Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Ellen Polding wrote:

Quote:
“The major change in english tactics that allowed them to postpone defeat for a century was not the use of longbows, which had been around for hundreds of years allread, but the use of dismounted elite warriors.


The Anglo Saxon Huscarls were elite dismounted units as well. Interestingly enough, the "viking" types were thought to be some of the better archers of the time, and the only evidence we have for their bows shows about 6' D shaped bows, pretty much the same as longbows.

The Norwegian Hird was not exactly the same as Saxon Huscarls, though the idea of some of your best warriors fighting as armoured foot was the same in both situations.

A Norwegian raiding party in I think 1125 raided in northern England. They sucessfully turned back the English attacks, archery was mentioned as playing a big role.

Perhaps the English saw these tactics with quality armoured foot and the use of archery, and expanded on these tactics during the hundred years war? :D
The anglo-saxons and Norwegians belonged to a different military system than the later feudal warriors.
They where focused on mass leavied infantry, fighting with spear and shield.

All norse leavies or hirdmen where required to own spear, shield and hand weapon. In adittion to this, there where requirements for bows on the ships; One for every second oar.
In the high medevial laws, bows or crossbows are a requirement for rich men and the kings guests and huskarls.

There are also several accounts of prominent individual archers in the sagas, especially when fighting on ships.

The norsemen definitely had good archers, but they seem to have been indivuals who prefered to use bows rather than a organized part of the force.
the use of archery played a crucial roll at stamford bridge, shooting down harold hardraada and causing the viking morale to collapse

but that was probably harold having picked up a few random fyrdsmen on his way to stamford, since he apparently had to send his fyrdsman home since they had just completed their length of service.

had william and harold attacked maybe a month or so earlier, the outcome would have maybe been VERY different since harold would then have had the full force of english fyrdsman at his disposal at the battle of hastings.
William P wrote:
had william and harold attacked maybe a month or so earlier, the outcome would have maybe been VERY different since harold would then have had the full force of english fyrdsman at his disposal at the battle of hastings.


The right timing, both planned or born of dumb luck from bad weather delays is the key to any victory.
Quote:
The anglo-saxons and Norwegians belonged to a different military system than the later feudal warriors.
They where focused on mass leavied infantry, fighting with spear and shield.


Actually, both had a very similar structure. A core of Elites (Knights/Huscarls/Hird) who were well trained, professional, well equipped. Then a levy of foot beneath that tier, whether they be the free farmers and minor landholders or the Vikings or free farmers and minor landholders of the Feudals.

One difference is that there were more serfs than thralls - neither of which contributed much to a muster.

Both had theoretical levies of all able bodied men - A full Leidang or the arriere-ban as two examples - which were largely theoretical and perhaps never used.

Even the Yeoman of later feudal times were minor landholders/tenants who over the hundred years war became more professional as they saw much more combat.

Both the Vikings and later English used large amounts of bowmen - the 33% of Vikings is a very high number of deployed bowmen - the 80% or so peak of some English armies during the HYW though was unprecedented, at least for foot archers.

Quote:
the use of archery played a crucial roll at stamford bridge, shooting down harold hardraada and causing the viking morale to collapse


Strange, as archery was not much aof a factor in Saxon armies. Perhaps this saga we glean the info from is not accurate, being written well after the fact.

Quote:
but that was probably harold having picked up a few random fyrdsmen on his way to stamford, since he apparently had to send his fyrdsman home since they had just completed their length of service.


I have not read they were discharged because service time was complete. Maybe they were, I just have not heard this. I think they could be kept in the army for a promise of pay after obligations were done.

Part of the reason for the attrition may have been those lost on a rapid forced march southward, and due to the rapid march there was little time to pick up reinforcments.

I think the time factor was the crucial part in Harold not having a larger force, not the loss of troops due to expiration of feudal duites. Very little of the population of Saxon England was mustered for this camapign. If he had more time to muster the results could have been different.

On the other hand, perhaps the sense they fulfilled their obligation may have had a bearing on causing more attrition on the southward forced march, even though they would be promised pay there may have been a sense that they fulfilled their duties.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Page 3 of 3

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum