12-03-2010, 06:28 PM
Quote:I think that where ‘catafracts’ are mentioned then the writer is talking about heavily armoured men probably on unarmoured horses, when they talk about ‘clibanarii’ they mean heavily armoured men on equally armoured horses.I think this is the generally-held belief, though not for the reason you suggest. Catafractus/Katafraktos has a long pedigree as an adjective meaning "heavily-armoured". It doesn't necessarily imply a horseman, as the same word could be applied to ships. (In theory, then, a horse could be cataphractus.) The problem comes with the sudden appearance, in the 3rd/4th C AD, of the word clibanarius, exclusively in connection with cavalry. In particular, we get Ammianus' notice of "cataphract (i.e. heavily-armoured) cavalry who are called clibanarii" (16.10.8: equites cataphractarios, quos clibanarios vocant).
Quote:I have postulated that the terms ‘catafract’ and ‘clibanarii’ were a reference to the rider and horses i.e. the riders were the ‘catafractarii’, whilst the armoured horses were the ‘clibanarii’. I base this on some part on the description of what may be the ‘Currus Drepanus’ in action within Vegetius, where the Latin text calls the chariot horse riders ‘catafractos’, and the armoured horses ‘clibanarious’.You are probably aware of the succession of scholars who have tried to elucidate the distinction between "cataphracts" and clibanarii. There is no "killer argument", but I'm not sure that assigning the name clibanarius to the horse is necessarily valid.
