Anglo-Saxon armies

[barry carter]

This Lawson devotes a chapter each to both armies. I will have to re-read them to glean the details. How the "to read again" pile waxes!

[Hannipaul]

I am very new to the Forum and although there is a warning this topic has been dormant for some time I found it very interesting and relevant to my current interest in this period.
I don't think I can add much to the scholarly observations made so far except to suggest two things.
When I was researching for potential fighting capacity of Prussian Tribes in the 13th Century for the Society Publication, I based much on the nature of "Warrior Societies" and their economic capacity to support men who will consume and not produce and for the likely proportion of other males able to bear arms when needed. I haven't seen any discussion of that with relation to Anglo-Saxon Society.
Secondly, the size of Armies in Battles has sometimes been worked out by looking at Battlefields (where they are certain) and doing an estimate of how many men could physically occupy the space. The iconic Battle relevant to this discussion where I have seen this done is Hastings. The numbers for this battle has to some degree produced a template.
In a Time Team Special ( I am recently retired and discovered day-time TV!) I watched with fascination as the evidence for re-orientating the battle-line to 90 degrees of the original line seemed over-whelming. The big implication is that the Saxon front is now shorter. I wonder if anyone will try and re-work estimates for army size based on it. If the number comes down in scale then it must surely influence other estimates for Saxon Armies. 

[Mark G]

we had a little discussion about that show recently Barry.

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1062.0

which you may find interesting too.

[Jim Webster]

So we have a Kentish Jute joining a mercenary band that hires out to fight for Clovis at Vouille and hen returns home wearing a brooch that he took off a dead Visigoth, campaigns against Arthur and is wounded, dies upon returning to Kent.
Sounds like Jim Webster's next book.
Roy

   

Actually I was taken by the comment about Armies in Britain having a lower proportion of elite troops. If the Kingdoms are smaller,then invaders don't have to travel as far, so a larger proportion of your potential fighting men can afford the rations needed to get them into the war zone.

(Oh and the next book is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Justice-4-1-Tsarina-Sector-Webster/dp/1908208236/      )
http://www.safkhetpublishing.com/books/fantasy/Justice_41.html
Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I like the biography. 

[Jim Webster]

It has a certain something I feel :-)

Jim

[Erpingham]

As suggested by Patrick, here is a question that perhaps deserves a more thorough airing.  Roy posed this question in another thread

Much ink has been spilt on whether the Anglo Saxon forces are a social elite or largely the professional retainers of landed lords. Is the system actually very like that of the Normans where  noble X holds land on the basis that he will supply the army with  a specified number of men or is the system one where there is a sort of democratic sharing of responsibility across five hides where one man is elected to go to the host  and the others equip and pay for him?

One might add subsidiary questions, the most obvious being how did the Anglo-Saxon military system evolve through time?  What may be true in 650 may not be true in 1050.

[Patrick Waterson]

The essential question is: how do we find out?

[Imperial Dave]

One might add subsidiary questions, the most obvious being how did the Anglo-Saxon military system evolve through time?  What may be true in 650 may not be true in 1050.

Absolutely.

The system in the early period appears to be based around the 'warband' philosophy ie chieftains, leaders 'sub kings' and the like attract and retain followers based upon success in battle and booty shared.

I may be barking up the wrong tree but the 'system' appears to evolve into a more land based arrangement in the later 7th and early 8th centuries from what I have read.

Not sure how this translates into social elite and/or/versus retainer of landed lords. As a generalisation would it be fair to assume in the early period predominantly the former and in the later period the later with a fair mix in the middle period?

However there are far more learned people than I who can offer up commentary on this!

[Erpingham]

One of the problems is that there clearly isn't a single system.  Different systems seem to be present in different areas.  So, in the 11th century we seem to have some men serving as retainers of powerful landowners and others serving on behalf of a collective of small landowners whose lands add up to five hides.

[aligern]

I suspect that there is always a mix of recruitment via giving out land and by personal relationship (comitatus). We have , from other areas, details of the contracts of retainers (Buccellarii) and its likely that the AS had a similar system. At the same time men are clearly given land and expected to serve as a result. So in the seventh century we can see estates being given to powerful men and the church
and carrying a military burden.

I see the five hide method as being an attempt by the administration to deal with a problem. As the kingdoms expanded there was no shortage of men to serve on the basis of all free men havig a military obligation. However, as I think, Paul Stein  said earlier there is a limit to the size of armies that can move around and be supported. Moving to say one man in five  coming to the host,  with a mailcoat and horse make the army more effective and  much more mobile. Its a matter that with primitive taxation systems the king cannot extract the surplus from all his subjects  and pay for a professional army so the relationship is more easily accomplished
lower down the chain at the village level.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

The traditional Anglo-Saxon method of moving an army around pre-Alfred seems to have been to appoint a rendezvous close to where one intends to fight and stipulate a day to be there (cf. Alfred before Ethandun).  This allows everyone to 'march divided, fight united' provided the opponent obliges by being where you expect him to be.

This probably changed under Alfred's successors, because a) 5-7 kingdoms are now replaced by one, with a single system instead of half a dozen and b) being consistently on the offensive while reconquering England requires a more dedicated, skilled and specialised army than just having everyone turn up at point X in defence of hearth and home.

This is just guessing how things would have been - instinct suggests that Alfred's Wessex would have been at the centre of changes from a general muster to a more specialised force, and Alfred's successors would have had every reason to push specialisation.

[Erpingham]

The traditional Anglo-Saxon method of moving an army around pre-Alfred seems to have been to appoint a rendezvous close to where one intends to fight and stipulate a day to be there (cf. Alfred before Ethandun).  This allows everyone to 'march divided, fight united' provided the opponent obliges by being where you expect him to be.

This probably changed under Alfred's successors, because a) 5-7 kingdoms are now replaced by one, with a single system instead of half a dozen and b) being consistently on the offensive while reconquering England requires a more dedicated, skilled and specialised army than just having everyone turn up at point X in defence of hearth and home.

But the English army before Hastings mustered at the "hoar apple tree", which is thought to be a reference to a local landmark.  This suggests that landmark muster points hadn't gone away. 

[Patrick Waterson]

True, and distinctive trees seem to have been a favourite for use as muster-markers.  The practice probably continued because if you wanted to add the local fyrd to your muster, the old ways were very likely the best. 

Harold seems to have brought his 'professionals' (huscarls etc.) up to York and back from York by forced marches and not by use of muster-points.  However the 'hoar apple tree' would have been where he expected to find the fyrd when his main force arrived.

What this suggests to me is that England still had a dual/two-tier system: specialised professionals plus a wider range of mobilisable locals.

[aligern]

But maybe Harold is saying to his local notables (he was Earl of Wessex, of course) to gather their men and march to meet his main column at the hoar apple tree.  So really the mustering has been done it is only as suggested above, the columns that meet there to assemble the army.

The Assembly before Ethandun is special. Alfred has been in hiding in Athelney, he has to assemble his army quickly and get it together before the Danes in Chippenham could destroy  small columns in detail. Hence he uses a traditional but discrete point so everyone is together before marching off. The special circumstances of that campaign may have ltered the method of assembly.

Roy