Cataphracti and Clibanarii

[M.P.]

I think a weapon, particularly a cavalry weapon, with only one mode of employment is not an effective weapon. A heavy lance can be used one handedly, you just need to hold it nearer the balance point than if you use it with two hands. Additionally a flexed arm can support considerable asymmetrical weight to the front in holding a lance horizontally, if the bent elbow is held high and used to brace the shaft.

There is no evidence of such a skill in the sources concerning cataphracts, clibanarii, kontophoroi or contarii. The Greek and Roman authors only speak of the cavalry contus as a two-handed lance. And the iconographic depictions never show such a heavy pike wield with one hand.

I don't understand your difficulty with "griv-pan," the unit you describe was of Parthian origins, the Parthians spoke an Iranian language and they, whatever the ethnic origins of particular soldiers may have been, were the elite of their kingdom. Any military terms, including unit designations and descriptions of types of troops, are likely to have been in their language not in the language of Semitic auxilliaries.

That is not what I meant. I was just underlining the fact that heavy cavalry units of foreign origin were not necessary named after their native language, and that the term "cataphracts" did not neccessary applied to "new or converted native units".

You may also be careful with the grivpan explanation put forward by F. Rundgren. In a recent article, V.P. Nikonorov has harshly rejected this assumption which is based on a neologism. He thinks that clibanarius derives from cliuanus, not understood as oven but employed like a synonym of lorica early in the third century (NIKONOROV V.P. 1998, “Cataphracti, Catafractarii and Clibanarii : Another Look at the old problem of their Identifications”, Voennaia arkheologia, St. Petersburg, p. 131-138).
.