I am building a Post-Roman British starter army in 28mm and recently received the Arthurian Army deal from West Wind Productiona. From the West Wind army deal I still need two BGs of spearmen, 1 BG of Cavalry, and 1 BG of Light Cavalry as well as 1 more BG of Archers for the FOG starter army.
Some questions arise as I am looking for other minis to mix-in for variety. The first is I noticed in the Post-Roman British Army List from Wolves from the Sea, pp. 7-8, that spearmen are only protected but not armored. Does this mean there were no Romano-British units with mail shirts, nothing of armor left over from the Romans? Opposite, on page 6 of Wolves from the Sea, the example army shield wall (encaptioned British Spearmen) pictured are all or mostly armored spearmen in mail. If armored spearmen are allowed in the army list, what would be the proportion of armored to protected? I'm thinking 1BG armored and 3 BGs protected.
Secondly, I have a little confusion with the same question regarding light cavalry. If the units are descended from Late Roman organization, wouldn't the light cavalry be armored as well, again with mail shirts? I am referring to Osprey's Warrior Series 15 Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236-565 by Simon MacDowall on page 18 where it states:
"With the possible exception of some specialized skirmisher units, Roman cavalry wore some form of armour. The helmet was almost universal, although styles would vary greatly, even in the same unit... Literary evidence, however, indicates that cavalry armour became more complete in the later Empire, and that the average trooper would have worn at least a light mail shirt similar to that of the auxiliary cavalry of earlier periods [...]" and further "While most Roman cavalry performed almost a light cavalry role, some units were specially armed and equipped as shock cavalry. These had the generic name of cataphracts (cataphractarii or cataphracti)"
So I am a little confused. It is clear that Arthur's companions are armored cataphracts but if the Post-Roman British are modeled on the Late Roman army, why is the cavalry and light cavalry only protected rather than armored? And if the light cavalry is modeled on Roman "specialized skirmisher units" as mentioned above, what are the specialties?
Lastly, while looking for more archers for my second battle group I wondered why the army list allows for no slingers? Romans employed slingers as well as their enemies. Does the army list imply that there were no Post-Roman British slingers?
Thank you very much anyone for any assistance as a clarification on these questions would help me immensely in choosing figures for my remaining battle groups.
Romano-British Army List and Armored Figures
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Re: Romano-British Army List and Armored Figures
You should be careful about drawing to much of a conclusion form an Osprey book talking about "light cavalry" role. Your *average* Roman cavalryman throughout most of the Republican and Imperial periods would correspond ot Cv, armoured, light spear + sword in Fog terms. Whether you cal lthat heavy, medium, or light is a matter of definitions, and I've heard all 3 in various contexts from different sources. Such troops could skirmish on occassion (i.e. in FoG, form in a single rank and evade), but they were not "specialist skirmishers" as described in your quote. Those would presumably be the LH that appear in the lists.
I think there's a bit of debate about whether later Roman Equites Illyricani should be represented as Cav or LH, and whether armoured or not. Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (WRG) says LH and unarmoured., basically, and that's what the LH in the FoG lists represent. If OTOH you believe the alternative interpretation that they were armoured and pretty much indistinguishable in role form other Roman non-cataphract cavalry, then you ignore the LH in the lists and buy more of the Cv. armoured, light spear + sword.
As for post-Roman Brits, why do you think they would have been left with large stocks of armour from the Romans? Assuming the Roman foot of the time had it (and even that is debatable - see the Foederate Roman list for a comparison at this time period), most of the stocks would presumably have gone with the departing Roman field army troops who follwed Maximus, Constantine etc. over to the continent and possibly never returned. Remaining Roman troops were probably mostly lower-quality and presumably less well equipped border/garrison units.
Note that trying to cover AD236 to 565 in one book is a tall order - there was a large amount of change in army composition, equipment, and tactics over that time. PRBs are post 410 AD, and "Arthurian" somewhere around 470-520 depending on your preferred interpretation of the legends, so you would expect the amount of influence remaining from how the Romans used to do things to be considerably reduced by that time.
There may well be allowance for some armoured spearmen in the list - haven't got it here and can't remember, sorry! Alternatively, you could field protected BGs with front ranks armoured and rear ranks unarmoured, just for looks.
IIRC you don't get Arthurs' Companions as cataphracts either. You can still depict them with some horse armour without preventing them being a reasonable representationof "cavalry", but full Roman-style cataphract panoply and tactics doesn't IMO fit very well with the legendary accounts of fast riding, fast charging troops. And as far as I know the only sources which imply serious amounts of horse armour are the later medieval versions of the legends, in which they would be Heavily Armoured Knights.
If you want to field armies that fit closely with Simon Macdowall's opinions historical/archaelogical opinions, you should perhaps take a look at his own rules
Although I can't say I'm a fan myself.
I think there's a bit of debate about whether later Roman Equites Illyricani should be represented as Cav or LH, and whether armoured or not. Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (WRG) says LH and unarmoured., basically, and that's what the LH in the FoG lists represent. If OTOH you believe the alternative interpretation that they were armoured and pretty much indistinguishable in role form other Roman non-cataphract cavalry, then you ignore the LH in the lists and buy more of the Cv. armoured, light spear + sword.
As for post-Roman Brits, why do you think they would have been left with large stocks of armour from the Romans? Assuming the Roman foot of the time had it (and even that is debatable - see the Foederate Roman list for a comparison at this time period), most of the stocks would presumably have gone with the departing Roman field army troops who follwed Maximus, Constantine etc. over to the continent and possibly never returned. Remaining Roman troops were probably mostly lower-quality and presumably less well equipped border/garrison units.
Note that trying to cover AD236 to 565 in one book is a tall order - there was a large amount of change in army composition, equipment, and tactics over that time. PRBs are post 410 AD, and "Arthurian" somewhere around 470-520 depending on your preferred interpretation of the legends, so you would expect the amount of influence remaining from how the Romans used to do things to be considerably reduced by that time.
There may well be allowance for some armoured spearmen in the list - haven't got it here and can't remember, sorry! Alternatively, you could field protected BGs with front ranks armoured and rear ranks unarmoured, just for looks.
IIRC you don't get Arthurs' Companions as cataphracts either. You can still depict them with some horse armour without preventing them being a reasonable representationof "cavalry", but full Roman-style cataphract panoply and tactics doesn't IMO fit very well with the legendary accounts of fast riding, fast charging troops. And as far as I know the only sources which imply serious amounts of horse armour are the later medieval versions of the legends, in which they would be Heavily Armoured Knights.
If you want to field armies that fit closely with Simon Macdowall's opinions historical/archaelogical opinions, you should perhaps take a look at his own rules
Although I can't say I'm a fan myself.Re: Romano-British Army List and Armored Figures
Thank you for the reply. I wasn't so much hung up on the Ospery source as much as using a source from the same publisher as I thought it would be better consistency-wise. Likewise, I usually give the full source so people know whom I am sourcing but I don't know much about Mr. MacDowell himself or his rules, but as I said it is an Ospery publication and my FoG has the Ospery stamp on it as well. So I am not sure what to do with the inconsistency and was looking for a clarification.
I still need to buy figs for two BGs of spearmen, 1 BG of Cavalry, and 1 BG of Light Cavalry as well as 1 more BG of Archers and it seemed odd to me that none of the spearmen nor any of the cavalry were armored in mail in the army list but other sources from the same publisher as well as the pictures on the same page of the FoG Post-Roman army list shows armored spearmen and cavalry (although Arthur's companions, if one is using them, are allowed armored status, so maybe the cavalry fig pictured is one of those). Or that slingers aren't mentioned as a unit either.
I really don't want to invest in the second half of the army with non-historically accurate figs as long as I have a choice now, but I do wish for a variety. I really don't want to build and paint something and then bring it into play somewhere to be called on it or someone saying "your spearmen are armored, they shouldn't be" or "you have slingers with your archers, you are only allowed archers," "your cavalry should be armored" etc.
However, it seems as though that is the case with the list and I should just go with the FoG list given as there is no errata that I know of saying differently.
Thank you again for your reply
I still need to buy figs for two BGs of spearmen, 1 BG of Cavalry, and 1 BG of Light Cavalry as well as 1 more BG of Archers and it seemed odd to me that none of the spearmen nor any of the cavalry were armored in mail in the army list but other sources from the same publisher as well as the pictures on the same page of the FoG Post-Roman army list shows armored spearmen and cavalry (although Arthur's companions, if one is using them, are allowed armored status, so maybe the cavalry fig pictured is one of those). Or that slingers aren't mentioned as a unit either.
I really don't want to invest in the second half of the army with non-historically accurate figs as long as I have a choice now, but I do wish for a variety. I really don't want to build and paint something and then bring it into play somewhere to be called on it or someone saying "your spearmen are armored, they shouldn't be" or "you have slingers with your archers, you are only allowed archers," "your cavalry should be armored" etc.
However, it seems as though that is the case with the list and I should just go with the FoG list given as there is no errata that I know of saying differently.
Thank you again for your reply