Anglo-Saxon armies

[Erpingham]

When I was younger (so much younger than today...), the world of Anglo-Saxon armies was easy.  There were housecarles (they weren't spelled huscarls then) who were Scandinavian professionals with big axes, select fyrd, who were English of the better sort and had helmets and leather armour and general fyrd, who were peasants with a spear and a shield if they were lucky.  They were totally different to Normans.

The more I think of it now, not only do these definitions seem a bit ..speculative..but there seems more continuity than previously.  So a huscarl maybe a Scandinavian but he was probably a royal retainer, like a Kings Thegn, who could be a live on his lands or at court.  A lot of so-called select fyrdmen were thegns serving in their own right or as retainers of major landowners, others were collectively equipped with proper war-gear and could even have been rich ceorls.  The idea of a horde of free born poor men wandering around the country forming the bulk of armies seems to be some kind of romantic notion - they seem to have been involved in local defence and many forces probably didn't have them at all.  Heaven knows what they did in the Danelaw.  If we draw back and say familia regis for huscarls, retainers of tenants in chief and rustic milites and serjeants for select fyrd and militia for the rest, it begins to look rather familiar.  OK, the parallel probably doesn't work in detail but maybe the 11th century English were more mainstream European than they looked?

[Patrick Waterson]

What did the Normans muster and how when they took over?  This might indeed give a few retrospective clues.

And yes, life was easier when we just had housecarls, select fyrd and great fyrd - these categorisations and classifications presumably came from somewhere.

[Duncan Head]

And yes, life was easier when we just had housecarls, select fyrd and great fyrd - these categorisations and classifications presumably came from somewhere.

"Great" and "Select" fyrd come from Warren Hollister's Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions on the Eve of the Norman Conquest - 1962, so a little dated now.

Rejected, I think, in Abels' Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England (1988), which I haven't read, and I think in various other places as well.

[Erpingham]

The complexities of huscarls are covered by Hooper, Nicholas (1992). "The Housecarls in England in the Eleventh Century". In Matthew Strickland. Anglo-Norman Warfare: Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Military Organization and Warfare.

He is particularly critiquing the idea that later Scaninavian organisation of huscarls, claimed to date from Cnut's reign, accurately describes the nature and organisation of their earlier Anglo-Danish equivalents.

[Imperial Dave]

touching upon the AS earlier period, Finberg (The Formation of England 550-1042) proposes that The Ceorl class contained the unfreemen/freedman/tenants and that these were laible for military service although he suggests that they may have had a supporting role rather than front line duties. This is followed up with the geneat (free farmer) and gesith/thegn classes who were expected to fight. This would roughly (very roughly!) equate with the later AS period classifications of select fyrd and huscarls

[Jim Webster]

I wonder whether we get caught up and put too much weight on 'free', 'unfree' classifications.

I know from post 1066 we see men moving from 'free' to 'unfree' because with it they took on a substantial tenancy and became wealthier.
A freeman with thirty or forty acres might be the 'social superior' of an 'unfree man' on 200 acres but the latter could well be more prosperous.

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

In terms of the late AS period Jim, I think you're right re the classifications. In the earlier period there does seem to be social stratification along those lines which is reflected in the weregild values attested. Like anything, there would be crossover and blurring especially the later into the period we go.

[aligern]

I read Abels argument and felt that he  didn't quite make his case. It is right to say that the concept of Great and Select Fyrd is not one the A/S express in words, but it is useful in describing the actuality of what happens.
Broadly the mass of jen who have some land are expected to perform or supply someone to repair bridges, build fortifications , (burhs) and to man them and to combine together to provide a man from every five hides or so ( because it could be varied) , to fight in the royal army .  To the extent that there is a general obligation that then is commuted into a tax that supports a smaller but better armed force Warren Hollister is right.
We look for systems in such areas, but Early Medieval states have overlapping systems with historic justifications, so troops are being supplied from different historical traditions in The former Wessex and Mercia, from the Danelaw, from the Welsh borders and from towns and there mo
ay be more variants. An earl will be bringing along the men of his retinue, an overlapping contingent from his own directly held lands, and from the  areas within his earldom that he administers from the king and expect to  get one man ,roughly , from each five hides, some of which will be from other landowners who may have 50 hides and some from smaller landowners who have to combine together to make around five hides and support one of their number as the warrior travelling to the host.

Remembering back to Hollister I don't think he really saw it differently from above. His big contribution was that underlying the military recruitment was a fairly rough and ready calculation that was designed to deliver a select force rather than a mass army, but that the duty of mass service still underlay the smaller force and might be called upon.

[Erpingham]

I think a problem with the select and general fyrd division is that some (and many in wargaming terms) have thought Hollister meant there were two formal organisation - Select and General.  The Anglo-Saxons themselves don't seem to have made this a legal distinction.  Instead, you had a fyrd obligation which was called on in different ways for different tasks, as Roy says.  For field armies, it was called out selectively, with the intention of producing a well equipped mounted force.  This meant that some fyrdmen only contributed by proxy by helping equip and pay their 5 hide (or equivalent) man.  I suspect proxy delivery happened in the other category too - did a thegn get his hands dirty repairing bridges or did he send labourers?

I suspect that always alongside this existed the household retainer, be he hearth troop, huscarl of member of a familia.  Anglo-Danish kings also had mercenaries, rather than just stipendary household members.

[aligern]

One does wonder if the fyrd obligation was commuted for tax. So if I am the earl of Mercia and I have to produce  X number of warriors do I hire mercenaries and tell the fyrdmen to stay at home? Do I have toughs on my estate that I would rather use and have the hide contributions paid to me? After all . in a five hide unit that has four estates liable to contribute, three of the estates are paying the money or goods in kind to the fourth who actually goes on expedition. If I am the king I might rather have the selected fyrdmen as they have a more direct relationship to central govt. or would I rather have the earl's  personal guys as they are more cohesive as a fighting unit.

At one point Tostig is made Earl of Northumbria. He has difficulties with the Northerners and is given the earldom of Northamptonshire to support him as tax collection in the North is proving difficult. Now, does he get paid in cash by Northants and then hire men, ir does he get men from Northants? I think its likely to be the former.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

I read Abels argument and felt that he  didn't quite make his case. It is right to say that the concept of Great and Select Fyrd is not one the A/S express in words, but it is useful in describing the actuality of what happens.
Broadly the mass of jen who have some land are expected to perform or supply someone to repair bridges, build fortifications , (burhs) and to man them and to combine together to provide a man from every five hides or so ( because it could be varied) , to fight in the royal army .  To the extent that there is a general obligation that then is commuted into a tax that supports a smaller but better armed force Warren Hollister is right.
We look for systems in such areas, but Early Medieval states have overlapping systems with historic justifications, so troops are being supplied from different historical traditions in The former Wessex and Mercia, from the Danelaw, from the Welsh borders and from towns and there mo
ay be more variants. An earl will be bringing along the men of his retinue, an overlapping contingent from his own directly held lands, and from the  areas within his earldom that he administers from the king and expect to  get one man ,roughly , from each five hides, some of which will be from other landowners who may have 50 hides and some from smaller landowners who have to combine together to make around five hides and support one of their number as the warrior travelling to the host.

Remembering back to Hollister I don't think he really saw it differently from above. His big contribution was that underlying the military recruitment was a fairly rough and ready calculation that was designed to deliver a select force rather than a mass army, but that the duty of mass service still underlay the smaller force and might be called upon.

I think that we also have to remember that the Landowner's retinue and the individuals who are serving as 5 hide men from that general area could well end up travelling together. After all we should remember that these are men who might be related, would probably know each other socially and for mutual support and safety it makes sense to travel together.
On the battlefield people like to fight alongside people they know and trust (will these foreign bastards from Mercia  help drag me back behind the front line if I go down, because I know my neighbours will) so it might be that the men of a 'shire' might stand together, no matter how they're raised.

Jim

[aligern]

Yes, I think we can assume that the men of a shire stood together and that within that sub groups operated together. The Men of Malmesbury are rewarded with extra privileges for their borough after Brunanburh which argues that they were operating as a cohesive group.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

One does wonder if the fyrd obligation was commuted for tax.

If so then the commutation would presumably have a name (cf. mediaeval 'scutage') so perhaps we should be on the lookout for hitherto unexplained terms in the thegneurial and royal revenues?

[Jim Webster]

One does wonder if the fyrd obligation was commuted for tax.

If so then the commutation would presumably have a name (cf. mediaeval 'scutage') so perhaps we should be on the lookout for hitherto unexplained terms in the thegneurial and royal revenues?

I was under the impression that the Normans largely just continued the tax system on, at least in the early years, and they do seem to have called out the Fryd so perhaps early Norman evidence might be worth checking as well?

Jim

[aligern]

Didn't the Conqueror or William Rufus tell the assembled Fyrd to give him the money and go home?
Roy