Talk:Cataphract

Self-Contradictory statement?

Article says: "Traditionally, Roman cavalry was neither heavily armored nor decisive in effect; the Roman equites corps were composed mainly of lightly armored horsemen bearing spears and swords to pursue stragglers and rout enemies." The verb "rout" implies decisive victory, yet sentence also says "nor decisive." Also, the statement has no source. Did the editor mean to say that calvary was used to penetrate some particular formation causing a very local rout at some particular point, but calvary did not effect a decisive victory of the whole battle??? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC))

Roman light cavalry, like any other light cavalry, can capitalize on a battlefield victory by pursuing the retreating enemies, preventing their regrouping and causing further casualties. This sometimes includes turning hasty retreats into routs. Light cavalry are best for this, as they are typically faster than all other troops. Although these common tactics could extended and expanded the margin of a battlefield victory, often significantly, these tactics were not the cause the victory, thus, not "decisive" in their own right. They perform only secondary, skirmishing-style roles during battles.

However, marking it citation-needed is okay. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I've modified the description of Roman light cavalry to help avoid the confusion noted here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Clibanarii a foreign term?

Article says: "Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman soldier and historian of the fourth century, mentions the "cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)" – the "cataphract cavalry which they regularly call clibanarii" (implying that clibanarii is a foreign term, not used in Classical Latin)."

Yet the article seems to continue & demonstrate that clibanarii is classical Latin! I suggest this discussion be clarified. Did the editor mean to say that though Ammianus implied it was not Classical Latin, Ammianus was wrong? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC))

Etymology

The long and complex final paragraph of the Etymology contradicts the first paragraph. It seems to head off on a great digression, as if a piece of speculative OR. Other than some usage examples, it contains no reliable source attribution and its only historical citation turns out to be to a wikipedia page, which is a no-no. I'm not sure it adds anything encyclopaedic and propose removal under WP:OR. Monstrelet (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Very much agree - The suggested etymology in that final paragraph is speculative in the extreme. 'Kataphraktos' had long been used of ships, eg by Thucydides (Thuc. 1.10), meaning ships 'covered over' with decks. The word is common in this sense in Polybius (eg Pol. 1.20.13), often qualified as 'naus kataphraktos' ('covered-over ship'), as opposed to '(naus) aphraktos', 'uncovered (undecked) ship'.

Polybius also uses 'kataphraktos' to refer to cavalry (qualified as 'kataphraktos hippos'), eg: Pol 16.18.6; 16.18.8

He gives the meaning ('covered over', 'fully armoured') explicitly: "Next came the 'cataphract' cavalry, both men and horses acquiring that name from the nature of their panoply", Pol 30.25.9

So clearly 'kataphraktos' means something like 'covered over' or 'fully protected' and the word has long usage in that sense before it was used specifically to refer to a type of cavalry. KoaxKoax (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the reference in the first paragraph to 'Sisennus' should presumably be to Sisenna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sisenna); the reference is derived from the Lewis and Short dictionary entry for cataphractus. But the sentence quoted ('loricatos, quos cataphractos vocant') is from Livy, 35.48.3 (which though later than Sisenna is a better first use, since it actually exists).

I see 'Sisennus' was queried back in 2009, above, yet it is still there. KoaxKoax (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)