Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
lords of Battle
#1
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=9514
Conal Moran

Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Reply
#2
"That the Saxon saex was not a tool ever used for war but a hunting/utility knife only. Apparently someone has tried a saex against both sword and spear and it was found wanting. I have seen pictures of some long saex which looked very weapony to me "

Conal, I completely agree with you. The saex is not that different from a Bowie knife, and while it is definitely inferior against a longer weapon (sword/spear), you can very easily kill someone with it.
Felix Wang
Reply
#3
"That cavalry was almost never used in English vs Saxon as Norrthern Europen horses were 8 - 10 hands only. I had read that the Brits had horses but the Saxons et al were not that bothered. I get the impression from the book that the author believes that these ponies were used to get to a battle then everyone waded in on foot. So much for the Arthurian knight "

Sounds fishy to me. We do know that the Romans had cavalry units in Britain (Sarmatians, anyone?). It seems very likely these units brought cavalry-sized horses with them. While breeding cavalry horses is a specialized business, it is reasonable to assume that there was a limited supply of cavalry sized horses for at least a while after the Romans pulled out of Britain. But even mounted infantrymen would give a general more strategic mobility than he might otherwise have, and would still be a useful advantage.
Felix Wang
Reply
#4
All the available evidence indicates that though the Anglo-Saxons had horses, they fought on foot. There is a single mention (in the reign of Edward the Confessor) of one of the king's Norman favourites named Ralph the Timid, who tried to make his English vassals fight from horseback. It was an unqualified disaster.

To fight as cavalry requires long and assiduous training, preferably starting in childhood. In Francia, just across the Channel, it appears that the Franks, though they had been purely infantry in the 6th century, had developed a highly effective cavalry force by about the 8th or 9th century AD. It just never happened in Pre-Conquest England - perhaps conditions were different.

The "Battle of Maldon" poem (written some time after 991 AD) describes Earl Byrhtnoth and his men riding to the battlefield and dismounting to fight, and there are quite a few other mentions of the same sort.

And of course, the English (by the 11th century, they were calling themselves the Englisc folc, or the Angel-cynn) fought on foot at Hastings and kept the Normans (a mixed force of infantry, cavalry and archers) off for a battle that lasted all day (much longer than most battles of the period), being defeated only as evening was coming on, and after their king had been killed.

A pure infantry force which holds its ground is quite capable of defeating cavalry, given the right conditions. Perhaps the early Anglo-Saxons had quite enough victories using their tried and true methods against the Romano-Britons, that they didn't feel the need to develop a cavalry force of their own?
"It is safer and more advantageous to overcome the enemy by planning and generalship than by sheer force"
The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice

Steven Lowe
Australia
Reply
#5
Some elements suggest that Anglo-Saxons armies may had some cavalry.

On some vendel helms plates, Wotan is shown on horseback, as a mounted warrior, with his ravens. Even if it is mythology this is not excluding that Saxon warriors may have been skilled riders.
[Image: 180px-Odin_Vendel_helmet.jpg]

The legacy of Hengest and Horsa - wether historical or not - is linked to this. Hengest is "stallion" and Horsa "horse" - and the most prestigious use of horse for such a warlike culture was... war. I know this is little evidence and on a such basis it can be argued that Britons used bears in battle because of Arthur, but I hope you got my point.

Kent arms still have a horse:

[Image: gb)kent.jpg]

There is also the Aberlamno stone pictish carvings, showing Pictish spearmen, riders and swordsmen fighting with armoured horsemen.

[Image: AberlemnoBattle.jpg]
It is often said the stone was a commemoration of the battle of Dunnichen where the army of Bridei III wiped out the northumbrian host of Ecgfrith. If so, the Northumbrians used cavalry.

Another possibility is that the battle shown here was fought against Strathclyde Britons.
"O niurt Ambrois ri Frangc ocus Brethan Letha."
"By the strenght of Ambrosius, king of the Franks and the Armorican Bretons."
Lebor Bretnach, Irish manuscript of the Historia Brittonum.
[Image: 955d308995.jpg]
Agraes / Morcant map Conmail / Benjamin Franckaert
Reply
#6
Quote:All the available evidence indicates that though the Anglo-Saxons had horses, they fought on foot. There is a single mention (in the reign of Edward the Confessor) of one of the king's Norman favourites named Ralph the Timid, who tried to make his English vassals fight from horseback. It was an unqualified disaster.


Actually the AS chronicle states that the english fled because they were on horseback.

Perhaps being on horseback was what got them out alive?

Indeed John of W claims that the Normans began the flight at Hereford.

Are we to believe that the Normans didn't have cavalry either?

When John of Worcester wrote his version 60 years later the english did fight on foot because the cavalry was provided by the Normans.





Quote:The "Battle of Maldon" poem (written some time after 991 AD) describes Earl Byrhtnoth and his men riding to the battlefield and dismounting to fight, and there are quite a few other mentions of the same sort.


Here Byrthnot send the horses away exactly to prevent the possibility
of flight. Until then mounted combat seems to have been an option.


Quote:And of course, the English (by the 11th century, they were calling themselves the Englisc folc, or the Angel-cynn) fought on foot at Hastings and kept the Normans (a mixed force of infantry, cavalry and archers) off for a battle that lasted all day (much longer than most battles of the period), being defeated only as evening was coming on, and after their king had been killed..

At Hasting Harold was facing the best shock cavalry in Europe, but had
the option of taking a defensive dismounted position on a ridge.

Being a sane chap that was what he did.

Mostly from Guy Halsall,'Warfare and society in the barbarian west, 450-900'

Cheers
Nithijo

aka Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen aka Nithijo/Wagnijo
Reply


Forum Jump: