anglo saxon warfare – The Wargaming Erratic

September is a busy month for battle anniversaries in Yorkshire not least in 1066.

On the 20th the Vikings of King Harald defeated the Saxons of Earls Edwin and Morcar at Germany Beck in what is now Fulford. There are not many references to this battle – given that two climatic battles followed, its understandable.

The battle was according to records fought near where the beck joins a sharp turn in the river Ouse.

Crucially the defeated Saxons made good their escape as a rising tide flooded the beck. This meant they could fight another day.

There is a tapestry of the Fulford battle displayed at various locations over the years since it was made in 2012 after ten years effort!

On the 25th September the Saxons under King Harold of England defeated Harald and the Viking host at Stamford Bridge.

It was the end of the Scandinavian Viking threat after hundreds of years of invasion.

A tapestry of the Stamford Bridge battle can be seen in the old railway station at Stamford Bridge.

It was another Viking Scion – the Norsemen who took land in the Carolingian Empire and called it Normandy – who a few generations later then defeated the English in turn at Hastings.

It can be argued that without Fulford and Stamford Bridge there would have been no Hastings and maybe a different war between Harold and William might have played out.

So maybe instead of waiting for yet another Norman invasion (the bayeaux tapestry is en route to the UK) you could visit these other tapestries when they are on show instead or as well as.

People remember William for what followed yet Harold had marched 500 miles with his household troops and won a great victory putting together two separate regional armies before arriving at Hastings: William fought an outstanding adversary.

Back in 2020 I put together some shield wall armies and had some fun trying out various rules.

https://thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2020/09/06/prelude-to-wargames-rules-tested/

Anglo Saxon Warfare Book Review

Paul Hill’s The Anglo-Saxons at War is a good source book. He covers the period of 800 – 1066 in themes.

Campaigns describes how the anglo saxons conducted their warfare and while often a reaction to viking raids they had a method and of course fought amongst themselves.

He discusses the use of fortified places – again I thought this was a good chapter.

Strategy and tactics left me less happy – somehow this part was too bitty although I liked the ruses discussion which included how they used the land to their advantage.

Military Organisation covered quite a few aspects and I welcome the coverage he has given on naval capability and activity. Mercenaries are dealt with as is the issue of tribute and how that impacted on military organisation. Tribute giving and taking plus exchanging hostages were all part of the fabric of warfare and should be seen as such and not detached.

He inevitably deals with cavalry and is clear they rode to war and fought “battles” on fought yet fought on horseback when pursuing for example. Similarly the bow is discussed although he is muted on its use acknowledging that before contact shieldwalls exchanged a whole array of throwable missiles. The argument for some bowmen behind these shieldwalls seems obvious – you could also I think draw parallels with late roman armies of spearmen who threw darts. Why would spear armed infantry not use a few missile men? That is a world away from massed units of bowmen which seems sometimes to be the only option in these discussions.

Paul includes the size of armies as well as recruitment – this last part feeds on another chapter (below) very well. Logistics and communciation are also discussed – I felt the logistics was of value but I did not like his approach or the content of the communciations section. I thought he could have made a better argument for more organised communciations even on the battlefield. And he could have made parallels with warfare of the time going on elsewhere. He does this to good effect in other parts of the book yet not here.

The chapter on warfare and society includes obligations and why go to war in the first place looking at the individual perspective as much as the hierarchy. This was good material. Not so good was the part on where battles were fought although some parts were interesting such as the occurence of “ford” battles. Again it felt as though there was more to be offered but either he lacked of room or the author had no desire to go beyond those limited areas that he wanted to cover.

This book is not about battles themselves and probably reads better if unlike me you have read a narrative history of the period first.

In some respects this book felt like a series of articles written maybe over time and now stitched together to form a book. This may even explain the degree of repetition. If so it was not a problem for me.

Overall this is a book I am pleased to have bought and I am not sure there is a book quite like it despite my reservations of the way some areas have been covered.

Unlike even some books I have really enjoyed this book does lend itself to being a reference book. And I aim to revisit it.

Verdict – recommended.