+- 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 - 09-11-2010
The trade off between the protective ability of armor and the agility of not wearing it seems to be the main difference between light infantry (or, presumably, cavalry to a lesser extent) and heavy infantry. In Gallic Wars, Caesar mentions picking the fastest of his soldiers, and having them leave their armor at home to run alongside the cavalry. Surely he knew about all the sorts of leather/metal/felt armors available to his troops, and decided that no armor was a proper choice in these instances, wouldn't you say?
I don't know about the historically correct versions of leather armors being discussed. For me, if you can't document it, but want to wear it anyway, that's your choice. I won't fuss, or count the stitches in your breastplate's seams. I probably wouldn't, but that's my choice. I might wear a soft leather cover over my subarmalis, or when I get around to making it, make the outer layer of deer or goatskin, just to make it wear longer under the hamata. But again, that's choice, not provable. And I wouldn't suspect it would add any protection at all, just a place to make a separation line between the oil and the sweat. Sweat/oil mayonnaise doesn't work well.
Cavalry? the rider can't be much nimbler than the horse he's riding, I'd suppose, so a clunk-footed mount would negate most of the agility of its rider. But that's not documentable, really.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Gaius Julius Caesar - 09-11-2010
Quote: Cavalry? the rider can't be much nimbler than the horse he's riding, I'd suppose, so a clunk-footed mount would negate most of the agility of its rider. But that's not documentable, really.
On the other hand, a chuck footed rider will not get anything good out of the best of horses.... 8) , except perhaps a bolt to the rear, of a wander off course to the greener pastures.....
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-12-2010
Quote:No you haven't frightened me off :lol:
Oh, good! I don't want to be TOO much of a meanie!
Quote: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.
Well, the javelin head sounds like a typical angon, probably pretty common weapon. (Though I'm not sure what they mean by "Roman hunting arrows"?) The spearhead sounds pretty typical, too. Presumably there was something else in this find to supply a date, at least tentatively? Cuz a generic iron spearhead could date anywhere from c. 800 BC to the 19th century AD! But I agree the angon (if that's what it is) would narrow that down considerably. Not earth-shaking, but finding weapons in the ground is always cool!
Quote: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?
Sure, a lot of it could be quite old, inherited or gifts. At least a little would be looted, but having dead *armored* enemies to loot would be a lot less common than dean *UNarmored* enemies! And as I understand it, good loot was generally claimed by the boss, to keep or give to his buddies. Not sure what you mean by "ad hoc"--if you were eligible for military service, you should know what gear was required of you well ahead of time. Not sure what would happen if you turned up without it! Fined? Sent home? Flogged? Beheaded? Issued with something minimal and told to get your butt in line? Dunno!
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-12-2010
Quote: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:
Ron,
You're assuming the "legions withdrew in the early 400s." Whilst I'm assuming (from historical examples) that the Romans didn't leave until 476. And how old does armor get, or even weapons for that matter, until its no longer protective, considering interim repairs? I have shot guns that are 200 years old. Somehow they didn't just rust away. Some of us are using 400-year-old swords.
And furthermore, certain entries on this thread give the impression that the Britons were so "mentally challenged" they were incapable of leather-working, of metal-working, even if the metal was old. Ingenuity and the human mind is capable of fantastic things. And when you're life is at stake, as well as the lives of your loved-ones, it's amazing how brilliant you can become. When we find a 200 year-old helmet in a man's grave, although modified, we are looking at this human penchant. 8)
Let's give the Post-Roman Britons a little more credit than what I'm reading about lately on this thread.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-12-2010
Quote: Sure, a lot of it could be quite old, inherited or gifts. At least a little would be looted, but having dead *armored* enemies to loot would be a lot less common than dean *UNarmored* enemies! And as I understand it, good loot was generally claimed by the boss, to keep or give to his buddies.
This reminds me of the reason Timujin rose to being Gengis Khan. When a leader keeps all the good stuff for himself and his "buddies," then his retainers become discouraged and defect to a more generous leader (as Gengis was).
If post-Roman Britain began in 409, or 476 (my call), and it ended in 700, then we are talking about a very short period of time in the long run. Britain fell to the Saxons not because men could no longer arm or armor themselves, but because they could not get their act together. And the "rapid" disintigration of armor seems to be poor rhetoric. If there is a paucity in archaeological finds, we are still looking at a small percentage of the total area yet to be covered. Britain is not King Tut's tomb, where you can home-in on the "good stuff" in a mile-wide area.
The very idea that all the blacksmiths ran out of iron (the most common metal on the planet), or that the leather-workers all got amnesia (What was I? What are all these cow-hides doing on my bench? :? roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Vindex - 09-12-2010
Quote:M. Demetrius:2cbahct8 Wrote:Cavalry? the rider can't be much nimbler than the horse he's riding, I'd suppose, so a clunk-footed mount would negate most of the agility of its rider. But that's not documentable, really.
On the other hand, a chuck footed rider will not get anything good out of the best of horses.... 8) , except perhaps a bolt to the rear, of a wander off course to the greener pastures.....
Well, if they're that "chuck footed" they wont be doing much riding as they will probably be admiring their horses from the underside side up, on the deck, denting their armour (or bending their leather) depending on your school of thought!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 09-12-2010
Seems like I got caught another time by that thread...
I would like to add my comment on several points raised in the previous posts.
It is certainly possible that roman armor and weaponry remained in use several decades if not a few centuries after their departures. It may have remained as heirlooms and gifts handed over and over. So it is a least possible that the warrior elite was mail-clad when going to battle. We do have accounts of mail and armor in both Y Gododdin and in mid-/late-anglo saxon England. Even if the later anglo-saxon kingdoms had rebuilt a better economy than the 5th-7th centuries petty brittonic kingdoms. The Aberlemno stone shows on one side helmeted and possibly mail-clad warriors on horseback in the Northumbrian side (the most brittonic of the anglo-saxon kingdoms) of the battle of Dunnichen, fought in 685 AD.
Equally, I think the majority of warriors would have fought unarmored.
As mentionned previously, the Vergilius Romanus codex shows warriors quite typical of the late roman period with scale armor and crested-helmets. It is however only one of the theories that it was made in 5th century Britain, not the only one. It could have been made somewhere else in the western roman empire.
Here are the spearhead and javelin head found at Four Crosses, Powys:
![[Image: fourcrossesspearheads.jpg]](http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4780/fourcrossesspearheads.jpg)
![[Image: 469822.jpg]](http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4681/469822.jpg)
They are really different of the weapons found in anglo-saxon context. The spearhead has a midrib, which you can find on late roman and continental germanic spearheads but quite rare on anglo-saxon ones. They were not found in a burial context, but next to a burial ground not dated very securly, possibly early christian. The datation is provided mostly on typological grounds. They are in the Welsh National Museum in Cardiff.
See here for the excavation report:
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata ... 03_106.pdf
Quote:I might wear a soft leather cover over my subarmalis, or when I get around to making it, make the outer layer of deer or goatskin, just to make it wear longer under the hamata. But again, that's choice, not provable.
It is proved, at least for the thauracomachus
The De Rebus Bellicis, that describes it, precise it is to be covered with "Lybian hides".
About the cost of weapons and armor, here a few prices from continental and/or later early medieval contexts.
Laws of Hydwel Dda: Welsh laws, 10th century but the manuscript is of 13th century date
Price of a spear, a bow and 12 arrows, or an axe: 4 pences.
Price of a "long" shield: 12 pences, 24 pences with fittings of silver or gold.
Price of a sword: 12 pences, 24 if "white-hilted" (ivory?)
Price of a horse: 120 pences.
Laws of the Ripuaires Franks: 6-7th century?
Spear and shield: 2 solidii.
Sword with scabbard: 8 solidii.
Sword without scabbard: 3 solidii
Helmet: 6 solidii.
Leg-protection: 6 solidii.
A good armor: 12 solidii.
Note that the wergild of a man was of 200 solidii to give you some comparison.
One solidus equates 12 denarii.
http://books.google.fr/books?id=OLyQ01e ... q=&f=false
Breton texts of 9th century date:
5 solidii for a sword.
20 solidii for a mail armor and a good horse.
20 solidii for a horse in another text.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-12-2010
Thank you for the pictures and maps, Benjamin.
By ad hoc, I meant each person had to see to his own kit. It was not centrally organized or administered. As many have written here, the levy knew what they had to show up with, and they did. How they did was their problem.
I think what I said about logistics was misunderstood. When the mass market--for mail armor, for example--disappears, the ability to make large quantities rapidly disappears. The Britons still had steel, blacksmiths and the knowledge, but they apparently had more important things on their minds: growing crops or squabbling with their neighbors. (It's true today also. Just a few years after the last American mission to the moon (Apollo 17), the capability to send another mission was lost. It still doesn't exist today. We know how, we have the materials, we just can't do it because the infrastructure no longer exists. History is repeating itself with the retirement of the shuttle fleet. For a few years (we hope only a few years), the United States will not be able to send men or supplies to the International Space Station. A military example, with the end of the Cold War in 1990, the production lines for many of the larger military weapons systems--aircraft, tanks, ships, submarines--were shut down or consolidated. Military planners tried to maintain some capability, but the ability to large quantities quickly is gone.)
There's an axiom somewhere that the higher the technology of (in this case) a weapon, not only is it more expensive but it is more vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. That should not have applied to sub-Roman Briton because most of what we're talking about is pretty low tech--though high quality steel was high tech in its day--but the Britons had other priorities. To make mail, one needs to be able to extrude large quantities of wire, then bend it (easily down), then weld half the rings and rivet the others. It took skill, time and resources. All of which were there, but apparently being applied to other ends.
The AD 476 date for the end of Roman Britain flies in the face of what was apparently happening in Britain and elsewhere (not to mention most history books). If the Romans were still in Britain then, why were the Britons themselves fighting the Saxons at Wippedesfleot (466)? Well, we really don't know that much and you guys are closer to the subject matter, so I'll concede the point.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 09-12-2010
I also doubt there was any mass production of weapons in that period, especially when it comes to swords, armor and helmets. But skilled craftmen were protected by powerful landlords, some of which were trading with the Eastern Mediterranea and Gaul. Those craftmen worked timber to build halls, jewelry (such as broochs) or were weapon-smiths. The few helmets and suits of armor produced by them would help the potentate to equip his retinue, as gifts, in echange for their lives in the battle. We can imagine that those pieces of equipment were then kept as heirlooms, or looted on the deads.
It is however very true that they had no fabricae, nor the power that could be afforded by the continental germanic kings.
Is it really important to put a date to the "end of Roman Britain"? We know roman culture and litteracy didn't vanished in the 5th century with every one going back to an iron age way of life. But Roman centralised power in Britain had collapsed in the early fifth century. It was then assumed by the next level, no more the diocesan authority but the provincial one (for Ken Dark) or even the civitas. Roman Britain may have killed itself, with civitates waging war on each other and the Saxons invited as extra-muscle in those wars. That's the theory brilliantly exposed by Stuart Laycock in his recent books.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-12-2010
Quote:Is it really important to put a date to the "end of Roman Britain"?
No, in fact, for my purposes, the later the better. :wink:
Yes, Roman Britain may very well have killed itself. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-12-2010
Quote:Here are the spearhead and javelin head found at Four Crosses, Powys:
Oh, excellent, thanks for posting all that! Yipes, right, that's not an angon--looks for all the world like a Museum Replicas socketed pilum head! WACKY. Yeah, have to agree these aren't typical for Post-Roman or even Late Roman, they look much earlier. Curious!
Thanks also for the cost information. I've seen things like that before but never manage to retain the information somehow... It does look like the horse is the major expense! Plus you have to feed it, house it, etc., whereas for a mailshirt you just have to keep it from rusting.
Cool stuff!
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-13-2010
Back to you-all, Benjamin, Ron, and Matthew
The stuff Benjamin has given us is enlightening!
Agreed, there were no longer fabricae. This seems to be a given. But the recent books of Dark, Snyder, et al, have stretched the Roman sphere in Britain to a later date, even though the Romans themselves were in the process of disintergration. Noted from above, Benjamin and Matthew have shown that craftsmen were still plying their trades, and among them were some talented blacksmiths. If we examine contemporaneous swords built in this period, we are looking at some of the finest examples of Migration Era weapons. The swords in Munich and the Bibliothique Nationale are exquisite examples. Any king worth his salt had one. It seems (as least my guess) that the gold-hilted sword of King Morgan was hardly different than King Childeric's. This weapon was used for pomp and show, passed from Morgan to his man (first knight?), then to the Church as a symbol of food-stipens, then back to Morgan again, all in great ceremony. It would be Snyder who placed this family (that of Saint Tewdrig) as the richest in Wales.
The Britons could not have fallen to dire straights until much later than we used to think. Ron mentioned them fielding a "home-grown" army against the Saxons in 466, and he wondered why? Simple, really. It goes back to the 410 letter from Honorius when they were told they were "on their own" when it came to defenses. The letter did not state they were no longer part of the Empire. This 466 army was probably a small one compared to 470. In that year, Emperor Anthemius appealed to the Britons for aid (which I believe enforces my argument that Britain was still within the Western Empire). A leader called "Riothamos" brought a force of 12,000 Britons from the Isle to Gaul as reinforments. If the Britons were so impoverished and lacking armor and weapons, how could they aid the Romans with such a massive field-army? And why would they aid Anthemius if they didn't still consider themselves Romans? :?
The shine of polished armor, the pomp of gold-hilted swords, and 12 legions-worth of soldiers, does not lend a picture of dire straights.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-13-2010
Yes it seems that our cavalry has become affordable once again. However I doubt Riothamos had 12,000 men with him, more than likely more like 1200. Also in the book "Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon wars" on page 15, figure B. The sword is called a "Grooved 650AD" type. However having reaserched extensively I have found no sword in the era they claim it came from but two centuries earlier I'm finding Alanic swords with that very design. It seems everything is coming together. Soon we're going to need a weapons and armour check. Also in Powys and Dumnonia a continued presence of mass military brooches and belt buckles continues into the mid-fifth century, your thoughts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-13-2010
Quote:Yes it seems that our cavalry has become affordable once again. However I doubt Riothamos had 12,000 men with him, more than likely more like 1200. Also in the book "Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon wars" on page 15, figure B. The sword is called a "Grooved 650AD" type. However having reaserched extensively I have found no sword in the era they claim it came from but two centuries earlier I'm finding Alanic swords with that very design. It seems everything is coming together. Soon we're going to need a weapons and armour check. Also in Powys and Dumnonia a continued presence of mass military brooches and belt buckles continues into the mid-fifth century, your thoughts?
Nicholas,
Well you know Jordanes the Exaggerating Goth. Makes it sound like King Euric defeated a larger enemy. :lol: But what is important, regardless of the actual number fielded, is that the Britons could send an army overseas to aid Rome at a time when-- SUPPOSEDLY!!-- the Saxons were tearing the island apart. It goes against the grain of "Welsh tradition," which in the long run appears to be "folk-exaggerated rumor" turned into "Victorian truth." 8)
I'd like to see an illustration of the "Grooved 650AD" type. Basically, the Migration sword grips got shorter, the grip check was widened and compressed into a quillion, and they got fancier with more cloisonne and less jewels. The grips remained ribbed, actually (I think) a piece of gold sheeting, silver on the less expensive. They had all kinds of attributed names-- "Hunnic sword" "Gothic sword"-- but they extended from Saka/Alanic models. I think the Frankish and Alamanic craftsmen hammered out the best later ones.
The buckles have always been called "late Roman" or "Germanic mercenary," typically with dragons, dolphins, and lions. Curiously, the same style of buckle is also found in the Balkans-- Taifali-Gothic territories.
Like I said, the newer picture shows a continuing of a quasi-Roman lifestyle throughout 5th century Britain. Gildas, writing c. 530, doesn't complain about a disintigration of prosperity even though he carps about everything else. So, yes I think nobles were still wearing decent armor and waving expensive swords, more expensive than the plainer ones Benjamin listed. :wink:
aj
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 09-13-2010
Nicholas raised a good point: given usual Jornandes exagerations, it is not really possible that Riothamus has gathered as much as 12.000 warriors, 1.200 already beeing a good number. The man was certainly powerful, he probably had power in Britain and was able to rely on the Letavi, the Britons settled in Gaul more or less recently. Certainly the traditionnal picture of Britons fleeing the Saxons to settle in Gaul is partially biaised. The reasons were much more varied, they had possibly to do with irish raids and colonisation, with civil wars, but were probably mainly economical and politic. The first Britons were settled in Gaul in the 4th century by Rome itself, and possibly in the 5th century, the Armorican civitates called for more reinforcements, to act against the expanding Franks of Clovis, the saxon raiders and the Wisigoths.
Back to Riothamus, Léon Fleuriot proposed that may have been Ambrosius Aurelianus title or nickname on several arguments. Stuart Laycock has recently proposed Riothamus was the leader of the Dumnonii by AD 465, and the beginning of the trade with Mediterranea can be linked to his alliance with Anthemius - a Greek emperor in the west.
Laycock also did a great work on British late roman belt buckles. There seems to be a lot of regional styles which can be linked to a specific civitas. That does include the territories of the Dobunni (not to be confused with the Dumnonii) or the Cornovi. Those buckles are mostly late 4th century or early 5th century in date. If it can be linked to a regional production for the regular army, Stuart Laycock argued in his book Britannia: the Failed State that they were equipping territorial militias, akin to those seen in a more recent context in ex-Yougoslavia.
See here a review of the book by Robert: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=24393">viewtopic.php?f=18&t=24393<!-- l
And here Stuart Laycock website on belt buckles: http://www.lateromanbuckles.org.uk/
About swords: we know a lot of exemples in frankish and anglo-saxon context for the late 5th/6th centuries, but none has yet been found in a brittonic context (except a possible saxon sword in Wales). We don't know exactly which type of swords the Britons used in that period. Did they kept going on the 4th century type roman spathae, or fashionned the germanic ones, or were their swords more similar to the (often) shorter exemples used by the Gaels and Picts in the early medieval period? We have really few weapons finds in western Britain generally speaking, save a few spearheads and axeheads. No burial finds, and poor acid soils that most of the time live the diggers without much metal artefacts.