Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Agraes]

Ah, our poetic Ron Andrea. But, as predicted, now if we want to carry our discussion further we must discuss things like "Arthur's battles. So, I propose to start on that in-depth topic. "Arthur's" first battle as warlord of the Britons was on the river Glien. Now most people would point to the river Glen in Northumbria but, Mike Ashley suggest a much more realistic site. The Glyndebourne. This town was just on the border of Aelle's sprouting kingdom, and intriguingly enough the ASC (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) states that in AD485 Aelle fought the Britons on the Mercades Burnam (Spelling?) which translates losely as "the river of a border dictated by treaty". It seems Aelle was defying Ambrosius' peace treaty by trying to take settlements beyond the border. So Ambrosius sent Arthur to keep him in check. So we're talking about 500 cavalry, suplimented by possibly another half Ala led by Gerran of Dunmonia. Maybe 100 professional spearmen? 300 levies? Perhaps a quarter of the levies are archers. Aelle likely led about 200 profesional mail clad spearmen who likely also had a sword, 200 spearmen with leather breastplates and some mail, and around 300 levies. So about 950 men for the Britons and 900 for the Saxons. Briton cavalry are the best troops on the field, followed closely by the Saxon elites. Aelle was contained and pushed back into his territory across the river. Note: "Arthur" still had enough men to go on to win four battles on the river Dubglas.

Well? What are your thoughts? Troop number alterations, horses and weaponry involved. Realism of the circumstances?
PS: I'm starting to think Alanus was right in saying the conection was the Tailfai, the Tailfai priest Ulifas as a striking similar name to an arthurian knight named Ulfias.

Ouch.
You are discussing the troop numbers and equipment of a pseudo-historical battle that may have:
1. never happened
2. was fought by some real characters and then attributed to Arthur.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. I bet you can write a good story out of it, but that's all. Hundred of people have already postulated who was Arthur, when and where he fought. Now this forum isn't about mere speculation, it's about studying the past. All theories are welcome but they need to be argued.

This thread was about sub-roman britain cavalry and focused on those questions: what were the proofs of the use of cavalry in that period, how spread it was, how much horsemen could a warlord have managed to gather, which type of horses and horse equipment was use, which weapons were used, how did they fought, in which fashion did it developped, etc.