Normans
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
I was at Senlac Hill in 2000 at the big hastings reenactment, and I have to tell you Senlac Hill is bloody steep, it doesnt look like it when you start up it but by half way it really starts to take its toll, I was a Saxon that day so I didnt have to go up it in armour thank god, but I can imagine why the Cav had a hard time of it, what the Norman horse did on the day and this is no way meant to be an indication of what they did in 1066 was almost zig zag up the hill to the battlelines, now I dont know if this was because the ground was a very wet and modern safety standards required it, or because it was the ony way to traverse the hill quickly on on horseback
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Most modern people ascribe hills as very shallow. But that is partially the dynamic of us being used to wheels and motor vehicles.Fenton wrote:I was at Senlac Hill in 2000 at the big hastings reenactment, and I have to tell you Senlac Hill is bloody steep, it doesnt look like it when you start up it but by half way it really starts to take its toll,
The great ridges of military history seem gentle from a car, but having to go up them versus people waiting at the top with evil thoughts or pointy sticks or even muskets. Shudder.
-
spike
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
- Location: Category 2
Steep is an understatement- I did the reinactment in 1992 and walking up in Armour/shield, Spear and Sword and was a struggle in authentic footwear. 7 times we climbed it on the Sat afternoon rehersal, on a balmy warm October afternoon, as the Saxons "forgot" to persue us Norman's down the hill - Never trust a Saxon with a sense of humour.nikgaukroger wrote:The top of Senlac hill is, apparantly as I have never been there, quite steep and I recall some horse riding gamers saying that it was enough to mean that the Normans charge would not have been at full effect - esentially I think they said that massed horsemen would be reduced to pretty much a walk at that stage.
Ps
Apparently it was landscaped in the 18th century so it's less steep now than it was in 1066!
Spike
-
spike
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
- Location: Category 2
Fenton wrote:Hi Spike
As your probably aware theres two fields at Battle, the official one and the one where the reenactments take place, when we were there they were saying that the one where the reenactment takes place is actually the battle site and not the one where thay have believed it was
We had the Plastic camp on the "real one" as it was back in 1992, and that's no less gentle than the bit we walked up and down on it (its just one a big steep ridge with the modern town sat right on the top), and from memory its also v.boggy at the bottom.
Had a nice view of the Orionid meteor shower on the Saturday evening too.
They used the one nr the abbey as it had better access and view for spectators, as it had been "landscaped".
Ed...I've just been reminded it was 1990 not 92, definatly not '91 as that was Malden
Hazelbark has a good point. Terrain can get a whole lot tougher when you have to walk over it or ride horse over it, especially if you're carrying any amout of weight.
On the other hand, people back in those days walked everywhere unless they were knights or nobles, so were more used to it. Likewise, a Norman knight who had been trained from a young age to handle horse, shield, and lance, might have less trouble negotiating some terrain than a modern reenactor.
I hadn't realized that the Hastings battlefield had been "landscaped". Thanks for that info Spike.
On the other hand, people back in those days walked everywhere unless they were knights or nobles, so were more used to it. Likewise, a Norman knight who had been trained from a young age to handle horse, shield, and lance, might have less trouble negotiating some terrain than a modern reenactor.
I hadn't realized that the Hastings battlefield had been "landscaped". Thanks for that info Spike.
The re-enactment comments are very interesting, and its worth pointing out to the quite agressive poster that the Saxons lost to Normans charging up that hill... Its also hard to tell this far down the line whether all 18 of those charges went straight into the Saxon lines, or whether the Normans skirmshed with thrown lances as shown in some places in the Bayeux tapestries for some time first.
Two things worth considering.
First, the length of lances is not a strictly linear increase over time. They get longer and shorter, depending on fashion and situation, and there are some interesting primary source comments on the subject. In particular, Jehan de Wavrin, who wrote the only eyewitness account of Agincourt, describes the French knights deciding to shorten their lances on the morning of the battle so that they would be "stiffer at the impact". This is very important; clearly they believed that their shorter lances would be more effective against their dismounted opponents.
Other sources in this vein is a description of Fornovo, where the Marquis of Mantua, the Italian Captain-General, charges into the French lines, hurling his lance to knock down an enemy knight, then rides into their formation through the hole he's created. A shorter lance is required for hurling. Liberi's depiction of lances for war depict a much shorter lance as well, not much more than a glorified spear.
There's also an interesting tale in Osama's chronicle of the crusades in which he states that, "he's never seen a hauberk pierced by a lance." and even relates a tale where despite everything being in his favour (charging downhill, catching his opponent by surprise, and generally smacking the Frank a good one) he fails to penetrate his opponents hauberk with his lance.
That said, there is another key consideration. Something that often isn't when discussing the rise of the medieval knight is the horse. Not all horses are created equal, and there has been some fairly convincing argument that the success of the Normans has to do with the quantity, quality, and training of their horseflesh, and perhaps little to do with the couching of the lance at all. Bigger, stronger horses hit harder, and well trained ones will run right onto the point of an enemy spear and keep going, smashing holes in infantry formations, knocking down enemy horses, and generally wreaking mayhem of a sort never seen before. And one only has to look at the few surviving medieval warhorse breeds to see that they are monsters, and realize why they were so devestating.
Have fun!
Cole
Two things worth considering.
First, the length of lances is not a strictly linear increase over time. They get longer and shorter, depending on fashion and situation, and there are some interesting primary source comments on the subject. In particular, Jehan de Wavrin, who wrote the only eyewitness account of Agincourt, describes the French knights deciding to shorten their lances on the morning of the battle so that they would be "stiffer at the impact". This is very important; clearly they believed that their shorter lances would be more effective against their dismounted opponents.
Other sources in this vein is a description of Fornovo, where the Marquis of Mantua, the Italian Captain-General, charges into the French lines, hurling his lance to knock down an enemy knight, then rides into their formation through the hole he's created. A shorter lance is required for hurling. Liberi's depiction of lances for war depict a much shorter lance as well, not much more than a glorified spear.
There's also an interesting tale in Osama's chronicle of the crusades in which he states that, "he's never seen a hauberk pierced by a lance." and even relates a tale where despite everything being in his favour (charging downhill, catching his opponent by surprise, and generally smacking the Frank a good one) he fails to penetrate his opponents hauberk with his lance.
That said, there is another key consideration. Something that often isn't when discussing the rise of the medieval knight is the horse. Not all horses are created equal, and there has been some fairly convincing argument that the success of the Normans has to do with the quantity, quality, and training of their horseflesh, and perhaps little to do with the couching of the lance at all. Bigger, stronger horses hit harder, and well trained ones will run right onto the point of an enemy spear and keep going, smashing holes in infantry formations, knocking down enemy horses, and generally wreaking mayhem of a sort never seen before. And one only has to look at the few surviving medieval warhorse breeds to see that they are monsters, and realize why they were so devestating.
Have fun!
Cole
FRom what I can tell most of the horses in the HYW period seems to have been a Shire type horse rather than the riding horses we see today, so te would have been a lot stronger,but probably not as fast
Interestingly, in the Braveheart all the English Cav were actually the Irish Womens Cav unit, they used them because they were better riders and they would make the horses look bigger
Well thats what they said when I was hanging about anyway
Interestingly, in the Braveheart all the English Cav were actually the Irish Womens Cav unit, they used them because they were better riders and they would make the horses look bigger
Well thats what they said when I was hanging about anyway
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
The shire horse theory has been fairly well debunked. Analysis of horse armour indicates they were in the 15-16 hands range, and other measures indicate this was a fairly consistent size at least back to the 13th century. The prevailing opinion is that the horse was stronger and stockier than we're used to seeing (think Frisian).
Have fun!
Cole
Have fun!
Cole