"Norman foot soldiers at Hastings" Topic

I'm finally getting round to an ambition to refight Hastings, solo (for the most part) using DBX rules. However, I'm prepared to tweak army lists to achieve a realistic mix of troop types. I'm aware of varying estimates re. size and make-up of William's forces. There seems to be a reasonable consensus from my reading that that half the army were non-missile foot, while the other 50% was shared between cavalry and missile troops. My questions is, what proportion of the infantry (non shooting) were dismounted Knights? Would there have been any levy spearmen? If so what were the proportions and would they have fought together, or would Knights, even dismounted, stick together? My impression is that Frankish armies were predominantly mounted forces, but that due to the logistics of invasion, the army at Hastings was non-characteristic in make up. I'm aware that there is much guesswork here, but I'd appreciate some advice.

Short answer is that we don't really know. However Orderic Vitalis, and I think William of Poitiers as well, specifically refer to the infantry as "armoured", pedites loricati:

"The Norman duke drew up his light troops, consisting of archers and men armed with crossbows, in the first line, the infantry in armour formed the second rank; and in the third were placed the cavalry…"

That probably rules out "levies", arriere-ban and the like, who probably wouldn't have had armour. Whether any of the pedites loricati were dismounted knights is anyone's guess; I don't think there is any specific reference in any of the sources.

The obvious take on this is that the Normans, for all their specialist horse transports, were in fact short of horses at Hastings. hence some of those who normally would have been mounted perforce fought on foot.

I rather think that Duke William would have had a lot of mercenary infantry supporting his Norman, Breton and French horse.
I honestly think it was a fairly good quality army overall, and as has been stated above, the dismounted knights would have stiffened the armoured infantry.

Vis-à-vis Wm of Poitiers and Orderic Vitalis: Orderic, of course, came long after Wm of Poitiers, who was contemporary to the battle. Wm of Poitiers says: "[The duke] advanced with his troops in the following highly advantageous order, behind the banner which the pope had sent him. In the vanguard he placed infantry armed with bows and crossbows; behind them were also infantry, but more steady and armed with hauberks; in the rear, the cavalry squadrons, in the midst of which he took his place with the elite."

This does not describe the order of battle on the field, but rather the order of march.

When the actual opening of the battle happens, it is the missile troops mentioned, being almost overcome by the "deadly hail" of English "javelins and all sorts of darts, the most lethal of axes and stones fixed to pieces of wood." The situation for Wm's missile troops was dire and the mounted men came to the fore, and "disdaining to fight from a distance, they rode into battle using their swords."

A little further down the text mentions the effect of the English two-handed axes, and says that the English resisted those who attacked them with swords, and "even wounded those who threw spears at them from a distance." So after the initial onrush "with swords", elements of Wm's cavalry threw their spears from the saddle, as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry.

You will notice that there is no specific mention of spear armed infantry. Not one word. Only the inference of later seminal writers, all guessing from the paucity of the original texts and the Bayeux Tapestry. No subsequent source is actually "original", even though from the generation following the Conquest of England. So we have no good reason for supplanting the original sources with later ones that drew their details mostly from the original sources.

The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, Wm of Poitiers (who demonstrably resorted to the earlier Carmen) and the Bayeux Tapestry are our three primary, detailed sources.

Spearmen are not shown in the Tapestry, not a single figure. There is a lone mailed infantryman with spurs, so a dismounted "knight". And the Carmen also does not mention spear armed infantry on the Norman side.

Do I believe that there were no spear armed infantry? No. But it was the most minor part of the duke's army. Some knights must have lacked horses, and some sailors must have been armed in various degrees. And some actual spearmen must have been present too. As knights lost horses, the mailed infantry portion of heavy fighters would have increased until, plausibly, it dominated the ranks toward the end of the long day.

Who were the men in "hauberks" behind the bows and crossbow? If we take Wm of Poitiers' account literally, they were mail clad missile troops, like the one in four specific figures shown in the opening of the battle in the Tapestry: three of four bowmen are lightly armored or without armor at all (their clothing as depicted could arguably be padded). The mailed men would be "more steady". They could also be close combat infantry, with spears and all other sorts of melee weapons as side arms.

link

That's how I put it together.

Further in, you'll see my hypothetical OB for both sides. The armies are c. 10K men each.

And remember, it is ALL guesswork. Everybody's OBs are guesswork.

Heck, even the battlefield is guesswork, since Caldbec hill is likely to have been fought as well as "Senlac". The battle was not, in all likelihood, as straightforward and simplistic an affair as seminal narratives, or even the original sources are taken to say that it was.

My later thought on the matter is that Harold took his formed up part of his total army out into the open to the ridge and tried to "use up" the invader army, planning, perhaps to give the rest of his army back in the trees, in their camp, time to form up (because it is evident that duke Wm "stole a march" on Harold, catching the bulk of his troops unformed). Harold found out that disengaging and withdrawing back to the steeper and nastier hill of Caldbec was not practical or even possible. So he was constrained to fight with c. a third of his total gathered force alone. Meanwhile, the bulk of his troops, back in the trees, disdained to come out, believing that the ground where the king's core army was arrayed was "too narrow".

So at some point the Franco-Normans turned the flanks of the battered English "van", and assailed Caldbec hill as well. I believe that the Tapestry shows this by depicting lightly armed "rustica gens" (Carmen, line 425) on a steep hill, being done to death and dealing out death in turn, with trees at their back, i.e. the Weald forest.

link

So, "both battles" were being fought at the same time. But how does one create a straightforward narrative out of all the conflicting details that such a complex, far-flung battlefield, or set of battlefields, presented? Even the original sources simplified: the Tapestry is the only one of the three to actually show the fighting on Caldbec, and simultaneous to the main battle out in the open, not merely a mopping up action after it was over.

The pursuit of broken English would have occupied miles of more ground. So the "battle of Hastings" was a collection of many fragmented battles, of which the main one, where the protagonists faced off, was the one that got all the attention afterward, and logically so, since that was where Harold and his two brothers died and Wm set up his tent, and later Battle Abbey was built….

I rather think that Duke William would have had a lot of mercenary infantry supporting his Norman, Breton and French horse.

Is there any documentary evidence for the presence of mercenaries in the Norman army at Hastings?

The dismounted knights would have stiffened the armoured infantry.

The dismounted knights probably were the armoured infantry.

and some sailors must have been armed in various degrees.

Why would sailors be involved? Surely they would be manning the ships of the fleet, not marching inland with the army?

Very interesting responses so far – thanks. Great War Ace – thanks for the link. I had visited your site before but not come across the Tapestry commentary. I had a skim through yesterday but I'll go back and have a proper read. It is very informative. Your theories are fascinating re the nature of the battle. But as MajorB queries, if there were relatively few infantry, does that simply mean that a larger proportion of the invading force were in fact mounted -say two thirds? I don't know if anyone is familiar with the DBA 3 army lists, but this indicates for Hastings an army of 50% mounted and one third of the Army as dismounted Knights, who have a superior infantry combat factor in these rules. The rest are missile troops. So no 'levy' in this version, at least as a game.

There was no "levy". That was a feudal instrument. The Invasion was purely voluntary, since the feudal obligation did not cover it. Not only was the period of time inadequate (forty days per year), the feudal levy was not obligated to serve beyond the borders of Normandy, or the other constituent parts of the expanded Norman realm. Duke Wm was a powerful warlord who could gouge as much "feudal" service from his vassals as possible. But not even The Conqueror could compel his men to serve him "oversea".

So in answer to MajorB's first question, what evidence that there were any mercenaries? The entire army was "mercenary", in relation to "feudal". Because it was mustered and kept together and used exactly like a mercenary force: with the maintenance of the warlord's resources, and with promises of reward once victory was obtained.

In answer to MajorB's second question: the "sailors" would be occupying precious space on the ships if the only thing they were good for was getting the ships across the Channel. Ditto cooks, hostlers, all of the Conqueror's support personnel. If they did not also double as fighters, he was not being very efficient with his shipping demands. So "sailors" as fighters, cooks as fighters, hostlers as fighters, etc. That would have been the rule rather than the exception. Besides, Wm broke up many of his ships to build fortifications (and dissuade his men from imagining that they could withdraw and sail back to the Continent). What possible good would sailors be then?

I don't think that a Franco-Norman army with fifty percent mounted troops is out of the question, possibly even more than that. I don't field that many, but again, it is all a guesswork game. Surely, going only by the Bayeux Tapestry, most of the army was cavalry. (But it was produced from a nobility-centric point of view.)

On the other hand, an army with fifty percent missile troops is also a viable theory….

In answer to MajorB's second question: the "sailors" would be occupying precious space on the ships if the only thing they were good for was getting the ships across the Channel.

However, that may well have been "the only thing they were good for". Sailing a ship was a skill that only a few men had and were probably therefore too scarce a resource to possibly lose in fighting a battle for which they did not necessarily have the appropriate skills.

Besides, Wm broke up many of his ships to build fortifications

Ships could however, be just as easily replaced. Not so easy to replace skilled seamen …

I'm now curious about the archers. Who were they? Presumably not levies according to GWA. But volunteers from the peasant class? They seem to play a significant role, and their recruitment shows that this was intended. I'm no expert but I was under the impression that missile troops though used were a relatively insignificant part of armies at this time. Was this instance unusual?

Bows were never an "insignificant" part of Viking armies. And the Normans were still close to their Danish roots. Also, archers were not using puny "short bows". Their self bows were as large as the later famed war bow of the English yeomen. The difference was in draw weight on average, and the sheer masses of bowmen employed in the later armies. For the Conquest, apparently Wm the Conqueror put out a deliberate recruiting call for marksmen, and got together as many crossbows as he could. We don't know where all of them came from. But depending on how many of his Norman "countrymen" had flocked back to Normandy from S. Italy and Sicily, he could have had a significant number of archers and crossbowmen from there alone. And the quality of their weapons would have been generally superior to the more "rustic" weapons of NW Europe.

The nature of the Norman army's missile troops would have been polyglot, being drawn from a number of sources. Local archers would have been quite numerous, and the equal of anything in Scandinavia. But archers pulling the more powerful bows would have been limited to c. ten percent, as it is in nature. Crossbows were becoming more popular, and I think that archers pulling slighter bows would have started opting for the newer and easier to shoot weapon. The Low Countries featured civic militias and crossbows were not a minor part. But this was more fully developed in the 12th and 13th centuries. "Brabancons" were common mercenaries throughout the 12th century in NW Europe. Mixed companies of spear ("pike") and crossbows were employed by English monarchs and peerage. But at the time of the Conquest I doubt that these (later) troops were "in vogue". Or possibly even available yet.

Crossbows would have been in the minority. We have to take the Bayeux Tapestry as our main source for this. There is not a single crossbow shown. Morton and Muntz hypothesized, weakly in my opinion, that the mailed archer (the one in four group at the start of the battle) was meant to depict a crossbowman, by seamstresses who were not familiar with the newer weapon but had heard something about it….

But depending on how many of his Norman "countrymen" had flocked back to Normandy from S. Italy and Sicily

Is there any mention of Muslim ('pagan') archers coming from Sicily?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers in the Bayeux Tapestry

Is there any mention of Muslim ('pagan') archers coming from Sicily?

No, that is a complete myth. The Normans of Sicily would have regarded any Muslims as enemies, not allies.

I first thought that the Norman missile troops would have been engaged in fairly ordered distance mass shooting to weaken a large target rather than as skirmishers trying to pick off individuals. But if so, how were they in range of the English javelins, axes etc? This would suggest they were skirmishers, getting up close.

The effective range of bows and crossbows is not much further than that of javelins and axes. I would guess the English wouldn't just stand there being shot at saying to each other "oh dear, they are out of range of our missile weapons!"

It would only take a few seconds to run forward a few yards and lob a javelin at the Normans and then run back again.

Watch footage of a modern riot and imagine everyone in early medieval kit. It is probably closer to what a medieval battle looked like than the rather static and orderly affair that tends to be imagined by a large part of the wargaming world!

The effective range of bows and crossbows is not much further than that of javelins and axes.

Really? The current javelin world record is less than 100m. I suspect an axe could not even be thrown that far.

Bowshot is usually reckoned to be ~220yds and crossbows I think have a greater range than that.

I knew this was going to segue to here. :)

"Hobhood" is correct, there was aimed shooting at Hastings, and that meant getting in close.

"Effective range" has been a buzz phrase since seminal writers started using it and "defining" what it means. Different definitions of "effective range" mean different assertions being made by said-seminal writers. Most of them, and most wargames rules designers, do not define what they mean by "effective range". And most do not even worry about what it means. But most assume that it means, "where killin' takes place."

Maximum range, as MajorB points out, is greatly different between hand thrown missiles and bows and crossbows.

The A-S shieldwall, along the top of a ridge, meant that most of the arrows/bolts would impact shields or fly harmlessly overhead to fall well behind the phalanx. So the Norman marksmen had to get up close, to "pointblank range", in order to aim for the actual target. Saturation, volley shooting, is nowhere implied, nor is deep formation shooting.

The width of the English front and the plausible numbers of the Conqueror's missile troops means that they were in four loose ranks, more or less. In other words, "skirmish order." (And yes, that's a "best guess" using the plausible numbers involved and the map.)

So "effective range" was from the base of the ridge and up its slope aways. That is what Wm of Poitiers says: "The duke and his men, in no way frightened by the difficulty of the place, began slowly to climb the steep slope."

First off, the slope today is not "steep". But the entire top "half" is gone, removed to build Battle Abbey in the 12th century. That's beside the point. The marksmen were shooting and advancing up the slope. That put them very close to the A-S line.

"So the Norman infantry advanced closer, provoking the English, and causing wounds and death with their missiles."

Where there is no implication of "hail" (or volley, saturation shot) from the Normans, the English missiles are described as if they were launched as a long volley, so that it appeared like a "deadly hail".

So yes, the "effective range" of both sides was essentially the same. And so it works out in a properly designed game. There is no way that the Normans can stand off and shoot the English until they are reeling and collapsing, then send in the hand combat troops to finish them (as I have heard tell, from a friend, was possible in one of his computer games, heh).

On the topic of Muslim infantry, they were not "enemies" later, but mercenaries in the Siculo-Norman armies, and the later Hohenstauffen armies as well. The invasion and conquest of Sicily was ongoing from 1061 through 1091. So, no Muslim troops at Hastings….

instead of trying to get it accurate with the ratio of troops, i would just go with what makes a good scenario.

normans need enough shooting to weaken the saxon lines, but not so much just shoot them off.

give the Normans enough elite/tough units , both horse and foot, to have a reasonable chance to charge uphill and push back the Saxons, but not so much that it's easy.

if the rules use a point system that may help, but really scenario play testing is the key.

-Stew