+- 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 - 08-16-2010
Quote:mentioned somewhere. Perhaps Vegetius.Vegetius in De Rei Militari mentions that soldiers should be trained to "vault", which is often interpreted as jumping up onto a horse. Remember, they didn't ride Percherons in those days.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-17-2010
Yup.
I think hopping loaded on a mount is feasable, just difficult. And like I said, it depends on your armor's weight. As far as the rest goes, the sword or bow, they really don't weigh that much. If we consider the Britons then they probably had less armor to start with, and maybe they had some lacky who got down on all fours like the Emperor who was used by King Shapur as a footstool. :lol:
ps: Who was that emperor, anyway?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-17-2010
Yes, given the assumed size of sub-Roman British horses, hopping on should not have bee too difficult. I was concerned about the weight of armor, but as you say most of them probably wouldn't have had much armor. I don't doubt that they trained for just such a maneuver.
At the risk of going off topic, I notice many re-enactors struggle with the weight of their armor and shields. Is that because us moderns make our replicas too heavy, because the real stuff was pretty heavy, or because we're wimps? :lol: I lifted a replica lorcia segmenta once: it must have weighed 40 pounds (~ 18 kg.)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 08-17-2010
Quote:At the risk of going off topic, I notice many re-enactors struggle with the weight of their armor and shields. Is that because us moderns make our replicas too heavy, because the real stuff was pretty heavy, or because we're wimps? :lol: I lifted a replica lorcia segmenta once: it must have weighed 40 pounds (~ 18 kg.)
Training in armor is the same as a weighted vest and ankle weights. Marching is a great way to get used to the weight and before vehicles the common soldier walked.
wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-20-2010
Gentlemen,
I march in armor and the only thing that bothers me is the summer heat. Alternately and on occassion, I teach archery class in full armor. But I have removed chainmail from the sleeves and brought it up well above the knee. Enough was left over from a sleeve that I made a helmet aventail from it. No offense, but some reenactors are not as physically fit as they should be. My guess would be that if you wore the stuff day in and day out, it would simply "grow on you." 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-21-2010
I'm baaack! Did everyone miss me? Perhaps you should like to know that I did Roman, and Briton, riding for the first time this summer. Which is actually only the third time I've been on an off-trail ride. Though the folks at the stable might have found my requests ludicrous, like asking specificaly for a Welsh mountain pony, a steppe saddle, and rope stirrups, (The latter mentioned a few pages back in a catalouging post written by Ron Andrea) I did manage to get a good four hours of riding in on land that was similar to north Britain at the time, it was forested, with hills, some field, and gravel roads for riding on in a certain direction. Firstly getting into the saddle was a breeze with those primitive stirrups, though I doubt they'd hold me in place if I charged into something, and even with all the armour I wore (I had a coat of leather scale armour over a jerkin over a tunic and I wore a ridge helm) it was still easy to get in. Secondly the horse handled very well, responding quickly to knee pressure and one-handed rein pulls. (I also had a shield, built to the right dimensions, and I held the reins in that hand) Thirdly, even at a gallop holding on with my knees wasn't a chore and there was very little annoying pain from bouncing up and down the whole time. (I practiced with trotting a lot) fourthly the horse responded quickly when I asked it to. I had stopped in a clearing where I looked around a bit, then pretended I saw something, (Saxon warriors, but more likely Picts because of where I imagined I was) and with one tug on the reins and one swift kick I was off at a trot from a standstill and with two more kicks I was racing along. I still have to get to weapons practice, but the rest of you could answer better than I could. Any thoughts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-21-2010
Welcome back. Do you have pictures?
hock: Great bit of research. How were the rope stirrups attached? To a girth strap? I take it you mounted by means of the rope loops, not hopping up as we've been discussing on this thread recently. Did you ever try to just hop onto the horse?
Without getting too nosy: how much did you weigh, fully kitted out? And how tall was the horse?
Sounds like great fun, if nothing else. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-22-2010
Hi Nicholas!
Ah, the old "hands-on" research ploy. Or, in your case, "butt-on" research. :lol:
I'm like Ron-- wondering if you used a combination hop and hand-pull to saddle yourself without using the rope stirrups. Hey, and post a photo!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-22-2010
Sadly no pictures
Yes they were attached to the girth strap.
165 pounds. 13 hands.
And I did hop onto it as well as use the stirrups. Originally I thought that they were just a luxary when I did manage to hop into the saddle with ease, but when I practiced getting in quickly vaulting made me too exposed and it took too long. It was then I realised the benefit of such stirrups. I also tested my armour and I've found that leather armour is underrated. Even when shot at ten feet from a medevial crossbow the best that any ancient missile weapon could accomplish was either a bruise or a dent in the armour. Mail on the other hand, was easy to shoot into, expensive to maintain and make, and took far too long to fabricate. I made my full torso (Without sleeves) curaisse in just five days using period style tools and equipment. I still have to test spears and bladed weapons though.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 08-22-2010
Quote:I also tested my armour and I've found that leather armour is underrated. Even when shot at ten feet from a medevial crossbow the best that any ancient missile weapon could accomplish was either a bruise or a dent in the armour. Mail on the other hand, was easy to shoot into, expensive to maintain and make, and took far too long to fabricate.
Oh, boy, here we go again... You don't find it puzzling that almost all the soldiers, warriors, knights, heroes, and kings of Europe for a thousand years preferred mail? Just sayin'...
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-22-2010
Ignoring for the moment the relative merits of each armor type, ( and. of course, many sub-Roman Britons could afford no more than leather armor, some--leaders, perhaps--might have lorica hamata or lorica squamata.
My experience with such is limited to hefting a medieval hauberk, which must have weighed twenty pounds (~9kg). As said before I notice as many re-enactors heft their scutum, it looked really heavy. That is, they had to dip their shoulder and put their back into lifting it. You guys don't usually carry plumbata, do you? (I've seen that on a website.)
Still curious about a fully-kitted cavalry warrior "hopping" onto his horse. It would certainly be a skill improved by both repetition and conditioning, but if we posit relatively smaller people then adding the weight of a full kit, it seems to be quite a task to perform too many times a day.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-22-2010
Matt,
I'm not doubting the ability of mail, I'm just saying that for this time and place we're examining it makes sense
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Vindex - 08-22-2010
Without getting personal (!) may I ask how tall you are please ArthurOTB? And dare I ask how heavy (including armour?)
13hh is 132.08 cm. Vegetius mentions a cavarlyman being six foot tall (Roman, equates to about 178cm)
I am only asking as I am one of these annoying people who is not convinced Roman cavalry ponies were so small...(I'm not saying they're huge, just not so small).
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Gaius Julius Caesar - 08-22-2010
Thats only 5'10", so 5'7" would not be too big a difference either...
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 08-22-2010
Not too personal at all Vindex
I'm 5'9", and with armour I weigh 165 pounds. 8 pounds: Ridge helm
12 pounds: leather curaisse (Sleeveless, scale) and knee-length jerkin
5 pounds: shield