[Len Parker]

Anybody notice the Angles are fighting on horseback on the Aberlemno stone? http://www.ancient-scotland.co.uk/site.php?a=2

[Lafayette C Curtis]

It has been the subject of some serious research, as reviewed here: http://horseinculture.blogspot.com/2010/11/revising-cavalry.html

[Matthew Bunker]

Given the depictions of mounted warriors on the Sutton Hoo and Vendel/Valsgarde helms, along with the clearly military horse burials in England and North Western Europe, I think there's a good case to be made that some pre-Conquest English warrior elites fought on horseback.

In the very early English period, when troop numbers might number in the hundreds rather than the thousands available during the later days of the Heptarchy and beyond, even a small body of cavalry could make a huge difference on an open battlefield.

[Ralph Grinly]

I suspect most folk, when they think of Anglo-saxon warriors, only think of Hastings, and Bayeaux tapestry. No anglo saxon horses shown there..ergo..Anglo Saxons didn't use them. vast oversimplification. Folks forget that prior to Hasting. Anglo saxon army mustered for ages, waiting for invasion..then they heard of Viking invasion way up noth at Stamford bridge. Army dashes up there, smashes Vikings, then hears Normans have landed..dash back down south to face Normans. By the time they formed up at Hastings again, pretty well any horses, cavalry they had would have been blown, worse than useless. I suspect the average,Anglo Saxon upper-class warrior knew very well how to act as cavalty..in the old sense..as mobile scouting forces..only fight on horseback if no option. Normally, they'd fight in co-operation with their foot soldiers, as they did at Hastings

[Gary Teuscher]

[Matthew Amt]

[Len Parker]

I was just reading that King Athelstan required two well horsed men from every plough. Now how these men were used who knows.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Rex Metcalf]

I would be curious to see some genetic testing done on the horse remains from this period in both England and Scandinavia.

I have long held a hypothesis based on admittedly scant historical evidence that these horses were the progenitors of the medieval Ambler and in turn would be foundation stock for the modern gaited breeds particularly the Tennesse walking horse, the Kentucky single foot and other very ancient yet obscure breeds of British descent here in the American South . Having raised Walkers all my life, following in my Grandfathers footsteps, I can vouch from experience that 60 miles a day is not unreasonable and 100 miles per day is not impossible.

The Icelandic and Paso Fino fall into this category as well. As does although to a lesser extent the Appaloosas who exhibit the "Indian shuffle". All can trace their characteristics of endurance, comfortable traveling gait, and trainability to very early selective breeding program carried out in Medieval England, Spain and Scandinavia. My theory may be wrong but in a day and age when horses carried armies and out marching an opposing force was just as important as outfighting them in some cases, I think its a reasonable hypothesis.

[Gary Teuscher]

http://royalholloway.academia.edu/JenniferNev...oroughbred

Above is a rather detailed article on horses and the Anglo Saxon culture

[David Huggins]

I'm not sure if these links will work here Len, but these may interest you.

'Horse in Early AS England' pdf
http://independent.academia.edu/ChrisFern/Pap...cal_evide\
nce_for_equestrianism_in_early_Anglo-Saxon_England_c.450-700

Horses in Vendel Period Scandinavia’ pdf
www.isvroma.it/public/pecus/sundkvist.pdf

Steve Pollington also recently wrote an article on A-S use of the horse in warfare in Medieval Warfare Magazine issue1

best
Dave

[Len Parker]

Dave they work fine. One scenario for the Aberlemno stone is that the artist was not involved with fighting anglo-saxons and had no real knowledge of their battle tactics. He was merely creating a mirror image of the tactics used by his own people. But the fact that the angles are wearing pioneer style helmets at least suggest some knowledge of the enemy on his part.

It would be a shame if there weren't any anglo-saxon cavalry. Why? Because two of the most popular knights in medieval England were Sir Guy of Warwick and Sir Bevis of Southhampton, and they both take place in anglo-saxon times.

Also, some good stuff on training horses http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/gillmor2.htm and info on 8th c. Bretons with some comparisons between German calvalry and Roman.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Len Parker]

Gary, I was kind of joking about Sir Guy and Sir Bevis, but...it's like when R.G. Collingswood in 1936 suggested that Arthur was a general using cavalry as mounted commandos, as Geoffrey Ash said this would add a trifle more substance behind the chivalric romance.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Len Parker]

Horses in armour, and anglo-saxon cavalry in the Heimskringla:

94.—: of the troop of the nobility.
Twenty horsemen rode forward from the Thing-men's troops against the Northmen's array; and all of them, and likewise their horses, were clothed in armour.

95.—: of the beginning of the battle.
Now the battle began. The Englishmen made a hot assault upon the Northmen, who sustained it bravely. It was no easy matter for the English to ride against the Northmen on account of their spears; therefore they rode [790] in a circle around them. And the fight at first was but loose and light, as long as the Northmen kept their order of battle; for although the English rode hard against the Northmen, they gave way again immediately, as they could do nothing against them. Now when the Northmen thought they perceived that the enemy were making but weak assaults, they set after them, and would drive them into flight; but when they had broken their shieldrampart the Englishmen rode up from all sides, and threw arrows and spears on them. Now when King Harald Sigurdson saw this, he went into the fray where the greatest crash of weapons was; and there was a sharp conflict, in which many people fell on both sides. King Harald then was in a rage, and ran out in front of the array, and hewed down with both hands; so that neither helmet nor armour could withstand him, and all who were nearest gave way before him. It was then very near with the English that they had taken to flight. So says Arnor, the earls' skald:—

[Anthony Clipsom]

[Len Parker]

You certainly could be right. It's interesting that Snorri has so much detail. Here's the start of this:


92. OF KING HARALD'S ARMY.

Then King Harald arranged his army, and made the line of battle
long, but not deep. He bent both wings of it back, so that they
met together; and formed a wide ring equally thick all round,
shield to shield, both in the front and rear ranks. The king
himself and his retinue were within the circle; and there was the
banner, and a body of chosen men. Earl Toste, with his retinue,
was at another place, and had a different banner. The army was
arranged in this way, because the king knew that horsemen were
accustomed to ride forwards with great vigour, but to turn back
immediately. Now the king ordered that his own and the earl's
attendants should ride forwards where it was most required. "And
our bowmen," said he, "shall be near to us; and they who stand in
the first rank shall set the spear-shaft on the ground, and the
spear-point against the horseman's breast, if he rides at them;
and those who stand in the second rank shall set the spear-point
against the horse's breast."



93. OF KING HARALD GODWINSON.

King Harald Godwinson had come with an immense army, both of
cavalry and infantry. Now King Harald Sigurdson rode around his
array, to see how every part was drawn up. He was upon a black
horse, and the horse stumbled under him, so that the king fell
off. He got up in haste and said, "A fall is lucky for a
traveller."

The English king Harald said to the Northmen who were with him,
"Do ye know the stout man who fell from his horse, with the blue
kirtle and the beautiful helmet?"

"That is the king himself." said they.

The English king said, "A great man, and of stately appearance is
he; but I think his luck has left him."

[Anthony Clipsom]

I'm having a few problems with the site at the moment. I posted a reply to Len yesterday but it has disappeared. I'll try again.

As far as I can tell Snorri relies mainly on contemporary poetry as a source for the period of Stamford Bridge. We don't know what level of detail that gives him overall, as we only get snippets. It seems he then uses his own knowledge of contemporary Scandinavian warfare to bulk out the accounts of battles. So the description of Stamford Bridge includes a description of what a force of his own time would do if attacked by cavalry. This seems to be a fairly generic European tactic - compare the Flemish crown formation, the Swiss Igel and Wallace's schiltrons at Falkirk. His English army leaders seem to be equipped as the senior leaders of a contemporary force too - armed men on barded horses. This does not mean the English didn't make a mounted attack - Snorris source may mention a mounted assault but not say much about it - but we can't rely on the detail.

Talking of cavalry, we might note Harald and Tostig and their "attendants" are apparently mounted inside the circle - they "ride forward". This may, of course, be a translation issue. It certainly seems a bit odd.

Lets hope this version of the reply gets through.

[Martin Kallander]

I think it should be noted that while forming square to counter cavalry with infantry was what scandinavians contemporary to Snorri would do, it was by no means an unkown tactic in the viking age. We also know barding was used during the viking age, although we do not really have any evidence for it being used in the brittish isles. While it is entirely possible Snorri filled in the details of the battle with contemporary tactics and equipment, we should by no means take that for granted because it is conjecture.