What are the sources for Saxon and British/Welsh battles being at river fords

[Erpingham]

The "fight at the ford" question does open questions on how strategic geography worked and was perceived at the time.  We know that Anglo-Saxon armies had landmarks where they would muster.  Fords may have had a landmark function for concentrating armies (The old way where it crosses the big river - we'll gather on the west bank), as well as a frontier crossing or choke point effect.  On the choke point effect, it is not just the barring role - the narrow crossing might slow a force so that a pursuer could contact, especially if a small force can get ahead and fight a delaying action.

[Jim Webster]

Remember that once you got out of the area you personally knew you'd become increasingly dependent on less reliable sources of information about terrain. Fords might have been choke points not so much because they were the only place you could cross a river but because they were the crossing points known to normal travellers and were thus the ones the leaders of armies could be certain were there.
Once you got the river you might find someone local and reliable you could trust who would tell you about other potential crossing places within ten or twenty miles. Or you might not.
Also with mainly infantry forces, and poorly disciplined and poorly trained infantry forces, if you wanted to cross elsewhere and fall on the enemy's flank you're probably looking for somewhere to cross within a couple of miles.

Jim

[Mick Hession]

The choke point effect also helps with predictability: if you know the enemy has to come that way, you can get there first and await him, rested.

Also, you don't have to defend the ford itself - in places like Wales the valley slope overlooking the ford offers a good defensive position in its own right.

Cheers
Mick

[Imperial Dave]

In the engagement I am looking specifically at, the terrain would not allow for more than a a couple of hundred maximum to be "hidden" in that way. Interestingly though, that could mean a prepared position of ambush with said 200 men when the opposingforce attempted to cross followed by a rapid withdrawl to the second prepared position a couple of miles away whence the larger trap could be sprung.

The battle I am researching supposedly supposedly leads to a long hiatus in hostilities which makes me think that even if the numbers on either side werent large, the engagement might have a decisive victory for the Welsh

[rodge]

The battle I am researching

If no cats are let out of bags then which battle are you looking at Dave?

[Imperial Dave]

Hi Rodge,

no cats out of bags.....just a long slow research project into the supposed Battle of Tintern. I say supposed as there is only one reference to it (Book of Llandaff) although locally where I live it has accumulated legendary status and historical worthies argue over its site (as opposed to its presumed factuality)

[Swampster]

Looking at the extract of Nennius, it struck me that he may simply be marking the site of a battle by reference to a river rather than the battle necessarily involving the crossing of a river.
In more modern times, the Union name for many of the ACW battles uses a river name even when the crossing of the river is not a major part of the battle. Compare this with the Confederate use of settlements to name the same battle.

[Imperial Dave]

Interesting point Pete and makes sense for some engagements. In fact there is a tendency for some battles to adopt the name of the nearest well known feature be it a river or a town rather than the actual site

[Swampster]

Interesting point Pete and makes sense for some engagements. In fact there is a tendency for some battles to adopt the name of the nearest well known feature be it a river or a town rather than the actual site

And a notable place may actually be some distance away. Arrian and Strabo mention Alexander's victory being named after Arbela as being a more notable place (though 500 plus 'furlongs' away), rather than after Gaugamela - 'a mean place'.  Interesting that even though Strabo notes the discrepancy, Arrian still has to reiterate it - perhaps Curtius's use of Arbela represents the more common practice.

I remember in my first encounter with the battle it was named Arbela. That was in a children's book called something like Great Battles in World History.

[Imperial Dave]

I'm still not entirely convinced re my own battle example (Tintern) hence why I am edging towards a two-fold engagement, one at the ford and another at a site a few miles away but overall refered to as the (singular) battle of Tintern

[Jim Webster]

Interesting point Pete and makes sense for some engagements. In fact there is a tendency for some battles to adopt the name of the nearest well known feature be it a river or a town rather than the actual site

And a notable place may actually be some distance away. Arrian and Strabo mention Alexander's victory being named after Arbela as being a more notable place (though 500 plus 'furlongs' away), rather than after Gaugamela - 'a mean place'.  Interesting that even though Strabo notes the discrepancy, Arrian still has to reiterate it - perhaps Curtius's use of Arbela represents the more common practice.

I remember in my first encounter with the battle it was named Arbela. That was in a children's book called something like Great Battles in World History.

The mean streets of Gaugamela means something entirely different now ;-)  Interesting how the English language has changed

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

I've just finished reading The Secret History of The Roman Roads of Britain by M. C. Bishop (and in fact have written a review for it hopefully to appear sometime in the future in Slingshot....). The book looks at the road system in the pre, during and post Roman eras. The post Roman era is interesting from the perspective that Bishop proposes that the vast majority of battles are fought on, or very near to a roman road. Not rocket science perhaps but he makes reference to a lot of dark age and medieval battles with good arguments for their placement within the context of the roman road system.

[Nick Harbud]

In the engagement I am looking specifically at, the terrain would not allow for more than a a couple of hundred maximum to be "hidden" in that way.

For some of the battles in this period that seems to be a reasonable size to be worthy of mention.

[Imperial Dave]

In the engagement I am looking specifically at, the terrain would not allow for more than a a couple of hundred maximum to be "hidden" in that way.

For some of the battles in this period that seems to be a reasonable size to be worthy of mention.

In the context of what I have read recently (far too many books on the subject!) I agree with you. I have actually slightly changed my tack on my original propositions for the battle. I am convinced that there was indeed a battle in the general area possibly away from the ford proposition and more towards the road proposition although either are quite possible and there just isnt any evidence to counter either argument currently!

I think I have nailed the casus belli for the battle and thus can be reasonably happy with the timeframe as well. The evidence (circumstancial), the protagonists and the area itself appear to coalesce quite well.......for now!

[Nick Harbud]

FWIW at least one book I read on Arthur's battles set 3 of them along the old Roman roads heading into East Anglia.  In this case there was no convenient river, so the author reckoned that Arthur made a series of embankments along the road to halt the Angle advance.

Of course, this strays into the realm of "Was Offa's dyke intended as a defence line or a boundary marker?", but there you go.