+- 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 - 07-08-2010
Quote:The next person who mentions a plumbatumWots a plumbatum?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - John Conyard - 07-08-2010
A spear is around 2-3 metres long. Certainly something you can use on handed. A contos/kontos/sarissa is at least 4 meters long and something you use two handed.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - M. Demetrius - 07-08-2010
Thanks. FWIW, a Latin dictionary defines "contus" as pole, with the implication that it's a "spear pole"--that partly coming from the Greek kontos, and Mauritius' Stategikon. Just curiosity spawned the question, not anything more. I yield the floor.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 07-09-2010
I had always thought the Greeks used "contus" in referring to its length as much like a "barge pole," in other words quite long. At one time, with the help of John, we had come up with the 4 meter length, anything much longer wobbling and thus less effective as a direct punch.
( :oops: Sorry about the plumbata. Maybe they used hand-grenades. :oops: How about Molitov cocktails? :oops: :oops: :oops: )
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 07-09-2010
Quote:A spear is around 2-3 metres long. Certainly something you can use on handed. A contos/kontos/sarissa is at least 4 meters long and something you use two handed.It's a case of terminology, and we know that ancient authors did not use a strict dictionary. When Arrian equipped his infantry with the kontos he probably did not have the 4m-long sarissa in mind. I suggest that contus/kontos in an infantry context may be compared to the hasta (and suggest a length between 1.80m/6 ft and 2.70m/9 ft), and that some Late Roman cavalry weapons might be shorter than 4 m. I agree with you John about sub-Roman British cavalry probably using spears up to 3m and javelins, not kontoi.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-09-2010
Where are we?
We have bookends of Roman practice before the departure of the legions (circa AD 409) and that of the Brittonic losers at the battle of Catraeth (circa AD 600), both indicating the use of mounted warriors by the defenders, but an irritating lack of detail about how those horse-borne troops were organized , trained or equipped. And, of course, our "best" sources for those bookends are the entertaining but unreliable documents of Saint Gildas (De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae) and Aneirin (Y Gododdin). From the tea leaves of those works, other literary sources, and the archeological debris of the period we guess at what might have transpired. :|
Contemporary Eastern Roman and western Asian practice is too remote to have greatly influenced how the Britons organized and equipped themselves. Later practice--Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Norman--is largely irrelevant. :roll:
In rejecting later Medieval practice and equipage as anachronistic, we must then fall back on later western Roman practice for a prototype of sub-Roman Britain, understanding that the farther one projects after AD 409 the less likely one can employ even that model.
Right?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 07-09-2010
Just something interesting I found pouring over a list of forts that were used at this time. Apparently Burgh Castle was ocuppied right through the period of British resurgance and it is this locale which is famous for the Burgh Castle style helms, ie. Ridge Helms. Is it possible that the roman helm factories were running through the era of British resurgance instead of the fort just being occupied?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 07-09-2010
Quote:Just something interesting I found pouring over a list of forts that were used at this time. Apparently Burgh Castle was ocuppied right through the period of British resurgance and it is this locale which is famous for the Burgh Castle style helms, ie. Ridge Helms. Is it possible that the roman helm factories were running through the era of British resurgance instead of the fort just being occupied?
As I understand it, there has been ONE helmet found at Burgh Castle, and not a complete one at that. All it shows is that someone left a helmet there. IF there is any excavated evidence of smithing or armor-making at the site, cool, but I don't know the circumstances of the find.
I agree that some derivative of the Late Roman Ridge helmet is what was used, something between that and the Coppergate or Pioneer helmets. I also tend to think that helmets would have been more common than body armor, even if they don't get much mention. Obviously some were fabulous and gilded and bejeweled, but plain versions would have been relatively cheap and easy to make. Frankly, any basic blacksmith shop could have cranked out spearheads, shield bosses, and helmets, but we still have to be careful about concluding that (for example!) some traces of a hearth or fragments of a helmet means an armor factory.
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-10-2010
It has been asserted that South Cadbury Castle (Somerset) was not only occupied, but apparently re-fortified--it being originally a iron age hill fort--during this period. While pottery fragments suggestive of Mediterranean trade and evidence of a great hall have found there, no period weapons that I know of. There were several summers of digs in the 60s or 70s, which apparently confirmed this but little more.
I visited there in 2003. Nice site, pretty views, and a sign board recounting the above.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 07-14-2010
Would anyone happen to know the prime horse-raising areas of Britain along with their productivity?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 07-14-2010
There would be alot of factors to take into account; right? I read about the "Little Ice Age" changing environmental conditions and other natural phenomena, so it would be different today than 1000-1500 years ago. What are the prerequisites? I know the basics would be Food, Pasture and Stables right? Forgive me if I am wrong.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-16-2010
The Little Ice Age was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, there was another--less severe--cool period about a third of the way through the first millennium (see chart at Link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ations.png Note that the left margin is today; the recent Proxies chart expands the detail.)
That said, I've read that one reason the Empire was so willing to let Britannia go was decreasing grain shipments to Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries, caused by volcanic eruptions in Asia. If true, decreased grain might also impact the cost of maintaining and fielding large numbers of war horses. However, if the exports of grain had stopped, a larger percent--like 100% :wink: --of the admittedly smaller production would be available for domestic use.
Production of cash crops would further decrease due to the lack of Imperial subsidies. Those subsidies may have been the foundation of the Romano-Britain economy. So, not only the withdrawal of the legions to fight continental invaders (or each other), but also the end of outside funding, may have accelerated the decline of sub-Roman culture and the reassertion of Briton tribal culture. (Not to mention invaders from the west, north and east.)
This is all speculation but fits the facts as we know them and may help explain the rapid decline of Romano-Briton culture in the fifth century ... and why large numbers of mounted warriors may have difficult to sustain even if the face of a threat against which an agile, mounted force would have been more effective than fixed infantry and local levies.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 07-18-2010
Fascinating. If this helps I've read that just plain old farmers who owned a medium-sized farm could own and sustain two head of cattle, which comparatively is half the cost of maintaining two horses who have the same value. (if I remember correctly one head of cattle is two cows) Even a magistrate with just a few holdings, say two hundred people in his care, roughly twenty-twenty five farms, and sustaining a small herd of pigs and sheep. Now if I understand this correctly, by reserving at least a tenth of the produce for cattle, another fith for people and livestock, that would leave forty percent of the harvest left. I believe that an average levy from an overlord for the harvest so that it may be used as tribute, (IE taxes) Which would go to trading for livestock and other valuables was a manageable twenty percent. Leaving twenty percent of the harvest to maintain a warrior population, which would be roughly twenty-five men as professionals perhaps? Of course by that I do mean maintaining horses. (Note: The warriors are from the village, not an external force) Now in this scenario we have enough left to field all those men on horseback, but this is merely hypothetical, I realize that this is flawed and that they probably couldn't field twenty-five mounted warriors in one small village which guards an area roughly 10km square. However considering that I'm taking just grain into account, and modern Celtic breeds can live off low value foods, the horses, at least, may be possible, the training, armour, and weaponry are another story.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-18-2010
Maybe. As in modern farming, collective farms tend to produce more of a single, cash crop--though support fewer people. (Larger farms are more efficient; smaller farms are more productive.) Archeology and records agree that Roman Britain tended to have large, collective farms. In fact, Roman society in Britain seems to have had a large rural component--assumedly those growing grain to export to Rome.
I always thought a head was one cow or bull or steer. Head is used because cattle is a plural word, helping us avoid awkward sentences such as that one. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - M. Demetrius - 07-18-2010
Ron, you're forgetting the random two-headed calf. I've seen her at a carnival side show. So is she one head or two? Is she a cow or a cattle? :roll: 8)
I think you're right about the one head, one cow counting system. At least here in cattle country in Texas, that's how we count them. :wink: