Cato's Cavalry

[Art]

Maybe . . . DuQuense

But allowing proto-Vikings/Saxons to land and ravage the coastal holdings of the Romano-Britons is not a very wise idea. You are thinking of communications and movement from a 20th century point of view. In 400s Britain, the back of a horse, a marching man, or a fast galley/sailing ship is the fastest way to move or communicate. Attacks on coastal regions means either garrisoning them, as the Romans did in the 200-300s, when the Classis Britannica was reduced to nothing, (see Saxon Shore forts) or evacuate those regions permanently.
If you evacuate those regions, then you have to feed refugees for a indeterminate time. This would take away from your ability to build any kind of disiplined force. It also means that your merchant marine will take serious loses, and that means that your revenues will diminish. If you have a navy, you can have what the Scandanavian Navies had in WW1 and after: coast defence ships. Or look at what Alfred the Great did, when faced with Viking longships. I guess i just think that ships are a better defense, initially at least, than cavalry....


A few good naval quotes

"The Athenians will defend their city with a wooden wall."

Themistocles


"I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea."

1801

John Jervis,
Admiral St. Vincent



"It follows than as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it, everything honorable and glorious."
President George Washington, 15 November 1781, to Marquis de Lafayette.


"A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace."
President Theodore Roosevelt, 2 December 1902



I wonder, does anyone know if an entire transport convoy has ever been caught on the surface and forced to surrender? I am a generalist student of history, and many small actions and wars I may know very little of (such as the South American Wars 1810-1950.)

 

[Art]

Look what I found on Wiki about Roman fleets from the 260s on . . .

The Classis Britannica, established in 40 or 43 AD at Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer).[104] It participated in the Roman invasion of Britain and the subsequent campaigns in the island.[102] The fleet was probably based at Rutupiae (Richborough) until 85 AD, when it was transferred to Dubris (Dover). Other bases were Portus Lemanis (Lympne) and Anderitum (Pevensey), while Gesoriacum on the Gallic coast likely remained active.[105] During the 2nd-3rd centuries, the fleet was chiefly employed in transport of supplies and men across the English Channel. The Classis Britannica disappears (at least under that name) from the mid-3rd century, and the sites occupied by it were soon incorporated into the Saxon Shore system.[105]





Third century crisis
As the 3rd century dawned, the Roman Empire was at its peak. In the Mediterranean, peace had reigned for over two centuries, as piracy had been wiped out and no outside naval threats occurred. As a result, complacency had set in: naval tactics and technology were neglected, and the Roman naval system had become moribund.[52] After 230 however and for fifty years, the situation changed dramatically. The so-called "Crisis of the Third Century" ushered a period of internal turmoil, and the same period saw a renewed series of seaborne assaults, which the imperial fleets proved unable to stem.[53] In the West, Picts and Irish ships raided Britain, while the Saxons raided the North Sea, forcing the Romans to abandon Frisia.[53] In the East, the Goths and other tribes from modern Ukraine raided in great numbers over the Black Sea.[54] These invasions began during the rule of Trebonianus Gallus, when for the first time Germanic tribes built up their own powerful fleet in the Black Sea. Via two surprise attacks (256) on Roman naval bases in the Caucasus and near the Danube, numerous ships fell into the hands of the Germans, whereupon the raids were extended as far as the Aegean Sea; Byzantium, Athens, Sparta and other towns were plundered and the responsible provincial fleets were heavily debilitated. It was not until the attackers made a tactical error, that their onrush could be stopped.
In 267–270 another, much fiercer series of attacks took place. A fleet composed of Heruli and other tribes raided the coasts of Thrace and the Pontus. Defeated off Byzantium by general Venerianus,[55] the barbarians fled into the Aegean, and ravaged many islands and coastal cities, including Athens and Corinth. As they retreated northwards over land, they were defeated by Emperor Gallienus at Nestos.[56] However, this was merely the prelude to an even larger invasion that was launched in 268/269: several tribes banded together (the Historia Augusta mentions Scythians, Greuthungi, Tervingi, Gepids, Peucini, Celts and Heruli) and allegedly 2,000 ships and 325,000 men strong,[57] raided the Thracian shore, attacked Byzantium and continued raiding the Aegean as far as Crete, while the main force approached Thessalonica. Emperor Claudius II however was able to defeat them at the Battle of Naissus, ending the Gothic threat for the time being.[58]
Barbarian raids also increased along the Rhine frontier and in the North Sea. Eutropius mentions that during the 280s, the sea along the coasts of the provinces of Belgica and Armorica was "infested with Franks and Saxons". To counter them, Maximian appointed Carausius as commander of the British Fleet.[59] However, Carausius rose up in late 286 and seceded from the Empire with Britannia and parts of the northern Gallic coast.[60] With a single blow Roman control of the channel and the North Sea was lost, and emperor Maximinus was forced to create a completely new Northern Fleet, but in lack of training it was almost immediately destroyed in a storm.[61] Only in 293, under Caesar Constantius Chlorus did Rome regain the Gallic coast. A new fleet was constructed in order to cross the Channel,[62] and in 296, with a concentric attack on Londinium the insurgent province was retaken.[63]
[edit]Late Antiquity
By the end of the 3rd century, the Roman navy had declined dramatically. Although Emperor Diocletian is held to have strengthened the navy, and increased its manpower from 46,000 to 64,000 men,[64] the old standing fleets had all but vanished, and in the civil wars that ended the Tetrarchy, the opposing sides had to mobilize the resources and commandeered the ships of the Eastern Mediterranean port cities.[54] These conflicts thus brought about a renewal of naval activity, culminating in the Battle of the Hellespont in 324 between the forces of Constantine I under Caesar Crispus and the fleet of Licinius, which was the only major naval confrontation of the 4th century.
Vegetius, writing at the end of the 4th century, testifies to the disappearance of the old praetorian fleets in Italy, but comments on the continued activity of the Danube fleet.[65] In the 5th century, only the eastern half of the Empire could field an effective fleet, as it could draw upon the maritime resources of Greece and the Levant. Although the Notitia Dignitatum still mentions several naval units for the Western Empire, these were apparently too depleted to be able to carry out much more than patrol duties.[66] At any rate, the rise of the naval power of the Vandal Kingdom under Geiseric in North Africa, and its raids in the Western Mediterranean, were practically uncontested.[54] Although there is some evidence of West Roman naval activity in the first half of the 5th century, this is mostly confined to troop transports and minor landing operations.[65] The historian Priscus and Sidonius Apollinaris affirm in their writings that by the mid-5th century, the Western Empire essentially lacked a war navy.[67] Matters became even worse after the disastrous failure of the fleets mobilized against the Vandals in 460 and 468, under the emperors Majorian and Anthemius.
For the West, there would be no recovery, as the last Western Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed in 476. In the East however, the classical naval tradition survived, and in the 6th century, a standing navy was reformed.[54] The East Roman (Byzantine) navy would remain a formidable force in the Mediterranean until the 11th century.


Lord! That explains about the Channel Fleet!

 

[Outofprint]

There could be a chance of recruiting pirate mercenarys as a stop gap untill a new Briton fleet can be created.
These mercenarys could perhaps form the base of this new navy.

 

[Elfwine]

There could be a chance of recruiting pirate mercenarys as a stop gap untill a new Briton fleet can be created.
These mercenarys could perhaps form the base of this new navy.

"But how do we offer them enough gold that they'll fight against other pirates instead of fat juicy merchant shipping without bankrupting ourselves trying to do so?" asked Cynicius.

 

[Outofprint]

"But how do we offer them enough gold that they'll fight against other pirates instead of fat juicy merchant shipping without bankrupting ourselves trying to do so?" asked Cynicius.

By not hiring shit load of pirates.

 

[Elfwine]

By not hiring shit load of pirates.

Its not a matter of a shitload, its just a matter that you have to outbid the alternative lifestyle, and no one became a pirate just because there wasn't a regular navy to join.

This isn't saying it can't possibly work ever - but it would take some doing, and ideally someone very persuasive as the one making the offer to the pirates.

 

[Outofprint]

Its not a matter of a shitload, its just a matter that you have to outbid the alternative lifestyle, and no one became a pirate just because there wasn't a regular navy to join.

This isn't saying it can't possibly work ever - but it would take some doing, and ideally someone very persuasive as the one making the offer to the pirates.

Experimenting with mercenarys as a stop gap until the proper navey is built is better than doing nothing about raids on merchants.

 

[Elfwine]

Experimenting with mercenarys as a stop gap until the proper navey is built is better than doing nothing about raids on merchants.

This is true. But putting too much confidence in this idea is not a good idea either.

Making sure to explore it for its worth can't hurt though.

 

[Outofprint]

This is true. But putting too much confidence in this idea is not a good idea either.

Making sure to explore it for its worth can't hurt though.

Maybe alocating goverment observers to the mercenaries ships could help to keep the pirates honest as well.
Making sure these obsevers are honest as well could be a problem as well.

 

[Art]

Not a chance . . .

That is how the Saxon majority GOT to Britain in the first place ! Vortigern hired the Saxons to defend against Pictish and Erse/Hibernian/Scoti raids in the FIRST place! What is needed is a LOYAL fleet! NOT pirates! Sorry!

 

[Sior]

Don't hire Saxon's, Angle's or Jute's you can't trust them!!!!!!

 

[Elfwine]

Don't hire Saxon's, Angle's or Jute's you can't trust them!!!!!!

Hey. I'm all for having my ancestors failing to take Britain used to be a good thing, but let's be fair here.

Racism isn't cool even towards barbarians.

 

[robertp6165]

Hey. I'm all for having my ancestors failing to take Britain used to be a good thing, but let's be fair here.

Racism isn't cool even towards barbarians.

I assume you're joking here.

 

[Agelastus]

The problem for Britain is that the Classis Britannicus was based in ports on both sides of the Channel; if Ambrosius Aurelianus wants to maintain/restore the fleet structure he's going to get himself sucked into the defence of Northern Gaul from the Franks.

Given the existence in otl of the forces of Aegidius around Soissons at a slightly later date this may not be an entirely bad thing, as it seems that a significant portion of Rome's remaining Gallic/Germanian army congregated in the region across the Channel from Britain (although exactly when is open to question, of course, but given the apparent route of the Alans, Vandals and Sueves this may have occurred quite early in the Fifth Century.)

 

[Elfwine]

I assume you're joking here.

Not really. I do think my ancestors in this period are in the "barbarian" category and I do think regarding that as meaning they're all unreliable and bloodthirsty and so on is offensive.

Less developed than Rome? Yes. Definitely. And "primitive" has connotations that get that across less effectively than "barbarian" - this is more about a lack of a literate class of administrators than inferior technology.

 

[robertp6165]

Not really. I do think my ancestors in this period are in the "barbarian" category and I do think regarding that as meaning they're all unreliable and bloodthirsty and so on is offensive.

Sior didn't say any of that. He said don't hire Anglo-Saxon-Jutish mercenaries, they can't be trusted. And historically, that is absolutely true. Accusing him of racism is absolutely ridiculous.

Less developed than Rome? Yes. Definitely. And "primitive" has connotations that get that across less effectively than "barbarian" - this is more about a lack of a literate class of administrators than inferior technology.

You know, we really don't need Political Correctness infecting discussion of yet another period of history. If you're going to effect to be offended because the Germanic tribes which destroyed Rome are called "barbarians," that's pretty silly.

 

[Elfwine]

Sior didn't say any of that. He said don't hire Anglo-Saxon-Jutish mercenaries, they can't be trusted. And historically, that is absolutely true. Accusing him of racism is absolutely ridiculous.

Were there untrustworthy Anglo-Saxon-Jutes? Definitely. Of course, if you do with Vortigren did, what do you expect to happen? Regardless of who you hire.

Saying that none of them could be trusted kind of is racism. Saying that OTL shows that the policy where they were practically invited to take over was a bad idea is a lot different than saying that one should assume any Anglo-Saxon-Jutish mercenaries are untrustworthy. There are trustworthy and untrustworthy men in all groups.

You know, we really don't need Political Correctness infecting discussion of yet another period of history. If you're going to effect to be offended because the Germanic tribes which destroyed Rome are called "barbarians," that's pretty silly.

You know, we do need people actually reading the posts of others.

I do think my ancestors in this period are in the "barbarian" category and I do think regarding that as meaning they're all unreliable and bloodthirsty and so on is offensive.

Mentioning Political Correctness here is slightly more silly than a dachshund in a kilt and not nearly as relevant to anything objected to.

What offends me the attitude that "they're all unreliable and bloodthirsty and so on". Those things are found from one end of the fading Empire to another, inside it and outside it. They're not a special quality of Anglo-Saxon-Jutes or even Germanic barbarians.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Hey. I'm all for having my ancestors failing to take Britain used to be a good thing, but let's be fair here.

Racism isn't cool even towards barbarians.

It was a joke. Lighten up and don't derail the thread.

 

[Dom]

Elfwine, I believe Sions post was tongue in cheek. There is really no need to get offended and accuse him of racism.

EDIT: Heh, awkward.

 

[Elfwine]

I am perfectly willing to accept that it was so intended, but it did not come off that way - thus my reaction.

But if it was, no harm done except a couple needless posts in response.

Having two mods say so is encouraging, particularly since you're probably much more familiar with him than I am.