Not sure if answered elsewhere but what are the sources/evidence for battles between Saxons and Britons/Welsh being mainly at river fords? I seem to remember it being written somewhere...possibly in Ian Heath's Armies and Enemies of The Dark Ages? Looking for the evidence for this and how frequently it happens
Battlesite names in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are at least part of the reason, I think, and maybe Bede as well.
Thanks Duncan...
I guess another questions is why? What I mean is why fords specifically (in the majority) rather than hillforts, towns or other features? In addition the inference is that British/Welsh forces choose to engage (defend) at fords rather than the other way around
Fords are choke points ; if you're defending, you know the invaders have to come that way. Alternatively, enemy raiders returning home with loot can be caught while crossing.
Cheers
Mick
Thanks Mick. Makes sense although it seems that the British/Welsh were very "fond" of river ford engagements and to my eye more than most other beligerents or is that my imagination?
I think it's the nature of the sort of raiding warfare prevalent in that part of the world. Fords were also common battle sites in Ireland, where similar conditions existed.
Cheers
Mick
Its Nennius, who writes in the ninth century and gives a list of Arthur's battles
Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river Gleni. The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons called Duglas, in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas. The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion castle, where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary, put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great slaughter. The ninth was at the City of Legion, which is called Cair Lion. The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit. The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion. The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon. In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord affording him assistance. In all these engagements the Britons were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the Almighty.
Whilst fords make for choke points I suspect that it is as much that rivers are borders and the ford is a suitable place name on the road. Actually having a battle at a ford is not ideal as the opponent can easily pass the river above or below the ford whist you are held against it.
xRoy
Roy
The Battle of Stirling Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge#The_main_battle) shows what a smaller force can do against a larger infantry opponent that is trying to cross a river. The ford effectively cuts the opponent army in two, enabling the smaller attack force to gain local superiority against the one half whilst the other half is powerless to come to its aid in time.
Which is why the Vikings only agree to fight at Maldon if they can wholly cross the river and why only a fool would cross in the face of an opponent and be defeated in detail.
A ford might be a great place for a delaying action, but the defender would have to be so careful that the attacker had not already crossed above and flanked him.
Roy
I'm thinking more on the lines of an ambush, quite possible if the forces involved are small and Arthur's lot are mounted. A good parallel would be Ecdicius, who with a small cavalry force managed to sting the larger Visigothic army several times. The fact that Arthur fights many engagements would suggest this is a case of repeated ambush by someone who is more mobile and knows the terrain.
That's partly what was puzzling me in so far as you can get cut off/surrounded if you are anchored to a fording point. Local knowledge of course helps. Are ford/river battles purely tactical in choice (good or bad) or is there some ritualistic aspect to them?
Except, Justin that Arthur's battles appear to be across a fair range of territory as though he is penning each Saxon group.
Of course there are interpretations that put all the battles in a tight area such as Southern Scotland, but I think wide actions from a central point against multiple enemies who then make a major thrust that is defeated at Baydon makes a lot of sense.
Roy
Fords were a good place to intercept forces engaged in ravaging/harrying (which, with the exception of a few pitched battles was usual tactic in the 11th & 12thC) although fords were not the only place that such defensive actions took place (woods being the other favourite).
Have a look at Taliesin's 'The Battle of Gwen Ystrad', or 'Canu Llywarch' or 'Armes Prydien' (the latter being speculative IIRC).
Worth a read is Davies 'Welsh Military Institutions 633-1283'.
thanks for the references Rodge, I'll take a look
Interesting, diverging from the ford question for a moment, that you mention woods being another favoured defensive position. In my recent research in SE Wales, I have come up with a theory that a ford battle (early 7th C) was fought between Welsh and Saxons with a further battle being fought a few miles away on a defensive ridge surrounded by a wooded valley and perched atop a roman road!
My current thinking is that the ford battle was for denial of access across a river boundary (in this case the River Wye which is a large river). This was followed up either by a defeat and push back to the second position or that it was a prepared position of ambush.
One aspect of fighting at fords is that the riverbanks would often be overgrown and allow concealment of moderate numbers of troops. Hence when dealing with small to moderately-sized enemy forces a ford is a good place to jump them. Large enemy forces will be less impressed as there is only so much troop concealment space near the ford - unless you can get them to send part of their force across and then bite it off.
Sensibe armies would of course scout the vicinity of fords before crossing. Cunning ambushers would stay back and watch the scouts, moving up into ambush positions once the scouts left or signalled the all-clear.
The "fight at the ford" question does open questions on how strategic geography worked and was perceived at the time. We know that Anglo-Saxon armies had landmarks where they would muster. Fords may have had a landmark function for concentrating armies (The old way where it crosses the big river - we'll gather on the west bank), as well as a frontier crossing or choke point effect. On the choke point effect, it is not just the barring role - the narrow crossing might slow a force so that a pursuer could contact, especially if a small force can get ahead and fight a delaying action.
Remember that once you got out of the area you personally knew you'd become increasingly dependent on less reliable sources of information about terrain. Fords might have been choke points not so much because they were the only place you could cross a river but because they were the crossing points known to normal travellers and were thus the ones the leaders of armies could be certain were there.
Once you got the river you might find someone local and reliable you could trust who would tell you about other potential crossing places within ten or twenty miles. Or you might not.
Also with mainly infantry forces, and poorly disciplined and poorly trained infantry forces, if you wanted to cross elsewhere and fall on the enemy's flank you're probably looking for somewhere to cross within a couple of miles.
Jim
The choke point effect also helps with predictability: if you know the enemy has to come that way, you can get there first and await him, rested.
Also, you don't have to defend the ford itself - in places like Wales the valley slope overlooking the ford offers a good defensive position in its own right.
Cheers
Mick
In the engagement I am looking specifically at, the terrain would not allow for more than a a couple of hundred maximum to be "hidden" in that way. Interestingly though, that could mean a prepared position of ambush with said 200 men when the opposingforce attempted to cross followed by a rapid withdrawl to the second prepared position a couple of miles away whence the larger trap could be sprung.
The battle I am researching supposedly supposedly leads to a long hiatus in hostilities which makes me think that even if the numbers on either side werent large, the engagement might have a decisive victory for the Welsh
Quote from: Holly on April 17, 2014, 11:47:21 AM
The battle I am researching
If no cats are let out of bags then which battle are you looking at Dave?
Hi Rodge,
no cats out of bags.....just a long slow research project into the supposed Battle of Tintern. I say supposed as there is only one reference to it (Book of Llandaff) although locally where I live it has accumulated legendary status and historical worthies argue over its site (as opposed to its presumed factuality) :)
Looking at the extract of Nennius, it struck me that he may simply be marking the site of a battle by reference to a river rather than the battle necessarily involving the crossing of a river.
In more modern times, the Union name for many of the ACW battles uses a river name even when the crossing of the river is not a major part of the battle. Compare this with the Confederate use of settlements to name the same battle.
Interesting point Pete and makes sense for some engagements. In fact there is a tendency for some battles to adopt the name of the nearest well known feature be it a river or a town rather than the actual site
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2014, 10:26:30 PM
Interesting point Pete and makes sense for some engagements. In fact there is a tendency for some battles to adopt the name of the nearest well known feature be it a river or a town rather than the actual site
And a notable place may actually be some distance away. Arrian and Strabo mention Alexander's victory being named after Arbela as being a more notable place (though 500 plus 'furlongs' away), rather than after Gaugamela - 'a mean place'. Interesting that even though Strabo notes the discrepancy, Arrian still has to reiterate it - perhaps Curtius's use of Arbela represents the more common practice.
I remember in my first encounter with the battle it was named Arbela. That was in a children's book called something like Great Battles in World History.
I'm still not entirely convinced re my own battle example (Tintern) hence why I am edging towards a two-fold engagement, one at the ford and another at a site a few miles away but overall refered to as the (singular) battle of Tintern
Quote from: Swampster on April 22, 2014, 11:16:57 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 22, 2014, 10:26:30 PM
Interesting point Pete and makes sense for some engagements. In fact there is a tendency for some battles to adopt the name of the nearest well known feature be it a river or a town rather than the actual site
And a notable place may actually be some distance away. Arrian and Strabo mention Alexander's victory being named after Arbela as being a more notable place (though 500 plus 'furlongs' away), rather than after Gaugamela - 'a mean place'. Interesting that even though Strabo notes the discrepancy, Arrian still has to reiterate it - perhaps Curtius's use of Arbela represents the more common practice.
I remember in my first encounter with the battle it was named Arbela. That was in a children's book called something like Great Battles in World History.
The mean streets of Gaugamela means something entirely different now ;-) Interesting how the English language has changed
Jim
I've just finished reading The Secret History of The Roman Roads of Britain by M. C. Bishop (and in fact have written a review for it hopefully to appear sometime in the future in Slingshot....). The book looks at the road system in the pre, during and post Roman eras. The post Roman era is interesting from the perspective that Bishop proposes that the vast majority of battles are fought on, or very near to a roman road. Not rocket science perhaps but he makes reference to a lot of dark age and medieval battles with good arguments for their placement within the context of the roman road system.
Quote from: Holly on April 17, 2014, 11:47:21 AM
In the engagement I am looking specifically at, the terrain would not allow for more than a a couple of hundred maximum to be "hidden" in that way.
For some of the battles in this period that seems to be a reasonable size to be worthy of mention.
Quote from: NickHarbud on July 21, 2014, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 17, 2014, 11:47:21 AM
In the engagement I am looking specifically at, the terrain would not allow for more than a a couple of hundred maximum to be "hidden" in that way.
For some of the battles in this period that seems to be a reasonable size to be worthy of mention.
In the context of what I have read recently (far too many books on the subject!) I agree with you. I have actually slightly changed my tack on my original propositions for the battle. I am convinced that there was indeed a battle in the general area possibly away from the ford proposition and more towards the road proposition although either are quite possible and there just isnt any evidence to counter either argument currently!
I think I have nailed the
casus belli for the battle and thus can be reasonably happy with the timeframe as well. The evidence (circumstancial), the protagonists and the area itself appear to coalesce quite well.......for now!
FWIW at least one book I read on Arthur's battles set 3 of them along the old Roman roads heading into East Anglia. In this case there was no convenient river, so the author reckoned that Arthur made a series of embankments along the road to halt the Angle advance.
Of course, this strays into the realm of "Was Offa's dyke intended as a defence line or a boundary marker?", but there you go. :-\
Yes Nick, the jury is still out on that one, on several aspects!
There is evidence that the dyke was built in sections over several centuries and not necessarily connected to each other. Also if you look at the 7th Century there is a Welsh/Mercian alliance and general cooperation. As you move into the 8th, there is a breakdown in that alliance.
Border marker, defence structure, coordinated or locallised, its a big mish-mash of viewpoints and possibilities...
In terms of the road battles question I am going to sensibly avoid it for now even though its in that neck of the woods! (oh yea gods I might have to go and have a look at it after all.... lol)
Offa's Dyke may (or may not) represent the terrain at the time it was built. If you take either boundary or barrier explanations, the priority would be to place the Dyke where people passed the border. You might leave areas where you couldn't take vehicles or herds (e.g. forest) till later.