+- 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 - Alanus - 06-18-2010
Quote:Hey guys,
apparently acording to this one article (I need to find the article again) the Scythians and Sarmatians used rope stirups to mount and support themselves on the horse. According to the same article they introduced them to the Northern Britons, such as the Votadini and the Kingdom of Ebrauc.
What are your thoughts?
Nicholas,
I would like to see the article-author's citation to "stirrups" used by Scythians and Sarmatians. Picturially, we have loops attached to the bottoms of Scythian trousers, the same type of loop attached to ski-pants when I was a kid. These could be easily mistaken for soft stirrups. We know that the Indus used this form, in leather not rope. There is a solid cultural-trade between the Saka-Massagetae and India, but there is no sign that the soft stirrup made it above the Indu Kush.
There was cultural borrowing that did affect the West and the Romans in particular. The Saka borrowed the Han Dynasty jian, and it shows up first on the Orlot battle plaque as an exact copy, an M-shaped hand guard, scabbard slide, and squared scabbard chape'. The same thing goes with the so-called "Sarmatian" ringed pommel, a direct borrowing of the Han dau (single-edged sword). Both styles entered the West, as mentioned by Pliny and found on the Hungarian Plain by Harmatta. A ring-pommeled short-sword (gladius) is in the British Museum.
Yet while these are examples of cultural borrowing, they are not "Sarmatian." They are Eastern Iranian as brought to Europe by Saka descendants, the Roxolani, Taifali, Aorsi, and Alani. Sarmatians arrived as the Iazyges and two related tribes, all of whom were descentants of Western Scythians and the Sauromatae. Nowhere, as of yet, is there any signs of stirrups arriving in Europe until we get to the Avars and Magyars, a time when the Western Empire no longer existed.
I hope this isn't a damper, but ancient depictions can be both enlightening and deceiving. :wink:
aj
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-18-2010
Thank you for the input Alanus and Mr.Conyard. I have recently been going back through my Roman library and have found a little, well rather large, gem of a book "Rome and her Enemies" by Osprey Publishers.
During my reenjoyment by pouring over it I stumbled onto a section about Celtic cavalry from roughly the time of the Bouddica rebellion. Interestingly enough these men had the same sort of equipment listed by Mr.Conyard three posts back, well, except they all had saddles and helmets. These men fought alongside light infantrymen, who defended them from enemy spears. The infantrymen were replaced by lightly armed legionaries in Rome's own recruitment of similar units from the Celtic Auxilia. These heavy horsemen would have thrown their javelins, helped break the enemy line using a spear for a few with help from the infantry, and then they left their spear in their latest victim and then ripped free their swords. It was certainly enough to help Bouddica take down a couple of legions and maul Camulodunum (sp?) and Londoninium severly. This was with just ten years of Roman occupation, little or no influence touched these cavalry's tactics at the time. But if we were to play this game a little longer we might suppose that the Celtic nobles of the Bouddica rebellion can be exchanged for Romano-British aristocracy. Most important of all, these Romano-Britons would have have at least four centuries of Roman tactics, weaponry, and armour ingrained into their fighting style. Perhaps, knowing that Agraes has given many splendid quotes about javelin armed light cavalry favoured by the Britons and the Bretons, that these light cavalry were the missile suppory, the infantry the defenders of the elites, and the cavalry were the men who just went in and destroyed the enemy line. Your thoughts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-19-2010
Sounds logical. I assume you meant "heavy cavalry" for destroying the enemy line as the third part of the last sentence. We hear much about how a tight line could stop heavy horse, the theory being that a horse would not charge into a solid formation. But look at the manouvers of a polo pony!
hock: (And where did polo come from? Persia.) Every horse culture seemed to deploy a light and heavy cavalry plus foot as spearmen and bowmen, even the Scythians, and there's no reason that the Britons were any different. Have you Caesar's de bello Gallico in your library? Good stuff in there.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 06-19-2010
Quote:...During my reenjoyment by pouring over it I stumbled onto a section about Celtic cavalry from roughly the time of the Bouddica rebellion. Interestingly enough these men had the same sort of equipment listed by Mr.Conyard three posts back, well, except they all had saddles and helmets. These men fought alongside light infantrymen, who defended them from enemy spears. The infantrymen were replaced by lightly armed legionaries in Rome's own recruitment of similar units from the Celtic Auxilia.
As I understand it, British cavalry in the first century AD was not highly regarded by the Romans. However, I believe much of that is based on just one source, so it may be an exaggeration. Units of mixed cavalry and infantry were common in the *auxiliaries* (legionaries not included), and seem to have been inspired by *German* warriors from Caesar's era.
Quote:These heavy horsemen would have thrown their javelins, helped break the enemy line using a spear for a few with help from the infantry, and then they left their spear in their latest victim and then ripped free their swords.
LOTS of ancient cavalry types used javelins or throwing spears, with swords as backup. Standard procedure, I'd say.
Quote:It was certainly enough to help Bouddica take down a couple of legions and maul Camulodunum (sp?) and Londoninium severly.
Um, Boudicca defeated about 4 *cohorts* of Legio IX Hispana, but the Roman cavalry got clean away. She did indeed destroy London and 2 other towns. The general belief is that her force was primarily infantry, with some chariots. Really not much cavalry.
Quote:But if we were to play this game a little longer we might suppose that the Celtic nobles of the Bouddica rebellion can be exchanged for Romano-British aristocracy. Most important of all, these Romano-Britons would have have at least four centuries of Roman tactics, weaponry, and armour ingrained into their fighting style.
Certainly the Late Roman army had a stronger emphasis on cavalry, and we know they used spears, javelins, and swords, with shields and at least some armor and helmets. Doesn't strike me as any surprise to see mounted aristocrats in Post-Roman Britain, because their military traditions would have evolved from the *Roman* military, not the Celtic system, though of course there was provincial influence in the Roman army since before the Empire began! (Doesn't really take 31 pages of discussion to get to that conclusion, eh?)
Oh, beware the Ospreys--good inspiration, but not always well documented.
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-20-2010
Matthew,
A good point about Ospray. I have eight or ten of their skinny books, and some are better than others. Innaccuracies are there, both in the text and artwork; so using these publications for inspiration on Roman Britain can be misleading.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-26-2010
Hello again guys.
Ok, over the past week I have massed together as many books in the public library about Sub-roman Britain as possible and have come to a set of traits that they believed about this era's cavalry.
Ok trait 1: The best cavalry in Sub-roman Britain belonged to the Votadini/Gododdin. Trait 2: The elites of this cavalry were descended from Sarmatian horsemen led by Romans alongside allied Votadini tribesmen who retired to Votadini Lands and who married British women. Trait 3: This is the one I think is most acurrate; they had an amalagation of equipment but at minimum had at least a spatha, a helmet, a shiled, and some kind of body armour. Some of them looked more Roman and had better armour and lances as well as swords. Others were more like the Celtic nobles I described earlier. They all agreed, however, that the best Sub-roman British horseman cobbled together the best equipment he could find. Trait 4: These men had a presence in the south due to their extreme effectiveness against dismounted troops.
Also, there was a strange anomoly in the early Welsh/ late British accounts of these horsemen; they almost all agree that they had red plume of either horsehair or feathers and a coptic tunic with borders and design of the same colour. Your own educated thoughts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Nathan Ross - 06-26-2010
Quote:Trait 2: The elites of this cavalry were descended from Sarmatian horsemen led by Romans alongside allied Votadini tribesmen who retired to Votadini Lands and who married British women.
Perhaps this whole 'Sarmatian' angle could just be dropped now, on the basis of there being no evidence for it whatsoever? :wink:
- Nathan
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 06-26-2010
Quote:Perhaps this whole 'Sarmatian' angle could just be dropped now, on the basis of there being no evidence for it whatsoever? :wink:I concur.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-26-2010
Quote:And me!Nathan Ross:buh2qebb Wrote:Perhaps this whole 'Sarmatian' angle could just be dropped now, on the basis of there being no evidence for it whatsoever? :wink:I concur.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 06-26-2010
Quote:Hello again guys.I would say the word "descended" is underrated. The "Alans" are before mentioned as "possible" descendants of the Sarmatians. And may have been conscripts of the Roman Army(edit: in Britain). When they settled in Britain they ceased to be Sarmatian or whatever in name and became British. Their tactics may have been retained but most of their culture would be dominated by Roman or British influences as they were perhaps 3rd generation or more at that time removed from the Steppes. Weaponry and armor would be similar or exactly the same as their Roman and/or British counterparts by then so Evidence would be scarce if at all. I am not a staunch believer of the Sarmatian theory but what is written in books is prime target for arguments if wrong; unless proven right.
Trait 2: The elites of this cavalry were descended from Sarmatian horsemen led by Romans alongside allied Votadini tribesmen who retired to Votadini Lands and who married British women.
I think "ArthuroftheBritons" was simply stating what he finds for the sake of learning. Like is often said we "know" little about this period; and it is one that has alot of B.S. to sift through. Some pretty fanciful, some outright wrong but some are right.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-27-2010
I'm taking the middle-ground on this one. Have never been an adherant of the "Sarmatian" theory. However, during the last three-quarter century of the Western Empire there could well have been a large number of Alans, Taifals, and Goths in the Roman cavalry. This statement is based on the names of high commanders and designations of the units themselves-- the Equites Taifali (two alas) and the Alani unit in Italy. We have cavalry shields bearing dragons from three late units entering Britain, while a dragon then shows up from "nowhere" on the Welsh flag. Yet none of these units probably had "Sarmatians," aka Iazyges and kindred Sauromatae extending from the western Scythians. The Alani, Roxolani, and Taifals were entirely different people.
I would prefer to let Arthurofthebritons continue his zeal and studies on the subject, rather than close it down.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Astiryu1 - 06-27-2010
Agreed!!!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-27-2010
Quote:Nathan Ross:2dzgyrjh Wrote:Perhaps this whole 'Sarmatian' angle could just be dropped now, on the basis of there being no evidence for it whatsoever? :wink:I concur.
To Cagwinn and Nathan Ross,
I would say that making the statement, "no evidence for it whatsoever" is a tad strong and misleading.
There is physical evidence of the earlier Iazyges in Britain, a famous stone stele with a draconarius that's pictured in every book on the subject, clean statements from good Roman historians that 5,500 Iazyges were sent into Britain, and a very nice Sarmatian ring-pommeled sword in the British Museum. These cites are just off the top of my head. But they certainly confute the above "no evidence" statements.
It remains contentious whether these early Sarmatians influenced a later post-Roman Briton or not. That's not the point. What is at stake here, are misleading, closed, and incorrect judgements which have no historical backing. :twisted:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Nathan Ross - 06-27-2010
Quote:I would prefer to let Arthurofthebritons continue his zeal and studies on the subject, rather than close it down.
By all means! However, this very long thread has featured some rather circular reasoning, and the 'Sarmatians' theory lies at the root of much of this. The original topic, way back there in 2006, concerned the military capabilities of sub-Roman cavalry. Since, as has been discussed at length, there are so few conclusions that can be reached about this, it seems advisable to discount those theories and suppositions, lately arisen, which may cloud or even obscure the issue. This, I believe, is not tantamount to closing the subject down, but rather to concentrating on what can be known or deduced based on historical evidence (something which I presume we can all respect!).
Quote:I would say that making the statement, "no evidence for it whatsoever" is a tad strong and misleading.
There is physical evidence of the earlier Iazyges in Britain, a famous stone stele with a draconarius that's pictured in every book on the subject, clean statements from good Roman historians that 5,500 Iazyges were sent into Britain, and a very nice Sarmatian ring-pommeled sword in the British Museum. These cites are just off the top of my head. But they certainly confute the above "no evidence" statements.
Certainly, nobody would deny that there were (probably) Sarmatian troops stationed in Britain at some point. Dio gives us the 5,500 men, and we have the Cuneus Sarmaturum etc attested in the province at a later date. Hence the stele, the sword, and perhaps a few scattered traces elsewhere. However, the theory that the descendents of these Sarmatians (or Taifali, Alan etc) exerted a significant influence over post-Roman military formations in Britain is not actually based on this historical and epigraphic evidence, but rather attempts to use it as justification for a quite unrelated set of considerations.
This argument for Sarmatian influence was (I believe) originally put forward by Littleton ('The Sarmatian Connection', Journal of American Folklore, 1978), and expanded by Malcor. In both cases, however, the subject is not post-Roman military forces in Britain per se, but rather a certain quasi-mythological figure who shall remain nameless! Littleton's essay attempts to trace patterns in Indo-European mythological archetype, drawing parallels between 'Sarmatian' folklore and the appearance of similar tropes in Britain. He uses the attested Sarmatian troops in Britain to explain how these stories and traditions could have been transmitted. He also mentions Artorius Castus, whose importance is amplified by Malcor.
Neither theory, however, stands up to scrutiny IMO. In particular, bearing in mind the subject of this thread, both rely on erroneous or ill-informed conceptions of Roman military history. Littleton's contention, for example (1978, p523) that the 'Roman army' were solely equipped with the gladius shortsword, and thus the cavalry spear and long sword must be imports from a foreign or barbarian source, is clearly spurious in a late Roman context. Similarly his idea that these Sarmatian cuneus 'formed an elite within the legion system' (ibid p523) is not supported by evidence and runs counter to available sources. He provides no justification for the theory that Sarmatian cultural or military traditions would have endured in Britain for centuries when other, longer standing, ones apparently did not. Linda Malcor's argument, meanwhile, that Artorius Castus was the commander of the Sarmatians sent to Britain in c175, and that his name endured in folk memory, relies on the assumption that a primipilaris ex-centurion would advance in his career by commencing the equestrian tres militiae at the level of cohort prefect. This is, one might say, counter factual to say the least :evil: . Castus was a primipilaris, he did spend time (undated) in Britain, but his epitaph does not suggest that he commanded auxiliaries, Sarmatian or otherwise, and certainly would have done so if he had (it records many lesser positions, for example). Malcor's essay is riven with similarly erroneous statements, and there remains no link between Castus and the Sarmatians.
Unfortunately, it seems that the attempt to establish Sarmatian (etc) influence on post-Roman Britain is motivated not by attention to evidence or reasonable supposition, but rather the desire to envisage formations of armoured horsemen (aka 'Knights') operating in Britain: men who could, by extension, have given rise to certain legends and traditions... The scanty available sources, however, do not suggest large cavalry formations, let alone armoured ones. There was a equestrian tradition in Britain even before Roman domination (in, for example, Brigantia), and this combined with several centuries of Roman cavalry garrisons in the province would more than account for any primacy given to mounted warriors in later texts. No need to extrapolate Sarmatian tradition as an influence in any way! The rather hazier matter of mythopoeic transferences, legendary archetypes etc etc might better be left out of the debate!
Quote:It remains contentious whether these early Sarmatians influenced a later post-Roman Briton or not. That's not the point. What is at stake here, are misleading, closed, and incorrect judgements which have no historical backing. :twisted:
I'm not sure if it's my 'judgement' above that you're referring to here, Alan!
I would certainly agree with you, if you mean the 'misleading, closed, and incorrect' arguments I've mentioned here - and which seem to have an uncanny ability to continue surfacing whenever post-Roman Britain is mentioned...- Nathan
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 06-28-2010
Back to you, Nathan,
I simply felt that the wording "no evidence whatsoever" in the context of discussing Sarmatians in Britan was too strong and misleading. Perhaps "little evidence" might have been more appropriate. Thanks for citing Dio as the source. I think you're aware of my thoughts on Littleton and Malcor's assertions. And besides, after a period of over three centuries any Iazage influence on Briton's society would be minimal, perhaps a foggy memory.
Yet sometimes "evidence" comes to us beyond the written word, and I'm referring to the Welsh flag and its probable link to the Equites Taifali's dragon and pearl shield. Nowhere in ancient British literature can we find mention of a dragon. Likewise in Celtic art, we do not see a dragon until the seventh century, about the same time it shows up in early Norse art. The dragon and pearl originated in China, found on Sun Quan's sword, again on a sword now in the Met, and still used in Bhuddist gongs. It was never British or even Western European... until adopted, or carried forward, onto the Equites Taifali Iuniore's shield. This outside influence was strong enough to make a significant impression on British folk memory, probably enhanced by the Roman cavalry draco.
In this same fashion, we can trace the Migration Era or "Black Sea Style" sword back to those of the Han Dynasty, as adopted by the Khotani Saka and Massagetae. The Han sword is carefully, and accurately, depicted on the Orlot Battle Plaque, incised in ivory as carried by Massagetae warriors. It's no coincidence that the Alani "were the Massagetae" (to quote Dio), that this style of sword was carried into Europe by the Alans, Goths, and Huns, where it became the forrunner of the cruxiform Crusader sword. This gold-hilted style was owned by Wale's King Morgan and the Frank's King Childeric.
In the same fashion that Roman's changed elite British into a villa society, so too did eastern and steppe customs enter the western world... including Britain. Most of it will not be found as the written word, but we cannot discount it because it's still with us as the Welsh national standard. And if that's the case, then other eastern influences found root in the west through the Roman military. We cannot equivically prove that Jesus Christ existed, possibly a mythical cult hero, possibly a real person. Which stance should we adopt? Positve or negative?
There is a posture of close-sighted Celticism that occasionally shows up on this thread (and it doesn't come from you), but I prefer the larger picture. The Celts and Britians were influenced by outside cultures, just as every society was and still is. That's why we eat pizza and wonton soup.
