+- 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 - Alanus - 04-16-2010
Benjamin,
Yes. A couple of good points in the last two posts.
Whenever you have a power vacum the "strong" can either win or "move in." And personally I have wondered if Cerdic and Cynric were ever Saxons at all, but rather, disenfranchised Briton's leading Saxons. The power elite need not be the major ethnicity of the people themselves, as we see with the 4th and 5th century Goths.
And I'll wager, in many cases, the actual weapons-- beyond swords to tooth-picks-- used on both sides, Saxon and Briton, were no more than spoken words, logical arguments against tyranical (or weak) leaders. :roll:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 04-16-2010
vortigern,
You can disregard what I said about elm spears being thrown from horseback. Geoffrey of Manmouth wrote that.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 05-06-2010
Quote:You can disregard what I said about elm spears being thrown from horseback. Geoffrey of Manmouth wrote that.
Ah, yes! :roll: Good old Geoffrey of Monmouth, the man who made it up as he went along, especially near the ending. 8)
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-11-2010
Ah good old Geoffrey :lol: Always great for a laugh. Now, back to buisness. After delving back to Ecdicius again I figured that he and his nineteen men were just the "named companions". Now all this is hypothetical so prove me wrong if you must, but wouldn't they have two retainers each? And they would also be noblemen. Now supposing that this is correct you've got sixty men now just from the companions and their bodyguards but if you take into account the fact that each man had four servants and supposing they all had horses that would mean that Ecdicius' personal warband would number, gasp, three hundred men. Now likely only the first sixty men would have had lances and good quality armour but is it possible that all the others had a leather jerkin, a shield, sword, and javelins? Or am I just using circumstantial evidence?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - dashydog - 05-11-2010
Quote:en Dark even suggested that the western elites, from the 'less romanised' parts of Britain, adopted a romano-christian culture in the 5th century. There is indeed more proofs of latin culture in 5th century Cornwall, Devon and most of Wales (apart from a few towns, forts and what was the land of the Silures) than in the previous romano-british period. We have proofs of latin litteracy (class-1 stone inscriptions), adoption of christianity (long-cist burials...) and roman tastes (trade for Mediterranean wine,
That makes a lot of sense. I believe that the old Punic trade routes (Lusitania direct to Brittany, maybe Cornwall) were never lost and that after Cathage, the Punics merely set up shop as Roman shipowners instead..and keeping their trade in kassiterite and garum on the go as they always had. THen there is option 2 on Pytheas's voyage..another well worn route Garonne to Brest etc. If you read Oppenheimer, he works on this premise to suport his Basque haplotype theories etc etc. In those days, land travel was for the destitute, the vedry rich or the dsesperate. Others went by sea. So, this west coast route was very very old and very well established. Igitur: Roman culture almost certainly arrived in Blighty by that route and did so before it came through Claudius and co.
But, the North Sea coasts were probably different. Oppenheimer makes it clear that he thinks they were Saxonised etc long before Rome. I have my own reasons for believing the same.
Then one has the Saxon Shore forts. Defence may have been their original purpose but to me they look like Bacaroons...for holding British slaves. It was a good business then. They wqould have been operated, probably, by Saxons who had the ships, the weapons and the trade routes. No doubt, the local Romano Bryths were quietly funding them in a JV..whilst also using them as a method of shipping out all their unwanted oiks and troublemakers as slaves!
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 05-11-2010
Quote:Ah good old Geoffrey :lol: Always great for a laugh. Now, back to buisness. After delving back to Ecdicius again I figured that he and his nineteen men were just the "named companions". Now all this is hypothetical so prove me wrong if you must, but wouldn't they have two retainers each? And they would also be noblemen. Now supposing that this is correct you've got sixty men now just from the companions and their bodyguards but if you take into account the fact that each man had four servants and supposing they all had horses that would mean that Ecdicius' personal warband would number, gasp, three hundred men. Now likely only the first sixty men would have had lances and good quality armour but is it possible that all the others had a leather jerkin, a shield, sword, and javelins? Or am I just using circumstantial evidence?Not bad, Nicholas. :wink:
It could be that number, after all we know that Ecdicius was from influential stock and rose to magister militum under Nepos might have had access to some manpower. His force could (hypothetically speaking) indeed number into the hundreds, but I have great doubts that they had access to swords, cavalry lances or good quality armour. You must remember that it was not legal to carry weapons for civilians, and although private retainers existed (buccellarii), these would not be compartable to anything the army could field. I'm not yet prepared to hypothesize about how Ecdicius could have bribed officials to get such stuff, which was produced in a monopoly by the army for the army.
I don't think that the 'others' in Ecdicius' force were noblemen. This was not late 6th c. Britain but late 5th c. Gaul, and we have no reason whatsover to suggest that something like a heroic nobility had formed in Gaul.
So what I would suggest is a force of private retainers, perhaps a few dozen riders but also more on foot, perhaps for the best part armed with shield, spears, some swords maybe. And maybe he had done what was done before him by anyone trying to achieve something military in 5th c. Gaul - he could have hired a batch of mercenaries.
Alans in Ecdicius' army, anyone?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-11-2010
Why thank-you Vortigern.
Well, now we are finally getting somewhere! Your idea of mercenary Alans in Ecdicius' army makes a lot of sense. Alans were feared for being among the best horsemen in the world, next to the Huns. And if I recall correctly there was a very large, and new, population of Alans in the rough area of where he was opperating. If there were Alans in his army would they have been javelin armed or lance/sword armed ? Also, while my scenario wouldn't work in Gaul, would it work in Britannia at the time? If it does then we might have a possible match to the type of warband Ambrosius could have fielded at Badon Hill. And then we can start, if there is consent on this hypothetical force, to debate bout tactics, which could be far more interesting....
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 05-12-2010
Agreed, with both you and Vortigern Studies,
He could have used Alans, the perfect cavalry force. And besides, at this time the Alans had no great love for the Goths. These men, described by Sidonius, had all the good stuff, armor and helmets. He even mentions them sweating in the pommels of their saddles.
I've always felt that the Britons had a similar situation, only with the Alans replaced by second-generation horsemen from the Equites Taifali. Strange that most things "legendary" in a Geoffrey-Layamon way, can be easier traced to the Alans and Taifali than to the Britons or New Britons. :?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 05-12-2010
Quote: Agreed, with both you and Vortigern Studies,Ah, hold your horses! We are purely hypothesizing here - all we HAVE is a description of one named nobleman (Ecdicius) with 18 other men. We could be talking about 19 guys on horseback armed with swords and pure gusto, keep that in mind!
He could have used Alans, the perfect cavalry force.
We do not know what the emerging independent powers in Gaul looked like. from the later warfare between Merovingians and Burgundians I think we can extrapolate that later 5th c. warfare was all about the control of the towns (civitates). The continuous attempts of the Goths to take cities by siege is proof of that, as is the very action taken by Ecdicius. We’re therefore probably looking at landed gentry moving into cities and armed townsfolk. The Alans are pure guesswork.
Quote: These men, described by Sidonius, had all the good stuff, armor and helmets. He even mentions them sweating in the pommels of their saddles.The Alans were employed by the Roman state from the start, so their equipment was provided by the fabricate and/or by subsidies.
Quote:I've always felt that the Britons had a similar situation, only with the Alans replaced by second-generation horsemen from the Equites Taifali. Strange that most things "legendary" in a Geoffrey-Layamon way, can be easier traced to the Alans and Taifali than to the Britons or New Britons. :?Those Taifali are, compared to the evidence we get about Alans, only a very small group. After Sarmatians (the Lucius Artorius Castus craze) it’s now Taifali all the way, but we tend to forget that the Alans were settled and used almost throughout the Western Empire (they still exist - their descendants - in the Caucasus today), whereas we only hear a few times about Taifali. It’s always been my guess that the ‘Sarmatians’ in Britain and their supposed legacy as told by Layamon and others is really about Alans who entered Britain a century after the Sarmatians.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 05-12-2010
Agreed!
When I mentioned the Equites Taifali, I was referring to the cavalry unit rather than its ethnicity. I believe the original unit was formed around 380, with the Taiflai transferred to the Po Valley in 379. If-- as some of us believe-- the Taifali Juniors and Seniors went into Britain at the commencement of Honorius' reign, this would be 15 years after they were formed and they would have had a high number of Alans from the large recruitment conducted by Gratian. (I've read as high as 40,000, with 30,000 on the low end.) The Equites Taifali could have also had Huns, since they were ardently recuited by Stilicho.
So the Roman cavalry presence in Britain must have had a goodly number of Alans, Taifali, and maybe Huns. (I mentioned on another thread that the Gloucester Goth was more likely an Alan or Taifalus; and those buckles & akinakes are identically found in "late Sarmatian" graves in Ukraine.) The other supposed influence-- the early Sarmatians of Arthur Castus-- I consider more "whimsical" than real. The 2005 film on this subject has been heavily criticized for good reason, but surprisingly it showed a fairly accurate cultural cross-section if we view them as NOT Iazyges.
As you say, in Gaul we are looking at the early fortification of towns, a prelude to the medieval period, and even the reception of Ecdicius by the townsfolk after the skirmish reads very much like admiration of the "Holy Knight."
Speculation, yes. But? 8)
If anyone can find them, please send me anything used by Ecdicius. :wink: "Some turned back the pommels of the horses' saddles which were bathed in sweat; others, when you wished to free your head from the skull-piece of a helmet, unclasped the bands of pliant steel; some entangled themselves in disentangling the fastenings of your greaves; some counted the dents on the edges of swords blunted with slaughter..."
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-13-2010
Whoa, mayday, we're heading back to the steepes of Sarmatia! Anyways, back to the Britons. I merely brought Ecdicius back up again to help support a sort of hypothesis based on the idea of only named companions and noblemen. And if you're looking for a description of Ecdicius' equipment Alanus I'll just make a list of semi-random guesses.
Ridge Helm, Scale Armour, Splintered greeves, long spatha, and a steepe saddle. Hope that this helps :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - John Conyard - 05-13-2010
Sounds familiar.
[attachment=0:xxj8cbqt]<!-- ia0 Britain here we come!.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:xxj8cbqt]
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - dashydog - 05-13-2010
Quote:Agreed!
f the horses' saddles which were bathed in sweat; others, when you wished to free your head from the skull-piece of a helmet, unclasped the bands of pliant steel; some entangled themselves in disentangling the fastenings of your greaves; some counted the dents on the edges of swords blunted with slaughter..."[/i]
Crikey..I thought Ecdicius was an Alan anyway...from Vienne or somewhre..his father a roman sponsored "Quango prince" or summat.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 05-14-2010
Thank-you for the input Mr.Conyard,
If I recall correctly you have around, six-nine riders in the Comitatus cavalry? If so, we could just ask you how deadly that a group of cavalry that size could be, and multiply that by two or three :lol:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Alanus - 05-14-2010
John,
Thanks for the photo. I have most of the gear myself, without the horse of course. Next month I teach a class to 10 to 12 year-old boys and girls in a fun-educational program called "Great Explorations." The subject is called "The Steppe Warrior: from the Amazons to King Arthur's Knights," and they will get practical hands-on archery with children-sized steppe bows made by Istvan Toth and Csaba Grozer.
We try to educate a new generation in a way we can. :wink:
I don't know the cultural background of Ecdicius; always thought either an Alan or an Arvernus.