More a continuence than a restart but having read quite a few new and up to date books and articles recently I am minded to look at this again.
A few questions...
When did the Late Roman model for Romano British armies give way to the heroic age structures and how different were armies in reality to each other. This includes laeti, foederati and mercenary/tribal germanics
What were the differences between Highland and lowland Britain in terms of troop composition
How much cavalry was there in reality and of what quality
Just for starters
I think one issue might be scale; the very word "armies". Once the Romans have "gone" (and possibly before they had officially "gone", but with forces massively depleted by expeditions to Gaul by the likes of Constantine III), is there any occasion when perhaps more than 100 chaps rocked up on either side? Of course we do not know, but are we too influenced by a combination of Gildas' imagery of Mons Badonicus, and the Viking Great Army a few centuries later, to assume that the Angles, Saxons, Jutes et al are wandering around in large, massed numbers, rather than a boat-load or two at best? That any Romano-British leader has more than a few score lads at best at his immediate beck and call?
You mention "heroic age" structures. Is not the simplest explanation for an apparent reversion to Celtic warbands, and the reoccupation of the odd hillfort not some, actually very hard to explain if we are honest, military/social nostalgia for pre-Roman times despite four centuries of Romanisation, but more a simple imperative when the loss of centralised power means that the retinue of a few well-armed thugs is the obvious route to maintaining local power? Hillforts are almost an indicator of relative weakness: one can press-gang local villagers into renovating an obvious but dilapidated defensive position, but then sit up in one's hall with a certain degree more security, more easily defended against rivals who might want to pop over in the middle of the night to settle scores.
Cavalry quality/quantity? Probably perfectly good horsemen, but experienced hunters, not cavalry troopers. A few thugs on horses, more than enough to bag a deer or two for the hall, strong-arm farmers, raid cattle, or take on similar thugs from the valley next door. Might even have quite good armour, etc, as befits a professional warrior/thug. But not chaps who resemble a cavalry ala, or even a turma. No sub-Roman pseudo-Sarmatian EHC/Kn(F)...
Speculation on my part. But as I say, I wonder whether a combination of Arthurianism and the later Viking experience have overlaid too much of a prism. Plus a dose of DBM(M) - how can one not have an army list for the period? Problem is that it is an army list.
Very useful David.
Chuck into the mix the obvious climatic and disease events particularly in the 6th century and the waters get muddied. However, I do ascribe to a 5th century 'holding' of semi Roman structures at least up to around 450ish. This includes military structures and organisation. The question of how big do we go is another one you rightly ask. Even when 'legions' were present in the 5th and even the 4th century, it was more policing and combating raids and the like I suspect
The other interesting aspect for me is the regional differences as modern commentators are fairly confident that upland and lowland areas did diverge and quite early on.
More digging required
I'm not up on 5th to 9th Century British archaeology but wonder if anything similar to Scandinavian experience can be found in the record. There (and I draw my information from Neil Price's "Children of Ash and Elm") a pattern of society similar to that which interacted with traders from the Roman empire - or at least was connected to the distribution network of Roman goods - carries on from the Roman period to around the mid 6th Century when there is a massive disruption due to plague/climatic change? Population levels drop hugely. When things pick up again, the pattern of settlement changes completely from a dense network of independent farming settlements into a much more dispersed pattern of strong men's halls, served by poor dependent farms.
As for the size of forces, I tend to agree with David. Note the Anglo-Saxon definition of a horde - more than 36 men. That is about equal to the crew of one medium sized Viking longship.
Thanks Kim. Always useful for extra context and in fact interconnectedness
The pattern you describe is definitely similar across the northwestern European mainland and includes Britain
It feels like a series of apocalyptic events occurred in the 6th that affected the order of things even more than the collapse of the western roman empire
For what little it is worth, I would also go with the fact that some kind of Roman-based social organisation continues in the lowland zone well into the 5th century. The problem is that what it was like. I suspect it has been increasingly moving to a client-based oligarchy with the decay of central authority. Country land-owners hire "security" and have the resources to provide kit, horses etc. Civitates hire mercenaries, maybe giving them land to settle. Army units develop support systems that don't require central pay-chests. These people still think of themselves as Roman - I struggle to buy a reversion to a Celtic tribal system. Yes, I'm sure some oligarchs would point to their native aristocratic credentials but they had been making their wealth and displaying their status in the Roman manner for centuries.
I must admit, I'm more a fan of the "small army" theory of armies of this period (more Halsall than Bachrachs). Perhaps too much is made of the laws of Ine. The figures in there are legal definitions, that divide categories of wrong-doers
"By "thieves" (Peofas) we mean men up to the number seven; by "a band" (hloo) from seven to thirty-five ; by "an army" (here) above thirty-five."
While it implies armies could be small, it doesn't necessarily hold that they were even usually at the bottom level.
While looking at "army" sizes one might also consider the various Scandinavian bog deposits of weapons, assumed to be the arms of the defeated side. While too much can be made of these (e.g. in terms of force composition) they do give an idea of scale.
Lowland and Upland will inevitable diverge because of the population density the land can support. But you have to be careful about how you define upland. In the north they've seen grain grown at altitudes we wouldn't bother now.
But following on from earlier comments, if you are trying to support your warband of loyal thugs, then three or four reasonably prosperous lowland villages will pay you more protection money that an awful lot of rough fell.
Also in some areas you have to remember you might get Transhumance so the lowlands and highlands are actually an integrated system. Neither can survive economically without the other.
You get something like that even now in the UK where young female fell sheep will often be moved down into the lowlands over winter to ensure they grow enough to be fit to be tupped next year
True Jim
It may be that the lineation of upland and lowland areas in the 7th century are more to do with pre existing martial and sociopolitical structures than pure economics
I enjoy pointing out that the 18th century Riot Act defined a "riot" as involving twelve or more people. As we know, 18th century riots could involve tens of thousands. The minimum level isn't relevant when considering typical "riot" or "army" sizes.
The other thing with Ine's Law is what the "army" is doing
"One accused of plundering with [such] an army shall redeem his 'life through [payment of] his wergeld or shall clear himself by [an oath equivalent to] his wergeld. . . ."
So, this isn't an invading army, this is a plundering raid. It isn't clear even that this applies to external aggression rather than lawlessness in the kingdom. Given the enforcement action, it implies one can identify and take into custody the perpetrators and fine them, which is unlikely to be the case if they were outsiders.
Ines laws are interesting as they mention the Welsh and their status within his kingdom. Reading into the subject, enclaves of Romano British/Wealah are often typified by saete or saetan suffixes
Ill dig up the references when I can but there is evidence of tributary British cavalry serving A-S kings
I think the term thug is a little harsh.
I don't think the Celtic influence really went away in Roman Britain, certainly not in places like Cornwall, Wales and the Old North. Y Gododdin talks of 300 mounted warriors, it has been suggested that they could have been accompanied by a larger number of foot soldiers, not considered worthy of mention in the poem.
Especially in the extreme western and northern areas which had de facto proto kingdoms by the end of the 4th century anyway
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 16, 2025, 11:27 AMIll dig up the references when I can but there is evidence of tributary British cavalry serving A-S kings
One possibility that immediately springs to mind is Oswald recovering Northumbria with the probable aid of Picts or Scots at Heavenfield, since he probably had, at best, a small retinue of Northumbrian loyalists. We have no knowledge of the composition of the forces. It just seems likely that any Scots or Picts would have included horsemen - maybe even exclusively so, if this is a small force. Equally, the Northumbrian exiles may well have been mounted, leaving aside Anglo-Saxon stereotypes, especially if nobles living in amongst Picts and Scots for a few years.
One does wonder about the trope of AS cavalry and the reasoning behind it
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 16, 2025, 12:49 PMOne does wonder about the trope of AS cavalry and the reasoning behind it
Shouldn't that read "troop" rather than "trope"? ;)
I am prompted to ask the question, prompted by a discussion elsewhere (https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=9671.0) on the forum, what are we thinking when we say "AS cavalry"? Or "Sub-Roman cavalry"? An armed man on a horse? Or do we carry some baggage of well-equipped, skilled mounted fighters - proto-knights? We know, a little later than this, in Europe that cavalry might just as easily dismount and make tough infantry fighters (the Franks certainly did it on occassion, and the Welsh) if required.
Fighting from horseback but not exclusively so
Been doing some research for a local battle that has had me scouring maps and the like. My overwhelming feeling is that some DA battles must have been more raids than pitched battles per se
Like the angler's fish they get bigger with the retelling ::)
A very astute observation :)
I must admit I begin to suspect that I've seen the wheel turn before. Perhaps as a reaction to the glories of the legends of Arthur, I can remember reading accounts set in the period where the leaders were little more than bandits in hand-me-down equipment bickering over the ruins in a squalid wasteland.
Then we had 'Continuity Rome' and the legions or their grandchildren still maintained order, and civilisation still managed to somehow cling on.
And now we're drifting back into barbarism again :)
I do rather wonder whether the picture we paint of 'Arthurian Britain' (or sub-Roman or post-Roman or whatever) captures more of the zeitgeist of the era the author lives through than it does the world of the 5th and 6th centuries ;)
Having spent a lifetime watching the "Arthurian" thing (well, since my teens), perhaps the most interesting bit, at least outside of selling popular "histories", is the shift away from the great man and more an attempt to create a context. In the first half of the 5th century, that tends to look more decaying Rome than reversion to barbarism that once it did, IMO. How long this twighlight lasted and how it transitioned into early medieval kingdoms remains a pretty open question, though, I think.
One bit of the argument appears to be related to maintenance of skills in writing Latin and in rhetoric etc - as if there is still the ability to learn/teach a high standard of Roman style education then this implies at least some rich (and powerful) individuals who would have a significant number of clients, and thus be able to raise a reasonable sized force.
Unfortunately I lack any idea of the details of such arguments....and thus if they shed any light on the question of size of societal units and their ability to muster armed force.
Ability to muster fighting men is a very nebulous query and answer. It depends on the polity which of course is the proverbial jelly-nail-wall conundrum
I think the use of foederati was much more widespread than previously thought especially in the SE. Also the SRBs vs the AS/Irish/Picts is far too simplistic
Far far too simplistic
Quote from: gavindbm on Jul 18, 2025, 08:12 PMOne bit of the argument appears to be related to maintenance of skills in writing Latin and in rhetoric etc - as if there is still the ability to learn/teach a high standard of Roman style education then this implies at least some rich (and powerful) individuals who would have a significant number of clients, and thus be able to raise a reasonable sized force.
Perhaps the best - but rather limited and specific - bit of evidence is the 5th century mosaic at Chedworth villa. Someone has the money (as I argued when it was discovered a few years ago, I doubt Lurkio the tessera layer was doing it for a couple of chickens) to still be tarting up the family estate at least as late as 424 from the carbon dating, and the excavator thinks the balance of probability is actually much later in the century.
Now, having a nice villa does not necessarily equal having a retinue of armed lads. But it probably means that if anyone in the neighbourhood is likely to have Doug and Dinsdale Piranha on the payroll, it is the villa owner.
The curiales...who may well have been part of SR polities in the 5th.
If we look at Germanus's visit (one or two visits according to taste) there is still a functioning set up for the majority of the (former) province around 430ish
And Gildas a little later is able to write passable Latin. Yes, a monk, but the early monasteries were almost certainly not the sophisticated seats of learning of the Middle Ages, and furthermore any form of religious communities rather imply a degree of social sophistication to be able to exist.
If only we knew where he was based when he wrote his diatribe! :)
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 19, 2025, 01:04 PMIf only we knew where he was based when he wrote his diatribe! :)
I've always assumed it was Guildford - Gildas' ford ::)
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 18, 2025, 09:36 PMAbility to muster fighting men is a very nebulous query and answer. It depends on the polity which of course is the proverbial jelly-nail-wall conundrum
I think the use of foederati was much more widespread than previously thought especially in the SE.
Gildas tells us that Ambrosius was able to organise effective resistance and contain the Saxon incursion. Arthur is then suppose to have carried this on afterwards. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does, by omission, record a period of no major military or territorial gains between 519 and 552. This suggests the Saxon advance was halted as Gildas said.
Blame is traditionally heaped upon Vortigern for his mistake in hiring the Saxon mercenaries. Marsh points out that Vortigern was only following the Roman practice of enlisting ethnic populations as auxiliary units of the army.
It isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing. Isn't that the attraction though, you can make it fit into whatever you want it to be?
Quote from: Keraunos on Jul 19, 2025, 01:18 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 19, 2025, 01:04 PMIf only we knew where he was based when he wrote his diatribe! :)
I've always assumed it was Guildford - Gildas' ford ::)
Ooooo....nice
Quote from: skb777 on Jul 19, 2025, 01:36 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 18, 2025, 09:36 PMAbility to muster fighting men is a very nebulous query and answer. It depends on the polity which of course is the proverbial jelly-nail-wall conundrum
I think the use of foederati was much more widespread than previously thought especially in the SE.
Gildas tells us that Ambrosius was able to organise effective resistance and contain the Saxon incursion. Arthur is then suppose to have carried this on afterwards. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does, by omission, record a period of no major military or territorial gains between 519 and 552. This suggests the Saxon advance was halted as Gildas said.
Blame is traditionally heaped upon Vortigern for his mistake in hiring the Saxon mercenaries. Marsh points out that Vortigern was only following the Roman practice of enlisting ethnic populations as auxiliary units of the army.
It isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing. Isn't that the attraction though, you can make it fit into whatever you want it to be?
And the possibility that the early part is actually a civil war with foederati used on both sides...
Certainly and considering there had been a plague which had left so many dead they couldn't bury the bodies it isn't likely they had much choice.
Another aspect that needs factoring in
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 19, 2025, 03:52 PMAnd the possibility that the early part is actually a civil war with foederati used on both sides...
Quote from: skb777 on Jul 19, 2025, 06:56 PMCertainly and considering there had been a plague which had left so many dead they couldn't bury the bodies it isn't likely they had much choice.
Read together , those two make it sound like both sides were using catapults to fire dead foederati at each other.
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 20, 2025, 05:22 AMAnother aspect that needs factoring in
I look forward to seeing it in your rules!
Me too :D
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Jul 20, 2025, 09:06 AMRead together , those two make it sound like both sides were using catapults to fire dead foederati at each other.
I look forward to seeing it in your rules!
Indeed. Would a catapulted corpse have a greater or lesser impact than a flung javelin? There is much to ponder here. Perhaps this is a subject for Tod to do some more experimental work on to provide guidance for the wargamer. ::)
A corpse may lead to a nasty disease later don't forget :)
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 20, 2025, 02:36 PMA corpse may lead to a nasty disease later don't forget :)
Do you mean that you are contemplating wargame rules that allow for the lingering effects of disease as well as the immediate impact of weapons?
If it's a campaign ;D
Stuart Laycock and Christpher Gidlow, King Arthur's Country, 2024, argue that in post Roman Britain the underlying Celtic tribal system remained in place – the basis for the civitates, reflecting a patchwork of Romano British kingdoms – providing military leaders the resources to resist the attacks of the Saxons. Indeed, they suggest the stabilising effect of Ambrosius/Arthur/British leader(s) in central Britain, in the civitas of the Dobunni, and later, Penda's leadership in the new multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, Mercian kingdom, expanding from the area of the River Severn and Avon, preserved many Celtic settlements in central Britain, slowing down Saxon encroachment and ensuring the survival of Wales.
The authors, evidencing recent and earlier finds state that "Most British militiamen in the fourth and early fifth century were probably armed with spears, knives and shields. The well-equipped would have had swords. There is evidence, however, that suggest that fighters in Dubunni territory were, in addition, equipped with a specific type of weighted dart used by the late Roman army." They mention that the discovery of hoards of silver in Roman Britain implies much wealth owned by native refugees and that the Dobunni probably remained powerful, becoming a significant centre of native resistance. Maybe, such wealth could fund respectable cavalry.
If there was never one Britain but many tribal "kingdoms" united in culture, maybe commanders of British warbands were able to traverse the landscape and "tap into" many disparate military resources as Caratacus did during the earlier Roman invasion.
I know little about this era, but I always feel that weaponry was sort of hidden until needed – as in Boudica's sudden revolt. I wonder if Penda was able to recruit warriors from many peoples in the same armed units after the stalling of the earlier Saxon advance from the east. This probably contributes nothing to firming up wargame lists!
Anyway, I've moved away from the focus of discussion and shall cease rambling!
Robert Gargan
It's all good stuff Robert and thanks for the reply
I am currently investigating the Gewisse and the Hwicce. It's a big puzzle but am.enjoying the challenge of teasing out a narrative
Quote from: RobertGargan on Jul 25, 2025, 09:52 PMI know little about this era, but I always feel that weaponry was sort of hidden until needed – as in Boudica's sudden revolt. I wonder if Penda was able to recruit warriors from many peoples in the same armed units after the stalling of the earlier Saxon advance from the east. This probably contributes nothing to firming up wargame lists!
Anyway, I've moved away from the focus of discussion and shall cease rambling!
Robert Gargan
For the average infantryman with spear, shield and knife, I wonder how much hiding was necessary. A longish heavy knife (or short hafted axe) would just be a tool that every peasant farmstead would have.
Every peasant would be used to making long straight shafts of forks and hoes etc, so it wouldn't take them long to produce a spear shaft and spear heads on their own don't take a lot of hiding.
As for shields https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM6-b8-XBi4&t=7s shows how to make the wooden board
When the legions were recalled not everyone would have left. There would have been retired veterans who will have settled there along with troops who would have married local woman and started families. Auxiliaries would also have been hired from the within the isles. So a reasonably sized 'Romanised" regular force would still have been there.
I think one problem with the "hidden Celtic kingdoms" idea is the length of Roman rule. It's over 300 years of operating a different political and economic system. How much civilian armament had to be hidden in the last 100 years of that is also debateable. Arming tenants and citizens to resist bagaudae and perhaps the next villa's armed tenants was probably pretty normal.
While I think the arms of the British militia are very plausible (similar to what the average Saxon had), I'd be interested to know where all the evidence for 5th century weaponry comes from. Lead weighted darts I'd expect were a regular army thing, rather than militia. There are finds of them in Britain (they found some at Wroxeter, for example), I don't know how widespread they were and the evidence for them in the 5th century, though.
Quote from: Erpingham on Jul 26, 2025, 09:54 AMI think one problem with the "hidden Celtic kingdoms" idea is the length of Roman rule. It's over 300 years of operating a different political and economic system. How much civilian armament had to be hidden in the last 100 years of that is also debateable. Arming tenants and citizens to resist bagaudae and perhaps the next villa's armed tenants was probably pretty normal.
Exactly. Just because towns sometimes carry names derived from the old British tribes does not mean that four centuries later they still have any meaningful sense of "Celticism". Also worth considering that a lot of the traits that we associate with a Celtic identity pre-conquest really apply to the south-east and north-east; the west of Britain is a lot less clear-cut. Personally, I think the true use of "Celtic" should apply to language, not material culture, which makes the west Celtic, but from a military history perspective, one size fits all is very difficult.
The fallacy is that, if in 43 AD, lots of Britons are running around in groups led by a more-or-less renowned warrior, armed with shields and spears, speaking some form of Celtic, and in 443AD are running around in groups led by a more-or-less renowned warrior, armed with shields and spears, speaking some form of Celtic (plus some Latin), does NOT mean that they are part of a Celtic military continuum. It simply means that in decentralised communities, with the technology and resources available to them, that is the inherently obvious form of military organisation, just as it is, language aside, for the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians and Franks who are trying to nick your farms.
Absolutely
In fact it's been positied that the last regular troops could have lasted until around 430/440 just when the historical foederati issue and suggested rebellions occur
Quote from: Erpingham on Jul 26, 2025, 09:54 AMI think one problem with the "hidden Celtic kingdoms" idea is the length of Roman rule. It's over 300 years of operating a different political and economic system.
One only has to look at the Welsh to realise that it can take far more than 300 years for Celts to realise that they've been conquered.
If at all ;D
so back to the subject I have neglected. Been digging around in various places for (highly conjectural!) 'evidence' of battles in the 5th/6th Century in the West
Locally to me there is the 'battle' of Tintern which allegedly involved Tewdrig (Theoderic) and his son Muerig (Maurice) vs generic 'Saxons'. Having walked the area over the last ooooo...40 odd years I've come to the conclusion the area does not offer much in the way of space or room for a big engagement. I would estimate a raid in force more likely
The Mabinogion (and hence Black Book of Carmarthen and Red Book of Hergest) details a highly mythicised campaign of Arthur and his companions against the 'Tyrch Trywth' across the length and breadth of Wales. Whilst very stylised and highly totemic in terms of magical beasts etc I believe it has a kernel of truth and reflects an actual campaign of 'Arthur' vs a potential Irish or Saxon foe. It appears to infer mobile/fast moving engagements and may be another example of a major raid with lowish numbers and possibly mounted in nature
Rather than go down the 'arthur' route I am interested in seeing if these are potentially real battles and to work out likely (finger in air) force sizes and composition. This will hopefully then translate into a campaign that I can fight on the tabletop too
Where possible, walking the ground, or at least hitting lucky with google maps, might be useful
Certainly an intriguing project.
Others have tried it and have been more or less convincing
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 10, 2025, 12:22 PMI've come to the conclusion the area does not offer much in the way of space or room for a big engagement. I would estimate a raid in force more likely
Were not armies in the early medieval period often very small by later standards? I'm sure I recall reading that an 'army' could be comprised of as few as 50 men. If that's a general trend than a 'raid in force' would quite likely be described as a battle - if the authors of the time were even interested in distinguishing between different types of violent encounter as we might. The area around Tintern would no doubt be sufficient for such a clash.
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 10, 2025, 12:22 PMRather than go down the 'arthur' route I am interested in seeing if these are potentially real battles and to work out likely (finger in air) force sizes and composition. This will hopefully then translate into a campaign that I can fight on the tabletop too
Are you not likely to encounter the very essence of the Dark Ages here? I would suggest that many previous authors have sought such detail in the sources, whether pursuing Arthur or not, and had there been any scraps of evidence to find you would be aware of them given your interests. Just make up plausible situations and forces as your whim takes you. Enjoy your creations sure in the knowledge that no one can gain say you either way.
all good points and yes the urge is to delve too deep into the bucket of smoke and mirrors and be none the wiser and other better researchers have trodden this particular path too many times to recount
I will say that I have been doing alot of research into one of the 'battles' of the Twrch Trywth which could be linked to a water phenomenon linked to the Severn, the Wye and underground rivers...
I will say more of that later :)
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Sep 10, 2025, 02:00 PM... other better researchers have trodden this particular path too many times to recount
They may have been better researchers, or they may not. Sometimes it's not necessarily the researchers, it's the sources.
Where there is little relevant evidence, authors can be tempted to fabrication. Best, I think, to accept the situation and own the fabrication up front for this is wargames not history. The key word in my previous post was "plausible", and you are well qualified to do plausible in the context of wargames.
And of course in theory I could wangle flaming pigs into the equation
Flaming pigs, aka hot bacon ;)
I thought your boar was supposed to be a metaphor for an enemy force? Is this flaming pig some sort of poetic device signifying burning and pillaging force?
I just like flamming pigs ;D
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on Sep 10, 2025, 01:19 PMWere not armies in the early medieval period often very small by later standards? I'm sure I recall reading that an 'army' could be comprised of as few as 50 men. If that's a general trend than a 'raid in force' would quite likely be described as a battle - if the authors of the time were even interested in distinguishing between different types of violent encounter as we might. The area around Tintern would no doubt be sufficient for such a clash.
Small kingdoms can only raise small armies :)
There is a Saxon law book, I'm struggling to remember which, dishes out names for different size forces; pretty much anything over 30 men can be an army. Most armies would be kings and their household troops supported by nobles with their household troops. When things looked particularly grim a muster could be called, we have the figure of 1 man per 5 hides of land for that though it comes from long after the 5th century. The Burghal Hidage sets the garrison for Wallingford at 2,400 men
7th/8th cent Senchus for Dal Riata records military strengths of 560 men for Gabrain, 430 for Oengusa and 420 for Loairn. Each 'tech' (house) was to provide 1.5 men but that could go as high as 4.5 men depending on the circumstances. There a similar clause for naval service, every 20 houses in each Cenel was to provide a 30 man crew and 2 7 bench boats. That would put Loairn at 630 men, Gabrain to 840 and Oengusa on 645.
Across the water, Ireland's 7th/8th cent 'Little Primer' has a petty king as somebody who can raise 700 men.
Sorry, no idea regarding Picts or Welsh folk ;D
Quote from: kodiakblair on Sep 10, 2025, 05:53 PMThere is a Saxon law book, I'm struggling to remember which, dishes out names for different size forces; pretty much anything over 30 men can be an army.
We discussed the Laws of King Ine earlier in the topic here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=9672.msg120077#msg120077) and following. To recap, it is a law code defining classes of wrong doers by size. To be classed as an army, you need 36 or more men. It doesn't tell you how big the average army might be, or whether what it is defining is something we would recognise as an army.
Quote from: kodiakblair on Sep 10, 2025, 05:53 PMSorry, no idea regarding Picts or Welsh folk ;D
We'll let you off ;D
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 10, 2025, 06:13 PMWe discussed the Laws of King Ine earlier in the topic here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=9672.msg120077#msg120077) and following. To recap, it is a law code defining classes of wrong doers by size.
Aye, that's the one.
Sorry, I've not been following this topic too closely so missed it's earlier mention.
We could probably make an informed estimate regards king's and noble's retinue size by looking at "Great Hall" dimensions, at least for Saxon folks. The foundations at Rendlesham measure 75 ft x 33 ft, Yeavering is slightly bigger. Roman cohort of 480 men in 6 ranks covers an area of 240 ft x 36 ft so I'm inclined to see those halls holding no more than 300; less if you deduct space for tables, benches etc.
Quote from: kodiakblair on Sep 11, 2025, 08:18 AMWe could probably make an informed estimate regards king's and noble's retinue size by looking at "Great Hall" dimensions, at least for Saxon folks. The foundations at Rendlesham measure 75 ft x 33 ft, Yeavering is slightly bigger. Roman cohort of 480 men in 6 ranks covers an area of 240 ft x 36 ft so I'm inclined to see those halls holding no more than 300; less if you deduct space for tables, benches etc.
Presumably after the deduction of an allowance for furniture the space available must accommodate sleeping persons rather than standing? Does that alter your estimate David?
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on Sep 11, 2025, 08:51 AMPresumably after the deduction of an allowance for furniture the space available must accommodate sleeping persons rather than standing? Does that alter your estimate David?
Not really Adrian, the boys probably slept where they sat.
Makes sense when you think about it. Lassies coming in the next day to set the room to rights would have a far easier job shifting hungover men from a bench than if they were in a huddle on the floor ;D
Or strung up over a rope....
Quote from: Adrian Nayler on Sep 10, 2025, 02:16 PMWhere there is little relevant evidence, authors can be tempted to fabrication.
Interestingly, AI programs have a similar problem.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on Sep 11, 2025, 07:16 PMQuote from: Adrian Nayler on Sep 10, 2025, 02:16 PMWhere there is little relevant evidence, authors can be tempted to fabrication.
Interestingly, AI programs have a similar problem.
I confess that I have wondered, when AI hallucinates, whether, in reality, it's not 'making it up' but remembering incorrect nonsense that it has read somewhere on the web.
After all, we know it reads fantasy and sci fi novels :)
Add a virtual pipe and roll neck sweater and you're there
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 11, 2025, 08:35 PMI confess that I have wondered, when AI hallucinates, whether, in reality, it's not 'making it up' but remembering incorrect nonsense that it has read somewhere on the web.
After all, we know it reads fantasy and sci fi novels :)
There may be an element of that, but I've seen a couple of examples where an AI was asked about a really obscure subject and was scrabbling to make some sort of connection between pretty unconnected facts in order to give some sort of answer.
When people say that AIs aren't like people, the biggest problem we have is that we really don't have a clue how the human brain works, so how can we be sure that they are different?
I remember a composer of popular songs saying that all the best musical ideas come from mistakes. Maybe we're just seeing the dawn of AI creativity?
:o