+- 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 - Matthew Amt - 09-08-2010
Quote: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.
Um, 39 pages and you're still stuck on leather armor? And then *iron-studded* leather *scale* armor?? What? DID you ever find any *evidence* for the use of leather armor in this era? And I'd have to go back and re-read it all, but I don't think anyone established that there was light, "medium", and heavy cavalry... How about, some horsemen have shields, helmets, swords, spears, and javelins, while some have mail or scale armor, shields, helmets, swords, spears, and maybe javelins.
Quote: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.
Hoo, not sure what to tell you, especially since I haven't read everything you have. I doubt anyone "favored" ford battles, they simply fought where they met the enemy. A ford would offer some protection to a force, since the attackers would have to cross carefully--strong currents and potentially treacherous footing means you just can't charge en masse! Remember, the bottom is loose rocks, sand, and mud, not any sort of pavement. And your flanks are covered because the crossable section of a ford is only so wide. Go too far upstream or downstream and suddenly you are swimming (or drowning!). The road itself would tend to be a hollow or depression with raised banks on either side, and the riverbanks would tend to be overgrown, making it difficult for anyone to cross the ford except at the roadway.
I really think there isn't enough space for all the maneuvers you are suggesting. Roads are narrow, and the only open space is probably the ford itself. If any force was "in a panic", they would not be in any respectable formation, and a cavalry attack would simply shatter them. Battle over. If they had time to grab shields and weapons, they could respond to the light cavalry attack with their own javelins, spears, and rocks, with the advantage of being able to mass far more missile-chucking men in a smaller area than any cavalry force, and being able to aim better, and being able to pick up and chuck back any British javelins. So they might not be "pinned" at all.
Am I missing a number of medieval references to left-handed warriors holding the right end of any formation? What "makes sense" to you may not have made sense back then. If your formation has solid flanks, or cavalry, or is simply as long or longer than the enemy formation, you probably don't have to worry too much about your right flank. It was probably pretty natural for men to just turn some to their right if it looked like the enemy was outflanking them, or for the whole line to curl back to avoid exposure.
Advancing into the ford in pursuit of the light cav, into the face of more Brits, seems like suicide to me. It wouldn't be nearly as complicated as you make it, but yeah, bad move overall. But being in the water would not prevent them from withdrawing or fleeing, if it wasn't inhibiting any of those dashing maneuvers before that! But again, I just don't think there is going to be space for all this--depending on the ford, you could be talking a frontage of 10 or 12 guys, fewer if mounted. If the Britons make it across the ford before the Saxons are on their feet with enough mass to stop them, it's over. But if the Saxons wake up in time (got sentries out?), they could stop the Britons anywhere near the water's edge, most of the British column is going to be stacked up on the road on the far side, unable to get into action at all. Riding off the road through the woods and shrubbery is a good way to get scattered, with twisted ankles for men and horses. Jumping off the overgrown riverbank on either side of the ford to try getting around the holdup is a good way to break legs or drown. This is why *most* battles happened in open fields!
Overall, I think most small actions were a lot simpler than your scenario, even if they went back and forth and were quite vicious and drawn-out.
But give up on the leather armor. Please.
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-09-2010
Quote:Overall, I think most small actions were a lot simpler than your scenario, even if they went back and forth and were quite vicious and drawn-out.
Yes, in fact, weren't most battles over right after first contact. I believe it was Alexander the great whose quoted as saying that the eyes are defeated first. I take that to mean that the appearance of victory often leads to the fact of victory.
Quote:But give up on the leather armor. Please.
But there was leather armor, wasn't there? I don't mean Hollywood's leather lorcia segmenta, but a basic leather-reinforced wool tunic or leather vest which gave the basic levy some protection from minor cuts and bumps, even if little against arrows and directed spear or sword blows. Not legionnaire's armor but used by auxiliaries or native peoples. Of course, no samples remain because they would have rotted.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-09-2010
Quote:But there was leather armor, wasn't there? I don't mean Hollywood's leather lorcia segmenta, but a basic leather-reinforced wool tunic or leather vest which gave the basic levy some protection from minor cuts and bumps, even if little against arrows and directed spear or sword blows. Not legionnaire's armor but used by auxiliaries or native peoples. Of course, no samples remain because they would have rotted.
I don't think there is any evidence for the sort of thing you are thinking of. Unless you make scales out of it, leather or hide as armor would have to be thick and fairly rigid. If you are going to use an outer layer of thinner flexible leather (more like garment leather) over a padded or quilted garment, it's more for waterproofing, while the textile part does the protecting from weapons. But I don't think there is much in the way of evidence for padded or quilted armor for this time and place, either!
There is absolute proof of leather and hide being used as armor and shields from a number of different times and places. Sometimes it is something quite expensive, not at all "cheap" armor. But I have yet to see any culture where the lower-class warriors or levies (or even the upper class elites!) were hung up on getting any sort of protection they could, however inadequate. It was just too common for people to go to war with nothing more than a spear and a shield, and that was not seen as a terrible disadvantage. Speculating that someone "just wanted a little something extra" or was "making do" with a hastily-invented leather vest simply does not follow the evidence we have. They just didn't think that way.
You've probably heard this a hundred times from me, but it's really a good idea to steer clear of baseless speculation, claiming that all the evidence may just have rotted away. It's the usual fall-back for the leather armor crowd, and it holds no water. Literary or pictoral evidence would be enough for me, but there isn't any. So my rule of thumb is, if it's a non-essential item (like leather armor), and there is no evidence for it, pretend it doesn't exist. Stick with what we DO have evidence for, as much as possible!
Valete,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-09-2010
Sounds clear enough.
I knew I was speculating, but--having been to war a couple of times--I remember soldiers doing all sorts of creative (and occasionally illegal) things to improve the protectiveness of their gear. I assumed ancient people were no different. :roll: (Of course, the hastily called levy would have to fight with what they had, even if only the sharp stick they farmed with.) Extra layers of anything would cushion a blunt blow and a hard surface might deflect a projectile striking less than perpendicular.
Googled it and, while many agreed there was no ancient leather armor, did find these citations:
[url:1pujeopu]http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwell/ejournal/beltane/warfare.htm[/url] "Additionally, the typical noble warrior probably wore armor and helmet, all made from leather."
[url:1pujeopu]http://www.archeoart.org/reconstit.html#cuirasses[/url] (French language) displays leather cuirasses
[url:1pujeopu]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass[/url] includes the provocative statement, "the original breastplate being of leather." (For those eschewing Wikipedia as a reliable source, that particular article includes the following statement: "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.")
Do those count? :?
Thank you.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-09-2010
Quote:I knew I was speculating, but--having been to war a couple of times--I remember soldiers doing all sorts of creative (and occasionally illegal) things to improve the protectiveness of their gear.
Oh! Modern warfare is hardly my specialty, but I don't recall running across things like that. So it's interesting to know! I *have* heard of modern soldiers discarding protective gear at times, or of officers having to make sure that they wore their body armor, etc.
Quote:I assumed ancient people were no different.
That just doesn't seem to be a safe assumption, in my experience.
Quote:(Of course, the hastily called levy would have to fight with what they had, even if only the sharp stick they farmed with.)
Most cultures had laws requiring a minimal set of equipment for militia duty, typically shield and spear. Those who could not meet that requirement were generally not required to fight.
Quote:Extra layers of anything would cushion a blunt blow and a hard surface might deflect a projectile striking less than perpendicular.
Careful--if they are attempting to farm with only a pointed stick, they aren't going to have much around to wear for protection, eh? Sorry, I'm just pickin' on ya! Extra layers of clothing are a possibility, but how much clothing did the average dirt farmer have? And we don't see anything like that in artwork, nor read of it in literature. There *is* a growing theory that several thick tunics may have been worn under mail before the appearance of specialized padding, but again, that would be a wealthy man. And it's only speculation!
Quote:Googled it and, while many agreed there was no ancient leather armor, did find these citations:
[url:x0quuobr]http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwell/ejournal/beltane/warfare.htm[/url] "Additionally, the typical noble warrior probably wore armor and helmet, all made from leather."
Sounds like old Victorian BS, especially since on the same page they actually cite finds of METAL armor and helmets!
Quote:[url:x0quuobr]http://www.archeoart.org/reconstit.html#cuirasses[/url] (French language) displays leather cuirasses
Yes, those are Celtic, probably early La Tene c. 500 BC, based on several good depictions in artwork, and clearly derived from the Greek cuirass (which at that time was more likely leather than linen!). You'll note that they are quite ornate--these are *not* examples of poor men desperate for more protection! And they are a thousand years off from Post-Roman Britain, of course.
Quote:[url:x0quuobr]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirass[/url] includes the provocative statement, "the original breastplate being of leather." (For those eschewing Wikipedia as a reliable source, that particular article includes the following statement: "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.")
Huh, they must mean the derivation of the word "cuirass" from the French word for "leather" (though I wonder if it actually might have come from the French word for "heart", like the Latin "pectoral"?). And even Encyclopaedia Britannica is not generally acclaimed as an authoritative work on Post-Roman armor! What would count is a legitimate primary reference to the use of leather armor, or an archeological find, as close in time and location to Post-Roman Britain as possible.
Leather armor DID exist in some places at some times! But it usually seems to be something for the middle to upper classes, specially made and not at all makeshift. There just doesn't seem to be anything that suggests the existence of the poor man's "leather jerkin" for armor use. That's all I'm saying. And since we know that it was quite common in many ancient cultures for wealthier warriors to wear less armor than they could have, it doesn't seem logical that the lower classes would be so frantic to add whatever protection they could find.
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-10-2010
My impression is that "late" leather armor (which is hardly armor at all!) was restricted to Tristan & Isoldt the movie. Namely because the producers couldn't afford metal armor. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 09-10-2010
Instead of armor I think it would be more like protection against the cold, sparks from a forge, etc. Welders and blacksmiths still use leather jackets, aprons, heavy gloves while working. Just a thought... 8) I would imagine as well a leather tunic of sorts would feel pretty nice under mail. Sort of like a "subarmalis".
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-10-2010
We're dancing around the subject of leather armor because several folks seemed to state categorically that there was no leather armor anywhere, anytime. Now we've shifted to, yes, there was leather armor but only for show and only for upper class. Or only somewhere else. :roll:
I really don't know, but the issue seems less clear than some of the absolute statements would lead one to believe.
Back to sub-Roman British cavalry. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a man wealthy enough to own a horse (or two) suitable for combat would also have a decent kit of combat gear? Perhaps including something to protect his chest and back? :?
Most sources agree that mail would have been hugely expensive during this period. So, tell me what's the logical--preferably supported by some sort of sources--next step below metal armor?
Osprey's book cover and Plate C. of Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars (sorry, Robert, I didn't name the book) shows a supposed North British cavalryman wearing what looks like scale armor. They (assumedly Angus McBride, since he did the illustrations) identify his helmet as Romano-Byzantine 5 c. from an example in the Coptic Museum in Cairo (p. 35), but say nothing about the armor. Lorica squamata was well attested to in the Roman period, but may not have been available in sub-Roman Britain. What was?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-10-2010
Quote:We're dancing around the subject of leather armor because several folks seemed to state categorically that there was no leather armor anywhere, anytime. Now we've shifted to, yes, there was leather armor but only for show and only for upper class. Or only somewhere else.
It's true that I was very anti-leather armor in general for a long time. The recent debate about the Greek spolas converted me on that score, at least. BUT I am still a stickler for evidence! And sometimes I think we do sound too much like "There wasn't any" when it should come across more like, "There is no evidence for it so we really should not speculate further on how common it was or what it looked like."
Quote:I really don't know, but the issue seems less clear than some of the absolute statements would lead one to believe.
Oh, yes! Good research always questions the answers rather than answering the questions, ha!
Quote:Back to sub-Roman British cavalry. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a man wealthy enough to own a horse (or two) suitable for combat would also have a decent kit of combat gear? Perhaps including something to protect his chest and back?
That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, offhand. BUT you might find illustrations from more or less that era, showing *unarmored* horsemen in battle. So either they are wealthy enough to own the horses but not armor, or they can afford it but haven't bothered with it, or they are retainers who were "issued" the horses but not armor, etc. So the evidence doesn't really answer the question.
Quote:Most sources agree that mail would have been hugely expensive during this period. So, tell me what's the logical--preferably supported by some sort of sources--next step below metal armor?
The sources that I have seen--Late Roman and early medieval illustrations--show combatants either in armor (mail or scale), or in just their tunics. That's how it is for hundreds of years, in different parts of Europe. So it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to apply it to Post-Roman Britain. Certainly mail was expensive enough to reserve it for the upper class--I'm not sure I'd say "hugely" expensive, unless it's agreed that the upper class tended to be hugely rich! But compared to today there wasn't really much of a "middle class" (I'm thinking the retainers of the nobility, merchants, some well-off craftsmen), most of the population being on the "low" end of the economic scale. So there wasn't much need for "middle-class" armor.
Quote:Osprey's book cover and Plate C. of Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars (sorry, Robert, I didn't name the book) shows a supposed North British cavalryman wearing what looks like scale armor. They (assumedly Angus McBride, since he did the illustrations) identify his helmet as Romano-Byzantine 5 c. from an example in the Coptic Museum in Cairo (p. 35), but say nothing about the armor. Lorica squamata was well attested to in the Roman period, but may not have been available in sub-Roman Britain. What was?
Well, like leather armor, there aren't any finds of scale from Britain for that period, but then there aren't finds of darn much anything! There are certainly enough depictions of scale armor from a few centuries before and after that I think it's safe to conclude that it was used, though mail seems to have been more common. So the McBride painting could have been inspired by any number of depictions of nobles or heroes in scale armor.
Incidentally, scale armor does not have to be metal. In other places and times it could be made of horn or even (Ta-daaa!) rawhide. So there's your "leather armor". BUT it still isn't for commoners--only leader-types are shown wearing scale armor (until you get up into the 12th century or so). (I'm planning a shirt of scale armor for my own "Post-Roman" impression, and I would LOVE to use horn but that would mean buying a lot of horns... Scrounging steel is free! So curiously (cuirassly?), metal is the cheap option for the modern reenactor, while the leather and other organics are outside the budget!)
Craig, many other folks have brought up leather gloves and aprons in this sort of debate, but it's really just another "logical" argument when we're really looking for evidence. And plenty of reenactors have tried leather tunics under mail--some love it, some hate it! It has the potential to bunch up more than wool, and it's going to be stuffier. That may make a big difference to guys who might be wearing armor quite often, but fighting only rarely. It should also be noted that gloves are almost *never* seen in depictions of early medieval combat.
Gosh, I hope I didn't scare poor Nicholas off!...
Valete,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-10-2010
Matthew,
Thank you.
Actually I did run across a re-enactor in leather scale armor and figured that would only be pouring fuel on the fire. :wink:
I also saw a reference to using horse hooves. Can't imagine having enough. Wouldn't the horses object? Surely not that many were going to the knackers in the fifth and sixth century.
The unavailability of mail is especially interesting after the Empire had produced hundreds of thousands of sets for the existing legions and auxiliaries (some of them). But that relates to the part of warfare I know best: logistics. Something that might be relatively easy to produce seems impossible just a few years later because the infrastructure has disappeared. For example, if we wanted to armor 100,000 men in mail today it would be enormously expensive and take a year or more. We know how. We have the materials. Small quantities are being produced as we speak. But we can't just order 100,000 out of a catalog. No infrastructure.
In AD 400 the infrastructure to support a standing army--including cavalry--existed in Britain. By 500 it (apparently) did not. A hundred years is a long time. Little of what we use on a daily basis lasts ten years. (How many of us drive ten year old cars daily?) If new was not being built continually, the ability to build it atrophies.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-10-2010
Nicholas apparently agrees with the majority, since he wasn't wearing body armor in his experiments.
It's all good stuff...even if it partly our imagining what might have been.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-11-2010
When we think about it, the period between the West's demise and the year 500 is only a quarter-century. It seems doubtful that ALL THE CHAINMAIL built during the first 3/4s of the century (plus the late previous one) should suddenly rust away or have been curiously turned into sturdy house-hold curtains.
hock: Here again, we are forgetting the visual evidence of Britons in mostly scale armor in that color illustration found in the Vatican ms of Virgil, which has been identified as written about the time of Gildas. The illustration has been posted on this thread and maybe another one.
Like Matthew, I'm making a cross-breed set of armor: chainmail with the top half of a set of lorica segmentata trimmed to easy archery. That illustration also shows a Roman bow.
As further "weird" armor, I have bought a modified set of "splint" arm bracers from Armstreet, constructed longer with three straps for use as greaves. Metal splint greaves were a less costly alternative, half leather and half steel/iron. They date back to Scythian times, I believe; but the idea persisted, and I think I saw one of the new Equites Taifali wearing a set.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-11-2010
But if the legions withdrew in the early 400s, the remaining mail would have been older.
Yes, I had forgotten about that illustration. (Now I have to find it. How did this thread get so long?)
I like the curtain idea. Could have been used in the bawdy houses for . . . well, never mind. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-11-2010
No you haven't frightened me off :lol: , I just thought it better to stay out of the debate! However I was wearing leather scale armour, with leather backing, over a leather jerkin. But more importantly I have gotten the book "Revealing King Arthur" by Chris Gidlow (Sorry, I didn't name the book) And have been pleasently suprised that it's about the archaeology of the late fifth century, plus I found some intriuging Archeaological evidence. At Four Crosses in Powys archaeologists have discovered a spearhead and a javelin tip. The javelin was made of a length of soft iron which had been bent and unbent many times, it had a head similar to Roman hunting arrows, but with a dimond cross-section. The length of the shaft behind it was also similar to an arrow but because of the socket it was evidently attached to a shaft of wood, maybe five feet long. Also found at the same burial was a spearhead. The spearhead was long and tapering as well as leaf-shaped and had a stiff central ridge. Please tell me what you think of this new data.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-11-2010
Leather on leather on leather? Might be another one of those bawdy house props. :wink:
The date is certainly interesting, but I'm not qualified to comment on the authenticity or relevance of archeological finds. Gentlemen?
Thanks for the book referral.
In reference to my earlier comment about improvised armor, google "hillbilly armor" to see what being done in Iraq and Afghanistan. By definition wouldn't much of the protective gear of our subject time period have been ad hoc, gleaned from battlefields, handed down in a family or gifts from leaders?