An article on the harrying of the north - post 1066 and all that......

[Andreas Johansson]

They had flexibility, such as Harold's use of 'LHI' in Wales, but its a stretch to see them adopting the social system and the technology of the knight, the bow and the castle without being conquered by it.

The Danish parallel is possibly helpful here - they were never conquered by a Frankish power, but they eventually adopted the mounted knight anyway. Of course, they had an influx of German nobles and longstanding involvement in northern German politics that a Godwinsonian England would not necessarily have an equivalent of.

(In Sweden, knightly equipment was also adopted by the aristocracy, but, judging by the late medieval evidence - there is hardly any of how high medieval Swedish battles were actually fought - shock cavalry never became dominant. This may have something to do with an awful lot of Sweden being covered with wooded hills - the high point of cavalry in Swedish military history is the early 17th to early 18th century, when most wars were fought in more open terrain in Balticum, Poland, and Germany.)

[Mark G]

Andreas, do you know when scone adopted the horse as its symbol?

That might indicate something.

[Andreas Johansson]

If Scone = Skåne/Scania, I confess to being unaware of the horse as a symbol for it. It's modern coat of arms has a Griffin's head, and some googling fails to bring up any mention of the horse being used as an earlier blazon or the like.

It probably wouldn't indicate anything anyway - horses are common in pre-Christian Scandinavian art, and nobles rode long before they started aping continental chivalry.

(It's been suggested that the fact that Odin rides his eight-legged horse when most other Norse gods travel in wains reflects that he's a relative newcomer in the pantheon.)

[Erpingham]

Can we trace the appearance of the longbow in English armies?  Falkirk in AD 1298 seems to be the point at which the English longbow sprang fully-armed from the thigh of history, but Edward I's insistence on banning all sports except longbow archery on Sundays suggests a weapon already in existence among a significant proportion of the population.

This is a complicated one and really deserves a thread of its own.  My guess would be that the archers of 1298 were a mixture of types.  The Welsh type was probably fairly coherent in style and technology from their own traditions but were fighting in an alien way.  The English had archery traditions which would include some skilled men (Foresters, Parkers etc were prized) and a lot of semi-skilled.  Everyone brought his own kit, and semi-skilled men probably carried weaker bows than those who did it for a living.  Its only when the state starts both pushing practice and ordering standard kit, thus developing markets and supply chains, that the longbow "comes together" as the standard product and military thinkers in Edward II and Edward III's reign can work out some viable tactics to use the new resource effectively.

[Patrick Waterson]

Patrick, we really ought to have rules for alternative history. How far can one diverge from the historical trends that appertain at the time . Does pretty well anything become possible? It is certainly allowable to have William killed at Hastings , because that only needs a horse to stumble, but major changes such as a Godwinsson dynasty that projects power in a way that the English have not historically done, well that is stretching things.  Athelstan and his successors sought submission from their neighbours rather than cession of land or sovereignty.

Agreed, although Aethelstan was projecting power in a way no King of Wessex had done before, and he arguably achieved more than the Normans managed to achieve prior to the reign of Edward I (coincidentally the first Anglo-Norman king with an Anglo-Saxon name).  My basic assumption would be that the rest of the world evolves/runs pretty much as it did historically, the major changes being how and when parts of it interacted with England (how's that for an Anglocentric view of the universe?).  The basic Anglo-Norwegian or Anglo-Godwinssonian ethic would be to hold what one has rather than being expansionist, acting primarily as a large fish in a small pond, but acting reactively when others enter the pond, as seems to have been the historical Wessex approach: the Danish incursions stimulated Wessex to take over the whole of England; trouble with the Welsh and Scots stimulated the subjection of those areas, and simply by extending this principle one could expect that repeated Danish/Norse interference (Hardrada, Sweyn) would lead to counter-pressure, i.e. English involvement in Scandinavia.

Involvement on the continent would, as I see it, be principlly a matter of being dragged in by marriage commitments.  The degree of commitment and the results would depend upon which marriage and when: a Flemish connection seems most likely, but dynastic development could evolve in strange ways, as happened when Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine.  Suffice to say this one is a bit of a wild card, but I do not see our Anglo-Godwinssonians abandoning a territory or ally that is dropped into their lap.

To assume that the Godwins , who may well have had to cope with internal dissension and Scandinavian invasion would be willing or able to project such piwer is pushing the envelope. Similarly with the longbow. The Norman and Plantagenet kings have a long tradition of combining knights and bowmen, ir in Edwatd 1's case knights and crossbowmen. They therefore find that an easy tactical combination to refine and develop.  A good idea such as extending the use of a powerful bow would occur easily to them. Lers face it the Late Anglo Saxon state did not even have decent cavalry. Had a Godwinson inspired invasion of Ireland taken place it would most likely have been composed of solid infantry, not necessarily ineffective there  as the Norse had proven.

The role of archers in Norman armies seems to me to be somewhat overstated: yes, they were there, but they were hardly the arm of decision (unless they could, for example, land a shot in the eye of the enemy C-in-C).  While archery proved useful against rhe unarmoured Galwegians at Northallerton in AD 1138, it is the decline rather than the increase in importance of archery that is the most noticeable feature in subsequent years. Slightly more than a century after Hastings, the 1181 Assize of Arms is notable mainly for its lack of mention of archers.  At Lewes in AD 1264 and Evesham in AD 1265 archers may as well not have been resent for all the effect they seem to have had.

The major change seems to have come with Edward I's conquest of Wales; from this point, archers seem to assume a greater importance in Anglo-Norman armies and appear to be fielded in significantly larger numbers.  There is also the intangible of battlefield control: Edward's archers concentrate their shooting power where it is needed and weaken and attenuate formations.  This is something new and not part of the usual Norman repertoire, or at least it seems so to me.  My conclusion is thus that the later English archery system, subsequently reintroduced with such effect at Dupplin Moor, was the invention of an individual and not part of the Norman tactical system, the corollary being that our putative Anglo-Godwinssonian culture could have developed the system as and when it felt a need.

I suggest that the key to all this is the mindset of the ruling group concerned. The effect of the Norman Conquest after the rebellions and dispossessions, was to place not just a Norman line on the throne, but a complete class or community in power who have a different way of thinking from the previous elite. The Anglo Danish nobility had strong traditions of operating as solid melee infantry. They had flexibility, such as Harold's use of 'LHI' in Wales, but its a stretch to see them adopting the social system and the technology of the knight, the bow and the castle without being conquered by it. A victory for Harold at Hastings would simply prove to a conservative minded military caste that there way was the best way. To get that thinking to change would require a major shock.

As Andreas has pointed out, this need not have been a barrier to the adoption of heavy cavalry; the principal hurdle to surmount would have been the lack of an equestrian class.  Given that Anglo-Normans habitually dismounted their knights to act as infantry in battle, and Anglo-Saxons habitually mounted their huscarles and, if one may use the term for lack of a better, their select fyrd, dismounting them to fight, the main difference would seem to be the knightly ethos, or lack of it.  The Anglo-Norman or Plantagenet knight, often fighting dismounted, would seem to be in effect a 'missing link' between the huscarl and the billman as much as a new arm of service.

Hastings was, of course, a major shock: had Harold won, it would still have been a major shock, representing as it did the first encounter with an effective cavalry opponent.  The flexible and inventive Harold Godwinson would have been quite capable of raising an equestrian force of his own, but the challenge would have been to avoid it falling into disuse without a clear battlefield role.  Of the trilogy of the knight, the bow and the castle I would see our Anglo-Godwinssons adopting the bow with little cogitation or difficulty, the knight only when up against opponents who used the same and the castle probably not at all, much to the disappointment of English Heritage.

When the English intervened in Scotland under Siward they proved that  they were militarily superior and that  they had no intention of conquering the Scots, similarly in Wales against Gruffyd.  The Godwin's main concern would be a Danish invasion because that would be the most likely threat .

Agree entirely, and this is what would have sooner or later brought them into Scandinavia as kingmakers or allies of one or another ruler or pretender, and ultimately (unless they received a thorough drubbing) as overlords.

There is one other aspect of English expansionism (or non-expansionism) and culture to consider: religion.  Following Harold's hypothetical victory at Hastings, the Papacy would have been regarded with a certain coolness.  In any subsequent English entanglement with Ireland, nobody would have thought it worth inflicting Catholicism on the Irish.  Matters may have been patched up at some point, but perception of Normans as the 'Pope's pets' would have coloured any English attitudes to crusading and the memory of the Papal blessing and banner for William's failed invasion would have left a visceral bad taste.  Most importantly, we would probably have to choose a different battle for our upcoming Battle Day.

Its only when the state starts both pushing practice and ordering standard kit, thus developing markets and supply chains, that the longbow "comes together" as the standard product and military thinkers in Edward II and Edward III's reign can work out some viable tactics to use the new resource effectively.

That makes eminent sense: I see this as the development of a new military system in its own right rather than as a natural progression of the standard Norman 'combined arms' army.  Would this be a fair judgement?

[Duncan Head]

The role of archers in Norman armies seems to me to be somewhat overstated: yes, they were there, but they were hardly the arm of decision (unless they could, for example, land a shot in the eye of the enemy C-in-C).  While archery proved useful against rhe unarmoured Galwegians at Northallerton in AD 1138, it is the decline rather than the increase in importance of archery that is the most noticeable feature in subsequent years. Slightly more than a century after Hastings, the 1181 Assize of Arms is notable mainly for its lack of mention of archers.  At Lewes in AD 1264 and Evesham in AD 1265 archers may as well not have been resent for all the effect they seem to have had.

I don't think the absence of archers in 1181, 115 years after the Conquest, is good evidence that their importance in Anglo-Norman armies has been overstated. Apart from Hastings and Northallerton, don't forget that Anglo-Norman archery broke up a knightly charge at Bourgtheroulde in 1124. I would say rather that there was a Norman style of warfare that included tactical co-operation between milites and archers, and that went into decline  or transition around the mid-12th century with greater emphasis on the knights and less on the archers. Why the change I'm not sure: increased weight of armour?

[Erpingham]

The role of archers in Norman armies seems to me to be somewhat overstated: yes, they were there, but they were hardly the arm of decision (unless they could, for example, land a shot in the eye of the enemy C-in-C).  While archery proved useful against rhe unarmoured Galwegians at Northallerton in AD 1138, it is the decline rather than the increase in importance of archery that is the most noticeable feature in subsequent years. Slightly more than a century after Hastings, the 1181 Assize of Arms is notable mainly for its lack of mention of archers.  At Lewes in AD 1264 and Evesham in AD 1265 archers may as well not have been resent for all the effect they seem to have had.

We also shouldn't forget the fascination of the Plantagenet kings with the crossbow.  Richard, John, Henry III and Edward I all used mercenary and to a lesser extent militia crossbowmen.  So missile strength to back up the knights can be seen as a theme.  Of course, a key reason is the amount of siege warfare, rather than just a battlefield thing.

If we assume the Anglo-Normans and the Plantagenets were aware of the potential of archers and crossbowmen in their armies, the decision of Edward I to experiment with strengthening this arm fits into a pattern.  The real boost probably comes in the post-Bannockburn period when working out how to beat the all-conquering Scots becomes an issue.

I don't think the absence of archers in 1181, 115 years after the Conquest, is good evidence that their importance in Anglo-Norman armies has been overstated. Apart from Hastings and Northallerton, don't forget that Anglo-Norman archery broke up a knightly charge at Bourgtheroulde in 1124. I would say rather that there was a Norman style of warfare that included tactical co-operation between milites and archers, and that went into decline  or transition around the mid-12th century with greater emphasis on the knights and less on the archers. Why the change I'm not sure: increased weight of armour?

[Darklinger]

I suggest that the key to all this is the mindset of the ruling group concerned. The effect of the Norman Conquest after the rebellions and dispossessions, was to place not just a Norman line on the throne, but a complete class or community in power who have a different way of thinking from the previous elite.

Yes - this is the key - and thinking about the Anglo-Saxon power structure that was replaced (though, as Patrick noted, much of the underlying structure of their laws - and eventually their culture including language - wasn't. Domesday was as much an A.-S. piece of thinking as Norman, and William swore, on his coronation, to uphold the specifically A.S. law of Edward the Confessor..... which of course caused much of the friction later with Pope Innocent and the growing sense of the investment in the structure of rule, rather than the individual). The decisive thing here is the continuation of  A-S rule and outlook.

On the narrower point (wah wah waah...)  the disparagement of Anglo-Saxon archery - and use of cavalry - is most likely quite wrong, simply put. Much of this came out of Norman disparagement and scorn, underrating and misunderstanding with a total lack of sympathetic imagination of Harold's predicament, up to and including Hastings.

[aligern]

Simply put there is no decent evidence for the later Anglo Saxons using cavalry. There is plenty of evidence that they bred and rode horses, plenty of evidence that they rode to battle and that they could mount up in a pursuit, but nothing that is safely contemporary that has them fighting effectively from horseback. By 'fighting effectively' I mean operating as cavalry in formations, charging, falling back, rallying, having tactics for attacking formed infantry as the Normans did.
Similarly really with bows. They obviously used them in war, a bow appears  on the Bayeux Tapestry , the story of the Viking  blocking the bridge at Stamford Bridge being shot at ineffectually might be true, and arrows are mentioned in the Maldon poem, but its not evidence for substatial use of the bow, whereas William recruited extra archers for Hastings, no doubt aware that this was an English weakness.
And no, I am not about to roll over  and accept a thirteenth century Icelandic Saga that sounds oh so suspiciously a lift of a description of Hastings.
But if you do have any conclusive evidence for cavalry or significant numbers of bows then please tell us  ;-)). Roy

[Mark G]

These things.

http://www.houzz.com/photos/380252/Dala-Horse-by-Mid-Mod-Mom-traditional-decorative-accents

I thought they were skane, seems its all sweden. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I don't think the absence of archers in 1181, 115 years after the Conquest, is good evidence that their importance in Anglo-Norman armies has been overstated. Apart from Hastings and Northallerton, don't forget that Anglo-Norman archery broke up a knightly charge at Bourgtheroulde in 1124. I would say rather that there was a Norman style of warfare that included tactical co-operation between milites and archers, and that went into decline  or transition around the mid-12th century with greater emphasis on the knights and less on the archers. Why the change I'm not sure: increased weight of armour?

It could be: Orderic Vitalis points out that at Bremule (AD 1119) "in which about nine hundred knights were engaged, only three were killed."  My basic point, which perhaps needed a little refinement, was that archery became de-emphasised for a while prior to the adoption of the longbow, which suggests that the tactical system based on the latter was a divergence from, rather than a development of, Anglo-Norman practice.  The underlying point, that our hypothetical Godwinsonian England could and probably would have adopted the longbow once it saw a need, I deem reinforced by the apparent evidence that archery was consciously revived by Edward I as opposed to being a straight continuation from the state of affairs in the mid-13th century.

We also shouldn't forget the fascination of the Plantagenet kings with the crossbow.  Richard, John, Henry III and Edward I all used mercenary and to a lesser extent militia crossbowmen.  So missile strength to back up the knights can be seen as a theme.  Of course, a key reason is the amount of siege warfare, rather than just a battlefield thing.

If we assume the Anglo-Normans and the Plantagenets were aware of the potential of archers and crossbowmen in their armies, the decision of Edward I to experiment with strengthening this arm fits into a pattern.  The real boost probably comes in the post-Bannockburn period when working out how to beat the all-conquering Scots becomes an issue.

Indeed.  However the earlier de-emphasis of archery (with or without crossbows) suggests the pattern was sufficiently loose and irregular for a different hypothetical English culture to be able to adopt it.  Sooner or later, our Godwinsonians would have started to encounter foes against whom missile capability mattered, and it looks as if there were sufficient roots (and routes) to postulate the adoption of the longbow in such circumstances, resulting in something resembling Wars of the Roses infantry, except with axemen in place of billmen.

Cavalry would probably develop as and when it became fashionable among neighbours, and growing awareness of classical texts (and cavalry successes on the continent) prompted a feeling that it should be part of the military repertoire.  The big difference I see is that it would not necessarily have been identified with aristocracy, perhaps having a status more like Navarrese mesnaderos or classical Roman cavalry.

[Darklinger]

Have just spent longer than I care to admit putting a reply together, all lost by my hitting I do not even know what on this keyboard.... so this is the much shorter version:

there is no decent evidence for the later Anglo Saxons using cavalry

I have to disagree, tho' this is as you probably know an old chestnut, argued over for about a hundred years.
There is, it is true, no overwhelming evidence, and I will not claim, obviously, that they were as effective as the Norman cavalry, but then an argument over that length of time is unlikely to have that evidence in sight. But there is no possible way that A.S. forces got around the country dealing with both mounted and fast river-borne Viking raiders without extensive use of mounts, and where this stops being cavalry and becomes mounted infantry..... The record of A.S. cavalry at Hereford in 1055 is undisputed, even tho' they were unsuccessful. Is it likely they would only appear, ONCE?
Snorri is subject to Slur again! But at this hour of the night argument over him will have to be set aside, because the slur on the A.S. archer, a commonly believed piece of Normanism, is much worse:
"...he was from a hard kindred of the Northumbrians, his name was Aescferth, Ecglaf's son, he did not shrink back at the war-play; rather he sent forth arrows swiftly - sometimes he hit a shield, sometimes he pierced a warrior; time and again he dealt out wounds while he was able to wield his weapons." Translation by Pollington. Archers are common in A.S. poetry, as they must have been by sight and experience (most men would have trained with bows for hunting, at least). In the Maldon poem as elsewhere there is nothing but appreciation (by the A.S.'s) for the skill and usefulness of their own bowmen, and this is not to be belittled.
Evidence of the effectiveness of bowmen is in art as well as literature - as in The Franks Casket in the British museum, on a panel of which can be seen a lone bowman defending a building against a warband.
As well as being tired, and I would guess in many instances 'traumatised', the force on the hill near the apple tree that fateful day was possibly still assembling and incomplete even as the battle was lost. So the Tapestry and the other sources that make Hastings the most represented of A.S. battles (surviving evidence, anyway) may have been right to show few archers - but it does not mean they were not in common A.S. battlefield use in the late period, or ineffective.
Though, as I said, the evidence itself is not overwhelming, it is in the context of the Norman defeat and apparent complete dismemberment of A.S. England that we should consider these things - and ask what is much the most likely. After all, it is the view of the victor that becomes commonly held belief. Everywhere, the Norman attitude to Saxons before and after the quelling of resistance was scornful, belittling and high handed. It was not the attitude that some other victors have had, of building up their foes to look better themselves.

William recruited extra archers for Hastings, no doubt aware that this was an English weakness

This is where Normanism becomes clear. I would take it as probable evidence that he was wary of Anglo-Saxon archers, instead.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think it may be worth reviewing the popular (mis?)conception that the Anglo-Saxon army contained only a scattering of archers.  In fact, I am wondering whether someone (Nigel?) would be prepared to consider doing a Slingshot article on the subject.

[Erpingham]

There is a bit of a danger we'll get into one of those arguments where the losers (English) have been defamed by the winners (Normans) and so we lack evidence of how things really were.  There is always some truth to this but it can lead to some speculative stuff. 

Nigel has already noted most of the usual evidence, missing only the Brunanburh poem " shot over shield" line.    But I'm not convinced of massed archery by the Saxons and there maybe a parallel with Viking examples, where bows certainly existed but references to archery tend to be more individual.  Too much is made of the lone archer on the Bayeux Tapestry.  Is he a "lone sniper"?  A representation of a skirmish line?  Where in relation to the shieldwall is he actually standing?  Or is he just there to demonstrate there were archers on the English side too?

On cavalry, I'm reasonably certain that the professionals in the English army could fight from horseback if needs be.  But it doesn't mean they were good at it or they would be a match for mounted Normans.  I think the evidence still points to the fact that shieldwall fighting on foot was the prefered tactic.  The idea of Hastings being a triumph of the modern cavalry army over an old-fashioned infantry one is coloured by a backward reading of history emphasising the rise of the knight.  Both sides were using perfectly viable tactical systems and were good at what they did, which is partly why the battle took all day.

As for Snorri's Stamford Bridge being a copy of Hastings, often said but not easy to evidence.  Personally, I suspect that Snorri has padded out his limited sources with contemporary 13th century practice because he can't have the end of Harald Hardrada a damp squib of "The English and the Norwegians fought and the English had the victory" variety.  But that's another discussion

[aligern]

Oh no, the archers (and crossbowmen) at Hastings are much more likely an expansion of the numbers that Williamnwould normally field becausevhe knew that the Anglo Danes were likely to be a static infantry block that would seek covered flanks to negate his cavalry.  He was going to have to wear down such a force before breaking in and missilemen were ideal for that. He could, of course, have dismounted his knights and mixed units of them with his spearmen, but that would only produce an infantry force similar to the English, but much less in numbers. 

John of Worcester's description of the English fighting mounted on the battlefield under Earl Ralph, was that   'he is said to have ordered the  English to fight on horseback 'contrary to their custom'.  Strange that this point should be made if the Anglo Danes regularly fought as cavalry??
In effect John is making a point of the onceness of the attempt at cavalry action.
The above is not the only instance of a chronicler, some distance from the event, but half the distance of Snorre Sturlason telling us that the English did not fight on horseback...
The argument that the English must have been able to fight on horseback, but not as well as the Normans is one of those consolation prize statements. There is good written evidence that they fought on foot, but rode to battle, rode in pursuit. There is good pictorial evidence of them riding to the battle and yet fighting dismounted in a context where, if they usually fought mounted, they would be shown fighting mounted.
As to bows I have no doubt that they were used, but in small quantities.  The use of the bow was a commonplace for hunting, but hunting is not war. Having a bow is not turning up in units and delivering showers of arrows. It may well be that you had the best huntsmen on your estate near you so that you, earl or bishop could say 'Pot that fellow Edward!' but its not concentrated archery.  I do think, though that there may have been more archery in Danish settled archery, though with them  the bow is a component of naval warfare and I cannot recall anything referring to bows in an English fleet.
Patrick, re you point of the bow falling out of favour, this was explained. The Plantagenets plumped for crissbows, had. them in droves and bolts by the barrel load as the Welsh found out when they were use in conjunction with pinning cavalry at Orewin Bridge.  As someone here said, that might have had an impact on looking to make bows more powerful and standardised?
Roy