Northern British 5-7th Century Army composition?

[Imperial Dave]

I've been looking at this (with the associated 'Camelot' thread) and reading into it there is obviously a transition from Late Roman unit/army composition late 4th/early 5th to the early 7th centuries when most of the associated 'Sub Roman' or Northern British entities/kingdoms have fallen to outside forces. In all that time, there is a suggestion that cavalry is an important arm of the Northern British forces throughout (but happy to be corrected with reasoned argument). What I would like to discuss is a likely army composition for the period that puts into detail a bit more than the generic 'Sub Roman' lists that abound for most wargame rulesets

Any takers?

[Jim Webster]

From Y Gododdin, we know that cavalry were 'socially' far more important. They either turned up at the battle on their own or accompanied by infantry who never featured at all.
I think this total downplaying of infantry marks a big break with the Late Roman world and even the subroman Britain of the Alleluia Battle

Actually for that

De Vita Germani, 3.15,16
Meanwhile the Saxons and Picts had joined forces to make war upon the Britons. The latter had been compelled to withdraw their forces within their camp and, judging their forces to be totally unequal to the contest, asked the help of holy prelates. The latter sent back a promise to come, and hastened to follow it. Their coming brought such a sense of security that you might have thought that a great army had arrived. ... great numbers of this pious army sought the grace of baptism. ... The soldiers paraded still wet from baptism, faith was fervid, the aid of weapons was little thought of, and all looked for help from heaven.
Meanwhile the enemy had learnt of the practices and appearance of the camp. They promised themselves an easy victory over practically disarmed troops and pressed on in haste. But their approach was discovered by scouts, and ... the army ... began to take up their weapons and prepare for battle and Germanus announced that he would be their general. He chose some light-armed troops and made a tour of the outworks. In the direction from which the enemy were expected he saw a valley enclosed by steep mountains. Here he stationed an army on a new model, under his own command.
By now the savage host of the enemy was close at hand and Germanus rapidly circulated an order that all should repeat in unison the call he would give as a battle-cry. Then, while the enemy were still secure in their belief that their approach was unexpected, the bishops three times chanted the Alleluia. All, as one man, repeated it and the shout they raised rang through the air and echoed many times in the confined space between the mountains. The enemy were panic-stricken, thinking that the surrounding rocks and the very sky itself were falling on them. Such was their terror that no effort of their feet seemed enough to save them. They fled in every direction, throwing away their weapons and thankful if they could at least save their skins. Many threw themselves into a river which they had just crossed with ease, and were drowned in it. Thus the British army looked on at its revenge without striking a blow, idle spectators of the victory they achieved. The booty strewn everywhere was collected; the pious soldiery obtained the spoils of a victory from heaven. The bishops were elated at the rout of the enemy without bloodshed and a victory gained by faith and not by force.

Whatever else you think about it, it's not an entirely cavalry force 

[Imperial Dave]

The Alleluia battle was reputedly North Wales so potentially 'a bit too far sarf' for the Men of the North in and around Hadrians Wall etc. Having said that, its an interesting point re the apparent baptism of the local 'Welsh' forces as I would have assumed most of them would be already unless highland Britain was still largely pagan?

[Jim Webster]

The Alleluia battle was reputedly North Wales so potentially 'a bit too far sarf' for the Men of the North in and around Hadrians Wall etc. Having said that, its an interesting point re the apparent baptism of the local 'Welsh' forces as I would have assumed most of them would be already unless highland Britain was still largely pagan?

It may be that 'rural' Britain was still pagan (being pagensis) as opposed to upland Britain

[Imperial Dave]

or even following the wrong religion ie pelagianism but I agree it would be more likely that the rural/highland areas might have been mainly pagan (happy for others to chip in)

back to the OT, I am assuming a high proportion of cavalry but not exclusively so in and around the Wall

[Patrick Waterson]

Infantry might be fairly numerous following the various self-arming measures being passed by 5th century AD Western emperors, mentioned by Duncan in the 'Oh, non, not another Camelot!' thread.

The question then becomes: how much of this potentially numerous infantry will turn up on an actual battlefield?  This will probably vary with the degree of perceived authority attributed to and exercised by the person or persons collecting the army.  Local infantry will turn up for local actions, but might be reluctant to go and help out the next lord or city along unless relations are very good and it is between oneself and the immediate enemy so there is no reason to hold back troops for one's own defence.

Given the presence of cavalry and its presumed effectiveness against Saxon forces which are largely or wholly infantry, I would see anyone with a significant cavalry force as being disproportionately influential as a nucleus for summoning and gathering armies, which may explain the persistence of mention of gentlemen such as Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther and of course Arthur.  The best lands for training and maintaining cavalry would probably be those in the vicinity of East Anglia, as in the later English Civil War (AD 1641-6 and 1648-51).

The ratio of cavalry to infantry might thus be fairly constant, in that a leader with a small cavalry force would probably have only sufficient influence to summon local infantry, whereas a comparatively mighty leader, with a significant contingent of cavalry, would be sufficiently prestigious to acquire infantry from a wide swathe across the realm.  Such cavalry as also answered the summons would, in theory, be proportionate to the infantry arriving, but lordlings nervous about the vulnerability of their domains might leave behind a portion of their trusted and reliable cavalry when they marched to war.  This would tend to keep the battlefield infantry/cavalry ratio fairly constant whatever the size of the army.

As to the ratio in question, that is another matter.  As a rough guess, cavalry would constitute one fifth to one fourth of the fighting men of the army as a whole.

Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.  Those who know more about the development of Christianity will be able to say with more certainty, but my suspicion is that in the 5th century AD baptism was still something done eventually rather than early, although the opportunity to be baptised by a saint was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and many Christians would have wished to take advantage of it and not bother to wait for later, particularly as the imminence of battle might mean there would be no 'later' for some.

[Andreas Johansson]

Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.

A risky option, on might think, for warriors?

[Imperial Dave]

Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.

A risky option, on might think, for warriors?

Indeed to both Patrick and Andreas on this!

re the cavalry, in the late Roman period, the Wall and its hinterland were heavily militarised and garrisoned by at least one (large) elite cavalry unit the Ala Petriana. It is inferred that there is a tradition of cavalry into the period in question which probably has its roots in the late Roman model. Where the horses where reared is another matter...one suspects that once 'official' routes began to dry up, local tough pony/horse type mounts would be used     

[Jim Webster]

Regarding baptism, it may be worth remembering that baptism at birth was still not the fashion: indeed, for most of the 4th century AD the procedure, even for a committed Christian, had usually been baptism on the deathbed.

A risky option, on might think, for warriors?

Constantine himself was baptised on his deathbed.  It comes from Acts 2:38. "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
At the time there was a belief, based on a limited reading of the scripture that Baptism was the only time you could be automatically forgiven any sins committed up to that point. Hence you got baptised as late in life as possible.
It wasn't until the 5th century that the church came to an understanding that there was no limit to how many times somebody could repent and be forgiven, but whether that ruling had penetrated into the level of 'folk religion' we could be dealing with is doubtful.
Even then people would put of repentance for as long as possible in case there was a limit.

[Jim Webster]

re the cavalry, in the late Roman period, the Wall and its hinterland were heavily militarised and garrisoned by at least one (large) elite cavalry unit the Ala Petriana. It is inferred that there is a tradition of cavalry into the period in question which probably has its roots in the late Roman model. Where the horses where reared is another matter...one suspects that once 'official' routes began to dry up, local tough pony/horse type mounts would be used   

The question has to be asked, the Wall and its hinterland were also garrisoned by a large number of infantry units. Why should they have disappeared but the cavalry have remained?

[Imperial Dave]

re the cavalry, in the late Roman period, the Wall and its hinterland were heavily militarised and garrisoned by at least one (large) elite cavalry unit the Ala Petriana. It is inferred that there is a tradition of cavalry into the period in question which probably has its roots in the late Roman model. Where the horses where reared is another matter...one suspects that once 'official' routes began to dry up, local tough pony/horse type mounts would be used   

The question has to be asked, the Wall and its hinterland were also garrisoned by a large number of infantry units. Why should they have disappeared but the cavalry have remained?

oh crikey no Jim, I dont for one minute think that infantry 'disappeared' as such, its more the case that cavalry was disproportionately important in the area and one of the 'trump' cards for local forces especially versus mainly infantry based opponents

[Mick Hession]

Constantine himself was baptised on his deathbed.  It comes from Acts 2:38. "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
At the time there was a belief, based on a limited reading of the scripture that Baptism was the only time you could be automatically forgiven any sins committed up to that point. Hence you got baptised as late in life as possible.
It wasn't until the 5th century that the church came to an understanding that there was no limit to how many times somebody could repent and be forgiven, but whether that ruling had penetrated into the level of 'folk religion' we could be dealing with is doubtful.
Even then people would put of repentance for as long as possible in case there was a limit.

I remember reading somewhere that soldiers preferred deathbed baptism as it wiped the "Thou shalt not kill" slate clean

Cheers
Mick 

[Duncan Head]

I would note only the slingstones found at Trusty's Hill and I think some other northern sites. This doesn't necessarily mean that there would be a single slinger in a "field army", but one can expect barrages of slingshot from any defended fortification.

[aligern]

I am very doubtful about continuity for any regular  Late Roman unit nto the sixth century in Britain. That foederati who held land for military service, like the Franks in Gaul or laeti groups continued on because service gave them land rights and this the fiction, at the leadt,  of service was worth maintaining. I suggest that the Foederati move to a comitatus model, indeed, may already have been operating in that mode and that this is the source of the cavalry.  Mounted troops are very expensive, compared to footsoldiers and in the decayed economic condittions of Late Roman Britain the maintenance of a coupke of hundred mounted warriors could well have the effect of depressing the  status and effectiveness of the infantry. The princely realms are all pretty small, how many men  could Elmet have provided? Fortunately the Saxon settlements are small and scattered too, so the threat was most likely in limited numbers. Three hundred, does sound a bit like a magic number for the Goddodin, but if you are invading Deira, hoping to take the Anglian leadership by surprise, then it would be enough. Finding your opponent ready, with perhaps six hundred men is a likely scenario.
Roy

[Erpingham]

We should remember that the Gododdin army is a special band assembled for a task.  It is bigger than the average princely teulu recorded (50 is mentioned in other cases).

On the continuity argument with Late Roman units, while some sort of continuity may have existed (forts continued to be occupied in some places, for example) it is dangerous to see that as survival of trained troops or that the forces available were comparable in size to the units that once occupied those forts.