Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[marka]

[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.