04-24-2009, 06:46 PM
Ha! Good point. I bet the Saxons felt the same. 
I think Frank D. Reno hit it on the head when he compared the Briton cavalry to that of the Plains Indians, whose horses were unshod and stirrupless. Both were fast, ideal for the guerilla style warfare that the Britons appeared to have preferred, and though they didn't garuantee victory, they certainly helped keep the war going. So yes, I believe that the Britons utilized light and medium cavalry instead of the havy cataphracts everyone seems to be infatuated with.
On another note, I've always been intrigued by Gildas' reference to Cuneglas as the "charioteer of the bear", not because of the possible "Arth" connection, but because of the reference to possible chariot warfare. Is it possible that in areas where the Romans had had only minimal influence, Celtic chariot warfare persisted into the vth and VIth Centuries?
I think Frank D. Reno hit it on the head when he compared the Briton cavalry to that of the Plains Indians, whose horses were unshod and stirrupless. Both were fast, ideal for the guerilla style warfare that the Britons appeared to have preferred, and though they didn't garuantee victory, they certainly helped keep the war going. So yes, I believe that the Britons utilized light and medium cavalry instead of the havy cataphracts everyone seems to be infatuated with.
On another note, I've always been intrigued by Gildas' reference to Cuneglas as the "charioteer of the bear", not because of the possible "Arth" connection, but because of the reference to possible chariot warfare. Is it possible that in areas where the Romans had had only minimal influence, Celtic chariot warfare persisted into the vth and VIth Centuries?
Ryan "the Wolfman" Hatch
Aspiring halfwit
2 wins, 0 lossess
![[Image: britonessenioresxl0.jpg]](http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/593/britonessenioresxl0.jpg)
Aspiring halfwit
2 wins, 0 lossess
