+- 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 - 02-14-2010
We know folks tend to get dirty and scruffy in the field, but Angus McBride probably wanted to show them to their best advantage. (Like those bird watching books, which always show examples with perfect plumage.) :wink:
"The Goths Crossing the Danube, AD 376" look dirty, but perhaps not cold enough.
I like McBride's artwork, but I suspect it (and the text) of being a bit idealized--beyond just giving his subjects and bath and combing their hair. (After all they must have used those combs for something.)
I ask about that book in this thread because Osprey published an book in 1984 Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars. Author David Nicolle plows the same ground as RAT has since on the identity of [him who we must not name], but draws a pretty robust picture the shifting tides of nationalities and warfare through the sub-Roman Britain period. McBride's illustrations were, if anything, even more idealized in 1984 than 1996.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-14-2010
I suppose you're right. Probably McBride was trying to picture Germanic warriors at their "sunday best." And it's interesting about those Germanic combs. The Santana De Mures/Cernjachov culture (which Heather & Matthews insist is not Germanic-influenced) had regular comb production facilities-- factories-- at least 15 are known. Perhaps they were fashioned by Klingons. :wink:
McBride's work could give us an idea of the Germanic influences in late Roman Britain. The only nit-pick I have with his later work: the warriors-soldiers become STUBBY and THICK. The artist who illustrated The Sarmatians gave us more anatomically realistic subjects, and Christina Hook has done good work for Ospray; in Late Roman Cavalry, I think. What we do not have are illustrations of late Celtic-Britonic warriors in the sub-Roman period other than the 1980s book you've mentioned.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-14-2010
Hmm. I need to look for Hook's book. (If it was about food preparation, I could look for hook's cook book, but that'd be silly. :roll: )
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 02-14-2010
Quote: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)
Here are my 2 cents on the matter. I personally find no reason to doubt that Arthur was a real man who lived in the late 5th-early 6th century AD and was victorious in a certain number of battles against the Saxons - maybe he fought 12 battles, maybe he didn't - it's impossible to say now, barring the discovery of new texts or (by some miracle) inscriptions.
The HB collects much that is legendary, but also much that is genuine history - why should the Arthurian battle list be assigned to legend just because Arthur became a popular subject of the poets and story tellers centuries later? If Arthur is legendary, why should the HB's Vortimer be accepted as an historical person, when he has no more documentation to support him than Arthur does?
Anyway, it is certain that Arthur's name did not simply mean "The Bear" (that would simply be Art in Archaic Welsh, not Artur, as we find in the HB, et al.). The exact etymology of Arthur's name is complex and probably not suitable for a message board such as this. If the name is a loan from Latin Artorius (which, itself, seems to have been a loan from Messapic, a non-Italic language spoken in Italy and related to Illyrian, or perhaps Etruscan, a non-Italic and non-Indo-European language), then any etymological speculation involving bears is rather irrelevant, as the original meaning of the name in Messapic (or Etruscan) is not likely to have survived once it entered Latin, no less centuries later when it was borrowed by Brittonic speakers. It's all somewhat of a silly game, anyway - if Arthur was a real man, what relevance is the original meaning of his name to anything?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 02-14-2010
Quote: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:
No one can seriously suggest that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Caliburnus (and, thus Excalibur, which is simply a later rendering of Caliburnus with the Latin intensive prefix ex- added to it by late medieval poets to make the name seem grander) was derived from any source other than Old Welsh *Caletbulc, which meant something like "Hard-breaker" or "Battle-breaker". Yes, Latin chalybs "steel" was borrowed from Greek ?????, which in turn was derived anciently from the Anatolian tribal name Chalybes, but even if Caliburnus was somehow derived from this word (which does not at all seem likely), what possible bearing on anything could this ancient etymological path have? Are folks seriously trying to suggest that a quite ancient etymological origin of a loan word (and common noun) in Latin somehow has somehow influenced the naming of Arthur's sword? It's bizarre!
Quote:One last thing. Sarmatian was not dead until fairly recently. It was a recognised language of Jayzyges in the 1600 1700.s
Quote: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).
Well, to be precise, the language that are referring to was introduced to Hungary in the 13th century by nomadic Jasz tribes from the North Caucasus who were fleeing Mongol invasions and were invited into the region by the Hungarian king Béla IV Árpád. They were relatives of the modern Ossets and their language (as far as we can tell from what little scraps were recorded) was very close (if not identical) to Ossetic.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-15-2010
Quote:No one can seriously suggest that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Caliburnus (and, thus Excalibur, which is simply a later rendering of Caliburnus with the Latin intensive prefix ex- added to it by late medieval poets to make the name seem grander) was derived from any source other than Old Welsh *Caletbulc, which meant something like "Hard-breaker" or "Battle-breaker". Yes, Latin chalybs "steel" was borrowed from Greek ?????, which in turn was derived anciently from the Anatolian tribal name Chalybes, but even if Caliburnus was somehow derived from this word (which does not at all seem likely), what possible bearing on anything could this ancient etymological path have? Are folks seriously trying to suggest that a quite ancient etymological origin of a loan word (and common noun) in Latin somehow has somehow influenced the naming of Arthur's sword? It's bizarre!
Are you sure your own argument holds water? You claim that the Old Welsh "Caletbulc" would be the original source, but Old Welsh is far newer than the Latin "chalybis," which in its original context referred to a superior steel-- aka good enough to be a "Hard-breaker." In Geoffrey's time, he called it Caliburnus, which is far closer to "chalybur" than "caletbulc." And how does the "ex" ("from") "make the name seem grander?" Sorry, I don't by it, especially from something as derivitive as Old Welsh. 8)
The same goes for "Arthur." Why would the Britons borrow a derivation that transposed from Etruscan to Latin when their own root language already had "Artos" and "Artios," two forms recorded in Gallic? Gallic was nearly identical to Britonic, and many British still used their old Gallic tribal names. "Arthur" arrived from their own languge, and possibly/probably the "ur" (art-ur) came from the Britonic/Gallic "uer," meaning "great" or "peerless."
Quote:Well, to be precise, the language that are referring to was introduced to Hungary in the 13th century by nomadic Jasz tribes from the North Caucasus who were fleeing Mongol invasions and were invited into the region by the Hungarian king Béla IV Árpád. They were relatives of the modern Ossets and their language (as far as we can tell from what little scraps were recorded) was very close (if not identical) to Ossetic.
Thanks for adding to Dashydog's info. It would appear that similar Jasz tribes arrived in Hungary twice, the ealier being the "famed" pet tribe of Littleton & Malcor. Since Ossetic derived from Alanic, then we find a Sarmatian language still extant. Good stuff.
I never said that "Arthur" never existed. Simply, that there is no proof. We cannot tell where the Nennius scribe lapsed from legend to fact. He quoted from two different Bruts, both legendary (possibly ending in historical fact). I maintain that such Bruts were still available when Geoffrey wrote his fabula; and thus he actually did have "an ancient book in the British tongue." To see how easy it was to juggle data in the old days, look at the Annales Cambriae which transfer the facts from the 8th battle (Nennius), sliding them into the 12th battle. These medeival guys were hacks.
This is a digression from the root of this thread, and I would rather we get back to lances and laces and tie our shoes on straight. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 02-15-2010
Quote:This is a digression from the root of this thread, and I would rather we get back to lances and laces and tie our shoes on straight. :wink:Oh yes. Please do so, or else I'll be forced to split the topic and render the Arthurian bit and pieces OT.... :evil:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 02-15-2010
Back to you, Ron
The book was actually written by Simon MacDowell, a guy who "enjoys good food and drink." Christa Hook was the illustrator. Late Roman Cavalryman, AD 236-565 covers some good stuff that's valuable in our sub-Roman British context. Good illustrations: the Equites Taifali Senior's bears, the Junior's dragon and pearl, a nice Roman/Sarmatian bow like my favorite (made by Csaba Grozer). I more or less copied the chain mail when customizing my own.
The color illustration "G" will make Arthurofthebritons drool! They're cataphracts parading in in full armor in Constantius' 357 triumph, looking like "King What's-His-Face's Knights." :wink:
Strange, or maybe not, but this type of lamular armor is exhibited at the National Museums of Scotland. I'd hate speculate on that origin-- the Equites Catafractari? Kind-of expostulates our ideas on short lances and shoe laces. :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 02-15-2010
Quote:Alanus:1iwk73yd Wrote:This is a digression from the root of this thread, and I would rather we get back to lances and laces and tie our shoes on straight. :wink:Oh yes. Please do so, or else I'll be forced to split the topic and render the Arthurian bit and pieces OT.... :evil:
I would be happy to pick up the discussion of Arthur's name and the etymology of Excalibur, etc, on one of my Celtic culture mailing lists - would it be OK to post a link, Robert?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 02-15-2010
Quote:Strange, or maybe not, but this type of lamular armor is exhibited at the National Museums of Scotland. I'd hate speculate on that origin-- the Equites Catafractari? Kind-of expostulates our ideas on short lances and shoe laces.
If Im not wrong it's probably the one set of lorica squamata - scale armor, not lamellar - on display at the museum, and dated 2nd or third century. Scale armor was widespread enough in the early imperial period and still in the late roman times to have equipped any roman soldier. Not necessarly heavy cavalry :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - John Conyard - 02-15-2010
Good morning to one and all,
I enjoy occasionally reading this discussion, especially for the infomation on the Taifali. I appreciate I probably annoy many by stating that the Taifali were a late Roman cavalry regiment, proably brigaded with the Honoriani Seniores, rather than a wandering eastern tribe. But you all hapilly turn a blind eye to my efforts.
I fear I have little time for kings and the possible etymology of names. Less in story telling or wild romanticism. But the period is a fascinating one and we have enough genuine achaeology and history to start basing theories.
But my primary interest is in the cavalry themselves, their horses and equipment. I like to imagine Britons and Anglo-Saxons breeding their ponies carefully for bravery and speed. And training them daily for war.
Currently I'm lucky to get two hours a week training a small nervous stallion for this coming season. After three months he still could not do a Comitatus show. He is getting there but will need lots more work. I normally ache and feel exhausted from working him even this hard. The thought of training horses daily is equally marvellous and terrible at the same time.
Anyway, let us veer away from the king lists and story lines, and concentrate to the cavalry of the period.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-15-2010
Breeding. There's an interesting question. Did Sub-Roman Britons have the resources to breed war horses or would they have tended to use whatever was handy when the need arose? A program of breeding, training and maintaining enough horses to make a military difference might have been beyond the means of a society slipping slowly into ruin. Of course, they didn't know that. So maybe they committed the resources anyway.
Geoffery Ashe commented in <em>Quest for Arthur's Briton</em> about their no longer being able to import horses from Spain (as apparently the Romans had; I remember no support for that assertion), but he did maintain that commerce remained with Armorica even as the latter morphed into Brittany. Since horse-borne warriors remained a feature of Armorican or Breton warriors into the Medieval period, can we assume a breeding program continued there? And that at least the coastal British kingdoms like Dumnonia benefited from it?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 02-15-2010
There is some mention of breeds in the Early Breton Laws as I mentionned before in this thread. Léon Fleuriot dated them from the 5-6th centuries, David Dumville was more skeptical and tended to argue a large datation between the 6th and 9th centuries. Recently Soazick Kerneis tried to tie them with the activity of Flavius Aetius in the mid-5th century.
Those horses mentionned are equites Saxonicum et Calfaicum, that one beeing also Calpeis in another manuscript. Fleuriot thought Calfaicum as a corruption of Tailfaicum, and the corrupted word itself is actually known in reference to the Taifaili settled by Romans in Poitou as laetes. Saxon could equally be insular saxons as continental, settled in Gaul: in nowadays Bessin in Normandy, in the Loire estuary or in Brittany itself.
This lawcode had much common point with other known celtic lawcodes such as the early irish laws, or with barbarian lawcodes such as the Lex salica of the Franks. It has few in common with roman lawcodes, except the 'christian' laws (to have hair cut short or else be banned from church).
Much laws refers to horses. Here a few, not exact translation but I hope you get the content (sorry for my sometime ackward english).
Law A18:A man finding in his uilla a horse or cattle stolen, tied or killed, shall present three men to discupalte him, or else pay a compensation.
Law A20: A man that have acquired a calpeis/calfaicum, saxon horse or from another nation, shall prove it with witnesses, the witnesses sharing the compensation in equal parts. If he has no witnesses or trie to lie, he shall pay three times the compensation.
Laws A32, P33: A man that is thought guilty of the still or murder of a horse shall gather six man from at less three swear he says the truth.
Law A51: A ounce of silver as reward to whom who brings back a stollen horse that is worth a pound of silver, or half a ounce if the horse is worth less.
Law P63: If the owner of a horse recognises it harnessed with the harness of someone else, he can then enter the property of the other and the horse shall be given back to him.
More stuff here (in french):
http://schnucks0.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=388
For John; there is a young company in France who is trying to re-enact the Taifali settled in Poitou by Rome from the 4th to the 6th century. It is quite possible they have few to do with your equites Taifali
) Here their blog:
http://blogs.paysmellois.org/taifali/
A try at the translation of accounts of Breton 9th century cavalry by frankish writter Reginon de Prüm.
"The saxon troups, whom the king (Carl the Bald) had bought off to support the rushes and the feinted retreats of the breton cavalry, were put in first line. But just after the first charge of the Bretons, and the first volley of javelins, the Saxons run to hide behind the rest of the army. The Bretons, following their usages and riding horses trained at that kind of fight, run on one side and the other. Sometime they attack impetuously, with all their strenght, in the deep mass of the frankish infantry and harass them with javelins, sometimes they fake a retreat, and the foes running after them don't escape the darts in their chest. Accustomed to fight from near spear to spear, the Franks stay stonned, terrorised by this new unknown peril; they are bot equipped to catch those light troops, and if they await us in close ranks, they got no shelter against their strokes."
Reginon de Prüm, Chronique, sub anno 860.
http://schnucks0.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=485
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 02-15-2010
Quote:I would be happy to pick up the discussion of Arthur's name and the etymology of Excalibur, etc, on one of my Celtic culture mailing lists - would it be OK to post a link, Robert?Fine by me Chris. Arthurnet? :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 02-15-2010
Excellent stuff, Benjamin.
A try at the translation of accounts of Breton 9th century cavalry by frankish writer Reginon de Prüm.
"The saxon troups, whom the king (Carl the Bald) had bought off to support the rushes and the feinted retreats of the breton cavalry, were put in first line. But just after the first charge of the Bretons, and the first volley of javelins, the Saxons run to hide behind the rest of the army. The Bretons, following their usages and riding horses trained at that kind of fight, run on one side and the other. Sometime they attack impetuously, with all their strenght, in the deep mass of the frankish infantry and harass them with javelins, sometimes they fake a retreat, and the foes running after them don't escape the darts in their chest. Accustomed to fight from near spear to spear, the Franks stay stonned, terrorised by this new unknown peril; they are bot equipped to catch those light troops, and if they await us in close ranks, they got no shelter against their strokes."
Reginon de Prüm, Chronique, sub anno 860.
http://schnucks0.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=485
In fact, it sounds a lot like the cavalry tactics ascribed to several groups earlier in this thread. And, for that matter, to what William did at Hastings. Perhaps there is some continuity in those communities, or learned behavior. Since the Franks (and Saxons) tended to rely on foot warriors until the introduction of the stirrup in the eighth century, the continuity theory seems stronger--especially as some of us have made a case for cultural connectivity as well.