Gary Smailes

William the Bastard at War again

In this post I discussed the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings 1066.

Briefly...

William landed unopposed, established two Motte and Bailey castles and then set about ravaging the surrounding countryside. Harold marched south and the Battle of Hastings occurred on the road to London.

In my pervious post I argued that William the Bastard tried to force King Harold into a situation where the invasion of England could be resolved politically, rather than militarily. I suggested that since any battle was such a gamble, William wished to avoid combat if at all possible and instead upset the delicate political environment of England, tipping events into his favour. After all he felt his claim to the throne had legal and papal backing. I argued that William set about ravaging the county to force Harold's hand and upset the political apple cart, so to speak.

I am in the process of reading Stephen Morillo's Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings 1066-1135 and he has much to say regarding the role of ravaging the country. He acknowledges it was a common aspect of warfare during the period and puts forward six goals the strategy could achieve:

1. Intimidate enemy strongholds into surrender,
2. Reduce the enemy's capacity to make war,
3. To provoke a response,
4. For supply and profit,
5. To punish the enemy,
6. Revenge.

In the case of 1066 I think goals 1, 5 and 6 can be discounted. This means that, according to Morillo, William's ravaging reduced the enemy's capacity to make war, whilst attempting to provoke a response and gather supplies.

I suspect Morillo is correct but when applying his argument to the events of 1066 the devil is in the detail. Harold reacted quickly to the invasion and, as far as we can tell, moved south faster than ever expected. Even when taking Morillo's argument into account I still fall on the side of John Gillingham. I remain convinced that it was in fact Harold that forced William's hand, and it was the English king that left William with little choice but to fight the Battle of Hastings. A risky strategy that very nearly worked.

Go here to read more about the Battle of Hastings.

Technorati Tags: Battle of Hastings, Military History

Were shield walls the best option?

I am currently re-reading The Conquest of Gaul by Caesar. Well, I am actually listening to it on audio but lets not get pedantic.

I came across this section where Caesar is talking about driving Ariovistus from Gaul:

Our troops [the Romans] attacked with such vigour when the signal was given, and the enemy also dashed forward so suddenly and swiftly, that there was no time to throw spears at them. So the men dropped their spears and fought hand to hand with their swords. By quickly adopting their usual phalanx-formation the Germans were able to withstand the sword-thrusts, but many of our soldiers actually threw themselves on the wall of shields confronting them, wrenched the shields out of the enemy's hands, and stabbed them from above.

THE CONQUEST OF GAUL, II, 2.

This account is from a battle in 57 B.C. and clearly describes a shield wall formation and this got me thinking...

I have struggled long and hard for the last 12 months writing a book about the Battle of Hastings. One of the aspects of Hastings was the shield wall adopted by the 'English' army. Some historians would have us believe that it was a very basic formation adopted by Harold because he lacked either the vision or troops to do anything else. However, on reading this account I am now starting to wonder if the shield was in essence the only formation open to Harold.

Warfare in 1066 was very similar to that in 57 B.C., using similar weapons and to an extent similar tactics. I am now starting to believe that the shield wall (interlocked shields) was the 'default' formation for infantry troops. It seems that it may have been the natural formation, the formation most troops would have learned from boyhood. Think 4-4-2 for British footballers. Is it possible that a direct line can be drawn from the fighting in Gaul in 56 A.D. and the battlefield of 1066?

This wiki article offers a bit more of an insight.

Technorati Tags: Military History, Romans, Battle of Hastings

William the Bastard at War

John Gillingham's article William the Bastard at War is nearly twenty years old but it is still one of the most important insights into the Norman invasion of 1066. Most of the article can be read here thanks to Google books or here for the full thing (thanks Lafayette). I do Gillingham a discredit by summerising his excellent article but in essence the argument is a follows:

1.Medieval battles were rare,
2.They were rare because, though potentially decisive, they were equally potentially disastrous,
3.Warfare in the 11th century therefore involved the avoidance of battle. Instead armies would ravage the countryside to such an extent that it forced a showdown. They would use small bands of men to devastate a large area of the country, foraging for their own needs as they went,
4.If faced with an invading army. You had a limited number of choices. If you didn't have an army of your own to hand then you would need to negotiate. However, if you did have an army you could advance to within striking distance of the invaders. Then, since both armies wished to avoid battle, a stalemate would arise. The attackers couldn't forage for fear of being ambushed when weakened, whilst the defenders couldn't challenge since they wish to avoid a major battle. In the end one side would give up and go home.

It appears that William was a master of this tactic in both the attack and defence. This brings us to the events of 1066. William landed in England, set up a strong fortified base and proceeded to pillage the surrounding countryside. So far so good. Harold reacted by moving his army into striking distance and this is were it all goes a bit pear shaped. According to the tactics of the day, this should have lead to a stand off with both armies avoiding battle. However, I believe there were a couple of factors that made this approach unlikely. Firstly, William was unable to retreat due to Harold's fleet in the English channel. Secondly, I believe Harold was using different tactics. He was aware of how William fought, having had first hand experience whilst on campaign with William. He knew William would try and force the issue, he also knew William would not expect a battle. Yet, only weeks before Harold had fought a pitched battle at Stamford Bridge and won. I suspect that in opposition to contemporary thinking Harold set out to engage William in battle. On the morning of the battle of Hastings, Harold forced William's hand engineering the situation to one which a risky pitch battle was unavoidable. I believe this went against William's plan. The battle of was gamble – Harold lost.

You can read more posts about the Battle of Hastings here.

Primary sources for the Battle of Hastings 1066 - William of Poitiers

William of Poitiers

The events of the Battle of Hastings have been constructed from a series of primary sources, each of which possess distinct strengths and weaknesses. This series of posts looks at the five most important primary sources and attempts to tease out the 'facts' of the battle.

William of Poitiers' account of the Norman invasion of England, 'The Deeds of William, duke of the Normans and the King of the English', is one of the most important primary sources for the Battle of Hastings. William of Poitiers was a Norman who served under Duke William as a warrior, chaplain and priest. Though he was a military man he wasn't involved in the actual invasion of 1066. He did however, have access to soldiers and leaders who had fought at the battle.

His account was written in 1071.

Here are it's strengths and weaknesses:

1. It was written within living memory of the battle and was almost certainly based on first hand accounts.
2. It is free from the influence other texts written about the battle, something that no other primary source can claim.
3. It is not unbiased and was written by a keen admirer of Duke William.
4. It draws on classical writing which William of Poitiers uses as a framework for his work and a comparison for Duke William's deeds.

You can read the full account here.

If you wish to read an account of the battle go here or here.

Below is a list of the keys events and important points as detailed by William of Poitier.

• William advanced to battle under the flag of the pope.
• The Normans deployed as follows:
• Infantry armed with bows and crossbows in the vanguard (front).
• These were followed by infantry 'more steady and armed with hauberks' (suggesting the missiles troops were not wearing armour).
• In the rear were cavalry, amongst which William rode.
• In relation to Harold's army William of Poitiers makes two key points. The first is that it was large, even compared to ancient standards. The second was that 'help had been sent from the land of the Danes.' However, William of Poitiers states that the Danes feared Duke William more than the King of Norway and they 'camped on higher ground. The assumption being that they played no part in the battle.
• William of Poitiers introduces the battle as Duke William's army 'began slowly to climb the steep slope.' There has been a suggestion that the battle may have extended beyond the slope and into the surrounding countryside. This is best explained in this book. However, William of Poitiers gives us no hint that the battle may have raged beyond the slope.
• The battle opens with a Norman missile volley, which William of Poitiers describes as 'provoking the English.' This suggests that the attack may not have intended to disrupt the English shield wall but instead lure them into an attack and off the hill.
• The next phase of the battle is traditionally thought to be an infantry attack, though William of Poitiers makes no reference to this event. Instead he details a cavalry attack explaining that 'disdaining to fight from a distance, they rode into battle using their swords.' To me a clear indication that no infantry melee took place.
• William of Poitiers goes on to detail the fight on the hill. He states that the English were helped by:
• higher ground.
• 'they did not have to march to the attack',
• 'their weapons penetrated without difficulty shields and other pieces of armour'. This statement leaves us with a problem since it is generally thought that both armies were similarly equipped. It may be that William is referring to the large axes of the housecarls, though this is speculation.
• William then tells us that the ferocity of the English resistance drove 'the infantry and Breton mounted warriors' into retreat. He then expands saying 'with all the auxiliary troops who formed the left wing.' What does he mean by auxiliary troops? Is this a reference to the Roman system or does he mean a collection of lesser (non-Norman) troops?
• The author goes on to mention that 'almost the whole of the duke's army yielded.' Stating that they believed the Duke had been killed. Though William of Poitiers is quick to point out that this is nor cowardly rout but instead a 'sorrowful withdrawal.'
• William then describes the Duke's removal of his helmet and inspiring speech.
• The Normans attack once again, though William gives us no insight into the tactics employed. He does, however, explain that the English extraordinary formation meant that those killed hardly had room to fall.' Does the word extraordinary suggest the formation was something unusual? The Normans would have been familiar with the Saxon shield wall, so it may have been something more that than a traditional shield wall that was deployed on the hill top.
• William now introduces the famed faint retreat. His words suggest the tactic was planned, explaining that 'the Normans and their allies turned their backs, pretending to take flight.' This not only suggests the plan was preordained but that it involved the whole force, not just a section of cavalry as has been suggested in modern literature.
• The next section is confusing and is presented here in full. It occurs in the moment after the faint retreat:
• 'As before, several thousand [English] were bold enough to rush forward, as if on wings, to pursue those who they took to be fleeing, when the Normans suddenly turned thier horse's heads, stopped them in their tracks, crushed them completely and massacred them down to the last man.'
• In the opening part of this paragraph William suggest that the whole army retreats. However, by the end he has isolated it to 'Normans' and cavalry.
• William goes on to say 'having twice used this trick with the same success' the army attacked as a whole. Does this mean twice more or twice in total. Two or three faint attacks? He also states that the English army was 'very difficult to surround,' but gives no clue as to why. Size, terrain or something else?
• William of Poitiers then goes on to detail an attack by archers. However, he makes no mention of the famous (mythical?) arrow in the eye incident.
• William's next paragraph seems to be a direct nod of gratitude to William. It explains just how great the leader was (in his eyes), makes classical comparisons and explains how William had three horses killed from under him.
• The battle narrative is drawn to a close by a frustrating paragraph. William of Poitiers says that the English realised that they could no longer resist the Normans, stating that the 'King himself, his brothers, and the leading men of the kingdom had been killed.' And that's it! No details of the Kings death, no arrow in the eye, nothing!
• Well almost nothing. After describing the fleeing troops William talks of some Saxon warriors making a last stand in 'a deep valley' with 'numerous ditches.' Duke William is keen to fight these men though Eustace suggest caution, Duke William ignores him and wins the day. Is this event more a literary vehicle to discredit Eustace then historical fact?

William of Poitiers account contains the bones on which all other accounts are built. However, the most elusive element is the death of Harold. Some historians have suggested William of Poitiers simply didn't know the details, others have suggested that the manner of Harold's death was an embarrassment to Duke William and therefore left from the narrative. Either way, there is no evidence for the whole arrow-in-the-eye debate.

 

Technorati Tags: Battle of Hastings, Military History, History

Battle of Hastings, 1066.

This week sees the 941st anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. This battle is one of the most important clashes to have taken place on British soil. It represents a moment in British history where the fragmented Anglo-Saxon system of rule is washed away and replaced by a single cohesive body of government. The Normans brought with them a new type of rule, one that was not dogged by local political and tribal claims and one that operated under a wider arc of unified control. The foundation of government that William the Conqueror put in place in the years following 1066 remains a pivot part of the British system, even today.

The English

The battle took place on the outskirts of a village known today as Battle. King Harold, who had recently fought at the battle of Stamford Bridge (1066), raced south with his army. Along the way he attempted to recruit more men, though in reality the size of the army decreased as stragglers were left behind and warriors returned to their homes. The final size of this army is open to much speculation but the best guess is about 8000 men, consisting of 1000 professional housecarls and 7000 amateur fyrds.

Harold positioned his men on a spur of high ground that straggled the road from the South coast to London. He had very few archers and ordered all of his men to fight on foot. The formation adopted was a shield wall, with the men arranged in a dense mass with their shields interlocked for protection. The was a traditional and well practiced tactic.

The Normans

In the weeks prior to the battle William had sailed across the channel with a large invasion force. Once again the size of this force is open to speculation. However, accurate records of the ships employed allows a far better guess of troop numbers. It is today believed that William's army was also about 8000 men strong.

This was broken down as follows:

	Cavalry	Heavy infantry	Archers
Franco-Flemish	400	800	300
Normans	1000	2000	800
Bretons	500	1000	400

Osprey Hastings 1066 (Campaign 13) 

Little is known about the command and control of this army, though it has been suggested that William controlled the army through a mixture of voice commands and hand gestures. I believe this is a simplistic approach and it is likely that some kind of hierarchy would have been employed with William fitzOzbern and Eustace of Boulogne heading the Franco-Flemish, William controlling the Normans (possibly with the help of his half-brother, Bishop Odo) and Alan Fergant commanding the Bretons.

William advanced quickly to meet Harold on the morning of the battle. Once again the deployment of his troops is subject to much debate. However, the consensus is that the force was split into three bodies with the Franco-Flemish on the left, the Normans in the centre and the Bretons on the right. These bodies were further divided with the missiles troops at the front, the infantry in the centre and the cavalry to the rear.

Opening stages

The actual events of the battle are very difficult to accurately portray. This is mainly to due a lack of reliable primary sources. However, what follows is a summary of the key events as I see them, for the sake of simplicity I have referred to the combined Norman, Breton and Franco-Flemish forces as 'Norman'. I know this is wrong but stick with me.

* A Norman missile onslaught opens the battle. This is less effective than had been hoped and has little effect on the English.

* Norman heavy infantry attack, though the English shield wall holds.

* Norman cavalry attack, though this is also ineffective against the firm shield wall.

* The Breton forces waver under the English resistance and retreat/rout down the slope. The English follow (probably just the undisciplined fryds), but are slaughtered by a well timed cavalry counterattack at the base of the hill.

* Norman army waver as a rumor spreads of William's death. Discipline is restored by William, who lifts his helmet to reveal his face. 

* Fighting continues well into the afternoon.

*The Normans perform a number of feint attacks, drawing English warriors from the shield wall to be killed.

* Harold is injured by an arrow (?) and the English shield wall begins to crumble. The Normans reply with a cavalry charge and Harold is cut to pieces in the ensuing fight.

* The English army routs from the field and is pursued well into the night by the Norman troops.

This description is a summary of the bare facts and even some of these are open to debate.

The big questions

The Battle of Hastings is one of the best documented early medieval battles. However, this doesn't mean we have a clear picture of what actually happened on the day. Instead we have a collection of 'facts' that are excepted by historians to be as close to the truth as we are likely to get. This said, the questionable nature of theses 'facts' has lead to a number of historical questions:

Troop numbers

Where to start on this gem? The numbers vary widely and over time they have moved from 10s of thousands to less than a thousand men. A number of techniques have been employed by historians to estimate the troop numbers:

• Comparison with similar battles, most notably Stamford Bridge (1066),
• Clues and references in the primary sources,
• Examination of the countryside surrounding Hastings and an estimation of the maximum size of army this could support,
• Use of detailed Norman fleet records to determine number of men that could have been transported,

In recent times historians have settled on a figure of about 8000 troops on both side. To me this seems a pretty good guess. However, if you are looking for an even safer bet then we can assume the armies was 'large', whatever that means?

Dispositions

This argument comes down to two opposing views. One says that Harold was draw up in a tight formation on the crest of a hill. This is the most traditional and commonly held view, though an alternative does exist. This says that Harold deployed beyond the hill. It suggests that the English King not only placed his heavily armed housecarl warriors on the hill, but also deployed lighter troops in the broken ground South West of his position.  

Field works

It was not uncommon for armies of the period to use hastily constructed field works. These were often little more than stakes in the grounds or concealed pits. It has been suggested that some type of static defence was used by Harold. Views on this range from the deployment of simple stakes to the construction of more complex earth works. There is some archeological and Bayeux tapestry evidence that can be interpreted to support this view. However, as with just about every other argument there is no consensus between sources.

 

Feint attacks

The argument boils down to a simple question. Where the feint attacks real or an invention that became part of the reality? One side of the debate suggests that the Norman army had neither the command structure or low level tactical ability to carry out such a manouvre. The other side argues that strong evidence exists that not only were the the Normans more than capable of faint attacks, but they had been used successfully in previous campaigns.

Harold's death

This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Battle of Hastings. It is a commonly held belief that Harold was shot in the eye and killed in the closing stages of the battle. However, this belief has now be almost certainly dispelled. The myth of the arrow does not appear in any of the near contemporary accounts and seems to have been adopted as part of the battles wider mythology. In addition, the most compelling evidence for the story, the Bayeux Tapestry, is incorrect. If you examine the tapestry today, a scene can be easily identified that shows a figure with an arrow protruding from their eye.

However, the Bayeux tapestry has been restored many times during its long life. The oldest reproduction we have of the tapestry is a drawing made in 16th century. The section that clearly shows the 'arrow in the eye' as different from the modern version. In the older drawing has the figure appears to be holding a spear in the place of the arrow. In fact, the manner in which Harold is killed is ignored by many of the primary sources. It has been suggested in recent years that since many of these have a Norman bias, it is probable that Harold was hacked to death on the slope of the hill by Norman knights. A event William would be keen to distance himself from.

Sources

There are a number key primary sources. These all address the battle in varying degrees, though they all differ on the actual events that took place. The dates of their creation and the amount of 'copying' that occurred between texts is not always clear.

• The Carmen: This was written in 1067 by Guy Bishop of Amiens. This is perhaps the most important source and is often used by modern historians.
• William of Jumièges: Deeds of the Norman Dukes was extended in 1070 to include a chapter on William's conquest, on request of the Duke himself. This document is seen by many of a propagandist creation that seeks to justify William legal claim to the English throne.
• William of Poitiers: Deeds of William Duke of the Normans and King of the English is written between 1071-1077 on the request of William. This work is detailed though it is heavily influenced by the classics with William's invasion being compared heavily to the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar. It is believed that much of the detail of the battle is based on interviews with people who fought at Hastings.
• William of Malmesbury: Books include Deeds of the Kings of England (449 to 1127) and Recent History (1128 to 1142). In his work he praised Harold but justified the Norman invasion because of what he called the "sins of the flesh" of the English.
• Orderic Vitalis: This author produced a number of works dating as late as 1133. He is the first person to offer accounts of a number of key events, with the most important being the Malfosse incident.
• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: This provides sketchy information of the campaign, though is written from a fairly independent perspective. Competed in about 1121.
• Bayeux Tapestry: Completed in the years after the battle, it is believed to represent the full campaign from a Norman perspective, though it has been argued that an English sympathy can be read into the tapestry. Care must be taken when using this source since it has been heavily restored and altered.

As far secondary sources are concerned, there are many and all must be read with caution. Some of the key primary source have only come to light in recent years and certain popular secondary texts draw conclusions that are not supported by the new evidence.

Books

There have been many books written about the Battle of Hastings and as with all other aspects of the battle, I would suggest caution is shown when reading any material (including this post!) about the battle. However to get you started here's two books I would recommend:

Osprey Hastings 1066 (Campaign 13): This is a great introduction to the battle with a balanced overview of the events.

The Battle of Hastings 1066 by M.K. Lawson: A very good summary of the current understanding of the battle.

 

Technorati Tags: Battle of Hastings, medieval warfare, bayeux tapastry, gary smailes

,

Technorati Tags: military history

My Google map in your blog

I was playing around with Google Maps today and noticed that they have added a new feature. It allows you to embed your My Maps creations into your own blog or website.

To make it work, log into Google Maps, click the My Maps tab and then click on one of your My Maps in the list (or create one). At the top right hand corner of the page, click "Link to this page". You'll notice a new option in this dialog: "Paste HTML to embed in website". You can either copy this code and tweak things like width and height values to fit in your post or web page or click the "Customize and preview embedded map" link for more options.

It’s all quite simple. I have pasted below the battle of Hasting map I created a few weeks ago.

View Larger Map

Google Maps is no more.

Well it was good while it lasted. I have spent the weekend plugging away at the battle of Hastings book and its all coming along nicely. However, this morning I returned to Google maps to draw the second map of the battle sequence and I found a flaw in my plan for using Google Maps to recreate the battle. I thought when I started that I could just create a duplicate of the previous map and add the new troop positions when needed. It turns out this isn't possible. Shame.

As a result I have returned to a more traditional method. I have taken a map snapshot from Google Maps and imported into Adobe Fireworks. In this application I was able to draw in all the units etc. I used my original Google maps to get the distances correct.

Here's the opening positions:

Here's the first infantry attack:

Here's the left wing collapse:

 

Technorati Tags: battle of Hastings, military history, google Maps. Google Earth

Battle of Hastings at 09.00

It has taken some time but at last here it is; the first battle map constructed via Google maps.

I am happy with the result.

 

Previous posts

My Google maps

More maps

 

Technorati Tags: Battle of Hastings, Military history, google Maps. Google Earth

Should we trust the Bayeux tapestry?

The Bayeux tapestry is the most enlightening, enigmatic, frustrating, exhilarating, untruthful and accurate historical source that I have ever worked with. The importance of the tapestry is clear when you consider the number of historians that cite its images as evidence to prove/disprove their own pet theory. However, I say viewer beware and here's one example why.

Take this image:

It is generally accepted that as the battle of Hastings progressed the Norman knights came up against less well armed  English troops. The evidence is found in the tapestry as shown above.

In his book, 1066, the Hidden History of the Bayeux tapestry, Andrew Bridgeford has this to say about the incident:

'On the top of an isolated hillock, a group of lesser Englishmen, with shields and spears, but without chain mail protection, continue a manful defense.'

Well, OK. Seems reasonable, though not the most insightful piece of research.

Now, here's the problem of the Bayeux tapestry. If Bridgeford's interpretation of the tapestry is correct, and it seems so, then how do the explain the following scenes:

 

 

Taken in order these pictures show the initial attack by Norman cavalry on Saxon forces. The lack of infantry aside, I have one problem - no hill. The Saxon's are clearly defending on the same level as the attacking Normans.

So does this mean the Saxon's defended on the flat or that the tapestry is an interpretation, not an accurate picture of events. Either way it throws into question almost any conclusion drawn solely from the tapestry.

 

1066, the Hidden History of the Bayeux tapestry

Bayeux tapestry

 

Technorati Tags: Battle of Hastings, Military history, Bayeux tapastry

More maps

This morning I have started to produce my battle of Hastings map in earnest. I had previously worked with Google Earth, which has a really handy ruler application. So I found myself jumping between Google Earth and Google Maps to try and get the dimensions correct.

The first step was to place the Saxons. I made the assumption that these troops would have positioned on the crest of the hill. So using a handy contour tool in Google Maps I was able to work out where the hill started etc. The result was a rather curvy formation, but I am happy.

The next job was to place the missile troops. My research had suggested that William had massed the troops from all nations together in one formation, placing them in the 'van' of his army. The result can be seen on the map below. I decided that these men must have been within bowshot of the hill, so using a bow range of 200 yards (I know, it is a kind of guess) this set the front line for the Norman army.

I then added the heavy infantry in behind the archers. I am pretty sure these were split into three 'battles' each commanded separately. Behind these I placed the cavalry.

This only left the job of adding the commanders. Harold was easy, though William took a bit of guess work. the map, contours and chronicle references to him being in the centre produced the result you can see on the map.

Happy with the result I took a screen capture image and pasted it directly into my text.

Over all the process was a bit fiddley but I am happy with the results.

 

You can go here to see the My Maps version.

 

 

Google Earth

Google Maps

My battle of Hastings map

Technorati Tags: Battle of Hastings, Military history, Google Maps. Google Earth