On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:51:52 GMT, Qur'mudjin wrote the following words:
Jim
Once again, you raise some interesting points. It may be that we are
coming at this from two different directions and that, so doing, we pass
each other other like two knights jousting, but without connecting.
Let me see if I can answer some of your points, although I fear I shall not
do your post justice.
Post by Qur'mudjinI always assume when people talk of Arthur's decisive use of cavalry, they
are talking about heavy cavalry. I don't recall any writings about a light
cavalry associated with Arthur. There is another consideration, which is
where my mind is leaning, and that is mounted infantry.
I think we need to distinguish terms here with regard to light/heavy. I
am working in, and extraploting from, a late Roman model. Here it seems
that the lightest units were the mauri, dalmatae and cetrati, [which are
described (by MacDowall in Late Roman Cavalryman AD236-565 Osprey 1995) as
probably light, fast moving javelin armed skirmishers] and most of the
sogittarii (horse archers). At the other end of the scale (so to speak)
are the catafractii and clibanarii, the heavily armed lancers, who may in
some cases have had full horse armour.
The Notita Dignitatum has a unit of Catafractii stationed in Britain and
one commentary on that document notes : "the Dux Britanniarum however does
list a prefect commanding Equitum catafractariorum, so the presence in
Britain of such a unit seems solid enough; they seem to have been drafted
into the field army of the Comes Britanniarum at some time by withdrawing
them their their usual garrison position" Their garrison postion being
Morbio, an unknown location which has been tenatively linked with Ilkley,
Yorkshire. MacDowell also suggests that the catafractii are modelled on
the Sarmatians and the similar Gallic units can be linked back to Sarmatian
military settlers, whereas the clibanarii are modelled on the Persians.
And in between those two extremes are a range of other units, more
conventional 'heavy cavalry', equipped for close combat, as well as
skirmising with a javelin. And, that such a late Roman cavalryman would
have been trained to fight both as cavalry and as mounted infantry - with
neither being to the exclusion of the other.
One of the things missing from the Arthurian stories, as far as I recall,
is the archer, and so I would accept that there is no record that Arthurian
cavalry, whatever it was, included the sogittarii. And, at the other end
of the matter, with logistical degradation in the two to three generations
after 410, I beleive it is unlikely that a fully equipped unit of
catafractii could be maintained. (Although some matters, such as leather
face masks for horses may have remained, with the units being thought of
as, or called, catafractii.)
But the prospect of a continuing line of cavalry, both in terms of fighting
ability, and elite status for nobles, seem to me to be very feasible.
Indeed, on an Occam's razor, I have difficulty in accepting that a society
in which the cavalry existed would go back to purely mounted infantry,
although I have no difficulty in accepting that post Roman cavalry could
and would also dismount and fight as infantry when needed.
But the concept of the horeseman as mounted infantry is, I suggest, far
more Saxon than Arthurian, and, indeed, Saxon up to and including the
Battle of Hastings. Whereas the Bretons continued with the joint concept
of cavalry and infantry, joining in the Norman invasion (to help reclaim
England because, and from, the Saxons who had stolen it from their
forebears who were the British???)
Post by Qur'mudjinIf Arthur was 6th or 7th century, his cavalrymen still didn't have stirrups.
Not much shock-value to a heavy cavalry without stirrups, and easily
defended by heavy infantry (known to armies since Alexander or at least
Caesar's conquest of Gaul). The Franks used heavy cavalry against the heavy
infantry of the raiding Vikings and the Vikings won almost every time. It
wasn't until Arnulf used mounted infantry, who dismounted before engagement,
that he defeated the entrenched Saxons at Louvain (late 9th century?).
The Strategikon (late 6th Century) has a description of precisely the sort
of charge I envisage, carried out by foederati troops. Nor would there be
any argument between us that such a charge would not normally break up a
facing experienced infantry army - then alternative tactics of wheeling,
javelin throwing, feigned retreats etc would be used to try and weaken them
etc, - but, with cavalry facing inexperienced troops (a levy?), or those
not used to horses, the infantry may well break - wherther in retreat or in
pursuit, whereupon they can be cut down.
The Battle of Hastings is perhaps a useful commentary on the relative
strengths of cavalry and foot, with different stages of the battle showing
different aspects, partly supporting your view (eg the early Breton charge)
and partly mine (eg the general degradation of the infantry faced with
repeated charges - and also here archers -, followed by a final cavalry
break through). One version is at:
http://members.tripod.com/~Battle_of_Hastings/Hastings.htm
Post by Qur'mudjinIf it is mobility which was Arthur's strength, there is a far better chance
he utilized mounted infantry instead of heavy cavalry, or perhaps used horse
more logistically (supply/troop-wagons), by supporting an in-line defense on
repaired Roman roads. I also believe Arthur's decisive strength was in
permanent fortificatins/castles.
Here we differ, with my view being, permanent fortifications and a mixed
fighting force, with cavalry giving not only mobility but superiority in
some situations, and available as mounted infantry in others.
Post by Qur'mudjinIt all depends on whether the Saxons were using a raiding-strategy or a
persisting-strategy. The former is defensible using heavy cavalry, while the
latter is not.
Except that with the mobile forces (here used more as cavalry than as
mounted infantry), there is the possibility of logistic damage, raising
uncertainty amongst the enemy population (and anger with their own troops
for not protecting them), and drawing significant of the enemy troops and
resources into finding them, by raiding deep behind enemy lines, and in the
very areas that the enemy believes they have secured. Nennius, Geoffrey
and (possibly) Malory are all suggestive of Arthur raiding deep into East
England, with possibly the early part Nennius's list of 12 battles being
the most explicit.
Post by Qur'mudjinIt was my impression from studying Arthur that the Saxons were no longer
using a ship-to-shore raiding strategy, but had already occupied/built
coastal towns, raised their own crops, established a supply-line to the
European mainland and had switched to a persisting occupation-strategy.
If that's the case, heavy infantry would not have been the deciding factor.
Not only does heavy infantry have a defensive supremacy over heavy cavalry,
but in conjunction with fortifications, the cavalry doesn't stand a chance.
But, as far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the Saxons used the
major fortifications that there were, and instead eschewed the Roman towns
in their midst. Indeed, in the one account that I can recall of the Saxons
using a Roman town (Colgrin withdrawing into York in Geoffrey) taht which
you suggest happens. Arthur has to withdraw to London, as he has
insufficient forces once he hears that substantial re-inforcements are on
their way.
<snip, relating primarily to mounted infantry/cavalry>
Post by Qur'mudjinI have never doubted Arthur used horse extensively, but my bet is that he
used it more for transport and early-warning than as heavy-cavalry. In the
stories it seemed to me that what was being described was a mounted
infantry. It's been a while, so I can't be sure. Do these stories mention
cavalry charges? When Arthur slays the 960, for instance, does he do it on
horseback or on foot?
Nennius: doesn't say
Rhonabwy: has descriptions of troops of horse, but could either be mounted
infantry or cavalry. The only battle scene is Arthurs men and horses
against Owain's 'ravens'.
Geoffrey: Ambush of Saxons at York carried out by 600 cavalry and 3,000
foot. Badon - the most natural reading is Arhur and his men on foot,
fighting up a hill, reaching the summit and being involved in a stand-off
before Arthur goes beserk and leads a charge (on foot?) that breaks the
enemy. Subsequent pursuitof Saxons - not clear as to whether on foot or
horse, but most natural reading (I suggest) is mixed force - 10,000 =
mainly foot; pursue and cut down = mainly horse. But also note ix.19 the
promise of many men, actually implies cavalry, as those who cannot supply
'knights' are specifically mentioned as only supplying foot.
Malory: Glosses over the Saxon wars. But his early internecene wars
between the British are primarily cavalry battles, not mounted infantry.
Post by Qur'mudjinAs far as I recall, the Roman victories in Britain also did not rely on
heavy-cavalry. Their strengths were in combined-weapons and a highly
articulated formation able to use turning movements to great advantage. Not
to mention their use of reserve units. Or political subterfuge.
I would agree with that. If Arthur is following in a Romano-British mould,
then I would expect the same, albeit with a serious degradation of
logistics etc. Which would lead to cavalry being trained and able to fight
both as cavalry and as mounted infantry, depending on the circunstances.
Post by Qur'mudjinAs I recall, didn't Arthur burn down a town of collaborators?
Pass
Post by Qur'mudjinAnd what was
the deal with all those children put on boats?
Typically Celtic. He is told that his death will be caused by someone who
has been born on 1 May. So he gathers all the children born on 1 May, with
a view to exiling them (or killing them?). Their boat sinks in heavy
weather and (only one?) survives, Mordred. Who, of course always remembers
Arthur was responsible for his near death and the death of others children
he knew. And so added to other matters, becomes responsible for Arthur's
demise. With the Celtic aspect being the fortelling of death; the person
concerned taking steps to remove the possibility of that death coming
about; the very steps they take then causing, or here, facilitating, the
event they are designed to prevent.
With apologies for any spelling mistakes.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK