Hastings 1066

[Paul_Glover]

My intention with this topic is to examine:

• If 'the Battle of Hastings' was inevitable, as many have subsequently portrayed it
• If so was 'the Battle of Hastings' simply a failure to replicate Charles Martel's successful 'Bulwark of Ice' tactics against a mounted foe at Poitiers in 732, or was something more interesting happening tactically on either side

My thesis here is two fold.

• Firstly I dispute the inevitability of Hastings and not just because it took William longer to build his ships than he had planned, nor because the storm that caught his expedition only hit it when close to shore (see the Spanish Amada for what a Channel Storm followed be prolonged Westerlies can do to an Invasion fleet)
• Secondly I believe that both sides were showing interesting signs of battle innovation, so not just another 'linear slug fest' which was on this occasion prolonged by the steepness of a Hill

At the very least I argue that at 8 hours duration, 'the Battle of Hastings' was as many have noted before me unusual.  So I suggest that following "hemibel thinking" we note that the duration of the Battle of Hastings is an outlier by a factor of 3 or more and I believe still deserves another look.  So might my two considerations perhaps be inter-linked?  How do you see 'the Battle of Hastings' and do you perceive reasons that it may deserve another look, perhaps different from those that I have offered?

[Erpingham]

Personally, there are two possibilities for the battle length.  One is that the battle began as the armies came up, so the initial hours were low intensity.  Another (which might be additional, rather than alternative) is that it was a clearly phased battle (archer attack, infantry attack, second archer attack, final cavalry attack) and the gap between phases is longer than many allow.  Also, there may have been two clear cavalry phases but "pulses" of activity took place within them - the attacks may not have been across the whole front all the time.

BTW, I'll need to move this topic at some point because it doesn't fit the "source and interpretation" format mandated for the section but I won't rush.

[Erpingham]

Hope you don't mind Paul, but I borrowed a piece of your discussion in the Optio thread which might be missed.  I found it very interesting.

Anglo-Danish: 3 Main Commanders - each Earls (Harold, Gyrth & Leofwine), possibly 4 (if significant reinforcements did not just drift in but were instead independently mustered, perhaps by Earl Waltheof (Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire)

Huscarls (Spear, shield, sword, 2-hansed axe, helm and the best mail that money could buy) - c. 1200 (400 with each Earl).  This is arrived at by taking Earl Tostig's 200 Huscarls killed when he was ejected from York as the model, but noting that taxation and hence capacity to recruit was half that in the North as it was in the South, Tostig tried to solve this through the simple expediency of doubling taxation, with the result just mentioned)
Select Fyrd (Spear, shield and the helm and mail provided by one's Lord on becoming Thane - in command of 5 Hides of land and responsible for serving their Earl when commanded) - 2400 (800 with each Earl)
General Fyrd (Spear and Shield - in command of 1 Hide of land) Responsible for serving in their own Shire and in their neighbouring shires - 2400 (800 with each Earl)
A Further Earl's worth of Select and General Fyrd arriving during the battle (800 Select Fyrd and 800 General Fyrd), perhaps with 200 Huscarl if led by Earl Waltheof

Narrative - this is very much a minimum estimate - in theory every 1 hide man should have served from Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, plus every five Hide Man from: Wessex (Harold); Kent, Surrey, Middlesex and Essex (Leofwine); and Suffolk, Norfolk & West Berkshire (Gyrth) ... plus possibly Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire (Earl Waltheof) arriving late in the day ... less the 5 hide men killed or injured at Stanford bridge

William's Army

3 Main Commanders - William, Breton Commander, French Commander ... plus possibly Odo who appears capable of rallying troops

Force Raised was transported in 1000 ships.  If I assume that each ship on average carried a Knight and 'squire' plus their horses, essential retainers and a sailor this leads to ships loaded just as shown ion the Bayeux Tapestry (so it may just be a better source than many think) so: one knight; one squire; one pack horse each  (for Knight and 'squire'); one riding horse each (Knight and 'squire'); and two war horses each (Knight and 'squire'); plus an archer; 2 armoured infantry and a specialist sailor, plus supplies.

This then enables me to understand the magnificent feasting scene that follows the landing in a different way, because it has always looked 'odd to me' and could perhaps have its closet parallel in the conspicuous consumption of Henry VIII's 'Field of Cloth of Gold'.  In other words, I do not believe that William expected to need to fight, but instead thought that the 'English' would come to swear fealty to him, providing Harold's head, just as the Welsh had provided the head of their King on Harold's second expedition.  The magnificent feast could then be interpreted as the reception.  In this model, Hill's assertion that William intended to raid into Harold's family territory before he was blown off course appears to me to be misjudged.  I believe that William always intended to arrive in Hastings because Hastings had a mint and so the first coin of the new reign could be struck and distributed at the feast.  But the coin was not bought in to be re-struck, but was instead buried, and William started harrying to announce his displeasure.

So total force mustered 2000 knights and squires, 2000 armoured foot with spear and shield, 1000 archers and 1000 sailors intended to become ships' and castle guard at the town of Hastings or thereabouts.  However, a storm sunk some of the ships ... I assume about 10% (either sunk or rendered unseaworthy) and I think I recall 60 souls going off course and being killed on landing which by these calculations above would leave c. 890 ships, giving for the battle:

c. 1800 Knights
c. 900 archers
c. 1800 armoured spearmen

Total force c. 4500 Normans divided into 3 Divisions

I found how you reconciled the fleet size with the small army model particularly interesting.  Given the debate on Hastings army numbers, thought it was well worth examining more fully.

[Paul_Glover]

I clearly have a lot to learn about how debates and posts work here.

BTW, I'll need to move this topic at some point because it doesn't fit the "source and interpretation" format mandated for the section

I have sources and I have interpretations but much prefer a 'so what' view of life, rather than find myself in the same position as some unfortunate authors who have invested 260 pages effort in publication and a vast amount of initial research only to be cut down in relation to a foundational assumption and then ignored.  I'm reasonably sure you know the author and the Historian wielding his axe like St Boniface (in Germany) that I have in mind.

So please, where does a 'big hands of approximate thinking person' essay on a theme ... and then as consensus or counter-point grows then moves to detailed source ... and comparison of notes ... or is one not allowed to play the game that way ... but only work as if a carpenter?

I feel another Biblical analogy coming on, but I might upset too many if I said it.

[Erpingham]

I clearly have a lot to learn about how debates and posts work here.

Actually Paul, you've hit the only child board with a prescribed format - the "rules" are pinned at the top of the list of posts.  Generally, discussions of battles in any other format you like go under Ancient and Medieval History main board.  I shifted the other bit because this is something we do sometimes to avoid it being lost at the tail of a longer piece, especially if it isn't the original topic.  The idea is to draw more attention, which, as I understand what you've written previously, is what is needed to test ideas. 

Apologies for any difficulty caused

[Paul_Glover]

Thank you Anthony.

  I expected to be criticised the other way and be talking about what I see as a specific Battle ... with its run-up ... and get criticised for not opening a child board ... also it is easy to read the words and not understand the intent.

  Could you move the key elements of the discussion to the right place at your convenience?


Paul

[Erpingham]

Could you move the key elements of the discussion to the right place at your convenience?

Done.  And please see it as assistance to a newer member from a longer serving one, rather than criticism. 

And, if its not already obvious, I'm keen to see how this topic develops

[aligern]

You'd really heed to hear Matt Bennett on this, but as I recall he disbelieves in the number of ships  that is claimed, largely ( and I might be misremembering here) because its highly unlikely that  there are that many available ships in and around the Channel, that there is not enough anchorage at either end if the journey and that the building and timber capacity  to create a large fleet just does not exist.  If the capacity of cross Channel trade is say 200 ships and each of them does a round trip of a week  for a thirty week season then that would  be 6000 trading  trips a tear which seems  a heck of a lot.  Its not a Viking scenario where all the local lords have a ship that they  expect to use in season to go raiding.  If there are 200 ships and they last on average  10 years then shipbuilding capability is around ten ships a year. . Because these are skilled men and it takes time to build a ship then increasing the capacity to build ships is really difficult unless you have been building this fleet for severalbyears at great cost.

We can all pjay with numbers here and I'd agree that some quite small  ships can be pressed into service, but they don't carry much. There s trade across the Channel, but I don't recall it being major in the mid eleventh century, like say the wool or wine trade in the fourteenth.
Perhaps Anthony could help us out with some comparative numbers for Edwardian armies?
Roy

[Denis Grey]

I have been reading Frank McGlynn's 1066:The Year of the Three Battles and, by coincidence, finished it earlier today.  I shall be interested to see how the discussion develops.

[Erpingham]

Perhaps Anthony could help us out with some comparative numbers for Edwardian armies?

The evidence from earlier expeditions [i.e. pre 1415] shows that to ship an army of 10,000 to 15,000 men required 500 to 750 ships.  This is the view of Craig Lambert, the current authority.  He also gives the average tonnage of military transport ships as 79 tons across the 14th century, though ships arrested for service could be as small as 20 tons.  I would have thought any ships William had would be towards the smaller end. 

One clear difference would be that 14th and 15th century navies didn't have to build ships - they just arrested them or, in some cases, hired them from abroad.  However, it still took months to assemble a big fleet.

Another difference is that by this point, ships were deliberately being modified to carry horses.  They used bigger ships for this than William had, averaging in the region of 30-50 horses per ship.

Final point is that ships of the 14th century had big crews.  Edward III's expedition in 1346 probably had more sailors than combatants (noting of course, some of these would be conveying non-combatants and horses).

[aligern]

Thank you Anthony!  One coukd take the argument in several directions with thise facts.  I am inclined to see William as having rather lesser numbers of horse and more infantry than the suggested lists made earlier.
Roy

[Paul_Glover]

Wace gives a sense that such expeditions were not small ... 'many ships made ready, ships tied up and ships at anchor, beached ships and ships afloat, pegged ships and tarred ships, ropes stretched and masts raised.  Gangplanks are bought out and the ships loaded.  Helmets, shields and hauberks are carried, lances raised and horses drawn aboard, knights and their servants enter, each friend calling to another'

[Erpingham]

I think there are two obvious questions about the fleet ; how many ships and what sort.  Could the Channel coast raise 1000 ships and what were they like?  We've no evidence that Normandy had a standing fleet of large warships, though doubtless there were a few.  Most would have been smaller traders.  If we look at Viking trading ships, the largest found to date is of 60-70 tons.  The famous Skuldelev 1 is 24 tons.  So, if we agree a 1000 ship fleet (and many would say this is high), it may have a capacity 30-50,000 tons.  As a ball park figure, based on the Edward III example, we could be looking at a force of 7,500- 10,000 combatants, with hangers on.   The fleet would require a similar number of sailors - the small knarr reconstruction Ottar needs at least six crew to handle, probably more by preference.

[aligern]

A harbour with 100 ships in it looks impressively crowded.  Could the  anchorages at either end of the journey  take 1000 ships? I sort of understand that Viking ships have about 60 men per ship  That would  give us  , for an army of 8000 men (7000 soldiers and 1000 servants, cooks, squires, grooms, pioneers) that needs 130 ships  say 12  horses in a ship, Allow 120 ships for horses , that gets us to 250 and then add in 50/ships for fodder and most importantly grain.  and immediate food because the horses have to eat straight away when they land  and we get to 300 ships.
Allow william the capacity to build 100 ships, using yards in Normandy and most importantly Flanders and to hire 200 ships then that sounds to me plausible.

Cheers
Roy

[Paul_Glover]

I am inclined towards 2 - 4 horses per ship, and each ship a 'household unit'.