The Sassanian Empire
The first ruler of the Sassanian Persian Empire, Ardashir I (r. 224–42), initially rose to power after successfully rebelling against his father, and the true heir of his people, his older brother. After their deaths, Ardashir became the king of Persis in 211/212 and then began his fight with the Parthians shortly afterwards, gradually increasing the territory under his control. When the Parthian Emperor Artabanus confronted King Ardashir at the Battle of Hormozgān in 224, and was subsequently killed, Ardashir became the emperor of the new Sassanian Empire at Ctesiphon. Not long after the creation of the revived Persian state, Emperor Ardashir continued to focus on expanding his territory by invading Armenia. At first, the Parthian royal family members that ruled over Armenia managed to put up fierce resistance against the invaders and even gained support from the Romans, Scythians and Kushans. However, after the three allied states suffered heavy losses against the Sassanian army, all of them gradually withdrew their forces from the conflict. Armenia resisted for ten long years but was eventually overtaken. Ardashir also turned his attention towards the border with the Roman Empire, where he had great success. By 235, Mesopotamia and much of the territory along the boundaries was seized by Sassanian forces, including the important cities of Nisibis, Carrhae, Dura Europos, and Hatra.1
Origins of the Clibanarii
After the death of Emperor Ardashir in 241, his son and co-ruler, Shapur I (r. 240–270), ascended the throne of a fledgling, yet huge, empire with a large, powerful army under his command. Although the empire that Shapur ruled over was still new, his father had created a strong, stable state built upon several, long-standing foundations established by the previous Parthian government. Many aspects of the Parthian military were carried over into the Sassanian armies as well, including the elite, heavily armoured aristocratic cavalrymen, the cataphracts. The early Sassanian version of the cataphract had many similarities to its Parthian predecessor; however, as the empire grew older and evolved, so too did these elite horsemen who fought in the imperial armies throughout the following centuries.
As the arms and armour of the Sassanian heavy horsemen changed, a new word began to emerge in the Greco-Roman accounts regarding the East, which was used to describe the armoured mounted troops who fought in the region; the new Latin term for the Sassanian cataphract-type of warrior was clibanarius (pl. clibanarii). There are several different theories regarding the origin of the word, as well as for the exact differences between the older cataphracti and the new clibanarii. Initially, it was thought that the term was a derivation of either an older Persian or Latin word. The first was the Old Persian word for ‘warrior’, which is grivpan. The second possibility for the origin of the term clibanarius was the Latin term to describe a ‘field oven’, known as a clibanus; the thinking behind this being that the word was used because it must have felt like standing in an oven to be so heavily armoured under the hot sun in the Middle East.2 On the other hand, even if clibanarius did come from the Latin masculine noun clibanus or cliuanus, the latter term most likely meant ‘more complete armour’, as opposed to the Latin word lorica, which was used to describe only a ‘cuirass’ or ‘corselet’.3
Even though the first Sassanian elite heavy cavalrymen were referred to as catafracti, the Romans may have begun to use the term clibanarii to describe the eastern armoured horsemen as early as the third century AD, for it is possible that the Roman Emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) incorporated the first unit of clibanarii into the Roman military.4 Interestingly, in a description of the clibanarii (in the Roman army, not Sassanian) by the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, he stated:
And scattered among them were the cataphracts, whom they call clibanarii, all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skillfully were the joinings made.5
The exact difference(s) between the earlier cataphracti and the newer clibanarii, used by either the Sassanians or the Romans, has been a topic of much debate between modern scholars. The fact that Ammianus used the phrase ‘the cataphracts, whom they call clibanarii’, along with other evidence, has led several scholars to the conclusion that there was very little differentiation between the two types of heavy cavalrymen, if there were any differences at all. On the other hand, many other experts believe that the clibanarii were either as heavily armoured, or even more heavily armoured than the earlier cataphracts; these scholars often also state that the clibanarius rode an armoured mount. Other theories attribute the differences between the two types of heavy cavalrymen to the equipment carried, specifically whether or not either a bow, shield and/or a lance was used in combat, or in the tactics employed on the battlefield. If the clibanarii and the earlier cataphracts were in fact the same kind of mounted warrior with very few differences, especially in terms of arms and armour, the two different terms could simply be attributed to regional preference; the word cataphracti remained in use throughout the western regions of the Roman Empire, while heavily armoured cavalrymen were increasingly referred to as clibanarii in the east. However, eventually the term clibanarii grew in popularity to such an extent that at least by the sixth century AD, the word had replaced the earlier term cataphracti throughout the Greco-Roman world.6
The Sassanian clibanarii typically wore spangenhelm-type metal helmets that originated from the interactions with the Sarmatians and other Iranian warriors. The earliest depiction of the Sassanian spangenhelm can be found on the terracotta of a soldier from Tepe Yahya of the fourth century AD. The helmet was usually 20cm (8in) wide and 22–24cm (8–9in) tall. The style of spangenhelm most used by the heavy cavalrymen was the Bashlyk type, characterized by a higher cone shape. Like the Sarmatian heavy cavalrymen, the Sassanian clibanarii preferred to utilize the spangenhelm for it provided much protection and was more easily mass-produced than the other options available to the heavy horsemen. To construct the helmet, the Sassanians took at least four, or as many as six, pieces of metal and riveted them together by using a frame. Because the spangenhelm was made of several separate pieces it was not as difficult to create as the one-piece and two-piece helmets also in use. The wealthiest of the clibanarii decorated their spangenhelm with jewels, precious metals and important symbols or images. The most common ornaments were feather motifs from Iranian mythical creatures, such as the simurgh and the griffin – like varanga. Extremely thin plates, only 0.1 to 0.2mm thick and made of gold or silver, were also occasionally overlaid upon the iron pieces of the helmet. Some helmets, such as those worn by Emperor Bahram II (r. 274–293) and his bodyguards, contained stylized wings on each side. The royal spangenhelm depicted on the Taq-i Bustan relief is one of the best examples of highly decorated Sassanian helmets. Not only was the helmet embellished with a globe on top that had ribbons attached to it, but there was also a jewel directly on the middle of the forehead, along with two rows of pearls beside it.7
Even though one-piece helmets were harder to construct, they must have been common amongst the early Sassanian clibanarii for that appears to be the main type of helmet worn by the horsemen on the Bishapur, Firuzabad and Naqsh-i Rustam reliefs. Another type of protective headgear worn by the earliest heavy cavalrymen of this period is known as a ridge helmet, which was constructed with two pieces. To make the Sassanian ridge helmet of the third century, two riveted bands of iron connected two solid pieces that were each formed to cover half of the skull. A mail aventail was also attached; this protected the neck but left the face exposed aside from the solid nose guard that extended down from the top of the helmet. The ridge helmet on average was about 26cm (10in) in height and 16cm (6in) in width. An example of the helmet was found on the cavalryman at Dura Europos, which may have either been a Parthian, Sassanian or Roman cataphract/clibanarius.8
The helmets of the clibanarii may have also contained a mask to fully protect the face of the rider, yet this was certainly not always the case. The faces of both of the Sassanian emperors in the Firuzabad relief of the third century AD and the Naqsh-i Rustam relief are fully visible without any facemasks attached to their helmets. On the other hand, in the third-century Aethiopica of Heliodorus and the fourthcentury accounts of Ammianus Marcellinus, the Sassanian clibanarii are described as having a metal facemask attached to their helmets that covered every part of the head except for the eyes. These facemasks were probably a prominent feature of the most heavily armoured Sassanian cavalrymen of these two centuries, especially during the reign of Emperor Shapur II (r. 309–379). Furthermore, the heavy horseman depicted in relief at Taq-i Bustan near Kermanshah, which is likely to be Emperor Khosrow II (r. 590–628) but could also instead be an image of Emperor Peroz I (r. 459–484), is shown wearing mail that also protected his entire face, leaving only two holes for the eyes. The aventail provided much protection for it was often two or even three layers thick. The late Sassanian spangenhelm type of helmet shown on the relief also has a unique feature in that the metal eye slits are a part of the helmet, with the layers of mail attached underneath them. Another change made to the latest version was that it was more hemispherical, as opposed to the earlier conical style.9
Most of the rest of the body of a Sassanian clibanarius was armoured with segmented iron plates over a full coat of mail that covered the arms past the elbows, sometimes all the way to the knuckles, and extended below the knees as well. During the reign of the first Sassanian emperor, Ardashir I (r. 224–242), mail production was established and the armour quickly became one of the most popular types among the heavy cavalrymen. However, along with the iron plates commonly used to protect the torso, mail was often augmented with other solid metal protection, such as vambraces on the arms. The Sassanian heavy horsemen may have also worn a gauntlet known as the bazpan, similar to those utilized by the Parthians; this armour consisted of mail augmented by metal strips that protected the hands of the rider. Based on the depiction of the clibanarii in the Firuzabad relief, it is possible that the most heavily armoured of the cavalrymen wore a full plate cuirass; however, it is more likely that the image merely shows a textile garment worn over the mail coat, especially since such Hellenistic breastplates were so uncommon in western Asia. Yet even if the clibanarii wore cloth over their armour, this too may have been augmented with padding, or even had plates sewn into the fabric to increase the protection it provided.10
Lamellar and scale armours were also used by the Sassanian clibanarii; however, these armours were certainly used considerably less than they were by the earlier Parthian cataphracts. When the heavy cavalrymen did wear a lamellar cuirass, it was often only shortsleeved, as depicted on reliefs of the fourth century AD, and may have even had a mail coat underneath it at times. The lamellar of the Sassanians was highly influenced by the armour worn by the warriors of Central Asia. It was commonly constructed with small plates of iron, bronze or leather that were laced together both horizontally and vertically; but it could also be made by longer plates that were either tied or sewn together and attached to a backing often made of leather. The armour used least by the Sassanian clibanarii was made of scales. The armour was constructed with smaller and larger scales laced horizontally upon a backing. The last armour that may have been occasionally worn by the heavy cavalrymen at the end of this period was the laminated armour that consisted of several circular, metal hoops that covered the limbs. There is an image of a Sassanian warrior painted on a wooden shield from the eighth century AD, after the Arab conquest, found in the ruins of Mug Castle, now in modern day Uzbekistan. It depicts the heavy horseman in a coat of laminated armour with sleeves that reached the wrists and a striking similarity to the banded armour cuirass of the Sarmatian heavy cavalrymen. The arms of the late clibanarii were further reinforced with one of the first representations of the tubular armour known as basuband.11
Whereas most of the arms and armour of the clibanarii were similar to the earlier cataphracts, one major new addition was the inclusion of a shield, as depicted on the Taq-i Bustan relief. While the earliest heavy cavalrymen did not carry a shield, the late Sassanian clibanarii carried a small, round shield that was shaped like a buckler and most likely worn on the left forearm to deflect enemy arrows. Another difference from the cataphracts was that the mounts of the Sassanian heavy cavalrymen might have worn much lighter armour than those of the earlier cataphracts, with most of the protection constructed from leather, or the armour could even have merely been a fabric barding; on the Firuzabad relief, the horses are armoured with felt.12 Yet this was definitely not always the case, especially during the later periods of the Sassanian empire. Over time, lamellar barding, known as bargostvan and made of overlapping rows of curved bands attached to a strong fabric, became a prominent feature of the mounts of many Sassanian clibanarii. In the fourth century, facemasks were commonly used to protect the heads of the horses as well. By the fifth century, both half-trappers and full trappers were utilized by the clibanarii. As shown on the Taq-i Bustan relief, partial lamellar armour that only covered the entire front of the horse, from the legs to the chest, neck and the head, became highly popular for it greatly increased the speed of the horse since it did not have the added weight of the armour on the rest of its body. If lamellar was not utilized, the horse armours were often made of iron or bronze scales sewn onto a tough, linen-like backing that was bound at the edges with rawhide that was sometimes red in colour.13
One final change made by the Sassanians, which became a key component to the weaponry of especially the late clibanarii, was the inclusion of the bow and arrows. Like the Parthian horse-archers, the Sassanians used bows constructed with wood, horn and sinew in Central Asian styles; however, armoured mounted troops began to use the bows instead of just light cavalrymen. The Sassanian bow was held in a bowcase, known as a kamandan. Along with the bow and case, the heavy horsemen also carried a quiver called a tirdan that usually held thirty arrows. Although early Sassanian clibanarii carried both the tirdan and kamandan, it was not until later in the empire that the mounted riders began to suspend the archery equipment from their belts in the same manner as that commonly practised by the horse-archers of Central Asia. With the quiver and bowcase attached in that way, both of them hung to the right side of the rider. The arrows utilized by the heavy cavalrymen were made of wood, fletched with three vanes and were typically 80–85cm (31–33in) long, similar to the ones fired by the Achaemenid Persian archers centuries before. Depending on the situation, the Sassanians used a number of different types of arrowheads, including bladed points described as iron-bladed, gold-notched, lead-poisoned, falcon-winged, horn-handled or vulture-feathered. To nock the arrow on the bowstring, it was Sassanian practice to use a cut on a reed joint. Though ambidexterity with the bow was acknowledged as an incredibly valuable skill, it was rare among the clibanarii; most were trained to hold the bow in the left hand and fire the missiles with the fingers of the right hand on the bowstring. If the hands of the heavy cavalryman were lightly armoured, or completely unarmoured, leaving the vital fingers used to draw the bow exposed, the archer covered the tips of the important digits with protective guards. A small chain was also worn around the wrist that was attached to the fingertip guards so they did not fall off while the clibanarius was in combat.14
To draw the bow, the Sassanians used the middle and ring fingers on the string while the index finger pointed straight along the side of the arrow shaft. It is uncertain exactly how the thumb was used but it probably helped the index finger keep the arrow firmly nocked. To ensure the most rapid rate of fire possible, it was also Sassanian practice to hold three extra arrows in the same hand as the bow.15 The heavy cavalrymen were proficient with the bow as early as the third century AD; bows and quivers are depicted on the earlier Firuzabad relief and the weaponry is also seen on the late Taq-i Bustan relief a few centuries later. Furthermore, the horseman on that eighth century shield from Mug Castle has two unstrung bowstaves in a case on his left hip. Along with archery equipment, the weaponry of the heavy cavalryman also included a slightly curved scimitar in the late Sassanian style and possibly a mace as well. However, in between the era of the Firuzabad relief and the late clibanarii shown at Taq-i Bustan, there may have been a period when the heaviest armoured cavalrymen did not carry bows at all and only fought with close combat weapons like maces, swords and kontoi (heavy lances), especially in the fifth century AD.16
Among the various secondary arms carried by the Sassanian heavy cavalrymen, the most important was the sword. The first swords used by the clibanarii were similar to the ones carried by the Parthians before them, with straight, long blades and broad guards. On the other hand, the early Sassanian swords quickly began to adopt many characteristics similar to Sarmatian blades, such as globe-shaped pommels and wider guards. The Sassanians probably gained these influences from the Kushans, instead of direct interaction with the Sarmatians, because the first iron longswords that the Sassanians possessed with these features most likely came from encounters with the former group. Sarmatian styles were not always adopted, however, for some early Sassanian blades contained much smaller guards, similar to the Eastern types utilized by the Han Chinese. However, the Sassanians, for the most part, continued to make changes influenced by Sarmatian styles, especially when they modified the older Parthian blade to make the sword even longer and slimmer at 1–1.11 m (39–43in) in length and 5–8.5cm (2–3in) wide. Furthermore, early heavy cavalrymen suspended their swords from the belt in the same manner as the Sarmatians, often slung vertically to the left since the tirdan and kamandan archery equipment occupied the right side of the rider. To hang their swords in this way, a metal slide was mounted onto their scabbard, which was also then attached to their belt, yet allowed the scabbard to move along it. The image of Emperor Shapur I (r. 242–270) at Naqsh-i Rustam provides a visual representation of a sword suspended from the belt in this manner. The practice most likely continued among the Sassanians at least until the reign of Shapur II in the fourth century AD, or it possibly persisted even after his successor, Ardashir II (r. 379–383), came to power.17
By the fifth century, the Sassanians were introduced to a new suspension method for their swords, known as the double-locket or two-point system. The innovation may have first been encountered through interactions with Turkish or Avar tribal groups of Central Asia; however, it is likely that they were introduced to the new method during their conflicts with the Hephthalites. With the two-point system, the clibanarii attached their scabbards to their belts using two straps that they could adjust, which allowed them to change the angle of tilt of the sword in its scabbard. Thus, the improved equipment may have increased the speed at which the heavy cavalrymen were able to draw their swords. Even if it did not improve the performance of the horsemen by much, the innovative Turko-Avar method quickly replaced the old suspension system on the battlefield regardless. On the other hand, the old vertical suspension method continued to be used in ceremonies by the Sassanians; evidence of this can be found on the image of the investiture of Khosrow II at Taq-i Bustan. In images at Taq-i Bustan that are not religious ceremonies, the twopoint method is also seen in use.18
In the later part of the era, the Sassanian clibanarii adopted a different type of sword that was typically 1.05m (41in) long and no longer contained a guard for the hilt. The wooden grip of these late Sassanian iron swords also contained a unique feature in that two distinct indentations were made: a larger one for the majority of the fingers to comfortably fit in and a smaller one just for the index finger as the hand gripped the hilt. The chopping power of these new blades was increased as well for the hilts curved slightly downward towards the end, creating an angle with the blade that put more of its weight into the blow. Thus, with these swords, the force behind the attacks of the heavy cavalrymen increased, making them more deadly as they cut down the enemy from atop their mounts. However, many of the late Sassanian swords may have been rather straight, which would have also made them effective thrusting weapons. Since the swords of the clibanarii were not only weapons, but also important symbols of wealth and status, the scabbards of the blades were sometimes highly ornate; the most common decoration was a v-shaped chape. Like the spangenhelm helmets worn by the late heavy horsemen of the period, the scabbards were also often decorated with the varanga or simurghfeather designs, which often were located on the front of the scabbard. On the other hand, common decorations for the back of the scabbard were spiral designs similar to the artistry of the Celts. The wealthiest clibanarii plated their scabbards with thin sheets of solid gold or silver that were wrapped around and trimmed with a flat strip to cover the gap where the edges of the plates met.19
In addition to the sword, the late Sassanian clibanarii often carried smaller bladed weapons or daggers as well. These secondary blades were commonly carried using the two-point suspension system also utilized for swords, as seen at the site of Balalyk Tepe near Termez, Panjikent and at Varakhshah. Other auxiliary weapons included maces, axes or whips. Maces were the most commonly used of these. They were made of iron and often 40–55cm (16–21in) long. It is also possible that the Sassanians carried a whip or lasso like the Sarmatians and other mounted warriors of the Central Asian Steppes. In his De Re Militari, Vegetius mentioned how effective lassos were against cataphracts which were used to grab hold of riders’ necks and pull them off their steeds. The only evidence of the Persians utilizing whips comes from the late tenth or early eleventh century epic poem, the Shahnameh, written by Firdawsi. However, whips are mentioned frequently in the poem which covers earlier Persian history, so the clibanarii may have been armed with the weapon as well. The last and most unique of the auxiliary arms possibly carried by the late clibanarii was the missilelaunching device known as the panjagan, meaning ‘five device’. The exact specifications of the invention are unknown since there are no surviving remains but the written accounts state that the contraption could fire five missiles at once. Therefore, heavy cavalrymen armed with the missile weapon instead of the bow could not only fire many more shots at a much higher rate, but they could also spread their fire over a wider area as well.20
Regardless of the addition of a bow and the various secondary arms, the long lance (kontos), adopted from the Parthians, was the chief weapon of the Sassanian clibanarii for most of their existence. As depicted on the Naqsh-i Rustam relief, the heavy cavalrymen often held the lance in both hands to the side of their steed’s head when charging against mounted opponents. The kontos continued to be used by the Sassanian horsemen even after they adopted the shield, most likely due to the change of the type of saddle utilized. As depicted on the Firuzabad relief, the front horns of the saddle firmly held onto the legs of the rider. As time progressed, further advances in saddle technology gave the rider more balance to make it easier to wield the kontos in one hand and a shield in the other. The relief at Taq-i Bustan shows the weapon used in this way, the lance is aimed forward to the side of the horse’s head, but held in only the right hand of the rider. It may also be that the introduction of stirrups made it possible for the late Sassanian clibanarii to wield the kontos in a one-handed grip; however, there is no conclusive evidence that proves that the horsemen ever used stirrups. For example, the legs and feet of the clibanarius at Taq-i Bustan are too damaged to prove one way or the other. Even if the late Sassanian heavy cavalrymen did utilize stirrups, they were most likely not in use until near the end of the era.21
The ability of the clibanarii to wield kontoi, bows and swords, along with shields, is primarily due to the successful development of the saddle by the Sassanians. They often placed a cloth over their steed before putting the saddle on top the mount, which was secured into place by both a girth strap around the stomach and a breast strap across the chest. By the third century, the saddle utilized by the Sassanians had four horns, of which the front pair curved over the thigh to grip the legs more firmly. Even without stirrups, a warrior who rode on this saddle could still charge with the lance while leaning forward without losing his balance. However, in the late Sassanian period a new saddle was adopted with a raised bow that replaced the front horns of the older version. The raised-bow saddle gave the clibanarii even more balance when charging with their kontoi, however, there was on major drawback; with the new saddle, the Sassanians removed the horns located in the back but did not replace them with a raised bow or anything else. Some scholars, such as Michalak and Herrmann, see this development as an important clue, in the absence of other evidence, that stirrups had by now been adopted. They theorize that the rear horns were no longer needed since the stirrup provided the required stability instead.22 Of course stirrups would not necessarily render the rear saddle bow obsolete. Western knights used the stirrup and raised cantle together, pushing forward against the stirrups, forcing themselves back against the cantle to brace themselves against the impact of their charge.
Like the Parthian cataphracts, the Romans faced the Sassanian type of the heavily armoured cavalrymen on multiple occasions, for the great western and eastern empires waged several wars against each other over the centuries. Also, just as with the Parthian heavy cavalrymen, the Romans had great respect for the extensive armour of the Sassanian clibanarii. The Romans encountered the clibanarii of the Sassanian armies in the earliest years of the eastern empire and the ancient Roman account known as the Scriptores Historiae Augustae mentioned the importance of the heavy cavalrymen’s armour to the westerners in the aftermath of one of these early conflicts:
10,000 of their cataphractarii, whom they call clibanarii, we have slain in battle, and with their armour we have armed our men.23
Even though the Roman account boasted of the great victory the imperial army won against the clibanarii, the Sassanians achieved much more overall success against the Romans in the first decades of their rule, such as with the victories of Ardashir I.
After the territorial gains made by his father in Mesopotamia, Shapur I went on the offensive in the beginning of his reign; first, he captured the vital Kushan city of Peshawar, and then seized the Indus valley and Bactria.24 Yet these early successes were combined with the losses the Sassanian empire sustained against the Romans. After the achievements made by Roman Emperor Gordian III (r. 238–244) in his eastern campaign against the Sassanians in 243, the Roman army he led managed to reach Misiche, located to the north of Ctesiphon, in the next year and were confronted there by Shapur and his soldiers. Gordian was well aware of the superior cavalry strength of the Sassanian army, so the emperor may have recruited an elite contingent of Gothic auxiliary armoured horsemen to combat the Persian heavy cavalry, especially the clibanarii. Due to their experience fighting Sarmatian armoured cavalry, in what is now modern day Ukraine, the Roman emperor believed that Gothic mounted troops had the ability to withstand the elite clibanarii of the Sassanians. When the Sassanian and Gothic heavy cavalry met at Misiche, the Germanic troops proved to be no match for their Persian counterparts, who not only had more extensive armour but were also more skilled in shock combat tactics with the lance. Furthermore, archers in the Roman army may have discovered, like the Parthians had in 224, that the combined lamellar, laminated and mail armour utilized by the Sassanian clibanarii provided such extensive protection that the arrows of the Romans rarely penetrated through the thick layers to strike the warrior underneath. In the end, the Gothic cavalry, along with the archers, legionaries and the rest of the Roman forces, were overwhelmed and defeated at Misiche.25
Roman Emperor Gordian may have lost his life while in combat, or was murdered by his own men after the battle. Gordian’s successor, Philip the Arab (r. 244–249), chose to pay tribute to the Sassanians rather than continue the fight. However, the conflict was renewed when Shapur invaded the Roman-controlled part of Mesopotamia almost a decade later in response to Roman moves against Armenia. A huge Roman army consisting of 60,000–70,000 soldiers intercepted the Sassanian invasion force at the Battle of Barbalissos in c.253, but in the end was completely crushed by the Neo-Persians. The Sassanian army followed up the victory with the capture of Antioch and Dura Europos by 256 AD. With the Romans defeated and thoroughly embarrassed by the fledgling successor state to the Parthians on more than one occasion, the new Roman Emperor Valerian (r. 253–260 AD) desperately needed a victory to salvage the empire’s martial reputation. Therefore, Valerian raised another enormous army of 70,000 men and began his eastern campaign by ousting the Sassanians from Antioch shortly after it was taken. The Sassanians countered the Roman assault by putting Carrhae and Edessa under siege, forcing Valerian and his men to meet them there. At the battle of Carrhae-Edessa in 260 or 261, the Sassanian army inflicted another of the most disastrous defeats ever experienced by the Romans, like Crassus’ loss centuries before. In the latest catastrophe, not only was the Roman emperor captured, but so too were senators, generals and many other important Roman officials that travelled with the army. Unfortunately for Shapur, immediately after this epic victory over the Roman Empire, he was embroiled in the frustrating conflict with the kingdom of Palmyra from 260/261 to 265 AD.26
It was not until nearly 100 years later in the fourth century that another major war broke out between the Sassanian Empire and the Romans, in which the clibanarii frequently played a prominent role in the fighting, according to the ancient accounts. In 359, the Sassanian Emperor Shapur II (r. 309–379) invaded Mesopotamia and besieged the city of Amida. The Roman soldier and historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, personally witnessed the invasion and siege, specifically mentioning Sassanian clibanarii, or cataphracts, as part of the enemy forces in his account of the events from the Rerum Gestarum:
While all this took place in the course of half an hour, our soldiers in the rear, who occupied the higher part of the hill, cry out that another force, of cataphracts, was to be seen behind the others, and that they were approaching with all possible speed.27
After the Sassanians surrounded Amida, Ammianus and the rest of the defenders fiercely resisted the attackers from behind the city walls. To speed up the process, the Sassanians stormed the walls with towers and other siege engines, supported by the clibanarii and infantrymen, but the besiegers were hard-pressed by the heavy missile fire of the defenders:
But when their approach brought them within bowshot, though holding their shields before them the Persian infantry found it hard to avoid the arrows shot from the walls by the artillery, and took open order, and almost no kind of dart failed to find its mark; even the cataphracts were checked and gave ground, and thus increased the courage of our men.28
In the end though, the valiant defence of Amida was made in vain, for after seventy-three days the army of Shapur II eventually took the city. Although Amida was one of the greatest prizes gained in the western campaign of Shapur II, the city was not the only place attacked by the Sassanian emperor. Along with seizing Singara and the Roman fortress of Vitra, Shapur II also assaulted the fortified town of Bezabde with his clibanarii, as recorded by Ammianus: 29
On his first attack the king himself, with a troop of cataphracts gleaming in full armour and himself towering above the rest, rode about the circuit of the camp, and with over-boldness advanced to the very edge of the trenches. But becoming the target of repeated missiles from the ballistae and of arrows, he was protected by a close array of shields placed side by side as in a tortoise-mantlet, and got away unhurt.30
The Sassanian forces eventually overcame the defences of Bezabde as well and then went on to storm the town.
Shortly after he became the Roman emperor, Julian the Apostate (r. 361–3) responded to the invasion of Shapur II and the capture of Amida by gathering a huge force of 65,000 soldiers from both mobile forces and troops stationed in forts on the borders. By 362, Julian invaded the Sassanian Empire with the large Roman host. The emperor then split his army in two and first led one 35,000-strong force to the Euphrates River, following it south to reach the city of Ctesiphon. Furthermore, 1,000 ships cruised down the river alongside and in support of the ground forces. Once he reached Ctesiphon, Emperor Julian managed to defeat the Sassanian forces outside the fortifications, but after the survivors retreated back within the city walls, the Romans struggled greatly in their attempts to take the capital. Meanwhile, the second half of the army, consisting of 30,000 troops and commanded by Procopius, headed towards northern Mesopotamia to first join with the Armenians before it reunited with the rest of the Roman forces.31
As the Romans surrounded Ctesiphon, Shapur II kept his distance with his swift cavalry forces, which included most of his clibanarii. Instead of facing the full Roman army on the battlefield, the Sassanian emperor ordered his heavily armoured horsemen to utilize their deadly shock combat tactics by slamming into the enemy troops and causing as much damage as possible before quickly retreating to safety. The rapid strikes of the clibanarii were a dreadful nuisance to the Roman soldiers, yet the attacks did not cause any considerable damage to the army. However, since the defences of Ctesiphon were too strong and Procopius had thus far failed to return with the other half of the army, Julian and his generals decided to lead the army away from the city in the hope of meeting the Sassanians on the field to win a decisive battle against their mighty eastern rival. Therefore, Julian made an order for the Roman ships on the Euphrates to be destroyed so that the Sassanians could not seize them. Then, the Roman army advanced deeper into Sassanian territory only to find the surrounding countryside scorched to the ground everywhere they went before they had arrived. This terrible revelation was compounded with the fact that the Romans were still being pursued by the Sassanians, whose cavalrymen, headed by the clibanarii armed with their heavy lances, struck the most vulnerable points of the Roman army as it was on the move. When the Sassanian horsemen attacked in this manner, they most likely formed up with the heaviest armoured clibanarii in the centre, while the less armoured cavalrymen were placed on the wings, probably armed with bows instead of lances. The rapid assaults of the Sassanian cavalry caused even more damage than usual because large war elephants also supported the horsemen by crashing into the Roman lines as well.32
Yet, even though the Sassanian forces had their successes against the Romans as they made their rapid strikes, the Roman invaders remained extremely dangerous as well. The legionaries were particularly deadly in close combat fighting, so the Sassanian cavalrymen were careful to avoid engaging too many of them at one time. After centuries of dealing with Seleucid, Armenian, Parthian and Sassanian cataphracts, the Roman heavy infantrymen had discovered ways of overcoming the heavy armour of their mounted opponents. Like the Gaulish auxiliaries led by Publius Crassus at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, the legionaries learned to dive underneath the armoured horses of the heavy cavalrymen and stab upwards into their exposed bellies. Additionally, the heavy infantrymen had also learned that the visibility of the riders was extremely limited due to the small size of the eye slits on their helmets, which the legionaries exploited as much as possible at close-quarters. On the other hand, the fact that the clibanarii were able to charge into the Roman marching columns is further evidence that the heavy armour they wore may have been so strong that most archers in the Roman army could not penetrate it with their arrows, and were, therefore, unable to repel the charges of the clibanarii before they made contact with their lances. And although there were several occasions in which the heavily armoured horsemen felt it was more prudent to simply make a tactical retreat in the face of a Roman cavalry attack, more often than not, the cavalrymen who fought for the Romans were no match for the Sassanian clibanarii and were unable to prevent the devastating charges into the legionary ranks.33
The scorched-earth strategy of the Sassanians worked in forcing the Romans to retreat from their lands without facing the lethal legionaries in a pitched battle, mostly because the Romans were quickly running out of food. Yet, as Julian withdrew with his forces, Shapur II continued to follow the Roman troops, which finally led to another major battle on the Tigris River in 363. The Sassanians were located on the opposite bank across from the Romans. As most of their troops moved into formation, Sassanian archers were placed alongside the river in order to shield the movements of their comrades behind them. The front line of the main Sassanian army, stationed much further from the riverbank than the archers, was comprised of the formidable clibanarii.34 Ammianus describes the scene:
The Persians opposed to us serried bands of cataphracts in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horses was protected by coverings of leather.35
The heavily armoured Sassanian cavalrymen were supported by a horde of militiamen armed with spears standing among them, along with a line of elephants placed behind the cavalry/infantry formation. Moving as stealthily as possible, the Roman army crossed the river at midnight and managed to break up the line of bowmen standing on the other side. By the middle of morning on the next day, the entire Roman army had made it across, then managed to regroup and advanced towards the main body of the Sassanian forces. A contingent of javelineers successfully hid the approach of the Roman army to such an extent that the Sassanians were caught off-guard and were not able to fire nearly as many arrows into the advancing enemy as they normally would have. Without having to endure numerous volleys of missiles, the Roman legionaries more easily broke through the Sassanian front lines, leading to the total collapse of the eastern army. Panic rapidly spread amongst the fleeing troops until their collective escape devolved into a stampede, increasing the number of Sassanian warriors killed in the combat. Once the carnage was over, as many as 2,500 Sassanians lay slain on the battlefield, while the Romans reportedly lost a mere 75 men.36
After their victory on the Tigris River, the Romans continued their long retreat until the Sassanian army confronted them again at Maranga on 22 June. Nearly the entire front of the Sassanian army was comprised of clibanarii; the heavy cavalry in the centre were armed with lances, while those on the flanks fought as armoured horse-archers. Again, Ammianus described the terrifying warriors who more resembled statues than men:
Moreover, all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads, that, since their entire bodies were plated with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings fitted to the circle of the eye, or where through the tips of their noses they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with conti [heavy lances], stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze.37
Yet infantry archers also supported the mass of horsemen, and elephants were placed behind all of them as a rearguard. The Romans were outnumbered so the infantry formed into a crescent shape in the hope of preventing the Sassanian forces from encircling them. As at the previous battle on the Tigris River, the Roman soldiers, by charging at the Sassanian front lines as quickly as possible, were able to surprise the enemy troops and engage them before their deadly archers were able to release many arrows. Since the clibanarii were also unable to utilize shock tactics with their lances while locked in close combat with the legionaries, they too were unable to reach their full potential in the encounter. Therefore, while casualties remained low, Shapur II and his men made a tactical retreat, using the horse-archers to cover their escape.38
Even though the Romans had won another small victory at the Battle of Maranga, the clibanarii and the other Sassanian forces continued to make lightning-strike raids on all sides of the retreating marching columns of the Romans. To Shapur II, the conflict was a war of attrition that would be won by gradually wearing the Roman army down, which made a huge negative impact on the morale of the soldiers. On the other hand, the rapid assaults failed to cause any major damage to the overall forces, and the Roman army had not suffered any serious losses in the battles of the campaign thus far. And even though they were very low on food supplies, Julian also still desired one last final showdown to break the Sassanian army and effectively conquer their empire, so it was only a matter of time until the Roman commander was able to draw his rival into another battle.39
As the Roman army marched on, it came under a fierce assault by the Sassanians four days later near Samarra on 26 June. The Sassanian clibanarii viciously charged the Roman marching columns on all sides with their long, deadly lances, while war elephants assaulted the enemy lines as well. The Roman legionaries stalwartly repelled the attacks all around them until one of the flanks began to break under the onslaught. Therefore, Julian rushed towards his overwhelmed men to do whatever he could to turn back the tide.40 As recorded by Ammianus, the lance charges of the Sassanian heavy cavalrymen were relentless while the Roman emperor desperately tried to rally his men:
While [Julian] was hastening to restore order there without regard to his own peril, a Parthian band of cataphracts on another side attacked the centre companies, and quickly overflowed the left wing, which gave way, since our men could hardly endure the smell and trumpeting of the elephants, they were trying to end the battle with conti (heavy lances) and volleys of arrows.41
Yet the moment that ultimately led to the Roman defeat was caused because, in his haste, Julian recklessly charged into the thick of the combat without putting his armour on. When the clibanarii slammed into the Roman lines, one lance managed to pierce through the extremely vulnerable Roman emperor; Julian died from the mortal wound later that day.42
The death of the emperor was a catastrophe, but the Roman army was not broken. The soldiers quickly proclaimed that the commander of the imperial guard, Jovian (r. 363–364), was to be the new emperor and the army continued its retreat out of the Sassanian territory. The raids and assaults of the clibanarii and other Sassanian forces did not cease either. Here Ammianus describes an attack launched as the Roman army resumed its march:
But when we accordingly were just beginning to leave, the Persians attacked us, with the elephants in front. By the unapproachable and frightful stench of these brutes, horses and men were at first thrown into confusion, but the Joviani and Herculiani, after killing a few of the beasts, bravely resisted the cataphracts.43
By the end of the encounter, the Romans had successfully driven the Sassanians away, though their losses were great. The Romans then moved on and the Sassanians continued to harass them. However, the need for food became so great for the Roman soldiers that Emperor Jovian was forced to make an embarrassing peace agreement with Shapur II. In order to stop the incessant Sassanian assaults, the Roman emperor was required to hand over important territory, including Nisibis and Singara. The Romans were then finally able to escape without any more violent interference from the Sassanians.44 Yet Shapur II had not yet finished terrorizing the Romans, for he still desired retribution for the invasion carried out by Julian. Ammianus again mentioned the elite heavy cavalrymen as a vital part of the invasion forces led by the Sassanian emperor:
At the end of the winter [Shapur II], king of the Persian nations, made immoderately arrogant by the confidence inspired by his former battles, having filled up the number of his army and greatly strengthened it, had sent his cataphracts, archers, and mercenary soldiers to invade our territories.45
Throughout the summer and the rest of 371 both sides fought fiercely to a stalemate until they agreed to an armistice before the coming of winter.
After the war with Rome, the focus of the Sassanian Empire was forced to shift towards the east where there were invasions, first by the Kushans and then the Hephthalite Huns, for the rest of the fourth century. The first major invasion of Persian territory by the Huns occurred near the end of the century and the invaders managed to reach Mesopotamia before Sassanian forces defeated them in 395. The empire was also embroiled in several internal conflicts throughout this period, which continued to occur in the fifth century as well. The Sassanian Emperor Wahrām V (r. 420–438 AD) successfully managed to consolidate his power and end the internal strife within his empire, along with putting an end to the expansion of the new Hephthalite empire. However, when a new series of conflicts with the Huns erupted during the reign of Emperor Peroz I in the later half of the fifth century AD, the Sassanians suffered several major defeats. Accounts of these battles, as well as specific information about the wars with the Huns, is scarce, yet a possible reason for the sudden superiority of the Hunnic warriors over the Sassanians may have been due to a drastic increase in the effectiveness of their horse-archers because of the adoption of stirrups. With the revolutionary equestrian equipment, mounted archers gained a considerable amount of stability, which greatly improved the accuracy of their shots. Since their heavy armour already made them much less mobile than the Hunnic horse-archers, the protection became more of a hindrance for the elite clibanarii because the extensive armour was also unable to protect them nearly as much as it was against the archers of the Roman army. Furthermore, the ability of the horse-archers to outrun the Sassanian heavy horsemen almost completely removed the threat of their cavalry charges. Ultimately, the Sassanians were so overmatched against the superior Hunnic horsemanship and equestrian tactics that, in 484, Emperor Peroz died in combat against them. A major result of these disastrous wars, as well as other increasingly frequent conflicts with the Turko-Hunnic peoples of Central Asia, was that the Sassanian clibanarii gradually evolved into a much more composite type of cavalry with different arms and armour more influenced by Central Asian styles. At the same time, the overall preference for the lance began to decrease among the Sassanian heavy cavalrymen, as the bow became more important, even though the horsemen remained heavily armoured.46
In the fifth century AD, the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed and, as a result, the centre of Roman power completely transferred to the eastern capital of Constantinople. In 531, the Sassanian Empire again came into conflict with the eastern Romans (also known as the Byzantine Empire), after their army, led by Azarethes, invaded the Commagene region, located in modern day northeastern Turkey, and threatened to invade Syria. In response, the great Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius gathered an army of 20,000 imperial and auxiliary soldiers, both infantry and cavalry, which intercepted the Sassanian forces near Callinicum. The Sassanian army was comprised entirely of 15,000 cavalrymen, 5,000 of which were Arab Lakhmid allied forces led by Al-Mundhir, while the rest were Persian aristocratic warriors under Azarethes, many of which were armoured clibanarii. While Al-Mundhir and his Lakhmid warriors were placed on the left wing, the Sassanian general and the most heavily armoured clibanarii were stationed in the centre of the army formation, defended by a trench that was dug in front of their position, and the rest of the Sassanian heavy horsemen occupied the right wing. Byzantine heavy infantrymen faced the Sassanian clibanarii on that flank next to the Euphrates River. The centre and right wing of the Byzantine army was first comprised of their best mounted warriors, led by Belisarius, in order to combat the elite clibanarii, then there were the allied Hunnic warriors, the Lycaonian infantrymen and, finally, 5,000 Arab Ghassanid horsemen on the extreme right, facing their Arab rivals, the Lakhmids.47
The two armies confronted each other on a battlefield with the ground sloping upward to the west, while the Euphrates River was located to the east. The Battle of Callinicum began with an intense duel between the bowmen of both armies, with the Sassanian horse-archers gaining the upper hand, for they not only had greater skill in archery than the Byzantine troops, but the wind also happened to be in their favour. While the continuous volleys of arrows fired managed to distract Belisarius, Azarethes stealthily moved his best clibanarii to the left flank, alongside the Lakhmids, in order to engage the Ghassanids. He managed this without the Byzantine general noticing. With the Lakhmid mounted troops equipped similarly to the Sassanian heavy horsemen, the armoured cavalry was able to quickly overcome and rout their Arab rivals. The defeat of the Ghassanids then opened the way for the Sassanian clibanarii to occupy the higher ground to the west. From their superior position, the heavy horsemen assaulted the right flank of the Byzantine forces, routing the Lycaonian infantrymen in the process.48
The defeat of their right wing meant that the Byzantine army had decreased in size, but it was not yet completely broken; both allied Hun and eastern Roman infantrymen held their ground against the charge of the Sassanian clibanarii. To withstand the cavalry charge, the Byzantine soldiers formed into a tight infantry formation with their shields locked together and their backs towards the Euphrates River. The foot archers of the eastern Roman army also fired straight at the charging heavy cavalrymen to disrupt their formation as they rushed forward. The first charge of the Sassanian clibanarii not only failed to break through the shield wall, but they also suffered heavy losses as well. The clibanarii persisted in their assaults, making several more failed attempts to crush the remaining Byzantine infantrymen and losing even more men in the process. Eventually, Belisarius managed to organize a retreat and lead his battered men across the Euphrates to escape from the battle. Under the command of Azarethes, the Sassanian army had achieved another victory against the Romans, but the cost was great.49
Around 558, the Sassanian Emperor Khosrow I (r. 531–579) attempted to stabilize the eastern territories of his empire by establishing an alliance with the western Turkish khanate against the Hephthalite Huns. After the combined forces overcame the Huns, the Sassanians and the Turks divided the conquered territory between them. However, the partnership was short-lived, for in the 580s the Turks began to threaten the northeast borders of the Sassanian Empire. Then, in 588, the Huns, who lived in the territory previously conquered by the Turks and had subsequently become their vassals, invaded the Sassanian lands. The formidable general Bahram Chobin was chosen to command 12,000 elite Sassanain cavalrymen and these quickly advanced to confront the invading forces. As at the Battle of Callinicum, many of the Sassanian horsemen, possibly as many as several thousand, were clibanarii. When the Sassanian army met the Huns and their western Turk overlords on the field of battle in April, Bahram defeated them decisively. The Sassanians took the city of Balkh shortly after and then, in 589, the Persian forces won another victory near Herat. Bahram followed up his victories by crossing the Oxus River to invade and conquer the eastern Turks; the deadly general may have even personally killed their khagan with an arrow while in combat.50
In the Strategikon, a Byzantine military treatise written at the end of the sixth century, there is an interesting section that may confirm that the evolution of the Sassanian clibanarii, from lancers highly skilled in shock tactics, to armoured horse-archers, was complete:
[The Sassanians] wear body armour and mail, and are armed with bows and swords. They are more practised in rapid, although not powerful archery, than all other warlike nations.51
The treatise continued to describe the transformation of the mounted warriors to troops based entirely on archery, for it claimed that the late Sassanian clibanarii had completely replaced the lance in exchange for the bow:
[The Sassanians] themselves do not make use of lances and shields. Charging against them is effective because they are prompted to rapid flight and do not know how to wheel about suddenly against their attackers, as do the Scythian nations.52
If the relief of the clibanarius from Taq-i Bustan is, in fact, from the reign of Emperor Khosrow II (590–628), this description contradicts the visual representation, for the lance is clearly depicted on the relief. Therefore, it may be possible that while some of the last imperial clibanarii still carried lances, the bow had predominately become the favoured weapon among most of the late Sassanian heavy cavalrymen, for it was the main weapon used to combat the mounted horse-archers of Central Asia. Yet even if their tactics had shifted to focus primarily on rapid-fire archery, the armoured horsemen were still a major threat in battle. Furthermore, the late Sassanian clibanarii focused on ways to overcome enemy lancers without having to face their charges head on:
In fighting against lancers [the Sassanians] hasten to form their battle line in the roughest terrain, and to use their bows, so that the charges of the lancers against them will be dissipated and broken up by the rough ground.53
When war erupted between the Sassanian Empire and the Byzantines for the final time in the beginning of the seventh century AD, it was most likely the armoured horse-archer version of the clibanarii who fought against the Eastern Romans.
In 590, shortly after his successes against the Huns and Turks, the victorious general Bahram Chobin seized the throne from the new rightful ruler of the Sassanian Empire, the newly crowned Khosrow II. In desperation, the deposed emperor turned to the ruler of the Byzantine Empire, Maurice (r. 582–602). The emperor of the Eastern Romans agreed to help Khosrow by providing soldiers in exchange for a substantial amount of territory. With the Byzantine support, the Sassanian emperor quickly defeated the usurper and reclaimed his throne. Then, a little over a decade after Khosrow returned to power, it was the Byzantine Empire that was struck with instability after the assassination of Maurice. In 603, the Sassanian ruler exploited the situation and invaded Byzantine territory. Since the Byzantines were embroiled in civil war, the Sassanians had much early success and already by 611 their forces had completely expelled the Eastern Romans from Mesopotamia, tightened their hold over Armenia and seized Caesarea at Cappadocia.54
By 613, Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) was able to finally respond by first combining his forces with those of his brother, Theodore, along with the soldiers of the Byzantine general, Nicetas. With numerous cataphracts of the horse-archer type, and the rest of the Sassanian army under his command, general Farrokhan ‘Shahrbaraz’ (meaning ‘the Boar of the Realm’) continued to defeat the Byzantines on several more occasions. The Sassanians’ success was almost halted in 619 though, when an allied Turkish-Hephthalite army struck while the imperial forces were distracted by their war with the Byzantines. However, Armenian general Smbat Bagratuni led the Sassanian army, including 2,000 Armenian heavy cavalrymen, and defeated the Turk and Hun attackers near Tus. Shortly afterward, the victorious Armenian general crushed another Turkish-Hunnish army and then slaughtered many as they attempted to retreat. In the end, Bagratuni was so successful that, for the rest of its existence, the Sassanian Empire no longer had to deal with any threats on their northeastern borders and could shift back to focus solely on the conflict with the Byzantines.55
However, the Byzantines began to seize the momentum in July 622, after Heraclius defeated the Sassanians for the first time in the war. The battle was followed up by a decisive Byzantine victory, even after the three Sassanian generals, Shahrbaraz, Shahin and Shahraplakan, had united their forces to face Heraclius. The success of the Byzantines was all the greater for Shahraplakan being slain in the combat. Shahrbaraz survived though and managed to turn the tide back in the Sassanian’s favour, even reaching as far as Constantinople in 626. However, his relationship with Khosrow II deteriorated, causing the Sassanian general to make his own peace terms with the Byzantines shortly after. With Shahrbaraz and Shahraplakan out of the picture, only Shahin was left to fight Heraclius and his army, until Theodore and his men defeated the last, great Sassanian commander. The Byzantine army then carried out a major invasion of the Sassanian Empire and overcame any remaining resistance. At this point, the situation became so dire at the palace that the Sassanian people deposed Khosrow. By 629, the Sassanians were ultimately forced to make peace with Heraclius.56
After their initial victories against the Byzantines, the armies of the Sassanian Empire never managed to take full advantage of their success and, in the end, lost the long war with their ancient western rival. Even in victory, though, the empire of the Eastern Romans was also greatly weakened after the costly, lengthy conflict. With the two greatest superpowers of the region so vulnerable, Arab armies did manage to take advantage of the weakened states of both empires in order to invade vast stretches of territory in the name of Islam. While many Byzantine lands were also conquered in the invasions, the Eastern Roman Empire would survive for centuries yet. By contrast, the Sassanian Empire did not last. After the Sassanians suffered several defeats to the formidable Arab forces, the final emperor, Yazdegird III (r. 632–651), escaped to the east until he was killed by the hands of his own countrymen at Merv in 651. Although the death marked the end of the Sassanian Empire, warriors armed and armoured as cataphracts remained in the region, as evidenced by the eighth century AD wooden shield painting found in the ruins of Mug Castle. Furthermore, the victorious Arab soldiers seized most of the former Sassanian clibanarii equipment to utilize for themselves. However, the true medieval successors to the heavily armoured cavalrymen, who, most importantly, were still called cataphracts, were the armoured horsemen of the Byzantine Empire.57