The Late Roman to mid-Byzantine army
- Thread starter Xen
- Start date
double blah, but I'll leave the stuff on cataphracts/Clibinarnii
The most impressive looking cavalry in Late Imperial forces were doubtless the Equites Catafractarii and Clibanarii, fully armoured men wielding 12 ft (3.6 m) lances and mounted on metal-barded horses. They had evolved following Romes conflicts with Armenia, Parthia, and Persia, and became an important force, especially in the East. These cavalry did not charge into battle but trotted forwards pushing enemies aside as much by fear as martial prowess. The kontos or lance was a heavy-bladed cutting weapon that was wielded with both hands, slicing and stabbing opponents in an almost fencing style of combat. The precise difference between catafractarii and clibanarii are still debated at length, but the available information suggests that clibanarii came from the East and catafractarii from the West although, confusingly, both terms are used by some sources to describe the same troops!. Standard-bearers carried the draco standard and would be equipped as other troopers, It is imoprtant to add that they still utilized a shield strappd to the forearm, so that they could benifit from its protection while still being able to manipulate the lance
The most impressive looking cavalry in Late Imperial forces were doubtless the Equites Catafractarii and Clibanarii, fully armoured men wielding 12 ft (3.6 m) lances and mounted on metal-barded horses. They had evolved following Romes conflicts with Armenia, Parthia, and Persia, and became an important force, especially in the East. These cavalry did not charge into battle but trotted forwards pushing enemies aside as much by fear as martial prowess. The kontos or lance was a heavy-bladed cutting weapon that was wielded with both hands, slicing and stabbing opponents in an almost fencing style of combat. The precise difference between catafractarii and clibanarii are still debated at length, but the available information suggests that clibanarii came from the East and catafractarii from the West although, confusingly, both terms are used by some sources to describe the same troops!. Standard-bearers carried the draco standard and would be equipped as other troopers, It is imoprtant to add that they still utilized a shield strappd to the forearm, so that they could benifit from its protection while still being able to manipulate the lance
Punkymonkey
Aspiring Archaeologist
yup but do you have a question you'd like to ask or just showing off
Please cease contentless posting in history threads. Lefty
Please cease contentless posting in history threads. Lefty
Punkymonkey
Aspiring Archaeologist
That's a lot of knowledge!
Ancient Grudge
Its all in this life
very nice 
could you do anymore histories please
could you do anymore histories please 
Moderator Action: Xen, I was just about to compliment you on your excellent articles; then I see all this spammy posts tailing... Pls refrain fr spamming. Thanks - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
as an addendum (and a shamless way to keep this up top )
I will mention that in the western empire steel had become to costly to forge, and so mild to poor quality iron was the most material, thats not to say officers could not have saved up and had a quality weapon/piece of armour forged, which happend relativlly often, but the average joe is what counts
The eastern empire however, was able to keep steel around, thanks in no small part to damascus
)I will mention that in the western empire steel had become to costly to forge, and so mild to poor quality iron was the most material, thats not to say officers could not have saved up and had a quality weapon/piece of armour forged, which happend relativlly often, but the average joe is what counts
The eastern empire however, was able to keep steel around, thanks in no small part to damascus
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Takhisis said:
Damascus was where the Romans were buying wootz steel (aka Damascene steel), which came from India.
Afaik, the Romans didn't really understand the process behind creating steel ... although mid to late Byzantines probably would have. But for most of the history of Rome, steel was an accidental creation that came about as a result of introducing carbon into the iron during the forging process, which used coal. Not all iron forged, however, had a high enough carbon content to perform as steel. If there were smiths who understood the principle, they kept quiet. But most likely it was simply regarded as a fortunate but mysterious event when forged iron became steel.
Damascene steel was preferred, as it was "true" steel with a high carbon content (not that the Romans were aware that it was the carbon that turned the iron into steel, they just knew it was high-quality). India was producing a legendary grade of steel using a deliberate, rather than accidental manner, known as the wootz method, for quite some time (possibly as far back as Alexander's time).
Try here for more info:
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/am...l_greece_rome/steel_in_ancient_greece_an.html
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Xen, couldn't you at least leave what you wrote until you modified it? (maybe put a dislamor or something)
Or at least posted?
Or at least posted?
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Plotinus said:
Well ... the Chinese did have some blast furnaces under the Han Dynasty, 200bc to 200ad, somewhere in Henan province, mostly for casting iron, but they did produce signifigant amounts of steel as well. But I think they abandoned these because it was a state monopoly and somehow the economy of scale wasn't working out (really, really not sure about the last, but I do know they didn't manage to exploit the productive capacity of the technology for some reason or another and were forced to abandon it). Of course, this was very low-grade steel by modern standards, nothing like wootz.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Takhisis said:
Steel is lighter, stronger, and less rigid so it doesn't break as easily.
Really good steel is so much less rigid that it is flexible, as in springs etc (this is one of the supposed properties of the famous Damascene steels of ancient times)
But really, why should the Romans care about that, if their main weapon (at least in the Republic and early Empire) was the big shield, which didn´t have to bend, only to withstand arrows and the enemy charge?
I still don´t understand.
I still don´t understand.
Similar threads
