Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Nathan Ross]

I would prefer to let Arthurofthebritons continue his zeal and studies on the subject, rather than close it down.

By all means! However, this very long thread has featured some rather circular reasoning, and the 'Sarmatians' theory lies at the root of much of this. The original topic, way back there in 2006, concerned the military capabilities of sub-Roman cavalry. Since, as has been discussed at length, there are so few conclusions that can be reached about this, it seems advisable to discount those theories and suppositions, lately arisen, which may cloud or even obscure the issue. This, I believe, is not tantamount to closing the subject down, but rather to concentrating on what can be known or deduced based on historical evidence (something which I presume we can all respect!).

I would say that making the statement, "no evidence for it whatsoever" is a tad strong and misleading.
There is physical evidence of the earlier Iazyges in Britain, a famous stone stele with a draconarius that's pictured in every book on the subject, clean statements from good Roman historians that 5,500 Iazyges were sent into Britain, and a very nice Sarmatian ring-pommeled sword in the British Museum. These cites are just off the top of my head. But they certainly confute the above "no evidence" statements.

Certainly, nobody would deny that there were (probably) Sarmatian troops stationed in Britain at some point. Dio gives us the 5,500 men, and we have the Cuneus Sarmaturum etc attested in the province at a later date. Hence the stele, the sword, and perhaps a few scattered traces elsewhere. However, the theory that the descendents of these Sarmatians (or Taifali, Alan etc) exerted a significant influence over post-Roman military formations in Britain is not actually based on this historical and epigraphic evidence, but rather attempts to use it as justification for a quite unrelated set of considerations.

This argument for Sarmatian influence was (I believe) originally put forward by Littleton ('The Sarmatian Connection', Journal of American Folklore, 1978), and expanded by Malcor. In both cases, however, the subject is not post-Roman military forces in Britain per se, but rather a certain quasi-mythological figure who shall remain nameless! Littleton's essay attempts to trace patterns in Indo-European mythological archetype, drawing parallels between 'Sarmatian' folklore and the appearance of similar tropes in Britain. He uses the attested Sarmatian troops in Britain to explain how these stories and traditions could have been transmitted. He also mentions Artorius Castus, whose importance is amplified by Malcor.

Neither theory, however, stands up to scrutiny IMO. In particular, bearing in mind the subject of this thread, both rely on erroneous or ill-informed conceptions of Roman military history. Littleton's contention, for example (1978, p523) that the 'Roman army' were solely equipped with the gladius shortsword, and thus the cavalry spear and long sword must be imports from a foreign or barbarian source, is clearly spurious in a late Roman context. Similarly his idea that these Sarmatian cuneus 'formed an elite within the legion system' (ibid p523) is not supported by evidence and runs counter to available sources. He provides no justification for the theory that Sarmatian cultural or military traditions would have endured in Britain for centuries when other, longer standing, ones apparently did not. Linda Malcor's argument, meanwhile, that Artorius Castus was the commander of the Sarmatians sent to Britain in c175, and that his name endured in folk memory, relies on the assumption that a primipilaris ex-centurion would advance in his career by commencing the equestrian tres militiae at the level of cohort prefect. This is, one might say, counter factual to say the least :evil: . Castus was a primipilaris, he did spend time (undated) in Britain, but his epitaph does not suggest that he commanded auxiliaries, Sarmatian or otherwise, and certainly would have done so if he had (it records many lesser positions, for example). Malcor's essay is riven with similarly erroneous statements, and there remains no link between Castus and the Sarmatians.

Unfortunately, it seems that the attempt to establish Sarmatian (etc) influence on post-Roman Britain is motivated not by attention to evidence or reasonable supposition, but rather the desire to envisage formations of armoured horsemen (aka 'Knights') operating in Britain: men who could, by extension, have given rise to certain legends and traditions... The scanty available sources, however, do not suggest large cavalry formations, let alone armoured ones. There was a equestrian tradition in Britain even before Roman domination (in, for example, Brigantia), and this combined with several centuries of Roman cavalry garrisons in the province would more than account for any primacy given to mounted warriors in later texts. No need to extrapolate Sarmatian tradition as an influence in any way! The rather hazier matter of mythopoeic transferences, legendary archetypes etc etc might better be left out of the debate!

It remains contentious whether these early Sarmatians influenced a later post-Roman Briton or not. That's not the point. What is at stake here, are misleading, closed, and incorrect judgements which have no historical backing. :twisted:

I'm not sure if it's my 'judgement' above that you're referring to here, Alan! I would certainly agree with you, if you mean the 'misleading, closed, and incorrect' arguments I've mentioned here - and which seem to have an uncanny ability to continue surfacing whenever post-Roman Britain is mentioned...

- Nathan