Oh no, not another Camelot!

[aligern]

We are back to an old chestnut here, the survival of units and 'concepts' of the Roman army.
Troops have to have a suppirt system that feeds, equips and recruits them. The example that we have of the garrison of Patavis  in the Life of St Severinus is that , once the money stopped coming the unit dispersed. Its possible that a commander would marry into the local landowning class and then be able to support a bodyguard, but this is most likely about 20 men as that would be an effective 'gang' for forcing peasants to pay up in kind
Limitanei might be a different matter if they had land rights that were dependent upon military service. However, they are likely to go native. If they belonged to a tribe...and were federates they would be much more likely to survive as an operating units t because they would have their own social structure and acknowledged leadership and succession plan. A more regular unit would not have that sort of social glue. Limitanei in Gaul answered Aetius call to resist Attila , so we can imagine that, like the Franks soldiers supporting themselves on state granted lands would keep up the habit of mustering in irder to retain the land rights. I would question, though, whether many are going to hang around in a fort on the wall when there is no imperial government. At least in Gaul in 450 you could assume that the Empire might push North again. In Britain imperial power will have seemed very remote indeed and there is a big difference between Hadrian's Wall and the Rhine limes, in that the Wall  is in a poor area for agriculture with a much less hospitable climate. Only a money economy is going to keep troops there and because the Roman higher administration collapsed there was most likely no 'state' to run a cash economy.

[Imperial Dave]

agreed, there is a hand in hand reduction of available 'fighting' manpower from the mid 5th onwards due to a collapse of the monetary economy in Britain (although I believe there is anecdotal evidence that suggests some cash was transferred over to Britain beyond 410AD). A fracturing of the command and administrative system would also see a reduction in fighting manpower of regular units.

I am really not sure that talk of 15000 fighting troops is supportable in Britain in mid 5th C onwards is realistic therefore

[aligern]

Absolutely bang on Dave, People all too easily forget that 'Arthurian' Britain is very much about localism. Had the Britons managed to keep up their level of geographic organisation such as the Roman province, or nearly so, theywould have been nigh on unbeatable. However the fabric is rent and only small entities survive. Sometimes these statelets arevonly the size of counties. As I have reconstructed before, if the country is capable of supporting 10,000 armoured cavalry, then, when split into 40 entities each fields on average 250 men. That sort of fits with the number that rode to Cattraeth, to get to 300 ( which may be a magic number) and even then aid was sought from other petty states. Some knigdoms were bigger, but some such as Elmet were tiny. It is significant that none of the British kings is able to agglommerate territory in the way that Northumbria or Wessex, or eventually Mercia does. One presumes that is because no mechanism of Roman rule survives and that means no army, for with an army that still functioned a warlord could have declared himself emperor and coerced the civitates and tribal kings into line and built a larger force. Becaue the money economy has collapsed all troops had to have a relationship with the land and be directly fed and supported by it. That suited say a federate group thst wanted land to farm in return for service or the henchmen of a large lNdowner, but means very small units and I suppose that if the main task is holding a couple of walled towns, or keeping bandits away from villas then small units is all you need.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

One thing that is distinctly notable is a drop in agricultural yields with the fall of the Empire. When we start getting some indicator of yields from Church and Carolingian accounts, we see vast areas, even of France, where land previously considered good struggled to return much more than 1.5 kilos harvested for each kilo of grain sown.
The land could no longer support the people it once did, and with the lack of iron implements the sheer number of workers needed meant that large estates barely fed themselves.

[eques]

Absolutely bang on Dave, People all too easily forget that 'Arthurian' Britain is very much about localism. Had the Britons managed to keep up their level of geographic organisation such as the Roman province, or nearly so, theywould have been nigh on unbeatable. However the fabric is rent and only small entities survive. Sometimes these statelets arevonly the size of counties. As I have reconstructed before, if the country is capable of supporting 10,000 armoured cavalry, then, when split into 40 entities each fields on average 250 men. That sort of fits with the number that rode to Cattraeth, to get to 300 ( which may be a magic number) and even then aid was sought from other petty states. Some knigdoms were bigger, but some such as Elmet were tiny. It is significant that none of the British kings is able to agglommerate territory in the way that Northumbria or Wessex, or eventually Mercia does. One presumes that is because no mechanism of Roman rule survives and that means no army, for with an army that still functioned a warlord could have declared himself emperor and coerced the civitates and tribal kings into line and built a larger force. Becaue the money economy has collapsed all troops had to have a relationship with the land and be directly fed and supported by it. That suited say a federate group thst wanted land to farm in return for service or the henchmen of a large lNdowner, but means very small units and I suppose that if the main task is holding a couple of walled towns, or keeping bandits away from villas then small units is all you need.
Roy

Well, the various political units could have federated at times in response to crises and invaders (in the same way the Ancient Greeks sometimes did).  There would have been a shared language and culture.  There may have been a sense that such a culture was under threat from invaders.  There would have been supranational religious societies and suchlike.  They may have seem the incomers as a threat to their shared religion. 

For me it is easy to envisage an Arthur figure rising to prominence as the most talented/vigorous General/Mercenary/Troubleshooter on behalf of the various shifting federations and alliances coming together against the Saxons.  He may have been called in by the various political units individually if they thought that they were under threat (all this of course reflected in "....With all the Kings of the Britons, though he himself was Dux Bellorum").  Perhaps he then overreached himself and tried to Lord it over the Britons.  Either way such Alliances would have been unstable, temporary and difficult to manage which explains why the subduing of the Saxons was only a historical blip.

As to manpower, again perhaps his talent was to recruit, organise and inspire men from across the Island and weld them together.  Maybe "all the Kings of the Britons" brought their own troops and then "Arthur" co-ordinated them all in the style of the Duke of Marlborough.  The troops would not necessarily need payment if they were defending their land or culture, or inspired by a charismatic leader.  Even without levies you would still have the personal retinues of all the Magnates.

[Erpingham]

It is interesting to speculate on the Arthurian context but it is one where our perception of how Britain was organised colours our image of Arthur.  Patrick's Arthur is commander of a sub-Roman state covering most (if not more) of the footprint of the 4th century Roman provinces, with all the structures and resources to campaign with large well-organised armies and large merchant fleets on tap.  Harry and Roy (and doubtless others) see Arthur as part of a fragmented political landscape, where a few hundred cavalry are a significant force and bringing together anything sizeable is a major work of temporary alliance building.  Arthur thus is a powerful warlord who can weld these alliance forces together, rather than an imperial governor.  I'd align myself broadly with the latter camp - I've already suggested that the original Arthur could have been a very charismatic and successful comitatus leader of perhaps one or more of the characters we know names of.

Can we know for sure?  No.  Does the evidence point in a direction?  I would suggest fragmentation, population decline, drop in agricultural production, economic downturn do tend towards the fragmented/decayed model, even if the actual details are hazy.

[Imperial Dave]

We have to imagine a very complex process of collapse/partial recovery and collapse again of Roman and Sub Roman Britain. If we imagine that as central authority receeds, there is a potential realignment of local rulers based on the civitas (a parallel of the Greek city states but possibly without the city!) which has been mentioned previously (Roy/Duncan). Its possible that we could have larger administrative areas based on the late Roman dioceses but as time marches on these will be under enormous pressure to fragment due to lack of a fully functioning monetary system and then we are potentially back to civitas structures again.

As Roy and Jim point out, yields for farming are attested to drop (although interestingly Gildas refers to a boon of foodstuffs etc around his time) and with no money and only small areas to potentially defend (against each other in reality most of the time), large scale armies are not required or indeed able to be supported. There is always the militia avenue but again referring to Gildas, there is the implied statement that Romano-british didnt defend themselves initially, ie they relied on external (or internal) mercenaries in effect. Whether these are limitani gone native or foederati/laeti or a mix of both is up for discussion. Local magnates will then hire or inspire loyal followers for personal retinues. It should be remembered that in the late 7th Century Ine of Wessex said that an army was 36 men or more!

Also we shouldnt think of monoglot groupings of people during the time period post the cessation of direct Rome Imperial control - there is the distinct possibility that different areas of Britain spoke different languages or were at least bi or polylingual. The further north or west you went, the less Romanised people became and the more likely to be moderatley pagan as well as preferring to NOT speak in Latin. On top of that you will have the usual leading citizens/town dwellers 'versus' the Pagensis or country-dwellers. On top of that (again) you will have pre-existing communities of 1/2/3/4 etc generation foederati/laeti/limitani who origins, culture and language would have added localised flavours to the landscape.

Therefore we cannot say that its (Sub) Romans vs Saxons as a linear statement as there are just too many layers of differences based upon geographical and cultural/racial lines. We shouldnt, for example, be surprised that we find apparently Sub Roman (Brythonic) sounding kings leading 'Saxon' warriors or kingdoms! With time, of course, as physical boundaries are pushed back and language and cultural identities become more uniform (especially towards the end of the 6th C), then it starts to become more of a 'us versus them' scenario.     

[Patrick Waterson]

Agree with Harry.  There is a tendency to assume that one local leader's retinue (call it what you will) is all that will ever be fielded at one time, and one locality is all that will ever contribute to a campaign's supply.  Once one gets a real leader who reunifies a realm, resources can be (and usually are) accumulated and focussed to produce much larger armies and supply systems, with everyone contributing a share.

In practically any society, free men are (or were) liable for military service.  It came with the status: you can fight for your land and freedom (such as it is) or you can become someone else's victim or slave, your choice.  In fact your leader usually made the choice for you, but it meant that under threat of invasion manpower was rarely a problem.  Holding together sufficient trained manpower was, unless you build in a standing army or a warrior class.  The latter is precisely what our sources think Brittany possessed at this period, courtesy of Conan Meriadoc and followers, so a substantial force from that quarter is not unreasonable.

I am really not sure that talk of 15000 fighting troops is supportable in Britain in mid 5th C onwards is realistic therefore

Misses the point, Dave: these are actually 'borrowed' from Brittany, and supported in Britain for one campaign.  During much of this campaign they would have been in a position to live off enemy territory.  During the rest of the campaign, even the grudging yields of post-pagan Britain could sustain them for a month or two.  They could then go home to a surplus accumulated while their mouths had been busy in this sceptred isle.

I have not found any clear mention of the size of Arthur's army in our sources (maybe have not looked closely enough) but Geoffrey's source (in IX.1) has him send Cador with 600 cavalry and 3,000 infantry to defeat defeat 6,000 Saxons under Badulf.  Cador executed an ambush which more or less neutralised this force (equivalent to, say, 200 ships at 30 men per ship).  The Saxons are then reinforced by the arrival of another 600 ships under Cheldric.  Arthur feels unable to confront this force (presumably 18,000 men plus Badulf's survivors), withdraws and appeals to Hoel of Brittany for troops.  Hoel gathers and sends 15,000 'armed warriors' to Southampton 'at the next fair wind'.  Arthur now feels he can engage, does so and inflicts a smashing defeat and 6,000 losses on the enemy.  Then follows the pursuit to 'Caledon Wood', the Saxon pseudo-surrender and the denouement at Mons Badonicus.

Were we reading such an account in Ammianus, we would have no particular reason to question the numbers involved.  The numbers given, and the actions noted for the participants in the face of existing enemy numbers, seem entirely logical.  Arthur feels able to cope with 6,000 Saxons but not with 18000(+).  He obtains 15,000 extra good-ish troops and now feels able and willing to engage the 18,000(+).  He does so and defeats them.

We can thus postulate a minimum OB for Arthur of the 3,000 infantry and 600 cavalry sent with Cador to execute the ambush; it is likely that Arthur had more, but not so many more that he felt he could deal with 18-22,000 opponents.  The addition of 15,000 good(ish) troops swings the balance the other way, presumably giving him at least numerical parity with his foes.  One can thus surmise that his original army would have been in the region of 6-7,000 strong, perhaps more if the majority were low fighting value peasant draftees for the campaign.

We should perhaps remember that the Dark Ages were only just being invented and the feudal system had yet to be invented, so the only pattern for doing things was the Roman way.  This itself depended upon imperium and auctoritas, which depended upon legitimacy or perceived legitimacy.  With nobody wielding imperium, auctoritas functions only at the local level, as Roy, Dave and Jim candidly describe.  Once you have someone with imperium (Ambrosius, Uther, Arthur), then auctoritas starts to function at the national level and larger forces and supply systems become possible, although as one can estimate from the above Brittany was probably still well ahead of Britain in that respect as of Gildas' birthdate.  That may well have changed later, as 'Arthur' consolidated his control.  Later generations seem to have viewed his reign as having bucked the otherwise prevailing trend towards scarcity amid regionalised degeneration.

[eques]

Agree with Harry.  There is a tendency to assume that one local leader's retinue (call it what you will) is all that will ever be fielded at one time, and one locality is all that will ever contribute to a campaign's supply.  Once one gets a real leader who reunifies a realm, resources can be (and usually are) accumulated and focussed to produce much larger armies and supply systems, with everyone contributing a share.

Indeed.

We need to remember we are probably talking about an exceptional figure here, one of the Great Commanders, not some fur-clad journeyman.

[Erpingham]

We need to remember we are probably talking about an exceptional figure here, one of the Great Commanders, not some fur-clad journeyman.

We are looking at a hero hailed as a national saviour.  Not necessarily the same thing as "one of the Great Commanders" and unlikely to have been remembered and recorded in the same way.

[Imperial Dave]

If indeed he existed or indeed existed as several people all rolled into one glorious leader...

it does make a difference to the numbers and theatre of operations proposed. Early 5th, its still possible for armies to number in the thousands, mid to late 5th it becomes increasingly less so.

[Patrick Waterson]

We are looking at a hero hailed as a national saviour.  Not necessarily the same thing as "one of the Great Commanders" and unlikely to have been remembered and recorded in the same way.

Point taken, Anthony, and I hope in return Harry's point about the gentleman in question being a national figure rather than some purely local entity is similarly accepted.   He does conduct negotiations at what appears to be a national level in his appeal to Hoel for Breton troops.

If indeed he existed or indeed existed as several people all rolled into one glorious leader...

He had to exist in order to start a legend of a glorious leader in the first place.  Later generations may have attempted to hang their representatives on his coat-tails but this does not stop him from having existed and winning historically-attested battles to begin with.

[aligern]

I would be happier with scenarios that have a post Roman organisation by province or diocese if;
a) there was any indication of this happening elsewhere. In Gaul or Spain it appears that when Roman imperial authority was removed organisation defaulted to civitas ( city and surrounding territory ) level.
b) The Roman administration at the diocese or province level had any substance. There appear to have been very few civil servants and tax collection was the responsibility of the civitas or large landowners. Hence there was no systemic strength behind organisations above the civitas.  Governors were appointed from the centre, there was no method or tradition for appointing them locally. No doubt civitates saw local interest as paramount and the removal of oppressive taxes as a blessing.

The other organisations that held things together were the army and the church. The army had commands and garrisons. It may be that most of the command structure departed with the legions. Even if it did not just go the army problem is that it has garrisons that are now settlers on the borders and federate allies, also settled beyond the borders and some internally. The organisation has list its field forces and most likely the ability to control them. When we had this same debate about northern Gaul I think it might have been Rodger who pointed out that Syagrius most likely controlled as far as his horsemen could ride in a day or two. Syagrius lijely started with an army and authority over federates and laeti...in Britain the army was withdrawn.
The church , in Gaul, provided leadership by city and had a wider organisation, though not one that could command military forces of more than one statelet to act together. Within one city the bishop had moral authority and some patronage and had the advantage that the nobility monopolised bishoprics so a bishop coupkd count on the support of the local wealthy.
Rome's weakness was that it had generally taken over areas organised by tribe or city and it moved to create a city within the tribal area so that the tribal territory could be taxed to support the army and its nobility 'civilised'.  Wider organisations had not existed and no wider loyalties were created.bYou were a citizen of Rome and of your city, nothing in between had any active meaning. When the centre collapsed, localism ruled.
Patrick's construction based upon mediaeval romantic novels is fine fantasy and a campaign could be based upon it, as long as no one thinks that fleets of 200 ships or armies of 15000 men were really involved in Britain in the fifth century or later.
As an in eresting check, the sources of the time and the traditions surviving in the much later A/S chronicle have three ships arriving in Kent and the Solent, just as the Goddodin has 300 horsemen, as someone said 36 men is an army. Of course that does not mean that most armies were 36 men, it is a way of creating a limit for a potential crime....raise 36 men or more without royal assent and you can be accused of rebellion. That likely has a relationship to how many men an A/S king kept around him to defeat any coup.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Point taken, Anthony, and I hope in return Harry's point about the gentleman in question being a national figure rather than some purely local entity is similarly accepted.   He does conduct negotiations at what appears to be a national level in his appeal to Hoel for Breton troops.

Only if you believe later sources, which you know I have difficulty with

If indeed he existed or indeed existed as several people all rolled into one glorious leader...

He had to exist in order to start a legend of a glorious leader in the first place.  Later generations may have attempted to hang their representatives on his coat-tails but this does not stop him from having existed and winning historically-attested battles to begin with.

I tend to agree that there was an original Arthur, around whom legends grew.  However, I'm not convinced we can pinpoint him in the evidence.  Where is he hiding in Gildas' narrative, for example?  How many of Nennius' Arthurian battles featured the original Arthur?  What part did he play in the Battle of Mons Badonicus, for example?  I tend to think of him as the key commander there because of later tradition but Gildas doesn't mention him.

[Imperial Dave]

I would be happier with scenarios that have a post Roman organisation by province or diocese if;
a) there was any indication of this happening elsewhere. In Gaul or Spain it appears that when Roman imperial authority was removed organisation defaulted to civitas ( city and surrounding territory ) level.
b) The Roman administration at the diocese or province level had any substance. There appear to have been very few civil servants and tax collection was the responsibility of the civitas or large landowners. Hence there was no systemic strength behind organisations above the civitas.  Governors were appointed from the centre, there was no method or tradition for appointing them locally. No doubt civitates saw local interest as paramount and the removal of oppressive taxes as a blessing.

The other organisations that held things together were the army and the church. The army had commands and garrisons. It may be that most of the command structure departed with the legions. Even if it did not just go the army problem is that it has garrisons that are now settlers on the borders and federate allies, also settled beyond the borders and some internally. The organisation has list its field forces and most likely the ability to control them. When we had this same debate about northern Gaul I think it might have been Rodger who pointed out that Syagrius most likely controlled as far as his horsemen could ride in a day or two. Syagrius lijely started with an army and authority over federates and laeti...in Britain the army was withdrawn.
The church , in Gaul, provided leadership by city and had a wider organisation, though not one that could command military forces of more than one statelet to act together. Within one city the bishop had moral authority and some patronage and had the advantage that the nobility monopolised bishoprics so a bishop coupkd count on the support of the local wealthy.
Rome's weakness was that it had generally taken over areas organised by tribe or city and it moved to create a city within the tribal area so that the tribal territory could be taxed to support the army and its nobility 'civilised'.  Wider organisations had not existed and no wider loyalties were created.bYou were a citizen of Rome and of your city, nothing in between had any active meaning. When the centre collapsed, localism ruled.
Patrick's construction based upon mediaeval romantic novels is fine fantasy and a campaign could be based upon it, as long as no one thinks that fleets of 200 ships or armies of 15000 men were really involved in Britain in the fifth century or later.
As an in eresting check, the sources of the time and the traditions surviving in the much later A/S chronicle have three ships arriving in Kent and the Solent, just as the Goddodin has 300 horsemen, as someone said 36 men is an army. Of course that does not mean that most armies were 36 men, it is a way of creating a limit for a potential crime....raise 36 men or more without royal assent and you can be accused of rebellion. That likely has a relationship to how many men an A/S king kept around him to defeat any coup.
Roy

very logical Roy and a sequence and rationale I can follow. We can borrow learnings and patterns from other post Roman regions but as you say compare like with like and highlight where there may be difficulties or differences that means we cant just blindly adopt the 'default position'