Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Robert Vermaat]

There seems to be a wish, even a longing, for post Roman British cavalry to mirror Roman cavalry. I have no such romatic idea. I'm going to brush over the issues around professional armies, centralised supply and training, compared to "tribal warbands". Instead I would just like to make a few basic comments.

I agree with John. Of course we do not have the sources that allow us a good look at post-Roman forces in britain. But we do know more about post-Roman forces in Spain and Gaul, areas which were richer and better off than Britain durinf, say, the last quarter of the fifth century. And if a comparison is possible, it does not look good for any chances of survival of cavalry forces that look anything like Late Roman cavalry.

At best, I'd say if I could venture a guess, one would encounter small forces around warlords (hardly standing forces) of mounted men with spears and swords. Armour, maybe - possibly. But not widespread, since the cost of production and maintainace would be considerable if we look at the economic circumstances of post-Roman western Europe. Horse armour - best about it.

[Conal]

It it possible to assess the actual cost of keeping an armoured (mail jerkin) cavalryman?

I have done some musing using http://www.keesn.nl/price/en2_sources.htm to give a very rough idea based on price by cow :|

Sword & Scabbard 7
Helmet 6
Mail Coat 12
Shield & lance 2
Horse 3

30 cows would get you the full kit and 18 all but a mail shirt. No saddlery is mentioned????

The population of GB at AD400 was approx 3 million ... at say one cow per 10 persons will buy you 10,000 fully armed nutters on horseback.

I don't know what the iron age ratio of cattle per person was but the Zulus manged to accrue 12,000 hide shields at the time of Rourkes Drift. If the ratio was more cattle than people then Riothamus may well have been able to arm 12,000 men with at least shield spear and sword and take them on holiday to Gaul to fight the Goths :roll:

So given a few decades I don't see why the armies of Arthurian Briton (made up of a few hundred at a time?) would not be fully kitted out as mail/scale armed cavalry. If this was not the case then I would suggest that cost was not the major factor.

[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.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Conal

30 cows would get you the full kit and 18 all but a mail shirt. No saddlery is mentioned????

I’m not sure how valid that amount is. No saddle, no trappings, how about fodder and stables etc.? Also, I dare say that you need more than one horse for each cavalryman, plus a herd for breeding. Maybe you’d need 40 cows.

The population of GB at AD400 was approx 3 million ... at say one cow per 10 persons will buy you 10,000 fully armed nutters on horseback.

That, too is an assumption open to debate. I have seen number that vary between one and five million. Given the known depopulation in other western European areas I am inclined to say that one million might be a more realistic number. But that’s speculation of course.

So given a few decades I don't see why the armies of Arthurian Briton (made up of a few hundred at a time?) would not be fully kitted out as mail/scale armed cavalry. If this was not the case then I would suggest that cost was not the major factor.

As to cost, see above. Other reasons would be the civil wars which we lnow erupted from at least the mid-5th century, and the apparently growing influence of the Anglo-Saxon newcomers (although I’m not going to comment about what that would have meant in terms of armed conflict).

Another reason to doubt the existence of a large cavalry for in late 5th-c. Britain is that no source ever mentions it. See below.

Hi Ron,

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

True, but if you are talking about a standing professional army, you need to add costs for infantry, housing for men and animal, etc.

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.

Indeed he did, but that opinion was, like that of his contemporaries John Morris and Leslie Alcock, influenced by the Medieval tales of King Arthur. Since the article by Collingwood & Myres we have all come to expect an Arthurian-style warlord with a force of (heavy) cavalry, even though the signs are not in favour of that ‘image’. We want to see Arthurian cavalry, indeed we need to see Arthurian cavalry. :roll:

In that case, the "national" force may have numbered a few hundred.

What ‘national force’ Ron? None of the sources that we have (prior to the Medieval ones at least) paint us an image of any such a ‘national’ army. Instead, we hear from Gildas onwards that civil wars were rife, with sometimes pauses. Never do we hear of a ‘unification’ against the Saxon invasions or any such developments. Only of warlords lording over ever decreasing areas who sometimes unite against the Saxons, or unite with the Saxons against other British polities. Fragmentation galore! :evil:

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

That’s ninth century Ron. And the more one looks at that list, the more it looks like it was pinched from another hero, preferably a northern one. If Arthur was indeed such a northern hero, it would further limit the chances of a large cavalry forces due to the economical and geographical limits of that area.

Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE to see evidence for a warlord with at least a force of two hundred cavalry, being active across Lowland Britain. But so far I have seen no evidence for that, only ‘reading into’ evidence, often indeed in the face of the evidence available.

[Conal]

I’m not sure how valid that amount is. No saddle, no trappings, how about fodder and stables etc.? Also, I dare say that you need more than one horse for each cavalryman, plus a herd for breeding. Maybe you’d need 40 cows

That's the point, you can't be sure how valid it is nor can you say, as I have seen often, that a sword would be only applicable to very wealthy when anyone with three cows could apparently get one ... it's open for debate.

These societies were not made up of hunter gatherers but people who had worked the land and raised crops and cattle for centuries, they had enough manpower to refortify hill forts and build massive dykes yet we it appears to be felt that they could not breed enough horses to keep 300 cavalrymen atop a mount.

Societies with much less infrastructure available to them were able to do that .. the Sioux at the Little Big Horn (or Greasy Grass Ridge if you are a Native American) were able to put up 900 -1800 mounted warriors (from a population of just 4,000ish) using quite a large remuda. Admittedly they were a horse led culture but if Sub Roman Britain had a predilection for mounted warfare you would expect a breeding program to cope.

I am of the opinion that it was something other than cost which kept them on foot such as a cultural shift as to who bore arms and who did not. Relying on a professional army for 400 years would not have helped. Where you have a small elite dominating a larger population the tendency is to keep them unarmed and unmartial. Warlords and Tyrants have this habit.

The 1066 Hastings armies were only 7,000 odd, with a few hundred professionals, which is tiny when compared with those of Ceasars time. This illustrates the cultural difference between this new Kingship culture and the Romans and pre-Roman tribal models.

I think you may be along the right lines with internecine strife, together with the new warlord culture, as this is what would take down infrastructure pretty fast.

[Alanus]

To Robert. "When did Gildas Write" was very well-written piece. Thank you for it. If there was a battle at "mons badonicus," what decade would that be... counting back from the appoximate authorship of Gildas.

Also another question, perhaps unanswerable but it piques me. Might Gildas have described an "Arthurian" cavalry in his statement, "guider of the vehicle of the bear." :?:

Best to you both,

[Ron Andrea]

Sadly, there probably wasn't an "Arthur" as later authors imagined him. But where did the elements used by those story tellers come from? Some elements, like the Grail Quest, probably had independent origins. Others, such as the battle locations, may relate to historical events.

Gildas is, of course, tantalizing and frustrating. That sub-Roman Briton had mostly dissolved by the time he wrote is obvious. Equally obvious, however, is his apparent yearning for some "Golden Age" of Britain, that maybe never existed or perhaps was an idealized memory of Ambrosius Aurelianus' brief ascendency leading "the remnant of the Romanised and Catholic party". [G. Ashe's phrase]

J. R. R. Tolkien tells us these legends grow out of a "stew" of historical and fanciful elements with each storyteller including elements based on his or her taste and time. That Arthurian legend may include fanciful elements cannot be doubted; determining whether (and what) historical elements Gildas--not to mention Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson and later authors--included is part of the fun.

It is not hard to imagine--though difficult to prove--that a faction of the post-Roman Britons tried to maintain Roman culture and military organization and norms well after the departure of the legions. That they were ultimately unsuccessful is obvious, but the imagination is fired by the thought that at some times and some places they may have temporarily succeeded. Some versions call that place Camelot and name the leader Arthur. Could that place have been what we call South Cadbury Castle? And could that leader, the unnamed victor at Mount Badon, have been the core of "Arthur"? Could his knights in shining armor have been local levies or tribal chiefs attempting to recreate the form of Roman calvery? Maybe.

Maybe in those unsure and frightening times, even the memory of a victorious leader only a century before had already morphed into something, though historically untrue, which would fire the imagination of British (and French, and Americans, and . . .) for millenia to come.

[Medicus matt]

Also another question, perhaps unanswerable but it piques me. Might Gildas have described an "Arthurian" cavalry in his statement, "guider of the vehicle of the bear." :?:

It's definately (as definate as anything we can get from Gildas...damn him...why couldn't he just write "Dear diary, met Arthur for lunch today and he kept going on and on about how great he'd been at the seige on Badon and how it was him and not Ambrosius
who'd really saved the day. I wish him and his 300 horsemen would bugger off back to ...etc") not a direct cavalry reference.

The text referring to Cuneglasus reads "aurigaque currus receptaculi ursi".

The 'auriga' element of 'aurigaque' can mean either 'charioteer' or 'stable groom' so it's either "charioteer" or "groom" of the chariot from the bear's refuge. NOTE: not 'of the bear'. It's a reference to a place with 'bear' associations, not a person.


Yes, a united nation with a decent social and agricultural infrastructure is able to field and support armed forces with a ratio of 25:1. However, a fragemented nation, where no one area controls sufficient quantities of all the resources needed to equip and support a large number of dedicated warriors, would have trouble getting to, let alone sustaining anything like that level.

[Conal]

Yes, a united nation with a decent social and agricultural infrastructure is able to field and support armed forces with a ratio of 25:1. However, a fragemented nation, where no one area controls sufficient quantities of all the resources needed to equip and support a large number of dedicated warriors, would have trouble getting to, let alone sustaining anything like that level.

But we are not talking anywhere near that are we, at 25:1 a population of say 1 million (to keep Robert happy) would churn out 40,000 potentials ... we are looking for only 300 mounted

The Zulu population (I use them as an iron age society in 1879) of 3 million (est) managed a fighting force of 40-60,000 (est) ... Ceasars campaign in Gaul faced a population of 3 Million (est) with a fighting force of 90,000+ (est). No if the Romano-British could not pull together a couple of thousand .... they deserved a drubbing.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Alan,

If there was a battle at "mons badonicus," what decade would that be... counting back from the appoximate authorship of Gildas.

My personal favorite is c. 495 AD. As you've read in my article, the dating itself is impossible, but on secondary grounds a date of 'c. 500AD' is most likely.

[Robert Vermaat]

Yes, a united nation with a decent social and agricultural infrastructure is able to field and support armed forces with a ratio of 25:1. However, a fragemented nation, where no one area controls sufficient quantities of all the resources needed to equip and support a large number of dedicated warriors, would have trouble getting to, let alone sustaining anything like that level.

Indeed! Look at the Germanic warlords who inherited Gaul and Spain, areas in much better condition and closer to the Mediterranean. Even there trade plummeted, roof tiles being replced by straw, and North African pottery imports being limited to just a few ecclesiastical sites. Britain was far below their level, and far more fragmented for decades before the later 5th century. I just cannot see the possibilities for a ruler to gather the wealth of maintaining such an army. The first time we really hear of such a force in Britain it's by the end of the 6th century (the Gododdin - Mynydawg's failed attempt to raid Bernicia). And that force is described as a rarity - gathered for just that purpose.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Conal,

These societies were not made up of hunter gatherers but people who had worked the land and raised crops and cattle for centuries, they had enough manpower to refortify hill forts and build massive dykes yet we it appears to be felt that they could not breed enough horses to keep 300 cavalrymen atop a mount.

There’s a difference between forcing a population to dig earthworks, and maintaining a standing force of cavalry!
I guess 300 is not much, until you look what the East Roman army of Belisarius could field against the Vandals and Goths. If you take away the hired foreign forces, the numbers are not much different. Then compare the wealth of the Roman empire of the early sixth century to war-torn Britain, without an economy to speak of..

Conal, I would not argue with an hypothesis about a British warlord fielding a force of 300 cavalry. But given the economics it would be rare, and still (which does not change with us discussing demographics) not supported by the sources. Purely hypothetical.

.. the Sioux at the Little Big Horn (or Greasy Grass Ridge if you are a Native American) were able to put up 900 -1800 mounted warriors ..

The Sioux were a warrior nomad tribe, totally incomparable to early Medieval Britain.

The Zulu population (I use them as an iron age society in 1879) of 3 million (est) managed a fighting force of 40-60,000 (est) ... Ceasars campaign in Gaul faced a population of 3 Million (est) with a fighting force of 90,000+ (est). No if the Romano-British could not pull together a couple of thousand .... they deserved a drubbing.

Very different again. The Zulu were a warrior people, without much to arm them – just a shield and a short spear. The Celts facing Caesar were are a warrior culture. Britain in the 5th century, by comparison, was no longer a warrior culture, as these cultures had vanished from the lands ruled by Rome. Citizens were no longer trained in the use of arms, these were forbidden by law since generations!

I’m more enthusiastic about the comparison to William the Bastard. At least a third (if I recall correctly) of his cavalry were mercenaries, which would leave us with a good comparison. And William’s kingdom was a lot richer than the lands of any late fifth-century British warlord.

[Conal]

There’s a difference between forcing a population to dig earthworks, and maintaining a standing force of cavalry!

What I was getting at is that the kind of manpower available begs a question on the economy as when not digging these guys must have been doing something else, which could have been in support of a cavalry source.

I guess 300 is not much, until you look what the East Roman army of Belisarius could field against the Vandals and Goths. If you take away the hired foreign forces, the numbers are not much different. Then compare the wealth of the Roman empire of the early sixth century to war-torn Britain, without an economy to speak of..

I have few books lined up on that subject so am not in a position to postulate any coherent argument.

Conal, I would not argue with an hypothesis about a British warlord fielding a force of 300 cavalry. But given the economics it would be rare, and still (which does not change with us discussing demographics) not supported by the sources. Purely hypothetical.

Not willing to accept that yet :roll:

The Sioux were a warrior nomad tribe, totally incomparable to early Medieval Britain.

I agree but if they produced 500 instead of 1800 we would still have been impressed. Briatian wasn't a warrior nation in 1914 but they soon got that way.

Very different again. The Zulu were a warrior people, without much to arm them – just a shield and a short spear. The Celts facing Caesar were are a warrior culture. Britain in the 5th century, by comparison, was no longer a warrior culture, as these cultures had vanished from the lands ruled by Rome. Citizens were no longer trained in the use of arms, these were forbidden by law since generations!

What you are saying is they had gone soft :wink: , which is my leaning rather than the cost. However I am not sure that the Britannia Prima ever succumbed as much to Roman domination as those in the lands of the east, which is why they held out against the Angles, Saxons & Jutes for much longer, maybe they had kept that tribal warrior ethos alive to some extent??

I’m more enthusiastic about the comparison to William the Bastard. At least a third (if I recall correctly) of his cavalry were mercenaries, which would leave us with a good comparison. And William’s kingdom was a lot richer than the lands of any late fifth-century British warlord.

Again a society of elites keeping a peasant wealth producing populous down .... 7.500 still not a massive turn out :|

[Agraes]

Searching for a power able to field cavalry in sub-roman Britain I would look in the south west. The Dumnonii and Durotriges build some of the most impressive fortress of the era, namely Tintagel and South Cadbury. They had trade (and probably diplomatic) relations with Gaul, Africa and the Eastern Roman Empire. The Dumnonii were likely the most involved in the settlement of Brittany, so we see here a form of political expansion. They were not deeply romanised and probably kept a kind of autonomy and had to fight off irish raids for centuries. Eventually they may have been much less affected by the 5th century crisis than the rest of roman Britain.

But here aswell there seems to be no firm evidence of cavalry use. Except if we look on the other side of the ocean, in what will became Brittany.

The Excerpta de Libris Romanorum et Francorum are an extract of the early breton laws. They have been dated by Léon Fleuriot to the 6th century. David Dumville did argue that the laws can't be dated that precisely and proposed a date between the 6th and 8th century for the text, but he did accepted those laws may have been applied earlier on. Fleuriot then came with new arguments an proposed the 5th century, and since this Soazick Kerneis proposed the same period.
The laws made quite a lot of references about buying horses, horses beeing stolen, some breeds are even mentionned, saxon horses and apparently taifali horses.
We have an extract of a 7th century poem in the 11th century life of Judicael by Ingomar. Judicael is often presented as the king of Domnonée, but he may had power in the rest of Brittany. He is praised here for "having allowed many spearmen who went after him on foot, bringing home many spoils, to came back home as horsemen".

And of course we got the 9th century accounts of the terrible defeats the light breton cavalry inflicted on Carl the Bald's armies, even if it's a bit late for the subjet, it seems that the Bretons had a very early tradition of cavalry armies, likely inherited from their celtic and roman past. Knowing that most of the migrants likely came from south-western Britain in the 4th to 7th centuries, it's probably from there they bring this cavalry tradition.

[Ron Andrea]

Those sites--SW England--also yielded imported pottery (now labelled Tintagel A & B) during that period, when trade and commerce were assumed to be restricted. As documented on Robert's Vortigen Studies site, Gildas may have overstated the "ruin" of Britain. "The wealthier Britons of the west imported oil, wine and other luxuries from the Mediterranean. A biographer of Germanus, writing fairly soon after Ambrosius' rise, felt able to speak of Britain as properous." (p. 38, Ashe, Quest for Arthur's Britain)

Commerce between Britannia (especially Dumnonia) and Armorica is well documented. In fact, about this time, Armorica started becoming Little Britain, the source of its current name: Britanny. Horse culture and horse trading was likewise documented, as reflected in the laws mentioned.

The lack of a strong, central government, of course, contributed to the rise of feudalism, which was one solution to fielding adequate numbers of trained, equipped horse warriors. Assumedly, other approaches were tried and found wanting during the intervening centuries.

Possible does not mean probable, much less positive; but there is evidence of a horse culture in Britain, too. The Goddodin certainly did not appear in northern Britain at the end of the sixth century without some precedence. We just don't know it that was.