"Arthurians/ Romano-British" Topic

I love the literary Arthur, but do I love him enough to create a Romano-British army? Maybe if I had a better grasp of what I'd be painting, I'd be more certain.

Heavy cavalry -- mailed, pretty much indistinguishable from late imperial Roman cav?

Light cavalry -- would he have had any?

Infantry -- it looks like some collectors have Arthur's foot soldiers in mail and some have them unarmored. Lots of cloaks -- England is cold. Again, would it be logical to have some late imperial roman spearmen mixed in, or would there be obvious differences? And is everybody primarily a spearman? With all the yammering about swords in Arthurian myth, you'd think there'd be room for some. The infantry mostly have oval shields? Maybe a few round ones with a circular center boss? It looks like everyone paints Chi-Rhos on their shields but you can bet that I'll be painting some stylized dragons (pendragons, even). Other known shield devices?

Anything special about Romano-British archers or are they loosely interchangeable with any other Dark Age archer. You think Arthur would have had many slingers among his troops? Any crossbows?

General question -- does a Romano-British army just look like a Roman army gone somewhat to seed, or can you see any elements of the Celts who opposed the Roman occupation in it?

Arthur was a Christian, right? What about his enemies, the invading Saxons?

If you would like to post pics of your Arthurians OR attempt to justify their dorky little hats, please do so.

If some of Arthur's footmen had mail and some did not, would they be mixed together and best of luck unarmored boys, or would the mailed men be of a higher social class and have the heavy infantry all to themselves with the men in cloth serving as inferior, light, or support units?

Arthur.

my take.

one unit of foot mail armoured (high class bodyguard nobles)

one unit with front rank mail, 2nd rank cloth (lesser nobles)

three units of spear with cloth, (normal soldiers)

one unit of recruits – still cloth armour but fewer helmets, poorer class, poor morale.

one cavalry unit (Arthur and his knights) (fully armoured with front rank of fully or half armoured horse)

one cavalry unit of skirmishing light horse.

couple of units of foot armed with poor bows, or slings.

This link might give you some ideas:

link

Cheers,
Aaron

Do you want the real answer (which is that we don't know) or the 'informed guesswork' one ?

Considering that it is debatable that Arthur existed in ANY of the roles various writers and historians give him I think it pretty unlikely that any answer would be wholly right or wrong. Unless it was done by Hollywood, of course.

My guess is that the spear predominated foot armament with bows coming second – possibly some armed with both even. Javelins were a very common British weapon, so I'd feel safe including some of those – both foot and mounted.

Armour was getting scarcer in late roman armies so probably only the better sort of warrior and leaders would have much more than a pot for their head and a shield. Possible that some legionary armour was still about but most of that probably left the country with the legions.

Shield and flag designs are all conjectural so take your pick. Saxons were 'pagan' (a stupid term that actually means 'country dweller') and followed the Germanic Pantheon plus a few of their own.

Forces were probably quite small so mixed types in 'unit' or 'warband' or whatever you want to call it is very likely.

Fully armoured cavalry – see note above about Hollywood.

Plenty of javelin armed cavalry around in British armies before and after the Romans so I'd assume that there would be some around in an 'Arthurian' army too. Whether you would call them 'light' horse is debatable as most of the cavalry would be fairly flexible in their tactics.

Just my ideas – couldn't support any of them with certain facts.

Right, I know that Arthur is only semi-historical; I just wanted what we do know, or if not, the prevailing wisdom, about Arthur's forces.

Hi.

Sure there are lots of books about the subject, but I'd give a try to Osprey Men-at-arms series N 154, by David Nicolle and plates by Angus McBride: 'Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars' (It's in my hands, right now).

If you can get Dan Merseys "Glutter Of Ravens". They are a combined ruleset and excellent background information.

[URL=http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/VBCW-Wingate/media/shieldwall2_zps63c33709.jpg.html]

[/URL]

[URL=http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/VBCW-Wingate/media/arthurplusbritishcav.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Just a couple of pics. Mainly Gripping Beast Arthurian range figures.

Arthur was a Christian, right? What about his enemies, the invading Saxons?

The Saxons were pagans and their conquest of Britain pushed Christianity to the fringes. The Saxons were in turn converted to Christianity starting in the early 7th century following the establishment of monasteries in Britain by Irish and (I think) Scottish monks.

Glutter of Ravens is seconded plus Dux Bellorum and a Song of Arthur and Merlin by the same author. The Warhammer arthur supplement is very useful as well.

My DBA Sub Roman British.

Nothing special about them, all my work is inspired (copied) from trawling the internet and the work of my betters. I've always imagined that they would be almost indistinguishable from any other Roman laeti you would find anywhere in Europe.

They look good to me, TS. And you think the Chi Rho would be pretty ubiquitous as a shield emblem?

My Romano-Brits, mostly Gripping Beast. For rules, I'd probably use either WAB for the amazing Age of Arthur supplement, or Lion Rampant w/ the Dark Ages addendum, because it is fun, easy, and has a great feel. Selling off my Dux Brit rules, not quite my taste, but great campaign and character rules. I fully intend to buy the new Brits from Saxon Miniatures as soon as they have a few more packs. Great sculpts, and by the designer of the GB figs. The rumoured SAGA supplement should come too, someday!

I had that WAB arthurian book… but I seem to have misplaced it :(

Hey, while we're talking, how many cultures used that armored facemask you can see in the last pic? Is it more Celtic than Germanic? Or is it an import from the Mediterranean via Rome?

"Arthurian" is one of those loosely defined concepts that allows you to depict it with a hefty dose of personal preference. My own preference is for a "last of the Romans" sort of situation, with a core of city/lord supported elite troops still recognizably Late Roman in look and feel, but with other troops less and less so as you go out into the countryside.

I thus field three categories of troops, in line with the classifications in Dux Brittaniarum. The Militia are local troops, with no real uniform other than a preference for the chi-ro shield symbol, armor limited to a few helmets, and a loosely depicted shield wall. The Warriors are experienced soldiers, and probably formed around a core of Roman veterans. They are more uniform in appearance (I give each unit the same colored tunic and a bit more uniform choices in shield colors and designs), and the front rank has armor, and their shield wall has a better disciplined look. The Elites are true survivors of the old Roman tradition, and I have unashamedly decked them out in full regalia, including cloaks and crested helms, a uniform appearance, full armor, and a disciplined shield wall.

This fits well for me, is easy to recognize on the table, and also allows me a greater range of figures to paint! I'm using 15mm Splintered Light by the way, a great range for the period.

Cheers,

Christopher