Roman Heavy Cavalry (1): Cataphractarii & Clibanarii, 1st Century BC–5th Century AD (Elite)

I want to open up by saying I was overall very impressed by this work. Dr. D'Amato is a man who experiences a lot of controversy within the historical and reenactment communities because there is a lot of debate over many of his interpretations or reconstructions. But this work does very well in paying attention to the evidence and interpreting it relatively accurately.The book is a general overview of Roman heavy cavalry, opening with a brief introduction to their origins in the Roman absorption of eastern styles from Armenia, Thrace, and other assimilated regions, as well as basic terminology (e.g. Kontarioi, Clibanarius, etc.). The book then gives a breakdown of heavy cavalry cataphract units, including records of units that existed from the 1st-5th centuries AD, designations (more terminology and what it means for a unit), organization, and tactics. He also discusses some of the debate about catafractus vs. clibanarius and what the terms mean, falling into Mielczarek's camp that the battle line and equipment were what made that distinction. The final section of the work gives an overview of the military equipment.D'Amato's reconstructions rely heavily on archaeological finds, and he presents images of many rare finds in this work. Unlike some of his prior works which have even included 18th-20th century probable fakes, or misinterpreted some finds, this book does not have those issues with its factual information. Dr. D'Amato also relies heavily on textual sources such as Herodian, Arrian, Claudian, or others, as well as heavily on art, with a particular emphasis on tombstones in this work. He also uses a variety of secondary sources, including archaeological studies and modern scholarship on cataphracts. Overall, his sourcing is excellent in this issue.The only problem with this work is in some of the datation of equipment. For example, the infamous ridge helmet from Dura Europos found in the countermine on a Sassanid warrior under Tower 19, which dates to 257 AD, is depicted on a mid-5th century cavalryman of the Leontoclibanarii, a Late Roman unit in Egypt. Another illustration depicts the face mask from Sutton Hoo being worn by a Clibanarius of the mid-4th century, a mask which is stylistically non-Roman and doesn't fit in with the typically ornate, rather anatomically accurate individually tailored masks still used by the Roman army in that period. The other issue is D'Amato's reconstruction of lamellar armor, which is usually incorrectly depicted as a series of plates, with no indication of how they were conjoined by the lacing or giving proper details of how the armor was constructed. This is especially true, again, for Dura Europos, in which D'Amato follows Simon James conclusion that it was a scale thigh protector. In fact its common depiction is inside-out, and it was physically too large for a Human being, and was reevaluated by multiple authors such as Timothy Dawson as an exposed lacing hanging lamellar neckguard for a horse.However, these inaccuracies are for the most part minor, and the quality of the illustrations by Andrei Negin (who is himself a professional archaeologist) is excellent. As a whole the work is excellent and the majority of the illustrations are to a much higher standard of historical accuracy than many of D'Amato's other works. Dr. D'Amato continues to make rare archaeological and artistic pieces available through these works, and by all means I strongly recommend this book on that alone, as well as all the other positive aspects of this work such as its discussion on cataphract terminology, solidly sourced history of cataphract units, and as already stated, the excellent illustrative quality.

Andrey Negin and Raffaele D'Amato team up for this Osprey Elite title 225, "Roman Heavy Cavalry: Cataphractarii & Clibanarii 1st Century BC - 5th Century AD". That's quite a title and this is quite a book in my opinion.The Romans had always been associated with heavy infantry. Generally, when they encountered some combat arm they had little experience with, they would hire contingents of foreigners who had that special skill or ability and incorporate that into their way of war. Therefore, both the foreign warriors and their skills would be absorbed into the Roman military. The authors begin with this premise.After Rome expanded eastward and came into conflict with the Persian empire and their horse warriors, Rome did what they always did - hire foreigners with specialized skills of the heavy and light cavalryman. From there, the authors weave a tale of an evolution in heavy mounted units, their weapons, and armor (including that of their mounts) used by the Roman military as the centuries of combat necessitated change.The authors use archeological evidence, artistic, and literary evidence to piece together the panoplies of the men who formed the mobile shock troops of the Roman armies. Photo after photo of memorials, columns, triumphal arcs, fragmentary armor from kurgan burials in southern Russia, and remains of horsemen slain in battle and buried in their gear - as well as literary evidence from contemporary and near-contemporary ancient writers provide the backdrop for the authors' conclusions.I think we have to admit that trying to piece together history of horsemen's gear from two thousand years ago is going to involve some amount of informed supposition and extrapolation. I find the authors' work to be well reasoned with every attempt to back up their interpretations with evidence no matter how fragmentary it may seem to some.I liked the vignettes of the role played in battles (victories and defeats) by the heavy cavalry (you'll have to excuse me, my Latin is weak and even trying to sound out "cataphractarii" leads me to simply write "heavy cavalry") giving us a little idea of their strengths and weaknesses. I must also say the artwork is excellent and although some of it seems to be CGI, it's just wonderful to see the author's interpretations of these horsemen fleshed out. The photos, illustrations were also very good and shows the evidence for the authors' works.This is a five star book, make no mistake. If you're interested in Roman arms or the history of cavalry, this is a very useful and enjoyable book.

Osprey has a previous book covering Cataphracts, it's MAA 373, The Sarmatians, but it did not cover Roman cataphracts and the Gerry Embleton's artwork left a lot to be desired. This book is far more satisfying, the art of Andrey Negin goes a long way to making it so. Since the death of Angus McBride, Osprey has been maximizing use of work by illustrators Johnny Shumate and Peter Dennis, but Negin takes the game back to the level of McBride.Cataphracts were fully armored cavalry, frequently riding partially or fully armored horses- there guys were the origin of the fully armored knight of the high middle ages. These extraordinary horsemen are due extraordinary treatment given their extravagant equipment. This volume continues with Osprey has recently been able to add a lot more color in their Elite series and this adds to the grandeur of this book. The great variety of equipment and weapons of the cataphracts is also explained and illustrated. A reader of this book will come away with a very good idea of what cataphracts looked like and how they fought.

Roman Heavy Cavalry (1) is the best Osprey book I have read so far. Raffaele D’Amato structures his text well and is a decent writer. In this work he covers the adoption of heavy cavalry by Rome from their Eastern neighbours and how the units were structured and used throughout the Empire as an elite shock force. He starts with a short introduction, followed by a helpful chronology, and then moves into organisation and tactics, finishing with a lengthy section on arms and armour. He engages with scholarship, offers some analysis as well as description, and even his own theories on occasion. The bibliography is extensive, with 34 primary sources and 61 secondary sources, including plenty of recent works. The illustrations are also good and are reconstructions of actual examples rather than composite studies that sometimes get used in other books.There are a few additions that I think would improve the book. Firstly, I did not quite understand why “designations”, i.e. what the terms cataphractarii and clibanarii mean, did not appear until pages 21-22. It seems to me that defining your terms is important and it would make more sense to include that around the introduction rather than one-third of the way into the book. Secondly, a glossary would also have been helpful. I generally assume that these books are aimed at non-specialists, which is how I see myself, but even with a passing knowledge of this topic I had to look up the meaning of terms such as ‘aventail’ and ‘chamfron’. This might be fine for some people, but I imagine it must get even more confusing for the average reader with the arbitrary use of Greek and Latin terminology. D’Amato does note that terminological usage can be inconsistent, but he is very keen on throwing Greek and Latin words around. I happen to know some Greek and Latin but even then, a lot of it is specialist vocabulary. Thirdly, although D’Amato knows the primary sources well and includes them in the bibliography, there is never any real discussion of what the main sources are or how they are used. From my own studies I happen to know about the Notitia Dignitatum and writings of Ammianus Marcellinus, as examples, but I think it is good practice to state something on the fragmentary nature of the sources and the fact that many of the literary ones are copies made hundreds of years after the originals. I am less familiar with the archaeological evidence, but I would like to know that the author is aware of the historical process.These three issues are relatively minor though and I do not know what the editing process is at Osprey so will not hold that against the author. I know that the Elite series, of which this is one, are limited to 64 pages and this imposes certain limitations on the author. The main reason I gave this book four rather than five stars is because of one thing that does seem to be a big oversight, rather than minor editing choices. There is a wider discussion to be had on the purpose of military history and what Osprey sees its role as within the field. There are about 20 pages, one whole third of the book (pages 36-59 if plates are ignored), on arms and equipment. Now, I am sure people buying this book are interested in this area, and my understanding is that a major part of the market is hobbyists who are looking for these details, but I got to the end of the book and while I can remember sections describing how many holes were punched in metal plates and where in order to sew them together into a piece of armour, I cannot tell you anything about the social background or day-to-day livelihoods of the men who formed these regiments. I don’t really want detailed instructions on how to make a piece of horse armour – it reminded me of the tent instructions in the biblical book of Exodus – and I appreciate some people will, but I do want to know how these soldiers were financed, where they lived, what their status in society was, and how they trained. As it is, I am none the wiser to these questions and so have emerged from this reading experience as seeing Roman Heavy Cavalry as these mysterious figures, armed to the teeth and effective in battle, but little more than anonymous killing machines devoid of personality. No Osprey book I have read so far covers this aspect in any detail so maybe I am reading the wrong material but it is hard to find alternative sources that cover the range of topics in the level of detail that Osprey do. It is possible that the sources are just not there to do this kind of study, but this recalls the earlier issue with sources – we are not told about what sources do and do not tell us.Despite a few gripes, I would recommend this book. It is well produced. There were a few pieces of art that were so good that I thought they were photographs and the colour images and plates are beautiful. The text is clear and informative, and the paper is good quality. I am looking forward to Roman Heavy Cavalry (2) and feel a few changes would greatly improve the quality of this series.

An pretty good starter on Roman Heavy Cavalry from the 2nd century on. Covers each type in plenty of detail though it's quite surprising what we don't know. Lots of high quality colour illustrations which are fully explained in the text. Well written in a clear and easy to read style. If there is an issue, and I know everyone has different prefs on this, I would have preferred footnotes rather that references in the actual text.

Anorlther excellent Osprey book. It provides a good overview of its subject supplemented by colour plates and black and white photographs. Recommended.

Good, interesting account of those amazing iron-clad horsemen, the heavy cavalry of the later Roman empire. Excellent detail and illustrations.

An excellent briefing on this subject with a comprehensive bibliography. The art work is superb.