Strathclyde Army - Infantry question

[Imperial Dave]

I quick question though not necessarily a quick answer....

I am building a Strathclyde (Welsh) army of both the early and late period for that kingdom ie "sub roman" 5th/6th Century variety and also 9th/10th Century

My question relates to the infantry type predominanting in both time periods. My error was to look at the army lists for a wide variety of rule-sets rather than looking for the written historical evidence (although not huge!)

The 1st period sees the rump of a border/limitanei force so auxilliary in origin but likely several generations "local". I maintain that auxilliary troops lost most of the distinction between them and legionary forces in terms of modus operandi so would class as close order medium/heavy infantry supporting a strike cavalry force.

6th edition WRG would class them as LMI! Most recent rule lists them as close order as is my inclination (for instance Dux Bellorum classes sub roman infantry as shieldwall). Therefore I am relatively happy that close order, shield, helmet and spear is reasonable. Whether they would be javelin armed or long spear armed is another matter! Some small looser order "warband" type troops might suppliment the main force

The 2nd period is somewhat more problematic for me. Pressures and interactions with Vikings, Picts, Scots and Angles must have had its effect on the main infantry type. I think I am still leaning towards a shieldwall type force (in its entirety) but with greater variety of weapon types and probably a lesser role on the battlefield ie more reliance on the cavalry. 

Ok, so just thought I would throw it open for debate......

[Patrick Waterson]

And do we have any takers - or for that matter suggestions, pointers to sources or even inspired guesses from anyone?

Can we infer anything from Saxon and Norman encounters with the Welsh?

[Justin Swanton]

For what it's worth my guess is this:

1. A nation's military tends to emulate the methods and weaponry of its more aggressive and martially successful neighbours. Strathclyde was a Briton kingdom in lowland Scotland. It would have been attacked by Picts to the north and perhaps Irish coming over by sea from the west, hence it probably would have emulated their methods.

There is clear evidence that Wall forts like Housteads were occupied until well into the 6th century, though the conversion of the Housteads grain barn into a feasting hall suggests that the military presence went with a mutation in the character of the troops stationed there.

This seems to suggest a predominantly infantry force with perhaps a core of cavalry.

2. There is a praise poem (forget its name) about a British king in the Strathclyde area who got plastered with mead along with his men, then went out and fought a vastly superior Saxon opponent. The Britons were defeated. The interest here is that the British force was all on horseback and there is no mention of an infantry component. Patrick, what's the name of that poem? It contains the first historical reference to Arthur: speaking of one of the warriors who died it mentions that 'he was no Arthur'.

So a small force entirely or substantially mounted.

[Patrick Waterson]

Would that be 'Gododdin'?

[Justin Swanton]

Yep, that's it.

[Duncan Head]

I am building a Strathclyde (Welsh) army of both the early and late period for that kingdom ie "sub roman" 5th/6th Century variety and also 9th/10th Century

My question relates to the infantry type predominanting in both time periods. My error was to look at the army lists for a wide variety of rule-sets rather than looking for the written historical evidence (although not huge!)

The 1st period sees the rump of a border/limitanei force so auxilliary in origin but likely several generations "local".

This may be valid for much of post-Roman Britain, but such northern British kingdoms as Strathclyde and Gododdin had not been part of the Roman province, so it's hard to see why their forces should be derived from Roman limitanei. Some copying is possible, of course, but not certain.

I maintain that auxilliary troops lost most of the distinction between them and legionary forces in terms of modus operandi

A lot of people seem to think this (even discounting those who see no great difference between legionary and auxiliary infantry tactics in the first place, even back in the early Empire), but I don't think I've ever really seen it argued with evidence.

The 2nd period is somewhat more problematic for me. Pressures and interactions with Vikings, Picts, Scots and Angles must have had its effect on the main infantry type. I think I am still leaning towards a shieldwall type force (in its entirety) but with greater variety of weapon types

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Galloway was ever part of the kingdom of Strathclyde, but even if not, it was right next door; and somehow by the 12th century the Galwegians at the Battle of the Standard are delivering  fast, wild, undisciplined charges just like the archetypal "warband".

[Imperial Dave]

Y Gododdin is partly stylised with literary licence for the time. Although it mentions a force of 300 cavalry this could just infer the dignitaries and their retinue with supporting infantry just not mentioned! The interesting thing about the poem is that we are not even really sure of the place of the battle. The de facto fall back position for many is that it is Catterick in Yorkshire but its very far south for an engagement at that time. My own two penneth worth (digressing slightly from my own thread!) is that it was fought along a shoreline on the east coast between the Firth of Forth and the Tyne   

Interesting info re the occupation of Housteads into the 6th Century so thanks for that, I might factor that in

Thanks Duncan for the input as well. I take your point re the fact that the North British tribes were not directly controlled by Rome and formed part of the buffer zone. They did cooperate with the Roman forces so will possibly have had some training in tactics and copying of armaments. Logic would dictate that loyal areas would be encouraged to continue to soak pressure up on behalf of more regular Roman forces and so may have had logistic and material support (think Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan etc).

Fair point also on the auxilliary and legionary troops, I guess I am just being a sheep here!

Also interesting point about the Galwegians. I suppose it depends on the area and the ruling elite set up. A strong centralised lord/king would be more likely to have a more structured force in terms of numbers, obligations and formations? A looser confederacy arrangement might see almost a re-emergence of "celtic" type warbands as you describe.

Keep the info coming all, this is just the kind of stuff I need to whet my whistle and keep my painting mojo going!

[Anton]

"Also interesting point about the Galwegians. I suppose it depends on the area and the ruling elite set up. A strong centralised lord/king would be more likely to have a more structured force in terms of numbers, obligations and formations? A looser confederacy arrangement might see almost a re-emergence of "celtic" type warbands as you describe."

I think a stronger king might have a bigger retinue but in the last anaysis for big numbers you need the free farmers.  The fighting technique of the latter could be 'warband' or 'shieldwall' I tend to the former but its also possible that wealthier farmers might serve as light cavalry. There are early Roman references to north British cavalry.

[Erpingham]

One area which you ought to look at for comparisons are the North Welsh - in the early period, there is every reason to assume cultural relations existed (Y Gododdin comes to us from Welsh sources, for example).  Later, the peoples will be separated but the later development of Welsh tactics may useful to examine.  One key thing I'd note is we are at risk of wargamer-speak in dividing "warband" from "shieldwall".  North Welsh armies in the early Middle Ages are capable of ambushing from woods, treking over rough terrain or, if confronted by cavalry, forming solid spear formations like schiltrons.  It is plausible that their northern cousins could do the same.

[Imperial Dave]

One key thing I'd note is we are at risk of wargamer-speak in dividing "warband" from "shieldwall".  North Welsh armies in the early Middle Ages are capable of ambushing from woods, treking over rough terrain or, if confronted by cavalry, forming solid spear formations like schiltrons.  It is plausible that their northern cousins could do the same.

Yes, very good point indeed. One that is often overlooked in many wargame rules....change of formation. For example countless discussions on the Alexandrian Hypaspists have illustrated that units were able to operate in different modes on the battlefield. I know that the counter argument is that many wargame rules already take account of this eg DBX and are "factored" in.

If we can have mounted dismounting to become infantry in a wargame then why not allow a warband to reform as shieldwall as well (in old money this would be going from LMI to MI)?

[Justin Taylor]

My thought is that these 'loose' order troops dispense with formation to move, get to where they want to be an reform at that point. Rather like a crowd rushing up to a fence. So enables quick movement but at the expense of staying power.

I decided against allowing troops to dismount/remount in a battle in TDIC as I couldn't find any reference to it. Same with different weapon options, those I believe would have been chosen before the battle starts.

Different formations, yes lots of those including shieldwall.

[Dave Knight]

I think it would have been difficult for any troops to change formation in the face of the enemy, particularly more irregular types.

All troops are caspable of moving in a loose formation, but if they intend to fight in a dense formation they would want to be well set before the opposition got anywhere near.

 

[Justin Taylor]

Well we have the example of the Roman legionaries, used to fighting in Spain then rushing to take a position and then forming up and beating their enemies. So thats the sort of thing I used as my example when I came to writing the rules.

[Dave Knight]

Roman legionaries are at one end of the spectrum, Strathclyde infantry nearer the other end IMHO

[Justin Taylor]

Ah I was responding to this

I think it would have been difficult for any troops to change formation in the face of the enemy, particularly more irregular types.