+- 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 - cagwinn - 06-02-2010
Quote:Agricola which you may want to call Aircol was according to the Welsh king lists the father of the famous Vortepor. Vortepor is known from us from Gildas (who also says his father was a good king, even if not giving him a name) and from a class-1 stone in ogam and latin, where he is given the roman title of Protector.
The two came from the irish dynasty of the Deisi Muman, which counter Morris views. The dynasty possibly got settled there by Magnus Maximus himself.
The stone inscription from Wales records the name of a man called Uoteporix - this is not the same name as Gildas' Uorteporix (or Uortiporius, as it is usually Latinized), though they do look similar (and are commonly confused by all but the most careful of readers).
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-02-2010
Quote: Actually 300 was the maximum a cavalry unit of the Equites or Cuneus type could have. And aparently, an Ala of cavalry wasn't just restricted to 100 men, but could go up to 500. The same as a scholae palatiane unit. (sp?) Forty troops of all the scholae became the emperor's bodyguard. However, I suppose the same system would work for a commander, such as the Dux or Comes Britannium.Roman units were never restricted to a certain size. We can say that 'usually', a cohort was 500 men, or a 1000, but we find so many different figures that the conclusion must be that there was no strict rule for unit size.
Late Roman alae, cunei equitum and equites numbered between 200 and 200.
For a discussion of Late Roman army unit sizes, read this article.
Quote:scholae palatiane
scholae palatinae
Quote:Comes Britanniumcomes Britanniarum
:wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-02-2010
*smacks forehead* I should have remebered that article of yours! It was one of the first ones I read! And I knew that my spelling was off, sorry.
Agraes,
All that equipment was just in one house? Sounds like a carpenter's home, but for the Amphoras to be there, he'd have to be really quite rich. Also, despite what most people think that Church in the fort mught actually be late fifth/early sixth century due to the design. The church's design seems to follow the Celtic cruciform pattern. I'll never understand the idea behind that.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Agraes - 06-05-2010
Quote:Agraes,
All that equipment was just in one house? Sounds like a carpenter's home, but for the Amphoras to be there, he'd have to be really quite rich. Also, despite what most people think that Church in the fort mught actually be late fifth/early sixth century due to the design. The church's design seems to follow the Celtic cruciform pattern. I'll never understand the idea behind that.
No, it's not from a single house but from the whole excavated area. The church is Ethelredan (late saxon) in date, not 5-6th century.
Quote:The stone inscription from Wales records the name of a man called Uoteporix - this is not the same name as Gildas' Uorteporix (or Uortiporius, as it is usually Latinized), though they do look similar (and are commonly confused by all but the most careful of readers).
Yes
I think however it is quite likely that this was one man, the ruler of Dyfed circa 540 AD. Especially because Uoteporix bores the title of Protector, which is tied to the Dyfed dynasty in the welsh genealogies. Even if those are late this seems to be a good evidence.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 06-10-2010
Quote:Quote:The stone inscription from Wales records the name of a man called Uoteporix - this is not the same name as Gildas' Uorteporix (or Uortiporius, as it is usually Latinized), though they do look similar (and are commonly confused by all but the most careful of readers).
Yes
I think however it is quite likely that this was one man, the ruler of Dyfed circa 540 AD. Especially because Uoteporix bores the title of Protector, which is tied to the Dyfed dynasty in the welsh genealogies. Even if those are late this seems to be a good evidence.
Yes, but the Protec/tor does not appear in every Welsh version of the genealogy, is entirely abesent from the Irish versions, and is separated from Gurtepir by seven or eight generations. Additionally, the series Nimet...Dimet...Maxim guletic...Protec...Protector looks like a marginal gloss that was mistakenly interpolated into the genealogy, as if ihey were personal names (Maxim is certainly a late addition to the genealogy; the spelling of his name was not subjected to Brittonic sound changes, as we would expect if this was a genuine, early genealogical tract [compare Aircol, which is a Brittonicized form of Latin Agricola]). Nimet is the Old Welsh spelling of nyfed, which meant "priveleged person" and Dimet is the Old Welsh spelling of Dyfed, so a phrase *Nimet Dimet would be refering to a high-status person from Dyfed. According to Nikolai Tolstoy and Leslie Alcock, the "Protector" here was Clotri [Irish Corath], who received the title from Magnus Maximus/Maxim (which would make Clotri/Corath the "exalted person" of Dyfed) See:
[url:1yxpip4e]http://books.google.com/books?id=q2U3i1X8B50C&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url]
In order for Gildas' Uortipori and the genealogies Guortepir/Gwrdebyr/etc. to be the same man as Uoteporix from the stone inscription, you must propose that Gildas and the genealogists completely botched the spelling of the man's name - ths is, of course, quoite possible with the genealogies, but less likely for Gildas, I think. I doubt the the engraver of the stone inscription botched the epelling of the name, either (if one wants to propose that Uoteporix stands for Uorteporix).
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Conal - 06-13-2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ourse.html
Intersting little article :|
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-16-2010
Hey guys,
apparently acording to this one article (I need to find the article again) the Scythians and Sarmatians used rope stirups to mount and support themselves on the horse. According to the same article they introduced them to the Northern Britons, such as the Votadini and the Kingdom of Ebrauc.
Also I found a new lead in the four-sided spear mystery. Apparently it was a Roman spear called the spiculum (Still need to verify) and was used by Roman heavy infantry thoughout the Empire, I even found pictures, well drawings, of the distinct square holes made by this spear punching through armour and being removed. It could, acording to the article, punch through almost any armour, including leather llamelar and mail. Maybe even scale armour.
What are your thoughts?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 06-16-2010
Quote:Also I found a new lead in the four-sided spear mystery. Apparently it was a Roman spear called the spiculum (Still need to verify) and was used by Roman heavy infantry thoughout the Empire, I even found pictures, well drawings, of the distinct square holes made by this spear punching through armour and being removed. It could, acording to the article, punch through almost any armour, including leather llamelar and mail. Maybe even scale armour.
Ave!
Yes, the spiculum is a Late Roman weapon, but that's a little out of my area of expertise so I couldn't tell you if its exact form is well-documented (as for the pilum, for example). But I would be careful about claims of " could...punch through almost any armour", since no thrown or hand-held weapon of the time could be relied on to do that with any regularity. Square holes in surviving pieces of armor could be from something like that, or they could be from a ballista bolt, or even from a big nail! (Compare to Classical Greek armor trophies at places like Olympia, which had been nailed to walls or ceiling beams in the temple.) By the way, how much *is* there in the way of helmets or plate armor from that era that could have square holes?
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-16-2010
Hi Nicholas,
The Scythians are not likely to have introduced anything to the Romano-Britons, much less the post-Roman Britons. They existed a bit earlier in time and did not serve as Roman auxiliaries in Britain. And as to the Sarmatians, what they introduced or not is a matter of pure speculation. We have no way to verify that.
Quote:I agree with Matt.ArthuroftheBritons:2ahdscgs Wrote:Also I found a new lead in the four-sided spear mystery. Apparently it was a Roman spear called the spiculum (Still need to verify) and was used by Roman heavy infantry thoughout the Empire, I even found pictures, well drawings, of the distinct square holes made by this spear punching through armour and being removed. It could, acording to the article, punch through almost any armour, including leather llamelar and mail. Maybe even scale armour.Yes, the spiculum is a Late Roman weapon, but that's a little out of my area of expertise so I couldn't tell you if its exact form is well-documented (as for the pilum, for example). But I would be careful about claims of " could...punch through almost any armour", since no thrown or hand-held weapon of the time could be relied on to do that with any regularity. Square holes in surviving pieces of armor could be from something like that, or they could be from a ballista bolt, or even from a big nail!
First of all, we do not know what a spiculum looked like, nor indeed what a verutum looked like. they could be used by heavy infantry, but also by light infantry for that matter.
As to the four-sided holes in armour (indeed, what armour??), those are most likely to be blamed on ballista bolts, which we know had that shape, and would likely be fired at armoured opponents.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-16-2010
Huzaah! I finally found what it's called! It's a Celtic Hand Lance! (Whether that's the official name or not I don't know) Apparently it was used by the Celts before Roman domination in order to pierce mail and plate armour and was designed to be used by hand from horseback against dismounted armoured legionaries. Sadly though, it seems to have died out by 100BC, in Europe anyways. But what about the Picti? Could they have held on to such a weapon after so long? (Figuratively, not literally) And if so, could it have been transfered back to the northern british?
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Matthew Amt - 06-17-2010
Quote:Huzaah! I finally found what it's called! It's a Celtic Hand Lance! (Whether that's the official name or not I don't know) Apparently it was used by the Celts before Roman domination in order to pierce mail and plate armour and was designed to be used by hand from horseback against dismounted armoured legionaries. Sadly though, it seems to have died out by 100BC, in Europe anyways. But what about the Picti? Could they have held on to such a weapon after so long? (Figuratively, not literally) And if so, could it have been transfered back to the northern british?
Yoiks! Sorry, but I'm REALLY dubious about this! Never heard of such a thing. There simply was no need of a weapon *designed* to pierce armor back then, because so few people *wore* armor. And repeated tests have shown that armor generally worked. Aside from the fact that most Gauls never fought Romans before 100 BC... Now, there were weapons (generally javelins) which do seem designed to pierce *shields*, such as the pilum, and while those are great things they were hardly a wonder-weapon. Do you have any pictures of this gizmo, or--more importantly--Roman-era descriptions? Cuz it sounds like Wikipedia run amok.
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - Robert Vermaat - 06-17-2010
Quote: Huzaah! I finally found what it's called! It's a Celtic Hand Lance! (Whether that's the official name or not I don't know)
I think not, because 'Celtic hand lance' is an English description, not a Celtic one. :wink:
Besides, what can lances be besides 'hand' weapons?
Quote:Apparently it was used by the Celts before Roman domination in order to pierce mail and plate armour and was designed to be used by hand from horseback against dismounted armoured legionaries. Sadly though, it seems to have died out by 100BC, in Europe anyways.Well, that figures, because 100BC was two generations before Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, three generations before the Romans introduces the segmentata (which makes you wonder what those Celts designed it for) and two more generations before the Romans conquered Britain.
All in all I have some doubt as to the veracity of this information.... :wink:
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - ArthuroftheBritons - 06-17-2010
I'm doubting it now too... I should have researched some more. But anyways, I've been delving again into the military clues given in Y Gododdin and their revelance to our discussion. And I have found something interesting. Again these "Four-sided Spears" pop up. Also, there is mention of large, light shields which they defended with while they fought with a spear or sword one handed. If this is correct then I guess we can finally claim that the contos was not in use with the sub-roman britons.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - John Conyard - 06-17-2010
With respect there is a substantial part of the population that would discount British cavalry using the contos or recurve bow. Germanic pagan Swanton class B 1 spearheads with a square profiles may have been used by some Roman cavalrymen. But it is no super weapon.
Using Jarman's translation of Y Gododdin, Mersey did an analysis of the text and military word usage.
So for example shields are mention 24 times, and broken shields 12 times. Armour is mentioned on 12 occassions, mail on 4 occassions, a curiass once, and there are no mentions of helmets. Nor are bows or arrows mentioned. Horses get 36 mentions, but a saddle is mentioned only once.
So we are back to an heoroic age of cavalrymen riding small horses/ponnies, often with no saddles, with spears, javelins and the occassional sword. No helmets, but the use of mail and perhaps other types of armour.
Vegetius gives us measurements for the spiculum. A long metal component 9 Roman inches long (200mm) is attached to a shaft 5.5 Roman feet (1628mm) in length. In archaeology the size of iron head varies. My reconstruction of the South Shields find weighs 665g. Beneath the barbed head, lies a thin shank. The weight of the weapon, and the narrow cross section of the head, insures it can piece shields, armour and flesh. Once the head cuts through a shield, the thin shank slides through the wood penetrating up to the wooden shaft. On contact with a hard surface such as the ground the shaft often bends. After the spiculum comes the verutum, or light javelin. This is an inexpensive weapon designed to saturate the target area. It is a very simple weapon, made from a single triangle of iron formed around a wooden shaft. It is likely that both weapons were not given a hardened cutting edge. A wrought iron cutting edge can be as sharp as that of hardened steel, but will not hold its edge as well. But since these weapons were disposable they only had to hold their edge for a short time. It is very easy to straighten and even reshape wrought iron when javelin heads get damaged. A file and sharpening stone would be important implements to carry. Vegetius describes these weapons as having an iron head 5 Roman inches (114mm) long, with a shaft of 3.5 Roman inches (1030mm) in length. Such examples vary in weight from 325 -350g. Of course these are Roman weapons.
Re: Sub-Roman Britain Cavalry - cagwinn - 06-17-2010
Quote:Using Jarman's translation of Y Gododdin, Mersey did an analysis of the text and military word usage.
So for example shields are mention 24 times, and broken shields 12 times. Armour is mentioned on 12 occassions, mail on 4 occassions, a curiass once, and there are no mentions of helmets. Nor are bows or arrows mentioned. Horses get 36 mentions, but a saddle is mentioned only once.
A helmet (or, at least, some type of headgear) is mentioned in stanza A.51 (with a slightly corrupt version in stanza B1.7) - "drem di-bennor" ("eyes unencumbered by headgear", per Koch's translation, "Gododdin of Aneirin", p. 35).
I don't know how useful the Gododdin is for elucidating the arms and armor of sub-Roman Britain - even if the original poem was composed in the early 7th century, it has several layers of later accretions.