+- 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 - Conal - 07-21-2009
To clarify what I am envisaging;
Heavy; Helmet, sword, spear,mail coat,shield .... no horse armour.
Light; No mail coat and maybe even not a helmet. Missile weapons ... javelins/spiculum/bow. Shield & sword ... spear.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - marka - 07-22-2009
300 does seem to have been a favourite number for a number of ancient writers
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 07-22-2009
Quote:300 does seem to have been a favourite number for a number of ancient writers
Possibly due to classical influence in refeernce to the standard Roman ala of 300 per Legion?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - marka - 07-23-2009
Quote:marka:9qmie3q8 Wrote:300 does seem to have been a favourite number for a number of ancient writers
Possibly due to classical influence in refeernce to the standard Roman ala of 300 per Legion?
we do seem to see this number a lot,i'm just wondering if any large band was classed as '300'
which would be a lot of men by dark age standards.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-23-2009
Three hundred armed, experienced, trained and disciplined warriors--on foot or mounted--could have made a lot of difference in a fifth century battle, especially if they were backed by a local levy--even if the latter were mostly farmers or hunters.
But there seems to be no direct evidence that such a force actually existed, though the clues in various literary sources are tantalizing.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 07-25-2009
Quote:Three hundred armed, experienced, trained and disciplined warriors--on foot or mounted--could have made a lot of difference in a fifth century battle, especially if they were backed by a local levy--even if the latter were mostly farmers or hunters.
But there seems to be no direct evidence that such a force actually existed, though the clues in various literary sources are tantalizing.
What if one guy couldn't make it? It would be the 299! :lol:
I don't know what constitutes "direct evidence" in this game, Ron. But the figures "three hundred" and perhaps more important "nine hundred would listen to him" both come from the song "Chair of the Sovereign." A few years back, the "historicity" of songs (Celtic or otherwise) were dismissed. Today many of us have a different view. Cassiodurus could never have written the History of the Goths had it not been for the Greutungi singers of songs. Bardic songs remained accurate because the meter, rhyme, and inflection could not be changed without altering the poetic structure. It remains the oldest form of "history;" and when it is altered by changes or additions, the result is noticable. We see this "pollution" in the Death of Geriant, where the verse concerning Arthur is a spurious addition. :roll:
It seems likely that the references to three post-Roman cavalries may derive from truth. If this is the case we may be looking at scaled-down alae from the Roman figure of 500. Much has been said on these threads about the need for monies, horses, armor, etc., along with the pros and cons of Britain's post-Roman capabilities. I see no problem. A Briton unhitched his horse from the plow. He cut a 7-foot ash for a lancea... and in a pinch, whittled and hardened the point without even using an iron head (if that what "emergency" required). The Brits were not destitute farmers and had a fairly rich "tyrannus" in every canton. They had grandfather's armor and sword. And they retained Roman tactics. All of these components would have aided an effective British cavalry-- a cavalry that even in the 19th century was still called the Royal Lancers. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-25-2009
Could be. Direct evidence would be the Briton equivalent of the Sutton Hoo find. The stele photographed earlier on this thread is good, but tells us nothing about numbers.
Sagas and songs give us valuable insight to the thinking of a paople, but can be exaggerated. :wink: Generally, ancient sources are trusted more than modern ones because we know everyone lies about everything today. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - marka - 07-27-2009
Quote:[quote="Ron Andrea. If this is the case we may be looking at scaled-down alae from the Roman figure of 500. Much has been said on these threads about the need for monies, horses, armor, etc., along with the pros and cons of Britain's post-Roman capabilities. I see no problem. A Briton unhitched his horse from the plow. He cut a 7-foot ash for a lancea... and in a pinch, whittled and hardened the point without even using an iron head (if that what "emergency" required). The Brits were not destitute farmers and had a fairly rich "tyrannus" in every canton. They had grandfather's armor and sword. And they retained Roman tactics. All of these components would have aided an effective British cavalry-- a cavalry that even in the 19th century was still called the Royal Lancers. :wink:
good points however in order to maintain a skill you have to practice it.
i have to doubt whether a warhorse would make a good plowhorse...but i'd welcome the views of any experts on this.
also i think many of the tyrants might have used foreign (ie irish or german)troops for their immediate bodyguards and tax collectors....these would have no local sympathies and would likely be more loyal.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-27-2009
Foreign guards were a common practice. That--and Roman practice with hired confederates--may have been part of Vortigen's motivation for hiring Anglo-Saxons to fight the Picts for him.
A warhorse on the Medieval style would not make a good plow horse, but there were probably times and places when any horse that could be ridden would be pressed into service as a war horse. If, as we were speculating, there was some sort of small, standing mounted force, their horses would probably be dedicated to military use--even if not bred or trained as particularly as Medieval mounts.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 07-27-2009
We are talking big ponies here so a bit of research is needed as current day plough horses are BIG
hock: I have a sneaking susupicion that Oxen were used for ploughing and horses for other stuff, riding and light draught work in the 5th century.
.... and what about Donkeys & Mules?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-27-2009
Don't know about donkeys or mules, but yes most plowing was done by oxen.
Horses drew carts. In fact, the models of "Celtic chariots" often found among really old burial treasures look like four-whelled carts, rather than the two-wheeled Egyptian/Persian/Roman chariots we're used to. Later Celts used two-wheeled chariots, too, though I don't know whether they developed them independently or copied others.
I suspect few sub-Roman common people owned horses. Too expensive to maintain, especially for a largely subsistence culture. In fact, few probably owned teams of oxen. He who did porbably rented them out (for a portion of the crop, since few folks had money), and/or mostly the rich and powerful owed oxen and horses...helping them become richer and more powerful. The Medieval model (pyramidal structure of fealty and service) partly emerged because no one could afford to maintain large armies of expensively equipped and trained warriors.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 07-28-2009
Was life in Sub -Roman Britain a subsistence existance??? I find that hard to accept as from what I understand farming practices changed little in the periods before, during and after the 5th centrury.
I am still to be convinced of this horse & cattle drought ... what is the expense of having cattle & horses? Feed? The Massai in Africa manage to run cattle on scrubland and it appears that a man owning 50 cattle is seen as reasonable .. thats 50 not 5 :?
We should not sell the post roman Brits short on animal husbandry. I am sure it was the developement of the feudal system which kept the subjects down by denying rights to land usage and therefore stock rather than the ability to run a herd. No acces to land no point in having animals that require grazing.
As a hold over from those times in the UK there are still plots of "common" land where locals have rights to graze ... the "wild" ponies of the new forest are all owned by somone ... they have a mass round up once a year I believe so they can mark all the foals.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-28-2009
Things would not have been bleak at first. Though I remember there was a cool period in the fifth or sixth century which greatly reduced grain harvests.
It's certainly a confusing period which isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing. We just don't know much of what went on, partly because of poor record keeping, but also because so much has been lost, disorted or overwritten since.
The commons lands practices stem from centuries after this time.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 07-28-2009
Quote:The commons lands practices stem from centuries after this time.
I was only using it to illustrate that it is possible to breed horses by just letting them get on with it. Once a year you round them up & sort out what you need ... all you need is the use of land.
If 5th century folks had access to land you can expect livestock. Once ownership of the land lay in the hands of a few and not the tribe then I will accept an impoverished peasantry ... but it does not make sense to me, especially if a money based economy was in suspension. I am sure that the church and what was left of the local administration would have organised a corporate response aas evidenced by the building of dykes etc
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 07-28-2009
True, true.
For at least one generation the Britons seemed to maintain enough Roman organization and practice to defend themselves.
In A.D. 407, the last legion left to support Constantine III's bid for imperial purple.
In 410, Honrius told the Britons to look to their own defenses.
In 429, St. Germanus, supposedly a fomer military man, is said to have helped stop an attack by combined Pictish and Scottish forces--the so-called Alleluia victory--but a generation later,
In 447, Germanus (may have) returned to Britain and reported local admin and churches much deteriorated . Assumedly military prowess degraded with the other trappings of Roman culture.
By the time Gildas wrote of the Ruination of Britannia (late fifth or early sixth century), things are pretty much flushed down the toilet.