stamina - since enemies weren't supposed to see the Clibs' flanks and backs anyway, the lack of bard in those quarters was presumably regarded as acceptable. These guys fought in close order after all. The older lancer-on-fully-barded-horse pattern apparently existed for quite a while on the side, but comparatively few in numbers and massed into specialized "linebreaker" squadrons. One would presume the higher expense of full horse bard meant these fellows came from the richer upper aristocracy (placing a natural limiter on their numbers), whereas even less esteemed personages could afford the war gear of the newer "heavy archer" type.

Or that's what them books (not many) I've read suggest, anyway.

I've read a version that indicates that the vast majority of Sassanids cavalry were 'static rapid firing horse archers', some with horse barding, and that the Cataphracts found in their ranks came from the Parthian families that were assimilatated after the Sassanid conquest? Sounds fair to me.

Oh, that static archery style was said to have been the precursor to the Mamluk method that stopped the Mongols.....and the Crusaders!

Cheers,

Quilts

The "static" style of horse-archery (I've seen it called "Iranian") was pretty common AFAIK, and stemmed from entirely practical considerations. Unlike the steppe nomads with their herds of little tough horses the warriors of sedentary populaces had to make do with just a few but bigger and stronger dedicated warhorses, and that meant they couldn't afford to dart all over the place skirmishing quite simply because that'd have tired out the mounts right fast and they didn't have a large pool of remounts available. Ergo, static firing was preferred.

As an added bonus that gave better accurate range due to no interference from a moving mount, or so I've read.

The Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and Chinese used the same method for the exact same reason, and that's just the ones I can think of on the fly. Given the economic and tactical considerations inolved with horse barding I'd also guess nomadic elite heavy cavalry had the same approach.

I've read a version that indicates that the vast majority of Sassanids cavalry were 'static rapid firing horse archers', some with horse barding, and that the Cataphracts found in their ranks came from the Parthian families that were assimilatated after the Sassanid conquest? Sounds fair to me.

Given that the Sassanids were once subjects of the Parthian realm their aristocracy doubtless had been fighting for quite a while as cataphracts for their masters; the cataphract pattern became the norm for aristocratic heavy cavalry in the whole Middle East following the Seleucid collapse AFAIK (I've seen the Palmyrene catas being specifically mentioned as being of the Parthian model for example). Plus of course the Sassanids needed a fair force of heavy cavalry to begin with to pull off their takeover in the first place - once it became clear which way the tide was turning obviously many a lord of the Parthian empire cheerfully jumped ship to the rebels in the time-honored tradition of feudal barons looking out for Number One. There was apparently a similar mass defection of Sassanid manpower to the Muslims later, following the same logic of abandoning a sinking ship.

I've always interpreted the above passage:

"They passed into history when most of the unit was bribed by Pompey during his conquest of the east. They formed the basis for the Romaioi kataphraktoi of later ages."

As that the type of men who formed up the Seleukid cataphract corps, that is Europeans* settled in Syria (sidenote, Bar-Kochva says Iranians from western Media were also in the heavy cavalry, but might have been the Hetairoi mainly), were the principal recruits for the Roman cataphracts. Ie those who the Romans would call Greeks or Syrian Greeks and their descendants.

Of course, that is my interpretation. I'll ask Urnamma.


*Macedonians, Greeks, Thracians etc who were settled by the Successors in the East.