I've been looking at this (with the associated 'Camelot' thread) and reading into it there is obviously a transition from Late Roman unit/army composition late 4th/early 5th to the early 7th centuries when most of the associated 'Sub Roman' or Northern British entities/kingdoms have fallen to outside forces. In all that time, there is a suggestion that cavalry is an important arm of the Northern British forces throughout (but happy to be corrected with reasoned argument). What I would like to discuss is a likely army composition for the period that puts into detail a bit more than the generic 'Sub Roman' lists that abound for most wargame rulesets
Any takers?
From Y Gododdin, we know that cavalry were 'socially' far more important. They either turned up at the battle on their own or accompanied by infantry who never featured at all.
I think this total downplaying of infantry marks a big break with the Late Roman world and even the subroman Britain of the Alleluia Battle
Actually for that
De Vita Germani, 3.15,16
Meanwhile the Saxons and Picts had joined forces to make war upon the Britons. The latter had been compelled to withdraw their forces within their camp and, judging their forces to be totally unequal to the contest, asked the help of holy prelates. The latter sent back a promise to come, and hastened to follow it. Their coming brought such a sense of security that you might have thought that a great army had arrived. ... great numbers of this pious army sought the grace of baptism. ... The soldiers paraded still wet from baptism, faith was fervid, the aid of weapons was little thought of, and all looked for help from heaven.
Meanwhile the enemy had learnt of the practices and appearance of the camp. They promised themselves an easy victory over practically disarmed troops and pressed on in haste. But their approach was discovered by scouts, and ... the army ... began to take up their weapons and prepare for battle and Germanus announced that he would be their general. He chose some light-armed troops and made a tour of the outworks. In the direction from which the enemy were expected he saw a valley enclosed by steep mountains. Here he stationed an army on a new model, under his own command.
By now the savage host of the enemy was close at hand and Germanus rapidly circulated an order that all should repeat in unison the call he would give as a battle-cry. Then, while the enemy were still secure in their belief that their approach was unexpected, the bishops three times chanted the Alleluia. All, as one man, repeated it and the shout they raised rang through the air and echoed many times in the confined space between the mountains. The enemy were panic-stricken, thinking that the surrounding rocks and the very sky itself were falling on them. Such was their terror that no effort of their feet seemed enough to save them. They fled in every direction, throwing away their weapons and thankful if they could at least save their skins. Many threw themselves into a river which they had just crossed with ease, and were drowned in it. Thus the British army looked on at its revenge without striking a blow, idle spectators of the victory they achieved. The booty strewn everywhere was collected; the pious soldiery obtained the spoils of a victory from heaven. The bishops were elated at the rout of the enemy without bloodshed and a victory gained by faith and not by force.
Whatever else you think about it, it's not an entirely cavalry force 8)
The Alleluia battle was reputedly North Wales so potentially 'a bit too far sarf' for the Men of the North in and around Hadrians Wall etc. Having said that, its an interesting point re the apparent baptism of the local 'Welsh' forces as I would have assumed most of them would be already unless highland Britain was still largely pagan?
Quote from: Holly on February 05, 2017, 07:32:25 PM
The Alleluia battle was reputedly North Wales so potentially 'a bit too far sarf' for the Men of the North in and around Hadrians Wall etc. Having said that, its an interesting point re the apparent baptism of the local 'Welsh' forces as I would have assumed most of them would be already unless highland Britain was still largely pagan?
It may be that 'rural' Britain was still pagan (being pagensis) as opposed to upland Britain
or even following the wrong religion ie pelagianism but I agree it would be more likely that the rural/highland areas might have been mainly pagan (happy for others to chip in)
back to the OT, I am assuming a high proportion of cavalry but not exclusively so in and around the Wall
Infantry might be fairly numerous following the various self-arming measures being passed by 5th century AD Western emperors, mentioned by Duncan in the 'Oh, non, not another Camelot!' thread.
The question then becomes: how much of this potentially numerous infantry will turn up on an actual battlefield? This will probably vary with the degree of perceived authority attributed to and exercised by the person or persons collecting the army. Local infantry will turn up for local actions, but might be reluctant to go and help out the next lord or city along unless relations are very good and it is between oneself and the immediate enemy so there is no reason to hold back troops for one's own defence.
Given the presence of cavalry and its presumed effectiveness against Saxon forces which are largely or wholly infantry, I would see anyone with a significant cavalry force as being disproportionately influential as a nucleus for summoning and gathering armies, which may explain the persistence of mention of gentlemen such as Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther and of course Arthur. The best lands for training and maintaining cavalry would probably be those in the vicinity of East Anglia, as in the later English Civil War (AD 1641-6 and 1648-51).
The ratio of cavalry to infantry might thus be fairly constant, in that a leader with a small cavalry force would probably have only sufficient influence to summon local infantry, whereas a comparatively mighty leader, with a significant contingent of cavalry, would be sufficiently prestigious to acquire infantry from a wide swathe across the realm. Such cavalry as also answered the summons would, in theory, be proportionate to the infantry arriving, but lordlings nervous about the vulnerability of their domains might leave behind a portion of their trusted and reliable cavalry when they marched to war. This would tend to keep the battlefield infantry/cavalry ratio fairly constant whatever the size of the army.
As to the ratio in question, that is another matter. As a rough guess, cavalry would constitute one fifth to one fourth of the fighting men of the army as a whole.
Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed. Those who know more about the development of Christianity will be able to say with more certainty, but my suspicion is that in the 5th century AD baptism was still something done eventually rather than early, although the opportunity to be baptised by a saint was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and many Christians would have wished to take advantage of it and not bother to wait for later, particularly as the imminence of battle might mean there would be no 'later' for some.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 06, 2017, 09:15:40 AM
Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.
A risky option, on might think, for warriors?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on February 06, 2017, 09:20:55 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 06, 2017, 09:15:40 AM
Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.
A risky option, on might think, for warriors?
Indeed to both Patrick and Andreas on this! :)
re the cavalry, in the late Roman period, the Wall and its hinterland were heavily militarised and garrisoned by at least one (large) elite cavalry unit the Ala Petriana. It is inferred that there is a tradition of cavalry into the period in question which probably has its roots in the late Roman model. Where the horses where reared is another matter...one suspects that once 'official' routes began to dry up, local tough pony/horse type mounts would be used
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on February 06, 2017, 09:20:55 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 06, 2017, 09:15:40 AM
Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.
A risky option, on might think, for warriors?
Constantine himself was baptised on his deathbed. It comes from Acts 2:38.
"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."At the time there was a belief, based on a limited reading of the scripture that Baptism was the only time you could be automatically forgiven any sins committed up to that point. Hence you got baptised as late in life as possible.
It wasn't until the 5th century that the church came to an understanding that there was no limit to how many times somebody could repent and be forgiven, but whether that ruling had penetrated into the level of 'folk religion' we could be dealing with is doubtful.
Even then people would put of repentance for as long as possible in case there was a limit.
Quote from: Holly on February 06, 2017, 11:20:50 AM
re the cavalry, in the late Roman period, the Wall and its hinterland were heavily militarised and garrisoned by at least one (large) elite cavalry unit the Ala Petriana. It is inferred that there is a tradition of cavalry into the period in question which probably has its roots in the late Roman model. Where the horses where reared is another matter...one suspects that once 'official' routes began to dry up, local tough pony/horse type mounts would be used
The question has to be asked, the Wall and its hinterland were also garrisoned by a large number of infantry units. Why should they have disappeared but the cavalry have remained?
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 06, 2017, 11:25:16 AM
Quote from: Holly on February 06, 2017, 11:20:50 AM
re the cavalry, in the late Roman period, the Wall and its hinterland were heavily militarised and garrisoned by at least one (large) elite cavalry unit the Ala Petriana. It is inferred that there is a tradition of cavalry into the period in question which probably has its roots in the late Roman model. Where the horses where reared is another matter...one suspects that once 'official' routes began to dry up, local tough pony/horse type mounts would be used
The question has to be asked, the Wall and its hinterland were also garrisoned by a large number of infantry units. Why should they have disappeared but the cavalry have remained?
oh crikey no Jim, I dont for one minute think that infantry 'disappeared' as such, its more the case that cavalry was disproportionately important in the area and one of the 'trump' cards for local forces especially versus mainly infantry based opponents
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 06, 2017, 11:23:50 AM
Constantine himself was baptised on his deathbed. It comes from Acts 2:38. "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
At the time there was a belief, based on a limited reading of the scripture that Baptism was the only time you could be automatically forgiven any sins committed up to that point. Hence you got baptised as late in life as possible.
It wasn't until the 5th century that the church came to an understanding that there was no limit to how many times somebody could repent and be forgiven, but whether that ruling had penetrated into the level of 'folk religion' we could be dealing with is doubtful.
Even then people would put of repentance for as long as possible in case there was a limit.
I remember reading somewhere that soldiers preferred deathbed baptism as it wiped the "Thou shalt not kill" slate clean
Cheers
Mick
I would note only the slingstones found at Trusty's Hill and I think some other northern sites. This doesn't necessarily mean that there would be a single slinger in a "field army", but one can expect barrages of slingshot from any defended fortification.
I am very doubtful about continuity for any regular Late Roman unit nto the sixth century in Britain. That foederati who held land for military service, like the Franks in Gaul or laeti groups continued on because service gave them land rights and this the fiction, at the leadt, of service was worth maintaining. I suggest that the Foederati move to a comitatus model, indeed, may already have been operating in that mode and that this is the source of the cavalry. Mounted troops are very expensive, compared to footsoldiers and in the decayed economic condittions of Late Roman Britain the maintenance of a coupke of hundred mounted warriors could well have the effect of depressing the status and effectiveness of the infantry. The princely realms are all pretty small, how many men could Elmet have provided? Fortunately the Saxon settlements are small and scattered too, so the threat was most likely in limited numbers. Three hundred, does sound a bit like a magic number for the Goddodin, but if you are invading Deira, hoping to take the Anglian leadership by surprise, then it would be enough. Finding your opponent ready, with perhaps six hundred men is a likely scenario.
Roy
We should remember that the Gododdin army is a special band assembled for a task. It is bigger than the average princely teulu recorded (50 is mentioned in other cases).
On the continuity argument with Late Roman units, while some sort of continuity may have existed (forts continued to be occupied in some places, for example) it is dangerous to see that as survival of trained troops or that the forces available were comparable in size to the units that once occupied those forts.
What we need to remember is that 200 odd years is an awful long time and thus the forces around at the start of the 5th century will be quite different to those in the 7th century. I see a general decline of forces in the area in terms of numbers and quality.
There is an inference that the cavalry tradition is maintained to a degree by the emergent Bernician kingdom as it had absorbed/taken over fro the previous Bryneich kingdom based along the southern edge of hadrians wall
Yes 200 years is a very long time in terms of the composition of forces.
I think the cavalry tradition both pre and post dates Roman rule. Off the top of my head we have two Brythonic poetic mentions of heroes breeding horses and making gifts of them.
We have 'the King's Welsh horsemen' in the Laws of Ine. We also have an an analysis of how the disparity in wergild values in the same laws would prevent such horsemen from maintaining their noble status. So native cavalry in Bernicia? maybe, but not for very long I'd say.
so Bernicia has cavalry when the 'ruling house' becomes Anglian as opposed to British late in the 6th Century but this slowly declines/disappears in the 7th? I wonder what the reasons would be for this if accepted?
Koch sees the earliest Anglians in what became Bernicia as conforming to Brythonic high culture citing the recorded Christian mission of Rheged with its mass baptisms and royal intermarriages etc as evidence of, for want of a better phrase, a 'Britishizing' current among high status Germans in the Old North. Who those folks were is something that interests me. Had they arrived from further afield or were they the successors of communities established under Roman defensive policy arrangements? The amount of land that had previously been under the control of the Roman army but was now available might allow for either option without disturbing the interests of the elite of Bryneich. I'd see that as a tenable argument for enabling a short term presence of British cavalry in Bernician armies. Had that situation continued its not hard to imagine that the Anglians would simply have become assimilated into local politics and culture. We know it didn't continue and once Brythonic high culture is rejected its hard to see a lasting place for the cavalry supplying elite of Bryneich.
so potentially (as is my thought process), we could have 'Germanic' laeti settled in/around the Wall and certainly in Bryneich with a Brythonic (largely non militarised) population as well and a cavalry based Brythonic ruling elite. This would then allow for a usurpation of the ruling class from Brythonic to Germanic in the late 6th Century. Cavalry traditions carry on for a short while but then 'regress' to a more traditional Germanic infantry model
I think the population was militarised you will recall Koch's treatment of Marwanad Cunedda, Cunedda fights alongside the men of Bryneich who I'd take to be the free men of Bryneich not just the high status cavalry. Also the poet does not think any Anglian laeti in the area worth a mention which perhaps speaks to their lack of importance at the time.
It begs the question how did Bryneich become Bernicia? I'd say it requires a new influx of Angles and that the name Lindisfarne is a clue to where they came from. Certainly the original dynasty of Bryneich is around long enough for one of them to murder Urien when he had the Angles bottled up on Lindisfarne.
Koch, back in '97, thought the adoption of Irish as an elite Bernician court language was the end of the line for Brythonic high culture in Bernicia but these things are more of a process than an event.
true, I too ponder the mechanism of the usurpation so was trying to think it through and obviously transposing one elite for another makes sense but would carry more weight if the Germanic elite also had a biggish base of Germanic muscle to back it up....unless it was a marriage transition which is also the potential model for Wessex as previously discussed
Wessex is interesting, when Cerdic's Woden born pedigree had to be written down the Chroniclers were stuck as he didn't have one, so they substituted the Bernician one, inserting Cerdic and his father and their successors at the appropriate juncture.
I think the break in Wessex comes with Ine and in Bernicia with Ida. Peter Heather's view that successful kingdoms needed an open/hostile border comes to mind. This enables the king to appropriate new lands to reward his noble followers and consequently attracts lots of young noble warriors to his following.
In both Bernicia and Wessex I would see an influx of new Angles and Saxons respectively as being needed to tip the balance of military power. It's not hard to imagine Ine benefiting from Kentish and South Saxon nobles looking to improve their situation and the East Anglians, if you buy the Lindisfarne connection, seem to have done the same thing in Bernicia.
Quote from: Anton on February 10, 2017, 11:27:08 AM
I think the break in Wessex comes with Ine and in Bernicia with Ida. Peter Heather's view that successful kingdoms needed an open/hostile border comes to mind. This enables the king to appropriate new lands to reward his noble followers and consequently attracts lots of young noble warriors to his following.
In both Bernicia and Wessex I would see an influx of new Angles and Saxons respectively as being needed to tip the balance of military power.
very interesting indeed and could be (one of) an explanation for the proliferation of Germanic languages in 'conquered' areas. Laeti with Germanic roots would either speak a Germanic language or at least be bilingual....the tipping point would come as you suggest, when newly anglicised kingdoms wanted to expand their domains and attracted fresh Germanics from where-ever as part of the heroic age/ warband leader ethos and modus operandi. If there is a lot of 'new men' into the kingdom who only speak a Germanic language then this might push other languages firmly into the background
I think that's about right, Koch sees the earlier (British speaking) Angles in Bryneich having to weigh up where their best interests lay once the newcomers arrived.
I think the other thing to consider is that polygamous elites expanded very quickly due to better food, non exposure to toil and wide sexual access. All those new young nobles needed land. I think Heather makes the point that the newcomers brought women and children with them ensuring the survival of their language.
I also wonder about the impact of the plague of 500 AD which likely hit those, the British, with trade links to the Empire hardest.
Quote from: Anton on February 10, 2017, 01:38:09 PM
I also wonder about the impact of the plague of 500 AD which likely hit those, the British, with trade links to the Empire hardest.
and potentially the 'nth' generation Germanic laeti or foederati who aligned more closely with the British (and their ruling classes) might also have been more afflicted by the plague. This in turn might have allowed more freshly minted Germanics to succeed from the older generation of 'settlers' with all that entails language wise etc
Yes that would make sense. In Wessex the preservation of the Cerdic link might indicate the descendants of original laeti came out on top or at the least that a Cerdic connection was important for political legitimacy.
The Wessex situation is indeed very interesting. Cerdic being British but being used as a political/legitimacy ancestor for successive Saxon leaders.
Quote from: Holly on February 11, 2017, 04:28:31 PM
The Wessex situation is indeed very interesting. Cerdic being British but being used as a political/legitimacy ancestor for successive Saxon leaders.
You would wonder at what point the difference between the two groups faded. Obviously differently in different areas, but after a century would some of the leading families be so intermingled that it was no longer possible to tell?
Quote from: Jim Webster on February 11, 2017, 04:38:09 PM
Quote from: Holly on February 11, 2017, 04:28:31 PM
The Wessex situation is indeed very interesting. Cerdic being British but being used as a political/legitimacy ancestor for successive Saxon leaders.
You would wonder at what point the difference between the two groups faded. Obviously differently in different areas, but after a century would some of the leading families be so intermingled that it was no longer possible to tell?
good point Jim. I have been pondering this and my initial conclusion is that the Wessex 'Saxons' were laeti or foederati who slowly became Britannicised but kept some of their own institutions and language. The degree of intermingling could have been at the very top ie in the fact that Cerdic was a local king/judge/protector etc of British stock who took personal charge of the Saxon/Germanic element in his area, even possibly originating as his personal retinue. The key to survival of this group would be to claim descent from this (potentially) well connected leader.
The paternal line is what counted in Celtic law to qualify you for inheritance great or small.
If we look at Koch treatment of Y Gododdyn we can see a very well placed young man with an obviously German father likely leading the Teulu of the Gododdyn. In terms of elite social integration he is an exemplar. His mother in my view was from the royal dynasty. I'd say probably a sister of the Rí. A sister's son was favoured as a trusted relative precisely because he could not inherit and the familial relationship between uncle and nephew was often genuinely a close one. It is easily possible to imagine that the young man was foster son to the Rí and foster brother to royal offspring.
Aneirin tells us that this young man was listened to by prominent noble warriors and then adds- although his father was no lord. The point being that father may well have been a lord of Angles but that brought no status in the internal politics of the Votadini.
Likewise the Laws of Ine benefit Saxons above Welsh and presumably the right to claim those benefits was strictly policed by those who were undeniably Saxons. Perhaps maternal descent was enough to qualify but I'm insufficiently informed to know that.
Intermingled families would need to pick their best options bot choice may have been constrained.
I reread Koch's essay on Y gododdin today and agree re the Germanic element of leadership of The Votadini ie Yrfai son of Wolstan (Wulfstan). Makes interesting reading then that the traditional view of 'British' forces engaging with 'Germanic' forces at Catraeth!. The truth appears to be somewhat muddier than that for sure but in the context of the socio-political landscape of the time, completely understandable