Availability of Curepos in Britain vs. Native Cavalry

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Hello,

A quick question: In Britain, as Casse, you often have the option to recruit mercenary cavalry to join your ranks. Usually the two avaiable units are Myrcharn, the native cavalry fighters, and Curepos, the generic Keltoi cavalry. Both are skirmisher light cavalry.

I was wondering: doesn't the availability of Curepos in the British isles make Myrcharn moot to recruit? Presuming that there was a degree of isolation between Britain and the European continent, the predominant fighting style would be overall less developed and personified in the Myrcharn unit, not in Curepos, which would be scarcely available outside the continent if at all. Or else, historically the British cavalry would be far better since Curepos beat Myrcharn in every aspect.

IMO, Myrcharn should be the only mercenary cavalry available in the isles, at least until late in the game.

[Foot]

Britain was isolated from the continent. The Celts did control the secret of iron for a long time, but Britain wasn't some kind of distant albion. I can imagine that the celts would have found a lot of sport on that land and hired themselves out to the highest bidder. And aren't the Myrcharn Belgae horsemen, not british horsemen, anyway.

Besides we cannot control when mercenaries come into existence in EBI, the RTW engine does not allow it.

Perhaps some evidence for your assertion that Britain was isolated and that its military was predominantly less developed would help. We do know from the Vindolanda letters that the northern tribes (in caledonia) fought bareback on horses without weapons, but the southern tribes were certainly more heavily influenced by the developments from mainland gaul.

Foot

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I did not assert that Britain was completely isolated from the continent, but rather that there was a degree of isolation which is represented by EB as attested differences between the Casse faction and the british roster compared with other continental Celts. Myrcharn, and the Chariots, are part of it, and the description for Myrcharn does not attest Belgae origins.

Saying that the British military was "less" developed is certainly a subjective matter, of course. The fact that they used technology classed as outdated for armor and preserved weaponry and styles that were lost on the continent can certainly be argued as such, but I am not as versed in Casse, or in Keltoi history, to confidently affirm this on a wider view. Myrcharn were, as their description attests, a rare and secondary auxiliary component for armies dominated by infantry. That fact however does not preclude they would remain outdated, but rather merely as a minority. If the fighting styles and training of British native cavalry could not compete with continental cavalry under the service of Briton warlords, they would quickly become irrelevant and adapt the continental styles at least in the better developed parts of the isles. So the existance of both Myrcharn and Curepos as mercenaries may be self contradictory at first light.

I would be happily proven otherwise by the Casse team, though.

[HFox]

We do know from the Vindolanda letters that the northern tribes (in caledonia) fought bareback on horses without weapons, Foot

J'ckiechaneros?

[Foot]

Re-reading it, it may mean that they used spears from horseback (which makes sense). The translation appears to give a level of disbelief:

http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLi...splayEnglish=1

They are well worth reading, btw.

EDIT: It might be noted that this evidence, if taken singly suggests that british cavalry were numerous but did not fight with javelin and sword.

Foot

[zooeyglass]

Re-reading it, it may mean that they used spears from horseback (which makes sense). The translation appears to give a level of disbelief:

http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLi...splayEnglish=1

They are well worth reading, btw.

EDIT: It might be noted that this evidence, if taken singly suggests that british cavalry were numerous but did not fight with javelin and sword.

Foot

seconded - a fantastic resource to take a look at, especially as a frontier document. :)

[Elmetiacos]

Re-reading it, it may mean that they used spears from horseback (which makes sense). The translation appears to give a level of disbelief:

http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLi...splayEnglish=1

They are well worth reading, btw.

EDIT: It might be noted that this evidence, if taken singly suggests that british cavalry were numerous but did not fight with javelin and sword.

Foot

This is intriguing... if this is really is a Roman writing about how Britons fight (and it could as easily be a Roman in charge of recruiting British auxilliaries, moaning about how they won't fight as he would like) then Caesar's image of British cavalry as skirmishers is replaced by Britons fighting as light lancers.

[Foot]

Except that Vindolanda is a garrison fort along Hadrian's wall, so its uncertain whether the note can be applied to southern britons as easily. Caesar was of course in the south.

[zooeyglass]

Except that Vindolanda is a garrison fort along Hadrian's wall, so its uncertain whether the note can be applied to southern britons as easily. Caesar was of course in the south.

and of course vindolanda was probably only developed as a garrison fort to the extent we have it under Hadrian, or possible Trajan before him...so...that's 150 years later or so...

[Elmetiacos]

I doubt personally if it's a description of how the Britons fought; I think it's much more likely that the Roman officer is complaining, first that his auxilliaries aren't getting the equipment they need and second that the ones he's training throw javelins on foot instead of behaving like Cantabrians as he'd like them to. Whoever he's writing to would by this time be perfectly well acquainted with the tactics of any British enemies, you'd think. All the same, it's interesting to speculate.

[Foot]

Wait. You think he's talking about auxillaries? Really? That is quite the most unique interpretation I've ever come across with regards that letter. I do not think it is correct either. He says "There are very many cavalry", which certainly makes most sense if he is talking about a military force that is not directly related to him. Far more likely is that he talking about raiding parties. I agree that it is likely not an intelligence report, but it may well be a note left by an out-going commander to his replacement. I find it hard to believe that "Whoever he's writing to would by this time be perfectly well acquainted with the tactics of any British enemies", as that would necessitate some kind of formal training in Rome on the fighting styles of the various enemies of the Roman Empire. That knowledge might have been well known at a regional level, but I doubt top-brass had any idea or any need to care.

Foot

[Elmetiacos]

Hmm, but it the "many cavalry" refers to enemy raiding parties, whose are they? Certainly not the cavalry-short Caledonians, and not very likely the pro-Roman Votadini. Since all we have is a scrap, this bit might refer to something completely different. It's also a big assumption that the letter must be to a replacement commander, and that this replacement must be a n00b straight off the boat from Italy.

[Foot]

Any more than your assumption that it is a letter complaining about the lack of armour for and apparent inability of briton auxillaries to throw javelins. And I never said the replacement was a n00b, but we certainly cannot expect up to date information to be supplied to new commanders by anyone other than the previous ones (and the other officers who were staying on).

Certainly I haven't seen your interpretation listed amongst those currently being pursued. Perhaps you should write a paper on the matter.

Foot

[Elmetiacos]

Certainly I haven't seen your interpretation listed amongst those currently being pursued. Perhaps you should write a paper on the matter.

'or possibly a piece of information provided with a view to the recruitment of natives, attested in the time of Agricola (Tacitus, Agr. 29.2). There is evidence for a British ala in Dacia in AD 110 (CIL 16.163; but note the remarks of Kennedy (1977) and cf. Reynolds, Beard and Roueché, JRS 76 (1986), 136). The first appearance of numeri Brittonum coincides with earliest occupation of Hesselbach on the Odenwald Limes c. AD 95-105 (see Hassall (1978), 45, Baatz (1973)). This suits the date of the Vindolanda text very well...' (my italics)