I will not let the glorious bards waste their raptures;
They were not ripe for the feats of valor of Arthur at Kaer Vidir!
On the walls there were five dozen hundred day and night, And it was very difficult to deceive the marines.
Gone with Arthur three times more than Pridwen could hold, But only seven made it back from Caer Kolur!
Annun's Trophies, Taliesin. Translated from the book "Secrets of the Ancient Britons" by Lewis Spence
The Age of King Arthur … What did he really represent, and not in legends and poems? What do we know about this time, and if we are on the VO website, about the military affairs of Britain in those years? All of this today will be our story, the continuation of the story of King Arthur.
The birth of Britain. Dark ages
If we try to briefly describe that time far from us, then we can briefly say that this is the Celtic twilight, the British dark ages. And also the fact that it was an era of migration and war. And since the right to land was won and maintained then only with the help of weapons, it is the military history of the early Middle Ages that is of primary importance for this era. The Great Migration of Nations was called “great” for a reason. Wave after wave of immigrants from the continent rolled into Britain. New ones came for the lands of those who came only a little earlier, and the right to land again and again had to be defended with the help of force.
But there are very few sources of information about that time; many of them are scarce or insufficiently reliable. Illustrated images, in addition to their general rudeness, pose exactly the same problems and are often copies of Roman or Byzantine originals.
Clear organization is the foundation of Roman rule
In the last years of Roman rule, Britain was divided into four provinces, which were fenced off by the "Hadrian's Wall" from the wild Picts of the northern highlands. These Roman provinces were defended by three military commanders: Dux Britanniarum (“Main British”), which oversaw northern Britain and the Wall, and whose headquarters were in York; Comes litoris Saxonici ("Saxon Coast Comitia"), which was responsible for the defense of the southeastern shores; and the recently formed Comes Britanniarum, in charge of the border troops.
Roman soldiers in Britain. Rice. Angus McBride. Whatever you say, Angus was a master of historical drawing. Just look - in the foreground is an officer of the horse ala, and his clothes and all his equipment are accurately reproduced. Moreover, the sources of all the details he painted are indicated (otherwise it is impossible in Osprey's books!). Helmet - drawn on the model of the 4th-5th centuries. from the Vojvodina Museum in Novi Sad, Serbia, such objects as bas-reliefs from the Arch of Galerius, a silver dish from the Hermitage collection, a carved bone plate “Life of St. Paul” of the 5th century were used to depict clothes. from the Bargello Museum in Florence, drawings from the Notitia Dignitatum, copies of the 15th century. from the original of the 5th century from the Bodleian Library at Osford.
Even a gastraphet is depicted - a Greek hand-held throwing machine, which the Romans called a hand ballista, and the shooters from it - ballistaria.
By the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th centuries AD, Hadrian's Wall had already ceased to be a clearly defined border. It was now a dilapidated structure between forts that looked more like armed and densely populated villages. The wall itself, its towers and forts were dilapidated, and the forts were inhabited by all sorts of rabble, if only they supported at least some level of protection here.
What could be more effective than riders in armor?
The most effective Roman troops were now cavalry. They fought with a spear, not a bow, since the Hunnic equestrian archery was not included in Romano-Byzantine tactics until the 5th century. Two regiments of Sarmatian heavily armored cataphracts served in Britain in order to plunge the naked Picts into confusion with their one formidable appearance. These horsemen did not use the stirrups, and they did not need them, because they were not needed, since their role was to act against the enemy's infantry or light cavalry, and not oppose the enemy's heavy cavalry. They rarely wore shields, since they had to hold the spears with both hands. Spurs, however, were used and are found among archaeological finds. They also find arrowheads of long spears belonging to horsemen of Alanian or Sarmatian origin.
Roman infantry in the lands of Britain
The infantry remained the main striking force of the British army in Rome. The light infantry, carrying small shields, fought as skirmishers and were armed with darts, bows, or slings. The armored infantry fought in formation, and had large shields, but were otherwise armed in the same way as the cataphracts. Archery in Britain, as in other parts of the Empire, gained in importance. But the Romans themselves did not like onions. They considered him "insidious", "childish" and a weapon unworthy of her husband. Therefore, they recruited mercenary riflemen in Asia. Thus, the Syrians, Parthians, Arabs, and even, possibly, Sudanese negroes came to the land of Britain. The late Roman bow evolved from a bow of the Scythian type, a complex design, about the size of a thigh, with a double bend and bony "ears". Few doubt that the Romans also had crossbows, but were such weapons used for war or only for hunting? Vegetius, circa 385, referred to weapons such as the Manubalista and Arkubalista as the weapon of light infantry. Two centuries later, Byzantine troops used a simple crossbow, and this weapon may have been in use even then south of Hadrian's Wall. Fragments of a crossbow were also found in a late Roman burial at Burbage, Wiltshire, in 1893.
With other Roman weapons in Britain, there are much fewer problems. The lancei's relatively light spear was used by the infantry as a versatile weapon. They threw him at the enemy and fought with him because of the "wall of shields". In late Roman sources, axes are practically not called as weapons, but the sword retained its place of honor as a melee weapon both before and after. However, now it was a single sword for both the infantry and the cavalry. It was just that the riders had it somewhat longer. And these two types of spat and semi-spat were named.
Under the formidable armor you know no wounds
The helmet of the late Roman infantryman usually consisted of two parts connected by a longitudinal crest. The form is probably dated to the 4th century. The segmental helmet or spangenhelm, which was widespread in Central Asia, was possibly brought to Great Britain through the Sarmatian mercenaries, and then the Anglo-Saxons brought it with them a second time. Chain mail was the most common form of armor, but plate armor was also widespread in the Empire. The disappearance of the plate armor reflected, most likely, a change in military priorities, rather than a decrease in its technological capabilities. The term "cataphract" could have been applied to heavy armor in general, but usually meant scale or plate armor. The chain mail of lorica gamata had alternating perforated and welded rings. Armor made of small scales was also known - squamata lorica. In this case, iron or bronze scales were connected with metal staples to form a relatively inflexible but durable protection.
Throwing machines were still used, albeit more for defense than for attack, since there were simply no targets worthy of them in England. The most common were probably the Onager stone thrower and Toxoballista from early Byzantine sources.
So the Roman army, which "left", or rather left Britain, was in its time a formidable and well-equipped fighting force. The last legions left the island in 407, and already around 410 the Roman emperor Honorius, recognizing the fact of the departure of the Romans, suggested that the cities of Britain "defend themselves on their own." However, a certain part of the local Roman soldiers could well have stayed with their families, even when the actual Roman power was officially abolished. Two commands, Dux Britanniarum and Comes litoris Saxonici, could well have stayed to serve the already new and independent rulers of the island.
Britain after the Romans
The situation that has arisen in Britain after the departure of the Romans is most easily termed "catastrophe" and it is unlikely to be such a great exaggeration. True, the withdrawal itself cost the world: both in the provinces of the former Roman Britain, and in the area north of Hadrian's Wall after the departure of the Romans, there was neither anarchy nor serious social upheavals. Urban life continued, although the cities began to decline gradually. The society was still Romanized and mostly Christian. The people who resisted the Pictish, Irish and Anglo-Saxon raids were not at all anti-Roman, but represented the most real Romano-British aristocracy, which held power for several generations.
However, the situation was not easy. The people of Britain immediately felt that there was no one to protect them. True, many of the forts of the Antonien and Adrian walls were still occupied by troops from Roman veterans, but these troops were clearly not enough for the entire territory of the country. And then began something that could not but begin: the raids of the Picts from the north and the Scots (Scots) from Ireland. This forced the Romano-Britons to call for help from the pagan Germanic tribes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who came and then themselves decided to settle in Britain.
However, even after the "Saxon uprising" of the middle of the 5th century, city life on the island continued. In the southeast, the inhabitants of some cities either began to negotiate with the conquerors, or fled to Gaul. However, the Romanized administration, which had lasted for several generations, slowly but surely fell into decay. Even the fortifications were maintained by local residents in a relative order, as was the rule under the Romans, but the “core” of society, alas, disappeared and people, apparently, were aware of this. Before that, they were part of a powerful empire, not entirely fair, but capable of protecting them and guaranteeing their usual way of life. Now … now everyone had to decide everything for himself!
It was then that two disasters occurred, which were so close to each other that a connection between them seems very likely. One of them is the devastating plague of 446. The second is the uprising of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries who were brought by King Vortigern from the continent to fight the Picts. When they were not paid for their service, they allegedly went berserk and rebelled. The result was the infamous letter of the inhabitants of the island to the military leader Flavius Aetius, dubbed "The Groans of the British", which dates back to the same 446 AD. It is possible that it eventually helped the Britons get a little help from the disintegrating Western Roman Empire, but otherwise they, as before, were left to their own devices. Whether the plague epidemic was the cause of the Saxon revolt, or the revolt wreaked havoc, after which the epidemic began, is unknown.
It is known that part of Hadrian's Wall was repaired already in the 6th century, as were some of the Pennine forts. At the same time, the defenses at the western end of the Wall and along the coast of Yorkshire were destroyed, and part of it was abandoned and could no longer serve as a defense against the Picts. But what an irony of fate: according to documents, it is known that in Britain there were about 12,000 representatives of the Romano-British aristocracy. And they settled closer to home, giving rise to the "new Britain" or Brittany. And they were often asked for help by the "Roman British" who remained in place, so that the process of communication and development was not interrupted by the withdrawal of the Roman legions and administration from the territory of Britain. It's just … the remaining Britons were given more independence and offered to survive as they like! Which, however, did not please everyone, of course.
All this gives reason to consider Arthur as a real person of post-Roman times, but he was more of a warrior, not a statesman. Interestingly, the memory of Arthur has been prized for centuries by the defeated and often oppressed Celts of Wales, the inhabitants of southern Scotland, Cornwall and Brittany. And it is a historical fact that in Britain, the only one among the western provinces of the Roman Empire, the indigenous population for some time managed to stop the wave of the German invasion. It seems that one or more of the military leaders around this time united the scattered Celtic tribes and the remaining Roman citizens of Britain and led to their temporary tactical success. Temporary, since the inability of Arthur's successors to maintain such unity was the main reason for the final victory of the Saxons.
There is reason to believe that at some stage a certain "Arthur" created a "certain" unity, covering the whole of Celtic Britain, even beyond Hadrian's Wall, and that, perhaps, he was able to establish power over the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. It is likely that it extended to Armorica (Brittany), and many British historians believe that the written sources known to us both "Gododdin" (c. 600 AD), and "History of the Britons" Nennius (c. 800 g. AD), and the Trophies of Announ (c. 900), and the Cambrian Annals (c. 955), are less significant than the oral tradition, which retains memories of Celtic unity, war using riders in armor, and about Arthur himself. By the way, the record of toponyms known from the 5th-6th centuries also confirms the fact that both Arthur and the Roman Ambrosius existed as separate personalities. Actually, we still have to deal with both Arthur and the Roman Ambrosius. In the meantime, it is important to emphasize that the destructively rapid German invasion of Gaul, Iberia and Italy in the territory of Britain has acquired the character of a prolonged and stubborn confrontation.
The militant aristocracy of British Artoria, that is, the lands subject to the rule of King Arthur, fought like light cavalry with swords and spears, which the horsemen threw at the enemy. Like Roman cataphracts, heavier spears were most likely rarely fought. By the way, those British who fled to Armorica were later known as good horsemen, and it is also known that the cavalry clearly prevailed in southern Scotland, and in the West Midlands, that is, in Central England. The men of Wales, on the other hand, preferred to fight on foot. Many areas suitable for horse breeding were lost as a result of the invasion of Germanic tribes and this dealt a stronger blow to the local population than even their own invasion of enemies from across the sea. In fact, British resistance to the invaders most likely resembled guerrilla warfare based on fortified bases, waged by small groups of horsemen, who in this way acted against the Anglo-Saxon settlements scattered throughout the country. Well, the Anglo-Saxons, on the contrary, sought to build fortifications ("forts") everywhere and relying on them to subjugate the Celtic romanized local population.
Since, unlike the newcomers, the natives were Christians, their burials are of no interest to archaeologists. However, it is known that Celtic swords were smaller than those of the Anglo-Saxons. The British initially had better quality armor than their opponents, as much of the equipment they most likely came from the Romans. Archery played a secondary role, although in the last years of the Roman Empire, complex composite bows of the Hunnic type began to be widely used. Javelins (both heavy and light, such as angon) were common throwing weapons.
