Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Matthew Amt]

A bit but maybe I explained it wrong. To my mind in the tribal arrangment an effective amount of mounted warriors couldn't be reached as each man was out for himself instead of just one goal that they all shared.

Well, there was some emphasis on individual prowess, single combat, and that sort of thing, but every warrior in a tribe fought for his tribe. All the tribal people of Europe fielded effective cavalry, to the point where Caesar and all the other Romans had to recruit their own cavalry from among the locals in order to win.

And by civil war I'm envisioning warlords fighting over the carcass of the united land Ambrosius built.

Ah, gotcha. I'll have to bow out, because it's out of my area and I don't know how much infighting there was (that we know about). The occasional imperial usurper probably isn't quite the same thing. And there may have a certain amount of fighting between local authorities in any case, even before the Romans left.

Also I don't believe any of us are saying that they went back to wearing plaid and liming their hair. Though likely some older styles of dress and hair may have creeped in. (However don't forget your woad! :lol: )

The Romans never dicated fashions, though there was certainly influence in all directions. So again, why would anyone start to dress differently simply because the provincial government changed? Remember, these folks had been Roman turf for a good 350 years, so none of them would have had the slightest clue about what was worn before Claudius' legions hit the beach.

Gotta run!

Matthew