+- 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 - 09-16-2010
Quote:...I have read in Christopher Gidlow's new book that a skeleton found at Stonehenge, was likely one of the Tyrants that Gildas disclaims, mainly Constantine of Dumnonia. The man was about thirty-five at his death, which would make sense, and had been executed via one clean sword chop to the neck, and burried at the place of his execution. This individual was also rather well-built, robust even. He had been in good health, and had obviously been pampered as his body showed little sign of the average wear and tear one would expect on your average warrior. The archaeologist dated him quite calmly to roughly just after Gildas wrote his sermon but others have tried to refute this date and said he was two centuries too early in his dating. They said that he was a Saxon noble who had been executed as an example to others not to mess with the ruling house. The one who originally reassesed the skeleton recently thought that he was a British king who had crossed one too many lines and was being executed by a higher power (The High King) for his crimes. The only one who matches up with place, time, rank, and misdeeds is Constantine. I believe the first assesment and would gladly like to see a reconstruction of what this man looked like. Then finally we'd have a nice substantial window into this shadowy period in time. What do you guys think? Even the unreliable Geoffrey of Manmouth agrees with this one!
Sorry, but WAY too many wild assumptions piling up, here! For starters, how does the archeologist know this guy was buried where he was executed? Was there a forensic study of bloodstains on the ground? For that matter, how does he know it was an execution and not a murder, or simply a battlefield death? In any case, making up reasons *why* someone was killed is pure speculation. As Benjamin points out, this guy could be ANYone from a very wide span of time, so any conclusions about his nationality or supposed crimes is complete fantasy. IF we have literature from some ancient author telling of someone who was executed by a stroke to the neck and buried at Stonehenge, and it includes a full description of him including dental records, matching this skeleton perfectly, I'd say that's a positive ID. Otherwise, sorry, but call me skeptical!
The whole point of this thread is to be MORE rigorous and careful with our evidence, not to play fast and loose with tiny scraps, or make leaps of logic based on vapor.
Valete,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 09-16-2010
Agreed, I was far too hasty and excited with this and there was little enough evidence, my appologies. Perhaps, to get back on track, we should do a revised weapons and kit check?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-17-2010
I'm in favor of that. But I'll leave it to someone with more mental energy than myself.
And let's avoid those plumbatae. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-17-2010
Quote:I'm in favor of that. But I'll leave it to someone with more mental energy than myself.
And let's avoid those plumbatae. 8)
Right, they hurt! :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 09-17-2010
Shield
Spear and/or Javelins
Often Sword
Often Helmet
Sometimes Mail or Scale Armor
Didn't we establish this 5, 10, 20, and 30 pages ago? I really don't think we can get much more specific. With so little evidence, it's impossible to "settle" any details. For instance, it's a pretty good guess that a typical helmet would be somewhere on the evolutionary scale between a Late Roman ridge helmet such as the Burgh Castle example, and the later Saxon Coppergate or Pioneer helmets. And the Benty Grange helmet suggests that spangenhelms were also known. But from a reenactor's viewpoint, going ahead and building something like that is dancing with speculation, which I hate to do! I like basing my work on archeological examples, or decent artwork at least. But there is so little that we can rely on!
Oh, and in my list, "Often" and "Sometimes" are completely variable and debatable, of course!
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-18-2010
Exactly! Often I use sometimes myself.
It's like "partially alive" and "mostly dead but not totally dead." (Billy Crystal) :lol:
I wanted someone else to give the weapons list. (My "straight man.") Then I could add a dagger, but not a fork (not until 1600 or so). Is a dagger a weapon or a utinsel? Can we ask the Gloucester Goth?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - WorkMonkey1 - 09-18-2010
A dagger or a knife?
The gloucester "Goth" was buried with a knife, but no dagger.
I doubt a knife could be considered a weapon, unless in-extremis in domestic brawls.
Would an armoured man with a horse and fine war gear really take his eating knife into battle with him? I doubt it.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-18-2010
The Gloucester Goth, perhaps not a Goth at all, was buried with a knife worn in dagger fashion-- the same way an Alan wore an akinakes. In this case, its intent would be nebulous. Maybe it was considered a weapon, maybe an eating knife... probably both. And even though the "Goth" was "totally dead," he probably had more of a sense of humor than you do. Please! Lighten up. It was a joke.
Sincerely,
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-18-2010
Actually, being "totally dead" has some advantages over being "mostly dead." It's hurts less, for one thing. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - WorkMonkey1 - 09-18-2010
Quote: he probably had more of a sense of humor than you do. Please! Lighten up. It was a joke.
Now now, play nice.
I'm not sure what you mean by "worn in dagger fashion" though.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - M. Demetrius - 09-19-2010
Quote:Actually, being "totally dead" has some advantages over being "mostly dead." It's hurts less, for one thing.True, but you can't storm the castle if your totally dead. Best you could hope for is a good toss with a catapulta.... :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-19-2010
Quote:Quote:Actually, being "totally dead" has some advantages over being "mostly dead." It's hurts less, for one thing.True, but you can't storm the castle if your totally dead. Best you could hope for is a good toss with a catapulta.... :roll:
The old catapult trick was used in the movie Jabberwocky to good effect. When the guy landed, he was totally dead. :wink:
Back to Workmonkey,
No insults intented. Oft enough, a secondary blade was carried (into battle or not, but carried upon your person). That was the purpose of the pugio earlier on. In post-Roman Britain, warriors or soldiers probably carried something just as utilitarian such as a dagger or knife. The "Gloucester Goth" wore his knife in a sheath strapped to his upper right leg-- "quick-draw dagger fashion." This technique was first used with an akinakes (dagger) and it became all the rage from the Kuban to Arabia and Britain. Since we were listing "maybe" weapons, I thought it might fit the scenario.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-19-2010
Quote: The "Gloucester Goth" wore his knife in a sheath strapped to his upper right leg-- "quick-draw dagger fashion." This technique was first used with an akinakes (dagger) and it became all the rage from the Kuban to Arabia and Britain. Since we were listing "maybe" weapons, I thought it might fit the scenario.
I agree. The mode of wear--"strapped to his upper right leg"--implies the knife/dagger wasn't just used for table service. It may have been constructed as a table knife but if it was used as a dagger, it was a weapon.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 09-20-2010
Hello Ron,
The idea of carrying a secondary blade on the battlefield has to be an old one. In Britain, on the "other side," we know the Saxons and Angles carried a seaxe. This had to be a primary blade for those who couldn't afford a sword, probably a majority of the warriors. Whether it was single or double eged mattered little, only in name (example in Chinese: the jian and dao). That's why I thought it should be included in our weapons and armor list. As time went on, such a blade was carried tucked into a belt, used both for feasting and protection yet still a weapon.
Over all, I don't think the sub-Roman Britons were so "materially poor," as mentioned in some previous posts. If we could have been a proverbial "fly," we might even be surprised at the continuity of Roman culture during this period. This appears substantiated by the written word, still in Latin after the sub-Roman period. (And still studied as a compulsory language by the Victorians who evidently dismissed how Latin arrived in their academies in the first place!
hock: ) Someone mentioned the Franks and Gauls as another example (maybe Robert); and we can include the Goths who were still quite "Roman" in 700. The idea-- that Roman culture dissipated at an alarmingly fast pace after 476-- might persist among individuals still reading pre-1980s opinions, but we are gaining a new picture of post Roman societies and it ain't all that bleak. 8) Lucky for us, today's Latin might be mostly dead but not totally dead, now elective in public schools. :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 09-20-2010
Alan,
I agree. Of course, probably fewer and fewer people probably read Latin (or any language) during this period.
I've read that civilization is a veneer only two generations thick. Which I take to mean that even we could degenerate back to cavemen that fast if all the underpinnings of our culture were removed, Lord of the Flies fashion. But what the consensus seems to be saying here is that the Roman underpinnings of sub-Roman Britain were not kicked away, and in fact are still evident centuries later. Today, even.
What I think I see is a political disintegration which worked against an organized resistance to the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps because the sub-Roman Britons didn't see the Germans as as big a threat as their neighboring tribe, civitas, warlord/kinglet. Just as rival emperors destroyed huge portions of Rome's army fighting each other even as barbarians overflowed the empire's borders.
So the technology to field a well-equipped, well-organized military, including cavalry, remained, but the focus to do so did not? :?