Size of the armies at Tinchebrai

[eques]

I think I read here

(http://www.amazon.com/The-Normans-History-Dynasty-Dynasties/dp/1852855959)

that the battle of Tinchebrai, a very pivotal Norman battle, involved about 300 on each side.  I remember being surprised at the time.

[Patrick Waterson]

Any thoughts on this, gentlemen?  300 knights, perhaps - but 300 overall on each side would make it a heavily over-commanded skirmish.  Oderic Vitalis notes that the rebels at Bremule in AD 1119 had '400 knights' and 'about 900 knights' were engaged in total.

Knights were the elite and core of a Norman army, but each knight would usually be accompanied by footmen and missilemen, so that the army as a whole might easily be ten times the size of the number of knights.  The Kingdom of Jerusalem army at Hattin in AD 1187 numbered 1,200 knights but had at least 15,000 infantry.

Hence 300 knights per side may well be correct for Tinchebrai, but the armies on both sides were most likely somewhat larger.

[eques]

Hi

Yes I think he did say 300 Knights, but phrased it in such a way as to give the impression that only Knights were present.

[Erpingham]

Hi

Yes I think he did say 300 Knights, but phrased it in such a way as to give the impression that only Knights were present.

We have an eye witness source for Tinchebrai (the Priest of Fecamp) who reckons that there were 40,000 men in Henry I's army alone.  I wouldn't take this figure literally but it does suggest he saw a lot of men.  Most of these were infantry.  Henry had multiple bodies of knights, mounted and dismounted, according to the main sources (Orderic Vitalis, Henry of Huntingdon and Fecamp).  While it is not impossible that they were in very small groups and totalled 300, the familia regis (household forces) of Henry could alone have easily topped this on a war footing.  Without seeing the proposal in detail for Tinchebrai as a skirmish, I can't argue further, but I am inclined in this case toward the traditional interpretation that this was a sizeable battle for the time, involving armies in the low thousands.

[eques]

Hi

Yes it was not a discussion of numbers as such, just a description of the battle, co-incidentally worded to give the impression that only 300 men / side were present.  Probably clumsy wording.  Will see if I can get the book back out of the library.

This should probably be a separate topic but I must say I am often puzzled by the seemingly high number of Knights given for English Medieval battles.  Where did they all come from??

For example a figure in the high hundreds/low thousands is often given for Richard's final charge at Bosworth.

30-60 is the number I see in my head - just Richard, his household troops and close associates.

[Erpingham]

This should probably be a separate topic but I must say I am often puzzled by the seemingly high number of Knights given for English Medieval battles.  Where did they all come from??

For example a figure in the high hundreds/low thousands is often given for Richard's final charge at Bosworth.

30-60 is the number I see in my head - just Richard, his household troops and close associates.

I'd agree this needs a separate thread, as it is a long way from the original.  If we are fortunate someone with admin privileges will lift this and drop it into a new thread called something like Richard's Last Charge at Bosworth  Thus, those members with an interest in WOTR will all be attracted and hopefully pile in

[Justin Swanton]

Duly done.