Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[marka]

I find it interesting that riders seem to be carrying spears both over- and underhanded, but not tucked under their arms as we commonly think of "knights" carrying a lance.

If we can establish that Roman calvary (usually auxilliaries, right?) in Britain used bows from horseback, that gives us a clue about sub-Roman practice. I don't see much use for mounted archers unless they were to be employing the infamous "Parthian" (parting) shot manuver credited to Asian horsemen. Wouldn't massed, dismounted archers be more effective? (The "machinegun" effect. hock: )

I thought the presence of archers in Britain before, during and after Roman occupation was well established, but someone has called that into question. I suspect they aren't the pinnacle of authority, but the cover illustration of Osprey's Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars shows a crouching archer who is identified (p. 35) as a "Welsh tribel warrior, 6th-6th century." Authority for the design of his bow is given as "fragments of Roman bow from Carnuntum."

horsearchers would have been more effective for small scale battles and skirmishing as well as being more mobile