[Lorenzo E.C. Perring]

Hi everyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, I would like to introduce myself as I have only joined this forum today. My name is Lorenzo Perring (also known as Perring-Mattiassi) and I'm a student living in the UK who will hopefully begin studying Ancient History in university as of next year. I have a deep interest in military history, particularly that of Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, the Normans and medieval/renaicansse Italy. I have also began reenacting with the Roman Military Research Society (know there as Virilis)

I've been given the oppurtunity to do a project on a topic of my choosing so, naturally, I chose military history. I will be doing a study of the Roman and Norman military, the main linking topic being the invaders of Britain (I will also be looking at the Anglo-Saxons and Britons). I will also include my own illustrations. For the Romans I will study the battle of Caer Caradoc (51 CE), and for the Normans I will study the Battle of Hastings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whilst reading C. Gravett and D. Nicolle's wonderful book "The Normans: Warrior Knights and their Castles" I was provoked by a series of questions concerning 11th Century Norman arms and battle tactics.

I) The Norman sword , type X i believe?- How effective was this sword in battle? How would it have been used in the tightly compacted formations of the time?

II) On the Bayeux tapestry we see Norman miles wearing mail hauberks. On these hauberks there are what appear to be squares lined with leather. What could these be? I think one of the most possible ideas could be that they are supposed to portray the soldiers' neck-guards hanging loose? I have also heard theories that these may be pockets with a plate fitted inside to protect the torso.

III) Had the Normans developed the technique of the couched lance at this time? I have seen in portrayed in several pieces from later eras, yet here they appear to either by throwing them or thrusting them underarm.


IV) How would the army's units have been used in battle? Would they have advanced in these seperate units much like the Romans did? In most medieval battles portrayed on TV and on films they just seem to charge in an un-organised mass of men seeking individual glory. I think it may have been different.

V) How well would the men in these units know each other? Was their training formalised?

VI) I know that the Norman cavalry were split into a bataille and conroi - was this the same with infantry too?

VII) What sort of formation would the Norman infantry have fought in at Hastings in 1066 - a shieldwall like the Saxons?

VIII) Would Duke William have actually fought himself at the battle? I have read that the quality of Norman leadership was very high. Was their a formalised hierarchy in the comman system?


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

Sorry about the number of questions, but these questions have been bugging me for a while. I could perhaps organise them into different topics?

I'll soon be doing some illustrations of Norman soldiers. I will describe each type of soldier and their role in the battle whcih will come with a drawing of them. Would it be okay to post them on here so I can corrected by the experts?

Thank you

Lorenzo

[Elling Polden]

The type X and XIs used in the 11th c are broad bladed cutters. They perform very well against soft targets, but are not optimized for fighting armoured foes.
Indeed, neither are the XI and XII's in the centuries to follow, though they gain a more slender profile.
This would suggest that armour piercing capability was not a great concern with the warriors of the time, as their cut oriented swords where deemed sufficient.
In turn, this could sugest that the amount of armour in a generic army was lower than the Bayoux tapestry would suggest.

This was a era of large shields, and as such the targets for sword strikes would be the head or legs. If the opponent wore a helmet, the more lightly armoured sides of the head would be the prime target. The adoption of longer, strike oriented swords (XI and XII) could be an adoption to this.
It is quite possible to land hard blows even in tight formation (The amount of swing needed to deliver a forcefull sword blow is often exagerated.), though the spear is the primary weapon in a formation fight; A 13th c Norwegian source (We where slow to abandon shieldwall warfare...) cautions the reader from throwing his last spear, as "the spear is worth two swords in the Fylking (formation)"

[Ben P.]

Here's what I know. Hope it helps.

[Dan Howard]

[Elling Polden]

Dan; The Kingsmirror, (ca 1250):
"If you are fighting on foot in a land battle and are placed at the point of a wedge-shaped column, it is very important to watch the closed shield line in the first onset, lest it become disarranged or broken. Take heed never to bind the front edge of your shield under that of another. You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords."

In norse;


The whole text in english translation;
http://mediumaevum.com/75years/mirror/index.html
The most interesting bits are in the sections XXXVI -XXXVIII

[Stephen Curtin]

[Nathan Beal]

Hi there

Two references for you that will give you a fair bit to work with,

The Normans and thier Adverseries at War, R.P. Ables & R.S. Bachrach
Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings, Morillo

Wace's Roman de Rou is an entertaining read, "The Normans in their Histories" Albu, "The Medieval Horse" Hyland and "William I" Ashley are all good reads and will give you some solid material to work with.

[Lorenzo E.C. Perring]

Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it.

[Lorenzo E.C. Perring]

Also, by formalised training I mean the soldiers fighting and drilling in a designated area with the men in their unit, getting advised by experts on what to do and how to do it, having inspections etc. I can't really imagine a medieval army doing this, really, but I could be wrong.

[Elling Polden]

keep in mind that the bayoux tapestry and all the other primary sources are extremely political. The victor tells the tale, and in this case the message sent was of great importance, not only in England, but in France.
As a french vassal, William was defintely out on a limb elevating himself to king in another country. At the same time, it was a enormous boost, as long as he could get away with it.
This can be clearly demonstrated by the very favourable marriages his line entered into, granting his decendants controll of large parts of France.

Thus, glorifying his victory and his own participance would be very much in his interest. For instance, the Battle of Stamford Bridge is omitted entirely from the bayoux tapestry.

The focus on cavalry could also be seen as a result of a feudal political organization. Rather than rely on massed infantry, raised by directly levying the peasantry, the feudal system focused on a small, mobile elite, which could excert controll over an area independent of the king's popularity with the people.
Thus because all the aristocrats fight on horseback themselves, the infantry receives little attention. It is no coincidence that more or less all depictions of warriors and battle from 1000AD on show a mounted knight.

[Lorenzo E.C. Perring]

Perhaps one place to look is at the bottom of the Bayeux tapestry where (presumably) the lower classes are depicted. During Hastings we see archers, and infantry (though I'm not certain which side they're supposed to be on) looting the dead.

But I think it is correct to be wary when looking at the tapestry. We can compare this with Trajan's column. Yes, it does tell us a lot of how the Roman army operated, but it is not to be relied upon, not for equipment or what it depicts.

Another interesting thesis (though I myself am quite skeptical about it) made by Wolfgang Grape is that the designer of the Bayeux tapestry was a first-hand observer of the battle.

[Nathan Beal]

The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned by Bishop Odo, possiblystitched by English embroiderers, but we have no idea who drew the cartoon (assuming there was one) or was responsible or it's design. It is of course possible they were at Hastings, but we don't know for sure.

There are a lot of books on the subject, the wikipedia article contains many of the commonly known & a search on amazon will give you a couple of dozen more. Lots of conflicting expert views as the article on wikipedia summarises.

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Elling Polden]

Maybe he had two?
The passage should not be interpreted as "Don't throw spears", but rather "Bring extras!"
Btw, maces have a very nice and stable trajectory when thrown overhand...

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Andrew W]

[Dan Howard]

[Elling Polden]

Maurizio: I was not joking; I have a relatively long hafted mace (80cm shaft), which flies beautifully when thrown like a spear. Because of the heavy head it goes tip first no matter what you do, unlike spears that tend to wobble. (when thrown by a newb)

[Maurizio D'Angelo]

[Maurizio D'Angelo]