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

[Duncan Head]

Inspired the Normans convert this into a tactic, ( in which they are already trained) luring some English down to be cut off a further two times.

The 'training' seems to have been remarkably rapid, arising as it did during the battle.

No need for that. The "feigned flight" had been a standard tactic among West European cavalry, in which they trained as a matter of course, since at least the 9th century, as Nithard makes clear when describing a display at Verdun in 842:

For purposes of training, games were often arranged in the following manner. Fighting-men would be deployed in a place where they could be observed. The entire group of Saxons, Gascons, Austrasians, and Bretons were divided into two units of equal size. They charged forward from both sides and came toward each other at full speed. Then [before contact was made] one side turned its back and under the protection of their shields pretended to be trying to escape. Then those who had been engaged in a feigned retreat counter-attacked and the pursuers simulated flight. Then both kings [Louis the German and Charles the Bald] and all of the young men, raising a great yell, charged forward on their horses brandishing their spear shafts. Now one group feigned retreat and then the other. It was a spectacle worthy of being seen as much because of its nobility as because of its discipline.

From http://deremilitari.org/2013/11/caballus-et-caballarius-in-medieval-warfare/ which also mentions German cavalry feigning a retreat in front of the Magyars in 933.

[Patrick Waterson]

The "feigned flight" had been a standard tactic among West European cavalry, in which they trained as a matter of course, since at least the 9th century ...

Good to know, Duncan, but while we can (and should) acknowledge the existence of the tactic, there seems to have been nothing 'feigned' about the flight which drew the English right from its position and left a Malfosse full of dead Bretons.

We can acknowledge that the later episodes were intended, and assume that the training for such a procedure existed, and in consequence wonder why it was not resorted to earlier.  Or did continental cavalry train only for feigned flight against opposing cavalry?

For those interested, someone else has looked at an alternate history in which Harold wins at Hastings.  Site here.  He goes on to hypothesise further developments over the next few decades, with some matters we have considered and a few we have not.

[aligern]

Matt and I went through the three best sources for Hastings before he prepared his talk for the Society conference. The prpise was to establish concordance between them, acknowledging that William of Poitiers is producing panegyric, the Tapestry is telling a mral story fr the court of Bishop Zodo and the Carmen is a celebratory song.  The point of looking at these three is that they are published within the lifetime of the participants and were unlikely to contain innaccuracies so great as to render them  incredible.
Matt also looked at other sources including Wace and derived fom there an insight on how the Normans carried out feigned retreat which I hope that he will publish in Slingshot or a Society publication.
There is a democratic element to the web, which allows all of us an opinion, but we should observe some rules of evidence. With feigned flight it is attested at Hastings by independent primary sources and, as Duncan just pointed out is witnessed as a tactic that is within the military culture of the time. You really are not going to get better than that and if you choose to disagree with it you would have to produce a piece of evidence that was pretty convincing.
As to the Godwins, they weakened England at a time of crisis, blinded and provably killed a more legitimate heir, Sweyn was a bad sirt, didn't he murder Beorn? Tosti was a harsh and foolish earl who caused rebellion in the North, conspired with the king of Norway to bring down his brother's  kingdom abd raided along the coasts of his country whilst invasion threatened. Harold had talent...no doubt about that, but overreached himself against William.
The Anglo Danish army could not cope with the Normans..lost at Hastings, lost outside York,  lost at Dyrrachium. Brave, no doubt, but not an all arms force and so very vulnerable to cavalry and archers.

And yes, I would happily game Hastings Nigel.  However, it makes a difficult wargame for the English if they do not cover fromntable edge to. table edge.
Roy

[aligern]

Patrick,
Are you mixing up the alleged Malfosse incident with the retreat of the Bretons after their cavalry attack fails in the first phase? Malfosse happens when the English army is running away after Harold's death.
I suggest Malfosse is a later addition, designed to give the English some dignity in defeat, but it has been suggested that the Norman pursuit met arriving English firces, perhaos even those of Edwin and Morcar abd were rebuffed.
Roy

[Erpingham]

We can acknowledge that the later episodes were intended, and assume that the training for such a procedure existed, and in consequence wonder why it was not resorted to earlier.  Or did continental cavalry train only for feigned flight against opposing cavalry?

Interesting suggestion.  If they only thought it worked with cavalry, they may not have tried it until an actual rout had shown them it would work on infantry.  Or it may be a question of timing - of when commanders thought it would work.  If they felt, for instance, that a certain amount of cohesion needed to have been lost before they had a chance to succeed.

[Duncan Head]

William of Poitiers here saying that the Normans (he doesn't specifically say Bretons - which source is it that blames them?) genuinely retreated - "not a shameful flight, but a sorrowful withdrawal" - when they thought William was killed, and then, seeing how that lured the English out in pursuit, resorted to feigned flights later on:

... the Normans and their allies turned their backs, pretending to take flight. They remembered how, a little earlier, flight had led to the success they desired.

So the answer to "why it was not resorted to earlier" is, as Anthony suggests, because they didn't realise it would work against this enemy: it cannot have been immediately obvious that such an apparently solid and steady infantry formation could be lured out into rash pursuit.

Though see here, another extract from the same book, for Bachrach's article arguing that if the second flight was feigned, the first one probably was as well.

[Mark G]

If a feigned flight happened, and thevshieldwall remained unmoved, would anyone report it?


Everything about the length of Hastings suggests many things were tried and it became a battle of discipline.

After hours of pressure, a feign attempt resulted in a pursuit.

Who is to say there had not been many, just as there must have been many incidents of knights teyreating from the shield wall over the previous hours.

[Imperial Dave]

For those interested, someone else has looked at an alternate history in which Harold wins at Hastings.  Site here.

very interesting indeed Patrick

[Patrick Waterson]

On the matter of feigned flight, it would seem logical that it had never before been used against infantry, not least because the Normans are unlikely to have met infantry they could not defeat in the ordinary way of things.  At Hastings they met such infantry, and appear to have been nonplussed about how to deal with it.

Patrick,
Are you mixing up the alleged Malfosse incident with the retreat of the Bretons after their cavalry attack fails in the first phase? Malfosse happens when the English army is running away after Harold's death.

Yes I am, sorry.  Wrong ditch.

Anyway, here is Wace on the key phase of the battle.  Observe please, the sequence of events.

From nine o'clock in the morning, when the combat began, till three o'clock came, the battle was up and down, this way and that, and no one knew who would conquer and win the land[216]. Both sides stood so firm and fought so well, that no one could guess which would prevail. The Norman archers with their bows shot thickly upon the English; but they covered themselves with their shields, so that the arrows could not reach their bodies, nor do any mischief, how true soever was their aim, or however well they shot. Then the Normans determined to shoot their arrows upwards into the air, so that they might fall on their enemies' heads, and strike their faces. The archers adopted this scheme, and shot up into the air towards the English; and the arrows in falling struck their heads and faces, and put out the eyes of many; and all feared to open their eyes, or leave their faces unguarded.

The arrows now flew thicker than rain before the wind; fast sped the shafts that the English call wibetes[217]. Then it was that an arrow, that had been thus shot upwards, struck Harold above his right eye, and put it out. In his agony he drew the arrow and threw it away, breaking it with his hands and the pain to his head was so great, that he leaned upon his shield. So the English were wont to say, and still say to the French, that the arrow was well shot which was so sent up against their king; and that the archer won them great glory, who thus put out Harold's eye.

So Harold is shot: watch what happens next, while he is incapacitated.

The Normans saw that the English defended themselves well, and were so strong in their position that they could do little against them. So they consulted together privily, and arranged to draw off, and pretend to flee, till the English should pursue and scatter themselves over the field; for they saw that if they could once get their enemies to break their ranks, they might be attacked and discomfited much more easily. As they had said, so they did. The Normans by little and little fled, the English following them. As the one fell back, the other pressed after; and when the Frenchmen retreated, the English thought and cried out, that the men of France fled, and would never return.

Thus they were deceived by the pretended flight, and great mischief thereby befell them; for if they had not moved from their position, it is not likely that they would have been conquered at all; but like fools they broke their lines and pursued.

Wace maintains that the repulse of the Normans which led to the English right pursuing was intentional and was preceded by deliberation.  We may think of this what we may.  The key element is that the English only broke ranks after Harold was wounded and by all accounts (or at least this one) hors de combat and hence unable to exercise command.  In my considered estimation, the feigned or real flight worked only because the English army was out of command.

We may incidentally note Wace's summation: "if they had not moved from their position, it is not likely that they would have been conquered at all," which tells us all we need to know about the effectiveness of standard Norman 'combined arms' tactics.

Anna Comnena's account of the Varangian Guard's action at Dyrrhachium in AD 1081 goes thus ('Nabites' is the leader of the Guard, by now consisting mainly of English):

"Then after a little preliminary skirmishing on either side, as Robert was leisurely following his men, and the distance between the armies was by now fairly short, some infantry and cavalry belonging to Amicetas' phalanx dashed out and attacked the extremities of Nabites' line. These however, resisted the attack very stoutly, so the others turned their backs (since they were not all picked men), threw themselves into the sea, and up to their necks in water, made their way to the Roman and Venetian ships and begged them for protection, which they did not receive.

And now, as rumour relates, directly Gaïta, Robert's wife (who was riding at his side and was a second Pallas, if not an Athene) saw these soldiers running away, she looked after them fiercely and in a very powerful voice called out to them in her own language an equivalent to Homer's words, " How far will ye flee ? Stand, and quit you like men! "And when she saw they continued to run, she grasped a long spear and at full gallop rushed after the fugitives; and on seeing this they recovered themselves and returned to the fight."

Observe that the Norman flight is real, not feigned.  The routers outstrip their infantry pursuers, who in their continuing pursuit lose cohesion, touch with the rest of the army and orientation to the rest of the battlefield.

"Meanwhile the axe-bearing barbarians and their leader Nabites had in their ignorance and in their ardour of battle advanced too quickly and were now a long way from the Roman lines, burning to engage battle with the equally brave Franks, for of a truth these barbarians are no less mad in battle than the Franks, and not a bit inferior to them. But they were already tired out and breathless, Robert noticed, and naturally so he thought, considering their rapid advance, their distance from their own lines and the weight of their weapons, and he ordered some of the foot to make a sudden attack on them. The barbarians having been previously wearied out, proved themselves inferior to the Franks, and thus the whole corps fell; a few escaped and took refuge in the chapel of Michael, the 'Captain of the Host,' as many as could crowded into the chapel itself, and the rest climbed on to the roof, being likely in this way, they imagined, to ensure their safety. But the Latins started a fire and burnt them down, chapel and all."

Note that victory goes to the Norman infantry, not the cavalry.  There is no continuity of Norman tactics between here and Hastings.

[Mark G]

Why is a shield wall unusual to the normans?

Look at their neighbours

[aligern]

The continuity is that the Anglo Varangians pursue and are defeated by the application if a fresh Norman reserve. Alexius originally sets them up with archer support, but they abandon this and chase off in an undisciplined manner.
Two antecedent battles to Hastings are on the continent ( Pontlevoy and Conquereau) and show a development whereby at first an army defends, holds off the enemy, then pursues and is caught by a fresh force. Then in another battle the second force , rather than arriving fortuitously appears to be a pkanned intervention against a foe disordered by pursuit. I am  not sure if these forces, pulled into pursuit , are cavalry , infantry or mixed . What they do show is that the French understood the importance od disordering an oppinent and then hitting him with a fresh force.
I don't think that you can justify statements such as feigned flight never before having been used against infantry. Narses uses it against Franks in Italy in 554. It is more likely a commonplace.

Lastly, I am not impressed by the use of Wace as a source for Hastings. He is writing 100 years after the event  so I would be very suspicious where he introduces new detail. If he sorts out a confusion in the earlier sources then beware that he has done this without evidence, except for those earlier sources, which I would  rather stick with.
Roy

[Darklinger]

Maybe not everyone knows, 'An Alternative History of Britain - The Anglo-Saxon Age' by Timothy Venning - book form, but not as compelling as Patrick's notice.

[Imperial Dave]

and following on from that.....

what if Harald Hardrarda had won at Stamford Bridge....?

[Duncan Head]

what if Harald Hardrarda had won at Stamford Bridge....?

Norwegian-ruled Northumbria, Norman-ruled south. "England" is a historical footnote, an ancient realm that existed briefly in the 10th-11th centuries and was never reconstituted.

[Erpingham]

what if Harald Hardrarda had won at Stamford Bridge....?

Norwegian-ruled Northumbria, Norman-ruled south. "England" is a historical footnote, an ancient realm that existed briefly in the 10th-11th centuries and was never reconstituted.

That's one possibility, though William was rather attracted to being a king, so would probably have tried to maintain a kingdom with ambitions towards its "ancestral" lands i.e. the North.  Given his drive, his reputation and his new found wealth, launching an Anglo-Norman invasion of the North wouldn't be hard.  Hardrada might have been harder to beat than Sweyn but his Anglo-Norwegians would have been up against it to hold the North.

Also, it depends who survived which victories.  If the Godwinsons had survived both battles, even as exiles, they could have been a thorn in the side of the victors.