Anglo-Saxons at Hastings

[nikgaukroger]

The whole question of English cavalry in the Dark Ages is very interesting. Guy Halsall's "Warfare & Society in the Barbarian West" has a good chapter that cover it well IMO.

One of the really thought provoking bits is when you read that for the majority of battle descriptions we have from England and the continent it is not stated whether the participants are on horse or on foot - and yet there is usually an assumption that English are on foot and continentals are mounted.

[Fenton]

I have been having a read through some books and even the Anglo Saxon Chronicale about this, and to me anyway allI could find was that they rode to battle and dismounted to fight, then once an enemy was beaten the would mount up again to pursue them, this obviously doesnt mean that they didnt use horses in combat of course, just that it was proabably quite rare, otherwise it would have been noted more often by the chroniclers maybe , and I think for the Dark Ages period ie 450AD onwards you have to use the word maybe quite a bit no matter what is being talked about

[nikgaukroger]

Does the Anglo-Saxon chronicle actually say this? I would have my doubts otherwise there would be much less basis for the academic arguments.

Other books I can understand as it has been taken as fact that this is what happened, often based on C19th ideas some of which have rather dubious basis in supposed racial and/or social differences of the C19th. Certainly nearly all wargames books take it as a fact.

[Fenton]

I think its better to say that it doesnt say anything about it, not sure how to take this though.Does it mean it was common enough not to bother mentioning it, or that it never happened so they couldnt mention it...Not sure really

[nikgaukroger]

Exactly - the primary sources are very vague about how the armies fought which means you tend to have to look sort of sideways at the problem and see if there are clues elsewhere - for example the very "horsey" nature of Anglo-Saxons, horse burials in the earlier period, etc.

In fact, to paraphrase something I read recently, most Dark Ages/Early Medieval battle accounts can be summarised as "Important man X and his mighty warriors met important man Y and his mighty warriors at place Z; a fierce battle was fought, X or Y won, some important people died and the local carrion birds got fat"

[spike]

Exactly - the primary sources are very vague about how the armies fought which means you tend to have to look sort of sideways at the problem and see if there are clues elsewhere - for example the very "horsey" nature of Anglo-Saxons, horse burials in the earlier period, etc.

In fact, to paraphrase something I read recently, most Dark Ages/Early Medieval battle accounts can be summarised as "Important man X and his mighty warriors met important man Y and his mighty warriors at place Z; a fierce battle was fought, X or Y won, some important people died and the local carrion birds got fat"

Unfotunatly Nik, this is the nature of the beast, primary sources from this period of English history are like this (its why Victorians called it the dark ages- for the uninitiated ). Author's who write books on the period base their information on theories they make from both the primary sources and archeological data.
There are no later Anglo-saxon horse burials, as they only did this in the pagan period, and the few horse burials in the earlier period do not indicate "cavalry" style activity either in that the horses show no old wound marks on the bones. The best example of any cavalry within the period other than the "Bayeux Tapestry" is the Aberlemno Sculptured Stones, and the various academics can't decide if it depicts Northumbrian or Pictish cavalry. By the way the Chronicle's discription of Hastings does not mention mounted Normans either!
I have asked around and within the "re-enactment community", and someone says he read a referance somewhere which said there is evidence that the Norman's came to England prior to Hastings, and they said that the English could ride but not fight on horseback- If I can get the referance, I'll post it to Richard (its probably in Norman french).
Any suggestion of Vikings or Saxons fighting as Cavalry in large numbers, would be contentious given actual evidence available. I think this is "Strategic Mobility" and is something to put in the suggested FoG "Campaign" supplement, along with ships, and siege warfare etc

Spike

[nikgaukroger]

Unfotunatly Nik, this is the nature of the beast, primary sources from this period of English history are like this

Compared to some of the early bronze age stuff I've just been reading the early middle ages material is positively full of facts

There are no later Anglo-saxon horse burials, as they only did this in the pagan period, and the few horse burials in the earlier period do not indicate "cavalry" style activity either in that the horses show no old wound marks on the bones.

The point of mentioning the horse burials was an example of the sort of information that can point to the Anglo-Saxons being quite a horsey culture and not that it was evidence in itself of mounted warfare.

The best example of any cavalry within the period other than the "Bayeux Tapestry" is the Aberlemno Sculptured Stones, and the various academics can't decide if it depicts Northumbrian or Pictish cavalry. By the way the Chronicle's discription of Hastings does not mention mounted Normans either!

Exactly the point I mentioned earlier about the accounts of continental battles not saying who fought how. If we didn't have the tapestry we might have no direct evidence of the Normans fighting mounted at Hastings

I have asked around and within the "re-enactment community", and someone says he read a referance somewhere which said there is evidence that the Norman's came to England prior to Hastings, and they said that the English could ride but not fight on horseback- If I can get the referance, I'll post it to Richard (its probably in Norman french).

Of course the one battle we know of where the Normans and English fought mounted on the same side was the one they lost at Hereford c.1055 (IIRC) - interestingly it was the Normans who broke first and then the English. This battle is, of course, the reason why in the DBM list that Anglo-Danish cavalry are Cv(I) - the Normans, of course, are not downgraded for their poor performance ...

BTW it strikes me that one possibility why a Norman might criticise an Anglo-Danish cavalry man would be if the latter had not yet adopted the "lancer" style of fighting and so was not "up to date". We could bring in Snorri's acount of Stamford Bridge on that - although written well after 1066 it has more credibility than is usually given it IMO.

Any suggestion of Vikings or Saxons fighting as Cavalry in large numbers, would be contentious given actual evidence available.

On which basis the continental milites fighting mounted for much of the period would also be contentious as the quality of evidence is similar ...

FWIW I'm reasonably convinced that on the balance of probability Anglo-Saxon cavalry is likely - but I don't think you can ever go further than say the balance of probability either way. Again I'd heartily recommend Guy Halsall's "Warfare & Society in the Barbarian West, 400-900" as it has a chapter that gives a good summary of the arguments on this issue.

Of course, what might go in the lists on this is not my call

[nikgaukroger]

I'd just add that this issue is about the only one that makes this period interesting to me - in general I find it quite a dull period

[Quintus]

The best article I have read on this is by R. Glover - "English Warfare in 1066," The English Historical Review, LXVII (1952), 1-18.

I thoroughly recommend it. Probably best to look it up in a good library. It is well worth it.

[pirro]

Obviously not wanting anyone to give out any info they can't.....

Will the Huscarls be considered Elite or merely Superior in the new lists ?

What if any difference will there be between the Select Fyrd and the Great Fyrd ?

Cheers

Can't say for certain yet, but I would suspect:

HF, Armoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon for Huscarls.
HF, Protected, Average, Offensive Spear for Select Fyrd.
HF, Protected, Poor, Offensive Spear for Great Fyrd.

Note that Elite troops are very few and far between in the lists.

Richard,

Given each 8 hides of land should support a warrior to be furnished with Sword, Spear, Helm, Byrnie (mail shirt), Axe, and Shields(s), and Horses- as Decreed by both Aethread and Cnut
I would certainly give consideration to an option that the "Select Fyrd" (the terms Select and Great are apparently coined in the 1960's) could have contingents which could be classified as Armoured.

Spike

(War in the Middle ages- ISBN 0-631-14469-2
Osprey- Campaign of the norman conquest- ISBN 1-84176-228-8
Osprey- Anglo saxon theign 1-85532-349-4

Also see re-enactor websites @
http://www.regia.org/saxons2.htm
http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resourc ... saxons.htm

i think the same about the select fyrd, but i think the great fyrd are defensive spear becouse their role weren´t offensive.

Thanks.

[brianredworth]

SORRY BUT THE ABERLEMNO STONE MAY BE A RED HERRING, SEVERAL HISTORIANS HAVE STATED THAT THE STONE MAR REPRESENT A VICTRIOUS BATTLE AGAINST THE STRATHCLYDE BRITS.

[Luddite]

HF, Armoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon for Huscarls.
HF, Protected, Average, Offensive Spear for Select Fyrd.
HF, Protected, Poor, Offensive Spear for Great Fyrd.

Note that Elite troops are very few and far between in the lists.

Can i ask why are the Great Fyrd graded 'poor'?

I'd have thought;

Huscarls [HF, Armoured, Superior (or Average option), Swordsmen (heavy weapons or Offensive Spears option)]
Select Fyrd [HF, Protected, Average, Offensive spears]
Great Fyrd [HF, Protected, Average (or Poor option), Offensive spears]

My understanding is that the terms 'select fyrd' and 'great fyrd' and essentially modern distinctions (coined by CW Hollister 1962) that were unlikely to be present in the past, and that the nature of the Fyrd was actually far more 'fluid' that the simplistic distinctions Hollister puts forwards.

My feeling is that the Huscarls were a distinct fighting force, but outside of that there was far more flexibility within the Anglo-Saxon 'army' (essentially for them any group under arms over about 35 men!)

I think our perception of Anglo-Saxon 'armies' are coloured by actions such as Hastings..

I would, for example, give the Fyrd the option of deploying as MF with light spears or even LF. I'd also look at 'unprotected' options for spearmen as archaeological evidence shows that about half the burials found with spears, lack shields. I know this is a sacred cow with the 'Saxon Shieldwall' etc...

Just wondering

[nikgaukroger]

Poor is there for armies with a larger proportion of less effective troops - usually larger armies as you get more men who are less willing and less well equipped. The list, IIRC, allows for an 800 point army (usual singles size) without using any Poor troops if you prefer that interpretation.

[Luddite]

I await the final list with great interest

[Quintus]

I'm adding to this old thread because I wonder if I can find answers to a couple of questions.

1) At Hastings the Royal Huscarls were formed up on foot in the front rank of the English army. Does FoG provide a mechanism whereby this deployment is simulated, i.e. the elite professionals used to give a hard edge to the rest of the army?

2) Can anyone recommend a manufacturer of very good 15mm figures for this period of English history?

[bobm]

Have just seen the pictures of Wargames Foundry Huscarles. Either my knowledge is out of date, Foundry got it wrong or the photos are reversed but they are all indicated swinging their axe over their right shoulder....i.e. into the shield of their opponent.
The figures in my collection are old Viking Miniatures which were the most detailed, well animated and well researched figures of their time (tiny by today's standards). They all have "left handed swingers".
Can anyone cast any light on this?

[IrishBouzouki]

I'm adding to this old thread because I wonder if I can find answers to a couple of questions.

1) At Hastings the Royal Huscarls were formed up on foot in the front rank of the English army. Does FoG provide a mechanism whereby this deployment is simulated, i.e. the elite professionals used to give a hard edge to the rest of the army?

2) Can anyone recommend a manufacturer of very good 15mm figures for this period of English history?

"general in front rank"