This is all I've been able to find so far;

1. There were "stud farms [in England] by the end of the 10thC" ('Weapons & Warfare in A/S England'- Sonia Chadwick-Hawkes)..."because they are mentioned in wills from then onwards"

2. King Ceolwulf of Mercia is mentioned in a charter of 875, who allowed parts of Worcester diocese to feed a stud farm. If this 'farming out' of horses to church lands was usual in England, then it might explain why the Vikings were able to seize horses so easily- by targetting and sacking churches which did this!

3. King Athelstan(924-39) declared that each landowner must provide him with 'two well-mounted men for every plough' in his possession, and that no horse should be sent overseas except as gifts(similar to the Frankish laws of thelate 8thC & early 9thC's)

4. The introduction of the office of "staller" (orig. Norse or Norman Comes Stabuli ??)- which suggests a keeper/trainer of a stable- may have been introduced by either Canute(via his scandinavian provinces?) or King Edward(via his Norman influences in exile?). Of the eight known stallers(ie.Osgod Clapa, who ret'd to England in 1049 from a 4yr exile to ravage or invade) five had exercised military functions connected with King's horses!

5. Pre-Canute(1016-35) England, warhorses had always been important vehicles for war(Alfred at Ashdown, Edmund Ironside during 1016 & Harold II in Wales & Stamford), but Canute's Scandinavian influence shifted the emphasis from them and onto the navy and the proud Germanic fighting tradition of the infantry warrior (Housecarls were introduced by Canute and his father, Swein Forkbeard).

6. Kings Alfred, Athelstan and Edmund 'Ironside' had fought battles on horseback at Ashdown(871); Brunanburh(937)? and Ashingdon(1016) respectively- as did Harold(and Tostig) in Wales in 1063 and at Stamford Bridge in 1066.

Long before them the Britons were fighting in battles with horse-drawn chariots(against Julius Caesar in 45 & 44bc; Claudius's armies in 43ad & in Boudicca's army in 61ad); the Angles and Saxons sometimes fought as mercenaries in the Roman army (German warrior Arminius, leader at Teutoberger in ad9), and when they came to Briton they saw the British/Welsh attacks as horsemen in battle under highly organised and capable leaders such as Arthur(?) against their all-infantry armies(Mount Badon ad500?).

[ 06-29-2006: Message edited by: ironaxe ]

--------------------

The Battle of Maldon rings some bells here ... specifically ...

"Then he commanded each young man
To leave his horse, to drive it far off,
and to go forth, with mind turned
to strong hands and good thoughts."

and

"Then Byrhtnoth began to array men there,
rode and gave counsel, taught warriors
how they must stand and that stead hold, bade them their round-shields rightly hold
fast with hands, not at all frightened. When he had fairly arrayed that folk, he dismounted among them where it most pleased him, where he knew his hearth-band most loyal."

So here we have the riding to get to the battle and to provide command and direction, but dismounting for the actual fighting.

Ironically this has strong echoes with later (medieval) English practice ... not that that proves anything!

Anyway that makes me curious about your mention of Alfred etc. being mounted at Ashdown etc.

I managed to find this extract from Asser's Life of Alfred ....

"The pagans had divided themselves into two bodies, and began to prepare defences, for they had two kings and many earls, so they gave the middle part of the army to the two kings, and the other part to all their earls. Which the Christians perceiving, divided their army also into two troops, and also began to construct defences. But Alfred, as we have been told by those who were present, and would not tell an untruth, marched up promptly with his men to give them battle; for king Ethelred remained a long time in his tent in prayer, hearing the mass, and said that he would not leave it, till the priest had done, or abandon the divine protection for that of men. And he did so too, which afterwards availed him much with the Almighty, as we shall declare more fully in the sequel.

Now the Christians had determined that king Ethelred, with his men, should attack the two pagan kings, but that his brother Alfred, with his troops, should take the chance of war against the two earls. Things being so arranged, the king remained a long time in prayer, and the pagans came up rapidly to fight. Then Alfred, though possessing a subordinate authority, could no longer support the troops of the enemy, unless he retreated or charged upon them without waiting for his brother. At length he bravely led his troops against the hostile army, as they had before arranged, but without awaiting his brother's arrival; for he relied in the divine counsels, and forming his men into a dense phalanx, marched on at once to meet the foe. "

No mention of horses or mounted attacks ....
however translations and interpretations are always risky so if you do have some information on this I'd be very interested.

Edmund Ironside was mounted in that source also, which I still believe despite many primary sources not stating so.

Wish I could find that book.

--------------------

I glanced at The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Encomium Emmae Reginaeo, etc. for extracts on the battle and both appear to reference the use of horses, and their importance to the armies ... however, significantly the references are not in battle but in mobility within the campaign ... exactly the same sort of approach adopted by Harold Godwinsson for Stamford Bridge and Hastings ... ride to the battle but dismount to fight.

If the sources reference the horses for the mobility of the armies and reference marching and shield walls for the fighting ... why should we doubt them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Key:
I'm fascinated why you fell that Edmund was mounted, or part of his army were, in battle despite the primmary (or at least same-century) sources saying the contrary.

I glanced at The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Encomium Emmae Reginaeo, etc. for extracts on the battle and both appear to reference the use of horses, and their importance to the armies ... however, significantly the references are not in battle but in mobility within the campaign ... exactly the same sort of approach adopted by Harold Godwinsson for Stamford Bridge and Hastings ... ride to the battle but dismount to fight.

If the sources reference the horses for the mobility of the armies and reference marching and shield walls for the fighting ... why should we doubt them?

Cheers
Dave

---

I'm well aware that the Anglo-Saxons mostly only rode to battle then dismounted (re-mounting for the rout) but, like I said, I read a historian's book some years ago (re; Ashingdon) which described the supposed topography and Edmund riding against Canute's shieldwall whilst Edric peeled off and betrayed him. (it may have been 'Burne's battlefields' or something)

At the time, i didn't suspect for a moment that that secondary account was so unique, or controversial, or I'd have noted and quoted.

You say Harold dismounted his force at Stamford, even though he was only minutes away from totally surpising the Norsemen and dashing to seize the bridge over the Derwent?

Why would Harold's thegns and housecarls, having come so far and so fast on horseback in order to surprise the Norsemen, give up their mounted advantage of surprise/speed/shock value(overtaking the Norse infantry trapped there), and dismount -short of their enemy west of the Derwent- and their objective, to slog it out on foot?

That would have been as futile as William halting his cavalry 100m short of Senlac ridge then dismounting to run the last dash!

He must have had them mounted(at least for the first phase) to sprint for the bridge, thus cutting off and slaying the unsuspecting Norsemen caught west of the river whilst gaining a vital foothold to Hardrada's main army to the east.

For Harold to have ordered his men to dismount, wanting total surprise before first contact, it would be defeating the whole point of making such a speedy attack from London during the previous four days/nights?

[ 07-07-2006: Message edited by: ironaxe ]

[ 07-07-2006: Message edited by: ironaxe ]

--------------------

My reasoning for questioning your historians assertions is just that ... they are an historians interpretation of events and all too often these are interpretations based on a desire to fill a book and provide a full account of something that is almost by it's nature incomplete. So we are forced to deduce and make conjectures. Your theories are just as valid as anyones, however to be able to judge them all I can do is look to the evidence I have seen and the information I have (which as I stated initially is something of a memory dredge and a cursory scan of the internet ... and so I am more than welcome to hear new evidence).

Based upon this I would reply to your question "Why would Harold's thegns and housecarls ... give up their mounted advantage of surprise/speed/shock value ... to slog it out on foot?" as follows ...

First ask whether dismounting actually removed the advantage of surprise or speed? If, and I don't pretend to know much about Stamford Bridge (I was actually meaning the speed with which the elite of Harold's army moved up and down the country), the Norse force was on foot ... then the ability to used the mounted forces to arrive unexpectedly and in an unexpected place was the key to the manoeuvre ... not the speed once the armies were arrayed against each other.

Secondly, yo mention horses giving shock value, if by shock you mean surprise then the above answers that. If by shock you mean impact/force then I would question whether horses ridden as they were by the Anglo-Saxons would have given this advantage.

At Hastings the shield wall was remarkably effective against repeated attacked by the mounted Normans and Bretons. The failure was when this defensive wall was broken and the mounted troops were able to get amongst the infantry.

Similarly, the weapons used by Housecarls, as seen in the Bayeaux Tapestry at any rate, would not easily lend themselves to being weilded from a horse.

Finally, and actually probably more significantly although less easy to prove as it is based upon the language with which battles were described (The Battle of Maldon being a beautiful case in point) is the psychology, the attitude to battle of the Anglo-Saxons.

Throughout Anglo-Saxon military literature is the ethos of fellowship. Of standing shoulder to shoulder with your lord. The familial relationship between a Lord and his House runs throuhgh Maldon. It is the reason the men die in a lost cause to repay the honour and gifts bestowed upon them, and why flight was so dishonourable. The closeness of this is very physical and literal ... whenthey stood shoulder to shoulder that is precisely what they did.

Still ... I could easily be wrong. This is all late at night top-of-my -head stuff ... so find me the source (preferably Anglo-Saxon rather than modern) to prove, or even suggest, mounted combat and I'll correct my opinion.

As you may have already got an incling ;-) I have a 'bit of a thing' about modern military historians wanting to sell their books by embellishing on what the people who were there said ... there is more in the words than many give credit for but the details of the battle is often not one of those things ... we should look more at the way the armies were organised, how they thought to understand the events rather than focusing on modern ideas on combat.

An interesting case in point is the Battle of Hastings where, if I recall correctly ... the Bretons were supposedly routed but then the Normans feigned a retreat only to turn on the pursuing Saxons. However if you look at the Carolingian history of the wars they fought against the Bretoons ... this feigned mounted retreat only to turn back on their attacker was a traditional Breton tactic ... so were the Bretoins the heros and the Normans the ones who lost their nerve ... who knows ... but we know who wrote the history. Whether the incident above is true/accurate is not really that important ... what is important is the whole story not trying to fick out the bits that suit what we want.

Good question though ... certainly made me remember a few things I haven't looked at, or thought about, in years. Cheers for that. and I look forward to hearing what you have managed to come up with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Key:
'ironaxe, firstly my apologies for not addressing you properly, it's always a bit odd and sounds far to impersonal not using real names.

My reasoning for questioning your historians assertions is just that ... they are an historians interpretation of events and all too often these are interpretations based on a desire to fill a book and provide a full account of something that is almost by it's nature incomplete. So we are forced to deduce and make conjectures. Your theories are just as valid as anyones, however to be able to judge them all I can do is look to the evidence I have seen and the information I have (which as I stated initially is something of a memory dredge and a cursory scan of the internet ... and so I am more than welcome to hear new evidence).

Based upon this I would reply to your question "Why would Harold's thegns and housecarls ... give up their mounted advantage of surprise/speed/shock value ... to slog it out on foot?" as follows ...

First ask whether dismounting actually removed the advantage of surprise or speed? If, and I don't pretend to know much about Stamford Bridge (I was actually meaning the speed with which the elite of Harold's army moved up and down the country), the Norse force was on foot ... then the ability to used the mounted forces to arrive unexpectedly and in an unexpected place was the key to the manoeuvre ... not the speed once the armies were arrayed against each other.

Secondly, yo mention horses giving shock value, if by shock you mean surprise then the above answers that. If by shock you mean impact/force then I would question whether horses ridden as they were by the Anglo-Saxons would have given this advantage.

At Hastings the shield wall was remarkably effective against repeated attacked by the mounted Normans and Bretons. The failure was when this defensive wall was broken and the mounted troops were able to get amongst the infantry.

Similarly, the weapons used by Housecarls, as seen in the Bayeaux Tapestry at any rate, would not easily lend themselves to being weilded from a horse.

Finally, and actually probably more significantly although less easy to prove as it is based upon the language with which battles were described (The Battle of Maldon being a beautiful case in point) is the psychology, the attitude to battle of the Anglo-Saxons.

Throughout Anglo-Saxon military literature is the ethos of fellowship. Of standing shoulder to shoulder with your lord. The familial relationship between a Lord and his House runs throuhgh Maldon. It is the reason the men die in a lost cause to repay the honour and gifts bestowed upon them, and why flight was so dishonourable. The closeness of this is very physical and literal ... whenthey stood shoulder to shoulder that is precisely what they did.

Still ... I could easily be wrong. This is all late at night top-of-my -head stuff ... so find me the source (preferably Anglo-Saxon rather than modern) to prove, or even suggest, mounted combat and I'll correct my opinion.

As you may have already got an incling ;-) I have a 'bit of a thing' about modern military historians wanting to sell their books by embellishing on what the people who were there said ... there is more in the words than many give credit for but the details of the battle is often not one of those things ... we should look more at the way the armies were organised, how they thought to understand the events rather than focusing on modern ideas on combat.

An interesting case in point is the Battle of Hastings where, if I recall correctly ... the Bretons were supposedly routed but then the Normans feigned a retreat only to turn on the pursuing Saxons. However if you look at the Carolingian history of the wars they fought against the Bretoons ... this feigned mounted retreat only to turn back on their attacker was a traditional Breton tactic ... so were the Bretoins the heros and the Normans the ones who lost their nerve ... who knows ... but we know who wrote the history. Whether the incident above is true/accurate is not really that important ... what is important is the whole story not trying to fick out the bits that suit what we want.

Good question though ... certainly made me remember a few things I haven't looked at, or thought about, in years. Cheers for that. and I look forward to hearing what you have managed to come up with.

Cheers
Dave

---

I agree about modern historians and book sales, but I don't think they're any less accurate or valid (generally) than the biased William of Poitiers(and other 'victors'), despite his first-hand sources and past military experience! Indeed, some current historians are excellent at recording the available murky details without 'filling in' the gaps.

Conversely, Snorri Sturlasson- upon whose belated sagas(often distrusted) our understanding of the Stamford battle is formed- isn't any more or less wayward than the primary or secondary sources in his details.

Harold's mostly housecarl mounted army, Sturlasson says, totally surprised Hardrada and Tostig, whose army was spread out on both sides of the R.Derwent. They were overconfident after and relaxed(after the Battle of Fulford five days before), it was a hot and sunny late-summer's day(as in 1940?) so they had had permission to leave their body armour with their fleet at Riccal a few miles away, whilst they waited here for the agreed York VIP hostages(after the surrender of York).

Although I'm very well aware that the Saxons felt best when fighting on foot in the 'old way', Harold's elite warriors were also trained to campaign on horseback(Wales 1063 & Brittany 1064) and with a variety of weapons(swords and spears) as well as axes, and I just cannot believe that, in order to capture the vital bridge which would lead the English to Hardrada's main army on the east bank(Battle flats)- then hurriedly arraying whilst the west-bank force tried in vain to hold the English off- that they would dismount and abandon the element of speed and power(even if until only after the bridge was taken) by pausing, only to slog it out needlessly towards their first objective.

After they had cut off the west-bank Norsemen- or annihilated them- then they could dismount and fight as they were accustomed- against Hardrada's main encircled army over the river(even though Sturlasson says that the English initially charged against his shieldwall bristling with spears, discharged their spears then wheeled away again!). Then the Saxons could dismount, line up against Hardrada and slog it out, as they supposedly did.

The difference between the use of Norman/Breton horses at hastings and the English at Stamford was different in the way they were trained from youth, but mostly the topography was totally different. The former battle was uphill into a shieldwall.

As for the Breton 'feigned retreat', this skill was well-known by them. William perhaps asked his 'specialists' at this complex manouevre(esp. during noisy chaotic battle)- Walter Giffard commanding the French and Count Alan his Bretons, to perform it deliberately near the Saxon shieldwall?

Yet, Norman cavalry had performed this feat at;- Arques in Normandy(1053- by Walter Giffard who also used this tactic successfully at Hastings); at Messina(1060) and at Cassel(1071).
The Breton cavalry were known for this tactic themselves- and also did this manoevre at Conqueror (c.990- 70yrs before William)against Fulk Nerra of Anjou.

Also favouring this tactic were the Byzantines (Narses, a great Byzantine commander, famously lured the Franks down off a hill, ala Hastings), the Saracens, the Mongols, the Alans, the Huns(in the 560's acc.to Byzantine sources), the Visigoths (in S.Russia- ag. the Franks)and the Magyars (in the 10thC)- all well-known for 'feigned retreats' long before William.

Cheers.

--------------------