posted 03-12-1999 11:19 AM               

In reading about the military history of the 11th and 12th Centuries, I have gotten the impression that the Normans were a cut above the average when it came to military effectiveness. In particular, when I look at the campaigns and battles of three Norman warlords (William I (the Bastard), Robert Guiscard, and Bohemond of Taranto) I see examples of military skill and organization that defy most feudal stereotypes. In particular:

a)use of infantry: Most sources say feudal armies set little importance on infantry. But the Norman commanders all seemed to have good infantry units, including archers, that played important parts in each of their battles.

b)Control of forces/ability to maneuver: The stereotype of feudal hosts is that they were uncontrolable after first contact: once you let the knights charge that was it. But William's multiple maneuvers at Hastings (and I do believe he conducted feigned retreats), Guiscard's ability to coordinate crossbowmen and mounted knights at Durazzo, and Bohemonds's use of feigned retreats at Antioch, indicate a level of control and discipline that far exceeded the norm.

c)Ability to keep an army in the field: The Normans seemed to be able to raise and keep armies in the field far longer than feudal obligations would lead us to expect. William's expeditionary force was together for almost 2 months even before they got to England, while Robert Guiscard was marching his army around Greece/Yugoslavia for months. They had some organization other than feudalism working for them

I know the Normans could be proud, lawless and cruel, but they seemed to be able to raise effective, disciplined armies at a time when most feudal lords were struggling.

posted 03-12-1999 12:02 PM               

------------------
Walk in the Light
Hugh

posted 03-15-1999 09:06 AM               

You probably have a good point, but even in reading the chroniclers of the time, you can sense a difference. A couple of examples:

1. Compare the accounts of Hastings with Crecy. In both, the battle opened with the attacking army using archers against an infantry formation in a strong defensive position. In both, the attackers initial use of arrow fire was not effective. But here is where the difference comes in: the French at Crecy apparently decide that their crossbowmwn are totally useless, and ride them down in their advance toward the English. The Norman chroniclers indicate that William's archers are withdrawn, and the Norman heavy infantry advance past them, and then, with the shield wall still intact, the Norman knights try their luck. The Norman chroniclers talk about all three groups, and notice that nobody rides down the infantry. Its as if they practiced the maneuver. And in the afternoon, William brings up his archers again, and all accounts indicate that this time they were quite effective against the remaining Saxons. In spite of their earlier lack of success, the Normans continued to value their archers.

2. At Durazzo, Robert Guiscard met the Byzantine Varangian Guard (largely made up of dispossessed Saxons) and defeated them with a skillful use of crossbowmen and mounted knights. When the Varangian Guard went into their shield wall, the Norman knights could not break it, as both the Byzantine and Norman accounts record. In other medieval battles, hosts of feudal knights would dash themselves to pieces against the infantry formation, foolishly trying to prove the superiority of the mounted knight. However, the Varangians could not maneuver well in this formation, and the Normans instead brought up their crossbowmen, who used the stationary Varangians for target practice. The knights simply served as an ever present threat to keep the Varangians
in their formation. Eventually the Varangians were so galled by the crossbowmen that they retreated to the cover of a church, which the Normans promptly burned down. The Norman knights were willing to play a supporting role to their crossbowmen, and the Norman chroniclers described it as such.

3. I was particularly surprised at accounts of the battle of Tinchebrae (spelling may be off) in the early 12th Cent, between Robert Curthose and Henry I. The chroniclers state that the Norman knights fought dismounted in order to achieve a more sustained assault! The Normans apparently retained enough respect for the man on foot to voluntarily join him when the conditions were right.

4. The Gesta Francorrum (again, sp?) was written by a Norman who was part of the First Crusade. He describes in detail the disposition and use of infantry at several battles. He also noted that knights often fought on foot, though in this case it was primarily due to the lack of mounts (the Crusaders' horses suffered horribly in the Middle East, and died in great numbers)

In short, I kind of agree with you, but even the Norman chroniclers set more importance on infantry than others.

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 03-15-99).]

posted 03-15-1999 04:09 PM               

Although different in many ways, I think the Normans can be related to groups like the Mongols -- they're practically a force of nature. When you consider how much they accomplished and in what a compressed timeframe, it's quite a feat. Like the Mongols, I'd say that their superiority came not from fighting in radically different ways, but it simply being radically better at it -- as a result of a mix of determination, experience and excellent battle leadership.

Now, if only they could have stood up to Robin Hood and his brave Saxon band...

posted 05-05-1999 06:27 PM            

my 2 cents.

posted 08-21-1999 08:30 PM               

Good to get somebody to respond. Actually, I've used pretty much the same sources as you have, though I did get hold of a translation of Anna's "Alexiad" (it didn't say too much more than was in Norwich's 2nd volume of his History of Byzantium). Everything you have on the battle is essentially correct, with a few minor qualifications:

1. Robert arranged his forces in 3 "battles", essentially 3 semi-independent divisions, with his son (Bohemond) commanding the left battle, and Sichelgaita commanding the right battle. Division of an army into battles was standard practice. Each battle would have had cavalry, heavy infantry and archers in them. European accounts of medieval battles do not talk about "flanks" but rather about which battle was engaged. The Byzantine battle array is more of a puzzle to me, other than their cavalry was largely opposite Bohemond, and the Varangians were on the Byzantine left. I don't see any account of cavalry of bowmen stationed with the Variangians, but I suppose there might have been.

2. The part of the Battle of Durazzo that I was talking about was after the Variangians broke Sichelgaita's battle, and had it in full retreat (with Sichelgaita chasing after them, cursing all the way). Robert was still heavily engaged in the center (where Alexius was also, according to Anna), and could not help. Bohemond had already put the Byzantine cavalry to flight when he got word that his step-mother was in trouble. The following things then happened:
- Bohemond broke off the pursuit, and led his battle to his Sichelgaita's aid. This, by itself, shows a great deal of discipline in the Norman ranks. To pull a knight off pursuit of a fleeing enemy, with the possibility of loot in front of him, was not easy. How much of this was Robert Guiscard's doing, and how much was Bohemond's alone, its hard to say. One has to give the commanding general some credit at least.
- Bohemond arrived at the scene fairly quickly. This makes sense: Bohemond was mounted, so he and his knights logically would have been the first to get there.
- According to Anna, the Varangians stopped their pursuit to meet this new threat. While none of the accounts says exactly how they "met" the Norman knights, knowledge of medieval tactics says they could have done only one thing: closed ranks into a tight defensive formation. If they had not closed ranks quickly, the battle would have been over right then. Scattered infantry would have stood no chance against the knights. And remember: these weren't undisciplined fyrd-men, like those at Hastings who broke out of ranks. These were professional soldiers who didn't get too far out of control during their pursuit, and who would have been capable of regaining ranks fairly quickly when they had to.

3. The accounts indicate the battle didn't end there. Nor do any of the accounts talk about knightly charges against the Varangians. Instead Anna states that the Varangians were so galled by the Norman crossbows that they retreated to find shelter in a church. How did this happen? Bohemond's crossbowmen caught up with their commander, and he put them to work on the Varangian formation. This was several years after Hastings, and the Italian Normans most certainly had learned some lessons from that battle. At the same time, the Variangians knew that sending out detachments to clear the area of archers would have gotten the detachments run down by the surrounding Norman knights. As a result, the Varangians had to take the "galling" without being able to reply, until they couldn't take it any more. Bohemond was content to let his crossbowmen take care of this problem, and save his knights for better things. I didn't see any indication that they wasted too much manpower ot time assaulting the church, before they decided to burn the Varangians out.

-I certainly agree that the Saxon Varangians were eager for a rematch, and its possible that their eagerness in pursuit drew them away from supporting archers or cavalry (or possibly left any supporting archers vulnerable to Bohemond's knights when they arrived). This is possible, but I haven't been able to find evidence that they ever had any supporting archers or cavalry to begin with. This scenario is possible, but not proven.

- The Byzantines often had bad luck with mercenaries, and I agree with you that the ones at Durazzo certainly contributed to Alexius' defeat. However, in defense of the Turks, they were Seljuks or Patchenegs, and lightly armed. They should never have been put up against armored knights in that kind of battle, and I'm not surprised that they cut and ran.

Some of this is analysis, but I think the evidence supporting it is very strong. The tactics Bohemond and Robert used were fairly standard, and were used in other medieval battles, so they were well within the realm of possibility.

BTW, its my understanding of the Danish battle axe used by the Saxons/Varangians could be used with or without a shield. I think the head was light enough to permit one handed use, while it was simple enough to momentarily support the shield on a guige strap in order to give a two handed blow, when desired. As I recall, the Bayeux Tapestry shows the Saxons using it both ways. I will defer to one of the members with better knowledge of actual fighting techniques (like Widowmaker), but I would guess that most of those Varangians did have shields.

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 08-21-99).]

posted 08-24-1999 09:55 PM               

No need at all to apologize. I'm happy to have someone who has obviously done some research challenge my analyses. I'm wrong more often than I like to admit, and besides, I appreciate the back and forth discussion. It's what I'm here for. As they say, its much better to receive a critical review than to be ignored.

posted 09-01-1999 10:37 PM               

First of all Manzikert; what an absolute debacle to give you a idea on how badly the Byzantines where whipped I have a friend who is of Turkish descent he invited me over for dinner one night & the discussion after the meal got around to what I do for a hobby, now when his great grandfather heard me mention Varangian he became very exited & started to ask a lot of questions through his grandson ( he didn't speak english).It turns out that he was told a folk story by his father about the mighty warriors of the Varangian Guard & how in a great battle at Manzikert they where wiped out by the Turkish army.
Now there is a bit of a time difference here by a couple of hundred years but the way it was told to him he thought it happened during the first world war not in 1071.

The battle of Manzikert was lost when the Emperor decided to play the chase the rabbit game & when he finally decided to give up on chasing the Seljuks the confusion created in his army when the cavalry swung around to retreat was what the Seljuks where waiting for, the decision of Andronicus Ducas to spread the rumour that the Emperor ws defeated & the battle lost didn't help as well.
The elements of the Byzantine army that did escape where the cavalry & any soldiers at the rear who got the message first, turned tail & ran. The baggage train & the encampment where capture & destroyed by the Seljuks

The problem of finding out exactly who survived & who didn't is very hard seeing how our interest is not in the nobility but in the mercenaries who fought for them, the byzantines didn't record in great detail the result of the lower classes but if you take in account the mind set of the Varangians as described in other writings of the time, & the fact the Emperor was captured, I think they were destroyed to a man.
The battle of Manzikert has been described as the beginning of the down fall for the Byzantine Empire & also the death knell for the Guard.
Using descriptions of the Varangians in other battles it paints a picture of a group of paid soldiers who win or lose, they live or die as a unit, a classic description is the fall of constantinople where the only way the Emperor was recognized was due to his Imperial purple slippers sticking out from his destroyed body & the bodies of the guard piled surrounding him.
Now I agree with you when you say the traditional weapon of the Saxon was the spear & sax but I think that was in their home land when they left England to find employment elsewhere the double handed axe was introduced to them, possibly in Constantinople. I have read discussion that put forward the idea that the double handed axe was partially introduced to England through the Dane law but the main reason that the Huscarls used it was that it had been brought back to England with ex Varangians.
Interesting concept but until there is hard fact I'll take it with a grain of salt
As I said previously it is really hard to work out what weapons they actually used in battle all the references portray them as being the axe swinging barbarians from the north, but the only painting I have ever seen of them shows them with both axe & spear, the painting depicts them attending the execution of an Anti Emperor.
I'll use the argument of you use what is appropriate for the time when it comes to weapon of choice.

Ah which guard have you found references for? the bulgarians or Michael Calaphates 'Scythians' there was a lot of "Guard" unites employed to protect the Emperor & his family & to work out which one was the Varangians is part of the problem.
The only time you can be sure which unit they are tully talking about is when they say the full name or when the units come together, there was no love lost between the Varangians & the bulgarians.

The sword slung over the right shoulder on a baldric would always be the back up weapon, there are many references for the sword being hung from the right shoulder across the chest, one of the best is The Varangians of Byzantium by Sigfus Bleondal.
The type of sword used would depend on the amount of time served in the Empire, the traditional long sword from western europe would be the sword of a new recruit in the guard until it broke our until the Guardsman bought a replacement, the rhomphaia was the standard sword of the byzantine army but was a lot shorter than a european long sword.
Over the length of time of their employment the Varangians would have taken a more greek appearance in their clothing & weapons, that is also a argumentative point I totally disagree with but there is no evidence to back me up

Historical materials ?

Do you mean written references, training manuals?

What time span, if you are talking the 12th century your out of luck, the only references you can base your fighting on is pictorial, but that can be the artist being artistic
If you are after eastern european/slavic stuff do a little research on Novgorod & the golden hoard, I have a friend who brought back a book from Russia on a battle between the Mongols & the Russians that is very very good lots of photos of their gear & entire horse/riders preserved in the frozen ground brought back to the surface in almost perfect condition, but there is one problem I don't speak or read Russian
If you want to train with a single or double handed axe one of my old training instructors gave me a very good piece of advice, which is, the blows you land with an axe is the same kind of blows you would use for a sword (if you are fighting in the traditional viking method, full arc blows) the difference between the two is the axe has a smaller contact zone & you have to control it a lot more due to the mass princable.
Fighting with an axe is a lot more fun than fighting with any other weapon, your main defence is that you can get in alot closer & thus make their weapon redundant, speed & mobility are your goals.
A piece of a saga comes to mind about a viking receiving a axe as a present from a friend, he was very impressed with the look of the axe as it was inlaid & polished, the saga goes on to say that when he used the axe in combat? demonstration? that he swung the axe with all his might at the head of his opponent but missed & the axe hit a rock on the ground & shattered, that's a pretty good indication of their fighting styles, one hit wonders
If it is written training records you are after.......sorry the century's I am interested where a little illiterate, but the renaissance era might have something.
One of the jobs I have in my club is to train new people in fighting with an axe, I've found that if you start them of with a single handed axe that when they progress to using a sword that their blows have a greater chance of landing exactly where they want them to. That training with a weapon with such a small cutting area reinforces the need to be able to land every blow correctly, it also makes them much more mobile so they don't site behind a big shield waiting to die.

I hope you enjoyed this long winded reply

Thorir

posted 09-02-1999 04:58 PM               

The axes we use are real axes, they have to be historically accurate with all the edges blunted.
The basic rule of thumb is five millimetre edges rounded & all tips the diameter of a adults thumb .
Before & after all training sessions a flat smooth file is run along the edges to remove any serration's & at the beginning of training a training officer checks all weapons to make sure they are safe.

posted 09-02-1999 09:29 PM               

So to cap this off I'll now answer your question Our speed of blows is about eighty to eighty five percent of a true blow but it MUST be pulled on contact with the opponent hard enough that they feel the blow but are not injured by it e.g. no bruising or welts, the idea is to land a safe clean blow, faces, groin, hands, knees/elbows & feet are off target areas, all blows above the armpits must come down vertically, spears are not allowed to go above the arm pits.

There is a lot more I could put in like the angle of thrusting & such but you only asked about speed

I think Iv given a pretty clear picture about the fighting over here, nearly every dark ages club in Australia follows the rules Iv just loosely outlined to you, so when it comes down to mass combat your pretty safe, the most severe injury you might get is a bruise from a heavy hitter.