Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[cagwinn]

I have found Bachrach to be very unreliable - I caution anyone using him to check (and then double check) his sources, because he often plays fast and loose with the facts.

Chris, you are overreacting. I think your comment is a bit unfair towards Bachrach, who is a great scholar of the early Middle Ages. You should mention that Bachrach wrote this when the attitude towards primary sources was more 'loose' than it was after David Dumville et al turned the tide the other way.

Btw, I took your point on Vortimer on 'the other forum', and altered my page once more. I guess I relied far too much on secondary sources, which is a mistake for a historian. :oops:

Well, I have by no means read the man's full body of work, but I have read History of the Alans in the West, as well as a few other articles of his on the Alans, and have not been especially impressed by his scholarship (Bachrach is the main source of a number of Malcor & Littleton's wilder claims about the Alans and Sarmatians, by the way). His attempts to find Alanic or Sarmatian settlements in every western European place name that even remotely resembles these two ethnic names is notably shoddy (he doesn't even consider, no less mention other etymological possibilities for the names). Some of his statements about the Bretons are true head scratchers.

I saw that you changed your article - I did notice spelling errors, though - you have Vo®toprix where you should have *Vo®teporix and Votiporix where you should have Voteporix (for this is how the name is spelled on the stone inscription).