+- 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 - Robert Vermaat - 02-11-2010
Quote:So, gwledig is best rendered in English as "lord" or "ruler (of a kingdom").Or, 'someone who has power'. Without specifying what power that is, military, hereditary, land or kingdom.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 02-11-2010
Some excellent informations Christopher, thanks a lot!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 02-11-2010
Hurray! We finnaly have an accomplished linguist to ask our complicated questions to! oh, by the way welcome Cagwinn.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 02-11-2010
Quote:Hurray! We finnaly have an accomplished linguist to ask our complicated questions to! oh, by the way welcome Cagwinn.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say "accomplished" (haha), but I am glad to offer what meager assistance I can on linguistic matters. Thanks for the warm welcome! I look forward to learning more about Roman military matters from all of you, as I still have a lot to learn in this area.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-12-2010
Even a single candle dispels much darkness.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 02-12-2010
Ah, our poetic Ron Andrea. But, as predicted, now if we want to carry our discussion further we must discuss things like "Arthur's battles. So, I propose to start on that in-depth topic. "Arthur's" first battle as warlord of the Britons was on the river Glien. Now most people would point to the river Glen in Northumbria but, Mike Ashley suggest a much more realistic site. The Glyndebourne. This town was just on the border of Aelle's sprouting kingdom, and intriguingly enough the ASC (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) states that in AD485 Aelle fought the Britons on the Mercades Burnam (Spelling?) which translates losely as "the river of a border dictated by treaty". It seems Aelle was defying Ambrosius' peace treaty by trying to take settlements beyond the border. So Ambrosius sent Arthur to keep him in check. So we're talking about 500 cavalry, suplimented by possibly another half Ala led by Gerran of Dunmonia. Maybe 100 professional spearmen? 300 levies? Perhaps a quarter of the levies are archers. Aelle likely led about 200 profesional mail clad spearmen who likely also had a sword, 200 spearmen with leather breastplates and some mail, and around 300 levies. So about 950 men for the Britons and 900 for the Saxons. Briton cavalry are the best troops on the field, followed closely by the Saxon elites. Aelle was contained and pushed back into his territory across the river. Note: "Arthur" still had enough men to go on to win four battles on the river Dubglas.
Well? What are your thoughts? Troop number alterations, horses and weaponry involved. Realism of the circumstances?
PS: I'm starting to think Alanus was right in saying the conection was the Tailfai, the Tailfai priest Ulifas as a striking similar name to an arthurian knight named Ulfias.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-12-2010
But we don't even know that Nennius' (or whoseever) list of twelve battles was correct, do we?
As much as I like to spin possibilities--that's why I started this thread--I wanted to keep them grounded in some sort of reality.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 02-12-2010
[moderator]Guys, this topic is for sub-Roman British cavalry.
IF we start discussing Arthur's battles we do this in topic, or elsewhere (I promise I will keep an eye on this). And remember, this is still Roman Army talk, so please no endless wanderings into Welsh legend. We (me included) have done that too often here, even in tis thread. [/moderator]
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 02-12-2010
Quote:Ah, our poetic Ron Andrea. But, as predicted, now if we want to carry our discussion further we must discuss things like "Arthur's battles. So, I propose to start on that in-depth topic. "Arthur's" first battle as warlord of the Britons was on the river Glien. Now most people would point to the river Glen in Northumbria but, Mike Ashley suggest a much more realistic site. The Glyndebourne. This town was just on the border of Aelle's sprouting kingdom, and intriguingly enough the ASC (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) states that in AD485 Aelle fought the Britons on the Mercades Burnam (Spelling?) which translates losely as "the river of a border dictated by treaty". It seems Aelle was defying Ambrosius' peace treaty by trying to take settlements beyond the border. So Ambrosius sent Arthur to keep him in check. So we're talking about 500 cavalry, suplimented by possibly another half Ala led by Gerran of Dunmonia. Maybe 100 professional spearmen? 300 levies? Perhaps a quarter of the levies are archers. Aelle likely led about 200 profesional mail clad spearmen who likely also had a sword, 200 spearmen with leather breastplates and some mail, and around 300 levies. So about 950 men for the Britons and 900 for the Saxons. Briton cavalry are the best troops on the field, followed closely by the Saxon elites. Aelle was contained and pushed back into his territory across the river. Note: "Arthur" still had enough men to go on to win four battles on the river Dubglas.
Well? What are your thoughts? Troop number alterations, horses and weaponry involved. Realism of the circumstances?
PS: I'm starting to think Alanus was right in saying the conection was the Tailfai, the Tailfai priest Ulifas as a striking similar name to an arthurian knight named Ulfias.
Ouch.
You are discussing the troop numbers and equipment of a pseudo-historical battle that may have:
1. never happened
2. was fought by some real characters and then attributed to Arthur.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. I bet you can write a good story out of it, but that's all. Hundred of people have already postulated who was Arthur, when and where he fought. Now this forum isn't about mere speculation, it's about studying the past. All theories are welcome but they need to be argued.
This thread was about sub-roman britain cavalry and focused on those questions: what were the proofs of the use of cavalry in that period, how spread it was, how much horsemen could a warlord have managed to gather, which type of horses and horse equipment was use, which weapons were used, how did they fought, in which fashion did it developped, etc.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-12-2010
Here, here.
That said, we have arrived at small numbers of stirrup-less Briton horsemen (maybe descendants of Roman veterans) potentially used by the sub-Romans (5 and 6 century) independently or with Briton foot warriors to oppose generally greater numbers of Germanic invaders (usually on foot). Not using lances. Right? :?
Leaving their leader, after Aurelius Ambrosius, nameless (following the example of Gildas "the Wise") until we come upon the five mid-sixth century Briton kings on whom Gildas heaps much scorn. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-13-2010
Quote:I trust your power is still on!
Taifali...In years of Sarmatian studies I have never heard them mentioned in any record until they appear in company of the Goths in the latter's Pontus state.
First I'd like to thank John Conyard for stopping by. His visits are always welcome!
Actually the power did go off here in Maine, but back on. Here is early Taifali stuff:
I know they were with Cniva, AD 251 at Abritum. AD 267, Goths, Taifals, and "other Germanic peoples" pillage Athens (Kenny, p. 684). AD 289, "Tervingi, pars alia Gothorum, adiuncta manu Taifalorum, adversum Vandalos Gipedesque" (Genethlius, Max. 17. 1.) AD 360 "nunc Taifali, Victohali, et Tervingi habent...." (Eutropius, Brev. 8.2.2.)
Quote:"Peoples of the forested west" ??? Sarmatians??? Nope. Cant support that. Not many trees East of the Euxine Meer! They might have picked up a bear tradition from the Goths in the latter days, though.
See F.I. Metz, two articles on the "Aryan Bears." Shows half dozen round-bottomed "grail" cups, also cauldron, all with bear handles. "Thus apart from South Urals, traces of the "Aryan bears" might be followed in the East Aral basin, in the Middle Don, and in the interfluve of the Dnestr and Prut." See Golden Deer of Eurasia, Korolkova, illus. and discussion, p.61-63; Fedorov, Wooden Vessels of Nomads and the Cult of Soma, Hauma, p.65-66. Looks to me like other way around: bear cult from Finno-Ugrian (forest peoples) to Sarmatians (aka Taifals), possibly to Goths, but assuredly to the Arthurian romances.
Quote:When you saids "monk in Brtanny", did you mean Britanny or Armorica?Yes, the monk or hermit was in Armorica. It was rumored by an Italian in the Spanish court that he finally moved to America, somewhat like Armorica but more like "New New Britain," or as it became-- New England, narrowing it down to MAINE (almost French) where I'm freezing my a-- off! :evil:
Quote:Skythians worshipped swords too and in a very grisly way. OK Skythians merged with Sarmatians but they were both at the sword thing before they merged. I always though the sword symbol waqs interesting as a Cross symbol of Christianity..potentially.
The Scythian tripart structure of sword worship (Herodotus, IV, 62) is identical to the tripart "sword in the stone" (anon, Vulgate Merlin). Also see Ammianus, XXI, 2. 23. The Tyrfingi took their name from the same ceremony, "the incarnation of the people and the land, and who also manifested himself in the shape of a sword" (Wolfram, p.27). Also see Cox, "Hence we are led to expect that the special emblam under which Tyr was worshiped would be the sword" (Sir George W. Cox, 1882, Mythology of the Aryan Nations, p.195)-- clickity-click, stomp stomp, yavool herr General-- not exactly politically correct in these modern, post-Aryan times! :roll:
Since you mention it. Yes, the classic Crusader cruxiform sword is a direct descendant of the Black Sea style, not the Viking or Saxon sword. In turn, the Black Sea style appears from duel origins-- 1) the Sarmatian straight traverse hilt, also welded "damascus" steel. 2) the swords made in the Province of Pontus by the Chalybes-- "ex"= "from the" and "chalybis"= "Chalybean steel." AKA-- Exchalybur. Strange, on the other hand, that no famed or even mediocre swordmakers are recorded in either Roman Britain or sub-Roman Britain.
hock: Quote:One last thing. Sarmatian was not dead until fairly recently. It was a recognised language of Jayzyges in the 1600 1700.s
Good info. Thanks! And now I'm going back to writing a histro-sci-fi novel about the End of Times (11:59 plus 59 seconds).
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-13-2010
Quote:Here, here.
That said, we have arrived at small numbers of stirrup-less Briton horsemen.... Not using lances. Right? :? wink:
Hello Ron,
Evidently they didn't use lances (or maybe one guy did, or maybe three guys did), however they definately used laces. Otherwise, their shoes would've fallen off. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-13-2010
Yep, the foot gear found definitely had laces. :lol:
A question about the opposition: How out of date is Osprey's Germanic Warrior AD 236-568 published in 1996? Maybe I should ask, how good was it then?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-13-2010
Oh! And I forgot!
Robert is right on the moola. By the time we get the first mention of "Arthur," three hundred years have passed. Nennius was recording legend, not history. We have no sign, anywhere, that an "Arthur" existed. Perhaps someone called the "bear" did. The probability that two units of Taifali landed in Britain is a much better bet. What we are inferring is that they probably didn't use lances but did use laces. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-13-2010
Ron,
I've got that copy of The Germanic Warrior myself. These guys look fairly natty. And notice the hair-combs in the graves. You can almost see these well-dressed warriors, replete with slicked-down hair (bear grease, bacon fat, Vitalis) in the 1940s advertisements of the Saturday Evening Post. Makes you wonder about GW's artwork. 8)