Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Ron Andrea]

I've been out of pocket for more than a month, so I've lost the bubble on where we were.

Here's what I think we agree on:

• No heavily armed and armored cavalry, such as Byzantine cataphract.
  No large-scale Briton cavalry (due to economics more than lack of know how)
  Equipage may have been Roman castoffs, but not for long. Little evidence of Briton industry to support.
  No hard stirrups. (The Franks adopted them in the 8th century. Unlikely, the Britons had them before then.) Possibility (but no evidence for) of soft stirrups, loops of leather to aid mounting and add stability on long trips, but not for fighting.)
  Probably relatively small horses (an economic as much as a breeding issue)
  

We don't agree, but love to write about:

• Eastern influences, especially the supposed "Sarmatian connection."
  The existence, heritage, tactics and effectiveness of "he who must not be named." (His initials are Arthur Pendragon. :wink: ) And whether he (or his progenitor) may have had Roman connections. Arthur talk has been ruled "off topic" however.
  Anglo-Saxon use of horses.

Comments? Additions?