The arms, equipment and impact of Late Roman Clibanarii

[Renatus]

If I might say what would be the difference between the 2? I've always interpreted it as Cataphracts had a heavily armored rider, but no horse armour, and Clibanarii had heavy armour on both horse and rider.

My interpretation of the evidence is as follows:

Clibanarius - A fully armoured man (i.e., with body, leg and arm armour and a facemask helmet) riding an armoured horse and armed with a contus but, except for specialised units, no shield. A technical term, properly applicable only to Roman forces.

Cataphractus - The same but a general term applicable to Roman and non-Roman forces.

Cataphracti equites - The same, again a general term applicable to Roman and non-Roman forces. As far as I can see, this occurs in Latin only in the plural.

Cataphractarius - A less heavily armoured man, wearing a non-facemask helmet and, possibly, a mail or scale hauberk, riding an unarmoured horse and armed with either a contus and no shield or a shield and lance, depending upon the tactical situation. Another technical term applicable only to Roman forces.

Cataphract - An English word that may be applied to either type. However, it may be better to use it only in relation to the more heavily armoured type.