Gary Smailes

War in Iraq

I came across this very interesting first hand account of the war in Iraq. Just one story but a different view point. At one point the soldier talks about the manner in which his action changed when reporters were with his squad - watch the way the rest of the panel nods in agreement.

The video does contain some graphic images.

What's this?

When I turned up at my children's primary school this morning I was approached by a five year old carrying this:

(Click on the picture for a bigger version)

He wanted to know if it was a cannon ball. I had no idea but here's the facts:

• It was dug up in Hoole, Chester.
• There are loads of them both big and small.
• It was very heavy.
• There was some rust but not much.

Any ideas?

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

Contested Boundaries

Technorati Tags: Military History Carnival, Horrible history, Historian

Gavin Robinson is hosting the next Military History Carnival and has set the theme of contested boundaries. He has challenged the blogshere to post on the subject so here goes...

 

I am a historian.

I would consider myself a professional historian. I have a post graduate degree in Military History. I have carried out original research that has furthered an historical debate.

I have obtained research skills, sat in dusty libraries and read obscure books. I can spot a Marxist historian from twenty paces.

But I don't publish.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I do publish.

On the other hand I am a writer and researcher. I write children's history. It requires no original resource. I regurgitate other people's work. I devour the knowledge and then reform it in a way that the younger generation can read. I do this for money. Don't get me wrong I love the subject, but ultimately I do it for money.

But there's more...

For years I have worked as a researcher for Terry Deary. I have helped write the ultimate in popularist history - the Horrible Histories series.

Am I a historian?

The problem with RSS...

Let's face it Google Reader is great.

It allows me to sit and read loads of blog posts without the hassle of skipping around the internet visiting each site in turn. However, this brings me two problems. The first is because I don't actually 'visit' the blog I read, I don't get to see their blog roll. The second is that, as far as I can tell, RSS stats don't show up on most blog stat readers.

So to try and give a little back here's a list of my most visited history blogs (according to Google Reader trends):

A commonplace Book

Airminded

Blog them out of the stone age

Edward II

Investigations of a Dog

Historic Battlefields

Osprey Publishing Blog

The 48th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry

Trench Fever

Thoughts on Military History

To Flanders Fields, 1917

The Punch Die

Walking the Berkshires

Muhlberger's Early History

New Blog

Came across of new blog called Famous Wars - looks interesting, though their is little information about the author.

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

Military History Carnival

The latest Military History Carnival is up at the excellent Osprey Publishing Blog. Enjoy!

 

Technorati Tags: Military History, Carnival

The Last Witness of War

I was listening to a radio program last week that was discussing the importance of preserving battlefields. When asked just why they should be protected, the historian being interviewed explained that the battlefields were the last witness of war.

This got me thinking, just what is the importance of protecting battlefields.

Here's a list of three reasons that I thought were relevant:

Increases your understanding: I once spent a whole day walking the battlefield at Waterloo. This was a battle that I had known well since childhood. Yet, my understanding of the battle was revolutionised by the experience. For example, I had located the position at which the French Old Guard had begun their attack towards the end of the battle. I then walked the exact ground they trod as they marched into the British cannons and gunfire. The result? It was a long way! It gave me a whole new understanding as to just why those brave French soldiers turned and ran for the first time in their lives.

Catalyst for study: It is now part of the UK GCSE syllabus for students to study the First World War. I believe this task is made far easier by the fact that pupils often visit the battlefields in the Western Front. An experience that, if done correctly, can inspire the pupils with a life long love of history.

Last Witness: After much thought I decided that a battlefield was in fact the last witness to a battle. I often travel to see friends in the South of England and the route I travel takes me across the battlefield at Naseby. Though I have stopped many times, I don't always. Yet, every time I drive past that sign a little part of me is reminded of what happened on that day. The battlefield acts as a voice, a reminder of the past, challenging us to dare forget. 

 

Technorati Tags: Battlefields, Waterloo, military History

Military History Carnival

I have the great pleasure of hosting the next Military History Carnival. I will be posting on the 7th November.

If you have any suggestions please send them to me at garysmailes at gmail dot com or use this form.

Check out Airminded for last months carnival.

 

Technorati Tags: Military History Carnival, military history