06-12-2009, 03:53 PM
Hi Conal,
I guess 300 is not much, until you look what the East Roman army of Belisarius could field against the Vandals and Goths. If you take away the hired foreign forces, the numbers are not much different. Then compare the wealth of the Roman empire of the early sixth century to war-torn Britain, without an economy to speak of..
Conal, I would not argue with an hypothesis about a British warlord fielding a force of 300 cavalry. But given the economics it would be rare, and still (which does not change with us discussing demographics) not supported by the sources. Purely hypothetical.
I’m more enthusiastic about the comparison to William the Bastard. At least a third (if I recall correctly) of his cavalry were mercenaries, which would leave us with a good comparison. And William’s kingdom was a lot richer than the lands of any late fifth-century British warlord.
Quote: These societies were not made up of hunter gatherers but people who had worked the land and raised crops and cattle for centuries, they had enough manpower to refortify hill forts and build massive dykes yet we it appears to be felt that they could not breed enough horses to keep 300 cavalrymen atop a mount.There’s a difference between forcing a population to dig earthworks, and maintaining a standing force of cavalry!
I guess 300 is not much, until you look what the East Roman army of Belisarius could field against the Vandals and Goths. If you take away the hired foreign forces, the numbers are not much different. Then compare the wealth of the Roman empire of the early sixth century to war-torn Britain, without an economy to speak of..
Conal, I would not argue with an hypothesis about a British warlord fielding a force of 300 cavalry. But given the economics it would be rare, and still (which does not change with us discussing demographics) not supported by the sources. Purely hypothetical.
Quote: .. the Sioux at the Little Big Horn (or Greasy Grass Ridge if you are a Native American) were able to put up 900 -1800 mounted warriors ..The Sioux were a warrior nomad tribe, totally incomparable to early Medieval Britain.
Quote:The Zulu population (I use them as an iron age society in 1879) of 3 million (est) managed a fighting force of 40-60,000 (est) ... Ceasars campaign in Gaul faced a population of 3 Million (est) with a fighting force of 90,000+ (est). No if the Romano-British could not pull together a couple of thousand .... they deserved a drubbing.Very different again. The Zulu were a warrior people, without much to arm them – just a shield and a short spear. The Celts facing Caesar were are a warrior culture. Britain in the 5th century, by comparison, was no longer a warrior culture, as these cultures had vanished from the lands ruled by Rome. Citizens were no longer trained in the use of arms, these were forbidden by law since generations!
I’m more enthusiastic about the comparison to William the Bastard. At least a third (if I recall correctly) of his cavalry were mercenaries, which would leave us with a good comparison. And William’s kingdom was a lot richer than the lands of any late fifth-century British warlord.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
