09-08-2006, 08:06 AM
We're trying to use logic to make up for the lack of evidence, either records or artifacts. But doesn't the very dearth of records indicate things unraveled pretty fast and pretty far in western Europe, especially Britain?
The "economic" argument against the production of large numbers of swords might be balanced by a "necessity" argument. If the Britons were being pressed hard, wouldn't they have sought weapons of whatever source or quality to arm themselves? Smiths who were only marginally trained may have tried to make swords, spear tips, etc., because they were so desperately needed.
The fact that some Saxons were buried in martial splendor while the locals were not suggests a hording of scarce resources, though some identify a religious motive.
The need, of course, may have varied (see that discussion elsewhere), but given the need the combatants must have armed themselves somehow--ragged or not.
Hi Ron,
First of all there’s no doubt that weapons were indeed needed. But as to what weapons, that’s the question. Some people were indeed buried with their weapons, but we don’t know if that signals an abundance of weapons or rather signalling that weapons burials were something extraordinary? Weapons burials are relatively scarce, and that, in turn, could signify a very low number of warriors, or, again, a scarcity of weapons that were only buried with someone on a very special occasion.
I’m not so sure that one arms oneself with anything, ‘whatever source or quality’. Source maybe, quality no – if your weapons are bad, you may die very soon. I’d rather not fight then fight with bad weapons. I think that would mean that men were armed with good spears then with bad swords. Spear heads are much easier to produce than swords.
But that’s how I think about it.
And about the unravelling of Roman society – indeed, the lack of sources does add to that suggestion. Roman towns had been deteriorating already during the 4th c., or rather losing their main function with which they had been created. We see this in the disappearance of the main public buildings, which only in some towns were replaced after disasters or falling apart. If they are retained they are changed in function – industry mainly instead of government. Add to that a loss in trade from the disappearance of Roman army and government, and growing insecurity on the roads, and I think the model that sees a loss of province-wide trade may well be correct. Produce became more local, towns were no longer needed as markets.
Britain more than Gaul – I heard that in Gaul most villas developed into villages. In Britain, most villas developed into rustic ruins.
The "economic" argument against the production of large numbers of swords might be balanced by a "necessity" argument. If the Britons were being pressed hard, wouldn't they have sought weapons of whatever source or quality to arm themselves? Smiths who were only marginally trained may have tried to make swords, spear tips, etc., because they were so desperately needed.
The fact that some Saxons were buried in martial splendor while the locals were not suggests a hording of scarce resources, though some identify a religious motive.
The need, of course, may have varied (see that discussion elsewhere), but given the need the combatants must have armed themselves somehow--ragged or not.
Hi Ron,
First of all there’s no doubt that weapons were indeed needed. But as to what weapons, that’s the question. Some people were indeed buried with their weapons, but we don’t know if that signals an abundance of weapons or rather signalling that weapons burials were something extraordinary? Weapons burials are relatively scarce, and that, in turn, could signify a very low number of warriors, or, again, a scarcity of weapons that were only buried with someone on a very special occasion.
I’m not so sure that one arms oneself with anything, ‘whatever source or quality’. Source maybe, quality no – if your weapons are bad, you may die very soon. I’d rather not fight then fight with bad weapons. I think that would mean that men were armed with good spears then with bad swords. Spear heads are much easier to produce than swords.
But that’s how I think about it.
And about the unravelling of Roman society – indeed, the lack of sources does add to that suggestion. Roman towns had been deteriorating already during the 4th c., or rather losing their main function with which they had been created. We see this in the disappearance of the main public buildings, which only in some towns were replaced after disasters or falling apart. If they are retained they are changed in function – industry mainly instead of government. Add to that a loss in trade from the disappearance of Roman army and government, and growing insecurity on the roads, and I think the model that sees a loss of province-wide trade may well be correct. Produce became more local, towns were no longer needed as markets.
Britain more than Gaul – I heard that in Gaul most villas developed into villages. In Britain, most villas developed into rustic ruins.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)