Hi my friend and welcome here
Please add your name in your signature, it's a forum rule :wink:
Eccidius wasn't british however, he was a roman aristocrat from the Arverni in Gaul, and friend to Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont. And the context is quite different from the Anglo-saxon Chronicle. Sidonius wrote him a letter in which he praised his defense of the city, so that's nearly just after it happened. It is quite possible Eccidius did what he did only with a few horsemen. He didn't beat out the wisigothic army, he just had them leaving the siege for some relief. It is possible he caught them by surprise. In the end, the city will fall to the power of Euric.
Made me think I shall check the exact passage...
Quote:Please add your name in your signature, it's a forum rule
Added my name to signature, but for an obscure reason it doesn't show up in the posts.
Quote:Eccidius wasn't british however, he was a roman aristocrat from the Arverni in Gaul, and friend to Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont. And the context is quite different from the Anglo-saxon Chronicle. Sidonius wrote him a letter in which he praised his defense of the city, so that's nearly just after it happened. It is quite possible Eccidius did what he did only with a few horsemen. He didn't beat out the wisigothic army, he just had them leaving the siege for some relief. It is possible he caught them by surprise. In the end, the city will fall to the power of Euric.
Anyway, I haven't read the exact text describing Eccidus victory. I have been basing on Daniel Mersey's book "The Legendary Tales and Historical Truths of the Most Notorious Warriors" (yes, the English title is very long, homever the Polish version is just "S?ynni wojownicy", which can be translated into English as "Famous warriors"), which shows ten semi-historical persons in "legend", "in history" and "in the battle" - Arthur, Dracula, Achilles, Beowulf, Macbet, Cúchulainn, William Wallace and other. He is frequently quoting after Leslie Alcock and Stephen Evans, speaking about the size of armies in Arthurian age. Daniel Mersey states that Eccidius was a Briton, homever it's not true - as you wrote. Being a son of emperor Avitus, he was one of the richest persons in the Western Empire. Author of this book probably confused Eccidius with Riothamus, as the latter was really a Briton fighting in the Gaul. According to Jordanes, in 470 Anthemius recruited the Bretons living in Armorica to fight Euric. They were led by king Riothamus, later also identified as candidate for king Arthur:
"Their King Riotimus came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Bituriges by the way of Ocean, and was received as he disembarked from his ships. Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riotimus, King of the Britons, before the Romans could join him. So when he had lost a great part of his army, he fled with all the men he could gather together, and came to the Burgundians, a neighboring tribe then allied to the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized the Gallic city of Arverna; for the Emperor Anthemius was now dead."
Quote: Added my name to signature, but for an obscure reason it doesn't show up in the posts.
Did you create a signature in your profile?
Quote: Anyway, I haven't read the exact text describing Eccidus victory. [/code]
Ecdicius.
Kolba:297vxtn8 Wrote:Being a son of emperor Avitus, he was one of the richest persons in the Western Empire.
Any particular reason why being the son of Avitus would have made him 'one of the richest persons in the Western Empire'?
Isn't the point that Ecdicius is relieving a city with his band of horsemen. he catches the Goths by surprise and delivers wagon loads of food to the beseiged. That's quite plausible. The Visigoths might well be disconcerted and pull back fearing that a large force is behind Ecdicius unit.
Roy Boss
Hi Roy,
Don't know how he delivered the supplies, but I think you nailed it on the head - by resupplying the besieged, he forced the Goths to withdraw. As we can see in the siege of Rome in the 6th c., often the besiegers were in the same bad state as the besieged. It was a question of who could how out longer, and the first thing to do was to prevent any supplies getting through. In this case, the Goths clearly failed.
I'm back again! And yes delivering supplies could have convinced the Visigoths to flee, but they likely would have needed quite a bit of persuading in order to want to do so. From what the Bishop wrote
"At midday, and right across the middle of the plain, you brought your little company of eighteen 2 safe through some thousands of the Goths, a feat which |68 posterity will surely deem incredible. [4] At the sight of you, nay, at the very rumour of your name, those seasoned troops were smitten with stupefaction; their captains were so amazed that they never stopped to note how great their own numbers were and yours how small. They drew off their whole force to the brow of a steep hill; they had been besiegers before, but when you appeared they dared not even deploy for action. You cut down some of their bravest, whom gallantry alone had led to defend the rear."
it seems that the Visigoths were startled by Ecdicius' sudden and safe appearance, and upon knowing that he was son of the Emperor and Magister Militum they retreated for fear that the Imperial army was behind him. Their rearguard, who held the seige in case it was a trick, seem to have been cut down so swiftly and with so much violence that the Visigoths were persuaded to retreat even though Ecdicius' men were covered in injuries -indicated by a later passage- "or measuring with trembling fingers the holes made in cuirasses by cut or thrust..." they fled from this tiny band of heroic horsemen. Also Kolba it makes sense that in your book Ecdicius would be confused with Riothamos because Sidonius Apollinaris also wrote a lettter to him :lol: I am sure we can respect Ecdicius for being the last truely heroic glimmer of Roman glory (Unless you count Ambrosius) a mere five years before the fall of the empire.
A rather interesting point which I was trying to get at is that there were likely 200 men in that rearguard, meaning that each man had to have killed ten men and severly injured another who was finnished off by a second member of their band.
hock: If Sub-Roman cavalry was as well-led and as powerful as that, then it is plausible that Ambrosius won all his battles with no one but his personal band of cavalry. Take into account that the britons prefered to fight at dawn and at fords, then you have one deadly fighting force, even if it was just 100 men.
Quote:it seems that the Visigoths were startled by Ecdicius' sudden and safe appearance, and upon knowing that he was son of the Emperor and Magister Militum they retreated for fear that the Imperial army was behind him.
Hardly.
Avitus was probably dead by 456, neutralized by Ricimer, who remained the great power in Italy until 472. No friend of Avitus' son, then.
In fact the Goths probably knew that no imperial army could follow on the heals of Ecdicius, because Euric had just defeated Anthemiolus and his army. Anthemiolus was the son of the emperor Anthemius, who had been sent by the emperor Leo to Italy to challenge Ricimer. With his army defeated and another rival (Olybrius) sent from the East, Anthemius' days were numbered also. Anthemiolus' army was in fact the last officially Roman army ever to set foot in Gaul. By 475, the Roman emperor Nepos officially legalised the loss of Gaul by granting the Auvergne to Euric.
Ecdicius was not named
magister militum for another 2 years to come.
So with any posssible support for the Gallic nobles crushed, and with Ricimer as enemy in Italy, the Gallic nobles and Syagrius were on their own. And of course Euric and his Goths were well aware of that.
About the Goths fleeing the scene, I think that Sidonius is putting it on a bit. Poetic license in order to praise a relative.
Quote:A rather interesting point which I was trying to get at is that there were likely 200 men in that rearguard, meaning that each man had to have killed ten men and severly injured another who was finnished off by a second member of their band. hock: If Sub-Roman cavalry was as well-led and as powerful as that, then it is plausible that Ambrosius won all his battles with no one but his personal band of cavalry. Take into account that the britons prefered to fight at dawn and at fords, then you have one deadly fighting force, even if it was just 100 men.
One, it's possible that Ecdicius' force contained 19 cavalrymen,
plus their retainers. But that's just me guessing.
Two, on what grounds do you base your estimate of a rearguard of 100-200 Goths?
Quote:One, it's possible that Ecdicius' force contained 19 cavalrymen, plus their retainers. But that's just me guessing.
Mounted retainers?
Morning all. I dont know this story at all but Cavalry warfare does seem to have it's own maths. If you look at battles like Grunwald (1410), where the Poles thrashed the Teutonic Knights, which were cavalry battles, retainers or servants quadrupled the numbers in the field. Most, it seems, were mounted if necessity dictated, given the numbers of remounts that were customary, and they were formidable fighters. These chaps never got much of a mention because the Poles, like most equestrian elites, didnt rate "peasant activity" as important and infantry work, to them, was bordering on social disgrace.
So, your "relieving band" could have been a very potent little force.
Drat! Should have checked my dates again :x Plus infantry seems to have its own weird math too. The division by fives and the number 200 is a reoccuring number and the "100 men" bit was a description of a full-strength Ala under Ambrosius. Also if my numbers are correct (please be this time) then each cavalryman would have had a horsegroom, armour polisher, someone to look after weaponry, and maybe just a personal servant to take care of the remounts. If that is true than the band of 19 would have been boosted to a respectable 95 men, almost a full Ala, and that doesn't even count things like stndard bearers and other officers if he had them. If this math is correct than that means we have a preety good gauge of what an Ala of heavy cavalry could do to a well-sized Germanic warband, and we start to finally get somewhere.
Plausible. The numbering of "companions" or "named men" may greatly exceed due to the shield-bearers, etc., following them. The eighteen could well have been more like a hundred. But we also must admit that only the eighteen may have been fully equipped and trained. In both ancient and modern armies, you'd have fully-ready front line units and soldiers and others, not quite so flush for battle, backing them up.
It's typical for us to refer to great men or great companies as defeating the whole of an enemy. We say Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, not his legions. It's an accepted convention.
Hello everyone,
I've been off this thread for awhile.
(perhaps to everyone's relief!)
But I would take exception to a number of statements by Arthurofthebritons.
First, I rather doubt Arabian horses would have made suitable cataphract mounts-- too thin-legged, not enough dense bone, wrong continent until post-700.
Second, the two lines concerning "Arthur" in the poem about Geraint at Longborth is a medieval (or later) addition. It does not match, in metre, the rest of the verse; and at least two or three authorities have debunked it. Yes, the rest of the poem by Llywarch Hen might be based on an historical battle, but not the "Arthur" part. 8)
I would really like to see "Arthur" references removed from this tread until someone proves the man existed. And I highly doubt any form of cataphactarii were still riding during the sub-Roman period. Heavy cavalry, yes, but not full-fledged oven-men.
Alanus, in my view, is quite right. This constant drip drip drip on Arthur is really tedious. It merely confuses matters and no one seems to have proved he existed. And they wont, not until new "discoveries" (and not surmises) are revealed. This has been a good informative thread; one only spoiled by constant and pointless Arthurisms. If this does not stop, the whole thing will degenerate, as Malcor's thing did, into tedium and bitterness. <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/posting.php?mode=reply&f=25&t=10699#">posting.php?mode=reply&f=25&t=10699#<!-- l
Thanks for that, Dashydog
On the subject of a "retinue" or a Briton lord's men, I think I may have mentioned the singular reference to a "King's man" on this thread awhile back. I never gave his name. It was Guengarth, the second man to Morcant Rex (Morgan). Guengarth was the individual who owned the sword Hipiclaur, the famous 70-cow weapon-- kind of like some other famed sword of legend. :lol: But Hipiclaur was real enough.
What is important about Guengarth is the description of his sub-Roman weaponry, "coming up on horseback with sheild and sword and lance." This was probably what the nobles used, not your ordinary grunt. :wink: