Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[dashydog]

Post by aligern » Thu 01 Apr 2010, 15:40
Just a couple of points
1 Bachrach. It strikes me that he has much to offer, but is disliked by other historians. They make the point about playing fast and loose with the souces in pursuit of h
Precisely so./ Thanks for that. Historians without mistakes dont exist and you know that. Polybius alone is a striking example but no less a man for all that. Without the Bachrachs of thsi world we d all be stuffed.

is
So his (Bachrachs) Alans are heavy cavalry and the ancestors of the mediaeval knight. This fits with Jordanes' description of the Alans at the Nedao (heavy armed) and with the description in a Saint's life of Goar's armoured cavalry.
Yes. I believe they were but the question is ...How Heavy???? In Eastern Europe they d been wasted by the Huns just as heavy cav were wasted by Kubilai Khan.
Too slow? Horse armopur ineffective?? You ve really hit the questions that interest me. I have a feeling they didnt armour their horses then. I ve got a photo that shows what, in my view, Alano Roman cav turned into..if you d like to see it.


If the Alans have a light cavalry component (which is not referred to in the Vth century) then we can reasonably expect it to have been a horse archer force because the Alans are steppe dwellers.
Sarmat cavalry carried bows, klancers or not, right up until Veinan and probably beyond. So, though you are right about it, it isnt definitve as sole armament.


Some centuries later the Bretons appear as mounted javelin throwers. They impress a chronicler with their dashing evolutions.
Curious isnt it? What went on.? I cant see javelins being much use to be honest. Horse archers would mince them, pikes too, if used. This is a vexed question





So his ideas are fruitful, but like much archaeology, a possibility becomes a fact in order to build upon that fact and use it for the next stage of interpretation.
With both the Alans and the Taifali (anyone seen an original source quote on ther fighting style?? except to say that they are like Alans) it is quite possible that the mode of combat dies out leaving the laeti settlements with their new names as the pressures of farming (which they presumambly have to do) and surviving take over.
As to Alans in Britannia, there are sarmatian units in Britain in the Notitia, but we may be being overly hopeful to see them continuing on after the breakdown. This is simply because the collapsed economy does not provide enough resource to keep specialist warbands except for those around the kings (tyranni) of the small states that emerge. Most of these are tiny and keeping together a couple of hundred full time cavalry will have been a huge effort for them. What evidence we have is for cavalry that have throwing spears and shields rather than lances and armour.

Now you are hitting the nitty gritty. The whole idea of Alan settlement in the West was a Roman policy of ensuring they did the soldiering and not the farming. These people were cattlemen on a grand scale but the further west they went the more trouble they caused, the more fences and farms they encountered and the more easily their coes and wagon trains could be discovered. Going west meant an end to their way of life. That said, Armorica had so much waste heath maybe that hundreds of coes werent noticed. The beef stock in the areas seems to have direct genetic link to Podolian Grey STeppe Cattle... (University of Hannover Vet School was good on this). AS for Sarmats at Ribchester, if they had cattle breeding to equate with the legends of their horse breeding there, they might have carried on longer than one thinks. Endless grazing there in those days!! and not much population to buy the meat. It hasnt changed much. Believe me, beef is all you can do there...even now.

THanks for a really good constructive contrib!! That is rewarding Messieur!