+- 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 - 05-27-2010
Wasn't sure if I knew enough to tell the difference. I can see roads but they probably don't go by "via something" anymore.
Is there a list of names for Roman roads and modern names?
Sorry... I have as of yet not escaped the clutches I was born to. Traveling the old world is something I haven't gotten to do yet.
Why not Bristol? Not because I am steadfast on my point of view but I am curious. :?:
http://keithbriggs.info/Roman_road_maps.html - These are all Roman roads?
hock: More of them than I thought. We only spent about 3 days in history class on Roman Britain. I was under the impression that there were but few highways and more paths leading off of those. This is extensive.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 05-27-2010
Quote:Why not Bristol? Not because I am steadfast on my point of view but I am curious. :?:
Because there wasn't much there.
There was a port,Abona, (mentioned in the Antonine Itineraries) which controlled the import and export of goods through the Bristol Channel (some remains of which were found during 18th building work at Sea Mills) and there are a few villas in the area but nothing major. Bristol didn't really develop until the Anglo Saxon period.
Gloucester was the main military base in the region. Whilst it doesn't prove that this continued to be the case in the post-Roman period, Gloucester was the base for one of the three British armies (along with Bath and Cirencester) destroyed at the Battle of Deorham in 577.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 05-28-2010
Hello AoTB,
I agree with Vortigern Studies about the plethora of "Arthurian Britain" books now out there. Most written in the past two decades are fairly nutty, and almost all of them rely upon faked-up Welsh pedigrees. You found Ambrosius Aurelianus in just such a pedigree, one which claims he was a Briton from the best of families. But I do believe that a man of the same name was the Prafect of Gaul about 3 generations earlier, and there is no connection with the families of Britain. Most likely Ambrosius came from this non-British family.
I don't believe Theodosius the Elder brought a private-family force into Britain, just whomever Valentinian could spare at the moment. Yes, Magnus Maximus was a "household" tagger-on, but not the entire force. Here again, faked pedigrees have given "Maxen Wledig" an entire progeny derived from two ficticious wives, plus all the wondrous "descendants" that imagination could contrive. Look at the REAL Maximus: he was stationed in Britain for about a year, chances of marrying into British nobility slim (considering he was a broke Spaniard). He then went to Mauritania with Theodosius, possibly involved in that man's murder, then shipped off to Moesia, there disgracing himself in the famous "Dogmeat Scheme," then sent back to Britain as a loser, and finally becomes a usurper. He had but one historically confirmed son who was killed in infancy. Quite the trumped-up career. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 05-28-2010
Even if Magnus Maximus is not likely the father of every post-roman dynasty, the fact he is heads of several king lists is significant in itself. Nothing new in assuming he may have settled several of those dynasties in western Britain. Demetia/Dyfed beeing the best exemples: Irishmen of vassal tribes (call them Deisi or Attecotti), eventually pushed out of Ireland, found a good job there, protecting the shores of the Demetae against other Gaels. Other, before, with Maximus or after him, were recruited in the roman army to form the several Attecotti units we know.
Back to the topic, has the refurnishing of hillforts beeing mentionned yet? There is an interesting comparison with gallic cavalry. Gauls based their forces on oppidda and on a famed cavalry. They could react quite quickly from those power centers. In 5-6th century Britain we have a lot of hillforts beeing fortified. All could not have held a strong armed force, but a few may have. South Cadbury is an obvious exemple, as the largest excavated hillfort of the era, with his excellent situation on the eastern border of the Durotriges. The partial excavations have failed to show much military related artefacts (after the roman conquest at least), saved for an arrowhead/bolt head and an axehammer, and of course the walls themselves. Maybe a future digging campaign will bring more light on this.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-28-2010
A new excavation of Cadbury Castle? You and I both wish Agraes. It seems that once everywhere of interest in the late fifth early sixth century has been explored at least once they stop looking at it all together. They go "Oh, we found evidence of a slightly 'Arthurian' society here. That's interesting and what we came for." And then stop digging! Have you even heard a suggestion of excavating Cadbury Castle again? Or even Tintagial? I haven't. It's quite depressing, I think that one day I'll have to go there myself, get a permit, and dig until I find what I'm looking for, or what I should find.
Anyways, this Gallic connection is very interesting. Do we have a record of their equipment? Perhaps we could adapt it for Britain.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 05-28-2010
Except things are not that easy. Just read South Cadbury excavation reports. The campaigns were very carefully planned, they cost much and archaeologists have to find some fundings before digging. Alcock excavated the areas he thought the most significant. There is clearly a potential under the earth there, but we can't know what can be found. The soil is not very akin to a good preservation, and the land was cultivated for centuries, both damaging the potential remains.
Tintagel saw its last digging campaign in the 90's so that's somewhat recent. The evidence from those two sites is however very important and satisfaying. Archaeology is not treasure hunting. You don't dig to find king Arthur's burial or the full equipment of a 5th century briton warrior. It is possible to do some exceptionnal discoveries, but what the most important remains the context in which they were made. Sure we all would like to see more artifacts from those sites, but that's biaised. For the average re-enactor, the spearhead, the brooch or the buckle is more interesting than the postholes!
Among other things, South Cadbury excavations show us a major hillfort refortified in the late 5th/early 6th century by someone who had a very significant power. We now have evidence of the walls, door, and very possibly of a feasting hall where warriors and nobles drunk their eastern wine in exotic ware or glass, akin to the scenes described in Y Gododdin. At Tintagel was found a very important evidence for trade with the eastern roman empire and Mediterranea. Plus the evidence of a latin litterate society in 5-6th century Dumnonia.
That's not 'arthurian'. That's still an impressive achievment.
To add something on that word, even Leslie Alcock whom called his famous book Arthur's Britain, explained a few decades after why he did so in the climate of the 70's. By that time Arthur was mostly considered as an historical figure. Then the texts were examined by very critic eyes such as Padell or Dumville and Arthur was considered as a mythical figure by most scholars. I would be a tenant of the 'in-between' view. Lots of arthurian enthusiasts remain anyway...
If you want to have a look at an interesting digging, just follow those scheduled this year for the 410-2010 anniversary. The ungoing campaign at Vindolanda fort is very promising. Last year were found a 5th century portable christian altar and some post-roman weaponry and inscriptions. Given the excellent state of preservation of previous Vindolanda finds we could hope for some revolutionnary finds there.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 05-31-2010
Quote: For the average re-enactor, the spearhead, the brooch or the buckle is more interesting than the postholes!
If I am going to re-enact I would want a place to sleep! Post holes are a clear indicator of building size and type. I used to work in construction ( economy sucks!) so I am at least somewhat interested in such things.
Is there any remains of stables. We could roughly estimate the numbers of mounted troops according to my opinion. Match up the research and evidence to guesstimate who was stationed where? Unless concrete finds said who, what, when, where and why.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 05-31-2010
No. In the area excavated inside the fort was found the feasting hall, some small dependeces and a possibly 5-6th century roundhouse, if it is not of iron age date like other buildings finds. There is also a church, but of Ethelredan foundation. If there was stables, smith and other metalworkers, which seems likely, the remains are still to be discovered.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-31-2010
A roundhouse?! Where? How big across? Could it be used as a meeting area?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 05-31-2010
Around 10 meters in diameter. It's a typical building for the iron age period, althought Alcock did suggest it could also have been post-roman in date. Such round houses beeing known elsewhere in 5-6th century western and northern Britain.
If you are playing with the idea this is in no way a 'could-have-been-king-Arthur-and-his-knights-round-table-500AD-fashion' :wink:
It is just a somewhat common house for both periods.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-31-2010
How did you guess? :lol: Anyway that wouldn't even be close to being big enough, it would have to be closer to Woodhenge size if it's going to be anywhere close to my crazy theory. Still one can dream :roll: ...
Anyways, did they find anything in the house? A spearhead, belt buckle, cloak pin, a pot? Anything at all? That should prove whether it was Iron age or 5th century.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 05-31-2010
I don't recall the discussion on lenght. There may have been some LRA (late roman amphoras, the ware used in trade between Britain and Mediterranea in the late 5th-6th centuries) sherds nearby but there was no way to prove completly either datation for the house.
There weren't much metalwork finds from 5-6th centuries Cadbury. A possible bolt or arrowhead, an axehead, a saw, several knives, a saxon brooch and/or buckle of late 6th century date were among the main finds of ferrous or copper alloy metal.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-01-2010
Agraes,
You mentioned something interesting a few posts back-- the placement of the Desii in Demetia as guarding that coast from Irish encroachers. I believe Darrel Wolcott connected Theithfallt to the Desii, through marriage? And then we have his son Tewdrig leading Marcellus and Agricola against the same raiders, Agricola being a king of Demetia. This last info is from Morris who (like Leslie Allcott) got reamed by Dumville and associates. Yet interestingly, it places Britons led by the correct number of cavalry leaders-- 3 commanders leading 900, just as we see in the poem Chair of the Sovereign. Maybe it's coincedence, or maybe not. But it might record the mobility of post-Roman horsemen who could quickly range the entire isle via the extant Roman roads.
hock:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 06-01-2010
Agricola which you may want to call Aircol was according to the Welsh king lists the father of the famous Vortepor. Vortepor is known from us from Gildas (who also says his father was a good king, even if not giving him a name) and from a class-1 stone in ogam and latin, where he is given the roman title of Protector.
The two came from the irish dynasty of the Deisi Muman, which counter Morris views. The dynasty possibly got settled there by Magnus Maximus himself.
See for an up-to-date view Philip Rance, "Attacotti, Deisi and Magnus Maximus: the Case for Irish Federates in Late Roman Britain", Britannia XXXII, 2001, 243-70.
About those numbers, are you sure that 300 or 900 was linked in anyway with late roman cavalry units?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-01-2010
Actually 300 was the maximum a cavalry unit of the Equites or Cuneus type could have. And aparently, an Ala of cavalry wasn't just restricted to 100 men, but could go up to 500. The same as a scholae palatiane unit. (sp?) Forty troops of all the scholae became the emperor's bodyguard. However, I suppose the same system would work for a commander, such as the Dux or Comes Britannium.