+- 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 - M. Demetrius - 07-25-2010
When Caesar made his foray into Britain, he brought not a few cavalry with him, and had unfavorable winds/seas been more in his favor, he'd have landed with many horses. He doesn't say much about the sizes of his ships, but I can't imagine taking horses only five or six per vessel. They must have been able to pack more in there than that, seems like.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-25-2010
True enough. The Roman army undoubtedly had specialized troop and horse transport ships.
The ship at the link above would have been the type still in use for commerce--perhaps all the way to Britain, hence the presence of Mediterranean pottery shards at sub-Roman sites--after the Roman army had pulled back to the continent. I can't imagine a Briton warlord or king building specialized horse transports when his focus would have been on securing his immediate borders (from his Briton neighbors as much as against the Saxons). Sunk remains of these merchant ships have been found from one end of the Mediterranean to the other and into the Black Sea and Atlantic.
As pointed out above, the Saxon keels, more like later Viking long boats than like contemporary merchant ships, would have been unsuitable for moving horses. The long boats I've seen in museum at Oslo had quite thin hulls. The tour guide said the sailors couldn't walk on them, only on the foot rails. Assumedly the Saxons' keels were not so refined or fragile, but horses probably don't watch where they step quite the way a sailor would. (The Viking hull's fragility and flexibility, of course, contributed to its strength and speed on the high seas. The claimed distances they could sail or row in a day pushed credibility.)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - M. Demetrius - 07-25-2010
Quote:The Roman army undoubtedly had specialized troop and horse transport ships.According to Gallic Wars, in which the Britain expedition was mentioned, some of the ships were bought or commandeered from Gaul, but many others were built in situ. (I can't imagine the lumbering and work needed to build ships to order. No doubt they had more trees to work with at that time, but still -- ) So it's quite possible you're exactly right, Ron, that the horse transports might have been available from the Gaullic coasts, but even if they were, Caesar brought quite a few horses, hundreds for sure, so they probably copied the transport design when they made their foray.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-25-2010
I am amazed at how often they just built ships, bridges, fortifications, etc., and then apparently marched off and left them when they were through.
hock: Of course Caesar lost many of his ships due to storms on the Channel. Slow learner. :roll: (That's a joke. I know JC was not a slow learner; don't jump on me. :? )
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 07-25-2010
Quote: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.
Well, practically *all* Roman cavalry from the late Republic was at least based on non-Roman cultures. So it's mostly a matter of deciding what you want to call "Roman". And most ancient battles were fought in open areas, so I'm not sure what you mean about horse archers and lancers.
Quote: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)
Not to be dragging the thread off-topic, but much of Godwinson's force *was* mounted, riding to battle but fighting on foot. (Though it should be pointed out that on a *long* forced march, infantry can out-march cavalry!) And while Harold's army (men who lived tough lives and were used to walking) arrived at Senlac at least a day or two before the Normans, and had a good night's sleep, William's troops all had to march to the battlefield from Hastings that morning. So who was more tired? Using captured ships to move the English army south from York sounds like a good way to drown them all, if you don't have enough experienced sailors... Plus you are reliant on favorable winds and weather, and sailing straight towards a huge Norman invasion fleet. And seasick. Go infantry!
Quote: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.
Sorry, I think you may be a victim of looking at too many large modern maps, here. Most ancient armies considered cavalry to be an advantage in battle. The Romans certainly did, and went to great pains to maintain a good cavalry force even in Britain. It didn't matter to them that they were on an island, since a battlefield is only a mile or so wide. Most warfare in Britain would have been based on the road network, since that was the only practical way to move an army and its wagons. Even if you had enough ships, they would only be useful if you were moving along the coast, and like I said, the weather can make the timing dicey. If you think maintaining a few cavalry horses is expensive, try building and manning a fleet of ships!
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 07-26-2010
I wasn't saying that Cavalry wasn't useful I was saying they didn't need as much as England was limited in size. A smaller well maintained force of hundreds would be more effective in costs and tactics more than a larger contingent especially in post Roman Britain.
A thought came to mind about mass-transportation of horses and men during Caesar's Invasion. Is there any evidence of Rome using a flat bottomed barge for transporting Cavalry across the channel? I know it is a simple thought but if used for a single crossing I don't think they would make works of art. Although they would be more susceptible to bad weather conditions (as evident). To me it would make sense to ferry them across in that manner... weather permitting.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 07-26-2010
Quote:I wasn't saying that Cavalry wasn't useful I was saying they didn't need as much as England was limited in size. A smaller well maintained force of hundreds would be more effective in costs and tactics more than a larger contingent especially in post Roman Britain.
Looking at the above, what everyone has said, just not you, Craig. First, I don't think the maintainance of mounts was a problem at all. Every British noble had several horses, as did his "man" and close retainers. This would give each man in a "militia"-styled cavalry extra mounts in traveling, a speedy tactic actually traced back to the Alans by Ammianus Marcellinus. Switching to fresh mounts meant traveling could reach 80 to 100 miles per day.
Caesar made a point of not mentioning the style of ships he used, just as he deliberately avoided mentioning a lot of other details. We know from his naval battle with the Veneti that they had heavy, deep-draught, vessels, while his were lighter and faster (due to oars) in windless conditions. The Saxon keel, as mentioned, was built like a American Indain canoe. I have seen a couple of the Viking examples in Norway museums. Right. Not much space there for horses.
Fact is, tradition-wise, we do not know if this so-called cavalry of 900 was at the ready all of the time or simply a militia readied at short notice. But whatever. It could have been very effective when we consider its Roman influence, which was (as I have continuously carped previously) built on a mostly steppe (Taifali-Alanic) tradition in weapons and deployment.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-14-2010
A modern UK roadmap documents the staying power of Rome's influence north of Mare Britannia (the Channel). While the Germanic -hams, -burgs, and -shires pervade, the -leons and -chesters hark back to legions camping all over the island.
That observation relates to this thread by illustrating the staying power of Roman antecedents (if only place names) through the Saxon, Danish and Norman conquests. Conceivably, other Roman institutions and practices survived long after the departure of the legions.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-15-2010
Ron,
Certain "Romanisms" probably did have great staying power. I'm a fishing tackle historian, and it's doubtfully a coincidence that the "reel" or "winch" is illustrated upon a 5th century Roman plate and then again in 17th century Britain. Likely, the fishing reel was used in Britain for the entire interim. (The same-styled reel also shows up in 9th century China. So who influenced who? Is this another case similar to the Han Dynasty jian that ambles across continents to arrive as the cruxiform Crusader sword?) Did the Welsh cob descend from Roman cavalry horses? We have more questions than answers, but the conjecture is always interesting, debatable, and entertaining.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-15-2010
Definitely entertaining. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-15-2010
A question: Elsewhere in this thread we've discussed how the Roman four-pommeled saddle was just as effective a fighting platform as a saddle with stirrups. (And we all agree that stirrups didn't find their way to western Europe until centuries after our period of interest.) Even if late empire or early post-empire horses were smaller, how did an armored warrior mount such a saddle?
Normally, someone riding bareback or with a girth strap, faces the horse, grabs a fistful of the horse's mane with his left had while resting his right on the horse's rump and leaps upward, twisting to swing his right leg over the horse's back. This should be an easy maneuver for skilled horse warriors. But if you add a four-pommeled saddle and the weight of a mail shirt, shield and baldric-suspended sword, it becomes almost impossible: he weighs a lot more, and he has to jump higher. In camp I suppose they might have mounting blocks, but in open field there may be nothing convenient to mount from.
Did I miss something? :?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-16-2010
Quote:A question: Elsewhere in this thread we've discussed how the Roman four-pommeled saddle was just as effective a fighting platform as a saddle with stirrups. (And we all agree that stirrups didn't find their way to western Europe until centuries after our period of interest.) Even if late empire or early post-empire horses were smaller, how did an armored warrior mount such a saddle?
Normally, someone riding bareback or with a girth strap, faces the horse, grabs a fistful of the horse's mane with his left had while resting his right on the horse's rump and leaps upward, twisting to swing his right leg over the horse's back. This should be an easy maneuver for skilled horse warriors. But if you add a four-pommeled saddle and the weight of a mail shirt, shield and baldric-suspended sword, it becomes almost impossible: he weighs a lot more, and he has to jump higher. In camp I suppose they might have mounting blocks, but in open field there may be nothing convenient to mount from.
Did I miss something? :?
A lot of questions there! 8)
I imagine the modern Equites Taifali are jumping onto their mounts. Probably build up leg muscles. Don't know what additional poundage all the armor and equipment adds. I trimmed almost 10 pounds from my own chainmail, and I think scale and lamellar armor was is even lighter. Some folks believe the steppe saddle was also in place during this period; and for sure, it was the forerunner of the medieval (and modern Portugese) saddle. My ridge helmet weighs 8 pounds, but the nasal interferes with "sighting" for archers like myself. I opt for a pot helmet with a chainmail aventail, much lighter. But I'm not a true horseman and also a man of advanced years. The younger guys, like John Conyard, would know more. For sure, the Roman horse was not tall. It was medium height and easier to mount than something like an Arabian.
But the actual Roman cavalryman DID mount his horse, maybe on the run. It was part of his training, mentioned somewhere. Perhaps Vegetius.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-16-2010
Quote:Perhaps Vegetius.
Wasn't it Vegetius who reported soldiers swimming major rivers in full armor? :wink:
So, are you able to hop onto your horse, fully dressed out?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-16-2010
Well, NO.
I no longer ride a horse, and I'm pushing 70.
But I think that a young guy could swim across the river, run through a gauntlet (maybe drunken Saxons), then moon Vegetius, and finally hop on his horse... IF he was Arnold Swartzenegger. :mrgreen:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-16-2010
Especially with the occasional help of a stunt double. :lol: