Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[dashydog]

If they were not part or Armorician society and therefore not subsumed then the future references to Breton cavlary may have been with regard to a home grown type and not, what is often assumed, specifically a direct development of Alanic cavalry. I ask this as in AD448 the Armoricians are said to have revolted due to Alanic settlement. Is it clear that they were in revolt as the Alans had been put amongst them or that they were interfering from adjacent lands? Either way they were not being accepted so maybe they were not assimilated, maybe resitence wasn't futile???

Conal.
Bachrach is fairly copious on this. Far too much to retype for you. He is fairly clear about various Alan settlements to the West of the Orleannais but I dint find any official "settlements" in that. Some of them i have seen for myself when working there. Endorsement from the Emperor seems to have been implicit. Viz a viz Breton cavalry, Regino of Prum and Hermoldus point out their "foreign way" of fighting. This included refusal to dismount and fight on foot, "Hungarian styles of attack", armoured horse etc etc. Any one of these means Sarmatian or Alan. There were no other foreign cavalry to do it. Refusal to dismount and fight is 10000% Samratian attitude. So, to me, it means that the Breton Cavalry were foreigners, were Alan. And, they did seem to adapt and marry in quite well..once they stopped thieving and doing their cossack style protection rackets. Tumultuous times, methinks!