Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Robert Vermaat]

For two weeks the thread lies dormant... Then I go on holiday (20th) and all hell breaks loose! You just waited for me to be gone, didn't you?!? :twisted:
Hmm, where to begin....

Subsistance farming

Was life in Sub -Roman Britain a subsistence existance??? I find that hard to accept as from what I understand farming practices changed little in the periods before, during and after the 5th centrury.

Farming practises would not so much have changed, but population levels dropped, local trade made a steep dive, with foreign trade vanishing for a long time (two generations I think it was) so the production changed. Farmers stopped producing to sell a surplus (the Roman army was gone and cities began to depopulate) and would have produced just for their own and local needs. Without any production surplus, it becomes very hard for any ruler to gather a stack of food for a campaign, for a standing army or even for coin to turn into equipment.

I'm not sure if we can call this subsistance farming, or what the regional differences were. Alan referred to the number of cows per head of the population, but how accessible would these cows have been to any british ruler during the 5th century? How powerful were these men, cvan we even begin to guess at that? Could they maintain the former late Roman units by 425? And could they do that by 440? Or 460?
Can we begin to guess what level of attrition had been reached by civil wars (of which we hear, but know no details)? Was it possible to gain recruits for these units (or hire germanic warriors in their place)?

Was the level of production high enough for this? Like Matt, Ron and Conal, I have my doubts that it was enough for the levels speculated about here.
But Matt,

I doubt very much that the people working the land, living outside of big towns, noticed much of a difference. Sure, the man that they had to give stuff to dressed differently and spoke differently. Not that they ever spoke to the man in charge anyway. I suppose there might even have been a period where they got to keep anything they grew all to themselves....seems unlikley though. Somebody always fills a power vacuum, even if it's only on a very small, temporary level.

The big change would be that the people outside the towns suddenly had no-one to trade with, and if you can't trade you can't sell, and you can't buy. A lot would have been produced locally (I expect every settlement to have (access to) a blacksmith), but luxury is gone, building in stone is gone, aquaducts, irrigation and canals are gone, etc. When the river floods, no engineers build river dykes or drain the land any longer. Roads vanish because no-one travels with trade stuff any more. Etc.

Cavalry
Because of the above, i find it very hard to suggest that British kings had a opportunity to field even moderate numbers of cavalry, let alone heavy cavalry.

Timeline and Gildas

In A.D. 407, the last legion left to support Constantine III's bid for imperial purple.

The year is correct, but 'the last legion', well... There would have been other forces in Britain, but if we reject the Notitia Dignitatum as evidence of correct military detail for Britain by c. 425, we cannot begin to guess at the disposition of these units - I could see some troop m ovement towards the south, IF any of these units still existed by that time, for instance.

In 410, Honrius told the Britons to look to their own defenses.

Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. But if he did or not, it tells us little about Roman re-occupation.

In 429, St. Germanus, supposedly a fomer military man, is said to have helped stop an attack by combined Pictish and Scottish forces--the so-called Alleluia victory--but a generation later,
In 447, Germanus (may have) returned to Britain and reported local admin and churches much deteriorated . Assumedly military prowess degraded with the other trappings of Roman culture.

I go with ian Wood and say that Germanus was dead by 437.

By the time Gildas wrote of the Ruination of Britannia (late fifth or early sixth century), things are pretty much flushed down the toilet.

You mean 'On the Ruin and Conquest of the Britains' (De Excicio et Conquestu Britanniae) of course :wink: , and yes, things are pretty well bad by that time.

Earlier in his Jeremiad, Gildas refers to the Romans sending "forward, like eagles in their flight, their unexpected bands of cavalry" against invading Scots and Picts. (Assumed to refer to Stilicho's second rescue, circa 418.) That places effective mounted Roman soldiers in Britannia in the corporate memory of Britons of the fifth and sixth century. (Gildas wrote circa 545.) Such a memory may have influenced the rub-Roman Britons to try to emulate the Roman practice.
Gildas is also who we have to thank for our earliest "Arthur" reference, that of the Briton victory at "the seige of Bath hill". Despite Gildas having named many other names which have appeared in this thread, he neglected to tell us who led the Britons in that victory which brought Britannia a generation of peace--perhaps their last before the Saxons gradually pushed the Briton remnant into Cornwall and Wales.

Ah. Well, first of all, Gildas does not mention any names. Plus, the year of 418 is mention only in one of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle documents, and is highly suspect - plus it refers to the unearthing of treasures, nothing about Roman troops entering or leaving the island).
Second, Stilicho can't have been 'rescuing' anyone by 418, the fellow being dead (as Alan already said) by August 22, 408 and therefore not quite capable to do something afterwards. :mrgreen:
Third, Gildas was quite a writer of sermons, but not a historian. His description of the 'Roman rescues' seems to mirror that of the 'Roman invasions' at the beginning of the occupation, rather than being an accurate description of the events.
Last, Gildas by means makes an 'Arthurian reference', because he never mentions the fellow. His reference to the 'siege of the Badonic Hill' (obsessionis badonici montis) - not Bath hill, as in that awful translation - is not ascribed to anyone, to the chagrin of many... :wink:

Recently (perhaps fifteen minutes ago, but maybe not :wink: ) a well known Oxford type even suggested that "some Britons turned themselves into Saxons." That is the "new" perspective, if not simplistic. Certainly there was acquisance, even for reasons of avoiding bloodshed. BUT, and I give it a Huge BUT, there was no signs of acquisance in the areas of Dumnonia to Gwent; even into Demetia... except for an uneasy "peace" with the Irish. Once again we are looking at the regional seats of Romano-British power and prestiege with Gwent at the highest status. Here in the southwest (which became our Wales as we know it) there was no acquisance yet a stubborn, and successful, rebuff of Saxon invasions and rule. Just a thought.

Alan, the idea is not qquite new, Brice eagles already observed this for Wiltshire 20 years ago. Too few germanics, too many Briton to slaughter. If they could 'turn themselves' into Romans, why not Saxons? Hence maybe to almost absent changes in agriculture, the hanging-bowls in Germanic graves, names like Cerdic, Cynric and similar 'Celtic-sounding' names in early Saxon genealogies. I assume that the 'impossibility' of such a post-Roman process had more to do with the Victirians abhorring the idea of Romanised Christian Britons becoming pagan Saxons than with reality.