TEXT: ANDREY NEGIN AND 
  RAFFAELE D’AMATO
  ILLUSTRATED BY ANDREY NEGIN
  Roman Heavy Cavalry (1)
  Cataphractarii & Clibanarii,  
  1st Century BC–5th Century AD
  
  Roman Heavy Cavalry (1)
  Cataphractarii & Clibanarii 
  1st Century BC–5th Century AD
  ANDREY NEGIN & RAFFAELE D’AMATO 
  ILLUSTRATED BY 
  ANDREY NEGIN
  Series editor Martin Windrow
  
  CONTENTS
  INTRODUCTION 
  4
  CHRONOLOGY 
  5
  ORIGINS 
  6
  UNITS 
  10
  Source references: 1st century AD n 2nd century AD n 3rd century AD n 4th−5th centuries AD
  Designations 
  21
  Organization 
  22
  Formations and tactics 
  28
  ARMS & EQUIPMENT 
  36
  Offensive weapons: Spears n Maces and axes n Swords n Bows
  Defensive equipment: Helmets n Body and limb armour 
  38
  Horse armour 
  50
  Clothing, standards and flags 
  57
  BIBLIOGRAPHY 
  59
  INDEX 
  64
  
  4
  INTRODUCTION
  Modern scholars and students of the Roman Army have demonstrated a wide 
  interest in both the equipment and the tactical employment of the armoured 
  Roman heavy cavalryman or ‘cataphract’, since they have regarded him as 
  the precursor of the armoured knights of the Middle Ages.
  Ancient written sources indicate that heavy armoured cavalry – the so-
  called cataphracti (Greek, katáfraktoi), cataphractarii (Gr., katafraktárioi), 
  and clibanarii (Gr., klibanárioi) – were present on the 
  battlefields of the ancient world from 
  the Hellenistic period right up to 
  Late Antiquity. (In this text we 
  follow the different spellings – 
  e.g. catafractarii/cataphractarii 
  – found in various sources rather 
  than trying to impose a single 
  form.) The Roman Army was no 
  exception; it also created units of 
  cataphractarii and clibanarii, but 
  such troops were initially a product 
  of the Eastern world. The Romans 
  had a well-documented tendency 
  to employ foreign fighting men 
  and adopt their military practices, 
  and then to modify and improve 
  their organization, equipment 
  and tactics; this was an important 
  factor in their long-continuing 
  military successes. In their efforts 
  to develop an effective cavalry 
  the Romans employed a variety 
  of categories and tactics, and 
  one of the most enduring results 
  was the creation of a heavy 
  armoured cavalry.
  Having 
  relied 
  primarily 
  on legionary pedites during the 
  Consular period, under the Early 
  ROMAN HEAVY CAVALRY (1)
  CATAPHRACTARII & CLIBANARII 
  1st CENTURY BC–5th CENTURY AD
  Funerary stele (gravestone) 
  of the cataphracts Aurelius 
  Saluda and Aurelius Regrethus 
  of the regiment Ala Nova Firma 
  catafractaria, c. AD 234−235, 
  from Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. 
  The inscription may be 
  translated: ‘To the Gods of the 
  Afterworld. [For] the brothers 
  Aurelius Saluda and Regrethus, 
  once horsemen of the Ala 
  Nova Firma catafractaria, their 
  brother Aurelius Abdedathus 
  had this made. ’ These 
  troopers were recruited in 
  the Eastern provinces for the 
  German campaigns of Severus 
  Alexander (r. 222−235) and 
  his successor Maximinus 
  Thrax (‘the Thracian’ – r. 
  235−238). The same is true 
  of another inscription, to a 
  Mesopotamian soldier named 
  Biribamus; both monuments 
  were found in locations near 
  the Limes Germanicus. (Baden-
  Württemberg Lapidarium;  
  photo R. D'Amato, courtesy of 
  the Museum)
  
  5
  Empire the Romans began to experiment with light cavalry equipment 
  and tactics, and finally created units of armoured cavalry quite 
  similar to the Iranian models which they encountered. These 
  gave birth to the most exotic cavalry units in the Roman 
  Army, whose employment became much more diffuse 
  during the 3rd century AD, especially in the wars against 
  their Persian counterparts but also in the West. We can 
  identify nine such units in the Roman Army during the 
  2nd to 3rd centuries, although these never mustered a 
  very large number of men. However, in the Late Empire 
  units of cataphractarii and clibanarii formed the crack 
  regiments of the Roman Army, now providing at least 
  half of its total cavalry force.
  CHRONOLOGY
  31 BC 
   The army of Marcus Antonius 
  includes units of heavy cavalrymen 
  furnished by Cleopatra VII and 
  other Eastern allies.
  AD 69 
   Josephus mentions units of oriental-
  style armoured lancers in the army 
  led by Titus against the Jewish rebels.
  c. AD 110 
   The first regiments of cataphractarii 
  are introduced into the Roman Army by 
  the Emperor Trajan.
  c. AD 115−120 
   Possible date of creation of the regiment Ala I Gallorum 
  et Pannoniorum catafractata.
  AD 175 
   The Iazyges people, from the steppes north of the Black 
  Sea, make peace with Rome, on condition of providing 
  8,000 ‘hostage’ soldiers for service in its army. Of these, 
  5,500 are sent to serve in Britannia.
  AD 227−235 
   Heavy armoured cavalrymen of Eastern origin serve in the 
  armies of Emperors Severus Alexander and Maximinus 
  Thrax on the Rhine frontier with Germany.
  AD 234−235 
   Possible date of creation of the regiment Ala Nova Firma 
  catafractaria.
  AD 235 
   Osrhoenian amoured cavalry archers attempt to depose 
  Maximinus by acclaiming as emperor the former consul 
  Quartinus; he is later killed by the same archers’ former 
  commander.1
  AD 312 
   At the battle of Turin the troops of Constantine the Great 
  defeat Maxentius’s picked praesidium  formed by the 
  Vexillatio cataphractariorum (Pan. Lat. XII, 6).
  AD 337-361 
   During the reign of  Constantius II the units of 
  cataphractarii and clibanarii are favoured and 
  strengthened.
  c. AD 380−420 
   Large numbers of units of cataphractarii and clibanarii are 
  recorded in the official document known today as the 
  Notitia Dignitatum.
  1 Osrhoene, capital Edessa, was an allied kingdom, later a province, on the Parthian border 
  in the territory of today’s south-east Turkey.
  Romano-Egyptian elite heavy 
  cavalryman, 31 BC, army of 
  Marcus Antonius; detail from 
  the ‘Bireme of Praeneste’ 
  monument. (Musei Vaticani, 
  Città del Vaticano; photo R. 
  D’Amato, courtesy of the 
  Museum)
  
  6
  ORIGINS
  Armed conflicts between the Romans and the Parthians and Sarmatians 
  on their eastern borders provided a good reason for small temporary units 
  (numeri) of heavy armoured cavalry to be introduced into the Roman 
  Army by employment. The earliest recorded combats between Romans and 
  opposing cataphracts took place at the battles of Magnesia (190 BC, against 
  the Seleucids), Tigranocerta (69 BC, against the Armenians), and the famous 
  disaster at Carrhae (53 BC, inflicted by the Parthians). The more or less 
  constant threat from the Parthians in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, and from 
  the Sassanian Persians in the 3rd, consistently encouraged the Romans to 
  acquire such troops for their armies by employment or alliance.
  Among the many types of numeri hired by the Roman Army, from the late 
  1st and early 2nd centuries particular emphasis was placed on the employment 
  of units of cavalrymen called contarii (Greek, kontarioi – ‘lancers’). Josephus 
  (BJ III, 5, 5) mentions the long spear (κοντὸς) as one of the weapons of the 
  Roman cavalry in AD 69. Whether or not Vespasian (r. AD 69−79) actually 
  raised regular units of contarii cannot be determined, but the simultaneous 
  adoption of mounted archers during his reign indicates that the Romans 
  were beginning to experiment with new cavalry weapons and techniques – a 
  process that came to fruition during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian (rr. 
  Armour fragments from the 
  Chatalka (Roshana Dragana) 
  burial, Bulgaria, last quarter 
  of 1st century AD. These are 
  vertical iron plates joined with 
  bronze rivets, apparently on a 
  leather or thick fabric backing. 
  This seems to have been a 
  composite armour of plates 
  with some scales; the degree 
  of corrosion and fragmentation 
  makes it difficult to reconstruct, 
  but every second plate 
  was originally painted red. 
  (Drawings by Andrey Negin; 
  Stara Zagora Museum)
  EARLY ARMOURED CAVALRYMEN
  (1) Romano-Egyptian heavily armoured cavalryman, 
  31 BC
  This figure is copied from part of the famous monument to a 
  senior naval officer of the time of Marcus Antonius, now in the 
  Vatican museum, and from the Mausoleum of the Titeci near 
  Lake Fucinus. He probably represents a member of the 
  kataphraktoi of the Eastern allies of Cleopatra and M. Antonius, 
  or perhaps even a member of their bodyguard. Note the 
  helmet with wide cheek-guards partly protecting the face; the 
  thorax stadios (‘muscled’ or anatomical) cuirass; the shield of 
  scutum type, and the three javelins. Hidden here, his right arm 
  would be covered with articulated ‘hoop’ armour.
  (2) Romano-Thracian cataphract; Chatalka, c. AD 75−100
  The armoured cavalryman from the Chatalka burial in Bulgaria 
  may have worn what Arwidson calls ‘belt armour’ – a 
  combination of iron plates, scales and splints in the Iranian 
  tradition. The neck is protected by a thick iron gorget, following 
  the Thracian–Macedonian style; it was made in two pieces 
  connected by a strap, and the outer surface was originally 
  painted red. Surviving individual rings show that it was worn 
  over a separate ringmail collar. Note his magnificent masked 
  helmet (see reconstructions on pages 8-9). The Chatalka burial 
  also included a beautiful sword of Chinese type.
  A
  
  7
  1
  2
  
  8
  AD 98−138). From that generation onward heavy cavalrymen, sometimes 
  completely armoured and occasionally with armoured horses, begin to be 
  visible inside the Roman Army, especially in the units of simmachoi (‘allies’) 
  Close-ups of both sides of one 
  of the larger armour fragments 
  from the Chatalka burial in 
  ancient Thracia, approximately 
  30cm (11.8in) long. Based 
  on analysis of the surviving 
  fragments, we can assume that 
  they had parallels in Sarmatian 
  territory, and are an important 
  indication of contact between 
  a Romanized Thracian elite and 
  the Sarmatian aristocracy. This 
  armour may have been made 
  at Panticapea, where we find 
  a two-headed dog motif, as 
  visible on a Roshava Dragana 
  armour find. (Stara Zagora 
  Museum, after Negin, 2016)
  Helmet from the Chatalka 
  burial, last quarter of 1st 
  century AD. This beautiful 
  Roman face-mask helmet 
  shows interesting tube 
  mountings riveted on the sides 
  of the bowl above the ears of 
  the mask, in the place where 
  some Roman helmets have side 
  tubes for single-feather plumes. 
  (Stara Zagora Museum, after 
  Negin, 2016)
  
  9
  or in the numeri recruited in the Eastern provinces. Through the enlistment 
  of cavalry equipped with superior armour and weapons, and trained in novel 
  tactics, the Roman Army added a further element to its versatile array of 
  war-fighting assets.
  As early as AD 45 the vassal kingdom of Thracia was transformed into 
  a Roman province, and the elite of the Thracian aristocracy provided Rome 
  with a number of cavalry auxiliaries, some of them serving as heavy armoured 
  lancers. A Thracian−Sarmatian nobility which was already strongly Hellenized 
  quickly became the core of such kontarii cataphractarii, as shown by the 
  wonderful grave finds from Chatalka in Bulgaria (Roshava Dragana, tumulus 
  I, grave 2,784). There a Roman elite cavalryman of Thracian origin was buried 
  with all his equipment, perhaps including that of the horse, in a period variably 
  dated by archaeologists to between the last quarter of the 1st century AD and 
  Fragments of the gorget plate 
  from the Chatalka burial, last 
  quarter of 1st century AD; see 
  under Plate A2. (Stara Zagora 
  Museum, after Negin, 2016)
  Reconstruction of the helmet 
  from the Romano-Thracian 
  Chatalka burial. The mountings 
  for tubes above the ears are 
  too large and too horizontal to 
  be for feather plumes; they are 
  similar to tube mountings for 
  horns on a Hellenistic helmet 
  from Bryastovets. (Stara Zagora 
  Museum, after Negin, 2016)
  
  10
  the first half of the 2nd century. The Chatalka tumulus 
  and other archaeological finds raise the possibility 
  that detachments of cataphracts may have served with 
  the Roman Army from about AD 75.
  The Roman contarii or κοντοφόροι are mentioned 
  by Arrian (Tact., IV, 3) as carrying a particularly 
  heavy lance (kontós) of Sarmatian origin, and were 
  probably raised to counter the heavy cavalry of 
  the Sarmatian Rhoxolani and Iazyges during the 
  Dacian Wars at the turn of the 1st/2nd centuries. 
  Their bodies, and many of their horses, were 
  sometimes covered with scale, lamellar or 
  mail armour.
  UNITS
  Source references: 1st century AD
  The presence of oriental-style armoured lancers 
  fighting among the Roman forces at Jotapata in the 
  Jewish War of AD 69 is noted by Josephus (BJ III, 253): 
  ‘. . . covered with armour on every side and with kontoi 
  in their hands’. This is attested archaeologically by several 
  large iron scales from Gamala on the Golan Heights. These heavy cavalrymen 
  appear to reflect Parthian or European steppe traditions, and in all probability 
  were provided by oriental rulers allied to the Romans, like those of Hatra. 
  Easterners (especially 
  Bosphorans from the 
  northern coast of 
  the Black Sea) were 
  widely employed as 
  heavy cavalrymen, 
  ‘armoured in iron’ 
  (Prop., 
  El., 
  III, 
  12, 
  11, 
  ‘ferreus 
  cataphractus’). The 
  best example of this 
  is the tombstone 
  of Thyphon, from 
  Panticapea (Kerch, in 
  north-east Crimea).
  2nd century AD
  Beside the Easterners, 
  in the 2nd century 
  AD cataphract units 
  were often composed 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  Sarmatian tribesmen 
  (Rhoxolani 
  and 
  Sarmatian cataphract, showing 
  spangenhelm, scale body 
  armour, and horse armour with 
  pierced metal eye-protector; 
  Trajan’s Column, scene XXXI, 
  early 2nd century AD. (Cast in 
  Museum of Civiltà Romana; 
  photo R. D’Amato, courtesy of 
  the Museum)
  Hypothetical reconstructions 
  of the equipment of a decurio 
  (left) and a praefectus of an 
  early Ala cataphractata, 2nd 
  century AD. See modified 
  reconstructions as Plates B2 
  and B3. (Drawings by Andrea 
  Salimbeti ex Gamber)
  
  11
  Iazyges) as shown on Trajan’s Column. Units of these heavy cavalrymen 
  were enlisted in the army perhaps from the reign of Trajan (AD 98−117), but 
  certainly under Hadrian (r. 117−138). According to Arrian (Tact., XLIV), 
  Hadrian was the first to introduce cataphracts to the Roman Army. An 
  inscription (CIL XI 5632) refers to the Ala I Gallorum and Pannoniorum 
  catafractata operating in Moesia against the Sarmatians. J.W. Eaddie suggests 
  that this regiment may have been formed by combining two existing alae, 
  the I Claudia Gallorum and I Pannoniorum, which had been stationed in 
  Moesia in AD 99 and 105 respectively but evidently disappeared thereafter.
  Graffiti from Dura Europos 
  and Hatra, 2nd−3rd centuries. 
  These two sites offer, in 
  graffiti and paintings, the best 
  representations of Roman 
  or allied Hatrene-Palmyrene 
  cataphracts, with horse-armour, 
  shields, bows, and apparently 
  masked helmets. (Drawings by 
  Andrea Salimbeti ex Rostovtzeff 
  and Parthica)
  The famous graffito of a 
  clibanarius from Tower 
  17 at Dura Europos; see 
  reconstruction as Plate C3. 
  The ‘belt-cuirass’ of plates (in 
  Arwidson’s term) combined 
  with scales and/or mail for 
  this 3rd-century Roman or 
  Palmyrene clibanarius was 
  a typically oriental fashion 
  adopted by the Roman Army; 
  it fitted to the body well, while 
  enabling considerable freedom 
  of movement. (Drawing by 
  Andrea Salimbeti ex Ghirsman)
  
  12
  That the troopers seem to have been recruited in Gallia and Pannonia 
  indicates that from an early date these formations were not restricted to 
  Persians or other orientals. Various diplomas were issued for this unit 
  in AD 125 (AE, 1997: 1772), 127 (AE, 1887: 1780; RMD 235, 241) 
  and 134 (CIL XVI, 78). Under Hadrian it was commanded for a time 
  between AD 120 and 130 by M. Maenius Agrippa, and subsequently by a 
  certain Vettius or Tettius, who is mentioned in a diploma of 28 February 
  AD 138 together with a trooper named Valerius. From then on references 
  to the unit on diplomas are not infrequent (e.g. RMD 50, 165, 270, from 
  AD 145−146 and 154), but it seems that its troopers remained essentially 
  foreign, and were rarely, if ever, recruited as Roman citizens. However, 
  under Antoninus Pius (r. AD 138−161) members of this regiment were 
  granted civitas upon discharge (CIL III, Diploma XLIV from between 
  AD 145 and 161, in Moesia Superior; and CIL XVI, 00110, from AD 159, 
  in Dacia).
  One or possibly two units of armoured cavalry are attested in Britain. A 
  unit of Sarmatians was based at Ribchester (CIL VII, 218, 221), as part of a 
  force of 5,500 sent to Britain in AD 175 following the defeat of their tribe 
  in the Marcomannic War (SHA Marcus Aurelius 27). Probably not all of 
  the 5,500 were cavalry, and the total may have included non-combatants. 
  No other units of Sarmatians are definitely attested in Britain. The unit at 
  Ribchester is described on inscriptions both as a numerus and an ala, and 
  is probably the same one called a cuneus in the Notitia Dignitatum (OC. 
  XL, 54) at the turn of the 4th/5th centuries. The tombstone of a Sarmatian 
  draconarius found at Chester in 1890 (RI B. 550) may possibly suggest 
  the presence of a second such unit. It shows a cavalryman in scale armour 
  on a partially armoured horse, but unfortunately the inscription is almost 
  entirely destroyed.
  EARLY UNITS, 2nd CENTURY AD
  (1) Sarmatian cataphract; Adygeia, c. 110 AD
  Archaeological finds at the Gorodoskoy farm site on the 
  ancient Pontic steppes in Adygeia (Russian Federation) 
  revealed the impressive armour of a true Sarmatian 
  cataphractus, a prototype for the Roman armoured contarius. 
  He wears a segmented iron spangenhelm with an attached 
  scale aventail; the skull consists of four vertical pieces with the 
  space between filled with horizontal strips, as depicted on 
  Trajan’s Column. The height of the occupant of the grave was 
  about 1.7m (5ft 6in), and the superb ringmail coat was up to 
  1.5m long (4ft 11in). At the top it fastened with buckles to the 
  scale aventail. At the bottom it was divided into two flaps, 
  allowing the wearer to sit on a horse with ease; the flaps were 
  wrapped around the legs like trousers, being fastened in this 
  position above the knee and on the shins with wide ringmail 
  strips. Because of the poor preservation of the recovered 
  armour the length of the sleeves is not clear, but given the 
  degree of easy movement that would be required to wield the 
  swords and javelins found in such graves we assume that they 
  ended at the elbows. He carries a long spatha-type sword, but 
  his main weapon is the very long contus sarmaticus.
  (2) Decurio of Ala Prima Gallorum et Pannoniorum 
  catafractata, 2nd century AD
  The reconstruction of this junior officer is based on the studies 
  of Gamber. He proposes that the chamfron found at Newstead, 
  Scotland, and other recovered fragments of leather horse 
  armour decorated with rivets, give an idea of the appearance 
  of the mounts used by the early Roman cataphracts. The 
  decurion’s personal armour is reconstructed from Pannonian 
  gravestones and archaeological finds; the troopers also could 
  wear decorated helmets like this Trajanic or Hadrianic example 
  from Brza Palanka, and bronze ocreae (greaves). We have 
  completed him with full-length ‘hooped’ articulated arm 
  protection (the galerus), a cavalry spatha and the contus.
  (3) Praefectus of an Ala catafractata, late 2nd century AD
  This unit commander is largely reconstructed from the horseman 
  balteus decoration from Trecenta in the Veneto region of north-
  east Italy. The officers of the cataphracts wore beautiful decorated 
  helmets of Hellenic taste, here copied from an open-mask 
  specimen ex-Axel Guttman collection (AG451). He is wearing a 
  composite armour formed by a thorax stadios and laminae 
  vertically disposed around the lower trunk, following the system 
  of the Iranian ‘belt armour’, and copper-alloy greaves. Gamber 
  proposes the mace as an officer’s weapon, which may be 
  confirmed by a specimen found in Dura Europos associated with 
  cavalry finds, and by the fighting position of the cavalryman 
  represented on the Trecenta balteus fitting. A regimental 
  commander’s horse equipment would be suitably magnificent; 
  decorated pectoral protections with embossed figures, and 
  partial bronze chamfrons with eye-protectors, have been found 
  near Brescia, Turin, Vienna and in other localities.
  B
  
  13
  1
  2
  3
  
  14
  3rd century AD
  A new series of monuments and 
  inscriptions relating to cataphracts 
  appear during the reign of Septimius 
  Severus (AD 193−211), and increase 
  under his successors. The use of 
  masked helmets on the Rhine 
  frontier, and especially at Xanten, is 
  well attested in the archaeology and 
  has been linked with the presence 
  of heavy cavalrymen. The Emperor 
  Severus Alexander (r. AD 222−235) 
  gathered numerous troops for a 
  retaliatory campaign into Germania 
  Magna against the Alamanni, and 
  among these were many Easterners 
  and especially Parthians (Herodian, 
  Hist., VII). This emperor had 
  employed captured equipment to fit out his own cavalry in the war against 
  the Sassanians who seized power in Persia at the beginning of AD 227; he 
  brought the recruited Parthian and Mesopotamian soldiers to the banks of 
  the Rhine, but he was assassinated before the offensive could be launched. 
  His successor, Maximinus the Thracian (r. AD 235−238) led the punitive 
  expedition successfully, though at the cost of serious losses.
  During Maximinus’ reign there is mention of the large regiment Ala 
  Nova Firma miliaria catafractaria, which was recruited in the eastern 
  provinces (Mesopotamia and Osrhoene) in 234, transferred to the West, 
  and participated in campaigns against the Alamanni and Germans over the 
  following two years. According to Herodian (VIII, 1, 3), Maximinus re-
  entered Italy with several alae of cataphracts (αἰ τῶν καταφράκτων ἴππέων 
  ἴλαι), which fought in conjunction with Osrhoenian horse archers and 
  Mauretanian mounted javelineers. The Ala Nova Firma remained in service 
  at least during the reign of Philip the Arab (r. 244−249) – from whom it took 
  its ultimate title Philippiana – and operated in Germania Superior, Pannonia 
  Inferior, the Eastern provinces and Arabia.
  The presence of cataphracts of Eastern origin alongside the light cavalry 
  was an increasing phenomenon from the 3rd century AD, and is confirmed 
  by rich evidence. That the cavalry became a more prominent part of the 
  Roman Army during the 3rd century is well known. In around AD 260 a 
  second great invasion by Alamanni, described as on horseback, penetrated 
  most of the Roman limes in the West, and led Gallienus (r. 260−268) to 
  undertake widespread army reforms to create a highly mobile force which 
  could match most of the tactics employed by Rome’s enemies. From this time 
  onward the cataphracts played an ever more important role; Kedrenos (I, p. 
  454) speaks of Ippika Tagmata, ‘cavalry regiments’), and these were further 
  increased under Aurelian (r. 270−275). The old legionary cavalry gradually 
  disappeared, and an independent battle-cavalry arm gradually took over the 
  inheritance of the legions in the field armies.
  Rome’s increasing strength in heavy cavalry units was certainly matched 
  during the 3rd century by the aggressive Sassanian Persians, who repeatedly 
  threatened the critical Syrian limes, and included in their army the super-
  heavy cavalrymen known by the Romans as clibanarii. The successful use 
  Depiction of fight between 
  Romans and Sassanians in 
  fresco from House F at Dura 
  Europos, AD 259−260. The 
  horseman at the left, charging 
  with a contus and unhorsing his 
  adversary, has been identified 
  by Prof Pagliaro as a Persian by 
  an inscription in Pehlvi which 
  appeared above his head: ‘. . . 
  yazatan hac cihr yattâv’ (‘the 
  Lord offspring of the Gods’) – 
  the style used by the Sassanian 
  royal lineage. The armour of the 
  unhorsed Roman resembles 
  that of the clibanarius graffito, 
  but he holds a short sword in 
  his right hand and possibly 
  a shield in his left. The girth 
  visible below the fringed 
  saddle-cloth is ornamented 
  with metal discs. (Drawing by 
  Andrea Salimbeti ex Rostovtzeff 
  and Little)
  
  15
  Statue of Roman cataphract, 
  c. AD 298, at Aswan, Egypt; 
  originally he would have been 
  raising his arm to warn Nubian 
  and Blemme enemies not to 
  violate the borders of Roman 
  Aegyptus. There is evidence for 
  the presence of a heavy cavalry 
  regiment, the Ala Prima Iovia 
  cataphractariorum, established 
  in the province under 
  Diocletian’s military reforms. 
  The trooper’s neck seems to be 
  protected by an aventail falling 
  from the absent helmet. Note 
  that the scale armour is shown 
  extending not only down to 
  the wrist, but also covering the 
  shins down to the top of the 
  short boots, with some kind 
  of ‘gartered’ effect just below 
  the knees. This may represent 
  armoured leggings, perhaps 
  laced on behind the legs, 
  anticipating the chausses of the 
  Middle Ages. The loose waist 
  belt has lion-mask fittings, 
  and the sword slung from a 
  baldric seems to be of Cologne 
  typology. (Museum of Nubia, 
  Aswan; photos R. D’Amato, 
  courtesy of the Museum)
  
  16
  of heavy cavalry against the Germans induced the Romans 
  to recruit new units not only for confrontations with the 
  Sassanians and Palmyrenes, but also to serve in Gallia 
  against the Franks and Alamanni. The former importance 
  of the infantry waned in favour of a fully armoured cavalry, 
  which could move quickly to threatened borders and could 
  be deployed against mounted enemies. Several inscriptions 
  attest the following units in service during the late 3rd and 
  4th centuries:
  Equites catafractarii Pictavenses (CIL 111, 14406a), recruited 
  in Dacia and operating in Macedonia.
  Equites catafractarii Ambianenses (CIL XIII, 3493, 3495), 
  stationed in Belgica.
  Several numeri catafractariorum (CIL V, 6784; XIII, 
  1848; XIII, 6238) operating in Gallia Cisalpina, Gallia Lugdunensis, and 
  Germania Superior.
  4th−5th centuries AD
  The inscriptions also reveal that by this time such units of cataphracts were 
  recruited from both Western and Eastern provinces, reducing the oriental 
  monopoly in armoured heavy cavalry. (The terms ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ 
  provinces are defined in the map which appears in the books MAA 506 & 
  511 – see inside back cover.) Some units served on always-strategic frontiers, 
  such as those of Germania Superior and Moesia Inferior, while others were 
  evidently stationed in provinces (e.g. Macedonia, Gallia Cisalpina) that were 
  now considered critical due to the 3rd-century Germanic invasions which 
  affected Gallia, Italia, Macedonia and Greece.
  These units multiplied in the Late Empire, when they were known as 
  either cataphracti. cataphractarii or clibanarii (see below, ‘Designations’). 
  FIRST HALF OF 3rd CENTURY AD
  (1) Osrhoenian heavy cavalry sagittarius, army of Severus 
  Alexander; Gallia, AD 235
  According to Herodian, Severus Alexander had brought with 
  him for his Rhine frontier campaign a large force of archers 
  from the East including from Osrhoene, together with Parthian 
  deserters and mercenaries. The horse-archers included heavy 
  armoured units; shooting from well beyond the range of the 
  Germans’ weapons, they did great execution among their 
  unarmoured adversaries. We have given this soldier some 
  Roman equipment found in north German bogs, such as the 
  mask helmet from Thorsbjerg and the ringmail shirt from 
  Vimose, integrated with clothing and fittings from Parthian 
  and Hatrene paintings. Iconography (e.g. synagogue painting 
  from Dura), and graffiti suggest that the composite bow and a 
  quiver would have been carried slung from the saddle behind 
  the right leg, convenient for the right hand.
  (2) Cataphractarius of Ala Firma catafractaria, army of 
  Maximinus Thrax; Germania, AD 235
   Reconstructed from the stele of the Saluda brothers, he has rich 
  equipment from the Rhine area: a Mainz-Heddernheim style 
  helmet; bronze scale armour from Mainz; and highly decorated 
  greaves embossed with a representation of the god Mars, from 
  Speyer. His weapons and related fittings (spatha, baldric, contus) 
  are copied from finds around Mainz, Nydam, and the Vimose 
  bogs, where a lot of captured Roman equipment relating to the 
  campaigns of Severus Alexander and Maximinus was found. The 
  armour of his horse has been reconstructed from the lesser-
  known third trapper found in Dura Europos, made of copper-alloy 
  scales, although the prometopidion (chamfron) is from 
  Heddernheim. Under it the horse wears the equine harness from 
  Nydam, including a brown leather muzzle with a bronze boss and 
  fastened with bridle-chains to the rings of the bit.
  (3) Clibanarius of a Numerus Palmyrenorum; Dura Europos, 
  mid-3rd century AD
  This ‘super-heavy’ cavalryman is reconstructed from the 
  famous clibanarius graffito at Dura Europos (Tower 17). Note 
  his conical mask helmet, and laminated armour covering 
  torso, legs and arms. The limb defences consisted mainly of 
  plates overlapping upwards, as required to throw off enemy 
  spears running up the left arm, unprotected by a shield. 
  Composite scale-and-plate armour similar to Iranian or 
  Palmyrene models, as portrayed in the graffito, covers the 
  trunk. Thigh protection was often associated with greaves, 
  and was found at Dura made of copper alloy and lined with 
  linen. His mount is stronger than the usual Arab breeds, and is 
  protected by the iron-scale trapper – described in the text as 
  number (2) – found at Dura.
  C
  Detail from the stele of Valerius 
  Maxantius, an eques of a 
  Numerus catafractariorum, early 
  4th century AD, from Worms, 
  Germany. He probably belonged 
  to a unit formerly serving under 
  Maxentius, and thus not fully 
  trusted, which was sent north 
  to fight the barbarians after 
  Constantine’s victory in the civil 
  war; according to the inscription 
  he died at the age of 32. Though 
  much weathered, the gravestone 
  seems to show him wearing scale 
  armour and a sagum cloak, and 
  equipped with a contus, a sword 
  and a large circular shield; his 
  horse is not armoured. (Museum 
  der Stadt Worms, photo courtesy 
  Dr Michael Bishop)
  
  17
  1
  2
  3
  
  18
  Many were steadily added to the 
  nine 3rd-century units which 
  have been identified. Eastern 
  and Western sources give several 
  references to their employment 
  under the Late Empire, and 
  important details may be found in 
  the works of Ammianus and other 
  authors. Constantius II (r. 337–
  340) seems to have reorganized 
  and increased the heavy cavalry 
  units, and Libanios, in his oration 
  (XVIII, 206), praises him for 
  surpassing even the Persians in 
  the provision of horse armour 
  and protection for his cavalrymen. 
  The Notitia Dignitatum – which 
  is usually dated to about the 380s 
  AD for the Eastern Empire and 
  the 420s for the West – reflects the 
  situation following the military 
  reforms of Diocletian (r. 285–305) 
  and Constantine the Great (r. 306–
  337). This document (of which the 
  earliest fully-illustrated copy of the 
  lost original dates only from 1542) 
  is both incomplete and difficult 
  to interpret, but the continued 
  importance of heavy cavalry is 
  clear, particularly in the armies 
  of the East. The Eastern Scholae 
  Palatinae (Imperial Guard troops) 
  included the following units:
  Schola scutariorum prima
  Schola scutariorum secunda
  Schola gentilium seniorum
  Schola scutariorum sagittariorum
  Schola scutariorum clibanariorum
  Schola armaturarum iuniorum
  Schola gentilium iuniorum.
  The units listed for the Western Scholae Palatinae were:
  Schola scutariorum prima
  Schola scutariorum secunda
  Schola armaturarum seniorum
  Schola gentilium seniorum
  Schola scutatorium tertia.
  Each of these two Imperial Guard forces was under the command of a 
  Magister Officiorum, based respectively in Constantinople and Ravenna. All 
  of them should be units of heavy cavalry, although some authors (e.g. Philip 
  Barker) consider that in the West only the Schola armaturarum seniorum and 
  Schola gentilium seniorum were heavily armoured.
  The stele of Valerius 
  Romanus, also of a Numerus 
  catafractariorum; early 
  4th century AD, from 
  Borbetomagus, Germania 
  Superior. His clothing is 
  clearer than on the previous 
  monument: a helmet or cap, 
  a long-sleeved tunic, a scale-
  armour corselet worn over a 
  jerkin fitted with pteryges, and 
  riding boots. He has a shield, 
  and his pose suggests that 
  he brandishes a heavy javelin 
  (verutum) in his right hand. 
  (Museum der Stadt Worms, 
  photo courtesy Dr Michael 
  Bishop)
  
  19
  Apart from these Guard units, heavy cavalry was represented among the 
  Comitatenses of the field armies. We find in the East, under the Magister Militum 
  Praesentalis I (ND Or. V, 29), the Comites clibanarii as a Vexillatio Palatina, 
  and both the Equites catafractarii Biturigenses and the Equites primi clibanarii 
  Parthi as Vexillationes Comitatenses (ND Or. V, 34, 40). Under the Magister 
  Militum Praesentalis II, we find (ND Or. VI, 32) the Equites Persae clibanarii as 
  a Vexillatio Palatina; the Equites catafractarii, Equites catafractarii Ambianenses 
  (related to CIL, XIII, 3493 & 3495), and Equites secundi clibanarii Parthi are 
  listed as Vexillationes Comitatenses (ND Or. VI, 35, 36, 40).
  Also in the East, the Magister Militum per Orientem had under his 
  authority as Vexillationes Comitatenses (ND Or. VII, 25, 31, 32, 34) the 
  Comites catafractarii Bucellarii iuniores, Equites promoti clibanarii, Equites 
  quarti clibanarii Parthi and the Cuneus equitum secundum clibanariorum 
  Palmirenorum. Under the Magister Militum per Thracias in the Balkans, we 
  find (ND Or. VIII, 29) the Equites catafractarii Albigenses as a Vexillatio 
  Comitatensis. The army of the Dux Thebaidos included the Ala Prima Iovia 
  catafractariorum (ND Or. XXXI, 52), stationed at Pampane; and that of the 
  Dux Scythiae had a Cuneus equitum catafractariorum at Arubio (ND Or. 
  XXXIX, 16). This last (if it was indeed the same unit) is also recorded by 
  Ammianus (XXVIII, 5, 6 – Cuneus equitum cataphractorum) as operating 
  in Gallia against the Saxons, under Valentinian I (r. 364–375): ‘The Romans 
  . . . after suffering great losses . . . were routed and would have perished to 
  a man, had not a troop of mail-clad horsemen (which had been similarly 
  stationed on another side, near a byway, to threaten the savages as they 
  passed by) been aroused by their cries of terror, and quickly come to their 
  aid . . .’
  In total the Eastern army counted 14 units of heavy cavalrymen, and 
  to these we should add the data from Egyptian papyri. A document dated 
  January AD 300 refers to two cataphractarii serving in Ala II Herculia 
  dromedariorum (P. Beatty, Panop. II, 28.). Papyrus CPRV 13 of 17 April 
  AD 395 mentions an un-named schola catafractariorum based at Psoftis 
  in Egypt. Other Egyptian units 
  mentioned in the papyri are:
  The ‘Arsinoites’, i.e. Vexillatio 
  equitum catafractariorum stationed 
  at Arsinoe (BGU, I, 316, of 
  12 October AD 359).
  The ‘Herakleopolites’ (P. Vindobona 
  Tandem 19, 5th–6th century AD).
  Klibanarioi of unknown origin 
  (PSI XIV 1426, 5th–6th century AD).
  The Leontoklibanarioi (P. Amherst, 
  II 148, AD 487).
  By contrast, in the West (apart 
  from the above-mentioned Cuneus 
  equitum cataphractorum), we 
  find only three field-army units 
  mentioned in addition to the Scholae 
  Palatinae of the Guard:
  Clibanarii under the Magister 
  Equitum Praesentalis (ND Oc. 
  VI, 24).
  Although now weathered, the 
  details on this monument from 
  Claudiopolis (Bolu, Turkey) 
  were artistically carved on 
  a smoothed slab in the first 
  half of the 4th century; they 
  show the rider in a hunting 
  scene, with a dog and a 
  barbed spear. The inscription 
  reads: ‘To the Gods of the 
  Afterworld. [For] the Ducenarius 
  Valerius Fuscianus, from 
  Scadesiana, 50 years of age, 
  with 25 years’ service under 
  commander [praepositus] 
  Valens in the Vexillatio equitum 
  catafractariorum clibaniorum; 
  while he still lived his comrades 
  [and] still-living father Dux 
  Severianus had this made.’ 
  (Istanbul Archaeological 
  Museum; photo R. D’Amato, 
  courtesy of the Museum)
  
  20
  Equites sagittarii clibanarii as a Vexillatio Comitatensis, still under that 
  officer although stationed in Africa (ND Oc. VI, 67, VII, 185).
  Equites catafractarii iuniores, having their barracks at Morbio in Britain 
  (ND Oc. VII, 200; XL, 21 – possibly Piercebridge, Co Durham), under the 
  Dux Britanniae. A horse eye-guard from Chester might be evidence for a 
  cataphract unit at that site, but might equally be simply a piece of parade 
  equipment from an ordinary cavalry unit. A number of long, slim-bladed 
  spears have been identified as cavalry lances, but this is only conjectural.
  However, we should also consider the tombstone of the centenarius 
  Klaudianus (CIL XIII, 1848) from Gallia, which may date from the 5th 
  century, so we can perhaps add to the Western-based units his Numerus 
  equitum catafractariorum seniorum, i.e. a numerus of irregulars – 
  catafractarii peregrini. The praenomen of this officer seems to point to the 
  reign of Honorius (r. 393–423) and his cognomen ‘Ingenuus’ means that 
  he was not an ex-slave (libertus) but a Roman citizen. The stele came from 
  Lyon (Lugdunum), where the unit may have been stationed at the disposal 
  of the Magister Militum inter Gallias. Additionally, several regiments of 
  Sarmatians and Alani (like the Comites Alani) fought in the West according 
  to their old style, clad in heavy armour and helmet and armed with contus, 
  sword and bow.
  Even so, the relative concentration of this type of unit in the East, differing 
  from the earlier pattern of distribution across the Empire, probably reflects a 
  4th-century response to the new challenges of Persian cavalry, as suggested 
  by J.W. Eaddie. It is also noteworthy that at the end of that century the 
  Notitia Dignitatum lists three armament factories devoted to the production 
  of equipment for clibanarii, and all are found in the East: at Antioch – (ND 
  Or. XI, 22); at Caesarea in Cappadocia (ND Or. XI, 26); and at Nicomedia 
  ‘Passage of the Red Sea by 
  the Army of Pharaoh’; Ipogeo 
  di Dino Compagni, Via Latina 
  catacombs, Rome, mid-4th 
  century AD. Contemporary with 
  the triumphal procession of 
  Constantius II, these frescoes 
  show the use of old styles of 
  masked helmet with eagle 
  protomes, such as the Vechten 
  typology shown here (and 
  see page 28), and of long-
  sleeved ringmail armours. 
  (Photo courtesy of Pontificia 
  Accademia)
  
  21
  (ND Or. XI, 28). In the West there is only a factory ballistaria et clibanaria 
  at Augustodunum (Autun, France – ND Occ. IX, 33).
  DESIGNATIONS
  The terms catafractus/catafracti/catafractarii in various spellings, and 
  clibanarius/clibanarii, referring to both Persian and Roman heavily armoured 
  horsemen, appear in Roman sources recording events in the 3rd and 4th 
  centuries AD, and it seems that the former term dates from the first half of 
  the 3rd century (e.g. the Ala Nova Firma milliaria catafractaria Philippiana). 
  However, the distinction between them is still a matter of scholarly debate 
  (e.g. see D. Hoffmann, M. Mielczarek and M. Spiedel, Bibliography). Were 
  catafractarii and clibanarii alternative names for the same type of heavy 
  cavalry, or were they two distinct types with different equipment?
  Sometimes the terms are used by ancient authors almost interchangeably 
  (Naz., Pan., XXII–XXIII; Amm. Marc., XVI, 10, 8). The Greek term 
  katafraktos (BJ, V, 350) simply means ‘armoured’ (Veg., Epit., I, 20, from the 
  Greek κατάφραττειν, κατάφρασσειν, ‘to cover or enclose with armour’). By 
  contrast, the term clibanarius comes from military slang (κλίβανον, ‘oven’), 
  i.e. comparing a man encased in iron to the metallic body of a stove. In an 
  inscription from Bithynia (AE 1984, 825) we find the unit designated Vexillatio 
  equitum cataphractariorum clibanariorum, which seems to conflate the two 
  terms. On the other hand, the inscriptions on Roman funerary monuments use 
  catafractarius only for a Roman cavalryman belonging to a unit specifically 
  of catafractarii.
  The prevalent opinion is that the cataphractus clibanarius was a super-
  heavy cavalryman completely protected by a well-developed armour, often 
  riding an armoured horse, and using a long lance. In the Late Empire the 
  Another scene of the same Old 
  Testament episode from the 
  mid 4th-century frescoes in the 
  Via Latina catacombs. Here the 
  helmets with eagle protomes 
  seem to be of Heddernheim 
  typology, and both muscled 
  cuirasses and scale corselets are 
  depicted. The internal surface 
  of the shields is painted green. 
  (Photo courtesy of Pontificia 
  Accademia)
  
  22
  word clibanarius was perhaps used as a qualifier to identify this completely 
  armoured type of cataphractus, while equites cataphractarii might be heavy 
  cavalry who were not so completely armoured and rode unarmoured horses, 
  as shown by their tombstone images (according to J.W. Eaddie and M.I. 
  Rostovtzeff). In other words, all heavy armoured cavalry were cataphractii 
  or cataphractarii, but only some specific units within that category were 
  clibanarii. To complicate matters further, this distinction may not always 
  have been used; the word clibanarii is very rarely employed after about 
  AD 400, while the term catafractii remained in use until the end of the 
  5th century. In Egypt, the Greek technical term ιππεύς κατάφρακταριος 
  was widely employed from the 4th century onwards to describe a heavy 
  armoured horseman. The Midrash of the Late Roman Period (song R 19) 
  calls the Roman heavy cavalryman katafraktos. To summarize, we may 
  say that:
  (1) The word cataphractii refers to all armoured heavy cavalrymen, who 
  might or might not be clibanarii.
  (2) The word cataphractarii refers to specific units, whose members might 
  be heavily armoured and might ride armoured horses like the clibanarii, but 
  might equally be heavy cavalrymen without full armour for the horseman 
  or his mount.
  (3) The word clibanarii refers only to super-heavily armoured cavalrymen 
  riding armoured horses, using a wide range of weapons including the long 
  lance and the bow, as adopted by the Roman Army from the Persian model.
  ORGANIZATION
  We have some evidence related to the internal organization of units of 
  cataphractarii from epigraphic and literary sources, but mainly only from the 
  3rd century onwards. This is probably due to the fact that the earlier units 
  were employed Easterners or Sarmatians with their own organization. For 
  example, Herodian describes the heavy horsemen of Severus Alexander thus: 
  SECOND HALF OF 3rd CENTURY AD
  (1) Roman clibanarius, Dura Europos, AD 256
  Reconstructed after the finds from Dura, he and his mount are 
  fully armoured in iron and bronze (copper alloy). The open-
  masked helmet of Heddernheim typology, whose fragments 
  were found at Dura, is a very rare variant with double protomes 
  in the form of eagles; it finds parallels only in a similar helmet 
  formerly in the Axel Guttman collection, and on late Roman 
  coins. The iron ringmail shirt shows rows of bronze rings 
  trimming the ends of the sleeves and the skirt, and is worn in 
  combination with an articulated arm-guard (galerus) of 
  laminated iron plates. Each thigh is protected with a red-
  lacquered leather παραμηρίδιος (thigh-guard) as found in 
  Dura; this had provision for laces to be fastened around the 
  thigh, and extended from the waist to below the knee, below 
  which the man wears bronze greaves. His main weapon is 
  again the contus, this time carried without a shield, and for 
  close work a mace is slung from the saddle.
  (2) Draconarius of an Ala cataphractariorum; army of 
  Galerius, late 3nd century
  This standard-bearer is reconstructed from the Arch of Galerius. 
  The equipment of the catafractarii on this monument shows 
  the employment of both ‘ridge’ and segmented helmets, 
  typologically similar to specimens from Kipchak and Kabardino-
  Balkarie. The lamellar copper-alloy cuirass incorporates 
  decorated iron plates fastening it on the chest, and is worn over 
  a padded thoracomacus furnished with two layers of thick 
  pteryges. Note the employment of high boots, the Egyptian-
  made tunic decorated with three sleeve stripes (loroi), and the 
  military sagum cloak. His draco is copied from the Niederbieber 
  specimen; the Arch of Galerius carvings represent this standard 
  carried by cataphracts charging against the Persians.
  (3) Roman cataphractarius of Ala I Iovia cataphractaria; 
  Nubian borders, AD 295
  Reconstruction from the Roman statue today in the Museum 
  of Nubia at Aswan, which probably represents a trooper of this 
  unit created by Diocletian (r. 284−305) and stationed to 
  safeguard the provincial borders of Aegyptus. The squamae 
  covering his body, arms and legs echo the armour of the 
  Rhoxolani heavy cavalry depicted on Trajan’s Column. The 
  statue is headless; we have given him a spangenhelm from 
  Egypt today preserved at Leiden Museum, correctly 
  reconstructed here with the original nasal guard. The 
  magnificent harness of his horse is taken from the Late Roman 
  horse trappings of the Ballana graves, contemporary to the 
  Dominate period.
  D
  
  23
  1
  2
  3
  
  24
  ‘subject peoples, others friends and allies, and included, too, were a number 
  of Parthian mercenaries and slaves captured by the Romans.’ He refers (VII, 
  1) to the commander of the Osrhoenians by the generic term igoumenos 
  rather than by a Roman rank.
  Under Hadrian, we find one of the earliest recorded instances of 
  cataphracts within the Roman Army, with their commander designated 
  as a praefectus (CIL xi. 5632 = ILS 2735, ‘praefecto alae I Gallorum et 
  Pannoniorum catafractatae’). This suggests the typical early Imperial cavalry 
  organization, by which the units recruited in the provinciae had a strength 
  of either 480 (alae quingenariae) or 960 men (alae miliariae), divided into a 
  minimum of 16 and a maximum of 24 turmae (squadrons) each 30 strong, 
  themselves divided into three 10-man decuriae (troops). In the late 4th and 
  the 5th century we often find the terms cunei and numeri to indicate sub-
  units of heavy cavalry, although ala is still used to designate a whole unit.
  Analyzing the diplomas and the written documents of the Ala II 
  Gallorum et Pannoniorum catafractata stationed at Gherla (in Dacia), we 
  can hypothesize that the rank sequence in Ala I catafractata stationed in 
  Moesia but also deployed to Dacia was identical:
  Praefectus Alae (M. Maenius Agrippa, CIL, XI, 5632; Ala I)
  Decurio (CIL III, 12542; Ala II)
  Strator (AE, 1977, 704; Ala II)
  Imaginifer (SCIV 19, 1968, 2; Ala II)
  Signifer (AE, 93, 1329; Ala II)
  Eques (AE, 1997, 1772; Ala I).
  The presence of the rank of decurio in the Equites cataphractarii 
  Ambianenses is attested by the stele of Valerius Zurdigenus (CIL, XIII, 
  3495), while another decurio originating from Mesopotamia (Biribamus, son 
  of Abseus) is attested for the Ala Firma catafractaria in the second quarter of 
  the 3rd century: ‘In memory of Biribamus, son of Abseus, decurion in the Ala 
  Firma catafractaria, fallen in war, native of the province of Mesopotamia, 
  from Rac . . .’ Decurions, while literally ‘leaders of 10 men’, are often 
  mentioned in inscriptions as commanders of a whole turma. (As in so many 
  armies throughout history, shortage of qualified manpower must have led to 
  junior leaders shouldering responsibilities above their pay grade.)
  One of the most important passages relating to the ranks of the late 
  Roman cavalry (5th century AD) comes from St Hieronymus (XIX, Migne 
  vol. 23, col. 386–387): ‘Suppose a person of the rank of tribune to be 
  The stele of Klaudianus [sic] 
  Ingenuus, a centenarius 
  of the Numerus equitum 
  catafractariorum seniorem; 
  4th or 5th century AD, 
  from Lugdunum, Gallia. 
  Unfortunately, by the time this 
  monument was discovered 
  close to the River Saone in 1867 
  it had suffered severe water 
  damage. However, some details 
  are still discernible, including a 
  ‘ridge’ helmet with a tall crest, 
  scale armour and the long 
  lance. The officer’s servants 
  carry a spear and oval shield 
  and a sword. It is noteworthy 
  that on all surviving stelae 
  of catafractarii the deceased 
  is depicted in scale armour, 
  not simply in the uniform 
  clothing usually shown on 3rd-
  century and later monuments. 
  (Musée de la Civilisation 
  Gallo-Romaine, Lyon; photo 
  R. D’Amato, courtesy of the 
  Museum; drawing by Andrea 
  Salmbeti ex Esperandieu)
  
  25
  degraded through his own misconduct, and to pass [down] through the 
  several steps of the cavalry service until he becomes a private, does he all at 
  once cease to be a tribune and become a recruit? No; he is first primicerius, 
  then, successively, semitor, ducenarius, centenarius, biarchus, circitor, 
  eques, then tiro . . .’ Such a succession of ranks seems to be at least partially 
  confirmed for 4th–5th century cataphracts by written references to officers 
  and troopers of the army:
  Tribunus (Dorotheus, tribune of a οὐεξελλατίωνος ἱππέων καταφρακταρίων 
  at Antinoe; BGU I, 316 = M. Chr. 271, of AD 359).
  Ducenarius/Decenarius (inscription from Bolu).
  Centenarius (Fl(avi) Ingenui/centenari(i) ex num(ero) eq(uitum)/
  cataf(ractariorum) sen(iorum), stele from Lyon.
  Biarchus (inscription from Concordia Sagittaria; CIL, XIX S 418, Flavius 
  Vitalianus, biarchus vexillationis equitum cataphractariorum; Arsinoite 
  papyrus, BGU I, 316).
  Circitor (inscription from Amiens; CIL, XIII 3493; Valerius Durio, circitor 
  of a numerus catafractariorum; and inscription from Eporedia (Ivrea, North 
  Italy) of Valerius Ienuarius, circitor of a vexillatio cataphractariorum – AD 
  312, so probably killed at the battle of Rivoli).
  The rank of decurio is still recorded for the catafractarii in late 4th-century 
  Egyptian papyri. The mention of two catafractarii in the above-noted Ala II 
  Herculia dromedariorum is not an indication of rank, as suggested by some 
  scholars, but simply 
  means that within 
  this camel-mounted 
  unit horse-mounted 
  equites catafractarii 
  constituted 
  an 
  elite shock force. 
  However, 
  other 
  documents might 
  seem to support 
  either interpretation 
  (CPR V 13 + P. 
  Rainer, Cent. 165):
  Three 
  letters 
  record stages in the 
  career of a soldier 
  named Sarapion. 
  The first authorizes 
  his 
  admission 
  to 
  the 
  schola 
  catafractariorum; 
  the second (from 
  AD 396) records 
  his promotion to 
  decurio; the third 
  (AD 401) records 
  his discharge on 
  medical grounds. 
  Notably, the second 
  letter also mentions 
  Sarmatian cataphract depicted 
  on Trajan’s Column, showing 
  a careful depiction of a long, 
  straight sword in a scabbard 
  with a rounded chape slung at 
  the right hip. (Cast in Museum 
  of Civiltà Romana; photo 
  R. D’Amato, courtesy of the 
  Museum)
  
  26
  the advancement of a certain Apion from eques to cataphractarius, using the 
  same verb term for both Sarapion’s promotion and Apion’s advancement 
  – prov(ectus). In the third letter, Sarapion and others discharged at the 
  same time are placed in three categories: dec(uriones), catafrac(tarii), and 
  The weapons held by soldiers 
  depicted on Trajan’s Column 
  in the early 2nd century are 
  believed to have originally 
  been added in metal which 
  has since degraded or been 
  looted, leaving them empty-
  handed. The pose of these 
  Sarmatian cataphracts suggests 
  that they were carrying long 
  lances balanced in the ‘trail 
  arms’ position. (Cast in Museum 
  of Civiltà Romana; photo 
  R. D’Amato, courtesy of the 
  Museum)
  Armoured horse-archer in a 
  3rd-century graffito from Dura 
  Europos; see reconstruction as 
  Plate C1. Note the clear depiction 
  of the shape of the powerful 
  recurved bow. The quartered 
  disc motifs shown here on the 
  unarmoured horse seem more 
  likely to be brands than harness 
  ornaments.  (Drawing by Andrea 
  Salimbeti ex Rostovtzeff)
  
  27
  eq(uites). Nevertheless, the mention in the Notitia 
  Dignitatum of entire units of cataphractarii seems 
  to point to the following interpretation: the men, 
  already equites, were provecti to the quality of heavy 
  cavalrymen, cataphractarii. The discharge letter simply 
  mentions a specific rank and two different categories: 
  the decuriones, then the equites cataphractarii and the 
  simple equites.
  Each tribunus commanded a turma (Ammianus, 
  XVI, 12): ‘So, when Caesar had seen from a distance 
  that the cavalry was looking for nothing except safety 
  in flight, he spurred on his horse and held them back 
  like a kind of barrier. On recognizing him by the 
  purple ensign of a dragon, fitted to the top of a very 
  long lance and spreading out like the skin of a serpent, 
  the tribune of one of the turmae stopped, and, pale and 
  struck with fear, rode back to renew the battle’. The 
  Emperor Claudius II had previously been a tribunus 
  of cataphractarii. A turma ex cataphractariis was 
  perhaps composed of 100 men, at least from the mid-
  3rd century (SHA, Div. Claud., XVI, 2).
  In more senior echelons, a dux like Aurelianus 
  could have, among other troops, 800 equites catafractarii under his 
  command (SHA, Div. Aur., XI, 4). Innocentius, the commander of all the 
  cataphracts in Emperor Julian’s army at the battle of Argentoratum in 
  AD 357 – one of four senior officers to be killed – is called by Ammianus 
  both rector (XVI, 12, 38) and dux (XVI, 12, 63). But the commander of 
  the catafractarii in Britain is again a praefectus according to the Notitia 
  Dignitatum (ND Oc. XL, 21). As for the clibanarii, in the 4th-century 
  inscription referring to Valerius Fuscianus we read that his Vexillatio 
  ‘Egg-shaped’ spangenhelm 
  constructed of horizontal 
  elements between nailed 
  framing, worn by Sarmatian 
  cataphracts in the reliefs of 
  scene XXXI, Trajan’s Column, 
  early 2nd century AD; see also 
  back cover, top photo. Note 
  the cheek-guard shaped to a 
  point beside the chin. (Cast in 
  Museum of Civiltà Romana; 
  photo R. D’Amato, courtesy of 
  the Museum)
  This relief showing a Sarmatian 
  turning to deliver the ‘Parthian 
  shot’ with his bow might seem 
  to reveal a rear neck-flap on the 
  helmet, but comparison with 
  other figures argues that it is 
  simply the effect of the rider’s 
  long hair. (Cast in Museum 
  of Civiltà Romana; photo 
  R. D’Amato, courtesy of the 
  Museum)
  
  28
  equitum catafractariorum clibanariorum was under 
  the command of a praepositus named Valens.
  It is evident that the standard-bearer of such units 
  carried a draco ‘wind-sock’ standard. However, the 
  term draconarius is attested only from the 4th century; 
  before then the standard-bearer was called simply the 
  signifer, as in other cavalry units.
  FORMATIONS & TACTICS
  According to Herodian (VII, 2), in the 230s AD the 
  Osrhoenean and Armenian armoured horse-archers 
  in the army of Maximinus Thrax proved to be very 
  effective against the Germans in the Rhineland 
  campaigns, taking them by surprise, attacking with 
  agility and then retreating without difficulty.
  The order of march described by Herodian 
  (VIII,  1) for Maximinus’ subsequent invasion of 
  Italy put these cavalrymen on the flank: ‘Leading his army down into level 
  country, Maximinus drew up the legions in a broad, shallow rectangle in 
  order to occupy most of the plain; he placed all the heavy baggage, supplies, 
  and wagons in the centre of the formation and, taking command of the 
  rearguard, followed with his troops. On each flank marched the squadrons 
  of katáfraktoi, the Moroccan javelin men, and the archers from the East.’ 
  The same was said of Emperor Julian’s army approaching the battlefield 
  of Argentoratum 120 years later (Amm., XVI, 12, 7): ‘to the song of the 
  trumpets (tubae) sounding in unison, the infantry forces were led out at a 
  moderate pace, and to their flanks were joined the squadrons (turmae) of 
  cavalry, among whom were the catafractarii and the archers (sagittarii)’.
  Cataphracts always attacked in close formation; this exploited their mass 
  impact and their long lances and minimized the drawbacks of their limited 
  FIRST HALF OF 4th CENTURY AD
  (1) Cataphractarius Valerius Maxantius
  Valerius is reconstructed after his funerary monument, which 
  describes him as an ‘eq(ues) ex numero kata(fractariorum)’. He 
  represents one of the heavy cavalrymen formerly serving 
  under Maxentius who, after Constantine’s victory, were sent to 
  patrol the north-eastern frontiers of the Empire. A strong 
  Sarmatian influence is visible in the scale armour, the padded 
  long-sleeved under-armour garment, and the boots, diffused 
  among the Roman cavalry since the 2nd century. His primary 
  weapon is the contus, but he also wears a long spatha of 
  Iranian origin, copied with its belt from the precious specimen 
  in the Újlak Bécsi út grave near Aquincum (Budapest) in 
  Pannonia. He carries a ridge-helmet of the new typology 
  introduced into the Roman Army during the Tetrarchy, and 
  wears a galericulum to absorb its weight and the force of 
  blows to the head.
  (2) Centenarius Klaudianus Ingenuus of Numerus equitum 
  catafractariorum seniorum; Lugdunum, Gallia, c. AD 
  325−350?
  This is copied from his stele, but its date is debatable, and 
  perhaps as late as the early 5th century. The hybrid pseudo-
  Attic ridge-helmet with its high crest shows a red-orange 
  plume, which is confirmed for the late Roman heavy cavalry by 
  a later mosaic at Santa Maria Maggiore. The other metallic parts 
  of his equipment are the lorica squamata and greaves, which 
  are worn over leather protection and boots, respectively. On his 
  forearms note the decoration of his embroidered tunica 
  manicata, and his long cavalry sagum cloak has a fringed edge. 
  According to his gravestone his two calones (military servants) 
  had a javelin, a shield and a short sword.
  (3) Draconarius of Numerus equitum catafractariorum 
  seniorum
  The paintings in the Via Latina catacombs, contemporary to 
  the triumphal procession of Constantius II in Rome, are an 
  often-neglected source illustrating Roman cataphracts. They 
  show the use of old typologies of masked helmets, and the 
  wearing of the thorax stadios muscled cuirass (also attested 
  among the Persian Sassanid clibanarii, recalling traditional 
  links with the Greco-Roman world). Ammianus describes the 
  draco standards carried in Constantius’ procession (this one 
  copied from a specimen found at Carnuntum in Pannonia 
  Superior) as having shafts encrusted with precious stones: ‘he 
  was surrounded by dragons, woven out of purple thread and 
  bound to the golden and jewelled shafts of spears (dracones 
  hastarum aureis gemmatisque summitatibus inligati)’.
  E
  Bronze mask helmet (lacking 
  mask) of Herzenburg typology, 
  2nd−3rd century, from Vechten; 
  see Plate F1. A number of 
  variant specimens of mask 
  helmets with ‘Phrygian’ 
  extensions of the apex, 
  decorated with protomes, have 
  been recovered. (Drawings 
  by Andrey Negin, Vechten 
  Museum)
  
  29
  1
  2
  3
  
  30
  individual manoeuvrability. If 
  separated, a single cataphract was 
  vulnerable to being surrounded by 
  nimbler adversaries, so the goal 
  was to maintain close formation 
  under all circumstances. A unit of 
  cataphracts pointing their spears 
  outwards had sufficient protection 
  against spears and swords and 
  were almost invulnerable to 
  arrows and missiles. They often 
  attacked in a wedge formation, the 
  cuneus equitum, now performed 
  by cataphracts and clibanarii 
  without the participation of the 
  Germanic mercenaries who also 
  used a similar formation. In his 
  Panegyric, Nazanzius states that 
  the catafracti were trained to 
  maintain their momentum after 
  they crashed like a ram (arietare) 
  into the enemy’s line, and ‘since 
  they 
  are 
  invulnerable 
  they 
  resolutely break through whatever 
  is set against them’.
  However, this tactic did not 
  work for Maxentius against the 
  soldiers of Constantine the Great 
  at the battle of Turin (AD 312), 
  which was probably fought south of the Dora river, between Alpignano 
  and Rivoli. On that occasion the speedy march of Constantine’s army 
  surprised the enemy commander, whose army was already drawn up 
  for battle. The clibanarii of 
  Maxentius’ army formed a 
  wedge (in cunei modum) with 
  their flanks extending down-
  slope to their rear. They hoped 
  to take advantage of the reverse 
  slope to conceal the length and 
  disposition of their battle line, 
  provoking the Constantinians 
  to make a direct attack which 
  would allow the Maxentian 
  wings to wheel in and surround 
  their attackers. Constantine 
  anticipated this, however, and 
  sent his men forward fast on both 
  flanks. According to the historian 
  Levi, he extended both his wings, 
  thus confronting his opponent’s 
  convex wedge with a concave 
  formation – a ‘refused centre’.
  Early 3rd-century helmet of 
  an Osrhoenian or Parthian 
  cataphract in Roman service, 
  with Germanic additions, 
  recovered from Thorsbjerg 
  moor. (Schleswig-Holstein 
  Landes-Museum; drawing by 
  Andrey Negin)
  Helmet mask dating from c. AD 
  300−325 from Sisak, Pannonia. 
  This may be the latest surviving 
  example of a Late Roman mask 
  helmet. Its triangular shape 
  recalls the iconography of 
  Sassanian masks, and of mask 
  helmets represented on the 
  base of the 4th−5th century 
  Column of Arcadius and 
  Theodosius in Constantinople. 
  (Sisak Archaeological Museum; 
  photo R. D’Amato, courtesy of 
  the Museum)
  
  31
  Constantine opened the middle of his line and let the enemy’s first wedge of 
  clibanarii pass unchecked. Finding themselves in the middle of Constantine’s 
  troops, the impetus of their charge prevented them from changing direction. 
  Closely surrounded, they were then annihilated with maces by the Constantinian 
  infantry: ‘Thus our men assailed . . . them with clubs equipped with heavy iron 
  knobs (gravibus ferratisque nodis), which wore [them] out with their beating, 
  and when . . . inflicted especially on their heads they forced those whom the 
  blows had confused to tumble down. Then they began to fall headlong, to slide 
  down backward, to totter half-dead or dying [while] held fast by their saddles, to 
  lie entangled in the confused slaughter of the horses, which in uncontrolled pain 
  when their vulnerable points had been discovered, cast their riders everywhere 
  . . .’ (Naz., Pan. IV, 24, 5). When the whole 
  Maxentian line gave way Constantine charged 
  at the head of his cavalry and did great 
  slaughter, routing and cutting down the enemy. 
  The latter fled desperately towards the gates 
  of Augusta Taurinorum (Turin), only to find 
  them closed by the citizens. The approaches 
  to the gates were subsequenty choked by the 
  mass of corpses of the unfortunate armoured 
  cavalrymen (anon, Pan. XII).
  Another useful description of the use of 
  heavy cavalry is given in several passages by 
  Ammianus (XVI, II, 5), regarding Julian’s 
  campaign in Gaul against the Franks 
  and Alamanni in the summer of AD 356. 
  According to him, Julian (‘the Caesar’), 
  took with him only the cataphractarii and 
  the ballistarii, who ‘were far from suitable 
  to defend a general’. He quickly reached 
  Auxerre and Troyes, where he fought the 
  Germans; after reconnoitring he strengthened 
  the flanks of his army and, taking advantage 
  of suitable terrain, the heavy cavalry ran 
  them down and trampled them underfoot. 
  However, with such heavily encumbered 
  troops Julian was unable to pursue them 
  and fully exploit the victory. From the 
  Remains of possible cataphract 
  helmet, 4th−5th century AD, 
  from the Balkans; it was found 
  in a very fragmentary state, 
  associated with a horse bit, 
  and remains of ringmail still 
  with bone fragments inside. 
  The reconstruction shown here 
  is speculative; hybrid helmets 
  combining old and new parts 
  were probably common, so 
  the presence of this basically 
  Niederbieber type at this date 
  is not surprising. However, 
  after close examination Dr 
  Christian Miks advises caution 
  in this case, since the nasal 
  guard shows signs of once 
  having belonged to a two-part 
  ‘ridge’ helmet rather than this 
  single-part Niederbieber bowl. 
  (European private collection; 
  photos R. D’Amato, courtesy of 
  the owner)
  
  32
  description it is clear that Julian used his heavy cavalry for shock attacks on 
  the barbarians in the open field, while protecting their flanks on the march 
  or in defence by barrages from his ballistae.
  However, the following year the battle of Argentoratum proved that 
  the heavy armoured cavalry was not invincible. There the Germanic 
  warriors opposed the cataphracts with their 
  own cavalry in close order, intermingled 
  with lightly-armed infantry skirmishers. 
  They recognized that a Germanic warrior on 
  horseback, no matter how skilful, could not 
  match a Roman clibanarius. However, in the 
  hottest of the fight the infantry could creep 
  about low and unseen, and by wounding a 
  horse’s side or belly could make it throw its 
  rider, whereupon he could be slain with little 
  difficulty (Amm. Marc. XVI, 18−22). That 
  was exactly what happened. While trying to 
  re-order their formation after the first clash 
  with the Alamanni the cataphracti equites, 
  seeing their leader wounded and one of their 
  companions slipping over the neck of his 
  horse, which had collapsed under the weight 
  of its armour, scattered in whatever direction 
  they could. This would have caused complete 
  confusion by trampling the Roman infantry 
  had the latter not held their tight formations.
  In AD 390, Vegetius (Ep. III, 23) also 
  writes of the advantages and weaknesses of 
  the heavy cavalry: ‘Cataphracti equites are 
  safe from being wounded on account of the 
  armour (munimina) they wear, but because 
  Front and back of an iron scale 
  from Gamala on the Israel−
  Syria border, one of several 
  identified by Siebel as possible 
  elements of a cataphract 
  armour of the late 1st century 
  AD. The dimensions are 5.1cm 
  long by 3.5cm wide (2 x 1.4in), 
  with a convexity of 5mm if seen 
  in profile. (Drawings by Andrey 
  Negin ex Siebel, 2007)
  Close-up of the scale armour 
  worn by early 2nd-century 
  Sarmatian cataphracts in scene 
  XXXI of Trajan’s Column. (Cast 
  in Museum of Civiltà Romana; 
  photo R. D’Amato, courtesy of 
  the Museum)
  
  33
  they are hampered by [its] weight, are easily taken prisoner and often 
  vulnerable to lassoes. In battle they perform better against infantry in 
  loose order than against cavalry, but, posted in front of legionaries or 
  mixed with legionaries, they often break the enemy line when it comes 
  down to close fighting’. Against unprepared or disorganized troops the 
  attack of a squadron of cataphracts might well be devastating, as in 
  Julian’s AD 356 campaign against the Germans; but if their attack was 
  checked, the riders were so handicapped by the weight of their gear that 
  they were at a disadvantage against more lightly armed but more mobile 
  adversaries. 
  Based upon these and other accounts, M. Mielczarek proposes that it 
  was the ordering of the battle-line as much as the equipment that made 
  the essential difference between catafractii/catafractarii and clibanarii. The 
  catafractus was a heavy mounted spearman fighting in serried ranks and 
  Roman scale armour found 
  in graves of Sarmatian heavy 
  cavalrymen, 2nd century 
  AD. (1) Art. Vozdvizhenskaya 
  (Gushchina, Zasetskaya, 1989); 
  (2) H. Zubovsky; (3) Nikolsky 
  burial ground (Zasetskaya, 
  1979). The burials at the 
  Zubovsky farm in the village 
  of Vozdvizhenskaya in the 
  Zakuban, southern Russia, 
  at Gilnikov Vysochino on the 
  Lower Don, and at Nikolsky 
  in the Volga region, yielded 
  iron and bronze scales with a 
  rounded bottom edge and a 
  central rib typical of Roman 
  construction. They resemble 
  in size and outline the scales 
  visible on Trajan’s Column 
  worn by the Rhoxolani or 
  Iazyges cataphracts. (1 and 3, 
  drawings by Andrea Salimbeti 
  ex Simonenko; 2, from H. 
  Zubovsky, IAK, 1901)
  Front of a bronze appliqué 
  decoration from a baldric, 
  representing a Roman heavy 
  cavalry officer; turn of 2nd/3rd 
  centuries, from Trecenta (Rovigo). 
  He clearly wears a short muscle 
  cuirass above vertical plates 
  around the lower torso, over 
  a jerkin with heavy hanging 
  pteryges (Inv. IG 288774; photo 
  courtesy of Soprintendenza per 
  I Beni Archaeologici del Veneto, 
  Padua)
  
  34
  files in so-called ‘column order’; he was linked into a battle-array composed 
  of different, separate, but collaborative units, and the ‘column order’ was 
  particularly effective against a deep enemy infantry array. The more heavily 
  encumbered clibanarius, by contrast, was mainly employed in wedge 
  formation in combination with horse-archers. The two accounts quoted 
  above might seem to support this opinion.
  When, in the Eastern Empire, the heavy cavalry additionally began to 
  be issued with bows, the distinction was no longer necessary. The word 
  klibanarioi disappeared from the army vocabulary until the 10th century, 
  when Byzantine klibanophoroi were briefly revived by Nikephoros Phokas. 
  Meanwhile, the term kataphraktoi survived until the 14th century to 
  designate the super-heavy cavalrymen of the Eastern Roman Empire.
  The rear of the bronze appliqué 
  from Trecenta, showing the 
  three-dimensional figure of 
  the rider. See reconstruction as 
  Plate B3. (Inv. IG 288774; photo 
  courtesy of Soprintendenza per 
  I Beni Archaeologici del Veneto, 
  Padua)
  SECOND HALF OF 4th CENTURY AD
  (1) Catafractarius, battle of Argentoratum, AD 357
  The heavy cavalrymen painted in the catacombs of Dino 
  Compagni (Via Latina), from which we reconstruct this mailed 
  rider, still show at the time of Constantius II and Julian the use 
  of old types of masked helmets with eagle protomes, of the 
  Heddernheim or (as here) Vechten types. Interestingly, this 
  man carries javelins with barbed heads, which are represented 
  on some stelae of catafractarii, like that of Klaudianus. 
  Catafractarii, in contrast to clibanarii, are often represented 
  with the wide shield of the scutarii.
  (2) Clibanarius of Vexillatio equitum catafractariorum 
  clibanoriorum; Claudiopolis, c. AD 350
  We are able to reconstruct quite a good image of richly-
  equipped cataphractarii and clibanarii from iconography 
  together with descriptions in the sources (Pan. IV, 22; Amm. 
  Marc. XVI, 10, 8; Jul. Imp., Or. in Constantii Laudem, I, 37ff). The 
  predilection of Constantius II for such troops is attested by the 
  numerous regiments raised by him, and quoted in his funerary 
  oration pronounced by Julian. The reconstruction is based 
  partially on the Dura Europos material, but note the ridge-
  helmet prefiguring the famous 7th-century Sutton Hoo 
  Germanic specimen; this fits well with a description of 
  clibanarii wearing face-mask helmets (‘personati’). Claudian, in 
  his Panegyrics, describes the distinctions of the armoured 
  cavalrymen of the Imperial retinue: sashes around the waist, 
  peacock feathers on the helmet, and gilded and silvered 
  cuirasses and shoulder-guards. Iconography attests the use of 
  the old-style Roman ‘four-horn’ saddle at least into the first 
  half of the 5th century.
  (3) Clibanarius of Schola scutariorum clibanariorum; 
  Constantinople, AD 380
  For this man we have used a specimen of heavy cavalry 
  helmet of ridge type, and a blazon for his small shield copied 
  from the Notitia Dignitatum (in which the heavy cavalry’s use 
  of battle-axes is also attested). The striking appearance of the 
  clibanarius is noted by Claudian describing the army in 
  Constantinople on 27 November AD 395: ‘It is as though iron 
  statues moved, and men lived cast from that same metal’. On 
  that occasion he mentions plumed helmets (cristato vertice), 
  and armour of flexible scales or laminae fitted to the limbs 
  (conjuncta per artem flexilis inductis animatur lamina membris).
  F
  
  35
  1
  2
  3
  
  36
  ARMS & EQUIPMENT
  To understand the equipment of Roman heavy cavalrymen 
  we should first turn to the ancient authors’ descriptions 
  of the Sarmatian, Parthian or Persian cataphracts; the 
  Romans copied this class of troops from them, and 
  Orientals and Sarmatians often formed the core of 
  the first units they employed. It is even possible that 
  Roman heavy cavalry was equipped with captured 
  Persian armour, if we give credit to, for example, the 
  passage of the Historia Augusta relating to the life 
  of Severus Alexander (Al. Sev. LVI). There he boasts 
  that ‘we have routed one hundred and twenty thousand 
  of their cavalry; we have slain in battle ten thousand of their 
  cataphract horsemen, whom they call clibanarioi, and we have 
  equipped our own men with their armour’. This passage has 
  often been dismissed simply because of the fancifully high 
  number of enemy dead claimed. However that may be, the 
  source notes that all the gear taken from the dead – not just that 
  of the klibanarioi – was distributed to Roman soldiers; the emperor probably 
  emphasizes the weapons and armour of the heavy cavalry simply because 
  they had been particularly feared as invincible.
  Beside the ancient sources, a rich iconography, and archaeological finds 
  especially in Southern Russia, Ukraine and the East, have shone important 
  new light on these Roman heavy cavalrymen.
  OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
  Spears
  The main weapon of cataphracts (both catafractarii and clibanarii) was the 
  contus Sarmaticus, a lance reaching 4−4.5m (13−15ft) in length. The heavy 
  contus is described by Servius (Ad Aen. VII, 664) as like a long 
  spear with a short iron point. We find oblique references to the 
  contus in the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus (VI, 161−2, 234−238, 
  256−258), and in Statius’ Achilleides (II, 132−134). This spear 
  was mainly used with two hands (cataphracts were not always 
  equipped with shields), held along the horse’s flank and wielded 
  freely. However, according to Heliodorus, at least among the 
  Persian cavalrymen the contus could also be attached to the horse 
  at the neck and croup. It is well represented in graffiti and frescoes 
  at Dura Europos, sometimes adorned with ribbons. The fragments 
  of a spearshaft from Dura possibly attest that the contus shaft 
  was painted red, while later sources (Notitia Dignitatum) show it 
  painted in various colours. At Piercebridge (possibly Morbio) in 
  Britain four spearheads have been found, of which one, 14.5cm 
  (5.7in) long with a slender leaf-shaped blade, might fit the bill as a 
  cavalry lance.
  Maces and axes
  Arrian (Tact. IV, 9) mentions, specifically as a weapon for Roman 
  cavalrymen, a mace as well as a sword and spear: ‘[they] also employ 
  Reconstruction of Roman 
  manica arm protection, from 
  various finds. (Drawing by 
  Andrea Salimbeti ex Gamber)
  Roman 3rd-century sword 
  fitting from Nydam moor, 
  Denmark, depicting the heads 
  and arms of two cataphracts 
  – note the manica arm 
  protection. (Drawing by Andrea 
  Salimbeti ex Gamber)
  
  37
  small axes [sic] with spikes in a circle all around’. 
  A copper-alloy mace head, today preserved in 
  the National Museum in Damascus, is 8.2cm in 
  diameter and 6.5cm long (3.2 x 2.6in). Other 
  examples of 3rd-century maces are known from 
  Mauretania, and in the collections of the Louvre 
  (from Mesopotamia) and the Boston Museum of 
  Fine Art. Significantly, Arab historians recorded 
  that the Iranian heavy cavalry were also equipped 
  with maces, suggesting a Parthian or Sassanian 
  model for their use by the Romans.
  The Notitia Dignitatum adds heavy axes to 
  the equipment of the Imperial Guard cavalry. 
  These may be represented by examples from 
  Constantinople; one of them found in the Great 
  Palace excavations is decorated on the blade, and 
  another bears an inscription.
  Swords
  Long Sarmatian swords are known to have 
  been used in Roman provincial areas in Central 
  Europe, and even a Chinese sword was found 
  in the Chatalka burial of the Thracian heavy 
  cavalryman. Cataphracts wore their swords 
  on their left side and used them as a secondary 
  weapon when a lance could not be employed. The swords from Chatalka 
  are characterized by rich gold and silver decoration, showing a typical 
  Sarmatian motif ‘similar to a wild beast’ which was influenced by Chinese 
  and Central Asian traditions. The handguard of one sword is decorated with 
  panther figures, the other one with branches of ivy. These Sarmatian-style 
  swords are approximately 90cm (35.5in) long. The flat gold pommel of one 
  is ornamented with a Sarmatian tamga tribal symbol, also visible on the gold, 
  gilded bronze and silver scabbard plates incised in the Sarmatian zoomorphic 
  style. The highly decorated scabbard slide in nephrite, which held the sword 
  in a transverse position on the left side, is of Chinese origin, and attests to 
  the very wide range of reciprocal influences that the Iranian peoples of the 
  steppes shared with both Western and Eastern cultures.
  From the Dura Europos graffiti, the cataphractarii seem to be armed with 
  short daggers or swords in metal-plated sheaths. The circitor Valerius Durio 
  is represented on his tombstone as brandishing a scythe-like blade. On the 
  stele of the centenarius Klaudianus one of his servants carries a short sword, 
  perhaps a semi-spatha or scramasax.
  Bows
  On Trajan’s Column some Sarmatians are very realistically represented in 
  the ‘Parthian’ shooting position. It is possible that the early cavalrymen of 
  a newly formed Thraco-Sarmatian ethnic component serving in the Roman 
  Army as cataphractarii were also horse-archers. The bow was the main 
  weapon of the Osrhoenian cavalrymen enlisted by Severus Alexander. The 
  bow had a composite shaft, in wood covered on the outside (back) with 
  a glued layer of sinew; bone nock-plates were applied on the tips (as on 
  specimens from Dura Europos). The evidence suggests the Yzri typology 
  A presumed right thigh 
  protector from Tower 19 at 
  Dura Europos, c. AD 256; it is 
  seen from the exterior, with 
  all its complex lacing hidden. 
  The leather lamellae overlap 
  downwards, so the exposed 
  edges are downwards and to 
  the rear when the wearer was 
  mounted. This ‘cuisse’ measures 
  74cm long by 57cm wide (29 x 
  22.4in), in 13 rows of lamellae 
  6cm or 7cm long by 4.5cm, 
  plus an extra long row (8−9cm), 
  and a single scale (9cm x 6cm) 
  at the bottom. According 
  to James, the protector was 
  probably covered with fine 
  linen. It was attached to the 
  thigh with leather laces knotted 
  through the second scale in 
  from the outer edges in the 
  12th row. (Yale University 
  Museum, no. 1938.5999.1009; 
  photo courtesy of Dr David 
  Nicolle)
  
  38
  of bow, 1.275m (40in) across the chord, with an 
  unbroken sinuous curve when strung. The presence 
  of sagittarii clibanarii among the units of the Late 
  Empire suggests a general tendency to equip the 
  heavy cavalryman like the mounted archer of the 
  steppes, able to shoot on horseback but retaining 
  the impact of the charging lancer.
  DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
  The protective armour of the cataphracts 
  underwent development, gradually expanding 
  to cover as much of the body as possible. We 
  can form a reasonable image from the graffito 
  in Tower 17 at Dura Europos, supported by the 
  sources (Panegyrici Latini, IV, 22; Amm. Marc., 
  XVI, 10, 8 ff, description of the triumph of 
  Constantius II with his clibanarii; and in Jul. Imp., 
  Or. in Constantii laudem, I, 37 ff).
  Helmets
  Sarmatian cataphracts shown on Trajan’s Column 
  wear particular ‘egg-shaped’ helmets (i.e. blunt quasi-
  conical) with framing, and similar images are seen in 
  Bosphoran crypt frescoes of the lst−2nd centuries AD. 
  They are also seen on tombstones more often than 
  Hellenistic ‘pot’ helmets. These Sarmatian helmets 
  became a prototype of subsequent Spangenhelme, 
  which were widespread by the time of the great 
  migration of peoples in the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
  One of the first specimens of Iranian helmets within the Roman armoury 
  probably dates from the employment of heavy cavalry on the Rhine 
  frontier: the Eastern Roman mask helmet of the 3rd−4th centuries AD from 
  Thorsbjerg marsh, now preserved at the Landes-Museum in Schleswig-
  Holstein. The similarity between its perforated bell-shaped skull made up 
  of silver sections linked by 
  rivets, and the helmet of the 
  Parthian prince in the 1st-
  century Kuh-i-Chodscha 
  fresco, is unmistakable, 
  and it lacks only the red felt 
  under-cap. The open mask 
  of the Thorsbjerg helmet 
  is usually dated to the 3rd 
  century, the period of most 
  finds from Thorsbjerg and 
  Vimose marshes; however, 
  the original decoration 
  also allows identification 
  with the beginning of the 
  4th century.
  ‘Conical’ helmets entered 
  the Roman Army under 
  Exterior, profile and interior of 
  iron laminated limb armour 
  from Tomb 28 at Dura Europos. 
  While probably c. AD 256, this 
  was found not in a dated level 
  but in earth backfill. (Drawing 
  by Andrea Salimbeti ex James)
  Bronze (copper alloy) forearm 
  defence, early 4th century AD, 
  from the Danube frontier. This 
  remarkable piece is composed 
  of six plates, with a total 
  measurement of 11.5cm (4.5in) 
  long. The largest plate is at the 
  top; each plate is perforated 
  at the centre to attach to the 
  one below it, and at both ends 
  to attach to straps. The lowest 
  plate hung down over the 
  hand. (Museumverein Pöchlarn; 
  photo courtesy of Dr Manfred 
  Beer)
  
  39
  Parthian or Sarmatian influence. Roman heavy 
  cavalry equipped with quasi-conical segmented 
  helmets can be seen on the Arch of Galerius (r. AD 
  304−311). By the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, 
  when the spangenhelm seems to have become 
  the most popular type in Europe, a majority of 
  Roman cavalrymen used it. The helmets worn 
  by Roman cataphracts of the 3rd−5th centuries 
  either consisted of metal segments joined at the 
  apex (spangenhelms), or were of two-piece ‘ridge’ 
  construction, like that of the dead Persian found 
  in Dura Europos. The apex was decorated with 
  either inserted crests or plumes or with floating 
  ribbons. The late 2nd−early 3rd-century clibanarius 
  in the famous graffito at Dura Europos wears a 
  tall, truly conical helmet constructed from small 
  plates, comparable with helmets of Parthian type 
  also adopted by the Sarmatians (e.g. finds from 
  Tiflisskaya stanitsa, the Istyatsky hoard, and 
  Nekrasovskaya stanitsa). This shape of helmet for 
  the super-heavy cavalry in the 5th century seems be 
  confirmed by the Babylonian Talmud.
  The helmet might be worn, following the 
  tradition of the Persian cataphracts, with a ‘human face’ mask (simulacra 
  humanorum vultuum – Amm. Marc., XXV, 1, 12−13), or face protection of 
  scale or mail. Prototypes of such masked helmets were found in both West 
  and East in earlier centuries. The Chatalka finds include a bronze kranos with 
  mask (avtòprosopon) that followed the Greco-Roman tradition, decorated 
  with a gold laurel crown found in the same grave and surmounted by a deep 
  horsehair crest. Describing Sassanid and Roman cataphracts and clibanarii 
  of the 3rd−4th centuries AD, both Ammianus Marcellinus and Heliodorus 
  mention face-mask helmets.
  However, the numerous and widespread finds of Roman helmet 
  masks do not prove that all or even large numbers of cataphracts 
  Fragment of a cataphract’s limb 
  armour, 4th−5th century, from 
  the Balkans. (European private 
  collection; photo R. D’Amato, 
  courtesy of the owner)
  Fragment of scale armour 
  sewn to fabric backing, from 
  the Chatalka tumulus burial 
  in Bulgaria, c. AD 75−100. 
  Buyukliev suggested that this 
  was horse armour, but only 
  his drawings remain, since 
  the actual find has since been 
  misplaced in the Stara Zagora 
  Museum. (Drawings by Andrea 
  Salimbeti ex Bujukliev)
  
  40
  were equipped with masks fitted to framed conical helmets or more 
  traditional Roman cavalry types. Those of officers and standard-
  bearers seem more likely to have been adorned with such masks. The 
  Prutting Altar, of the early 4th century, shows a Heddernheim-style 
  helmet complete with high crest, feathers and mask, associated with 
  the panoply of a heavy cavalry officer. A Roman masked helmet also 
  probably dating from the 4th century has been found at Sisak (Siscia) in 
  Pannonia. For the later period, the Freshfield drawings of the Column of 
  Arcadius and Theodosius (AD 395−403) show masked helmets similar 
  to the Sisak specimen for the super-heavy cavalrymen of the Imperial 
  Guard in Constantinople. The mosaics of Santa Maria Maggiore show 
  heavy cavalrymen using masked helmets, with high protomes similar 
  to some actual 3rd-century specimens. Open masks might be possible; 
  the heavy cavalrymen depicted in the catacombs of Dino Compagni 
  (Via Latina) show the use at the time of Constantius II and Julian of 
  old types of mask helmets with eagle protomes, of the Heddernheim or 
  Vechten types.
  A typical kind of masked helmet for cataphracts of the Late Imperial 
  period might have been a less lavishly decorated version of the famous Sutton 
  Hoo find, which seems to be suggested by a graffito from Bulgaria. This 
  possibility is proposed by O. Gamber, and followed by various scholars 
  including I. Lebedinsky, E. McGeer and the present authors. Such helmets 
  might be crested; crests and plumes of the Imperial Guard might be purple, 
  or of peacock feathers – picturatas galeae Iunionia cristas ornet avis (‘how 
  Juno’s bird decks the gay crests upon their helmets’; Claudianus, De VI Cons. 
  Hon., 575−576).
  Exterior and interior of 3rd-
  century AD leather limb 
  armour, presumably for thigh 
  protection, from Tower 19 at 
  Dura Europos. With provision 
  at the bottom for laces around 
  the leg, it covered the wearer 
  from waist to knee, and today 
  measures 66cm x 45cm (26 x 
  17.7in) overall. It is composed 
  of black-dyed leather scales 
  varying in size from 5.5cm to 
  6cm by 4cm to 4.5cm. These are 
  linked laterally by red leather 
  thongs running obliquely 
  across the face of each scale 
  between pairs of holes just 
  above the middle of each 
  vertical edge, and vertically by 
  thongs through slots centred 
  high in each scale. The whole 
  complex is held together by 
  narrow horizontal laces on 
  the front and wider vertical 
  laces on the back, and has a 
  narrow red leather edging 
  strip. (Yale University Museum, 
  no. 1938.5999.1143; photos 
  courtesy of Dr David Nicolle)
  
  41
  Body and limb armour
  ‘The equites cataphracti, the so-called clibanarii of the Persians, 
  were [so] protected by armoured coverings and belts of steel (limbi 
  ferrei cincti) that you might think them statues chiselled by the hand 
  of Praxiteles, not men. Thin encircling plates (lamminarum circuli) 
  Although the sculptor 
  apparently misunderstood its 
  arrangement over their legs, 
  the mounts of the Sarmatian 
  cataphracts (Rhoxolani and/
  or Iazyges) on the early 2nd-
  century Trajan’s Column are 
  clearly depicted as protected 
  by scale armour. (Cast in 
  Museum of Civiltà Romana; 
  photo R. D’Amato, courtesy of 
  the Museum)
  Fragment of leather horse 
  armour decorated with 
  rivets, 1st century AD, from 
  Valkenburg in Germania 
  Inferior. The pectoral is 23.5cm 
  (9.2in) deep at the centre, and 
  the style of decoration recalls 
  one of the leather chamfrons 
  found in Britannia. (Drawing 
  by Andrea Salimbeti ex 
  Junkelmann)
  
  42
  fitted to the curves of the body entirely covered their limbs, in such a 
  cunningly articulated way that it adapted itself to any movement the 
  wearer needed to make.’ (Amm. Marc. XVI, 10, 8)
  The first archaeological evidence of cataphract armour is probably 
  represented by large scales from Gamala in the Israeli−Syrian borderland, 
  which are of special interest in that they presumably reflect the Parthian 
  influence visible in the later Dura Europos graffiti. The Babylonian Talmud 
  (Sanh 75b) describes Persian heavy cavalrymen clad in shiryon clipa, which is 
  a clear reference to the scale armour of the cataphracti (Baba Batra 9b, Jalkut 
  Shimeoni 478). One large iron scale is convex, straight at the top and cut 
  to an angular point at the bottom. Linkage to other scales was by a vertical 
  pair of fastening holes at its right upper end, and a third hole in the middle. 
  The dimensions are 5.1cm long by 3.5cm wide (2 x 1.4in), with a convexity 
  of 5mm if seen in profile.
  Tacitus (I, 79, 3), discussing the armament of noble Sarmatians in AD 35 
  (two generations before his own time), mentions ‘an armour, made of metal 
  plates or hardened leather, that is not possible to pierce with any blows, 
  but allows the unseated cavalryman the possibility of getting up again’. 
  Tacitus does not specify, however, whether the leather armour was made of 
  hardened scales or was a corselet of banded hardened leather, as is visible 
  on the pediment of Trajan’s Column. We may suppose that scale armours 
  were made of fabric to which were sewn metal, horn, bone or rawhide plates 
  or scales overlapping one another, the whole fitting the body while flexible 
  Possible element of horse 
  armour from Hatra, c. AD 
  75−100. James suggests 
  that this cast copper plaque 
  showing the head of Medusa 
  could be a piece of head 
  protection for a horse, possibly 
  part of a chamfron; note the 
  fixing holes. It was found in 
  the Fourth Temple at the city 
  of Hatra – a source of vassal 
  troops for the Roman Army, 
  where a number of graffiti 
  depicting cataphracts have 
  also been found. The exact 
  dimensions are now unknown, 
  and no other images are 
  available. (ex Fukai/Public 
  domain)
  
  43
  enough to allow movement. Most Sarmatian body defences represented in 
  the sources are scale shirts reaching the elbows and knees; simultaneously, 
  however, cataphracts shown on Trajan’s Column (scenes XXXI and XXXVII) 
  wear scale armour covering the whole length of the arms and legs. Perhaps 
  this was also the armour of the mentioned Ala catafractata, with both riders 
  and horses encased in lorica plumata (i.e. armour of scales of ‘feather’ shape 
  with a central rib), leaving only the face and fingers of the rider, and the 
  nostrils, eyes and tail of the horse unprotected.
  Captured Sarmatian armours, shown in a realistic manner on Trajan’s 
  Column, are identical to the scale armour found in Sarmatian burials. 
  The images on the Column which show the Rhoxolani wearing a lorica 
  plumata covering the whole body down to the ankles are often contested as 
  fanciful artistic treatments with some element of reality. Archaeology has 
  not yet confirmed such armours for this period, but similar suits of scale 
  covering the whole body and legs were found in Scythian barrows, and this 
  Scythian legacy may have been passed on to the Rhoxolani. Hence, it is quite 
  possible that the cataphracts on Trajan’s Column, and by extension the early 
  Roman hired cataphracts, might have had complete arm and leg amour. 
  Fastening protections to the limbs by laces was a very old system, already 
  visible on some Iberian horsemen’s equipment from the time of the Punic 
  Wars. Sarmatian cavalrymen’s graves of the mid-1st to early 2nd centuries 
  Horse eye-guards with 
  fragments of a chamfron 
  (Greek, prometopidion), 2nd 
  century AD. See reconstruction 
  in Plate B3. (European private 
  collection; photo R. D’Amato, 
  courtesy of the owner)
  Eye-guards from a horse 
  chamfron, late 1st−early 
  2nd century, of type A under 
  Schuckelt’s classification. 
  Made of copper alloy, they 
  measure 7.5cm deep by 14.8cm 
  across (2.9 x 5.8in), and were 
  found in 1796 at Ribchester 
  (Bremetennacum, Britannia). 
  After AD 175, during the reign 
  of Marcus Aurelius, that fort 
  is known to have housed 
  Sarmatian auxiliaries; however, 
  these items, together with a 
  famous mask helmet found 
  nearby, might equally be relics 
  from the earlier garrison, the 
  Spanish Ala II Asturum. (British 
  Museum; photo R. D’Amato, 
  courtesy of the Museum)
  
  44
  AD have revealed scales that might cover the whole body or be attached 
  to the hem of leather or mail corselets. At the Gorodskoy farm in Adygeia 
  (Russian Federation) complete sets of Sarmatian heavy cavalry armour were 
  found in several burials. In burial No. 6 a segmental conical iron helmet was 
  found together with remains of a scale aventail. The reference by Valerius 
  Flaccus to Sarmatian youths clad in catenae (mail armours) suggests the use 
  of composite protection, passing in inheritance from the Scythians to the 
  Sarmatians and eventually to early Roman units of heavy cavalry. A long 
  scale coat, either with or without sleeves but resembling armour depicted on 
  the Trajan’s Column pediment, is still visible on a fragmentary relief from 
  Deva (Chester) dated to the time of Marcus Aurelius (r. 161−180 AD).
  Evidence from Dura Europos, 3rd century AD
  For the 3rd century the main artistic and archaeological evidence comes 
  from Dura Europos, a fort on the Euphrates which changed hands between 
  the Parthians and Romans and was finally captured by the Sassanians in 
  AD 257. In the Sassanian fresco of House F, illustrating a fight between 
  Sassanians and Romans, two figures are represented as armoured horsemen 
  (see page 14). They (and the light horsemen beside them) were probably 
  copied from members of Palmyrene units. The most visible armoured rider 
  has legs completely covered by iron ‘hoops’ above high, soft boots, and the 
  body protected by similar laminated (trunk) and scale (skirt) armour. His 
  The copper-alloy scale-armour 
  horse trapper, c. AD 256, found 
  in Tower 19 at Dura Europos. 
  See body text page 53, under 
  (1), for detailed description. 
  (Drawing by Andrea Salimbeti 
  after rep. VI of Baur-Rostovtzeff)
  
  45
  fallen helmet is of similar shape to the Persian example found in the mine at 
  Tower 19.
  His armour seems very similar to that of the clibanarius represented in 
  the famous graffito in Tower 17 (see page 11). This, and other graffiti from 
  Dura and Hatra, show a fitted combination of scales, plates and perhaps 
  mail. The sleeve armour shows parallel metal plates similar to the classic 
  Roman ‘laminated’ construction (such ‘hooped’ arm protection dated from 
  at least the early 2nd century BC – e.g. relief in the Pergamum Museum, 
  Berlin). The Greek term for these circuli laminarum was in fact used to 
  describe the construction of clibanarius armour. The chest is covered with 
  either scale armour alone, or scale combined with metal plates; the Near 
  East had a long tradition of such composite armours. The lower body is 
  protected by scale or mail armour (caternae ferratae), while the legs and 
  feet are covered with the same pliable armour as the arms (laminis tectae, 
  limbi ferrei). Suidas (Suidas lexicon, sub vox klibanarios) says that the 
  various parts of the armour were held together by clasps (peratai). Vegetius 
  calls this kind of armour cataphracta.
  Late Roman ringmail of the 3rd–4th century, perhaps pertinent to 
  a heavy cavalryman, has been found in a Thorsbjerg peat-bog. The hip-
  length hauberk, with elbow-length sleeves, is made of alternating vertical 
  rows of solid iron rings and rings with the ends flattened and riveted, as 
  also found in ringmail from Vimose. The Thorsbjerg specimen, closed at the 
  breast by clasps, has some rings placed at the vulnerable shoulder-blades and 
  armpits made of copper alloy and showing embossed talismanic characters. 
  Strikingly, it is embellished with two rolled copper-alloy pectoral discs. These 
  wide plates, of both ornamental and defensive purpose, are 13.2cm (5.2in) in 
  diameter, recalling more elaborate Roman phalerae; they are not firmly fixed 
  down to the mail all around, but riveted on to hang free. The mailshirts used 
  The iron scale-armour horse 
  trapper from Tower 19 at Dura 
  Europos. See body text page 
  54, under (2), for detailed 
  description. (Drawing by 
  Andrea Salimbeti after rep. VI of 
  Baur-Rostovtzeff)
  
  46
  by the Roman Army became longer, particularly from the 4th century, as a 
  result of the influence of the heavy Sassanian cavalry.
  A long ‘splint-armour’ gauntlet with metal staves had already begun to 
  appear in the Roman Army as early as the 3rd century AD; of Iranian origin, 
  it was typical of Eurasian horse peoples. Protection for the often-vulnerable 
  upper thighs was important for cavalrymen. A very rare early example was 
  found at Gamala, dated to the 1st century BC. It is described by Guy Siebel 
  as curved, 30cm (11.8in) long, of plates ranging from 4 to 5cm wide (1.6–
  1.9in), and 2 to 3mm thick; leather straps on the back were fastened to the 
  iron plates with copper-alloy rivets. In the East the thigh guard was evidently 
  in use during the Late Roman period; the lower end of a thigh-guard of 
  THE WEST, 5th CENTURY AD
  (1) Catafractarius of the Comites Alani; Mediolanum, 
  Gallia, AD 430
  The cavalryman is reconstructed from Romano-Sarmatian 
  archaeology in Gallia and northern Italia, also incorporating 
  elements from Pontic finds. These units served under the 
  Magister Militum in Italy, according to the Notitia Dignitatum, 
  which gives us their shield blazon. The man is armoured with 
  bronze squamae of Roman typology, and armed with the 
  contus and long Pontic sword; a specimen of the latter is 
  decorated in the cloisonné style of Constantinople fabrica. 
  Hidden here on the far side of his saddlery is a composite bow 
  and quiver of arrows. The Alani reportedly used the flayed 
  skins of their slain enemies to make horse trappers, and the 
  faces were hung from the horse’s antilena. This rider is using 
  the new type of nomad-style saddle with raised saddlebows 
  front and rear in place of the old four pommels.
  (2) Clibanarius of Galla Placidia’s buccellarii, c. AD 425–450
  Bucellarii were personal units raised by an individual rather 
  than the state; the politically active Galla Placidia was the 
  daughter of Theodosius I (r. 379–395), and acted as regent for 
  Valentinian III from 423 to 437. The cavalryman is largely 
  copied from the mosaics in Santa Maria Maggiore. Besides a 
  cuirass of iron lamellae he wears an early example of ‘splint’ 
  armour on his exposed right arm; similar armour has been 
  found in Abkhazian graves of the 5th century, where warriors 
  were buried with Eastern Roman military equipment. Such 
  specimens have long splints on the outer arm and shorter 
  ones partially covering the inside, over a leather support 
  fastened with buckles; below them and attached by two large 
  rings are hand-protectors of ringmail. Padded leg protection 
  of felt and coarse silk covers the legs down to the shoes, 
  fastened behind with laces and buckled straps.
  (3) Clibanarius of Equites clibanarii; Cirta, AD 400
  This trooper is equipped for training. A mosaic at Cirta 
  (Constantine, Algeria) shows cavalrymen of the Western 
  Empire training with javelins and riding caparisoned horses 
  (see Osprey Campaigns 84, Adrianople AD 378, p. 68). Man and 
  horse are protected with quilted armour of an organic 
  material, in the rider’s case probably corresponding to the 
  thoracomacus worn under the heavy armour of the clibanarius. 
  The vestitus equi of his mount may, by contrast, be actual war 
  gear, comparable to those represented on the lost Column of 
  Arcadius and Theodosius. If made with felt padding this kind 
  of caparison would give protection against low-velocity, long-
  range missiles.
  G
  Three-quarter front view of the 
  iron-scale horse trapper from 
  Dura Europos, described in the 
  text as (2). The pale interior 
  visible here is part of the form 
  on which it is displayed, not 
  the original backing fabric. 
  (Yale University Museum/Public 
  domain)
  
  47
  1
  2
  3
  
  48
  an iron laminated armour was found in the necropolis of Dura Europos, 
  and two leather lamellar examples were uncovered in the collapsed Tower 
  19. Such protection is confirmed by literary descriptions and iconography. 
  From Dura we get the impression that such leg-guards were more often worn 
  overlapping upwards than downwards.
  4th–5th centuries AD
  The images at Dura still seem to fit well with the 4th-century description by 
  Emperor Julian in his oration for Constantius II (Jul. Imp., Or. in Const. 
  laudem, I, 37 ff):
  ‘Your cavalry were almost unlimited in numbers and they all sat their 
  horses like statues, while their limbs were fitted with armour that closely 
  followed the human shape. It covers the arms from wrist to elbow and thence 
  to the shoulder, while a plated armour (θωραξ έκ τμηματων) protects the 
  breast, back and shoulders. The head and face are covered by a metal helmet 
  forming a unit with a mask (κρανος αυτω προσωπω), which makes its wearer 
  look like a glittering statue, for not even the thighs and legs and the very ends 
  of the feet lack this armour. It is attached to the cuirass by fine chain-armour 
  like a web, so that no part of the body is visible and uncovered, for this 
  woven covering protects the hands as well, and is so flexible that the wearers 
  can bend even their fingers.’
  Nazanzius writes of operti ferro exercitus (‘an army covered with iron’). 
  The armour of these heavy cavalrymen might be silvered and gilded, giving 
  riders and horses a splendid appearance. Describing the cataphracts of the 
  Eastern Roman army at the beginning of the 5th century, Claudianus (In 
  Ruf. II, 357 ff) writes – probably of the Scholae Palatinae: ‘Over against 
  them the cavalry seeks to restrain their eager steeds by holding tight the 
  reins. Here nod the savage waving plumes, whose wearers rejoice to shake 
  the flashing colours of their shoulder-armour. Steel clothes them and gives 
  them their shape; the limbs within give life to the armour’s pliant scales so 
  artfully conjoined, and strike terror into the beholder’. Gilded mail, probably 
  combined with gilded plates and scales (aurato dorso), seems to be the main 
  protection of Honorius’ cataphracts (viri ferrati) according to Claudianus 
  (De VI Cons. Hon. – ‘chalybe indutos equites’). Such armours belonging to 
  the Imperial Guard were decorated with red silk ribbons at the shoulders (per 
  armos rubra sub aurato crispentur serica dorso).
  The use of ‘muscled’ metal armour by clibanarii was also usual among 
  Sassanian elites, so it is not strange to find this element of the Greco-Roman 
  military tradition in use by Roman heavy cavalry. It is worn by the officer 
  of cataphractarii represented on a bronze balteus fitting from Trecenta (see 
  pages 33-34), and in the frescoes of the Via Latina catacombs. This cuirass 
  might most readily be associated with high-ranking officers or with the 
  Imperial Guard, as seems to be confirmed by fragments and drawings of the 
  Column of Arcadius and Theodosius, and even by miniature illustrations in 
  the Notitia Dignitatum.
  Although we only have copies of this document executed in the Middle 
  Ages and later, its miniatures (Or. XI, 2; Occ. IX, 2) represent the equipment 
  of the Imperial Guard super-heavy cavalry, especially of the Scholae Palatinae, 
  whose shield blazons are associated with the pictured arms and armours – 
  breastplates, arm-guards, thigh and leg-guards, as well as helmets and long 
  contarii. A ringmail garment to protect the breast and hips is illustrated, with 
  a triangular cutaway at the front to allow sitting on a horse. Other cataphracts 
  
  49
  may have been covered with ringmail from neck to feet. According to Sidonius 
  Appollinaris (Carm., II, 142–143), the future Emperor Anthemius burdened 
  his horse cum pondere conti indutas Chalybum . . . catenas (‘with all his weight 
  of steel chain-armour and heavy lance’ – ‘chain-armour’ being the translation 
  in the Loeb edition).
  Some other heavy cavalrymen illustrated in the Via Latina catacomb 
  frescoes are protected by scale armour worn over a leather doublet. Scale 
  armour for the 4th and 5th centuries is confirmed by tombstones (stelae of 
  Maxantius, Klaudianus [sic] Ingenuus), and mosaics (Santa Maria Maggiore). 
  We also have a description of the future Emperor Majorian when he was an 
  aide to the general Aëtius (Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm., V, 199). After a 
  battle against the Franks, Majorian is described as having worn a helmet 
  and scale cuirass (Carm. V, 221–224). Sidonius also writes of Avitus, the 
  future Augustus of the West, ‘wearing his scale-armour (squameus), his face 
  Fragment from an edge of mid 
  3rd-century iron-scale horse 
  trapper with leather backing 
  and lacing, from Tower 19 at 
  Dura Europos. (Yale University 
  Museum/Public domain)
  
  50
  still bearing the mark of the burnished helmet’ (Carm. VII, 242–243). No 
  less important is the description from Sidonius of a Late Empire general girt 
  for war (Carm. VII, 260–266): ‘They bring him his corselet, still clotted with 
  gore, his lance blunted by wounds dealt to the barbarians, and his sword 
  notched by unceasing slaughter. He cases his legs in greaves, and puts upon 
  his head a gleaming helmet, whereon a golden crest-base rises aloft, catching 
  an angry flash from on high.’ All the generals and emperors are described by 
  Sidonius as using heavy cavalry equipment; note in particular the references 
  to a lance (contus) and greaves. Sidonius had introduced the ‘cuirass still 
  clotted with gore’ a few lines earlier (Carm. VII, 242) specifically as a lorica 
  squamata (St Hieronymus, Vulgata, cap. XVII, 5, p. 85).
  HORSE ARMOUR
  The use of horse armour by cavalrymen was not a new concept for the 
  Romans. It is clearly recorded by Virgil (Aen., XI, 770): ‘But it soon befell 
  that Chloreus, once a priest of Cybele, shone forth in far-resplendent 
  Phrygian arms, and urged a foaming steed, which wore a robe o’erwrought 
  with feathery scales (plumam squamis) of bronze and gold’. The horse’s body 
  was covered by heavy armour (munitus equus, Prop., El., IV, 3), and Virgil 
  might well have based his description on some Eastern cataphract ally of 
  Rome. The grammarian Maurus Servius Honoratus (4th–5th century), in his 
  commentaries on this passage of the Aeneid (Aen. xi. 768 ff), says that the 
  Latin expression meant that the horse was catafractum, i.e. armoured, and 
  adds that catafracti are cavalrymen (equites) covered by iron (ferro muniti) 
  and that they have horses protected in a similar way (equos similiter munitos 
  habent). In his description of the 4th-century clibanarii of Maxentius, 
  Nazianzius (Pan., XXII, 5ff) writes of ‘an armour (lorica) which extends 
  down to the horses’ chest (pectora equorum) and hangs to their forelegs, 
  protect[ing] them from . . . injury . . . without impeding their gait’.
  The soldier-author Arrian (c. AD 86–160), in his Ars Tactica IV, describes 
  the cataphracts of his period in precise terms: ‘As for the equipment of the 
  cavalry, it is [either] armoured (κατάφρακτος) or not; and in the armoured 
  Fragment of possible horse 
  trapper from Dura Europos, 
  c. AD 256. This appears to be 
  part of the leather border of 
  an iron-scale horse armour – 
  note the dagged edge, similar 
  to that in the previous photo. 
  However, the excavators felt 
  unable to absolutely exclude 
  the possibility that it was from 
  a man’s armour. (Yale University 
  Museum/Public domain)
  
  51
  [cavalry] the horses and horsemen are covered, the men with armours made 
  of scales or of linen or leather (θώραξι φολιδωτοῖς ἢ λινοῖς ἢ ἐκ κεράτων), and 
  thigh protection (παραμηριδίοις), the horses with side and head protections’ 
  (παραπλευριδίοις. Προμετωπιδίοις). Despite the reservations of some 
  scholars, the use of horse armour by early Sarmatian and Roman cataphracts 
  cannot be denied. Apart from indications in later sources that the Sarmatians 
  used horse armour (Valerius Flaccus, Argon., VI, 231–234), the horses of the 
  cataphracts shown on Trajan’s Column are clearly protected by scale armour.
  A certain number of finds from Sarmatian barrows are essentially 
  identical to the armour of the Rhoxolani cataphracts on the Column. Finds 
  are sometimes hard to interpret with any accuracy, but what are presumed to 
  be several mail and scale horse 
  armours, though corroded into 
  uncertain shapes, were found 
  in barrows near Yaroslavskaya 
  stanitsa and Elisavetinskaya 
  stanitsa, and in a barrow at 
  the Kalinovsky burial-ground. 
  If some Sarmatian and early 
  Roman 
  protective 
  horse 
  trappers were also made from 
  leather scales, which seems 
  probable, that would explain 
  the dearth of convincing finds. 
  Besides, horse armour was 
  not in widespread use; all the 
  existing funerary monuments 
  of Roman catafractarii show 
  the man on an unarmoured 
  horse. Eye-protectors are 
  visible on the horses on both 
  Wooden-framed saddle with 
  raised front, 5th century AD. 
  In the second half of the 4th 
  century and particularly in 
  the 5th century a new form 
  of saddle, with a wooden 
  frame and quilted padding of 
  organic material, was gradually 
  adopted by Roman cavalry. 
  Probably copied from Hunnic 
  models, it remained in use 
  beyond the end of this period. 
  (Drawing by Andrea Salimbeti 
  ex Kazanski)
  Heavy 4th−5th century AD 
  double-curved bit from the 
  harness of a cataphract, found 
  in the Balkans. (European 
  private collection; photo R 
  D’Amato, courtesy of the 
  owner)
  
  52
  Trajan’s Column and the Chiusi Frieze, however, and are confirmed by many 
  bronze archaeological specimens.
  The use of mail for horse armour and for the man is expressly confirmed 
  in the above-mentioned passage by Valerius Flaccus, who describes Sarmatian 
  riders’ cuirasses and horse-armour made of catenae. The word catena means 
  ‘chain’, so this surely can only refer to ringmail: cum saeuior ecce iuuentus 
  Sarmaticae coiere manus fremitus que uirorum semiferi; riget his molli 
  lorica catena id quoque tegmen equis (‘. . . the soft mail armour, which 
  is also covering the horse’). The historian and experimental archaeologist 
  Dr Marcus Junkelmann basically agrees that horse armour was used, while 
  insisting on the limits imposed by what a horse could accept. Moreover, 
  as already seen, it was not universally employed, but only by some ‘super-
  heavy’ units of clibanarii.
  The protection of the horse (armatura) was sometimes complete, 
  comprising defences for the head (prometopidia, chamfron), the neck and 
  the body. The Greek terms for the various elements are listed in the 2nd 
  century AD by Pollux, in his Onomasticon (I, 140–141): προμετωπίδιον 
  (protection of the head), παρώπιον (eye-protectors), παρήϊον (cheek-pieces), 
  προστερνίδιον (covering for the breast), παραπλευρίδιον (protection of the 
  flanks), παραμηρίδιον (covering for the thighs), and even παρακνημίδιον 
  (covering for the legs).
  The Dura Europos finds
  The most striking archaeological evidence for 3rd-century horse armour 
  comes from the Roman fort of Dura Europos. The finds of two complete 
  and three fragmentary horse trappers in Tower 19 confirm that the garrison 
  included auxiliary heavy cavalry equipped as cataphracts. Many scholars 
  identify the graffiti of cavalrymen on armoured horses as Parthians (who 
  had once occupied the fort) or Sassanians, but we should remember that 
  auxiliary cunei and numeri fought in the Roman Army with their personal 
  equipment, and that a Numerus Palmyrenorum was part of the Dura 
  garrison. In the East the Roman military are known to have used Iranian 
  dress and accoutrements, which were typical of the army’s Arabo-Hellenic 
  troopers in the Fertile Crescent.
  In the Dura graffiti horse archers are represented on armoured horses, 
  and some of them wear spangenhelms. The famous graffito of the clibanarius 
  shows his horse covered by a scale trapper, exactly as found in the AD 256 
  Standards: Roman heavy 
  cavalry attacking Sassanians, 
  from the Arch of Galerius, 
  c. 298−299. Although very 
  damaged, this carving 
  reveals three differing draco 
  standard heads. Under close 
  examination, the troopers can 
  be seen to wear scale armour 
  and both the ridge-helmet 
  and the framed spangenhelm, 
  and some horses show traces 
  of neck armour. (in situ, 
  Thessaloniki; photo R. D’Amato)
  
  53
  levels in Tower 19. A small phalera or disc characterizes the horse’s antilena, 
  as also attested in Parthian sculptures of the period. The three main specimens 
  of horse trappers are as follows; for (1) and (2), see illustrations on pages 
  44 and 45:
  (1) This complete trapper is almost rectangular, 1.22m long by 1.69m wide 
  (48 x 66in). It is made of bronze (copper-alloy) scales, on two side-panels 
  linked together by a central leather strip, with a triangular tail-piece. The 
  backing is a double layer of coarse linen. The scales average 35mm (1.4in) 
  long, with rounded bottom corners, and are pierced with eight holes – two 
  on either side, and four arranged in a square at the top. They are linked 
  with copper-alloy wire through the side holes, to overlap laterally, and sewn 
  to the backing with thread cross-stitched through the top holes, to overlap 
  vertically. The top-row scales on each side panel have a larger additional hole 
  through which they are laced with rawhide thongs to the double-layered, 
  red-leather central strip. This central strip is 22cm wide in front of the 
  saddle-hole and 14cm wide behind it (8.7 and 5.5in). The red-leather bottom 
  edges of the side panels are 85mm (3.3in) wide; and the saddle-hole is edged 
  all round with fine red leather, folded over and sewn.
  The tail-piece is attached by a leather loop at the centre, and at the corners 
  by a continuation of the rawhide lace which runs up each rear edge of the 
  main panels. It bears 11 rows of scales linked laterally, sewn on the same 
  cloth backing, and has red leather edging.
  Red leather laces pass through the side panels near the front and rear 
  corners, one still being 33cm (13in) long. Two rawhide laces, braided 
  together and threaded through a small copper-alloy ring, pass up through the 
  central strip just behind the saddle-hole, and two more braided loops passing 
  through the scales out to either side probably passed over the rear pommels 
  of the typical Romano-Celtic ‘four-horn’ saddle. About 22cm (8.7in) in from 
  the rear end of the central strip is another loop of rawhide, the ends passing 
  up through a round wooden button and then through a transverse rawhide 
  strip originally 70cm (27.5in) long.
  ‘Passage of the Red Sea by the 
  Army of Pharaoh’ in a fresco 
  from the Chapel of the Exodus, 
  Al-Bagawat; Kharga Oasis, 
  Egypt, 5th century AD. Note 
  the draco standards carried by 
  the riders; it is not impossible 
  that the artist also intended 
  to depict mask helmets, in 
  contrast to the headgear worn 
  by the foot soldiers. (Drawing 
  by Andrea Salimbeti ex Fakhry, 
  1951)
  
  54
  Important additional finds were probable fragments of a neck defence, 
  according to James. These included pieces of red leather edging, and 
  copper-alloy scales averaging 36mm by 25mm (1.4 x 0.99in). The scales 
  were linked laterally with wire through pairs of holes, and sewn through 
  four top holes to the linen backing in prefabricated horizontal rows, 
  which were overlapped vertically, and offset laterally by about one-third 
  of their width.
  (2) The second trapper, covered with iron scales, also differs in being made all in 
  one piece and simply strengthened with a strip of scarlet leather down the centre, 
  from which the rows of scales overlap downwards on either side. It measures 
  1.48m long by 1.1m wide (58.27 x 43.3in), with two curving extensions 16cm 
  (6.3in) long at the front corners; a surviving thong shows that these were fastened 
  together on the horse’s chest. The backing is a single thickness of coarse hessian/
  burlap cloth. This was first bound with red leather edging; then the backing and 
  scales were rebound with untanned leather, which passed under the lower two 
  rows of scales. The iron scales, again rounded at the bottom corners, average 
  6cm long by 4.5cm wide (2.36 x 1.8in), and are 4mm thick. Again, they have 
  eight fastening holes, with copper-alloy staples linking them laterally and fine 
  rawhide stitching onto the backing through the top four holes.
  The panels of 19 rows of overlapping scales are rounded off at the rear on 
  each side, where a fine red leather laced edging attaches two triangular pieces 
  of untanned red leather to complete the rectangular shape. The central strip 
  is 15cm (6in) wide, of the same heavy, untanned red leather, and is laced to 
  the top row of scales on each side with rawhide. At each end, and around 
  the saddle-hole, it has fine folded-over red leather edging. The triangular 
  tail-piece – at 21.5cm (8.4in) on a side, shorter than that on trapper (1) – 
  is crudely made, with four unevenly overlapping rows of scales laced with 
  rawhide to a backing of untanned leather.
  (3) The third armour was formed from 2,000 scales of yellow copper alloy, 
  on linen edged with leather; all the laces are in red leather, and rows overlap 
  THE EAST, 5th CENTURY AD
  (1) Cataphractarius of Schola scutariorum secunda or 
  Schola armaturarum seniorum, AD 400
  The fragments of the lost Column of Arcadius and Theodosius, 
  and the Renaissance-period Freshfields drawings of it, show the 
  lavish equipment of Eastern Roman cavalrymen of the Imperial 
  Guard. Shield blazons engraved on the Column pedestal 
  confirm the presence of the cavalry Scholae Palatinae and 
  Domestici Protectores on the battlefield, armoured with ‘muscle’ 
  cuirasses in metal or leather, and laminated limb armour over 
  ringmail. Claudianus describes the Eastern Roman cataphracts 
  wearing helmets with peacock-feather plumes, and wide red 
  sashes around the body, as signs of their status or unit. Masked 
  helmets with human faces (personati) were still employed by 
  cavalrymen, often decorated in red leather; the Column shows 
  the use of both male and female masks. This last example in 
  Roman art of the use of masked helmets in battle is confirmed 
  by the almost contemporary specimen from Sisak. The written 
  sources also mention units of heavily armoured mounted 
  archers, anticipating the further evolution of the Roman heavy 
  cavalry in the 6th century.
  (2) Catafractarius of the Equites catafractarii Albigenses, 
  AD 400–425
  This man is reconstructed from the grave of a cavalryman 
  found on a Balkan battlefield with all his armour. Besides a 
  ridge-helmet, he is protected by a ringmail lorikion, laminated 
  armour on his arms, and thigh protection above his greaves. 
  Apart from the contus, he is armed with a long spatha. 
  (3) Leontoclibanarius; Aegyptus, AD 450–500
  This Egyptian cavalryman has a helmet of Romano-Sassanian 
  style, fitted with a mail hood aventail which leaves only the eyes 
  uncovered. He wears on his neck and upper breast an early 
  example of scale peritrachìlion, and below this his trunk is covered 
  with a combination of ringmail and scales recalling Iranian styles. 
  Again, his limbs are protected by articulated plates. His weapons 
  again include a battleaxe. Dtinsis (see Bibliography, under 
  Diethart) suggests that the unit’s symbol was a leonine motif 
  which the Notitia Dignitatum shows, perhaps on a small 
  cheiroskoutarion shield. The horse’s neck and forequarters only 
  are armoured partly with bronze scales and partly with padded 
  material (κέντουκλον). Note the chamfron in felt with metallic 
  appliqué, copied from a unique specimen in the Berlin Museum.
  H
  
  55
  1
  3
  2
  
  56
  in both directions. Most scales are from 2.5 to 4cm (0.98 to 1.6in) long; all 
  have two holes on either side, but only a few have a four-hole square at the 
  top for stitching, the majority having instead a single large hole for a rawhide 
  lace. The top corners are sometimes clipped off to reduce chafing of the 
  laces, and the scales tend to be slightly domed at the bottom. Other small 
  copper-alloy scales formed the protection of the neck: 3cm long by 1.5cm 
  wide (1.2 x 0.6in), these have the lower corners bevelled, and are pierced 
  with six holes – two on either side and two at the top. There were also two 
  large fragments of an upper edge, with scales, backing and red-leather edging 
  laced on with rawhide; one of the fragments shows an obtuse upper corner 
  of about 45 degrees.
  Literary sources
  The descriptions of cataphracts by authors of Late Antiquity leave no 
  doubt as to the employment of horse armour (vestitus equis), at least by the 
  clibanarii. Nazanzius, in his Panegyric to Constantine, describes the army of 
  Maxentius at the battle of Turin: ‘What a spectacle that is said to have been, 
  how dreadful to behold, [with] horses and men alike enclosed in a covering 
  of iron (operimento ferri)’.
  In 
  the 
  above-mentioned 
  passage by Claudianus describing 
  the army in Constantinople, 
  he writes of the horses of the 
  cataphractarii: ‘their heads are 
  encased in threatening iron 
  (ferrata fronte… minantur), their 
  forequarters move beneath iron 
  plates (ferratos armos) protecting 
  them from wounds’. The same 
  author describes the Imperial 
  Guard cataphracts of Honorius 
  (Pan. De II Cons. Hon., 569 
  ff): latentes in aere cornipedes 
  (‘horses clad in bronze’), and 
  metallo nascentes equos (‘steeds 
  of metal’). The employment 
  of bronze (copper alloy) for 
  horse armour is attested, as 
  we have seen, by the finds at 
  Dura Europos.
  Horse 
  armour 
  received 
  its greatest impulse under 
  Constantius 
  II, 
  according 
  to 
  Libanius: 
  ‘Nevertheless 
  this prince, so abounding in 
  resources, the possessor of 
  innumerable 
  and 
  splendid 
  cities, in receipt of those vast 
  tributes, he that was drawing 
  that immense amount of gold 
  from his mines, he who clad the 
  bodies of his cavalry in steel with 
  ‘The Passage of the Red Sea’, 
  in a 5th-century mosaic from 
  the right nave of the church of 
  Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome. 
  In the right background are 
  cataphracts wearing scale 
  armour, and, strikingly, helmets 
  recalling the old-fashioned 
  Vechten and Vienne typology. 
  (in situ, Rome; ex Wilpert, 1903/
  Public domain)
  
  57
  greater care than the Persians themselves, who protected from wounds the 
  very horses by means of armour. . .’
  Where horse armour was employed, it only sometimes gave complete 
  protection, and otherwise (perhaps more usually) was only partial, 
  protecting vital areas. Authors such as Harl and Junkelmann point out that 
  such armouring was only possible within the limits of sustainable weight 
  for the horse. In the Late Empire the gravestones and other representations 
  of cataphractarii always show horses unarmoured – e.g. the stelae of men 
  of the Equites cataphractarii Pictavenses and Ambianses. Vegetius calls the 
  cataphracts equites loricati (II, 15), but he does not mention horse armour. 
  Perhaps the units of cataphractarii listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, as distinct 
  from clibanarii, normally used no horse armour. This would correspond with 
  the representations of heavy cavalry in the 4th-century catacombs of the Via 
  Latina or in other biblical scenes, and with the limited number of armoured 
  horses represented in the iconography of the 4th and 5th centuries.
  Neither was the protection of the horse necessarily metallic. Fragments 
  of leather horse chamfrons and pectorals decorated with nails have been 
  found at Vindolanda, Newstead and Valkenburg in 1st-century AD layers. A 
  mosaic from Constantine in Algeria (Cirta) shows cavalrymen wearing the 
  thoracomacus training on caparisoned horses, but these have only partial 
  metal protection; most are shown in trappers of what looks like leather, felt 
  or other quilted or padded material. No less important are the surviving 
  fragments and the Freshfield drawings relating to the Column of Arcadius 
  and Theodosius in Constantinople: all the horses of heavy cavalrymen, senior 
  officers, and of Theodosius himself are covered with elegant (and probably 
  highly decorated) fabric caparisons.
  Clothing, standards & flags
  Under their heavy armour the cataphracts were dressed exactly like the other 
  cavalrymen of their periods. The presence of caps like the ‘pillbox’ pileus 
  Pannonicus is confirmed by the stelae of Zurdigenus and Fuscianus for the 
  3rd and 4th century. The tunic of cavalrymen was usually short and with long 
  sleeves, confined at the waist by the cingulum militiae. In the Late Empire 
  frescoes and mosaics show heavy cavalrymen’s tunics in off-white, green and 
  light blue, often decorated with embroidered appliqués visible at the wrists. 
  Paludamenta and sagia cloaks are shown in red-orange, medium brown, light 
  purple or light blue, and anaxyrida (trousers), when visible, are off-white.
  The main standard of these units was the ‘windsock’ draco, as attested by 
  the iconography and confirmed by the written sources. Before Rome acquired 
  heavy cavalry, similar standards were already in use among the Saka, Kushan, 
  Parthian and Irano-Sarmatian cataphracts. The appearance in the Roman 
  Army of this new type of standard was noted by sources during the reign 
  of Hadrian, when it is mentioned as being used by Roman cavalrymen in 
  tournaments (Arr., Tact. XXXV, 1–5). It is obvious that the appearance of 
  these new standards was a consequence of contacts with the Iranian-speaking 
  world. The heads of Dacian or Sarmatian examples shown on Trajan’s Column 
  actually appear to be canine in shape, but the iconographic and archaeological 
  sources attest that in the Roman Army they were finally transformed into 
  snake-like ‘dragons’. There would have been a divergence in their detailed 
  appearance from those in continuing use in the Iranian world.2
  2 See illustrations and reconstructions in Elite 221, Roman Standards and Standard-Bearers 
  (1): 112 BC – AD 192.
  
  58
  Dracones in the hands of heavy cavalrymen charging the Persians 
  appear on the Arch of Galerius (dated 298–299, this commemorated 
  his campaigns before he became Emperor in AD 304). The accuracy 
  in many instances of the soldier-turned-historian Ammianus (XVI, 
  10, 7) invites confidence in his description of the draco standard in 
  Constantius’ triumphal parade through the streets of Rome in AD 357. 
  Since this reference is linked with the presence of cataphracts beside the 
  Emperor, it might confirm that the draco was the official standard of 
  such units, or at least those of the Imperial Guard. In his Res Gestae 
  Ammianus describes the shining gilded and purple dracones, encrusted 
  with precious stones and with the waving body covered with costly 
  silk, as the cataphracti equites pass in defile between two ranks of 
  infantrymen of the Cornuti.
  'The Passage of the Red Sea'; 
  5th-century mosaic from the 
  side panels of Santa Maria 
  Maggiore, Rome. Again, the 
  mounted Pharaoh is followed 
  by buccellarii equipped in Late 
  Roman style, noticeable from 
  the helmets. (in situ, Rome; ex 
  Wilpert, 1903/Public domain)
  
  59
  Claudianus, in his description of Eastern cataphracts (In Ruf. II, 
  364–365) mentions ‘particoloured dragons (varii dracones) sinking into 
  repose with relaxing coils’, and, for Western units, the presence of coloured 
  dragons beside the cataphracts in the triumphal procession of Honorius 
  (De VI Cons. Hon.). Interestingly, when trying to describe the sound of 
  the wind passing through the dragon’s head, the poet puts into the mouth 
  of an imaginary girl witness the question: ‘Do they . . . just wave in the air, 
  or is theirs a veritable hiss, uttered as they are about to seize an enemy in 
  their jaws?’
  The iconography of the 4th and 5th century also supports their 
  association with heavy cavalry. Dracones are illustrated in the hands of heavy 
  cavalrymen in the 5th-century frescoes at the Kharga Oasis in Al-Bagawat, 
  Egypt, perhaps representing one of the units of katafraktarioi stationed in 
  Roman Aegyptus.
  BIBLIOGRAPHY
  ANCIENT SOURCES
  (Abbreviations: LCL = Loeb Classical Library, HUP = Harvard University Press.
  Bracketed abbreviations after names and titles are those used in source 
  references inserted in this text.)
  Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm. Marc.), The Histories – Res Gestae (Hist.); 
  Latin text and English translation by J.C. Rolfe, 3 vols (LCL; London, 
  1939–50)
  Arriani Nicomediensis (Arrian.), Scripta Minora, ed R. Hercher & A. 
  Eberhard in Aedibus (Leipzig; B.G. Teubner, 1885)
  The Babylonian Talmud, ed M.L. Rodkinson, vols I–X (Boston, 1903–
  1918)
  Berliner Griechische Urkunden, Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen 
  Museen zu Berlin; Griechische Urkunden, I Band, hrsg. v. der 
  Generalverwaltung (Berlin, 1895) Nr. 1–361
  Cassius Dio, Roman History – Romaika (Rom.), ed E. Cary, 9 vols (LCL; 
  HUP, 1914–1927)
  Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), A. Degrassi hrsg. (Berlin, 1863 – 
  N.S. 1981)
  Claudianus, ed G.P. Goold, 2 vols (LCL; Cambridge, 1922, 1990)
  Flavius Arrianus (Arrian.), Tactical Handbook and The Expedition against 
  the Alans, J.G. DeVoto (Chicago, 1993)
  Heliodorus (Heliod.), The Aethiopica (Aethio.), trans with introduction and 
  notes (Athens; Athenian Society, 1897)
  Herodiani ab excessu divi Marci libri octo, ed K. Stavenhagen (Leipzig; B.G. 
  Teubner, 1922)
  Herodian of Antioch’s History of the Roman Empire (Hist.), ed E.C. Echols 
  (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1961)
  Hieronymus, Contra Iohannes Hierosolimitanum, Ad Pammachium, Liber 
  unus, in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. XXIII, cols 371–412
  Hieronymus, La Biblia Vulgata Latina, traducida en Espagnol, Tomo III 
  (Valencia, 1791)
  Jalkut Schimoni, ed Thessaloniki (Jerusalem; Teil I, 1968; Teil II, 1973)
  
  60
  Johanni Scylitzae Ope ab I. Bekkero suppletus et emendatus, Synopsis 
  Historiarum, tomus prior (Kedrenos), eds G. Cedrenus & B.G. Niebuhrii 
  (Bonn, 1838)
  Josephus, Bellum Judaicum (BJ), in The Works of Josephus, ed W. Whiston 
  (Peabody, 1987)
  Juliani Imperatoris in Constantii Laudem Oratio (Jul. Imp.), ed G.H. Schäfer 
  (Leipzig, 1802, 2011)
  Libanios, Libanii Opera, ed R. Forster, vols I–IV ( Leipzig, B.G. Teubner, 
  1903–08)
  Maurus Servius Honoratus, In Vergilii carmina comentarii . . . (Aen.), eds G. 
  Thilo, H. Hagen (Leipzig; B.G. Teubner, 1881)
  Midrash Rabbah to Song of Songs (Ex. R.) in M. Simon ed, Midrash Rabbah, 
  vol IX (London & Bournemouth, 1951)
  Die Mischna: Baba Batra (Letzte Pforte), ed M. Krupp (Jerusalem, 2006)
  Notitia Dignitatum, accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae et laterculi 
  Provinciarum (ND), ed O. Seeck (Berlin, 1876)
  Panegyrici Latini (Pan. Lat.), eds C.E.V. Nixon & B.S. Rodgers (Berkeley & 
  Los Angeles, 1994); and XII Panegyrici Latini, ed E. Baehrens (Leipzig; 
  B.G. Teubner, 1874)
  Plutarchi Vitae parallelae, eds Cl. Lindskog & K. Ziegler, vols I–IV (Leipzig; 
  B.G. Teubner, 1960–68)
  Sidonius, Poems and Letters (Carm.), ed W.B. Anderson, 2 vols (LCL; 
  London, 1936, 1973)
  Scriptores Historiae Augustae (SHA): Alexander Severus, Div. Claudius, Div. 
  Aurelianus, ed E. Hohl, vols I–II (Leipzig; B.G. Teubner, 1955–65)
  Statius, Thebaid, Achilleid, trans J.H. Mozley (LCL, Cambridge, MA; HUP, 
  London, 1928)
  Suidas, Suidae Lexicon, ed A.I. Bekker (Berlin, 1854)
  Tacitus, P. Corneli Taciti Libri qui supersunt, ed E. Koestermann, vols I–II 
  (Leipzig; B.G. Teubner, 1957–69)
  Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica (Argon.), trans J.H. Mozley. (LCL 286; 
  Cambridge, MA, HUP, 1934)
  Vegetius (Veg.), Epitoma Rei Militaris (Epit.), trans N.P. Milner (Liverpool 
  University Press, 1993)
  Flavi Vegeti Renati Epitoma Rei Militaris, ed C. Lang (Leipzig, 1885)
  P. Vergilii Maronis, Opera omnia, ed A. Forbiger, vols I–III (Leipzig, B.G. 
  Teubner, 1873–75)
  MODERN SOURCES
  Anderson, E., Cataphracts, Knights of the Ancient Eastern Empires (Barnsley, 
  2016)
  Arwidson, G., ‘Armour of the Vendel Period’ in Acta Archaeologica, Bd 10 
  (Copenhagen, 1939)
  Barker, P., The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (Worthing, 1981)
  Becker J., Grabschrift eines römischen Panzerreiterofficiers aus röde Heim 
  bei Frankfurt am M (Frankfurt am Main, 1868)
  Bernard, P. et al, ‘Campagne de fouille 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)’, in 
  Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, Tome 68 (1980), pp. 1–103
  Bishop, M.C. & J.C.N. Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, from the 
  Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (London, 1993)
  Brzezinski R. & M. Mielczarek, The Sarmatians, Osprey MAA 373 (Oxford, 
  2002)
  
  61
  Charles, M.B. ‘Imperial Cuirasses in Latin Verse: from Augustus to the Fall 
  of the West’, in L’antiquité classique, Tome 73 (2004), pp. 127–148
  Corentin, M., La cavalerie romaine des Severes à Theodose (Bordeaux, 
  2014)
  Coulston, J.C.N., Roman, Parthian and Sassanid tactical developments – 
  The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East, vol. I (BAR International 
  Series S297; Oxford, 1986), pp. 59–75
  Cowan, R., Roman Legionary AD 284–337, Osprey WAR 175 (Oxford, 
  2015)
  D’Amato, R., Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier from Marius 
  to Commodus, 120 BC–192 AD (London, 2009 )
  D’Amato R., & A. Negin, Decorated Roman Armour, from the Age of the 
  Kings to the death of Justinian the Great (Barnsley, 2017)
  Diethart, J.M., & P. Dintsis, ‘Die Leontoklibanarier. Versuch einer 
  archäologisch-papyrologischen Zusammenschau’, in Byzantios. 
  Festschrift für Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburststag, ed W. Horandner, 
  J. Koder, O. Kresten & E. Trapp (Vienna, 1984), pp. 67–79
  Eadie, J.W., ‘The Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry’ in JRS 57 (1967), 
  pp.161–173
  Espérandieu, E., Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues et bustes de la Gaule 
  Romaine, Tome 5 (Paris, 1913)
  Faccini, S., Le Ale dell’esercito romano in Dacia, Analisi Storica e catalogo 
  delle fonte epigrafiche, archeologiche e numismatiche (doctoral thesis, 
  Università di Ferrara, 2007/2009)
  Fakhry, A., The Necropolis of el-Bagawat in Kharga Oasis (Cairo, 1951)
  Fukai, S., ‘The Artefacts of Hatra and Parthian Art’, in East and West, vol. 
  11, No. 2/3 (June– September 1960), pp. 135–181
  Gamber, O., ‘Kataphracten, Clibanarier, Normanenreiter’ in Jahrbuch der 
  Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Bd 64 (Vienna, 1968), pp.7–44
  Ghirshman, R., Parthes et Sassanides (Paris, 1962)
  Grosse, R., Römische Militärgeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der 
  byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Berlin, 1920)
  Harl, O., ‘Die Kataphraktarier im römischen Heer: Panegyrik und Realität’, 
  in JRGZM 43 (1996), pp. 601–627
  Hoffman, D., Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und Notitia Dignitatum, 
  vol. II (Dusseldorf, 1970), pp. 110–117
  James, S., Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928–1937, Final Report VII, The 
  Arms and Armour and other military equipment (London, 2004)
  Junkelmann, M., Die Reiter Roms, Teil III: Zubehor, Reitweise, Bewaffnung 
  (Mainz am Rhein, 1992)
  L’or des amazones: peuples nomades entre Asie et Europe, VIe siècle av. J.-C. 
  – IVe siècle apr. J.-C. (Musèe Cernuschi, Musèe des arts de l’Asie de la 
  ville de Paris, 16 mars–15 juillet 2001; Paris, 2001)
  Kazanski, M. & A. Kazanski-Bortoli, ‘Les Site Archéologiques datès du IV° 
  au VII° siècle au Nord et au Nord-Est de la mer Noire: état des recherches’, 
  in Travaux et Mèmoires, 10 (1987), pp. 437–476
  Kazanski, M., ‘A propos des armes et des éléments de harnachement 
  “orientaux” en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (IVe-Ve s.)’, 
  in Journal of Roman Archaeology, 4 (1991), pp. 124–139
  Kazanski, M., ‘Contribution à l’Histoire de la défense de la Frontière 
  Pontique au Bas-Empire’, in Travaux et Mèmoires, 11 (1991), pp. 
  487–526
  
  62
  Lebedynsky, I., Les sarmates, amazons et lanciers cuirassés entre Oural et 
  Danube, VII siècle av. J.C.–VI siècle apr. J.C. (Saint Germain du Puy, 
  2002)
  Lightfoot, C.S., The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire with Special 
  Reference to the Reign of Constantius II (Oxford, 1981)
  Lodetti, Equus Frenatus, I morsi della collezione Giannelli (Brescia, 2015)
  MacDowall, S., Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236–565, Osprey WAR 15 
  (London, 1995)
  Matthew, M., ‘Observations on the Paintings of the Exodus Chapel, Bagawat 
  Necropolis, Kharga Oasis, Egypt’, in Byzantine Narrative; Papers in 
  Honour of Roger Scott, ed J. Burke, U. Betka, P. Buckley, K. Hay, R. Scot 
  & A. Stephenson (Melbourne, 2006)
  Merchant, D.J., Roman Weaponry in the Province of Britain, from the 
  Second Century to the Fifth Century AD, 2 vols (Durham, 1991)
  Mielczarek, M., Cataphracti and Clibanarii. Studies of the Heavy Armoured 
  Cavalry of the Ancient World (Lødz, 1993)
  Narloch, K., ‘The cold face of the battle – some remarks on the function of 
  Roman helmets with face masks’, in Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 
  42 (2012) 377–386
  Negin, A., ‘Sarmatian cataphracts as prototypes for Roman Equites 
  Cataphractarii’, in JRMES 9 (1968) 65–75
  Negin, A., & E.M. Kamisheva, ‘Armour of a Cataphractarius from the 
  Roshava Dragana Barrow’, in Heimskringla, Rome and Barbarians, Ad 
  gloriam Б. А. Раев, Stratum N 4 (2016), 91–118
  Nicolle, D., Sassanian Armies, The Iranian Empire early 3rd to mid-7th 
  century AD (Stockport, 1996)
  Nikonorov, V.P., ‘Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii. Another Look at 
  the Old Problem of their Identification’, in Military Archaeology: 
  Weaponry and Warfare in the Historical and Social Perspective. Materials 
  of the International Conference 2–5 September 1998, ed G.V. Vilnibahov 
  et al (Saint Petersburg, 1998), 131–138
  Rattenbury, R.M., ‘An Ancient Armoured Force’, in Classical Review 56 
  (1942), 113–116
  Rostovtzeff, M.I. ‘Ancient Decorative Wall-Painting’, in The Journal of 
  Hellenic Studies, vol. 39 (1919), 144–163
  Rostovtzeff, M.I., ‘Graffiti’, in The Excavations at Dura Europos Conducted 
  by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: 
  Preliminary Report of Fourth Season of Work, October 1930–March 
  1931, ed Baur. P.V.C., et al (New Haven, 1933)
  Rostovtzeff, M.I. & A. Little, ‘La Maison des fresques de Doura-Europos’, 
  in Mémoires de l’Institut national de France, Tome 43, 1e partie (1933), 
  167–190
  Roxan, M.M. & W. Eck, ‘A Diploma of Moesia Inferior: 125 Iun. 1’, in ZPE 
  116 (1997), 195–196
  Rubin, B., ‘Die Entstehung der Kataphraktenreiterei im Lichte der 
  chorezmischen Ausgrabungen’, in Historia 4 (1955), 264–283
  Sanchez, J.J.V., ‘Los regimentos de catafractos y clibanarios en la tardo 
  antigüedad’, in CLR AC 16 (1999), 397–415
  Seeck, O. V., Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt Zweiter Band 
  (Stuttgart; Anhang, 1921)
  Schuckelt, S., Evidence for Horse Armour in the Roman Army and the use 
  of Chamfrons by the Roman Cavalry (Cardiff University, 2016)
  
  63
  Siebel, G.D., Armis et litteris: The military equipment of early Roman 
  Palestine, in light of archaeological and historical sources (London, 2007)
  Simonenko, A.V., Sarmatian Riders of the North Pontic Region (Saint 
  Petersburg, 2009)
  Speidel, M.P. ‘Catafractarii Clibanarii and the rise of the later Roman mailed 
  cavalry. A gravestone from Claudiopolis in Bithynia’, in Roman Army 
  Studies vol. II, 62−66, 406−41 = Epigraphica Anatolica IV (1984), 
  151−156
  Speidel, M.P., Riding for Caesar: The Roman Emperors’ Horse Guards 
  (London, 1994)
  Syvänne, I., ‘Parthian Cataphract vs. the Roman Army 53 BC−AD 224’, in 
  Historia I Świat nr 6 (2017)
  Venco-Ricciardi, ‘Pictorial Graffiti in the City of Hatra’, in E. Dabrova (ed), 
  Ancient Iran and the Mediterranean World (Electrum, vol. 2) (Krakow, 
  1998), 187−205
  Wiegels, R., ‘Panzerreiten an der Germanischen Front’, in Varus’ Kurier, 12 
  (16. Jahrgang 1, December 2010), 1−5
  Wóicikowsky, R.S., ‘The graffito from Dura-Europos – hybrid armor in 
  Parthian-Sasanian Iran’, in Anabasis, 4 (2013), 233−248
  Wojnowski, M., ‘Periodic Revival or Continuation of the Ancient Military 
  Tradition? Another Look at the Question of the Katáfraktoi in the 
  Byzantine Army’, in Studia Ceranea, Journal of the Waldemar Ceran 
  Research Centre for the History and Culture of the Mediterranean Area 
  and South-East Europe, 2 (2012), 195−220
  Zuckerman, C., ‘Le camp de Psōbthis/ Sosteos et les catafractarii’, in ZPE 
  100 (1994)
  
  64
  INDEX
  Note: page numbers in bold refer to 
  illustrations, captions and plates. 
  Agrippa, M. Maenius  12
  Alexander, Severus, Emperor  4, 5, 14, 36, 
  37, C(16)
  Ammianus, Marcellinus  18, 19, 27, 31, 39, 
  58, E(28)
  Anthemius, Emperor  49
  Antonius, Marcus  5, 5
  Arch of Galerius, the  52, 58
  Argentoratum, battle of  27, 28, 32, F(34)35
  armament factories  20–21
  armoured horse-archers (sagittarii clibanarii)  
  6, 26, 28, 37, 38, 52–53, C(16)17
  arms and equipment  15, 16, 18, 24, 33, 34, 
  36–44, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, A(6)7, 
  B(12)13, C(16)17, D(22)23, E(28)29, 
  F(34)35, G(46)47
  attacking formations  28–34
  Aurelian, Emperor  14
  body armour  8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 32, 32–33, 
  38, 41, 42–49, 52, B(12)13, C(16)17, 
  D(22)23, G(46)47, H(54)55
  limb armour  38, 39, 40, 41–42, 48
  bows  37–38
  catafractus (spearman)  33–34
  cataphract units  10–20, 22–24
  Ala I Gallorum and Pannoniorum  5, 
  11, 12
  Ala II Herculia dromedariorum  19, 25
  Ala Nova Firma catafractaria rgt  4, 5, 
  14, 21
  Ala Nova Firma miliaria catafractaria  14, 
  C(16)17
  Ala Prima Gallorum et Pannoniorum  
  B(12)13
  Ala Prima Iovia cataphractariorum  15
  Catafractartus of the Comites Alani  
  G(46)47
  Eastern Scholae Palatinae  18, 19, 48
  Equites catafractarii Albigenses  H(54)55
  Equites catafractarii Ambianenses  16, 57
  Equites catafractarii Pictavenses  16, 57
  Numerus equitum catafractariorum 
  seniorum  20, 24, E(28)29
  Osrhoenian heavy cavalry sagittarius  5, 
  C(16)17
  praefectus of an Ala catafractata  B(12)13
  Sarmatian cataphracts  10, 12, 25, 26, 27, 
  32, 37, 38, 41, 44, B(12)13
  Schola scutartorum secunda  H(54)55
  Vexillatio equitum catafractariorum 
  clibanariorum  5, 27–28, F(34)35
  Western Scholae Palatinae  18, 19, 20
  cataphractarii regiments, introduction of  5
  cataphracti equites  27, 32–33, 41, 58
  Chatalka burial, the  6, 8, 9–10, 9, 37, 39, 
  A(6)7
  Claudius II, Emperor  27
  clibanarii (super-heavy cavalrymen)  11, 14, 
  18, 19, 20–22, 27–28, 31, 32, 34, 48, 52, 
  C(16)17, D(22)23
  Clibanarius of Equites clibanarii  G(46)47
  Clibanarius of Galla Placidia’s buccellarii  
  G(46)47
  clothing and emblems  27, 57–58
  Constantine the Great, Emperor  18, 30–31
  Constantius II  5, 18, 20, 38, 48, 56, 58
  contarii (regular units)  6, 10
  Dacian Wars, the  10
  decurio (junior officer)  10, 24, 25, B(12)13
  designations in Latin and Greek for heavy 
  cavalry  21–22, 34
  Diocletian, Emperor  15, 18, D(22)
  diplomas issued to regiments  12
  double-curved bit  51
  Dura Europos  11, 14, 26, 36, 37, 38, 39, 
  40, 44, 44–48, 45, 50, 52–54, B(12), 
  C(16), D(22), F(34)
  Eaddie, J.W.  11, 20
  early armoured cavalrymen  A(6) 7
  Eastern origin of cataphracts  14
  Egyptian units and cavalrymen  5, 19, A(6)7, 
  D(22)23, H(54)55
  elite heavy cavalryman  5, 8–9
  experimentation with new military 
  techniques  6–9
  eye-guards  10, 43, 51–52
  foreign fighting men, use of  4
  funerary stele (gravestone)  4
  Galerius, Emperor  58
  Gallienus, Emperor  14
  Gaul campaign, AD 356  31–32
  graffiti and frescoes  11, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 
  44, 45, 49, 52–53
  fresco of ‘Passage of the Red Sea by the 
  Army of Pharaoh’  20, 53, 56, 58
  Hadrian, Emperor  11, 12, 24
  Heliodorus  36, 39
  helmets  8, 9, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, 38–40, 
  44, 49, 56, 58, A(6)7, E(28)29, F(34)35, 
  H(54)55
  mask helmets  30, 39, 40, 43, 53
  Historia Augusta  36
  Honoratus, Maurus Servius  50
  Honorius, Emperor  20, 59
  horse armour  10, 11, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 
  49, 50, 50–55, 56–57, B(12)13, C(16)17, 
  D(22)23
  horse trappers  44, 45, 52–54
  Iazyges, the  5, 10, 11, 33, 41
  infantry and cavalry in military 
  deployments 16
  Innocentius, commander  27
  Josephus  5, 6, 10
  Julian, Emperor  28, 31–32, 33, 48
  Junkelmann, Dr Marcus  52, 57
  light cavalry  5
  literary descriptions  56–57, 59
  maces and axes  36–37
  Majorian, Emperor  49
  manica arm protection  36
  Marcomannic War, the  12
  Maxentius, commander  5, 16, 30, 50, 56, 
  E(28)
  Medusa  42
  monument, Claudiopolis  19
  ‘muscled’ metal armour  21, 48, A(6)7, 
  E(28)29
  Notitia Dignitatum  5, 18, 20, 27, 36, 37, 
  48, 57, F(34)35, G(46), H(54)
  numeri (small temporary units)  6, 9
  organization of cataphractarii units  22–24
  origins of heavy cavalry  4, 6
  Persian heavy cavalrymen  6, 14, 14–16, 20, 
  21, 36, 41–42, E(28)
  Philip the Arab  14
  Phokas, Nikephoros  34
  Pius, Antoninus  12
  ranks  24–27
  Rhineland campaigns  28
  Rhoxolani cataphracts  10, 33, 41, 43, 51, 
  D(22)
  right thigh protector  37
  Roman military doctrine  4–5
  Roman-Sassanian fight  14
  Roman-Thracian cataphract  A(6)7
  Romano-Egyptian heavily armoured 
  cavalryman  A(6)7
  Sassanian Persians, the  4–16, 6, 14
  scale armour  10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 24, 32, 
  33, 39, 39, 41, 42–44, 44, 45, 49, 56, 
  C(16)17, E(28)29
  Severus, Septimius, Emperor  14
  Sidonius  49, 50
  simmachoi units (allies)  8
  spangenhelm  10, 27, 38, 39, 52, 52, 
  B(12)13, D(22)23
  spears (contus Sarmaticus)  36
  ‘splint-armour’ gauntlet  46–48
  St Hieronymus  24–25
  stages in the soldier’s career  25–27
  stele of Klaudianus (sic)  20, 24, F(34), 
  37, 49
  swords  A(6), B(12), 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 36, 
  36, 37, G(46)47, H(54)55
  Thracian auxiliaries  9
  Thracian-Sarmatian nobility, the  9
  Thrax, Maximinus (the Thracian), Emperor  
  4, 5, 14, 28
  Trajan, Emperor  11
  Trajan’s Column  10, 11, 25, 26, 27, 32, 37, 
  41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 57, B(12), D(22)
  tribunus (military rank)  25, 27
  Turin, battle of  30–31, 56
  turma ex cataphractariis  27
  Vegetius  32–33, 57
  Vespasian, Emperor  6
  Via Latina catacombs  20, 21, 40, 49, 57, 
  E(28), F(34)
  Virgil  50
  wedge formations (cuneus equitum)  30, 34
  ‘windsock’ dreco, the  57, 58
  wooden-framed saddle  51
  Zurdigenus, Valerius  24
  
  OSPREY 
  Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
  PO Box 883, Oxford, OX1 9PL, UK
  1385 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10018, USA
  E-mail: info@ospreypublishing.com
  www.ospreypublishing.com
  OSPREY is a trademark of Osprey Publishing Ltd
  First published in Great Britain in 2018
  © Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2018
  All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced 
  in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including 
  photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, 
  without prior written permission from the publishers.
  A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
  ISBN: PB 9781472830043; eBook 9781472830036; ePDF 9781472830029; 
  XML 9781472830050
  Editor: Martin Windrow 
  Index by Fionbar Lyons 
  Typeset by PDQ Digital Media Solutions, Bungay, UK 
  Osprey Publishing supports the Woodland Trust, the UK’s leading woodland 
  conservation charity. Between 2014 and 2018 our donations are being 
  spent on their Centenary Woods project in the UK.
  To find out more about our authors and books, visit  
  www.ospreypublishing.com. Here you will find extracts, author interviews, 
  details of forthcoming events, and the option to sign up for our newsletter.
  DEDICATION
  The authors dedicate this book to their dear parents, whose sacrifices 
  allowed them to study, and eventually to publish, in this field of history and 
  archaeology.
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  The authors wish to express their gratitude to the many scholars, friends, 
  museums and institutions whose collaboration made this book possible.
  Very special thanks are owed to Dr Marina Mattei, curator of the Capitolini 
  Musei, Rome, who helped us to find the necessary photographic material in 
  the Museum of the Civiltà Romana; and to Dr Barbara Mazzei of the 
  Pontificia Accademia for the beautiful photos from the Dino Compagni 
  catacombs. As so often, Prof Livio Zerbini of Ferrara University gave 
  valuable help in obtaining access and permissions for photography from 
  several Italian museums.
  The front and rear photos of the striking balteus appliqué from Trecenta, 
  published here for the first time, are due to the kindness of Dr Maria 
  Cristina Valicelli and of the Soprintendenza per l’Archeologia, Belle Arti e 
  Paesaggio per l’Area Metropolitana di Venezia e per le Province di Belluno 
  Padova e Treviso. The General Directorate of the Turkish Ministry of Culture 
  earned our gratitude by furnishing us with the necessary permissions for 
  photography. We must also record our acknowledgement and gratitude to 
  the necessarily anonymous owner of an important European private 
  collection, who has given us generous access; some items from his 
  collection, which is of great historical importance, are published here for 
  the first time.
  We are also indebted to Dr David Nicolle and Dr Michael Bishop for 
  contributing important photographic material. In Bulgaria, we owe our 
  gratitude to Dr M. Kamisheva of Stara Zagora Museum, and Dr Valeri Yotov 
  of the Archaeological Museum of Varna. Special thanks are also due to Dr 
  Manfred Beer, whose precious photographic archive of Roman arms and 
  armour was of inestimable help; it is thanks to him and to Dr Hr Walter 
  Resch of Museumsverein Pöchlarn that we can publish in this book the new 
  limb armour recently found in the Danubian Limes.
  Further photographic thanks are due to the following museums and 
  institutions: the Musei Apostolici Vaticani, and the Museo della Civiltà 
  Romana in Rome; the Centro Ricerche e Scavi Archeologici in Turin; the 
  Istanbul Archaeological Museum; the Museum of Nubia in Aswan; the 
  Regional Museum of History of Stara Zagora; the Sisak Municipal Museum; 
  the Musée Gallo-Romaine de Fourviére, Lyon; the Baden-Württemberg 
  Lapidarium; the Worms Stadt Museum; the Schleswig-Holstein Landes-
  Museum; the Museumsverein Pöchlarn; the British Museum; and Yale 
  University Museum.
  We must express our particular thanks to Dr Andrea Salimbeti, who – as 
  so often – gave unstinting help in collecting photographic and pictorial 
  material, in searching out sources, and in the preparation of the drawings. 
  Our search for material was, as always, greatly assisted by the collaboration 
  of Dr Massimo Bizzarri, while Dr Christian Miks of RGZM kindly helped us in 
  the interpretation of some armour elements. Thanks are also due to Dr 
  François Gilbert, who joined me in my travels to look for remaining 
  evidence of the cataphracts in France.
  Finally, I am deeply grateful to my co-author and illustrator Andrey 
  Negin, for his many expert contributions, and for bringing the heavy 
  cavalrymen of the Roman Army to life once again in his splendid colour 
  plates.
  Raffaele D’Amato, 2018
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Osprey System/Elite (ELI)/Osprey - ELI 225 - Roman Heavy Cavalry (1) - Cataphractarii & Clibanarii 1st Century BC-5th Century AD.pdf