+- 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 - Conal - 07-22-2010
Quote:Conal:1npmcc8k Wrote:It indicates that a sub culture of pre-Roman Celticness "could" have survived 350 years of dominance by Rome, no doubt changed accordingly by Roman influences.I beg to differ. Your example describes a group which is , so it's a strange duck in the pond. True, given the same circumstances such a group could exist during the Roman occupation. But the discussion was I think about British society as a whole and traditions that ‘could’ have survived within a far larger group that this relatively small one.
So I’d say that if we are arguing for traditions with a group of 20 families in west Yorkshire I’d say yes. But if we’re arguing for traditions within the larger part of Romano-British society (I know Stuart Laycock does), I’d say no.
Not without any proof, at least. :wink:
I wouild not say "extremely closed-off towards the rest of society" as they do get involved in some parts of society. I know as I lived amongst them for two years as a child. What you have is a tiny minority of a few thousand in a (hostile) population of many millions where as in Britian in the AD400s the majority were indigenous ( 1.5 to 2 million) held in sway by say 45-50,000 Roman troops, administrators etc etc . They were , initially, devided into tribal groups for administration purposes so I see no reason why they would not keep at least some old customs alive via songs, storys and traditional practices. Such things are a good ethnic glue.
My point above was that if a minority can keep things alive then a majority, or at least more than a few West Yorks families, should have no trouble in keeping enough going on which to hang Celtic hats when the "Romans" had departed.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 07-22-2010
Quote:My point above was that if a minority can keep things alive then a majority, or at least more than a few West Yorks families, should have no trouble in keeping enough going on which to hang Celtic hats when the "Romans" had departed.My point was the opposite. Such a group manages to preserve such traditions because they are a small group that stands mostly outside mainstream society. the rest changes their traditions (as we do) almost without knowing. It would take much effort to keep certain traditions while society is changing under new influences. And we know that Roman influences changed food, housing, language. And British society changed with it. So apparently they did not want to remain unchanged. So where do you place that (apparently hidden) wish to retain ceratin traditions from a dim past? While tribal chiefs (and the underlying social structure), as well as priests (and the underlying social structure) and warriors (and the underlying social structure) all completely disappeared, why would any songs, practises etc. based on those vanished structures be preserved? Where would that wish originate? Does your family hang on to songs and practises about long-gone kings or people from 300 years ago?
Ethnic glue? :?: Why ethnic? You mean cultural surely?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Felix - 07-22-2010
If I may chime in:
The dynamics of small exclusive groups trying to maintain an identity is precisely different from the actions of a majority group living under a foreign elite; because one is self-aware and working to preserve their uniqueness, while a majority under foreign elite is usually being lead by self-interest and cultural trickle-down into incorporating large parts of the foreigners' way of life. (i.e. Saxons in Norman England, Aztecs in Spanish Mexico). This is quite unlike the behaviour of Gypsies, or of Jews during most of the Diaspora.
We are, I believe, discussing military matters; and the ancient military Celtic traditions and organizations would have been heavily overshadowed by Roman habits, given that the Romans made a habit of settling old soldiers all over the Empire; and later, of course, the legions had regional roots - so the locals would have tended to develop legionary roots.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 07-23-2010
Quote:So where do you place that (apparently hidden) wish to retain ceratin traditions from a dim past?The Mabinogion Welsh legends, part of which may hark back to Iroan Age legends, survived in oral form, in a Celtic, through Roman, Saxon and Norman influence did they not?
Quote:While tribal chiefs (and the underlying social structure), as well as priests (and the underlying social structure) and warriors (and the underlying social structure) all completely disappeared
Did it "completely" disappear? Was He Who Must Not Be Mentioned suddenly rediscovered in the 11th century or was he remembered in song and verse in the interim ... as was another enigmatic character Robin of the Hood, real or not he is celebrated to this day along with other strange medieval practices ... have you ever met a Morris man?
Quote: why would any songs, practises etc. based on those vanished structures be preserved? Where would that wish originate? Does your family hang on to songs and practices about long-gone kings or people from 300 years ago?
Old king Cole was a merry old sole ... :roll:
There are still travelling story tellers in India who still celebrate Alexander the Greats trip over there.
Quote: Ethnic glue? :?: Why ethnic? You mean cultural surely?Nope I mean ethnic in the sense:
"An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and a tradition of common ancestry (corresponding to a history of endogamy" i.e. in the minds of some Britains that they were not of Roman origin.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Felix - 07-23-2010
Stories and legends can have great persistence, but the social and technological structures supporting the original story don't necessarily follow. Military traditions are an amalgam of social and technological traits, not just stories.
India may still have tales of Alexander, but when was the last sarissa used in the subcontinent?
Homer was a foundation stone of Western Civilization, but no one understood a boar's tooth helmet during Classical times (AFAIK) all the way up to modern archeology.
Tales of Robin Hood persisted, as did knowledge of the 100 Year's War; but attempts to revive the longbow (lasting up into the 18th century) all foundered on technological and social differences.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-23-2010
A layman's view of sub-Roman Briton history would be that Roman and a native parties--not necessarily one of each--originally competed to lead the island after withdrawal of the legions. Soon the Roman party died out or dissolved (leaving the heritage of Ambrosius and He Who Shall Not Be Named) while the native parties had varying degrees of success leading relatively small chunks of the island, perhaps roughly contiguous to Roman administrative districts, which after all grew out of the tribal areas before the Roman conquest. They left behind the heritage of Vortigern--who may or may not have been maligned by history--and, yes, He Who Shall Not Be Named.
As the Germans--eventually called the English--pushed farther west, they conquered, absorbed or maybe even made an accommodation with the Britons. It took four hundred years. A lot can happen. By the time the Danes began pushing on the "English" the Britons had been pushed into enclaves in Cornwall and Wales with some remnants in the northwest.
Of interest here is the apparent pause in the westward Germanic push caused by Ambrosius or He Who Shall Not Be Named or both, when perhaps a generation of Britons lived in relative peace. (Of course, at any given time the westward peoples were not so pressed by the Germans as whoever was on the front line, but even residents of Tintagel or Angelsey must have suffered disquiet and the constant westward pressure.)
Eventually the English assimilated, not only the land and people but some of the culture, including the legends of You Know Who. The trick is teasing the real history out of the skein of tangled yarn that is the history, legend and lies that survive to this day.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 07-23-2010
Quote:Stories and legends can have great persistence, but the social and technological structures supporting the original story don't necessarily follow. Military traditions are an amalgam of social and technological traits, not just stories.
India may still have tales of Alexander, but when was the last sarissa used in the subcontinent?
Homer was a foundation stone of Western Civilization, but no one understood a boar's tooth helmet during Classical times (AFAIK) all the way up to modern archeology.
Tales of Robin Hood persisted, as did knowledge of the 100 Year's War; but attempts to revive the longbow (lasting up into the 18th century) all foundered on technological and social differences.
I'm not arguing for a pre-Roman military or should I say warrior culture revival just suggesting that pre-Roman customs may have survived and influenced post-Roman politics to some extent. I accept that social and technological structures may not persist in exactly the structures as previously but the residual may be enough. Ever met an Irish American, they can be more Irish than those from the old country. I'm of Irish extraction myself and we call these guys Plastic Paddys but it still remains that although not celebrating centuries past you will still find these guys singing Kevin Barry (a ballad for an inocent killed in the 1916 uprising) for years to come. The annual celebrations of the battle of the Boyne has recently led to strife in Northern Ireland and that was in the 1600s... still influencing politics today :|
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 07-24-2010
Thank you, Felix!
Well taken points. True, oral tradition persists in the arts, in song, etc. Eating traditions persist, even spread. But I'm willing to believe that sub-Roman military tradition was fairly much like Romano-British military tradition, which was much like Roman military tradition. And that's the crux of this thread.
And when we consider it, there is no reason that the Roman military actually LEFT exactly in 410, or 409. It could have continued in Britain until 478 which brings that tradition closer to the 6th century, which gives a few more years on that 350 years of Roman military tradition that everyone is usually counting.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-24-2010
Certainly the departure of the named and numbered legions did not mean that every Roman soldier and administrator departed early in the fifth century. The visits of Germanus of Auxerre in 429 and maybe 440 indicated that some aspect of Roman life had persisted. With the rising German threat and perhaps tension, if not warfare, among the Britons, it's hardly a stretch to conclude that the Britons had, as urged by Honorius, seen to their own defenses.
My question a short while ago was to what extent that defense would have included mounted warriors and how those warriors might have been equipped, trained and organized. They could hardly have been eastern-style Cataphracts much less "knights in shining armor," but might they have shown some semblance of western Roman practice? If so, how might they have prolonged the twilight of the Britons? Even to the point of moderating the outcome? (I mean that in the sense that the Saxons seeped across Britain over the course of several centuries, unlike the single-generation Frank conquest of Gallia.)
Dealing with this period guarantees much uncertainty, but that's half the fun: unlike so much of history, so little is cut and dried.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - M. Demetrius - 07-24-2010
Considering the centuries that Rome dominated the military system, it seems unlikely to me that people/soldiers would remember much of what had gone on before. There's a lot of generations in 400 years, however you measure it. Nobody living would have direct memory of the beforehand tactics, and it's not very likely that they'd have the ability to train the troops in the "old" ways. So maybe it's obvious that the soldiers would use the tactics and training (particularly if there were some Roman soldiers still living there) of the Romans of that day. The immigrants from non-Roman areas would, of course, bring their own styles and systems with them.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 07-24-2010
What was the Cavalry of Britain like before the Romans pulled out? Was it Roman in design or was it more like everywhere else and drew from the locals tactics and traditions. This would be a good point to consider when thinking about Roman Cavalry. Also something I consider is the practicality of a unit type in certain environments. Horse Archers for example work better in open areas while Lancers would usually take up less room for maneuvers and choose a small point to attack.
Caesar though long before post Roman-Britain, hired the Germanic tribesmen as his Cavalry and the West didn't really stress horsemanship like the East did "AFAIK". This I believe is due to the larger plains,steppes and deserts of the East as most cavalry dominated cultures came from this part of the world. (Prior to the middle ages anyway!?) I have read in a few places that the Mounted Knight as we later see in Britain was due to warfare in the Early Crusades but I leave that for another conversation.
There was horsemanship in all cultures to some extent but how important is it that there was a large or well organized Cavalry when there wasn't anyone else with comparable cavalry to worry about. Organization in many cases would be rough I am sure as the power vacuum became more hostile. The result would be service to the highest bidder; Ambrosius, He who shall not be named or anyone else. We also have to think about successive military takeovers like the Saxons, Vikings and last but not least the Normans. I would think things would have gone very differently if after the Battle at Stamford bridge the defenders jumped on horses and rode south instead of marching on foot all the way to get beaten by William of Normandy. A lack of horses in England at that time was costly. Going into battle tired isn't the best strategy. (I would have tried to capture Hardradda's ships to transport everyone I could to bear down the assault)
Anyways (before I travel even further through time :roll: ), it doesn't seem that there was that much Cavalry tradition in Britain before the middle ages. I like the myths but every respectable book I have read doesn't really mention battles with alot of Cavalry in England until Henry the II's "Assize of Arms" when the military and infrastructure was installed ushering in the system of "Knights proper". That said if I had a horse and a warlord was willing to pay me I would join his army. I wouldn't have had a job serving Romans any longer now would I? :lol:
One last point I have is an Island nation (unless Australia) doesn't really need much Cavalry due to size. Mainland Europe is alot bigger and I take that into consideration. You could march across England within a couple of days and you also have naval transport to a degree which is much more likely as water surrounds islands. :wink: Japan didn't really get into cavalry later on because of this (plus they had Ninja's :twisted: ) The water also acts as a barrier for invaders to bring too many horses to English soil. Ships weren't that big yet.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 07-25-2010
More good points.
If we consider that Gildas was writing in administrative jargon of the majority, then the terms used are uncannily Roman. What was the pro-British minority that would have had fighting tactics other than Roman? All I can think of is the Desii (Irish) in Demetia, albeit probably brought in as early as Magnus Maximus and therefore fairly well Romanized themselves, and a few Scotti kingdoms above the Wall. Yet, on the whole, it is difficult to visualize some great departure from the Roman military tradition.
In these times, horses were hardy, no need for stabling or special feed. As you say, maybe not cataphract-styled cavalry but something on the order of light Roman cavalry. I really see no accounting for a dearth of mounts. What we find, in those sparse remaining sources, seems to point at the Saxons being foot, not the Britons. Particularly in the western lowlands and Wales (if a villa society is measured), the mounted fighter was still there into the 7th century. There is more than a probability that the Romano-British cavalry tradition lived-on for some time.
Even if it had been "watered" or debilitated, a capability of cavalry in Britain was there. Look at the Franks at the beginning of the 8th century-- every man who owned a horse was required to arm himself and practice militaria. A standing militia. And there's no reason that Britain could not have mustered a militia a few centuries prior to this, including mounted bowmen and lancers.
By the way, Craig. Ships were "that big." Some of them were gigantic. British vessels were deep-draught and carrying big loads, enabling Riothamus to make reasonably expedient troop movements. Even early in the Iron Age, trans-channel vessels and trading ships from the Med were big enough to carry livestock. On the other hand, Saxon keels were smaller. :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 07-25-2010
Quote:By the way, Craig. Ships were "that big." Some of them were gigantic. British vessels were deep-draught and carrying big loads, enabling Riothamus to make reasonably expedient troop movements. Even early in the Iron Age, trans-channel vessels and trading ships from the Med were big enough to carry livestock. On the other hand, Saxon keels were smaller. :lol:
I meant that most ships of the time didn't have the capability of carrying more than say 10-15 horses at a time with nothing else in the hold. Getting enough ships to make a crossing of the channel and fielding a sizable army would be a nightmare. William must have been a wreck during the weeks of preparation. There would be specialized larger ships available but not at a whim. Reliance on native (or pseudo-native) breeds would be more likely. I would bet that the Saxon keel or something similar was more common as the draft enables one to beach without a harbor thus increasing mobility. Do you know what types of Roman ships would be used around this time? I am the first to admit Roman Naval stuff is not a huge strength. All I know for a fact is... "There wasn't a reverse D-Day moment like in the new Robin Hood movie." Boats could carry smaller cavalry contingents but that wouldn't be for pitched battles so much as raiding or patrolling.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 07-25-2010
According to Welsh tradition, there were a number of large fleet owners, not large men with fleets but men with large fleets. (nuk, nuk, nuk) :lol: What's-his-face, the hero of Longborth, and King Marcus were among them. The trans-channel British transportation was substantial and the ships were heavy-draught. Not sure about Roman ships; probably not much different than in Pliny's day (he was a retired admiral), shallower draught and heavily dependent on oarsman. I imagine the trade ships coming up from Constantinople and the Lavant were large, handling bulk amphoae.
Yet the prospect of sea transport-- port to port in Britain itself-- was probably unnessary, considering the good condition of a Roman road network. My theory is a cavalry, not large, that could field quickly and move to trouble spots. According to tradition, it was a total of 900. That sounds like three alas, perhaps primarily in the south and east, from the Wash down to Portchester and over to Gwent. Apparently Saint Tewdrig could move quickly, most likely with a cavalry; and we know that his grandson Morgan had horsemen under him. If each petty-king had a mounted contingent at ready, it would be easy enough to field a substantial number of horsemen. Historically, six Roman alas went into Britain cira 396-398. How many retirees remained? Anybody's guess. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-25-2010
A brief description and illustration of a Roman-era merchant ship (very different from a galley) can be found here:
http://shipmodeling.info/photo/displayi ... -Ship.html
I wouldn't think you could transport more than a half dozen horses on such a ship, and they'd better be pretty well tethered.
A core of 900 cavalry could indeed create a potent force, especially if augmented by local mounted forces. In fact, there are some references to the Romans relying more on cavalry late in their administration.
But maintaining a force that large would require two or three mounts per soldier, plus pack animals and maybe light carts to transport essentials. You can't just ride across the island and be ready to fight. But if the natives had some horse tradition, perhaps all that was not so unique or impossible.