+- 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 - 08-08-2009
Of course, since Gildas surely knew his name. Or, as others have suggested, Gildas had some personal reason for not giving him credit.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 08-08-2009
I'm very sure of the the fact that Gildas Is Arthur, but working under a pseudonym.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-08-2009
:lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-09-2009
Ah, yes. Good old Arthur Gildas. I ate dinner with him at the Ritz. His haircloth robe seemed out of place, and he bucked the check. :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-09-2009
Holy Mackeral! I just made Centurion. Now I can beat myself with the stick. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-09-2009
Now we expect a little leadership from . . . oh. When did I become a centurio? It's more fun grumbling in the ranks.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-16-2009
Quote:Now we expect a little leadership from . . . oh. When did I become a centurio? It's more fun grumbling in the ranks.
In Legio III I'm a auxilliary grunt, actually a Roxolani grunt. And I like it that way. Just finished an Alanic cavalry sword (about 79cm long), and am now working on an akinakes, a real pig sticker.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 08-16-2009
Quote:Now we expect a little leadership from . . . oh. When did I become a centurio? It's more fun grumbling in the ranks.Apparently you've just been promoted again, to primus pilus no less (apparently for grumbling). :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-18-2009
Cool. And I even know what it is . . . I am . . . whatever.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - bachmat66 - 08-20-2009
Quote:Small native breeds were prefered by the Roman cavalry. They were more likely to be disease resistant. And they can carry great weight. This is a cob of just over 14 hands. And I'm a great weight.Salve John,
I cannot agree more on the smaller size of military mounts then (Roman times) and until mid-19th century - we have evidence of usefulness of smaller horses from various discussions of military officers of the 19ty century cavalries - eg US Cavalry officers did held plenty many discussions on the very subject - size and built of military horse- in the 1890-1910s. According to their published correspondence they generally agreed then US cavalry horse had to be between 14,2hands to 15,2 hands, stocky built with plenty of bone. Like for the Romans it was the bone structure, muscle mass and ability to maintain performance while under much poorer nutrition during campaign that counted the most.
I got this question regarding your reenactment riding - could you describe the very experience of riding without stirrups with reins dropped, sitting the four-horned or cantle-pommel saddle, and using spear, sword or bow?
Perhaps also how is it different from 'English' saddle and ridding or US 'Western' ridding?
I find this subject fascinating, especially as one of my Polish friends, a good 'historic riding' horseman himself, who has been in many Napoleonic reenactment (eg last battle of Somosierra, Spain 2008 battle reenactment) has been experiencing with Sarmatian style of riding and, actually as I write, he is writing a great, in my humble opinion, replay to A.V. Simonenko's article on the Sarmatians, use of kontos, and their style of riding. http://www.xlegio.ru/pubs/simonenko/sarmati.htm or here http://loshadi.ru/doc2.php?link=encyclo ... rature:492 (Russian)
ps
interesting article on the Sarmatian weapons in the Bosporan Kingdom http://www.pontos.dk/publications/paper ... er-weapons
and here 2005 Russian archeologist Goroncharovskii's article about the military history of the Bosporan Kingdom 1stc BC-3rd c AD http://www.archeo.ru/rus/download/goroncharovskii.pdf
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-20-2009
Quote:the smaller size of military mounts then (Roman times) and until mid-19th century--ignoring, for this discussion, the draft horse-sized monstrosities ridden during the middle and late Medieval period.
Quote:different from 'English' saddle and riding or US 'Western' riding?. The US Army developed and used a third type of saddle, often confused with the western saddle, which has a peculiar "y" girth strap to keep the saddle (and rider) on while traversing uneven terrain. (I've heard both the western and the military saddle referred to as "Sheridan." I know too little about either to support either designation. :oops: )
Of course, none of that bears on this discussion as none of those saddles--nor stirrups, apparently--had been developed by the sub-Roman Britain period. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - bachmat66 - 08-20-2009
Salvete
Quote:well , actually there is no physical evidence (eg 'Medieval horse and its equipment ' by John Clark et al, 2004) of these 'draft horse-sized monstrosities ' - the surviving late 15th and 16th centuries horse armour would not fit any horse bigger than 15,2-5 hands - Royal Armouries at Leeds tried and eg Ann Hyland quotes their results in her book on the warhorse 1200-1600 AD (otherwise a pretty boring and of very little value book)bachmat66:aixpmj5x Wrote:the smaller size of military mounts then (Roman times) and until mid-19th century--ignoring, for this discussion, the draft horse-sized monstrosities ridden during the middle and late Medieval period.
Quote:bachmat66:aixpmj5x Wrote:different from 'English' saddle and riding or US 'Western' riding?.
I just mean John's stirrup-less Roman saddle experience while holding and wielding weapons etc versus his Western or 'English' saddle riding (as these two are very much differ on leg, calf, heel etc placement, rein usage, bit usage, saddle seat etc...), perhpas a word or two about new or different ways of inducing horse to move,pick up speed or slow down etc...
by the way nice late Roman Scholae infantryman from Russian ParaBellum magazine http://www.vzmakh.ru/parabellum/n29_s3.shtml he is wearing full iron cuirass, sort of as Sassanian asavaran advocated by Patryk Skupniewicz in his Sassanian cavalry article for Ancient Warfare.and here is a glimpse into an article by Perevalov on Late Ancient cavalry, with an image of a late Roman Kataphract and Bosphoran rider http://www.vzmakh.ru/parabellum/n26_s3.shtml
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Ron Andrea - 08-20-2009
Quit right.
Excellent illustration.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 08-22-2009
Thanks Bachmat66 for the lead to the article on 1st and 2nd century Bosphoran weapons. I have just finished my akinakes and a friend fashioned the holder: two spaced and rounded tabs for the upper and lower lacings, as usually illustrated. Unfortunately, I have to wear it on the left leg because I'm a Roman auxilliary and have a Sarmatian sword hanging (79 cm, about the length of a spatha) below my right shoulder.
Ron mentioned the Sherman saddle (or was it actually the Sheridan saddle?), but it differs from the western single-pommel saddle and actually is very close to cantled saddles such as steppe models and the Portuguese (sp?) saddle. I have always believed that this is the style of saddle mentioned in Attila's attempt to imoliate himself on that "mountain of saddles." And it would seem to be the ideal replacement for the four-pommel saddle. Perhaps both styles were used in Roman and Sub-Roman Britain. John would know. :?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - dashydog - 08-28-2009
Hi. I joined this forum because I saw other stuff about "econmic support system" for post Roman cavalry but Dariusz distracted me.
Dariusz, Greetings! my friend is a Prof of ancient studies and said to me that the graves of Sarmaty at Klin Yar and other Sarmat sites showed horse heights of 14 hands or less. Thats not just for the usual "sacrificial poor quality" horses but also for "Favourite boss horses" i think.
When you talk about smaller horses which needed less food, i think this is true. Polish Husaria horses needed no winter fodder..not even in the 17 century..not even in Polish or Russki winter. I think its why so many survived the trip to Moscow with the French, when the french horses didnt survive. Small and tough..thats the answer.
That leads me to the earlier posts about post roman Brits and ability to support cav economically. As said above, the Sarmat horse avoided the nemesis of state cavalry..FOOd and FODDER. A 1920 s Brit farm needed 30% of it's output just to feed the donkeys! One can work out the savings Sarmat cavalry offered. Sarmatians seemed to have had three mounts per man or more plus and big family tribe structire to support the operational team. Also, a huge amount of cattle. In arable southern England, they would have not been greatly appreciated but in Uppland Cumbria etc, i reckon noone would have cared. Plenty of food for all. And skins and bone. Not all Sarmat armour was of iron. Much lamella armour "plate" was of bone..which is why we dont find it.
I wont go on. I think the Sarmatian horse were low maintenance and, better still, were great because they preferred to fight in winter as the Poles still did until recenetly. Keeping a team of,say, 400 cav on the go seems entirely possible and ot much tax levy needed.