+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc) (/showthread.php?tid=6780)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-30-2009
I'm sure Marka is correct, but just because we see that something would have been effective doesn't prove they were doing it two millenia ago. :wink:
A third century destruct layer sounds late Roman to me. :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 06-30-2009
Quote:I'm sure Marka is correct, but just because we see that something would have been effective doesn't prove they were doing it two millenia ago. :wink:
A third century destruct layer sounds late Roman to me. :lol:
Not from my end of the fifth century it doesn't... :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-30-2009
You're right. On any objective timeline third centyr is not "late, but the Anglo-Saxons didn't just show up at the end of the forth century and run the Romans off. Their constant pressure resulted in the construction of a string of impressive forts (some still there) along the "Saxon Shore" as well as an administrative reorganization of Roman Briton to facilitate a better response to the Germanic raiders.
Like the greater Roman Empire, the "end" of Roman Briton was a long, slow process. The building of the Walls--both Antonine and Hadrian's--may mark the "high water mark" of Roman Briton with everything after that tilting toward an ever-quickening decline and fall.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-30-2009
Reviewing some of what we've discussed earlier, I ran across an interesting quote by Robert: 'There are 300-400 years between the move of Sarmatians to Britain and the "Age of Arthur". '
Since the Samatian calvary unit in question arrived in the third century and the hypothetical proto-Arthur may have lived in the late fifth or early century, the gap--while still large--is not quite so bad. And when was the Digitam Notarium--no, that's not right. Help me--weren't the Ribochester "veterans" part of the circumstantial "evidence"?
Off topic: I'm having knee surgery this morning and will be off-line for a few days (only, I hope). Thanks for the stimulating conversations. It's been very helpful.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - marka - 06-30-2009
Quote:Reviewing some of what we've discussed earlier, I ran across an interesting quote by Robert: 'There are 300-400 years between the move of Sarmatians to Britain and the "Age of Arthur". '
Since the Samatian calvary unit in question arrived in the third century and the hypothetical proto-Arthur may have lived in the late fifth or early century, the gap--while still large--is not quite so bad. And when was the Digitam Notarium--no, that's not right. Help me--weren't the Ribochester "veterans" part of the circumstantial "evidence"?
Off topic: I'm having knee surgery this morning and will be off-line for a few days (only, I hope). Thanks for the stimulating conversations. It's been very helpful.
i thought it was after marcus aurelius' campaigns.
having lived abroad-i say from personal experience-the sarmatians would have been absorbed quite quickly by the native british population and they may not have been recognisible even ten years after the arrival.After all the lifestyle was completely different.
One minute
they're seminomadic raiding roman territory for fame and plunder,their horses all important
next
they're fighting for rome,writing,reading,speaking more latin or even celtic,being paid and trying to keep the picts out,obeying laws
it must have seemed a massive change and a huge adjustment
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 06-30-2009
Quote:You're right. On any objective timeline third centyr is not "late, but the Anglo-Saxons didn't just show up at the end of the forth century and run the Romans off. Their constant pressure resulted in the construction of a string of impressive forts (some still there) along the "Saxon Shore" as well as an administrative reorganization of Roman Briton to facilitate a better response to the Germanic raiders.
Like the greater Roman Empire, the "end" of Roman Briton was a long, slow process. The building of the Walls--both Antonine and Hadrian's--may mark the "high water mark" of Roman Briton with everything after that tilting toward an ever-quickening decline and fall.
Hear this sound?
"Schluuuuuurp, schlluuuuuuurp"?
That's my granny sucking eggs. :wink:
And there are a number of debatable points in your statements (did the 'Anglo-Saxons' really run the romans off at all...was there ever really an 'Anglo-Saxon invasion'....were the Shore Forts really forts and were they really built in response to Germanic incursions etc etc), all of which deserve threads of their own, and probably already command them somewhere in RAT.
Good luck with the knee op Ron. I've had a couple of those myself. All the best.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 06-30-2009
Quote:having lived abroad-i say from personal experience-the sarmatians would have been absorbed quite quickly by the native british population and they may not have been recognisible even ten years after the arrival.After all the lifestyle was completely different.
Hmmmm...differs from my experience. I'd agree that individuals often quickly take on local culture but a large group (and there were, what, 5000+ Sarmatian Cavalry sent to Britain?), particularly a predominantly male one, will often try to carve out and maintain a little piece of 'home' wherever they end up. I've seen this amongst British expat communities in France, Spain, South Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Little or no attempt to learn the language, integrate with local culture etc.
It's possible that they maintained elements of their 'Sarmatian-ness' for hundreds of years. There's evidence that some of the 4th century burials at Lankhills near Winchester (a very unusual 'late-Roman' cemetary because there are lots of grave goods) were of people of Sarmatian descent.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 06-30-2009
Well put. I'm not sure I could have made the adjustment . . . especially the "obeying the laws" part. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-30-2009
Quote:Depends on which end of the third century (Severus or Diocletian), but still it's more like 'Late Roman' to me. Anyway, the wording was not mine but from the author, Horst-Wolfgang Böhme, in 1986. :wink:Ron Andrea:26x44u2d Wrote:A third century destruct layer sounds late Roman to me. :lol:Not from my end of the fifth century it doesn't... :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-30-2009
Hi Ron,
Quote:Reviewing some of what we've discussed earlier, I ran across an interesting quote by Robert: 'There are 300-400 years between the move of Sarmatians to Britain and the "Age of Arthur". '
Since the Samatian calvary unit in question arrived in the third century and the hypothetical proto-Arthur may have lived in the late fifth or early century, the gap--while still large--is not quite so bad. And when was the Digitam Notarium--no, that's not right. Help me--weren't the Ribochester "veterans" part of the circumstantial "evidence"?
Off topic: I'm having knee surgery this morning and will be off-line for a few days (only, I hope). Thanks for the stimulating conversations. It's been very helpful.
Good luck with the knee!
Castus came to Britain c. 175-180, that's 320 years before the earlier dates we have for Badon, and 350 for what later sources give as the years of Arthur. Yes, 400 was a bit much, but give or take a century, we haven't pinned the guy down yet. :twisted:
That's the Notitia Dignitatum, which showed one measly unit of Sarmatians in Britain, at Ribchester indeed. Although Linda Malcor more than once tried to make us believe that the full 5000 were still there, patrolling the North without being shown in Roman sources or records (on purpose, mind you! The Romans wanted to keep the Sarmies 'untamed'!) :twisted:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-30-2009
Quote:Hmmmm...differs from my experience. I'd agree that individuals often quickly take on local culture but a large group (and there were, what, 5000+ Sarmatian Cavalry sent to Britain?), particularly a predominantly male one, will often try to carve out and maintain a little piece of 'home' wherever they end up. I've seen this amongst British expat communities in France, Spain, South Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Little or no attempt to learn the language, integrate with local culture etc.
It's possible that they maintained elements of their 'Sarmatian-ness' for hundreds of years. There's evidence that some of the 4th century burials at Lankhills near Winchester (a very unusual 'late-Roman' cemetary because there are lots of grave goods) were of people of Sarmatian descent.
What evidence in Lankhills is that?
It's extremely unlikely that a) the full 5000 remained in Britain. I recall that mr. castus led the bulk to Gaul in the next civil war. Anyway, afyet from Ribchester we have no evidence of any of them staying elsewhere.
Besides, even if they were staioned in Britain for a longer period of time inlarger numbers, it remains to be seen that they managed to keep 'Sarmatian' for a longer period of time. Although local evidence at Ribchester shows Sarmatian names and gods, that's all.
Sarmatians settled in northern Italy by Constantine settled down and diasappeared into the local population - even though they had been settled in larger numbers. Their military commands had to be 'filled up' with later Alans, apparently because they no longer had enough military experience themselves. the same seems to have taken place with Sarmatian settled in Gaul, and some Tailali.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 07-01-2009
Quote:Depends on which end of the third century (Severus or Diocletian), but still it's more like 'Late Roman' to me. Anyway, the wording was not mine but from the author, Horst-Wolfgang Böhme, in 1986. :wink:
Ah, see I was going from the dating given in Nash-Williams' excavation report.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Medicus matt - 07-01-2009
Quote:What evidence in Lankhills is that?
It's been thought for a while that some of the grave goods from Lankhills indicated an origin in Sarmatia or Pannonia (I think it's discussed in Clarke's "Roman Cemetery at Lankhills" ...by far my favourite non-Germanic excavation report). There's been more recent work there (another 200 burials to go with the 300+ already excavated) and I heard Paul Booth gave a talk on the new discoveries at this year's Archaeology Conference at Cardiff. I can't quote exact details but the issue of Danubian/Sarmatian culture came up again.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Sarmatian force remained at full strength and culturally undiluted for 200+ years (I'm sure that the bulk if not all of any surviving effective heavy cavalry force would have been taken into Europe by MM)....my names not Melcor you know? :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - marka - 07-01-2009
sarmatians in winchester?I'll have to look that up
but some of the sarmatians even the commited romanisers may hae retained their religion
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - marka - 07-01-2009
as i understand it
the exotic element are from the danube (but this covers a lot of ground not to mention tribes)but they could be pannonians as well.the finds ie the knives are found elsewhere as well.so they could be a badge of rank in the frontier troops.