"Ancient British --- showjumpers? Rodeo clowns?" Topic

The Vindolanda Tablets are, essentially, post-it notes from Hadrian's Wall, often asking for socks or more beer. But here's one that I can't figure out:

"The Britons are unprotected by armor. There are very many cavalry. The cavalry do not use swords nor do the Brittunculi* mount in order to throw javelins."

So -- what? They shot bows? Used a thrusting spear? Jumped off and wrestled Romans like in a bad movie?

Thoughts?

*'Brittunculi' seems to be a generic insult for their enemies locally.

Brittunculi means little Britons and, as you say, is disparaging. I've always thought the quote was expressing Roman frustration at British guerilla tactics.

It is an odd paragraph, isn't it?

The reference to the very many cavalry is interesting, though, and to the lack of armour.

I wonder if the Brittunculi are distinct from the cavalry mentioned? Perhaps it might refer to lesser Britons – retainers, or whatnot – in which case the cavalry themselves might use javelins.

It might mean they fight from horseback with spears rather than swords (but that might not exclude all side arms) and it might be that they often fought on foot, particularly if throwing javelins.

It may be that throwing javelins from horseback is Roman skill the Brits didn't have …

There seem passages from the Punic Wars which imply that Numidians (also not noted for their swords) sometimes dismounted in a fight so it may be more of the same …

Phil

Swords were always expensive weapons and were usually a mark of leadership or wealth. So were horses for that matter!

Spear/lance armed? Sounds reasonable.

The original is of course a bit fragmentary:

"nenu…[.]n. Brittones
nimium multi · equites
gladis · non utuntur equi-
tes · nec residunt
Brittunculi · ut · iaculos
mittant "

The verb sometimes rendered "mount" is "residunt". But it doesn't seem completely certain what it means in tis context: another translation suggests "nor do the Brittunculi take up fixed positions in order to throw javelins", suggesting perhapss that they are mobile skirmishers rather than stationary javelin-volleyers. (Which might be wise of them if they don't have swords.)

Lewis & Short at Perseus suggests that resido means "to sit down, to settle anywhere". I can see that this could give rise to both "take up a settled position" and "sit down on a horse". But none of the L&S examples are actually anything to do with sitting a horse, and so I'd have thought the phrase would need something like "residunt in equo" to be clear, if that was the intended meaning.

I always read the last bit as, 'the resident "Minor Expletive Native to that region" don't throw Javelins.

So the whole thing becomes:

"The Britons are unprotected by armour. There are very many cavalry. The cavalry do not use swords nor do the resident Brittunculi throw javelins."

I would read as they use spears in hand rather than thrown.

I don't see how "residunt" can be an adjective with an "-unt" ending. Wouldn't you want something like "Brittunculi residentes"? And then the "ut" wouldn't make sense, either, that I can see.

nec----------Nor
resident-----do they unclear-verb-of-positioning
Brittunculi--the wretched Brits
ut-----------in order to
iaculos------javelins
mittant------they send

Beyond my poor Latin- but very interesting! Cavalry who don't use swords presumably skirmish and it sounds like the infantry might perhaps skirmish, too.

I think it is showing frustration with British hit and run tactics. My thinking is that it goes something like this:

"Not too many Britons use swords as cavalrymen, nor do the wretched little British cavalry hang back, so that they may throw javelins."

I don't know about the first partial word in your quote, Gurkhan, but I think it's likely that the first Britones and equites are meant to go together, maybe as appositives, because after the subjunctive clause there you have another clause with yet another 'equites' this time going with 'Brittunculi', again both subjects. Seems to have symmetry to me. 'Nimium…non' is awkward but I think can be taken as"not too much", not that none of them have them but that they rarely get into hand to hand). I know Britones is not technically an adjective, there's no conjunction for a compound subject.

You're right: residunt is a main verb, but it's meaning is a bit vague to me. Being a compound of sedere (sit) it could mean 'sit back' or 'hang back' which leads right into the purpose clause "so that they may throw javelins". Seems like they got right up on them to throw and rode away but didn't engage. Common tactic which could frustrate many a foot soldier.

I don't see anything in your quote referring to a lack of armor. I don't doubt it, it's just not in that fragment.

this is the fragment in question …

link

Maybe that helps
Phil

I think Big Red Bat has a good instinct on this. Why refer to the same people by two different terms in the same paragraph? I suspect "Britones" refers to a "noble" or "warrior" class who own horses and fight from horseback in a different manner than the Romans (not with swords), and "little Britons," or the lesser classes, who do not mount, but throw javelins. This fits with Celtic tactics from the chariot lands, where the leading warrior class had chariots and the lesser fighters formed a big rabble on foot. Take away the chariots and you have cavalry and the same rabble.
If the commentary is meant to be a brief, informative description of local tactics directed at another military man (officer, probably), it would bear the necessity of noting things that were different from what the reader might be used to or expect. Think of it as, "If you're going to fight these people, here's what you need to know."
So essentially you have "The local warrior/leader class fight as cavalry, but these are not armed with swords" (like our cavalry). [Or, "…but not many of them have swords" (but use something else).] "The lesser common levies don't ride horses or use swords (in close combat), but throw javelins."

Not a translation by any means, just a guess at what was meant, given the context and general tenor of the excerpt.

I think its reasonable to see this fragment as descriptive information.

I suspect we are not seeing two fighting classes described respectively as Britones and Brittunculi, rather I think its a derogatory reference to the same fellows who fight in a way the Romans find annoying.

Lots of pony mounted enemies in the terrain around the wall would have been tricky to handle if they would not line up and slug it out.

Celtic foot warriors seem to have been considered a bit of a handful by the Romans. Rabble seems a little harsh.

Thanks, Phil, that did help. The text is too fragmentary for anyone to be certain, even the translator's notes indicate this. As a Latin teacher, I've seen so many fragments of similar stuff, and since authentic Latin has (almost) no punctuation it makes beginnings and endings of sentences that much more complicated to determine (see the translator's note #2 from Phil's link). No one will ever know, but, O, I agree with you that it's the same guys being described…the cavalry's modus operandi is not to use swords close up but to hurl javelins (note he says "use swords", not that they don't have swords, which would usually be "gladios habent" – maybe some do and some don't).

I think the translator's use of "mount" there is the weakest link. What, the Britons never threw javelins from horse/pony-back? Really? Well, if they're not using swords or javelins, what are they using…? I don't buy it. I still think it more likely it's a non-Ciceronian use of the word by a soldier for something like "sit back"…that they don't use swords but nor do they sit back [i.e.,they come closer] in order that they might hurl javelins."

Could it be a report from a detachment in a fort? Then "mount" could mean that (a raiding party) of wretched Britons don't dare to climb up the hill (or rampart) to throw javelins (at the defenders).

Such an interesting thread!

Maybe so, BRB. There was also a reminder/idea in the translator's note that it seemed customary for an outgoing commander to leave notes for an incoming commander, and this could be one of those, just a fragment. There are several possibilities to translating that one above, all grammatically possible without knowing the rest.

An author I've been reading lately on early Rome (Gary Forsythe) says that comparing archaeology to what Roman historians wrote (he's speaking of Livy and Dion. of Hal.) is like ripping a page out of an authoritative text, reading it, and extrapolating history based on that small passage. Seems like an appropriate analogy here. It leaves you guessing a lot. (But it's better than nothing!!!)

I would think that the upland British on both sides of the Wall would have practiced seasonal transhumance in order to maximise the number of cattle they could keep.

There is a whole literature on this from many parts of the world. A key feature is the ability to dominate large areas of upland pasture to ensure uninterupted access to summer grazing. To do this you need significant groups of mounted armed men who can respond rapidly to any incursion. I would suggest that this is the likely econonic basis of "There are very many cavalry".

It would make sense for such men to be the best warriors available from the people. Later sources from the area emphasise mounted combat and horseyness in general. I think its likely that cavalry was always present there.

Within the Wall you might expect that the garrison would have performed such policing in the Military Zone but I'm begining to think they didn't do so exclusively or even at all.