Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Jim Webster]

My suspicion is that in what we now think of as England, the 'military' was probably pretty 'Germanic' whatever language they spoke. After all there'd been Foederate in place for over a century, and regular units would have a fair Germanic influence.
As the formal forces broke down you would probably see them replaced by local leaders with a comitas recruited from good fighters, some of whom might have even lived locally before they joined

I'm not convinced that by 500 that there would be too much difference in fighting style between the infantry on both sides.
The Britons probably had more horsemen who were confident enough to fight mounted

[Imperial Dave]

My suspicion is that in what we now think of as England, the 'military' was probably pretty 'Germanic' whatever language they spoke. After all there'd been Foederate in place for over a century, and regular units would have a fair Germanic influence.
As the formal forces broke down you would probably see them replaced by local leaders with a comitas recruited from good fighters, some of whom might have even lived locally before they joined

I'm not convinced that by 500 that there would be too much difference in fighting style between the infantry on both sides.
The Britons probably had more horsemen who were confident enough to fight mounted

good shout on the 1st element Jim and I think a pretty good summary for what we might expect. Fighting styles is more difficult to ascertain but if we accept that both sides might be employing degenerate Later Roman type combat then again probably not far from the truth. Cavalry is a really difficult one to estimate, how much and till when for the Sub Romans/early Welsh?

[Patrick Waterson]

Cavalry is a really difficult one to estimate, how much and till when for the Sub Romans/early Welsh?

And how much more, and more important, would they be if the traditional cavalry area around Camulodunum was available to our 'Arthur'?

By the way, in Latin the name 'Uther', if understood as 'uter' (there is no 'uth-' in Latin, unless pronounced by a Celt) means 'bag' or, perhaps indicatively, 'wineskin'.

Gildas has a rant at 2 kings that could be referenced to a potential Arthur.

Promising ...

Unless, given his reference to obsessionis badonici montis (the siege of Mons Badonicus) as something clearly in the past and contemporary with his own birth, he is writing after the demise of Arthur*, as seems likely from his diatribes against various 'kings' who appear to be local rulers whereas if writing under Arthur* we might expect him to be fulminating against (or grudgingly praising) the one man leading or governing the whole country.

*This would presumably be Dave's 'Arthur 2'.

when Gildas is writing, its around 540AD - ish so potentially too late for either of the 2 kings to be a Badon personality since Gildas infers its 44 years since that event.

The 44 years is actually between the first Saxon landing under Gurthrigern (Vortigern) and Mons Badonicus.

"... until the year of obsessionis badonici montis, when took place also the last almost, though not the least
slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing
of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity." - De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae 26

Gildas' own age at the time of writing is unclear, but his general tone suggests the cantankerousness of old age rather than the idealism of youth.  This would put him at least one, and perhaps two, generations after 'Arthur' had gone to his final resting-place.

[Duncan Head]

I think from the point of view of being Arthur, both Cuneglas and Maelgwyn are based too far to the west

An article by Ken Dark points out that all the known 6th-7th century Arthurs have Irish connections, and raises the possibility (no more than that) that the proto-Arthur for whom  they are all named may perhaps have been Irish. So perhaps Cuneglas and Maelgwyn aren't "too far west" at all 

[Erpingham]

And how much more, and more important, would they be if the traditional cavalry area around Camulodunum was available to our 'Arthur'?

Incidentally, other than later tradition, is there anything that particularly associates Arthur with cavalry?  Happy to accept that a leader at this time had a cavalry-based household, but I think we should be careful not to incorporate too much later tradition to this (e.g. the appearance of Arthur's "knights" as cataphracts) or to over-emphasise Arthur's cavalry as extraordinary.

[eques]

And how much more, and more important, would they be if the traditional cavalry area around Camulodunum was available to our 'Arthur'?

Incidentally, other than later tradition, is there anything that particularly associates Arthur with cavalry?  Happy to accept that a leader at this time had a cavalry-based household, but I think we should be careful not to incorporate too much later tradition to this (e.g. the appearance of Arthur's "knights" as cataphracts) or to over-emphasise Arthur's cavalry as extraordinary.

I think people get far too hung up on trying to come up with an historical root for the Knights of the legends.  Quite clearly in the Middle Ages the Knight was the social and military Rolls Royce of warriors so of course medieval romanticists would make Arthur's immediate circle into Knights (the Arthur of Medieval legends has all the other high medieval accoutrements too - Court, Queen, Castles, hunting, monks, minstrels and so on)

That said, the historical "Arthur" and his immediate retinue probably were mounted, if only to get around the battlefield more quickly.  He also undoubtedly had a close knit band of trusted associates, as most leaders do.  They may even have sometimes sat around a table!

All the talk of cataphracts, though, is trying to be a bit too literal IMO.

[aligern]

Its an open question about the nature of warfare in the 'Arthurian' period. The Cattraeth poem looks like convincing evidence that the Britons fought mounted, or at least had a class of aristocrats who had a mounted comitatus. The evidence of the Aberlemno stone, if it describes Nechtansmere and the description of the Northumbrian Angles as sending out a mounted expedition looks to be evidence for Pictish and Northumbrian cavalry. The Repton stone shows a mounted warrior. Most of that is rather later evidence. Some years ago , Peter Bone, I think, put a ring case that damage to grave found spears and skeletons showed that the early A/S were fencing with spears, that they had rather smaller diameter shields than was thought and that there was a loose and open style of warfare, that perhaps closed up when the Vikings arrived.
Its plausible that the Britons had forces that comprised landlords with their buccelarii, hired Irish and Germanic foederati and low quality British  infantry who garrisoned towns or hillforts.  Add to this a few herdsmen with slings and javelins and you have an acceptable wargames army.........and that is, of course the elephant in the room of much research.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

All in all, it looks as if we are happy with the basic concept of cavalry being a significant part of our Arthur's army.  Assuming he still utilised elements of Roman tradition, his mounted troops would presumably have been comitatenses, based around his capital, while his infantry would have been a mixed bag predominantly of limitanei and their improvised successors, the good infantry having previously emigrated to the continent under Maximus Magnus, Constantius III, etc.  If so, then the 15,000 troops from Brittany who join him in Geoffrey's account of the York-Mons Badonicus-Loch Lomond campaign might have made up a deficiency in good infantry and even acted as the arm of decision in hilly/mountainous country.

The arrival of this particular reinforcement seems to tell us two things about Arthur: he was a capable general, who saw what was needed to make his army fully effective in non-open terrain and he was of a stature and diplomatic ability that allowed him to make an alliance with the ruler(s) of Brittany and obtain a useful force therefrom.  If he truly planned this acquisition of force and the extent of the campaign that followed, i.e. taking it all the way to a decisive defeat of the enemy in a single season (if a fairly long one), my respect for him as a general goes up a couple of notches.  It may be noteworthy that the Bretons joined him following the capture of York, when the fighting shifted from relatively open country to fairly close country much of the way.  This would suggest he timed their arrival for when he foresaw he would be needing them, and not a moment earlier.  Interesting, as it suggests that in open country his cavalry plus assumed grab-bag infantry were capable of meeting and beating the Saxons and that in closed country this did not hold true against Scots or Saxons.

[eques]

I think he would have had some cavalry at his disposal as per most armies in our period, and that these were likely to be the ones wealthy enough to afford a horse.

My impression of the "siege" of Badon is that it started off as a fairly minor, localised affair with one of the sides trapped on a mountain by the other.  This gradually escalated until it had sucked in pretty much all the soldiers on both sides throughout the region/province.  At this point "Arthur" pulled off some sort of spectacular coup (Nennius' charge that slew 960 men perhaps).  The resultant destruction of the flower of Saxon youth is what led to Gildas' 30 year hiatus, and what made the victory so famous.

Getting even further into the realms of historical fiction, I would guess that it was the Britons trapped on the hill, being the survivors of some sort of surprise Saxon offensive in the style of Guthrum's winter attack on Wessex 300 years later.  Again, the reversal of fortune represented by the British victory would add to its fame.

[Erpingham]

All in all, it looks as if we are happy with the basic concept of cavalry being a significant part of our Arthur's army.  Assuming he still utilised elements of Roman tradition, his mounted troops would presumably have been comitatenses, based around his capital, while his infantry would have been a mixed bag predominantly of limitanei and their improvised successors, the good infantry having previously emigrated to the continent under Maximus Magnus, Constantius III, etc.  If so, then the 15,000 troops from Brittany who join him in Geoffrey's account of the York-Mons Badonicus-Loch Lomond campaign might have made up a deficiency in good infantry and even acted as the arm of decision in hilly/mountainous country.

  Cavalry were probably militarily significant, if only because the elite who could afford armour, swords and time for hanging out with other elites could afford horses too.  The QRF of any polity at this time probably consisted of mounted warriors, backed up with various militias and federates when their was more time to prepare.  However,  I'm not sure anything as organised as comitanses were available to any side at the end of the 5th century.  Other than back-projecting Geoffrey of Monmouth, is there any evidence for this?

Having rejected GoM as a reliable source for the details of 5th century warfare, I am unlikely to think of the recruiting of huge armies in Brittany and marching them to Scotland as anything other than fantasy.  The idea of an army of 15,000 in this period seems extreme, having the logistical capability to support those troops on campaign needing serious suspension of disbelief.  Let alone having a fleet able to lift 15,000 troops from the continent and deposit them "somewhere in Britannia".  This would be a stretch in Geoffrey's own time (and for much of the Middle Ages).

[Imperial Dave]

I think from the point of view of being Arthur, both Cuneglas and Maelgwyn are based too far to the west

An article by Ken Dark points out that all the known 6th-7th century Arthurs have Irish connections, and raises the possibility (no more than that) that the proto-Arthur for whom  they are all named may perhaps have been Irish. So perhaps Cuneglas and Maelgwyn aren't "too far west" at all 

indeed! interestingly Vorteporious/Vortipor/Vortigern in in Old Welsh money is also potentially Guortepir map Aircol (Aircol being a derivation from the latin name Agricola). In Irish pedigrees this translates to Gartbuir mac Alchoil

Gartbuir looks squintingly like Arthur (h and b a penstroke away)

[eques]

"guider of the
chariot which is the receptacle of the bear"

Could imply some sort of past association with Arthur rather than that Cuneglass is Arthur himself.  Could even be a mafia-style insult "You started off as Arthur's chauffeur!"

This would fit the timeline of Gildas writing in the generation after Badon.

[Duncan Head]

"guider of the chariot which is the receptacle of the bear"

Could imply some sort of past association with Arthur rather than that Cuneglass is Arthur himself.  Could even be a mafia-style insult "You started off as Arthur's chauffeur!"

"You hijacked the chariot containing Arthur's ashes on its way back to Macedonia and hauled them off to your own satrapy!"

No, hang on, wrong semi-legendary general... 

[Imperial Dave]

Its an open question about the nature of warfare in the 'Arthurian' period. The Cattraeth poem looks like convincing evidence that the Britons fought mounted, or at least had a class of aristocrats who had a mounted comitatus. The evidence of the Aberlemno stone, if it describes Nechtansmere and the description of the Northumbrian Angles as sending out a mounted expedition looks to be evidence for Pictish and Northumbrian cavalry. The Repton stone shows a mounted warrior. Most of that is rather later evidence. Some years ago , Peter Bone, I think, put a ring case that damage to grave found spears and skeletons showed that the early A/S were fencing with spears, that they had rather smaller diameter shields than was thought and that there was a loose and open style of warfare, that perhaps closed up when the Vikings arrived.
Its plausible that the Britons had forces that comprised landlords with their buccelarii, hired Irish and Germanic foederati and low quality British  infantry who garrisoned towns or hillforts.  Add to this a few herdsmen with slings and javelins and you have an acceptable wargames army.........and that is, of course the elephant in the room of much research.
Roy

I agree Roy, what scant evidence we have does tend to show some form of cavalry for the period(s) in question - how many and of what quality is another matter. Household troops based upon later Roman practices could be cavalry although numbers might be small. Having said that, small quantities of cavalry could make all the difference in battles where we could see only a few hundred per army.

re the wargames army you propose...seems perfectly reasonable to me!

[Patrick Waterson]

  Cavalry were probably militarily significant, if only because the elite who could afford armour, swords and time for hanging out with other elites could afford horses too.  The QRF of any polity at this time probably consisted of mounted warriors, backed up with various militias and federates when their was more time to prepare.  However,  I'm not sure anything as organised as comitanses were available to any side at the end of the 5th century.  Other than back-projecting Geoffrey of Monmouth, is there any evidence for this?

The concept would certainly have lingered and presumably also the Roman nomenclature, whether or not the organisation did.  Hence, if reorganisation took place under a leader who knew his business and made things work, it would be a concept on which to base such activity.

I am unlikely to think of the recruiting of huge armies in Brittany and marching them to Scotland as anything other than fantasy.  The idea of an army of 15,000 in this period seems extreme, having the logistical capability to support those troops on campaign needing serious suspension of disbelief.  Let alone having a fleet able to lift 15,000 troops from the continent and deposit them "somewhere in Britannia".

Geoffrey (or his source) may or may not be right about the size, though I fail to see a shipping problem in this era, which in the afterglow of the Roman Empire still boasted a considerable amount of trade and hence requisitionable vessels to get them across the Channel.  In a completely separate incident 'Riothamus' is said to have marched across the length, or at least breadth, of Gaul with a 12,000-strong army, so 15,000 does not seem to be an unreasonable total for the flower of Breton manpower.

The supply question is perhaps more pertinent, but our 'Arthur' would seem to be a good enough organiser in most things, so doubtless would have provided for this.  We do note that his allies were not brought into play at the start of the campaign, but were introduced later, so some attention seems to have been paid to minimising the burden.

"You hijacked the chariot containing Arthur's ashes ... 

Definitely not cricket.