+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc) (/showthread.php?tid=6780)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-26-2009
We're not talking about the movie "Arthur", are we? That was such an embarrassment. :oops:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-27-2009
Yoh, Ron and Marka
An embarrassment?
hock: :roll: I bought the DVD. Why not? The package said, "The true story of the historical Arthur."
Sure. Guinevere was a Pict wearing a bikini. We had Sarmatians with French names. And Tristan, a Pictish name, was a Hun. All the bows were Scythian, except a nearly-correct Grozer reproduction at the end of the movie. (The bow must have arrived too late.) They turned Bishop Germanus, a historical saint, into a jerk. And the Saxons were so nasty they could have been from Uranus... or someplace close to it.
The movie gave us a real good idea of how low Hollywood has sunk in recreating "history." :x
As for their cavalry, I thought they were fairly close. Both horseman and horse were overdressed, and too many Sarmatian dracos were flying. But the jist was there, simply overblown. Strangely enough, Excalibur was reasonably accurate... as opposed to the Excalibur in The Last Legion, which looked like a chintz de crepe aluminum jobbie created in post-WWII Japan.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-27-2009
to Everyone,
Getting back to the prime subject. We really don't have any historical tracts that can be helpful on sub-Roman British cavalry, except the Notitia Dignitatum. Gildas is no help, other than mentioning that Malgocunus was the "dragon of the island.' Nennius (or Mark) is too late. By 825, too much legend had supplanted reality.
Anything we can write or say is speculation, but perhaps we should look at the Notitia as a genuine, unexpurgated, document. I consider it invaluable. From it, we get info that some Roman cavalry units were indeed sent into Britain, most likely the Equites Taifali Seniores (the bears) and the Eqites Taifali Iuniores (the dragon and pearl). Even perhaps the Equites Catafractarii, as stationed in the north.
Another thought: Britain never left the Roman commonwealth, still part of the Western Empire until 476 when it fell to the Heruli. In other words, Britain was like the Gothic Kingdom of Toulouse and the Frankish Kingdom, another kingdom within the Empire's structure. The Gothic cavalry was remarkably similar to the Roman one. The junior commands had the same names, but a legate was called a thiudfadus. Likewise, the British cavalry appears to be close to the Roman model for good reason-- a Britonized extention of it, except the legate became a gwledig. The size of the three alae shrank slightly to 300 men. The Welsh poetry, while not entirely factual, states "nine hundred would listen to him."
And I take "him" as meaning the Dux Bellorum, an extention of the last Count of Britain, who may have been the historical Thiudebalth. That last statement might be speculative. But what was a Goth doing in Britain in the last decade of the 4th century? :roll: And even more bizarre: How did he become a king of the Britons?
hock: Whatever his original command might have been, Thiudebalth was a BIG CHEESE. So, I can only ask, "Was he the ufar pandracon?" (aka "chief of the dragon men" in Gothic, or "Uther Pendragon" in Welsh) This unofficial title would correspond exactly with the Count of Britain. 
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-27-2009
Yeah, something like that.
I'm not sure just what the Notitia Dignitatum tells us, but it is suggestive. :wink: Less so our musings on names and structures.
As you say, it's all pretty speculative. :roll: I started this inquiry because I was writing YA historical fiction set in the fifth century, but with so few reliable sources I might as well be writing fantasy. I've temporarily abandoned the project, even though I finished two novels and was halfway through two more (with another outlined), because I ended up with an anachronistic mess of late Roman Empire with late Anglo-Saxon/early Medieval.
I figured--correctly, as it turned out--that you/us RAT folks had a clearer picture of the extent and limitations of actual sources. More limitations than extent.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-29-2009
Hailog, Ron
Historical fiction? How wickedly odd. Several years ago I wrote a Gothic/Alanic novel set in Rumania in the mid 4th century. The heroine (a Taifala named Thulia) was in love with Fritigern, and her mentor was a philosopher-priest named Merjands (pronounced Meryand).
I finished the novel, tucked it away for a year, and then reread it after I had Googled info on John Conyard's Equites Taifali. In the tale I had Thulia pulling the sword Tyrfing from a circle of stones, with the help of Merjands. As I read the tale again, I realized that the novel was incredibly "Arthurian," only taking place in Rumania instead of Britain.
I then began researching the Welsh matter and reading Arthurian books. And you can imagine my shock to find a historical British king named Thiudebalth. Furthermore, either he or his son Theodoric were known as "the bear." And even more incredulous, one of the pedigrees lists his father as "Trythearn," extremely close to "Fritigern" with a Welsh twist.
hock: At that point, I was blown away. Was I writing a pre-Arthurian novel and not even aware of it? Since then, I have rewritten the story to make it even more Arthurian, hopefully the first of a series of novels. But the strangest gist is the idea that this fictional tale might have elements of historicity. The real Thiudebalth could only have been a Tyrfingi Goth. He came from a family known as the Balths, and Fritigern came from the same gens. "Merjands" is a historical Gothic office, capitalized, but it's not a religious one. It means "proclaimer" or "professor." The entire concept seems fascinating, since it presents a Arthurian tale that isn't Celtic. It's actually Romano-Gothic-Alanic, and the subject matter appears directly connected to a sub-Roman British military.
It's an interesting novel with a "novel" idea. You know what they say. "Stranger than fiction." :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-30-2009
I only obliquely refer to "Arthur." My series is about young people coming of age in that period of turmoil. One, a young Alan, tries to use horse-borne warriors against Anglo-Saxon infantry. I'm trying to get the details right.
I'd hoped, for example, that the stirrup had penetrated this far west by the sixth century, but that's not so. In fact, I've seen little to indicate tactics or hardware were any different from Roman usage. And even then maybe not the best, as post-Roman Britannia disintegrated too fast to develop standing forces along the lines of the legions. There is suggestive--but only suggestive--indications that some Britons somewhere may have used mounted forces to respond to the Germans. Of course, by the six century, the Germans were well established in the East, so the Britons were not fights hit-and-run raiders, but potentially large forces drawn from many German communities.
It went in fits and starts. Assumedly the larger battles (some as much myth as fact--Germanius' "Hallelujah" victory, Badon Hill, Camlann, Salisbury, Catterick, Arfderydd, Dyrham) left both sides so exhausted that the Anglo-Saxon pressure subsided for a generation. But inevitably the pressure came again and again, until the Britons were pushed into isolated enclaves in Cornwall, Wales and the northwest. And, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, night had fallen on Britannia. When dawn rose on England three hundred years later everything was changed.
A heroic and significant time, lost to us now except for myths and legends we all love, but don't particularly believe.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-30-2009
Well I certainly hope you continue. There is enough input within this thread to confirm the probability of at least an ala-worth of Briton cavalry.
In my own studies, I was impressed by the info about Morgan the Courteous, the great-grandson of Tewdrig/Theodoric. The description in the St. Cadoc Records confirms Morgan and his man as equites, armed to the teeth yet hunting from horseback. If one gens had equine capabilities in the late sixth century, including all the Roman weapons, then so did other proto-Welsh families. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 09-30-2009
Quote:Britain never left the Roman commonwealth, still part of the Western Empire until 476 when it fell to the Heruli.Wow! Did Britain fall to the Heruli or the Western Empire?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 10-01-2009
Quote:until the Britons were pushed into isolated enclaves in Cornwall, Wales and the northwest. .
Except they weren't of course. The majority of people stayed pretty much where they were, working the land and taking on the language and culture of the new dominant military/political force. That's what the archaeology (and genetical analysis) seems to tell us, regardless of whatever that froth-mouthed old loon Gildas might say.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 10-01-2009
You're absolutely correct. In fact, Rat had a very good thread several years ago about what became of the Britons.
I should have said, the remaining self-governing Britons, though even that may be an overstatement as apparently the Saxons began intermarrying early (it wasn't all rape), resulting in a mixed population.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - John1 - 10-01-2009
Sorry if this is old news here, it's my first visit. Some dna researchers think there may be a Tharcian Auxilary cavalry signal still detectable in some british Y chromosomes. details here;
http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.pdf
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 10-01-2009
News to me. Very . . . very interesting.
hock:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 10-02-2009
Quote:Alanus:3fpt5m31 Wrote:Britain never left the Roman commonwealth, still part of the Western Empire until 476 when it fell to the Heruli.Wow! Did Britain fall to the Heruli or the Western Empire?
Hello, Robert
Duh! :mrgreen: I should have said what I meant instead of what I said. We can picture Ordovacer and his boys attacking Britain in furry costumes. Opps! :oops: I meant that the Heruli were wearing furs, not Britain. :roll: (check out the movie The Last Legion for the latest in Heruli furs in Southern Italy. The film calls them "Goths.")
I find it odd that Emperor Anthemius (spl?) enlisted the aid of Riothamus in 469-470 (or thereabouts). Why did the Western Empire call upon the services of Britain if it had severed ties with the isle? Bury believed that Britain was still part of the Empire in the 420s; and in the past few decades, a number of criticisms have been launched at the famous "Honorius letter" of 410. Perhaps there's no difinitive solution, but questions remain unanswered.
Directly related to the subject at hand, tradition claims the Bretons had an excellent cavalry at this point in time (470). I would think that a cavalry was not exclusive to Armorica, but also riding upon the isle itself. And as you once pointed out, Riothamus was a British general and not exclusive to Armorica. The Riothamus affair also gives an indication that Britain had manpower to spare at this point in the 5th century. This directly opposes the "hysterical" picture presented by Gildas and Nennius, of Britains hiding in the pucker-brush, or cringing while Saxons yanked them from the Wall with grappling hooks.
hock: Keep up the good work.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 10-02-2009
Quote:Directly related to the subject at hand, tradition claims the Bretons had an excellent cavalry at this point in time (470). I would think that a cavalry was not exclusive to Armorica, but also riding upon the isle itself. And as you once pointed out, Riothamus was a British general and not exclusive to Armorica. The Riothamus affair also gives an indication that Britain had manpower to spare at this point in the 5th century. This directly opposes the "hysterical" picture presented by Gildas and Nennius, of Britains hiding in the pucker-brush, or cringing while Saxons yanked them from the Wall with grappling hooks.
Enough manpower to settle parts of the continent, and not as a flee - at least not for the elites. Not only what will became Brittany, but also the Loire valley and several colonies in the rest of northern Gaul, plus Galicia in Spain (a strategical region on the Atlantic roads).
Enough territory for Arvandus to told Euric to attack the Britons/Bretons, to share Gaul with the Burgonds...
We however have no clue of Breton cavalry as early as 470. Except of course the Early Breton Laws if we accept they date back to the 5th century, and do refer a lot about horses. Breton cavalry fame is mostly known from IXth century, of course it's quite possible that their cavalry tradition was much earlier like I stated in a previous post.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 10-03-2009
Despite the lack of definitive supporting evidence, it's not far fetched to posit a continuity of mounted warrior tradition in both Britannia and Brittany (formerly Armorica). Both were evident as the Western Roman Empire folded its tents; both were evident as new societies emerged.
It's especially noteworthy in the case of insular horsemanship as some sources claim the early Saxons tended not to use horses, yet by the time of Alfred horses are an integral part of Wessex government and military. Not cavalry per se, the Saxons still moved and fought on foot. Paradoxically, the mounted warrior tradition was re-introduced to Britain in 1066. Among William of Normandy's forces were those of Alan of Brittany (a suggestive name given the role of the Alans in that same area as the Western Empire folded).