SoA Forums

More a continuence than a restart but having read quite a few new and up to date books and articles recently I am minded to look at this again.

A few questions...

When did the Late Roman model for Romano British armies give way to the heroic age structures and how different were armies in reality to each other. This includes laeti, foederati and mercenary/tribal germanics

What were the differences between Highland and lowland Britain in terms of troop composition

How much cavalry was there in reality and of what quality

Just for starters

I think one issue might be scale; the very word "armies".  Once the Romans have "gone" (and possibly before they had officially "gone", but with forces massively depleted by expeditions to Gaul by the likes of Constantine III), is there any occasion when perhaps more than 100 chaps rocked up on either side?  Of course we do not know, but are we too influenced by a combination of Gildas' imagery of Mons Badonicus, and the Viking Great Army a few centuries later, to assume that the Angles, Saxons, Jutes et al are wandering around in large, massed numbers, rather than a boat-load or two at best?  That any Romano-British leader has more than a few score lads at best at his immediate beck and call?

You mention "heroic age" structures.  Is not the simplest explanation for an apparent reversion to Celtic warbands, and the reoccupation of the odd hillfort not some, actually very hard to explain if we are honest, military/social nostalgia for pre-Roman times despite four centuries of Romanisation, but more a simple imperative when the loss of centralised power means that the retinue of a few well-armed thugs is the obvious route to maintaining local power?  Hillforts are almost an indicator of relative weakness: one can press-gang local villagers into renovating an obvious but dilapidated defensive position, but then sit up in one's hall with a certain degree more security, more easily defended against rivals who might want to pop over in the middle of the night to settle scores.

Cavalry quality/quantity?  Probably perfectly good horsemen, but experienced hunters, not cavalry troopers.  A few thugs on horses, more than enough to bag a deer or two for the hall, strong-arm farmers, raid cattle, or take on similar thugs from the valley next door.  Might even have quite good armour, etc, as befits a professional warrior/thug.  But not chaps who resemble a cavalry ala, or even a turma.  No sub-Roman pseudo-Sarmatian EHC/Kn(F)...

Speculation on my part.  But as I say, I wonder whether a combination of Arthurianism and the later Viking experience have overlaid too much of a prism.  Plus a dose of DBM(M) - how can one not have an army list for the period?  Problem is that it is an army list.

Very useful David.

Chuck into the mix the obvious climatic and disease events particularly in the 6th century and the waters get muddied. However, I do ascribe to a 5th century 'holding' of semi Roman structures at least up to around 450ish. This includes military structures and organisation. The question of how big do we go is another one you rightly ask. Even when 'legions' were present in the 5th and even the 4th century, it was more policing and combating raids and the like I suspect

The other interesting aspect for me is the regional differences as modern commentators are fairly confident that upland and lowland areas did diverge and quite early on.

More digging required

I'm not up on 5th to 9th Century British archaeology but wonder if anything similar to Scandinavian experience can be found in the record.  There (and I draw my information from Neil Price's "Children of Ash and Elm") a pattern of society similar to that which interacted with traders from the Roman empire - or at least was connected to the distribution network of Roman goods - carries on from the Roman period to around the mid 6th Century when there is a massive disruption due to plague/climatic change?  Population levels drop hugely.  When things pick up again, the pattern of settlement changes completely from a dense network of independent farming settlements into a much more dispersed pattern of strong men's halls, served by poor dependent farms.

As for the size of forces, I tend to agree with David.  Note the Anglo-Saxon definition of a horde - more than 36 men.  That is about equal to the crew of one medium sized Viking longship.

Thanks Kim. Always useful for extra context and in fact interconnectedness

The pattern you describe is definitely similar across the northwestern European mainland and includes Britain

It feels like a series of apocalyptic events occurred in the 6th that affected the order of things even more than the collapse of the western roman empire

For what little it is worth, I  would also go with the fact that some kind of Roman-based social organisation continues in the lowland zone well into the 5th century.  The problem is that what it was like. I suspect it has been increasingly moving to a client-based oligarchy with the decay of central authority. Country land-owners hire "security" and have the resources to provide kit, horses etc. Civitates hire mercenaries, maybe giving them land to settle. Army units develop support systems that don't require central pay-chests.  These people still think of themselves as Roman - I struggle to buy a reversion to a Celtic tribal system. Yes, I'm sure some oligarchs would point to their native aristocratic credentials but they had been making their wealth and displaying their status in the Roman manner for centuries.

I must admit, I'm more a fan of the "small army" theory of armies of this period (more Halsall than Bachrachs).  Perhaps too much is made of the laws of Ine. The figures in there are legal definitions, that divide categories of wrong-doers

"By "thieves" (Peofas) we mean men up to the number seven; by "a band" (hloo) from seven to thirty-five ; by "an army" (here) above thirty-five."

While it implies armies could be small, it doesn't necessarily hold that they were even usually at the bottom level.

While looking at "army" sizes one might also consider the various Scandinavian bog deposits of weapons, assumed to be the arms of the defeated side. While too much can be made of these (e.g. in terms of force composition) they do give an idea of scale.

Lowland and Upland will inevitable diverge because of the population density the land can support. But you have to be careful about how you define upland. In the north they've seen grain grown at altitudes we wouldn't bother now.

But following on from earlier comments, if you are trying to support your warband of loyal thugs, then three or four reasonably prosperous lowland villages will pay you more protection money that an awful lot of rough fell.

Also in some areas you have to remember you might get Transhumance so the lowlands and highlands are actually an integrated system. Neither can survive economically without the other.
You get something like that even now in the UK where young female fell sheep will often be moved down into the lowlands over winter to ensure they grow enough to be fit to be tupped next year

True Jim

It may be that the lineation of upland and lowland areas in the 7th century are more to do with pre existing martial and sociopolitical structures than pure economics

I enjoy pointing out that the 18th century Riot Act defined a "riot" as involving twelve or more people.  As we know, 18th century riots could involve tens of thousands.  The minimum level isn't relevant when considering typical "riot" or "army" sizes.

The other thing with Ine's Law is what the "army" is doing

"One accused of plundering with [such] an army shall redeem his 'life through [payment of] his wergeld or shall clear himself by [an oath equivalent to] his wergeld. . . ."

So, this isn't an invading army, this is a plundering raid. It isn't clear even that this applies to external aggression rather than lawlessness in the kingdom. Given the enforcement action, it implies one can identify and take into custody the perpetrators and fine them, which is unlikely to be the case if they were outsiders.

Ines laws are interesting as they mention the Welsh and their status within his kingdom. Reading into the subject, enclaves of Romano British/Wealah are often typified by saete or saetan suffixes

Ill dig up the references when I can but there is evidence of tributary British cavalry serving A-S kings

I think the term thug is a little harsh.

I don't think the Celtic influence really went away in Roman Britain, certainly not in places like Cornwall, Wales and the Old North. Y Gododdin talks of 300 mounted warriors, it has been suggested that they could have been accompanied by a larger number of foot soldiers, not considered worthy of mention in the poem.

Especially in the extreme western and northern areas which had de facto proto kingdoms by the end of the 4th century anyway

Quote from: Imperial Dave on July 16, 2025, 12:27:23 PMIll dig up the references when I can but there is evidence of tributary British cavalry serving A-S kings

One possibility that immediately springs to mind is Oswald recovering Northumbria with the probable aid of Picts or Scots at Heavenfield, since he probably had, at best, a small retinue of Northumbrian loyalists.  We have no knowledge of the composition of the forces.  It just seems likely that any Scots or Picts would have included horsemen - maybe even exclusively so, if this is a small force.  Equally, the Northumbrian exiles may well have been mounted, leaving aside Anglo-Saxon stereotypes, especially if nobles living in amongst Picts and Scots for a few years.

One does wonder about the trope of AS cavalry and the reasoning behind it