+- 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 - 08-30-2010
Quote:I don't know about exactly which side the sword was on for Romans.Not here please.
1) there's been a boatload of info on that topic on this forum - use the search function.
2) it's totally OT.
Come to think of it, this thread has been going lots of place besides Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry during my holiday. Best close it or start new topics, this is NOT a dumpster for all kind of realted issues - there are plenty threads for Roman cavalry, swords, etc.
Quote:Should we start a (separate) thread on the effectiveness of arrows and spears against various types of armor? :?I think there have been plenty of studies already in threads spread out over this forum. If you do, please use the forum first, then start a new thread but in another section please.
Meanwhile, I'm going to do some splitting here for late summer spring cleaning. :wink:
Mod mode out. :twisted:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-01-2010
Well, it was a good run and I, for one, learned a lot. :wink:
Thank you all. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-01-2010
Don't think we're done yet! Having finnished my test using accurate equipment, horses, and weapons, I have figured out a possible strategical use for the cavalry. If they were armed with spears, swords (Alanic), and javelins, and armoured with a small shield (45cm diameter), Ridge Helm, and a couple layers of leather. If anyone cares to find out, I'm here on and off all day.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-01-2010
Tell us.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 09-01-2010
THE SUSPENSE!!!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-01-2010
All right, I won't keep you waiting, much. *Starts Laughing Evilly* :twisted:
All right my first results were the use of the rope stirrup as a mounting instrument as opposed to the Celtic saddle. I found that wearing leather armour was a breeze and therefore it wouldn't be much work to wear it all day, meaning that you'd be ready for an attack almost all day. So basically all you'd have to do is jump on your horse and ride off to battle. Not as easy as it sounds.
Here are my parameters for effective mounting of a horse:
1. You need to get on the horse quickly
2. the fastest one is likely more effective
3. you must be able to run fifteen feet first before mounting. Roughly the distance between tent and horse
Though it's only my fifth time "Riding Roman" I found vaulting getting easier and easier, yet even so I timed myself at a 70 seconds, or a minute ten, to get into the saddle vaulting, it took a few tries though I guess someone with more experience could do it faster but still; it takes a few tries to get and on top of that you have to swing your eintire torso around, exposing yourself to anyone with a bow or javelins. However the primitive rope stirrups allowed me to get on the horse right away, as well as minimizing hang time in which I'd be a sitting duck to anyone with a North Germanic bodkin arrow, IE. any Anglo-Saxon wanting to kill me. With stirrups it took me half a minute to get away from the starting zone and presumably get away from or attack the Saxons who assaulted the camp. Feel free to post while I'm gone, and don't die of suspense. My next results are putting kit on while on a moving horse. Which adds to the ability to become combat-ready in a short period of time. Stay tuned.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-01-2010
Is there any evidence for "rope stirrups" in sub-Roman Britain? I suppose that rope and leather would only persist in unusual circumstances. So there may not be any archeological remains. In literature?
Where did you get your design? is it something used today?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-01-2010
I'm a little confused--it took you over a minute to "vault" into your saddle?? It should take about as long as it takes to sit down in a chair, shouldn't it? Reenactors do this all the time, with mail and shield and a 4-horned saddle without stirrups or loops. Grab, hop, thump, about 3 or 4 seconds. I suspect that your "test" results will not give an accurate idea of how it worked for highly experienced warriors who were probably trained riders from the time they could walk!
You also seem to think that battle preparation begins when the enemy is already about 50 feet away and closing. Most of warfare was not sneak attacks at night! So there was generally plenty of time to dress, armor up, mount, and get into formation, long before anyone got into archery range. Sure, a sneak attack could be devastating, but launching such an attack was more complicated than you think, and the chances of getting lost in the dark or simply arriving with an exhausted, sleep-deprived force was often too great a risk. And having a few sentries and any kind of barricade or ditch and rampart allows the defenders to be awake and ready in time to wreck your assault. That's why people fought during the day!
I also don't see much point in putting on gear while in the saddle. I suspect they'd already be wearing their mail if they suspected any enemy contact at all, so all they'd have to do is put on their helmets. If there was unexpected contact with the enemy, they'd either hop off their horses to armor up (probably take about a minute), or just go in with shields if there wasn't time for that.
It is wonderful that you have an opportunity to do some riding in some sort of kit! It just doesn't sound like you're going to get TOO many valid conclusions from it!
Have fun,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-01-2010
@ Matt: No but that's what practice is for! :lol: Also the gear I'm talking about is a helmet, and the shield. You can't get on a horse easily with a shield on your arm. Also the getting on also includes the time it takes to run to the horse.
@ Ron: Uh, Rom, I got the rope stirrup idea from you a couple of pages back. Oh yes, and the design is just extremely simple, just a length of rope with a loop on the bottom.
Anyways I am aware that there would normally be a lot of time to get kit on and prepare, though what I'm illustrating is a worst-case scenario, and at the point I'm at right now I still think that rope stirrups would be the best thing to get onto a horse. Anyways, my ideas are just fule for this discussion, if we really want to know how fast someone in armour can vault into a saddle we should ask John Conyard. Oh, yes and it took about a half a minute to slap on and strap up a helmet and grab my shield off of the saddle horn. Actually it was quite interesting, the helmet strap was like putting on a watch, you can only do it effectively with one hand. I was worrying about the reins with my other one.
That means that I'd be combat-ready, at my level, in a minute with stirrups made of rope, and a minute forty with a Celtic saddle, though with more pracitce it'll likely go down to about a minute ten total. Just another next to useless piece of data, but its still got some use. Next up, weapons testing, mine and a Saxon's. Which then leads into what I'm going to do to make sure I'm not going to get squeered by a guy with a spear :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-01-2010
I mentioned the soft stirrup because I'd read about it in a different context. If it was used on the Continent before introduction of the hard stirrup, perhaps it was used in Britain, too.
Interestingly, the source mentioned it for reducing fatigue on long rides, not to facilitate mounting--though you have certainly noted it helps there. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-02-2010
A notable contribution to understanding the continuation of Roman practices and institutions after the legions withdrew can be found at " Romanization of Auxilia" on the Roman Military History and Archaeology forum. While it doesn't directly address our issue, it's good background.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Vindex - 09-02-2010
Thanks for the link!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-08-2010
All right then, I did promise you guys the rest of my results and you're going to get them. Right so as far as I can tell a Romano-British warband would consist of levy infantrymen, maybe militia, the number depends on the location; and maybe four or five dozen cavalry. (Numbers approximate and based off what we came up with a couple pages back on the maximum number of cavalry a couple of villages could supply)
At least two of those five dozen would be light cavalry, a simple leather breastplate, a shield, and a dozen or so javelins. An additonal two dozen would be medium cavalry, iron-studded leather scale armour, ridge helm, Alanic longsword, a good shield, and maybe several javelins. And the final dozen would be the local lord and his guards; these men would have the best armour available, mail and maybe scale, a ridge helm, an Alanic longsword, javelins, and a spear (10 feet long).
Now from the literary sources I have it seems that Britons favoured dawn, and ford battles, usually both at once. As far as I can tell, I'll give a narrarative of how I think, with my own personal knowledge, what just makes sense, and the limits of what one can do astride a horse, a battle between a British warband, and a Saxon raiding force, would go down.
The Saxons are across the ford in a panic because they have been woken to the sound of a British force arriving, they grab all the equipment they can and rush to the ford to try and meet the Britons before they can cross over and gain a foothold. Meanwhile the British light cavalry has already made it across the ford and is pinning the Saxons down by riding back and forth across their line, throwing javelins into the panicked ranks of the shield wall. Once they are out of javelins, or the Saxons get a hold of themselves, tighten the line, and advance, the light cavalry reels away and runs back across the ford with the Saxons following close behind. Waiting in the ford, however, is the British infantry, who have their own javelins and a good amount of archers. The Saxons are stopped in the ford by a hail of javelins under which the Britons advance and start attacking the Saxons directly. This melee would be pinned down mainly by its own attack, and it deters the Saxons from trying to envelop the Britons due to their archers, who might have had bows similar to either Hunnic ones, or a bit more like the ninth century Welsh longbows. With pressure constanly being put on by the infantry and archers, the medium cavalry wheel in in a diagonal fashion, and then pull away at the last second while hurling javelins into the flanks of the shield wall. About a dozen horsemen are corvering each flank, but the British left will be the one who gets the best chance at causing casualties due to the Saxon tendancy to fight right handedly, meaning that on the British left, the Saxon's right, there will be no shields to protect the men who are now under assault by the cavalry. This is why being a lefty would make sense, coming in from the left you can still defend from a frontal attack would be easy because you still have your shield, and you'd be able to easily bypass the Saxon's spears as you wheel in and away from them the Alanic longsword would have alll the inertia and momentum of the horses' speed, and turning bcked by your own swinging force, in other words it's going to cut through what you put it against, an unprotected side, keep on going and due to its own momentum make a full stroke recovery. I believe Alanus mentioned that this "Dash and Slash" method was a very popular Alanic style of attack. However the Saxon left wouldn't be so easy to attack, this would leave the cavalry either trying to pull behind the shield wall under covering fire, or just trying to intimidate the men to run away. At this point, if everything is going well the Saxon shield wall is starting to fold in on itself, making the cavalry on the Saxon left have an easier job, while the British shield wall is protected from heavy casualties by the constant literal pressure that they'd be applying to the Saxons' shields and spears, preventing them from striking back, and the water their in makes everything harder anyways, though I'd guess that at this point in the center of the battle the Saxons would be gaining the upper hand. Now at this point in the battle the medium cavalry would be reforming, and on the Saxon right the heavy cavalry would be forming up with the medium cavalry and preparing for a charge, hopefully a hail of javelins from both of those units, and the intimidation factor of a bunch of men on horses charging towards you, would cause those men to break, and make thier escape next to impossible because of the water, the Britons would ride them down, and if the rest of the Saxons already hadn't made a run for it, they'd turn around and strike them in behind. If the battle went down like I described the ending of it would likely be a slaughter led by the archers and the cavalry on the routing men.
Well? What do you think?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - M. Demetrius - 09-08-2010
Sounds exciting, but I wonder about the archers. I don't think the Britons used them as much as some other cultures. It's a good tale, though. Good imagery.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-08-2010
You should see when I write it as a story and not as a report :wink: