Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Matthew Amt]

The Celts were a horse culture. Most of the equipment and tactics we've described go back to the Celts but the problem with the Celtic parties was their administration. In a tribal setting of constant civil war there is no way an elite cavalry force could be maintained...

Aren't you contradicting yourself? The earlier Celtic cultures were tribal with a mounted elite, and thrived on constant warfare. If post-Roman Britain went back to a basically tribal arrangement with constant warfare, that's no inherent bar to a cavalry elite. (Wouldn't be "civil war" in either case, by the way, since it's warfare between *different* groups!)

I'd also be careful about thinking that any "backsliding" after Roman administration ended might involve any sort of concious revival of Late La Tene cultural elements. People didn't say, "Well, those Roman guys are gone, so we can get back to wearing plaid and liming our hair!" They simply went on with their lives as they could, making local administrative changes as needed. Local militia units would go on being local militia units. There would already be aristocrats, and they'd go on ruling. Sure, if they found that they needed fortifications and it was easier just to move into an old hill fort, they'd go for it. But it wasn't like they deliberately did that as a "revival" of the "old ways" or anything like that.

Valete,

Matthew