1066 - campaign finale .. William vs Harald in MeG

[Lurkio]

The last game in our 1066 compaign was played out last night ...



http://lurkio.co.uk/blog/archives/2864


thanks
Simon

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting engagement, given the recent hypothetical AD 1066 history discussion on this forum (Harrying of the North topic). 

In your battle, Hardrada sensibly picked his ground,* managed to avoid being flanked by the Norman cavalry and ground his opponent down over a long and bloody day, from which the ravens were probably the chief beneficiaries.  William's much-shrunken army presumably leaves him few options, and I suspect the end result (fast-forwarding to today) would be the United Kingdom of Denmark, Great Britain and perhaps Northern Ireland ...

*although he had a pair of fields 'covering' one flank.  What did they grow there: man-eating plants?

[Imperial Dave]

awesome collection of figures by the way!

[gavindbm]

Great figures - thanks for posting the link.

[aligern]

Hmm William should have a large superiority in archers, shoot down the Norwegian skirmishers, then concentrate the shooting tobweaken the line before going in with infantry and then cavalry. Going for straight frontal conflict with cavalry against  tough infantry isbpoor generalship.nLastly I recall Matt Bennett gave a good explanation of why huscarls cannot be spread across the whole front. The nature of their command and control does not work that way. They come with their lord, work in teams and have to be formed around him.
Pretty game though...Two  Dragons figures?
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

Good sound tactics Roy and ones I never (seem to be able to) use with cavalry which is why I tend to produce a lot of horse kebabs in games I play....

[Erpingham]

Lastly I recall Matt Bennett gave a good explanation of why huscarls cannot be spread across the whole front. The nature of their command and control does not work that way. They come with their lord, work in teams and have to be formed around him.

Depends how many housecarles you think there were.  Some reconstructions put them at several thousand, so they'd cover a lot of ground.  I think the "clumps" of leaders of various ranks and their immediate followers would anchor a line of fyrdmen, with militia levies behind throwing rocks tied to sticks and other missiles.  Archers?  At the back?

[Patrick Waterson]

Hmm William should have a large superiority in archers, shoot down the Norwegian skirmishers, then concentrate the shooting to weaken the line before going in with infantry and then cavalry. Going for straight frontal conflict with cavalry against  tough infantry is poor generalship.

Although this 'poor generalship' is exactly what William did at Hastings, whether by necessity or choice.  Normans were not used to encountering first-class infantry, and I strongly suspect that standard operating procedure was simply to ride them down.  A lack of open flanks naturally limited his options.

Not sure that shooting would have helped that much, either, if Hardrada's army was anything like Harold's.  Wace again (Ch.21):

"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 ..."


Although Wace's account confirms a plenitude of archers, their effect, even when shooting indirectly, is more suppressive than disruptive: the casualties they produce are not leaving holes or even weak spots in the line.

This brings us to William's actual winning tactic at Hastings: the feigned flight.  Is there any way he could have done this in this particular Mortem et Gloriam battle?  And would it have drawn Hardrada's Norwegians and fellow-travellers?

[Tim]

Simon

Such awe-inspiring painting once again.  I could come to seriously resent your ability to paint so well.  Please tell me these were not done with your speed technique...

Regards
Tim

[Imperial Dave]

"As the game came to an end the result started to look as a bloody draw. A lot of Norman horsemen had been cut down, with just the Norman infantry intact. In conclusion it looked like Williams invasion would fail. His inability to destroy the incumbent armies would mean that his wish to control the whole of England would be inconclusive. At best we might end up with a toe hold in the south, with Godwinson defeated. Victorious Haldraada , however, might have plans to extend the Danelaw !"

Interesting result and as Patrick pointed out above one that links in very nicely with some of the discussions in the thread on the subject of 1066 http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2408.0

[aligern]

Huscarls at Hastings.
We don't have any comprehensive accounts of how many huscarls an earl had, the nearest figure being Tostig's 200 mentioned as being massacred in the North. There's a little evidence from Domesday, but that is about labd holdings so if the huscarls were not land hokders or being suppirted by a particular section of land then they would not get a mention Lets say each earl has around 400 -500 huscarls with five earldoms then that would give 2-2,500 retained men plus 500 for the king  as he does not appear to have had the power to overawe an earl without the other earls. At Hastings you woukd  three earldoms plus the king so say 1,500 huscarls. That would provide a group around Harold , Gyrth and Leofwine and the rest one man or occasionally two along the frontage.....but it doesn't. work like that.
If you have 500 men then they are organised into sub groups with leaders and they have to stay with those leaders in order for there to be a chain of command. Similarly those leaders are not going to operate without communication with their leader. That means being relatively close to the earl in irder to hear instructions.  Similarly with the Fyrd. They are not an amorphous mass that just turns up. The fyrdmen report to leaders, whether the landowner that they have a client relationship or hold their land from, or the earldorman of their county. So the Fyrd are in groups. They must form along the ridge in those groups, relating upwards to whichever earl their local leader reports to.
Furthermore the warriors fight in teams; some have spears and javelins, some axes. Because nen work together they cannot just be spread one or two deep and expected to perform to the optimum. So the Hastings formation is far more likely to consist of clumps around the earls and then clumps around other leaders, bishops, abbots, large landowners etc, by county.  For Hardrada's army the initisation would be by provincial leader and then by ships crews with the steersman leading each.
Never underestimate how important it is in a meciaeval army to be receiving orders from the man who is in social and military rank customarily above you. That militates against generals doing something like forming a front rank of armoured men when thise men are not directly related to the men behind them.
Roy

[Erpingham]

I think we have a similar view of the breakdown of the army at Hastings.  I'd also go for a fairly small number of huscarles (I've seen suggestions of 3,000 upwards).  Medieval armies were indeed made up of socially networked clusters, probably in this era people whom you were locally connected to.  The "local" being drawn wider depending on where you were in the social scale.  A fyrdman probably stood with others he knew from neighbouring villages or from his burh.  These would then find themselves with others from their shire (the shire seems to be a significant unit for calling out the fyrd).  The Normans would mix things up more with patterns of feudal allegiance meaning a great lord might have vassals from lands all over England.  But later medieval forces raised by the militia or commission of array systems still had the geographical relationship, with commissions of array still raised by county.

[Patrick Waterson]

One question would be who commanded the fyrd.  The logical choice would seem to be the very same earls who bring their huscarls to the battle, as I doubt the existence of fyrd-only leaders.

The implication of this is that huscarls and fyrd could be integrated in the same contingent with huscarls providing a front rank or most of it (in addition to a few select individuals grouped around their lord and standard) while the fyrd fills in behind.

To quote Wace (XXI) again, as he appears to give some idea of English organisation or at least affiliation:

"The Normans were playing their part well, when an English knight came rushing up, having in his company a hundred men, furnished with various arms. He wielded a northern hatchet, with the blade a full foot long; and was well armed after his manner, being tall, bold, and of noble carriage. In the front of the battle where the Normans thronged most, he came bounding on swifter than the stag, many Normans falling before him and his company."

The varied armament suggests a mainly fyrd contingent.  We also find:

"There was a French soldier of noble mien, who sat his horse gallantly. He spied two Englishmen who were also carrying themselves boldly. They were both men of great worth, and had become companions in arms and fought together, the one protecting the other. They bore two long and broad bills, and did great mischief to the Normans, killing both horses and men."

Here we have a homogenous pair, presumably huscarls, who fight in coordination.  Later in the battle we have refertences to groups of English taking down unfortunate Norman knights 'with their bills', implying homogenous huscarl units.

From this, we might conclude:
a) the fyrd could be deployed and employed with nobles leading and by extension those nobles' huscarls forming a first rank;
b) not all huscarls would be thus deployed; some would be fielded in 'pure' contingents.

[aligern]

Oh dear Wace the romantic novelist again.  Thank you for the mountain of supposition Patrick. However,
At Maldon ;
'Then did Brithnoth begin his men to bestow -
He rode up and counselled them - his soldiers he taught
How they should stand, and their standing to keep,
And bade them their round shields rightly to hold
Fast to their forearms, that they flinch not at all.
And when he had his folk fairly bestowed
He lighted there with his people, where he would liefest be
Where he knew his own troops were most to be trusted.'
So Byrrhtnoth goes to stand with his  trusted household, where are the men who are sworn to give their lives for his. Now within this small group he and the best equipped may well be in the front rank, but its a blob within a line of other blobs.
We can be reasonably sure that the men of particular settlements fought together because the men of Malmesbury get a specific mention from Athelstan. Thus stongly implying their  group contribution is recogniseable.
Next in the charters of the church of Worcester  there is a chap mentioned, one Eadric , pilot of the bishop's ship and leader of the same bishops military forces, owed to the king's service.  So the bishop of  Worcester is assessed at so many men and sends them as a contingent , with a commander.
Spreading the earls men across the front of other contingents is a nonsense. It fails to take into regard the nature of the relationship, bound by oath, in which a man fights to the death and dies not desert his lord. That cannot hold if the man concerned is fifty yards away.  Its not how the Anglo Saxons irganised socially and it is the social organisation that fights on the field.
Lastly, given that Wace loves describing groups with mixed weapons, what makes you think that a group furnished with 'various arms' represents 'fyrd' ( though technically the whole army is a fyrd)?  What you possibly mean is those whom the Tapestry shows as unarmoured and Matt Bennett described as 'rustici' altthough he did say even that might have another meaning as indicating folk unused to war or unprofessional at it.
The armoured troops on the tapestry are shown as with mixed weapons..spears, javelins, one handed axes, two handed axes. No conclusion about their military status can be drawn from their arms. The only weapons that are shown handled by  the non elite exclusively are the stones tied to shafts and a bow.
Wace describes his own times. He may be used to extrapolate backwards for  the Normans, but he is embroidering other sources for his rich, but conjectural detail on the Saxons.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

At Maldon ;
'Then did Brithnoth begin his men to bestow -
He rode up and counselled them - his soldiers he taught
How they should stand, and their standing to keep,
And bade them their round shields rightly to hold
Fast to their forearms, that they flinch not at all.
And when he had his folk fairly bestowed
He lighted there with his people, where he would liefest be
Where he knew his own troops were most to be trusted.'

So Byrrhtnoth goes to stand with his  trusted household, where are the men who are sworn to give their lives for his. Now within this small group he and the best equipped may well be in the front rank, but its a blob within a line of other blobs.

But before he does this,

"Then did Brithnoth begin his men to bestow -
He rode up and counselled them - his soldiers he taught
How they should stand, and their standing to keep"

Which indicates he arranged their deployment as opposed to leaving them to clump together as they saw fit.

We can be reasonably sure that the men of particular settlements fought together because the men of Malmesbury get a specific mention from Athelstan. Thus strongly implying their  group contribution is recognisable.

But not necessarily implying that their upper crust gathered in one clump and left the rest to their own devices.

Spreading the earls men across the front of other contingents is a nonsense. It fails to take into regard the nature of the relationship, bound by oath, in which a man fights to the death and dies not desert his lord. That cannot hold if the man concerned is fifty yards away.  Its not how the Anglo Saxons organised socially and it is the social organisation that fights on the field.

Not quite: it is the tactical organisation that fights on the field.  While there will indeed have been a body of men sworn to defend and, if necessary, die with their leader, the said leader also has his section of fyrd and his assigned thegns to organise, with several hundred years of combat experience to draw upon.  We can expect that formations would be optimised with the best, and best-armoiured, fighting men in the front rank.  Besides, if someone like Harold has, say, 2,000 huscarles, they cannot all be within fifty feet of him; he needs at most a couple of hundred or so to add glitter to and provide security for his standard.

Lastly, given that Wace loves describing groups with mixed weapons, what makes you think that a group furnished with 'various arms' represents 'fyrd' ( though technically the whole army is a fyrd)?

Leaving aside exercises in definition and redefinition, Wace mentions several groups with uniform weaponry ('bills'), so it is reasonable to conclude that when he refers to mixed weaponry this is what he means.  Logically, troops with mixed weaponry are not huscarls, and hence must be fyrd.

The armoured troops on the tapestry are shown as with mixed weapons..spears, javelins, one handed axes, two handed axes. No conclusion about their military status can be drawn from their arms.

Except that they would seem to belong to the 'select fyrd' as opposed to the 'great fyrd' - apologies for the Victorian definitions, but they do separate the men from the boys, or at least the customary fighting men form the levies.

Wace describes his own times. He may be used to extrapolate backwards for  the Normans, but he is embroidering other sources for his rich, but conjectural detail on the Saxons.

How would we know if it is conjectural?  Wace's account is, from what we know, derived from older Norman accounts, which, not to put too fine a point upon it, stated what they had seen (or at least what they told their grandchildren).