"Shieldwall density front-to-rear?" Topic

What was the density of an early mediaeval shieldwall front to rear? I.e. was the second rank etc closed up tight behind the first or would there have been a pace or so between them. I'm thinking of the wall when it is static, not when it is moving up.

Who knows?

You would need room enough to use your weapon that might be an infuence.

Major B is right on the money. No amount of re-enactment experience will give us a clear idea since the re-enactors are not actually trying to kill or to avoid being killed.
Oh Bleep is quite right too, but we really can't be that sure about how weapons were used- it's chiefly about spears and there's any number of questions..was the spear used under-arm or over-arm is just the first one.

Yup. No way to know for sure. The same debate rages about phalanx warfare in classical and Hellenistic times.

The other ranks would push forward like a giant rugby scrum. All based on my expert opinion.

We can take original sources as evidence, and the known frontage per man in other close order formations.

The "shieldwall" was essentially a spear phalanx. The spear was paramount. Axes, swords and the like came later after the spears were used up or broken, etc. Specialized axmen would have been relatively few and would be forward of the shieldwall as needed. The Bayeux Tapestry shows this, both the much more numerous spears, and the forward positioning of axmen, backed by the spear phalanx.

Wm of Poitiers makes specific mention of the detail that the English line was so densely packed that the dead could not readily slip to the ground, being upheld by the pressure of bodies surrounding them!

"War in the Middle Ages", Philippe Contamine, page 232. At 200 men wide and 50 men deep, these troops occupy only 60m x 60m ! This is barely enough room for each man to press his chest sideways against the back of the man to his right while holding his pike, i.e. about 12" of frontage per man. To move out of defensive formation, this would loosen up somewhat; and the depth of 47" per man would probably be greater on the advance.

Without shields such a density would be possible. But with overlapping shields the frontage would have to be wider. But not much wider….

At 200 men wide and 50 men deep, these troops occupy only 60m x 60m ! This is barely enough room for each man to press his chest sideways against the back of the man to his right while holding his pike, i.e. about 12" of frontage per man.

"12ins per man" – I find that quite hard to believe. Standing sideways? Almost impossible to move like that surely?

Funny timing, this. Just yesterday I finished reading The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson. It's a very good read, as all his books are, and while it is about the phalanx of classical Greece (7th-4th centuries), there are probably quite a few similarities with a Dark Age shield wall; after all, the primary goal--basically shoving your opponent down the field until his formation broke--was very similar if not identical. The book gives quite a vivid picture of the hell those men must have gone through during that hour or so of battle.

I share the skepticism that reenactment can teach us much regarding the realities of battle: actually intending to kill the other fellow would change just about everything.

I am not at all sure that a shieldwall formation is equivalent to a Greek phalanx in push mode. The Greeks , of course, have several orders an did close ranks just before contact. Much of oyr available description of sheildwalls is poetic, so it may be that the written descriptions overemphasise individual heroics and mobility. The Battle of Maldon poem clearly has people throwing spears at each other, which is very difficult on a 12 or even 18 inch frontage. the reason for describing the shieldwall ir shield fort might well be the look if the formation as you approached it, but that could just as well mean 30 inch shields touching rim to rim as being overlapped. A/S shield bosses are often tipped with a button or are themselves of a rounded point shape. That makes it seem as though the shield is for parrying and pubching and the grip is a bar directly behind the boss. That looks good for parrying and punching, but not too helpful for pushing the back of the man in front,bwhereas a rounded hoplite shield fits nicely into the back of the chap in front. So I would suggest a looser formation than close packed.
But if you want suppirt for a contrary view go look at the Bayeux Tapestry where the English were packed in so tight that a dead man could not fall. Also Alfred the Great advancing tobattack the Danes at Ashingdon was formed, according to Asser so maybe the Saxons and Normans drilled in both looser and close formations and could choose what was appropriate.

However

You make excellent points, Lewis. Perhaps I spoke too hastily. It's just that my mind is full of shielded, spear armed men in tight formations right now, and that may have led me to draw false comparisons.

Right, I'll be going now…

We can take original sources as evidence, and the known frontage per man in other close order formations.

Have to disagree. Were the people writing to tell a story, embellish the actions of a patron or hero, or looking to be as impartial and accurate an observer as possible? I suspect in all cases, it's not the latter. For example, 'packed in so tightly the dead could not fall' sounds more like a literary exaggeration than a battlefield reality.

Even modern historiography on modern subjects injects points of view and embellishments. I am highly skeptical of literary descriptions of battlefield formations.

'packed in so tightly the dead could not fall'

If they were packed in that tightly, they couldn't fight either.

Don't run off Daryl, I think you do have a point with your Greeks because to make sense of how people operate in formation we have to compare and contrast with other ancient and medieval situations and the Greek phalanx has had a lot of work done on it, though even with the Greeks scholars disagree. I take ambush alley's point that there are many reasons why a written source might be flawed, not the least because most of them are written some time after the event by someone who was not an eye witness. However, there are some points in favour of the sources. Often the poems are declaimed to an audience that did fight and would have noticed if a description were too deviant from reality, we can compare many of the descriptions with others from different authors in the same period and see if there is consistency and often points of tactics occur accidentally,nas throw away lines and are thus believable. We. do have the evidence of archaelogy, it is capable of differing interpretations, for example the button on the dome of an A/S shild boss might be for punching an opponent, or for catching a blade that skittered across the surface of the shield and then pushing the sword away so as to open the opponent to a slash from overhead. Of course said button might be purely decorative. . Given the central nature of the grip on a A/S or Viking shield it does not look like a device for pushing, whereas a Greek shield with pirpax and antilabe does allow a man to transfer the weight of his upper body through the shield. Lastly there is the test of does the statement make sense? In the case of the dead being unable to fall, then maybe not, the writer is likely exaggerating for effect, but he is trying to tell us that the Enlish on Senlac hill were very densely packed and that is believable because they were standing, not moving and probably overlapping shields when a flight of arrows was seen coming.

Often the poems are declaimed to an audience that did fight and would have noticed if a description were too deviant from reality

Lavelle writes 'When stripped down to its essence, even the bellicose language of such martial literature as the poem known as The Battle of Maldon tells us more about the ideals with which a small, elite portion of late Anglo-Saxon society wished to see itself than it does about issues in which military historians tend to be interested …" (Lavelle, 2010, Alfred's Wars, p.1). Basically, such descriptions are likely to be idealised rather than reflecting the smelly, dirty reality. He also makes a good point about the possibility of early medieval descriptions reflecting the descriptions of warfare in Antiquity. The material culture is firmer ground, but we are still stuck with discussing how things might have happened and lack the evidence to state that they did happen in a particular way. Reenactment can inform how things might have happened but our culture, mind-set and the lack of a definite attempt to kill each other means that it is far from firm ground for an interpretation. I do wonder if the ranks were drawn up a pace or so apart to maintain order at the start of the battle. I also wonder if this order fell apart once the battle lines were joined, and the rear ranks then crushed the front ranks together. How long did the lines actually remain joined in combat before breaking for a rest and did they then re-order themselves? I can imagine that the household troops of the lords would have greater discipline and might retain whatever order they started out in better, because they trained for this, but the levies might be less disciplined and more inclined to pushing rather than trying to kill each other. In the end we are left with more speculation than real evidence to interpret.

I asked this question because a lot of wargamers seem to spread their figures out whilst I prefer a more crowded look. But even if you place the figures as closely as you can, you do not actually achieve a very dense formation.

For example, if I cram twelve 10mm figures in two ranks onto a 40mm x 20mm base, each model figure will occupy an area of 6.6mm x 10mm. At scale this would be an area of about 4' x 6' per man which seems very generous to me for a 'close order' shieldwall.

Well you can only put the figures together touching. And figures are BIG boys, totally out of proportion to ordinary ancmed people.

In the real world, men standing on the defensive can pack very tightly indeed. In fact, avoiding such a condition is sometimes impossible, e.g. Cannae, Adrianople, possibly Hastings. Wm of Poitiers' description might be that of an immobile army pushed together until they could hardly fight. But behind their shields in such a crammed mass they would also be very hard to take down. Poitiers does make a point of the great differences between the two armies, one standing packed together and silent, the other doing all of the moving/attacking. It's at that point that he adds the detail that the English dead were held upright by the living.

In regards to the Swiss being packed c. 12" to a man, yes that is immobile density, and turned sideways. It has been replicated by modern reenactors….

For example, if I cram twelve 10mm figures in two ranks onto a 40mm x 20mm base, each model figure will occupy an area of 6.6mm x 10mm. At scale this would be an area of about 4' x 6' per man which seems very generous to me for a 'close order' shieldwall.

That ENTIRELY depends on what figure:man ratio and groundscale you are using.

@MajorB

Not at all. It's not about notional figure or ground scales but what area a figure occupies at its own scale. It's all about the aesthetic.

"Lavelle writes 'When stripped down to its essence, even the bellicose language of such martial literature as the poem known as The Battle of Maldon tells us more about the ideals with which a small, elite portion of late Anglo-Saxon society wished to see itself than it does about issues in which military historians tend to be interested …" (Lavelle, 2010, Alfred's Wars, p.1). Basically, such descriptions are likely to be idealised rather than reflecting the smelly, dirty reality.

Clearly the poets have to promote the ethos of the society which provides their living but off the top of my head I can think of two examples that emphasise the actuality of the slaughter. Heroic society made heavy demands on its elite and part of the poetic contribution was to ensure the warrior was up to the mark.

Marwanad Cynddylan emphasises repeatedly the "enormity of the sword fighting" making the point to the experienced warrior listeners that the this was an exceptionaly vicious fight.

For the poet to have credence he had to properly describe the reality of combat. I'd say that poetry if we approach it correctly can tell us a lot.

Of course no one, including Lavelle, actually knows what Early Mediaeval Warfare was like. Its all very well to speak of the smelly , dirty reality, but that is how a modern person would see it. We are speaking of men who did not change their clithes for months and did not wash. They killed pigs and cows with axe or knife and whose firefathers greased their hair with rancid butter. Moreover, we do not really understand how they saw imagined the reality of fighting . By that I mean we could set the example if footballers today and how they see a great goal, a save ir a tackle. When interviewed they are very prosaic about it, whereas football writers wax lyrical over their silky skills. I suspect bards work it in a similar way. Egbert probably just thinks he feinted with the spear and then stuck it in the Viking's chest. but the poet might say he thrust mightily the file brightened snake if war through the norseman, bursting back and byrnie. Both describe the same experience. What the military historian gets is tge Saxons are mainly described as using throwing/ thrusting spears, They are sharp enough to go through mail and man, but that such a blow would be noteworthy.. remember a spirts writer still has to describe a game that really happened and humans , then and now can aim off a bit for petry and journalistic exaggeration..
I was tempted to say here that I was desolated to be told that my gelief that seventh century warriors believed that the dragon in Beowulf was real was not useable as evidence!

@MajorB

Not at all. It's not about notional figure or ground scales but what area a figure occupies at its own scale. It's all about the aesthetic.

I see both points but have to go with MajorB I think: the aesthetic has a big role to play in triggering the imagination but credibility (which informs and legitimises the imagination) depends on the relationship of the wargame toys to the real space of a battlefield.

Some have no problem imagining battle from cardboard counters or C&C blocks. I much prefer figures but as long as I understand the scales I'm pretty tolerant of how the figures are arranged on their base/bases.

That said, if the formation used was dense, then I agree, the more the arrangement of figures can reflect this, the better.

Phil
Ancients on the Move

Unless the figure scale is 1:1, the toys are just a game token. I have no problem with using blocks, but if using miniatures I want them to look like a credible little section of the battleline. In a game they may represent 50 men or 500 and the ground scale will be or should be matched to that.

Yes … I agree with that …

Phil

Its all very well to speak of the smelly , dirty reality, but that is how a modern person would see it

And the Franks. A Frankish law even describes people soiling themselves in battle in such terms.

We are speaking of men who did not change their clithes for months and did not wash.

Do people really still believe that medieval people did not wash? They may not have bathed as often as we do, but they were certainly not the filthy beasts of popular imagination. I suppose I should not be surprised that the myth dominates the reality. I still find it depressing though.

For the poet to have credence he had to properly describe the reality of combat. I'd say that poetry if we approach it correctly can tell us a lot.

I disagree with the first part of your statement and agree with the second. The poet's job is primarily to glorify those that took part. This is done in much the same way as classical historians inflated the numbers of the enemy to make the victory greater or the defeat more readily explained. A secondary goal may be to explain to the younger members of the court what is expected of them when they go into battle; a form of inculcation of values, as it were, that will not work if the whole reality is described.

But yes, poetry can tell us much provided that we understand its context properly, understand its mode of expression and construction, and preferably read it in the original language so we get a fuller understanding of the text. If read in translation, you get the translator's understanding of the text instead. I'm not convinced it has a lot to tell us about the specifics of warfare, other than that the warriors stood in rows with shields and spears, and that some of them threw their spears while others had bows, but at least it tells us that much.

I'd say the poets primary job is to uphold the social order especially the place of poets within it. A big part of that involved celebrating martial skill and that often involved being present at the fighting. To be mentioned in a poem was a great honour, and here I think Roy's sports anology is good, to award accolades the poet had to know how the game was played. Otherwise the commendation would be devalued.

Its interesting the the Marwnad rarely present mitigation for defeat except in passing. That would be a difference from classical practice.

I do agree with your last paragraph JT Koch's last book shows us how much can be retrieved.

I'd say the poets primary job is to uphold the social order especially the place of poets within it.

Good point. The poet's primary job according to the poet was to maintain his place in the social order and ensure his continued livelihood, but he won't admit it in public. The poet's primary job according to the king was to 'record things as they really were' (=make the king look good). :)

From the Old Norse sources, poets were certainly recorded as being present at the fighting and even being sent away just before a battle so that they could survive and recount the brave deeds that occurred. They definitely knew how to play the game. I like the sports analogy too. I think it does apply reasonably well although AS and ON poets were working within quite a tightly constrained genre in terms of how poems were constructed. The genre shapes the description which in turn limits the final result's usefulness as a historical source.

Its interesting the the Marwnad rarely present mitigation for defeat except in passing. That would be a difference from classical practice.

Agreed. Heroic poetry celebrates a brave death as well as mourning it without feeling the need to excuse the defeat.

For a take on A/S hygiene try link

Whether you choose to think that sensationalist or not gore was a lot nearer to a 'Dark Age ' Warrior's life than to a modern persons and would be understood as the backdrop to any battle story.
We can be too cynical about bards, Of course they would be concerned to keep their ring giver in a generous mood, but I think I am agreeing with OB here that they were not slavishly uncritical and could appeal to a set of standards that stood outside the self interest of the lords. If we take the battle of Maldon poem, it is not , at least by implication, uncritical of the A/S leadership,Byrrhtnoth meets a satisfactorily heroic death, but it is his misjudgement that allows the Danes to cross the causeway. In a way a bard is like a jesterwho is a licensed taker who can gently mock the king. There are sone Viking sagas where the bard says thing the king does not like, is told off and does it again.
I agree that there is an element of didacticism in court poetry. In A/S poetry, rather than cowardice being an evil it appears that abandoning your lord kin/ warrior group is the ultimate bad act. However, there might be a circular argument here as part of the evidence for this is what is considered to be bad behaviour in poetry.
I take Dr B's point about reading petry and song in the original, but that is doubly difficult,mthe second layer being that we have so little from the period that there might be levels of allusion and reference that we can never get. If say the characters in the Cattraeth poem have substantial back stories then we mostly do not know them, or that much about Hengest or Finn. Actually, there ( the fight at Finnsburg) is a case where the literary evidence tells us something about life in the EM period, therevare clearly quite a few mini sieges which also appear in the A/S Chronicle and Norse sagas.

That all strikes me as right.

Although I have read AS and Norse poetry in translation I'm more used to Celtic heroic poetry where I can at least follow some of it in the original.

Roy's point about license is very well made. Poetry was an elite trade valued across the cultural group and good poets needed careful handling. Although spin doctoring was part of their remit it was less so that their classical predecessors or their modern equivelents.

It still amazes me that the author of Marwnad Cynddylan hot foots it from the slaughter of his king and companions to seek refuge at a hostile court and is able to trust to his poetic skill to ensure his safety.

To address my original question…

In the absence of any detailed historical evidence, experiments by reenactors are not authoritative but they can be very interesting.

My feeling is that once battle was joined and IF spears were used overarm you wouldn't want to stand close behind the front rank for fear of getting jabbed in the face with a spear-butt.

For a take on A/S hygiene try link

I really don't rate this article on AS hygiene, Lewisgunner. It is behind the times and not written by a specialist as far as I can tell. Yes, times were smellier back then and dirtier, but personal grooming was considered important, which is why bone combs are a very common find on AS sites, and why Aelfric makes reference to young men spending too much time tarting themselves up. Regarding the Vikings, their word for Saturday (Laugardagr) means 'wash day' or 'bathing day'. It's just a shame that we don't have quite the same volume of evidence for bathing as we do from the high and late medieval periods, where public baths can clearly be shown to be common. This is a pretty good article about that: link

For the rest, I think we are all substantially in agreement, if not agreed on the level to which we can use the poetry as evidence. I can only really speak to the AS and ON sources which I have studied in detail in the original, but Oh B's comments on the Celtic poetry seem to support similar views. Lewisgunner makes a good point about the amount of assumed knowledge that must be present in it. Oh B makes a good point about how poets were valued. They could make or break a person with their poetry which is why Viking laws actually included laws relating to poetry.

My feeling is that once battle was joined and IF spears were used overarm you wouldn't want to stand close behind the front rank for fear of getting jabbed in the face with a spear-butt.

This video by Lloyd discusses shieldwalls: YouTube link
I am not always convinced by his arguments, but at least it provides food for thought.

Lloyd's argument here makes sense to me. The spearman's aim is to spear his opponent while protecting himself. It's not rugby.

Agreed, Doctor, its not rugby. I thank you for the Lloyd video, it is good, though his aspis is a bit shallow, the ones on s ulpture do appear deeperand to have sat on the left shoulder of the hoplite . That would put the rim at eye lele and would thus protect the throat.. I recall that in Victor Davis Hanson's reconstrucion and in the recent book by Mathew the hoplite is more sideways on to his shield which would mean that the spear would perhaps be further back than Lloyd suggests. Of course, if you and those around you are wearing Corinthian helmets there is quite a bit if protection against spears and their butts. Let us remember too that in their closest irder the shields are overlapped .We should also not rule out the shout of Epaminondas of 'give me one more step' as it is a main pkank of those who argue for othismos or pushing as the mechanism of overthrowing the enemy. Perhaps the push is a phased thing, coming when spears are broken and the front ranks tire and are reduced to grimacing at each other and the commander of one side feels that the moment has come and asks for a push from the back. The last man in a Greek file, the file closer was the second most experienced man in the file. in the eighteenth century sergeants stood at the back with half pikes and would push the files to their front back into line with the pike or spontoon. The Greeks have a good man closing each file and one wonders if he performed the same function, physically propelling his lads forwards. Of course we all concluded that A/S and Viking shields are not really designed to fit snugly in a man's back, but have a single hand grip for manoeuvre.
Take your point about cleanliness, they have also found handy grooming kits for nails and ears. What I was trying to say was that muck and blood were a lot closer to people than they are nowadays and so was death. I don't subscribe to the view that ancient warriors were just like us, but nit in camo unifirms. Modern war puts a premium on the soldier to take intelligent action in his own, Dark Age Warriors went in in groups, operating together with a leader who knew what was expected of him and men around him with individual tasks, but an overrude to protect their leader. Oncidentslly this is a goid argument as to why a shieldwall was nit a wall, but a series of tight clumps around top chaps and just looked like a wall or a hedge at first, with the clumps taking over as the battle progressed. I say this because at Makdon and in Frankish sources leaders appear to be able to seek each other out.
The shieldwall, might well be a particular formation such as the Byzantine Foulkon, whicis described in Maurice and appears to be like the formation adopted by the Franks at Rimini in an engagement against the Byzantine general Narses and his guard. In this formation the shields are held, one low, one overlapping above that and one above the head, like a Roman testudo. A well drilled unit can lijely adopt several formations, especially as there are many unarmoured men and the shield, held away from their bodies is the best defence against incoming missiles. To go back to the first century BC the Helvetti , Gauls, and Ariovistus' Germans bith adopt close ider phalanxes with overlapped shields against Caesar's Romans, though both would make the weilding of sword and spear rather difficult.

I'm not sure of the shoving match theory either.

If the aim of the spearman is to spear his opponent then what does the hoplite panoply tell us about perception of risk?

The shins and knees are often protected by greeves.

The upper body and the left arm by the aspis.

The head with a helmet.

If these are the vulnerable areas What sort of spear technique best treatens these parts of the body?

And being a bard was not necessarily a sinecure!
Þæt ic bi me sylfum I, for myself,
secgan wille, want to say this,
36a þæt ic hwile wæs that for a while I was
Heodeninga scop, the scop (bard) of the Hedenings,
dryhtne dyre; dear to my lord;
me wæs Deor noma. [#] my name was Deor.
Ahte ic fela wintra I had for many winters
folgað tilne, a good position,
holdne hlaford, a loyal lord,
oþ þæt Heorrenda nu, until Heorrenda now,
40a leoðcræftig monn, a man skilful in songs,
londryht geþah has taken the estate
þæt me eorla hleo that the protector (hleo) of warriors (eorla)
ær gesealde. before (ær) gave to me.
Þæs ofereode, That was overcome,
þisses swa mæg. so may this be.

@Oh B Mathew makes the point that several Corinthian helmets found have loes in them so maybe the hoplite just jabbed away and hoped. Given the very lowcasualties on the winning side in hoplite battles it may be that killing opponents was quite hard and that either a small breakthrough by a hero or a mas push by othismos was what carried the day and then some slaughter ensued as the overturned ftont ranks were killed on the ground. had the soear and swird wirk been really effective then there would have been mutual murder and that does not appear to be so. One area in which I rather assume the Ancients were lije us was that the combatants hoped to win and thus expected to survive. Hence casualty rates on the winning side can seldom have been high which rather bears out the point that I think Dr B made earlier, that the defensive outweighs the offensive! We could take as an example Pyrrhus who claimed that another victory like Asculum and Heraclea would ruin his army. Clearly he expected to win and in winning nit to take too many casualties.

The Bayeux Tapestry clearly shows overlapping shields and overarm use of spears. Has the authenticity of that been questioned?

I have seen Lloyd's video on the overarm/underarm issue, but the pictorial evidence seems to favour overarm. Of course, a trained 'martial artist' would have no problem with changing grip.

Overall I'm tending to the view that shieldwalls are likely to have been closely packed side-to-side but not front-to-rear.

I don't subscribe to the view that ancient warriors were just like us, but nit in camo unifirms.

I agree completely and this is a point that Halsall has made. The mind-set was completely different. To understand warfare in any pre-modern period you need to understand the mind-set and approach to warfare. This might not matter too much at a skirmish level, although you could introduce it into the rules in the form of goals or victory conditions. It would certainly matter at the battle level and campaign level where the reasons for going to war and the goals of that war will depend upon the cultures involved. Essentially we need a cognitive approach to rules writing! :)

Given the very lowcasualties on the winning side in hoplite battles it may be that killing opponents was quite hard and that either a small breakthrough by a hero or a mas push by othismos was what carried the day

This would fit with the work of people like Grossman, Marshall, etc. who realised that only a small percentage of people seem to be able to get stuck in and do the killing. Taken with the commonplace that in later eras the charge won the day by driving the enemy off before contact, or faltered and stopped short of the enemy line, I have often thought that much of ancient and medieval warfare may well have involved standing at a slight remove yelling insults and hoping someone else will get stuck into the enemy first. At this point the heroes step in and the regular guys yell encouragement and offer to hold his coat. I'm generalising horribly here and there is probably research on the topic out there that I really need to read, but I think the model stands.

I'm not sure of the shoving match theory either.

I'm torn on this. On the one hand it does not seem to make sense that armed warriors would focus on trying to push the enemy over instead of stabbing them. On the other hand, the work of Grossman, etc. that I mentioned above might actually support the idea that less well trained warriors would push instead of stabbing, because it does not require them to poke holes in the fleshy bits of the human being opposite them with all the psychological cost that involves. I wonder if it comes down to training and whether the person with the spear and shield is a levy or a full-time warrior.

Nice to see Deor quoted, Lewisgunner.

It is pretty well accepted that the tapestry was sewn by ladies under the guidance of eye witnesses and that it gets the big dramatic themes right. So the overlapping shields are a way if showing density and I bet it is front to rear densuty as well as side to side, because the Saxons are going nowhere. However they may well have used looser order if advancing.
Harold, when invading Wales in 1063 equipped his huscarls with lighter, leather armour a nd javelins so I expect thst were operating in looser order than their prime battle order when on the wooded hills of the Principality.

Overall I'm tending to the view that shieldwalls are likely to have been closely packed side-to-side but not front-to-rear.

I'm inclined to agree, although the array probably changed as battle was joined. I'm betting that the ranks closed up on each other in battle for various reasons. You will struggle to model it closely using any wargame figures because of their lack of flexibility. Achieving an aesthetic that you are happy with and that shows this will be down to trying for a situation where the human eye fills in the details.

Regarding the Bayeux Tapestry, I don't think anyone has seriously challenged the depiction of the shieldwall but that may well be just lack of reading on my part. Interpreting the Bayeux Tapestry can be a thorny issue.

Country people and pre-modern people were used to killing animals and probably more ready to skewer each other than we are.

+1 to Lewisgunner's comments about the phalanx and the hypothesising video: the Greek Phalanx had a number of ways of fight, both the doratismos (spear fight) and the othismos (shoving fight) and had its most experienced men in the front and at the back … these men, presumably according to the plans of their leaders, will have determined how much of which would happen …

That guff about if you pushed me in the back I wouldn't go forward, I would turn round and slit your throat instead is the worst kind of drivel (there are plenty of accounts of phalanx fighting and although they are not particularly helpful on mechanics, I think we can discount squabbling amongst the ranks ).

Fighters in the front and fighters at the back surely indicates that the battle is a graduated mix of both jousting and pushing.

Whether Dark Age shieldwalls were equally well configured is debatable. And the spears on the Bayeux Tapestry don't look as long as Greek ones (for what that is worth – but it might equal being handier for individual fighting and more suitable for shallower formations) …

Although some scenes on the tapestry show men with seried shields and spears overhead (just so temptingly like, say, the Chigi vase) other scenes seem to show spears being thrown and men in front of the shieldwall (stationed in front or bursting out from it?) attacking horsemen with Danish axes … so, at times, looking very un-Greek …

So I'm with the dense side-to-side but maybe relatively shallow school of thought.

Phil

There was nothing "shallow" about the English array at Hastings. "Cuneas" disallows that assertion. Also Poitiers' depiction of the dead being held upright would never be possible in a thin or shallow "shieldwall".

I've already observed how the axemen are out in front of the shielded spearmen. That seems to be a deliberate tactic (and a very dangerous one, I bet!).

Spear length is immaterial compared to the Greek, because the Greek spears were not particularly lengthy. A-S spears varied from c. five feet to over eight feet, throwing to "hewing" spears.

The overarm position of the English on the Tapestry are jabbing and being thrown. Many spears are shown in flight, and bodies are lying transfixed. None of this use would be impractical in a dense shieldwall, side to side and front to rear. In fact, overarm use would be limited to such, making the jabbing and throwing options the only two available….

I'm with Doctor P about sticking people, though it goes against the work of Jomini. I don't know Grossman, but isn't Marshall the work on WW2 and the very low percentage of US troops that actually at someone? That may be a soecial case firvtwo reasons, one being that the NCOs and BAR men in squads did the killing and the related reason that many men were only expected to give suppressive fire so the attack squad coukd advance. I remember being told about British commandos in Suez in 56 moving through an area and decapitating Egyptians that they had sneaked up on with cheesewires. Similarly I rather assume Ghurkas used those khukris! So it may be a question if training and expectation or it might be a matter of killer elites and, of course the warriors in A/S society are such an elite. i agree with you it makes a big difference if you have personally kilked firstly domestic animals and secondly wild animals such as biar with a clise quarters weapon. The French infantry described by Jomini were mostly farm boys who would have killed animals at close quarters, but might well not have faced cannon and musketry which are probably pretty scary. Training and practise and of course the organisation of Society to shame cowards made the Spartans much more effective than mist other hoplite armies. All of those serve to suppress the flesh or rather the fears that the flesh is subject to. There is a lovely saga description of a Jomsviking who was about to be executed and who asked for his hair to be pulled forward so his head would look neat and smartly coiffeured. athe tale goes that he jerked backwards as the sword descended and the man holding his hair list both hands. The ither Vikings thought this hilarious and IIRC let him go, curls and all. So its a saga stiry about a likely imaginary group, but it says something about the Nirse attitude as the listeners would have got the joke. Simikarly in saga one man smites another whose laconic response is 'That was a heavy blow'! ' That again indicates the expected response from a man, albeit a bit above the ordinary.
Lastly a point about the bayonet. Brutish troops in the Sikh wars were outnumbered by French trained Sikh battalions that coukd shoit effectively. They took to running at the Indians , cutting diwn the killing zone as the Greeks did at Matprathon and getting literally stuck in. The Sikhs were not small men and not cowards, but were dusconcerted by an enemy getting in their faces so quickly, so there was a orotection in aggression if you had the nerve yo carry it out. Generally I agree that soldiers concentrate on survival, but go a bit further on the graph and experienced or desperate men can push the result in their direction by ignoring risk.

Thanks for your opinions, Great War Ace …

There was nothing "shallow" about the English array at Hastings. "Cuneas" disallows that assertion. Also Poitiers' depiction of the dead being held upright would never be possible in a thin or shallow "shieldwall".

… although we are not just discussing Hastings …

Spear length is immaterial compared to the Greek, because the Greek spears were not particularly lengthy. A-S spears varied from c. five feet to over eight feet, throwing to "hewing" spears.

So, on average, A-S spears are smaller than hoplite spears, then …

Hope it helps

Phil

I don't know Grossman, but isn't Marshall the work on WW2 and the very low percentage of US troops that actually Bleeped text at someone? That may be a soecial case firvtwo reasons, one being that the NCOs and BAR men in squads did the killing and the related reason that many men were only expected to give suppressive fire so the attack squad coukd advance.

Yes, Marshall worked on WW2 soldiers. His evidence has been criticised but his conclusions have held up to scrutiny despite this. Grossman is one of those that undertook later studies that confirmed Marshall's conclusions.

Socio-cultural conditioning cannot be discounted, but Marshall's work showed that a large number of soldiers never even fired their weapons, so they were not providing suppressing fire at all. Instead they were keeping their heads down and focusing on survival. Conditions in the shieldwall would be slightly different because they are made to stand in the open behind their shields and shoulder to shoulder with their mates, but it would still require someone to make the first move to attack the enemy.

I'm not sure about killing animals making you less squeamish about killing people. That would all depend upon how you view people. I've slaughtered my fair share of sheep, pigs and poultry, but that does not mean I shall more readily kill another human being (I think), because I don't view humans as animals. Whether it makes a difference or not would surely depend upon cultural conditioning again and how that culture views people. I suppose it does get you used to blood and the stink of perforated intestines though …

The examples of Commandos and Gurkhas apply best to the household troops of a Saxon lord. The average Saxon who is a farmer by day and a warrior at need may be less willing to kill human beings, even in self-defence.

I agree about aggression. Being aggressive can cow the enemy and you can win without too much of a fight if you do it right.

"I'm not sure about killing animals making you less squeamish about killing people."

Was it not Frederick the Great who advised enlisting those who had worked in slaughterhouses or had been butchers for the Jager regiments. Duffy mentions it somewhere.

Of course the motive power for setting the fight in motion was at the heart of A/S and Norse society. The chief's duty was up the line to his lord and to his office, but it was also to a set of rules for life, taught at the hunt and in the hall, sung by bards and oassed from father to son. The war leader knew his duty. Round him were men sworn to fight and if necessary die with him. If we may cite the Battle of Maldon, Norton translation:
So also did Æthelric, noble companion, eager and impetuous; he fought most resolutely, this brother of Sibirht, as did many another: they split the hollow shield and defended themselves boldly.8 . . . The shield's rim broke and the mail-shirt sang one of horror's songs. Then in the battle Offa struck the seafarer so that he fell on the earth, and there Gadd's kinsman himself sought the ground: Offa was quickly hewn down in the fight. He had, however, per- formed what he had promised his lord, what he had vowed before to his ring- giver, that they should either both ride to the town, hale to their home, or fall among the host, die of wounds in the slaughter-place. He lay as a thane should, near his lord.
Now we can be cynical about such mores preached in a poem, but at Waterloo didn't the colonel if one regiment charge to his death at the stupid orders of the young Prince of Orange because he could nit, with honour intact, countermand the irders of a Prince. Didn't Canute have one of Ethelred's treacherous commanders killed soon after he had turned coat (not for the first time) . Honour is a very restricted concept now, but back then it not only gave a man purpose, but defined his place in the world. Significantly it is the thanes of the earl who die around his body whilst others of the hist flee. These others are dishonoured, but perhaps not yoo severely as their oaths to Byrhtnoth are less personal than those who live at his table and may have had the Wanderer recited to them whilst they ate his food and drank his mead.
We have compared the Saxon and Norse phalanx with the Greek, but there is a significant difference. As far as we know the Greeks are organised by file, by tribe and by age class. As Phil was saying the next best warrior is at the back. The A/S unit was personal or territorial and I doubt we know anything of its substructure. With groups clustered around a series of leaders it must have been difficult to form a phalanx of even depth. What would be their mechanism for levelling and joining such units. as they do not have equal numbers or strengths divisible by eight or six. What happened at the points at which units ir groups if men joined. One wonders if the front might relatively easily be constructed as a straight line, but depth behind it be variable ? It appears as though there is an ability for groups of warriors to seek each other out which implies a degree of fluidity, again more like clustered groups. Incidentally forming the 'war hedge' might well be a matter of several groupings forming separate but concatenated war hedges!
I too am with Phil on axemen being deployed behind the formation and stepping through it when the Norman horses are stalled. The purpose of the the close array of shields is to resist Norman missiles and prancing around in front on your own is a sure way to attract arrows. Much more likely that they await behind and filter through like Swiss halberdiers in a pike block.

Was it not Frederick the Great who advised enlisting those who had worked in slaughterhouses or had been butchers for the Jager regiments. Duffy mentions it somewhere.

I'll have to look into that. Is a particular reason for this cited?

Another thought that occurs. It's all very well being able to slaughter an animal, but how does that affect your willingness to approach someone whose goal will be to stick sharp, pointy things into your flesh too?

Willingness to kill people will depend on a number of religious, cultural and political factors and history shows that it can sometimes be done with great enthusiasm. But even amongst reasonable men, having someone trying to kill you is a great releaser of inhibitions.