Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Ron Andrea]

Of course, an army--at least the mounted portion--need not have numbered so large.

Geoffry Ashe has suggested (Quest for Arthur's Britain and entries in The New Arturian Encyclopedia) that "Arthur" may have had a small, highly-mobile mounted force to rush from crisis to crisis, depending on local levies (both mounted and foot) to fill out his ranks. (Or, I might add, the mobile force may have supplemented the local levies, not vice versa.) In that case, the "national" force may have numbered a few hundred. And, of course, it may not have been led by an "Arthur" but the memory of its few (a dozen?) successes may have provided a bone about which other details of other warriors may have fleshed out the Arthur of legend.

I mention a dozen because, by the eight century, Historia Brittonum (Nennius) lists twelve "famous" victories for Arthur's mounted forces.

All the recent discussion is helpful because it helps define a more likely size, equippage and tactics for Sub-Roman Briton mounted warriors than knights in shining armor of Malory, not to mention their anachronistic manners of courtly love.