+- 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 - 02-21-2010
Yes, I totally agree. In fact, I believe they based their territorial claim on the long-term presence of fellow tribesmen.
Though some, supposedly, had gone there out of necessity, as exiles from Ireland. And some, most famously Columba, supposedly went there impelled by the Holy Spirit--in the form of the wind and current, which drifted his currach to the island of Iona.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 03-02-2010
I'm back! Ok, I'm rather confused, what was the discussion on the scots about? Never mind... I have new information you guys would find interesting. Delving back into the world of realism behind some poems I found some interesting tidbits in the poem Llongborth, yeah I know most people use it as an Arthurian source but it really isn't. I found that one translation has it written that Gerran's men rode astride "long-legged chargers" (I believe we'll need Carvettia's expertise here) which were fed grain. Now to me, and I could be wrong, but this sounds a lot like the arabian breeds used by the Romans for cataphracts. And I believe Allanus is right about the cataphractarii being stationed at Edinburgh, they found a cataphract horse skeleton there. Also a few Anglo-Saxon graves from the fith century bear crushed bones from being trampled by a horse that actually charged them, and didn't kill them from afar with javelins.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 03-03-2010
Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for the contribution, but would you PLEASE take a bit more time before you post? There's a lot of information ready on the internet, you know?
Quote: the poem LlongborthThat would be the poem 'Geraint son of Erbin', and the oldest written version comes from the mid-13th century Black Book of Carmarthen.
Quote: I found that one translation has it written that Gerran's men rode astride "long-legged chargers" (I believe we'll need Carvettia's expertise here) which were fed grain.Most translations use 'swift racers' here, referring to their speed, and propably not to their use as cataphract horses?????
Quote:this sounds a lot like the arabian breeds used by the Romans for cataphracts.References for that 'fact' please?
Quote:And I believe Allanus is right about the cataphractarii being stationed at Edinburgh, they found a cataphract horse skeleton there.
If he mentioned that, references for that 'fact' please.
Quote:Also a few Anglo-Saxon graves from the fith century bear crushed bones from being trampled by a horse that actually charged them, and didn't kill them from afar with javelins.Need I say more? references for that 'fact' please.
Nicholas (and others), we do have some rules on this forum, and one of these is that we post with, if possible, references to publications. Stated 'facts' like these do not contribute to the level of discussion on this forum, and even if it might dampen the level of enthusiasm here (which I hope not), it aids us nothing if we just go from one 'I heard that..' to another 'they did this and that'... without any reference.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 03-03-2010
Vortigern,
I have already said that I don't know much about horses, and I've also said that this was a particular translation I was going off. In this case the book was John Moris' "The Age of Arthur", which despite the name is an acurate history of Britain from Magnus Maximus to the Seventh century Saxon dynasties. And I read that arabian horses were used for cataphracts in the late roman section of "Rome and her enemies". Also, the Saxon grave came from "The Age of Arthur." Oh, and I also read in "The Age of Arthur" that a Roman living in Gaul raised a band of eighteen cavalrymen armed as cataphracts to fight against the Goths. Aparantly they fought a huge battle in AD471 and the cavalry won against an army of a couple thousand Goths because of sneak attacks and javelin fire. Sounds a lot like British tacitcs to me, anyone heard of it? I think it's a little fishy but if it's ture imagine what the same amount of british cataphracts could do to a much smaller Saxon force.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Carvettia - 03-03-2010
I must agree with Robert / Valerius here. I'm a novice at ancient history, but when I come across a comment that chimes with my personal interests, I want definite references, because every reader can misinterpret what s/he reads. I want to be able to go back to the source and read what was actually written (if I have time) so I can see whether an interpretation is correct or skewed. I can cite at least one example where a personal interest in a topic has caused one of my correspondents to misinterpret a statement which in itself was perfectly correct. References (and page numbers if possible) every time please!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 03-03-2010
Quote:Vortigern,
In this case the book was John Moris' "The Age of Arthur", which despite the name is an acurate history of Britain from Magnus Maximus to the Seventh century Saxon dynasties. .
Ah. Firstly, whilst The Age of Arthur was a good book of it's time and can still be an excellent general resource, Morris had one real agenda, to prove that Arthur existed and to fit all the 'evidence' around that premise. Whatever it is, it is not an accurate history of anything.
As for the saxon grave with the crushing injuries...again, Morris interpreting evidence to back up a theory. It'd be impossible to tell whether a crushing injury on a body was caused by a horse, a rampaging bull, a falling tree...whatever, let laone that it happened in battle.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 03-03-2010
Yes, rather opinonated but I've got to take information where I can find it. A couple of fixes, one I think the guy who won those battles in Gaul was named Edicius, Ecdicius, well something like that. I'll be looking more into this guy, I'll keep you posted. Maybe he can give us a good gauge of how strong even a handful of heavy cavalry would be.
A few minutes later: Ok I dug up some dit on this guy Ecdicius. He was the son of Emperor Avitus and was magister militium at the time he won his great victory. Of where i have no clue because he isn't listed under magister militium per Gallias, or under plain old magister militium. When Euric was besieging many cities Ecdicius, paying for everything out of his own pocket, came along with his ten to eighteen cataphracts and relieved the seige along with buying the poor people food. That's about all of interest. In my opinion Moris mentioned him not because of his tiny yet mighty cavalry unit, but because of his "he-who-shouldn't-be-named" characteristics. We might be able to betermine some things from him. But I doubt we'll figure out much.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 03-04-2010
Hi Nicholas,
I'm not trying to get on your case, really. I don't even forbid the use of 'You-know-who' here [Voldemort].
And yes, I do know John Morris' Age of Arthur, which I think is great for straters, next to Leslie Alcock's Arthur's Britain, but as Matt already said, they were written 40 years agoi and lots of information has seen the light of day since then.
Quote: I have already said that I don't know much about horses, and I've also said that this was a particular translation I was going off. In this case the book was John Moris' "The Age of Arthur", which despite the name is an acurate history of Britain from Magnus Maximus to the Seventh century Saxon dynasties.I don't mind you using that book (or any other), I just would like to see a title plus a page number so I (or anyone else) can check that. That's normal in discussions.
Quote:And I read that arabian horses were used for cataphracts in the late roman section of "Rome and her enemies".
Written by.. ?
Quote:A few minutes later: Ok I dug up some dit on this guy Ecdicius. He was the son of Emperor Avitus and was magister militium at the time he won his great victory. Of where i have no clue because he isn't listed under magister militium per Gallias, or under plain old magister militium. When Euric was besieging many cities Ecdicius, paying for everything out of his own pocket, came along with his ten to eighteen cataphracts and relieved the seige along with buying the poor people food. That's about all of interest. In my opinion Moris mentioned him not because of his tiny yet mighty cavalry unit, but because of his "he-who-shouldn't-be-named" characteristics. We might be able to betermine some things from him. But I doubt we'll figure out much.Well, that sums up my plea for not posting too hastily! You should do that all the time - first look it up, write it down, look it over and then post.
By the way, it's not a magister militium, but a magister militum. Small difference, I know, but I care.
And.. Ecdicius had a small number of hosremen, but no-one ever described them as cataphracts to my knowledge.
And indeed, you may mention that the actions of Ecdicius against Euric have been compared to a warband of a certain British leader called Voldemort.. I mean A.... :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 03-04-2010
Quote:I found some interesting tidbits in the poem Llongborth, yeah I know most people use it as an Arthurian source but it really isn't. I found that one translation has it written that Gerran's men rode astride "long-legged chargers" (I believe we'll need Carvettia's expertise here) which were fed grain.
Yes, the poem does state that the horses were long-shanked (garhirion from gar "leg, shank, thigh" + hir "long" + -ion [plural suffix]) fed on grain (graun eu buyd "grain their food"; Old Welsh graun "grain" comes from Brittonic gra:nom, cognate with Latin gra:num; see Peter Schrijver, Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology, Rodopi, 1995, p. 183; for a decent translation of the poem Gereint fil' Erbin see J. Coe & S. Young, Celtic Sources for the Arthurian Legend, Llanerch, 1995, 116ff.).
I don't know if I would read too much into this poem, however, as it probably represents knowledge of horses and horsemanship from a 9th-10th century perspective (the time of the poem's composition) and not the 6th.
- Chris Gwinn
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 03-04-2010
Quote:ArthuroftheBritons:2peogwwk Wrote:Vortigern,
I have already said that I don't know much about horses, and I've also said that this was a particular translation I was going off. In this case the book was John Moris' "The Age of Arthur", which despite the name is an acurate history of Britain from Magnus Maximus to the Seventh century Saxon dynasties. And I read that arabian horses were used for cataphracts in the late roman section of "Rome and her enemies". Also, the Saxon grave came from "The Age of Arthur." Oh, and I also read in "The Age of Arthur" that a Roman living in Gaul raised a band of eighteen cavalrymen armed as cataphracts to fight against the Goths. Aparantly they fought a huge battle in AD471 and the cavalry won against an army of a couple thousand Goths because of sneak attacks and javelin fire. Sounds a lot like British tacitcs to me, anyone heard of it? I think it's a little fishy but if it's ture imagine what the same amount of british cataphracts could do to a much smaller Saxon force.
As Matt and Robert pointed out, The Age of Arthur is not a good source at all even if an enjoyable read. It is however a good exemple of what you should not do when writing or discussing about sub-roman/early medieval Britain.
Now pick up a serious read, such as Ken Dark's Britain and the End of the Roman Empire or Chris Snyder's An Age of Tyrants, which is a bit older but still an excellent introduction. Just study the matter the other way round. Start reading about evidence of the period, both textual and archaeological, scholar's theories, and then you can propose your own views. Just don't pick up any text or find to bolster your very own theories. That way you can speculate everything you want.
I can just speculate wireless connections was known to the 9th century Bretons as no cable was found in the excavations of their settlements!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 03-04-2010
Point taken. But I'm working on it. Now Agraes, in your professional opinion what type of cavalry would Edicius have been using? As far as I know catphracts were the most popular, even for men with only two or three estates. But I'm likely wrong... :oops: Anyway is it possible that, once we figure out what cavalry Edicius used, to figure out the cavalry used for the equites scutarii aureliaci? And after that can we estimate how many there were based on Ambrosiuus' personal estates in the Somerset area? Oh, all these things are tumbling in my head!
PS: To whom it may concern but I've started an RTW mod named "Pendragon's Banner" for all interested you can find it under the thread of the same name. If you'd like to help (I can't mod, only reasearch)then PM me. Thank-you.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 03-04-2010
We don't know how Eccidius' horsemen fought. According to Sidonius Apollinaris they were good enough to repel the Wisigothic army. We do know about Eccidius personnal equipment, that he had a scale armor, a spatha and greaves (ocrae). From this quality equipment it was deduced that him and his soldiers fought has heavy cavalry, perhaps cataphracts. However this is the classic equipment of a late roman senior officer or general. His men could have been armored in the same way or not at all, it can't be guessed from the text.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 03-04-2010
Hmm... a dilema. I guess the next step is to figure out how good the Visigoths were. The kind of armour and weaponry they had, that sort of thing. I'll be back a little later to add this information.
A few minutes latter: Ok so here's the dirt on the Visigoths. (Mainly from Rome and Her enemies by Osprey publishers) It seems that at the time most of the men would have had little armour, if any, and a sphanghelm style helmet along with a sword, shield, and spear. Some of the men likely had patched and used Roman armour from earlier battles. Even the cavalry elite would have nothing but the occassional battered Roman scale or mail armour along with a spear but likely no shield (Most of them used a spear two-handed) and a helmet. It sounds to me like Edicius had superior cavalry facing poorly armed infantry and inferior cavalry who likely didn't even have javelins to attack against their fleeing opponents. But would the Saxons have been the same? Saxons had superior infantry, were stubborn as oxes, and as determined as their opponents. It seems as though whenever we get a lead it just winds into an ever-dowards spiral of ifs.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 03-05-2010
Quote:Hmm... a dilema. I guess the next step is to figure out how good the Visigoths were. The kind of armour and weaponry they had, that sort of thing. I'll be back a little later to add this information.
A few minutes latter: Ok so here's the dirt on the Visigoths. (Mainly from Rome and Her enemies by Osprey publishers) It seems that at the time most of the men would have had little armour, if any, and a sphanghelm style helmet along with a sword, shield, and spear. Some of the men likely had patched and used Roman armour from earlier battles. Even the cavalry elite would have nothing but the occassional battered Roman scale or mail armour along with a spear but likely no shield (Most of them used a spear two-handed) and a helmet. It sounds to me like Edicius had superior cavalry facing poorly armed infantry and inferior cavalry who likely didn't even have javelins to attack against their fleeing opponents. But would the Saxons have been the same? Saxons had superior infantry, were stubborn as oxes, and as determined as their opponents. It seems as though whenever we get a lead it just winds into an ever-dowards spiral of ifs.
Makes you wonder how they managed to carve out quite a large kingdom with that description .... I would do more research on this as I can't see a javelin free cavalry.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Kolba - 03-06-2010
Speaking about Edicius victory over Visigoths, don't forget that both Anglo-Saxons and Britons used propaganda methods. We know that writer noted in Anglo-Saxon chronicle, that in the year 457 at battle of Crecanford four thousand Britons were massacred, in the year 508 - five thousand with their king Natanleod, in the year 614 - two thousand and forty-six. We also know that Northumbrians massacred 1000 Briton monks in the year 613. There are lots of similiar informations in Anglo-Saxon chronicle. These numbers are simply results of germanic propaganda. And vice versa, probably eighteen victorious horsemen of Edicius also appeared as part of British propaganda, meant to set to show the success of leaders, which did not require the enormous armies. It is simply impossible to defeat whole army with only eighteen warriors, even if they are very well armed. I laughed when I have read that Britons won the battle 'because of sneak attacks and javelin fire'. The question is - how many javelins they had if they wanted to defeat Visigoths? Few thousands?