09-08-2006, 01:31 PM
Quote:I offer two propositions for your consideration in evaluating whether Briton residual mounted horsemen, if they existed at all, may have been more effective than their Roman Army predecessors:
If you mean more effective than the late Roman cavalry then I'd say: nope, they would have been equally effective. They would have been very much like other late Roman horsemen and they would have used the same tactics.
Quote:Well, the second point has already been answered. Cavalry did not ride on the road but along it, as I heard the infantry did as well – the Roman roads mainly facilitate transport.
Cavalry during marches was used for screening the flanks of the baggage train and to do reconnaissance missions etc. Infantry didn't use roads during marches?? Never heard of that one before... Then what happened with the baggage train?
Quote:Mobility of cavalry is only superior on the battlefield. Horses don’t walk faster than men over long distances – after the 3rd day the infantry catches up and moves ahead. It’s extremely important to have cavalry, but it does not much improve your strategic position outside a small area.
Very true but... what about remounts? Didn't the Romans make use of them?
Quote:All other groups assimilated, including Sarmatians and other peoples we know of. Why would these British Sarmatians remain unchanged?
I agree. Perhaps this Sarmatian horsemen cavalry has something to do with the movie 'King Arthur' (ughbadmovieugh
)?
Thijs Koelewijn
