+- 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 - Astiryu1 - 05-25-2010
Alright. Around where in modern England abouts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 05-25-2010
Quote:Alright. Around where in modern England abouts?Your guess is as good as mine! No fixed spot, but villas around the countryside I think, or possibly some in towns. No idea really! Maybe they kept a regiment in Londinium and one in Eboracum as well.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 05-25-2010
That would make sense! Having smaller contingents in many places would provide ( with alternating runners/riders ) a very quick response and space out the area covered. If I were to use modern terms (US Army) a company split into platoons for major roads,towns, or defensive fortifications. Patrols would probably take place at least once a week but surprise patrols could keep people on their toes. A patrol wouldn't have to be very big 10 cavalry would do. Roughly the size of a modern squad.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-25-2010
Ten men was 1/3 of a Turma, and a Turma was-roughly- 1/3 of an ala. Considering that there were only six cavalry units (ie. 600 men roughly) And one of those was actually privately owned and was therefore, considering who owned it, in the south, you'd have just fifty very small squads of men spread out over all of central Britain.(The Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, almost certainly owned by Ambrosius Aurelianius' Grandfather, and Father, and likely later by him) It would be very easy for just a single rather large half-hearted barbarian force to invade and overwhelme the outspread cavalry forces. Also, do we know who the Comes Britannium was at the time? Could it have been Ambrosius' grandfather? What are your thoughts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 05-25-2010
Quote: And one of those was actually privately owned and was therefore, considering who owned it, in the south, you'd have just fifty very small squads of men spread out over all of central Britain.(The Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, almost certainly owned by Ambrosius Aurelianius' Grandfather, and Father, and likely later by him)
True to form Nicholas!
But als for you and other 'overeager' Arthurian enthusiast, that name has no relation to a private person, but (as we see in most other Late Roman regiments) to a geographical region. In this case, the town of Orléans. Useful links:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20181472
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson ... iarum.html
Btw, there were no regular units in the Roman army at this time that were 'privately owned'.
Quote:It would be very easy for just a single rather large half-hearted barbarian force to invade and overwhelme the outspread cavalry forces.
Nope, because that single force would never be able to move from force to force and defeat them. It would be spotted within days at the latest, surrounded and destroyed.
Quote:Also, do we know who the Comes Britannium was at the time? Could it have been Ambrosius' grandfather? What are your thoughts?I'm not sure who that grandfather of Ambrosius would have been, since we have no pedigree of his family. But in theory (that PURE guesswork), why not? But without a single piece of evidence, mind you. Ambrosius Aurelianus was likely to have been a British magnate who took local action to defend his property. His ancestor could have been holding such a post for some time (these posts were never filled for a long time, mind you, only a few years at most).
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 05-25-2010
Quote:The Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, almost certainly owned by Ambrosius Aurelianius' Grandfather, and Father, and likely later by him
What are you basing that on? Just the fact that the name contains the element 'Aureliaci'?
And owned? Actually 'owned'?
I don't think we know the names of any of the Comes Britanniarum after Gratianus c.340.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 05-25-2010
Quote:Ten men was 1/3 of a Turma, and a Turma was-roughly- 1/3 of an ala. Considering that there were only six cavalry units (ie. 600 men roughly) And one of those was actually privately owned and was therefore, considering who owned it, in the south, you'd have just fifty very small squads of men spread out over all of central Britain.(The Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, almost certainly owned by Ambrosius Aurelianius' Grandfather, and Father, and likely later by him) It would be very easy for just a single rather large half-hearted barbarian force to invade and overwhelme the outspread cavalry forces. Also, do we know who the Comes Britannium was at the time? Could it have been Ambrosius' grandfather? What are your thoughts?
The Cavalry would no doubt outrun any army primarily on foot. In this theoretical case one would assume dispatched messengers would alert nearby towns and garrisons to the enemy's presence. Within a day or two most of the defending forces would be on the march and the cavalry would locate and choose terrain accordingly. If I am mistaken in these tactics please explain. These are my thoughts.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-25-2010
Medicus,
the literal translation is; and this will sound incomplete "The Horsemen of Aurelius' Shieldmaker" or "The Horsemen of Aurelius Shieldmaker". Also, I can't think of another member of a patrician family with that name in Britain at the time. (The idea of Patrician is infered from Gildas' staement that his parents "Wore the Purple".)
Alanus,
Well done, a loophole, but also an empty one as it still has connections to the famous Aureli family for whom the city was named. Either way, it still comes back to the Aureli family. Also, considering what we know about the fact of an elder Ambrosius, it seems that Ambrosius Aurelianius was the hereditary name of this one family. Also, remember that the barbarians I have in mind are Saexe, who came by dark and by sea. Picti, who came also by dark and by forest. And the Scotii, who weren't really raiding in the area of Roman influence anyways. Also, it did happen before that a single barbarian force, a composite army, converged in the Hadrian's wall area after the garrisons rebelled in The Barbarian Conspircay of 367/8. The garrisons, towns, and field armies were overrun, and it required Comes Theodisius and his personal army of imperial household troops in order to stop them. So it is not impossible, but it is unlikely.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 05-25-2010
Quote:Medicus,
the literal translation is; and this will sound incomplete "The Horsemen of Aurelius' Shieldmaker" or "The Horsemen of Aurelius Shieldmaker". Also, I can't think of another member of a patrician family with that name in Britain at the time. (The idea of Patrician is infered from Gildas' staement that his parents "Wore the Purple".)
It doesn't mean shield maker, it just means 'shieldmen'. Aurelius' mounted shieldmen. The use of 'Aurelius' in that title doesn't mean that they belonged to anyone called Aurelius, it might be an indication that the unit was raised by instruction of an Aurelius (after all, the II Augusta didn't belong to Augustus) or it might be an honorific granted to the unit for having fought well.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the use of 'Scutarii' either. It was a common enough title (along with stablesiani, promoti etc) for vexillatio comitatensii which might have referred to a specific role or attribute at one time (eg they acted as 'shields' on the flanks or were bodyguards etc). I think the most you can take from their name by the time the ND was compiled is that they might once have been the elite mounted bodyguard with some connection to an Aurelius.
More importantly (being the bit that you seem to be the most blinkered about), why do you think that any mention of 'Aurelius' has to be associated with Ambrosius? It was the nomen of many noble romans (including Emperors) for hundreds of years before he came on the scene and it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine that the Scutarii had been raised by or were named in honour of someone completely unconnected with Ambrosius. The emperor Aurelian ended up with the family name Aurelius because his father was a tenant of a senator of the same name. Huge numbers of
If you cast your research a bit wider, rather than just fixating on Ambrosius, you'll find evidence that the Equites Scutarii Aureliaci were stationed at Zeugma in Turkey sometime between the late second and early fourth century, prior to the composition of the ND (where, probably entirely coincidentally, another Aurelianus was consul in c.400 AD).
As for their origins, one paper by Speidel makes a case for them having been raised in Gaul, another theory goes that they were part of a cavalry unit of Moors.
Sorry AotB, I know you're putting a lot of research into this but it's too narrowly focused. You're limiting yourself to finding things that fit your into your desired outcome without then doing what academic research demands, which is that, once you've found something that might support your theory, you challenge it to see if it can be ruled out as supporting evidence.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 05-25-2010
Quote: the literal translation is; and this will sound incomplete "The Horsemen of Aurelius' Shieldmaker" or "The Horsemen of Aurelius Shieldmaker".
No it's not. It would be more like 'Shield-bearing horse regiment from Orléans'.
Quote:Also, I can't think of another member of a patrician family with that name in Britain at the time.
of course you can't, because we do not have any such information. We don't even know if Ambrosius' family were 'patrician'- and by that you mean what? Patricians were not a Roman social class, but at time a rank of the man behind the throne.
Quote:(The idea of Patrician is infered from Gildas' staement that his parents "Wore the Purple".)Which is also used in literature to describe that a person has died from violence - the word 'purpure' also denoting 'red'/'blooded'. Which ties in with another of Gildas' statements, that they had perished in the violence of the Saxon Revolt.
Quote:Alanus,You mean: Vortigern
Quote:Well done, a loophole, but also an empty one as it still has connections to the famous Aureli family for whom the city was named.Not a loophole at all. If you had done a bit more research on the topic we're discussing, you would have compared this unit to the other units mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, which would have shown you that many many more units are named after the region where they came from. Can I ask you to do you homework before you post, we've been here before, haven't we?
Some cavalry units from the Gallic Field army:
Equites catafractarii Pictavenses (from the civitas of Pictavi = Poitiers)
Equites scutarii Aureliaci (from the civitas Aurelianensium = Orléans)
Equites sagittarii Cardueni (from Gordiene)
Equites Dalmatae Passerentiaci
Some infantry units from the Gallic Field army:
Truncensimani (Tricesima = Xanten)
Garronenses (Gariannonum = Burgh Castle)
Anderetiani (Anderitum = Pevensey)
Cornacenses
Mauri Osismiaci (Osismis = Brest)
Praesidienses (Praesidio)
Musmagenses (Mosomagus = Mouzon)
I can go on and on, but follow the links I presented you and do some Googling.
In fact I challenge you to present a single piece of evidence for your theory that this unit was not only named after a private person/family, but also that it was controlled (or 'owned' as you put it) by a family, and even that this control was hereditary.
Quote:Either way, it still comes back to the Aureli family. Also, considering what we know about the fact of an elder Ambrosius, it seems that Ambrosius Aurelianius was the hereditary name of this one family.Which is a contradiction, because you can’t have it both ways. Either their 'gens' name is Aurelius, OR it's Ambrosius. And if indeed an elder Ambrosius existed, the family name is Aurelii, not Ambrsosii. Ambrosius Aurelianus is not a hereditary name, it's part family name, part personal name.
Quote:Also, remember that the barbarians I have in mind are Saexe, who came by dark and by sea. Picti, who came also by dark and by forest.Yes, so? The Romans of course all slept by night and never kept watch?
Quote:And the Scotii, who weren't really raiding in the area of Roman influence anyways.
What, America? Of course they did. And there's plenty of evidence of Roman counter-measures, too. I'm not sure what you're getting at here but I'm sure you're on the wrong foot.
Quote:Also, it did happen before that a single barbarian force, a composite army, converged in the Hadrian's wall area after the garrisons rebelled in The Barbarian Conspircay of 367/8. The garrisons, towns, and field armies were overrun, and it required Comes Theodisius and his personal army of imperial household troops in order to stop them. So it is not impossible, but it is unlikely.You don't know where they converged at all, because Ammianus tells us nothing about that. Nor do you know what they overran or what deserted, remained isolated, etcetera. Nor do you or we know if this 'conspiracy' took place at all, because Ammianus described other, larger, even more unlikely conspiracies elsewhere that none of us ever believed.
Yes, Roman armies could be defeated, but you were describing one force that defeated Roman forces piecemeal. And that, considering what we know of Roman military history, is rather unlikely because of the Roman strategy that would counter exactly that.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-26-2010
Thank-you for setting me straight, again. You're right, all of you. I am an amature. Though in my defence I may have jumped on the Scutarii Aureliaci a little bit too quickly. After reading a book about Ambrosius and A... and seeing this idea i sort of should have checked the guy's sources. Thanks for that straightening out. Now if you wouldn't mind, where were we before this sidetrack?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 05-26-2010
You're easily forgiven - I clearly remember my own writings at that stage. :wink:
And indeed, there are too many books where this sort of information is presented as 'truth', so...
We were occupied with the places where to station cavalry forces of the British field army.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 05-26-2010
Theoretical Cavalry outposts according to modern "google" maps-
-Derby :lol:
-Bristol
-London
-Norwich
With terrain in mind these positions make sense to me.
Gives a good area that is quickly covered; defending or warning interior forces (army) of invasion.
Ball park area of Roman influence?
I wish I knew the locations of Roman roads in Britain. With a little cross referencing a more accurate example could be given.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - WorkMonkey1 - 05-27-2010
Quote:I wish I knew the locations of Roman roads in Britain. With a little cross referencing a more accurate example could be given.
You got google earth?
Zoom in and you'll see whacking great stretches of long roads that criss cross England, they#re the Roman roads. Orrr, use something like multimap? That has an ordnance survey feature, which tells you which most of the roman roads are because they're still in use today.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 05-27-2010
This isn't a bad place to start.
[url:3k0giqc1]http://keithbriggs.info/Roman_road_maps.html[/url]
this too...
[url:3k0giqc1]http://www.bibliographics.com/MAPS/BRITAIN/BRIT-MAP-FRAME-LOOK.htm[/url]
Or buy the OS map of Roman Britain.
Bristol doesn't seem very likely.