Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Agraes]

That the mounted characters were assumedly Northumbrian King Ecgfrid's soldiers tells us that the Germans, now the resident rulers to the south, have adopted mounted warfare despite earlier documentation that they mostly fought on foot. It is exactly that transmission of Roman technology to the Anglo-Saxons--and the question of what the intermediate stages may have looked like--which interests me.

Northumbria is a bit of a special place. It was an anglo-saxon kingdom, yet it covered much lands that saw few if any germanic settlement such as Cumbria or Gododdin. Deira probably saw more angle settlement than the rest of what will became Northumbria. There is to my knowledge few germanic burials in Bernicia, and both Bernicia and Deira were originally Brittonic kingdoms. Bernicia may have been taken over by a small anglo-saxon elite and consequently, the nobles and the folk slowly adopted germanic language and customs. Bernicia showed much alliances and diplomacy with 'celtic' kingdoms, be they brittonic, gaelic or pictish, and the church of Iona had a huge influence on it. So it is really possible that in such an 'Anglo-British' kingdom brittonic warfare traditions were kept alive.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that Ecgfrith warriors fought at Dunnichen on horseback because they were taken by surprise. In my opinion it is a bit unlikely.

Now I don't think Germanics were complete strangers to horse warfare. In the Gallic war, germanic cavalry was really famous. In Late Roman times, we see several elite cavalry units with germanic ethnic names that may have been originally made up of Germanic warriors such as Franks. In 6-7th century Britain, we know of a good-bunch of horse burials with wargear such as the one where was found the Wollaston helmet.

Thank-you for the response. However I should like to bring up the fact that I don't really think comparing Picts to Britons is a fair comparson. Picts and Britons had two different fighting styles. Picts struck like lightning and then ran away. Britons struck hard, struck fast, and followed up the first attack with more and more charges. Also, the Alans, whom you compare the Bretons too, didn't just swarm their opponents with javelins, once they were out of javelins and the enemy disorderly and confused they charged into the thick of it. Also I know a game isn't a good comparison for tactics and strength, I just meant for apperace. (And I actually have downloaded Arthurian, briliant job by the way) And leather scales or llamelar doesn't change a thing but the materials.

If that was maybe a fact in earlier times, this is probably no longer the same case in 7-9th century Pictland. The Aberlemno stone shows a solid block of infantry facing cavalry, while on flanks the cavalry is deployed. Culturally, Picts were probably culturally nearer from the Britons than any steppic tribe. That is especially true for the Gododdin warriors. We know Pictish warriors fought at Catraeth on the Brittonic side, and in that region it is quite hard to see where Pictland ends and Gododdin starts.

I recommand the reading of The Picts and the Scots at War by Nick Aitchison for anyone who wants a better view of early medieval warfare in Scotland.

Speaking again of the Bretons, we really have a picture of hit-and-run tactics. As for running out of javelins, the poet Ermorld the Black quoted the Breton king Murman in his unrest against the frankish emperor Louis the Pious, Murman saying he had thousands of chariots full of javelins.

Another interesting passage:
"Soon he (Murman) attacks the foe, striking from behind, opening chests, charging here and there, and following the usages of his ancestors, flee to come back again."
Ermold le Noir, Poème sur Louis le Pieux.

And last no least, a friend from my group Letavia told me it is really possible to pick up a fallen javelin from the battlefield on horseback.