North British Warrior

[Robert Vermaat]

The ridge helm would probably have been more common in the North.

Why?

Like Angus McBride's picture shows, the British nobility probably relied on mail and scale armor

What other armour would you say was available to them?

underneath it all he probably wore a simple long sleeved tunic(depending on his rank),

Why depending on rank?

trews (possibly striped in the Celtic style, especially if he came from Gododdin or Strathclyde),

Why 'striped in the celtic style'? Why would you say that 'Celtic style' was striped. What would you say would be evidence for such an assumption? And lastly, why would this 'striped style' be more common for Goddoddin and Strathclyde?

and riding boots or Roman style caligae (see the link above).

You are now just looking at Mcbride's picture, aren't you? :wink: Why riding boots? Do we have evidence for 'riding boots' in this period? And why caligae as an alternative, when caligae had for some time (a 100 to a 150 years) been out of fashion?

Over it all he would have worn a cloak (orange/tan for commoners, rebed for warriors and elite, purple for royalty--again see above) with a brooch.

Whyn these colours? 'Rebed' for warriors and elite - how do you figure that? Purple for roytalty? How would they have found the materials for that colour?

a round shield with a metal boss, probably with a cross, twin fish, or the Phi-Rho symbol.

Why the crosss or the twin fish? The chi-rho (not phi-rho) symbol would of course ne Christian, but do you have evidence that it was actually used on any British shield in the late 5th or early 6th century?

As for the use of heavy cavalry, I'm not much of an equine expert. I know that Roman saddles lacked stirrups, so couching the lance was out of the question.

I'm sure that several experts on this forum can tell you otherwise.

My question is, could these horses be used in an all out frontal charge to open up the enemy ranks, or were the put to better use attacking from the sides or flanks? Also, the horse armor of the cataphracts may have been too rare and expensive, but could leather armor have substituted?

Of course you could use cavalry in a frontal attack, but I'm not so sure that a) it would have the preferred result or b) the horses could be used again. Harrying the front, using weak spots and of course the flanks or better, rear, would generate a better result I'd say.
Personally I'm not so sure if the British would have been able to keep such very costly units. If we look at gaul, Spain or other provinces of the Empire, where such units vanished probably even before Roman effective rule ended, it's hard to accept that Britain, for a reason other than whishful thinking, would have been an exception. Even the far richer East Roman empire did not manage to retain such units continually and in large numbers.