Warrior [15] Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236-565

by Simon MacDowall

  When on campaign in hostile territory, soldiers of the field army would have lived in leather tents like this modern reconstruction. (Author’s photo)

  Many Sarmatians were settled in Gaul in return for military service, and it is interesting to note that most of the known cataphractarii units have Gallic- or Celtic-sounding names such as the Biturigenses, Ambianenses, Albigenses and Pictavenses. These names suggest that the cataphractarii can be linked back to the Sarmatian military settlers in Gaul.

  The Clibanarii, on the other hand, have Persian or Parthian origins, and were probably not introduced into the Roman army until the 4th century. Persian armoured cavalry and their Roman derivative inspired awe in 4th-century writers. Along with the detailed description of them as very heavily armoured lancers, this indicates that their armour was more complete and more impressive than that of the Sarmatian-style equites cataphractarii who had been around for centuries. The term 'clibanarius' may derive from 'clibanus' meaning 'baking oven' - an appropriate term for a heavily armoured man fighting in the hot climate of the Middle East. The men who fought in these units were probably of Persian or Middle Eastern origin, and their equipment would have shown Persian rather than Sarmatian origins. While it is quite likely that clibanarii would have ridden horses covered with armoured trappings similar to those discovered at Dura Europos, several descriptions by Ammianus are notable in that they give great detail about the rider’s armour but do not mention the horse's.

  Soldiers of the limitanei lived in fixed bases along the frontier, like this fort at Chester which originally housed a cavalry unit. (English Heritage)

  Clibanarii units were senior to cataphractarii. There was one unit in the scola (guards) and the remainder were palatini (cavalry of the central field army), while the cataphractarii units were either comitatenses or limitanei. This lends weight to the idea that clibanarii might have been a newer, more completely armoured, version cataphractarii. It should also he noted that there were four fabricae devoted to producing clibanaria, so the clibanarii probably had some form of special armour.

  F Parades and processions (Clibanarii, Rome AD 357)

  'The emperor's person was surrounded by purple banners woven in the form of dragons and attached to the tops of gilded and jewelled spears... On each side marched a file of men-at-arms with shields and plumed helmets, whose shining breastplates cast a dazzling light. At intervals were cataphracts, the so-called Clibanarii, wearing masks and equipped with cuirasses and belts of steel... Their limbs were entirely covered by a garment of thin circular plates fitted to the curves of the body and so cunningly articulated that it adapted itself to any movement the wearer needed to make.'

  The unit of armoured cavalry depicted here is the Scola Scutariorum Clibanariorum, one of the new guards units created by Constantine to replace the Praetorians, who were disbanded after Milvian Bridge. Constantius (337-61) is credited with introducing Persian-style cataphracts (called Clibanarii) into the Roman army.

  Given the occasion and the status of the unit, the soldiers' equipment, which shows Persian origin, is far more uniform and elaborate than one might find in a line unit on campaign. The Romans understood the psychological importance of impressive military displays. The Strategikon, for example, notes that the more handsome the soldier is in his armament, the more confidence he gains in himself and the more fear he inspires in the enemy'.

  The body armour worn by the clibanarii is modeled on the graffiti of a 3rd-century Persian clibanarius from Dura Europos, and the horse armour from examples found there. Both bronze and iron scales were used. A variety of helmets are shown. They are all of the ridge style with additional face, cheek and neck protection. The helmet worn by the left hand figure is a reconstruction of a Persian helmet found at Dura Europos.

  The Roman saddle through to the end 4th century was characterised by four horns reinforced with these bronze plates. The horns ensured the rider kept a firm seat, and were useful for attaching equipment. (National Museums of Scotland)

  One unit of Clibanarii does not fit the contemporary descriptions of fully armoured lancers. This is the Equites Sagittarii Clibanarii, listed in the Notitia Dignitatum as part of the North African field army. This unit may have been modelled on Persian armoured horse archer units, which by the 6th century had become the standard Roman cavalry type, but we have no way of knowing if they rode armoured horses. Some modern authors have taken the evidence of this one unit to suggest that all clibanarii were armed with bows and were lighter equipped than cataphractarii but the fact that this unit is specifically designated as 'sagittarii' indicates that it was an anomaly rather than the norm. Furthermore, contemporary descriptions of Roman clibanarii or Persian-style cataphracts usually have them as lancers.

  Horse archers

  Horse archers had always formed part of the Roman army's cavalry force, particularly in the east, but their importance increased greatly throughout tins period. Although they were traditionally light skirmishers, probably without armour, at some point, probably in the 5th century, the standard Roman cavalryman evolved into an armoured horse archer capable of skirmishing from a distance or fighting in hand-to-hand combat. We have already discussed the possible Persian influence in the development of at least one unit of 4th-century armoured horse archers, and this, combined with influences from the steppe peoples such as the Huns, may have led to the transformation of the Roman cavalryman. It was probably a gradual process, and may have occurred between AD 430 and 450, when Aetius held power in the west and used large numbers of Huns in his army.

  These very classical style Attic helmets worn by many troops on the Arch Constantine were probably another artistic convention, although it is likely that a different style of Attic helmet was worn during the late Roman period, especially in Hellenistic Regions. (Deutsches Archäologisches Institute, Rome)

  G 6th-century horse archer

  Armoured horse archers formed the bulk of the 6th-century armies. His equipment - bow and sword but no spear, plumed ‘attic’-style helmet, scale armour with pteruges (leather strips) covering the shoulders and thighs, no shield is from a contemporary Egyptian ivory and is probably representative of garrison troops of the period. This helmet type is very common in art from the 4th century on, but has not been confirmed by archeological finds. It is quite possible that armouries in Greek parts of the Empire continued to produce helmets that followed Hellenistic styles, with single bowl construction rather than the more common multi-part spangenhelm or ‘ridge' styles. Scale armour had a long tradition in the east, and was a fairly inexpensive form of defence. It was less flexible than mail, however, requiring the addition of pteruges to provide some protection to the vulnerable thighs and shoulders. Injuries such as those sustained by Bochas (see Plate I) were presumably quite common with this form of armour.

  The dismounted figure represents the same man after some hard but financially successful campaigning against the Goths in Italy. He carries much of his wealth on his person, in the form of Gothic jewellery looted from the battlefield, a fine Italian-made spangenhelm and new tunic and trousers. The wide trousers were popular with 6th-century soldiers and probably originated on the steppes. They would have been more comfortable than tight wool hose when campaigning in hot climates. The soldier’s cloak and armour are a bit the worse for wear, and no doubt he would have been looking to replace them as soon as possible. He still fights as a horse archer, but, having being called on to fight in close combat on several occasions, he has added a small shield to his defensive equipment.

  The armoured Roman horse archer of the 6th century who formed the basis of Belisarius' army is clearly described by Procopius:

  'The bowmen of the present time go into battle wearing corselets and fitted out with greaves which extend up to the knee. From the right side hang their arrows, from the other the sword. And there are some who have a spear also attached to them, and at the shoulders, a sort of small shield without a grip, such as to cover the region of the face and
neck. They are expert horsemen, and are able without difficulty to direct their bows to either side white riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight.'

  The insignia of the Magister Equitum showing the shield designs of the senior western cavalry units at the end of the 4th century. (Notitia Dignitatum, Bodleian Library, Oxford)

  The cavalryman's main side-arm was the fairly long spatha, worn On the left side suspended either from a baldric or from the waist-belt. This is a surviving blade together with a scabbard chape. (National Museums of Scotland)

  This 6th-century Egyptian Ivory depicts a cavalryman equipped according to the description by Procopius. He wears scale armour with pteruges, a late Roman Attic-style helmet and carries a bow but no spear or shield. Although Procopius says that some cavalrymen carried spears as well as bows, probably only elite units like the bucellarii reached a sufficiently high level of training to handle both weapons. (Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier)

  THE EXPERIENCE OF BATTLE

  Skirmish tactics

  Before the 5th century Roman commanders expected to win their battles with a decisive infantry clash. The cavalryman’s job on the battlefield was to support the infantryman and to provide the circumstances that would allow the former to do his job. Most Roman cavalrymen fought using skirmish tactics, and although they might have worn armour, they could be considered as 'light cavalry'. On the march they might act as scouts, forage for food, lay enemy territory to waste or protect the flanks and rear of the column. When the army formed up for battle the cavalry would be called on to screen the deployment, hamper enemy deployment, protect the flanks of the infantry, defeat enemy cavalry and pursue broken opponents. They were not expected to deliver the crushing blow that would defeat the enemy army; that was the job of the infantry.

  The best surviving account of 3rd-century cavalry in action comes from Zosimus, who clearly describes the skirmish tactics employed by Aurelian's cavalry against Palmyran cataphracts in AD 272:

  'He [Aurelian] ordered his cavalry not to engage immediately with the fresh cavalry of the Palmyrans but to wait for their attack and pretend to flee, and to continue so doing until excessive heat and the weight of their armour had so wearied men and horses that they had to give up the chase. This stratagem worked, as the cavalry adhered to the order of the emperor. When they saw their enemy tired and that the horses were scarcely able to stand under them, or themselves to move, the Romans drew up the reins of their horses and, wheeling around, charged the enemy, trampling them as they fell from their horses. A confused slaughter ensued, some falling by the sword and others by their own and their enemies' horses.'

  Zosimus goes on to describe the several follow-on engagements in which the infantry form the main battle line ‘with shields close to each other and in compact formation' and named units of equites illyriciani (dalmatae and mauri) employ the same hit and run light cavalry tactics, but this time with less success:

  'At the commencement of the engagement, the Roman cavalry made a partial withdrawal, in case the Palmyrans, who outnumbered them and were better horsemen, should surround the Roman army unawares. But the Palmyran cavalry pursued them so fiercely, though their ranks mere broken, that the outcome was quite contrary to the expectation of the Roman cavalry. For they were pursued by an enemy much superior in strength and therefore most of them fell. The infantry had to bear the brunt of the action. Observing that the Palmyrans had broken their ranks when the cavalry commenced their pursuit, they wheeled about and attacked them while they were scattered and in disarray.'

  Roman horse harnesses were heavily decorated with gilded and silvered phalerae, fasteners and pendants, (National Museums of Scotland)

  Formations

  According to Arrian:

  'There are various formations of cavalry of many kinds, some square, some oblong, some rhombus-shaped, while others are brought together in a wedge. All these formations are good when adopted at the right time, and one would not pick out one of them and judge it superior to the others, since in another spot against different enemies and on a different occasion one might find another formation more useful than the one for which one had adopted.'

  The wedge (and the rhomboid, a diamond shaped formation) was particularly suited to fast skirmish action. With the leader and standard bearer at the point, command and control of the unit became simple, as all the troopers had to do was conform to the movement of the standard. These formations allowed 'the carrying out of sharp wheeling movements... for it is hard to wheel about with square formations'. Furthermore, as Vegetius tells us, a wedge ‘pierces the enemy line by a multitude of darts directed to one particular place'. The cavalry wedge, therefore, was naturally a preferred formation of light horse archers such as the Scythians and Huns, and should not be confused with the Germanic wedge which was more like an attack column. (See Warrior 9, Late Roman Infantryman.)

  The emperor surrounded by his guards, from the Arch of Constantine. After the destruction of the Praetorians at Milvian Bridge, Constantine created an all-cavalry guard known as the Schola (Deutsches Archäologisches Institute, Rome)

  The square and oblong formations would be used when complicated manoeuvre was less important than the ability to deliver an effective charge. A square was usually four ranks deep, Arrian tells us:

  'Cavalry drawn up in depth do not afford the same assistance as do infantry in depth, for they do not push on those in front of them, since one horse at a not push against another in the way that infantry push on with their shoulders and flanks. Nor when they are contiguous with those drawn up in front do they constitute a single massed weight far the whole body of troops; on the contrary, if they mass and press against each other, they rather cause the horses to panic.'

  A Roman cavalryman hunting. The Strategikon recommends hunting as a form of training for the cavalry. The man's clothing - red tunic with purple decorative patches and bands; and knee socks bound with thin laces - is typical of the late Roman period. (Piazza Armerina, Sicily)

  The author of the Strategikon made the same point, saying that four ranks was enough and that extra depth added nothing. However, he conceded that the number of good soldiers capable of fighting in the front rank were limited in his day, making it ‘necessary to regulate the depth of the formation according to the type of unit'. The better units could be formed five or seven deep and the worst up to ten deep.

  The mounted warrior of the 5th-6th centuries

  While infantry remained the decisive arm of the Roman army through the 3rd and 4th centuries, the situation began to change as Roman warlords surrounded themselves with bands of mounted retainers. By the 6th century the Strategikon recommends:

  'The general would be well advised to have more cavalry than infantry. The latter is set only for close combat, while the former is easily able to pursue or to retreat, and when dismounted the men are all set to fight on foot.'

  The 6th-century soldier was in fact much more than a cavalryman: he had become an all-round mounted warrior. With his bow he could skirmish at a distance, but he was also heavily armoured and well equipped for close mounted combat. When a steady force was needed to hold ground, he was quite happy to dismount and fight as a heavy infantryman. On many occasions Belisarius took only cavalry men with him, and when Narses needed steady infantry, he dismounted his cavalry.'

  With most armies based on cavalry, battles took on a much more fluid appearance than when infantry had formed their backbone. Procopius' battle descriptions are full of fast-moving actions by small groups of mounted men, so much so that they take on an almost ‘heroic' flavour, with individual champions challenging one another and performing deeds of daring. The character of these cavalry engagements is brought out by Procopius when he describes a battle against the Persians: ‘And both sides kept making advances upon their opponents and retiring quickly, for they were all cavalry.'

  While Procopius' battle descriptions seem to emphasise heroic individual deeds, there may be a
certain amount of author's licence as he tries to portray his warriors in a Homeric light. The Strategikon presents a more disciplined view of 6th-century cavalry, and constantly stresses the importance of maintaining order. For example, it recommends against using trumpets and battle cries:

  'The better silence is observed, the less disturbed will the younger men be and the less excited the horses ... The battle cry "Nobiscum”, which it was customary to shout when beginning, the charge, is in our opinion extremely dangerous and harmful. Shouting it at that moment may cause the ranks to break up. For because of the shout, the more timid soldiers in approaching really close combat may hesitate before the dash, while the bolder, roused to anger, may rashly push forward and break ranks. The same problem occurs with the horses, for they too differ in temperament. The result is that the battle line is uneven and without cohesion: in fact, its ranks may well be broken even before the charge, which is very dangerous,'

  Roman cavalrymen of the 5th and 6th centuries employed a mix of skirmish and shock tactics and were effectively equipped for both. When fighting from a distance with bows, their tactics would not have changed much from those described by Zosimus. They would ride up to their opponents in open order and probably in wedge formation to facilitate manoeuvre. They would discharge their arrows and, if they made no impression or if diced with a stronger opponent, would wheel away, conforming to the movement by their standard, to withdraw beyond bowshot and then wheel back to face the enemy again. If, on the other hand, their charge and arrow volley caused their opponents to flinch, they would continue to charge forward into close combat.