Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[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 :|