Scenario for Hastings

[Paul Innes]

This isn't a report, but it will be soon.  Scenario here:

http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.co.uk/p/scenarios-medieval.html


Hope it is of interest; it's pretty straightforward.  In fact, Mark Grindley suggested we do one with the Saxons as uncontrolled opponents, so it would be suitable for solo play.

Cheers
Paul

[aligern]

Have you considered the hillock that he English who pursued the Bretons reached  before hey were cut off and surrounded.
Any Norman crossbowmen.
Archers are shown on the tapestry, but not foot spear men. I just wonder if there are. Rather a large number of that troop type in the proposed Norman army.

Do the. English foot have any missile capability? A bundle of javelins is shown on the tapestry, an archer is shown , as is a man with a stone tied to the head of a stick. This would serve as a club but could also be thrown from the rear ranks.
Would William have any crossbowmen?
Roy

[Paul Innes]

Hi Roy, thanks for having a look so quickly.  I have included the hillock to the front left of the Norman array, basically where the Bretons will be, so I think that's covered.  The rest of my choices are based on caution, especially with the question of Norman crossbows and the tapestry's representation of the mounted milites.  I could replace a couple of the small archer units with crossbows, I suppose. 

It seems to me that artistic convention dictated the pre-eminence of the mounted troops, who won the day, but I just don't see an invading army being almost entirely mounted.  The relative proportions could be adjusted easily enough, though.  Also, most of the modern interpretations I've come across seem to think that the cavalry charges went in after an initial infantry attack was fought to a standstill.  I have given the Saxons a line of skirmish javelinmen to represent their missile capability.

The major challenge with this battle is how best to make it "feel" right with one's chosen ruleset - in too many I've seen, the Saxons just hit the Normans as early as possible and roll right over them!

Cheers again
Paul

[Erpingham]

  I could replace a couple of the small archer units with crossbows, I suppose. 


Paul

Though personally I would say there were crossbowmen at Hastings, I'm not sure there would have been whole units of them.  More likely individuals or groups in the archer line up.

[Patrick Waterson]

The major challenge with this battle is how best to make it "feel" right with one's chosen ruleset - in too many I've seen, the Saxons just hit the Normans as early as possible and roll right over them!

Cheers again
Paul

Funnily enough, this would probaby have been a thoroughly viable approach provided the Saxons could have guarded their flanks from being wrapped up by Norman cavalry.  The respective systems were again tested at Durazzo in 1081, where the Varangians (i.e. English - yes, they were!) hit the Normans and if not rolling right over them at least put them to rout in short order, only to be nobbled (apparently from  the flanks) when they advanced beyond the support of the less enthusiastic wings of the army.

One of the big what-ifs about Hastings is what would have happened had the whole Saxon army instead of just the right wing gone over to the attack when the Normans were repulsed.  William historically needed to regroup troops to deal with the victorious Saxon right and rescue the Bretons - with pressure along the whole line I do not see how he could have done so.  This in turn raises the question of why the rest of the army did not advance, and my best answer to this is that the earliest Norman account has Harold take his famous eye-wound very early in the action.  If true, this would explain the apparent lack of command, coordination and control in the Saxon army throughout the rest of the battle.

Patrick

[Paul Innes]

Hi Patrick, that's interesting.  If I remember correctly, David Howarth theorised that this is indeed what the Saxon army was supposed to do.  His idea was that Harold had lost all of his personal confidence when he saw that the Normans had a papal banner with them.   It has been a while since I read his book, though...

[aligern]

I rather doubt that Harold would have given much for the Pope's opinion. Thepope's issue was with Stigand as archbishop and had Harold been concerned he could have made diplomatic overtures on that front.  Harold's problem is when to order a general advance and that depends upon the degree to which the Normans are degraded. To advance off the hill and be caught moving by the Norman cavalry would be devastating so Harold holds back, probably quite sensibly as there are other orced bodies of Norman cavalry on the field.
Infantry can resist cavalry. But only specially trained and well disciplined infantry are going to be able to resist cavalry when themselves caught moving.

So the rules used should have a fatigue mechanism. When the Norman cavalry are fatigued the Saxons should be able to come off the hill and advance into them without risk. That would mean removing impetus effect from the cavalry once they are fatigued by flight or combat until they recuperate..
To me it seems obvious that Harold is looking to tire the Normans out and only move ,if at all, when the Normans were exhausted. The Norman plan is to degrade Harold's line until they can get onto the top of the hill and break into the English formation.

I'm still not sure about the Norman infantry. Why would the tapestry show all these other troop types on both sides and yet have no representations of what is claimed by secondary sources (and even me in the past:-)) to be a majority troop type. AFAIK the Norman spear armed infantry are only mentioned much later. Not that I am totally against them, but rather that I wonder if they are not a relatively small force of knights whose horses have died, sailors, retainers and a few professional foot, too few to take on the much tougher Saxon foot.
If the Normans had masses of foot then why the problem of rallying? All the routing cavalry have to do is rally behind the infantry mass.
Roy

Roy

[Erpingham]

I think I would go with Roy's view on the English plan, in the absence of any proper evidence of the English command view (history is written by those who are still alive?).  Why they didn't advance at some point in the battle could be because they never intended to - they could afford an attritional fight because they had more reinforcements on the way.  The Normans had what they had and their major battlewinner, the horses, were vulnerable.  It could also be that, by the time the need to order a general advance had arrived, the only man able to do so was hors de combat.  The so-called impetuous advance of the fyrd could actually have been a deliberate move which wasn't co-ordinated or supported, especially if the commander on the spot had been briefed that, at the crux of the battle, the army planned to advance.

On the infantry, I recall reading years ago (in Terry Wise's book?) the theory that the Norman close-combat infantry were actually knights whose horses couldn't be transported.  We know that knights were at this time willing to fight on foot if needs be, so maybe men who turned up at the muster with inadequate horses or just didn't have the connections to get a horse transported had the choice to go home or remuster as infantry.

[aligern]

Its quite possible that dismounted milites mustered on foot, but I worry abot the sheer number of them that secondary sources suggest if, for example, they are to be 4,500 out of a Norman force of 7,500.

I suggest that if the Normans have substantial numbers of dismounted knights then they would be mentioned by the chroniclers as tends to happen in the Crusades.  I'm up for William having sailors on foot because sailors did fight  and some normal infantry and a few dismounted knights, but if it were a lot of dismounted knights then I'd expect them to be a substantial player in the battle and to play a part at least as a rallying point for retiring cavalry that would have stopped a pursuit.
Not everyone buys into the Tapestry as much as I do, but I do wonder why a source that shows
Milites
Archers
An armoured Archer
Armoured English with axe, sword, spear and javelins and with round and kite shields
Unarmoured English with spear, bows and even with a club made of a large stone affixed to a shaft,
should neglect to show even one, just one, Norman foot spearman??

Having said that I am  fairly certain that the later Petrus de Eboli manuscript shows knights and archer in  an army that almost certainly has spear armed footmen and that the Tapestry is not an army list.
Roy

[Duncan Head]

I'm still not sure about the Norman infantry. Why would the tapestry show all these other troop types on both sides and yet have no representations of what is claimed by secondary sources (and even me in the past:-)) to be a majority troop type. AFAIK the Norman spear armed infantry are only mentioned much later.

Not at all. William of Poitiers, who is writing only in the 1070s, mentions a second line of "steadier" infantry in armour. (Orderic also mentions them, and he is a bit later.)

[aligern]

You are right of course Duncan, though there are ame oddities, apparently, about WPs account, but it is early.  I think that he has the cavalry commencing the action and not the infantry, but they are mentioned when the Norman army falls back or routs, but they are not an effective base which is one of my reasons for thinking that their numbers might not be great.
Roy

[Paul Innes]

Thanks for commenting, everyone.  I may have another go at this, reducing the Norman infantry contingent but still leaving some there.  This forum is turning out to be a good way to work through scenario ideas!

Cheers
Paul

[Paul Innes]

I've updated the scenario to give the invading scum more cavalry and fewer foot.  Thanks to everyone who has commented!

Paul

[aligern]

And it looks good, I particularly like your idea that the English are on autopilot. Presumably you ill fine balance it so that the Norman commanders cannot absolutely rely on a feigned flight working to plan, they might get no one pursuing, they might get the Goldilocks result of just enough to be able to ambush them or they might get the whole English army coming down.

Roy

[Paul Innes]

Hi Roy, you're absolutely spot on - there is a good chance that the Normans won't break off properly when they want.  Even if they do, the Saxons won't necessarily follow up.  If they do, I've worked in the possibility of a cascade effect so that loads of them come right off the hill and trash Normans to their hearts' content.

I can't take credit for the solo Saxons idea, though, that was Mark's.  He was trying to think of a way to make the game as interesting as possible for the players, and realised that multi-player Normans plus Saxons on autopilot might work.  We want to avoid players getting bored by just sitting there and rolling dice, and in our experience the best way to do that in a multi-player game is to give players decisions to make.  Obvious stuff, maybe, but having one entire side on auto rolls should make it work in practice.  It would also be a really good battle for a solo effort anyway, I think.

Cheers again
Paul