Different spearheads
Athorough appreciation of the arms and armour shown and employed in 1066 is, I think, essential, because it presents verifiable accuracy to the depictions and because it helps us understand the tactics employed. The evidence before our eyes, the picture-scape of the Tapestry, is our only real source of evidence for the appearance of both sides in the conflict, though not necessarily for their weaponry, which is also attested elsewhere and especially in the archaeological record. The fact that Norman and Saxon armours are shown as identical (if we exclude Odo) should tell us that the allé-mode on either side of La Manche was the same. This suggests that if both sides defended themselves alike, then they probably fought much alike and therein hangs a caveat. Variations in the depictions of mail armour should not distract us as they distracted nineteenth century antiquarians into inventing various technical solutions. Any team of craftspeople will have their own individual variations when it comes to pictorial execution. It is very difficult to represent mail accurately. If other artists in other sources and mediums also made individual attempts, that does not give us diversity of construction, only of depiction. The Tapestry tells us that the best-defended troops on either side looked alike, whether we call their garment a ‘hauberk’ or a ‘byrnie’, with shields and helmets also alike. Secondary (light) troops, velites, were sparsely armoured, whether archers or common fyrdmen. The nature of the battle, however, differentiates the sides, especially the Norman-French-Breton employment of heavy cavalry. This alone presents one side on foot and the other mounted.
William had placed his greatest emphasis, his real hope of success, on the resurrection of heavy cavalry. I say ‘resurrection’ because the Romans had had such specialised troops long ago. Many were undoubtedly of mercenary aspect. Why did William place so much faith in cavalry, what made them so special? To the Victorian and Edwardian historians, the answer was simple. They were lancers. Of course, lancers are light cavalry and William’s knights were heavy cavalry, but that detail did not matter to them. In c.1900, much of the developed world was in love with lancers. While British lancers were usually light cavalry the German Kaiser equipped all his cavalry units (whether light or heavy, Uhlans, Hussars, Cuirassiers or Dragoons) with lances and in India the non-silladar cavalry of the Raj now took to the lance. Even the arme-blanche French appointed some cavalry to act as lancers. The superiority of the Normans, it was argued, was in adopting the spear over the sword and adapting it as a lance, but it is indisputable that spear and shield were the standard weapons of the age on both sides and for horse and foot alike. The spear was a cheap, simple and versatile weapon, it is no surprise to see it in the hands of horsemen. Just how it was used on horseback cannot be proved but types of spearhead provide us with clues.
In fact on the Tapestry we see few horsemen actually couching their lances and of course the gonfanoniers (who could hardly use it in any other way when defending themselves). The overwhelming majority of riders use their spears overhand or else carry them erect or at the trail and there are mounted swordsmen. The terrifying prospect of a tiny point travelling at about 25 miles perhour, propelled by half a ton of horseflesh, was not then the standard practise, though the sheer weight of cavalry is indeed effective in its own right. The Norman emphasis on heavy cavalry as an attacking arm was special for it relied on bloodstock. The Normans had learned to breed horses for combat. Their requirement was for an endurance mount capable of carrying a heavily armoured man, of responding implicitly and acting aggressively, with man and mount in concert. For such purposes they needed a relatively large, strong beast and not a pony or a cob. It is also difficult to train a horse to trample on a man and it required intensive training and constant attention to develop empathy between man and mount. The ‘Norman Horse’ is supposedly the breed shown on the Tapestry (today rebred as the Salle Française), but blood like the Percheron, Boulonnais and even Andalusian might have been involved. Duke William is said to have been presented with an Andalusian stallion. I call them ‘bloodstock’ because only breeding, constant training and familiarity could guarantee the essential unity of each rider and mount. Then, as later, they commanded formidable prices. Like racehorses today, they were specially bred and so specially priced. One of Duke William’s inducements to the ‘free lances’ (mercenaries) in his army seems to have been his large reserve of trained war horses.
None of the mounts shown on the Tapestry have any barding, so the sort of heavy cavalry employment once seen among Roman cataphracts was not envisaged. These horses in 1066 were expected to move with some speed and dexterity rather than just crash through enemy formations at a trot. We do not know what tactical formations or manoeuvres were employed, but the Tapestry shows both magnificent steeds and combined or co-operative tactical developments, with mounts massed together in what look like formations. Clearly William and his joint-stockholders envisaged a war of movement and probably not one involving set-piece battles, which would endanger the bloodstock, certainly not actions against defensive positions. To be adaptable (as Clauswitz later observed) he needed infantry but in a war of movement they become a hindrance. So he included a purely offensive arm. We might compare the concept to blitzkrieg. The situation that faced William at Caldbec Hill was consequently quite the worst prospect he could have imagined yet, had he delayed engagement that day, the situation would have become even worse. It was touch-and-go. They could not go around the English position to cut Harold’s communications because of the Wealden terrain1 and also the size of the English force, the risk of themselves being caught between two fires. So they could not isolate and bypass them. Having encountered the English, they had to fight them on their own, chosen ground.
The other evident strength of the invading force was its fire-power. Whether it was English practise to use archers merely for skirmishing2 we really cannot know, but the invaders seem to have brought a considerable force of them and obviously anticipated having to dislodge emplaced infantry at some point. Once again, we have an attacking arm with (at this date) little defensive power in the field unless sheltered behind built defences, so this reliance on offence was nearly William’s undoing. From this we may judge that English infantry, men in formation, whether at ‘push-of-pike’ (spear) or closing for personal combat, had a reputation as good as anyone. For all the reputation of Viking armies we should remember that Harold had just enjoyed a resounding victory over one. William imported cavalry because he did not have the same quality of infantry.
Much speculation has involved these archers of William’s and their weapons including claims that they were underpowered, but I see no reason for the range of a self-bow to be much less than ten score yards ‘forehand’, maybe more, and if any of the archers had returned from Outremer/Byzantium there is no reason why they should not have had composite bows. These Turkish bows hold the world distance record.3 We are also told of crossbows among the ranks of the Norman archers,4 which do seem to have been unknown to the English. For this reason they do not appear on the Tapestry, which was embroidered by English workers and, apparently, by workers who had not been at the event. We should not be surprised at this. Common soldiers were commonly ignored by their betters. The advantage of this new crossbow weapon was that it was powerful, required minimal training and could easily be sighted for flat-trajectory fire. The disadvantage was that its projectile was doubly non-returnable: too deadly to easily remove and also incapable of being launched from any conventional bow. The composite bow had been used by the Romans and by the later twelfth century we have accounts in England listing their materials at the Tower,5 so composite bows are possible, the technology having been brought back by the mercenaries from Outremer.
However, in committing himself to archery William was encumbering his cavalry strike-force with foot soldiers and also a baggage-train. While it was customary for opposing armies to recover their enemies’ drop-shots, the inescapable precaution was to supply a sufficient quantity of projectiles to meet the envisaged need, in this case a campaign that turned out to be against an emplaced enemy. William presumably knew after landing, from his scouts, of the enemy’s location and position, even if not its true strength, so his archers may have had enough time to augment their reserves by their own industry, if they had a stock of heads with which to work. Working to the munition standards of a slightly later date, for effective parabolic-fire (the transfer of kinetic to potential energy), arrows cannot have weighed much less in 1066, so each projectile would weigh about 2 ounces (60 grams), with the weight in the head and a sheaf of arrows 24, with a length of at least 30 inches. With minimal spacing each sheaf would require 4½ inches x 1 inch of headspace, so a square foot of headspace would accommodate 768 arrows at best. The most conservative estimate, that of Poyntz Wright,6 is 800 archers and there might have been more. So if each man only shot one sheaf an hour for eight hours, the requirement would be for 6,400 sheaves or 153,600 arrows (basic minimum) and such a cargo would weigh 8½ tons. That would leave each archer to carry 24lb of projectiles plus his other kit. If a baggage mule or pony can carry 150-200lb, at best, over a reasonable distance then 19,000+ lb (maybe double this) would require at least ninety-six mules or ponies, or half that number if the archers carried 12lb of arrows each. What if even more projectiles were required and what of the quartermasters’ allowance for spoilage during transportation across the Channel? What about the quarrels for crossbows. They were non-returnable because the enemy had no crossbows. The crossbowmen would require a much better allowance and I suspect that archers and crossbowmen were busy making themselves fresh supplies from the moment they landed, using heads transported en masse, but these all made for carriage weight and volume in the baggage train when they advanced.
A variety of spearheads is shown in the whole length of the Tapestry. They are not of one uniform type, neither are they inventions. Those shown in Guy’s escort near the beginning of the Tapestry include fairly long blades with basal collars as well as shorter, pointed, stouter types, though when we see Guy seated and also William’s messengers to him, the heads on the spears are barbed and with one, two or three short, basal stop-bars. A longer blade with two inequal stop-bars is also shown. These bladed types with stop-bars were most likely used for hunting. At least they were in later centuries, though they could be used in war and they may have been included to indicate the non-aggressive nature of these interlocatory negotiations. The expedition against Conan shows us plainer points, with or without stops.
Barbed heads are carried by Englishmen and by Normans. In fact the Norman quartermaster’s wagon that loads the invasion fleet features them, apparently on short hafts, and at Battle we see the English with barbed, barbed and stopped, and plain leaf-forms, though the Normans generally favour leaf, diamond point or pyramid forms for combat. Of course there is less attention to fine details in the heat of the battle, but two English figures carrying bundles of short, barbed spears are generally described by historians as using ‘javelins’ despite the fact that we have seen the Normans loading identical weapons (even carrying them in England), apparently the source of the assertion that the English preferred javelins to arrows.7 I think we should see these ‘darts’ as akin to the Roman javelin, a weapon designed to encumber and unbalance an opponent’s shield, rendering him vulnerable. Of course, barbed blades prevented withdrawal and would be suitable in offense and stop-bars prevented over-penetration when employed defensively, the shorter (leaf, diamond and pyramid) forms of spearhead were clearly designed to penetrate armour yet still be rapidly withdrawn and reused. It would appear that our needleworkers were artists familiar with weapons, their types and functions, as well as with warships and buildings of all sorts.
Different spearheads
The few longer-bladed spears seen are reminiscent of much earlier Saxon long-bladed (Swanton) forms, the employment of which may at times have resembled the Japanese ‘naginata’, with the spear spun rapidly between the fingers of one hand, like a rotor-blade, and the hand held above the head. This would be impractical in close-formation fighting but I have seen it done and it is intimidating as well as distracting. The stopped-forms held a victim back and prevented even the most determined from travelling up the shaft. They are found in other contexts and sources,8 the ancestors of the winged and the toggled boar-spears of the later Medieval period. Evidence, such as it is, therefore suggests that in battle the Norman heavy cavalry favoured small-point spears enabling them to maintain movement and retention by speeding withdrawal, yet stout enough not to bend when used against mail armour. This would be a good reason to avoid couching the spear as a lance and so making recovery less likely.
Norman javelins, also ‘Dutch courage’
The standard Norman cavalry sword was a long-bladed slashing type, not far removed from the spatha of the Roman cavalryman or the Sudanese kaskara. As with a mounted policeman’s baton, reach was important. Also the forward weight of the blade would improve a downwards delivery. There would, of course, be many qualities of blade, from work-hardened iron to forms of steel, which we discuss below. Unlike later armes-blanche, we should not imagine the Norman horse presenting point to an enemy. They expected to use their swords primarily against infantry and invariably for slashing. The same considerations do not necessarily apply to the infantryman’s weapon though dismounted horsemen are unlikely to have carried anything but long swords. For close infantry combat shorter blades and thrusting movements can be equally effective. Sword-and-buckler was to become a very English form of the (recorded) art of swordsmanship in the near future and as short blades are known from Anglo-Saxon graves it may be that some infantry used shorter swords and thrusting movements in 1066. Maybe shorter swords were employed by men who rolled under a spear ‘hedge’ to slash at opponent’s legs, as the Spanish were famous for doing centuries later.
Spearheads and an example of couching with gonfanon
The long-handled, heavy bladed axes of the military men, especially the presumed huscarles (or housecarls) who we see on the Tapestry, are quite distinct from the slim felling-axes of the woodsmen shown in the shipbuilding scenes (which resemble the ‘long-fellers’ of later southern-English woodsmen), because the technique used would be quite different. The hatchets or clubs thrown through the air are also quite different from the ‘T’-side-axes of the shipwrights. Again, we clearly see in such specialist knowledge of tools a male influence at work and as the needleworkers worked directly they knew the difference. The same is true of spear types. These were men who knew a hunting spear or a ‘dart’ from a horseman’s spear. We can surely be in no doubt that they also knew their horses. They sound or look as though they are as far from being monks as they are from being women.
On both sides the defensive armour of the best troops was mail, later dubbed ‘chain-mail’ because the Victorians saw the simile. The quality no doubt varied both in metal quality and in ring-size, the finest being fine gauge, small-ringed, riveted mail formed from natural alloy-bonded iron. But as there was no such thing as tool-steel, with which to cut harder irons and semi-steel natural alloys, the majority would have been fashioned from soft, wrought-iron wire, easier to wind on to a mandril and then cut, in order to make the ‘C’-form blanks required by the mail-maker. It was then necessary to flatten the open ends of each link and punch through them, then to next loop four together, close the ‘C’ and rivet them all shut. A laborious and lengthy business that made even poor-quality hauberks, byrnies or shirts expensive items. As we see in the margins of the Tapestry it was one of the spoils of war to strip the dead and such mail was repaired and reused until the links wore thin with friction and corrosion. ‘Butted’ (unriveted) mail might have formed the cheapest of defences. We have no way of knowing.
The principal protection offered was against slashes. A heavy blow would still break bones even if it did not break the links, so a padded jacket or ‘gambeson’ was probably worn under mail. This, together with the drag of 30 to 40lb of mail was a warm outfit on cold days of battle and conducive to heat-stroke in warmer weather, and it certainly increased the effort involved in moving the limbs. Of course, soldiers become accustomed to the weight they carry, through constant familiarity, but the perspiration involved in the adrenalin-heat of battle would be tremendous, hence the need to effect combats of short duration. The balletics imagined by some reenactors are most unlikely to have been common. Nor would the mail shirt protect from a serious stab, especially a determined spear-thrust, certainly not a two-hand blow with an axe, so a shield was also essential. Other than the duke and Eustace, mail chauses (leggings) are rare and forearms are left un-armoured from necessity of movement.
The curious quadrilateral bindings on the chests of a number of mail-clad soldiers on the Tapestry themselves invite speculation. They most likely indicate some sort of fixing holding the mail towards the upper torso, so reducing drag and displacement. This would be effectively achieved if it also included some sort of leather reinforce over the shoulders, or even cuir-boillu, or else a breastplate beneath the mail, or on others as part of the gambeson. The rare armours shown on the Tapestry come from the eastern Mediterranean. One of Guy’s men, with a Danish (or Viking) axe in his hand, appears earlier apparently wearing squamatid armour, a coat of scales. These offer better defence than mail because they do not have the same give, they resist more and are equally effective against slashes. Their weakness is that they are sewn or laced to a leather or fabric under-garment and an upwards thrust can therefore run up under the scales to pierce this undergarment. With such a combination of distinctive weapon and armour we are surely looking at a Varangian.
The other rare armour, apparently Odo’s personal choice, is lamellar. In this defensive arrangement vertical slats a few inches long and more or less rectangular are laced together so that they overlap (like scales) but are connected at both top and bottom, allowing no upward thrust to be effective, unless the plates become detached, but still permitting great flexibility. Moreover, they do not have to be made of metal but can be of cuir-boillu or even horn pieces, making them lightweight, without drag, but as effective as mail. They are also more easily repaired in the field than mail armour. Such armours were a feature of Byzantine lands and of their enemies for centuries to come, being adopted subsequently by Turkish, Persian and Indian warriors.9 In Japan, where they evolved independently, they even offered protection against some of the finest swords ever made. Their construction required time and skill and, of course, specialised knowledge. They are unlikely to have been European made.
Squamatid armour
Universally the armoured militus (knight or sergeant-at-arms), even infantrymen, wore a conical helmet, usually with integral nasal, usually (though not invariably) over a coif of mail. This helmet was also of several qualities, the best being of superior iron and raised in one piece with applied reinforcing bands, though some may only have had an iron cage over a leather (cuir-boillu) skull. Such helmets would ward off blows, though they were not invulnerable. The warrior’s major concern would be to prevent scalp, and particularly forehead, cuts as these bleed profusely and fill the eyes, preventing vision. Blows to the nose are notoriously bloody and painful but also disorientating, hence the nasals. The serious weakness of all such helmets was the iron rim, and skull fractures would have been common. Still, a man without a helmet would certainly invite a downward blow, hence the conical shape designed to deflect vertical cuts delivered to the crown of the head to one side or the other, often (one suspects) at the expense of a clavicle. If you remember the Brittany campaign, one man there appears to wear a ‘harness-cap’ or padded lining. If so it is the only evidence we have of such precautions at that date.
The vast majority of armours and helmets and, of course, all weapons, relied on iron and the quality of such ferrous artefacts was all important. Iron was not a cheap material. Its production at that date was by the indirect process of extraction whereby the iron in the ore was extracted by melting-out at lower heat associated impurities. This was a lengthy process of bloom-smelting, chaffing and fining. The initial result of heating the ore was a spongy mass of impure iron, called a ‘bloom’, in the bottom of the furnace, a lentiform, which had then to be extracted, reheated and heavily hammered to drive-out remaining impurities while bringing the mass to (hammer) welding heat and bonding it together. There was of course no such thing as cast-iron.
Lamellar armour
Lamellar armour
It will, perhaps, now be instructive to include some discussion of bows as they formed the second part of William’s tactical success at Battle. He was aided by luck consequent upon finding water for the heavy cavalry and then recognising the advantages of a traverse. But undoubtedly the employment of archers in an offensive role to provide a distraction and covering fire was an example of his ability to adapt to changing and serendipitous circumstances with an immediate decision. It seems to me self-evident that, as he could have had no foreknowledge of Harold’s defensive (defensible) position when preparing his invasion, so the archers were not originally included as part of a combined operation brigaded with the cavalry. The cavalry were always expected to carry the day against English infantry. What was remarkable about this conclusion to the battle at Battle was the use of the arbalest or crossbow against the famous English infantry of the Select Fyrd, a weapon that had not been used before in this country.
It seems to have been unknown in England and in other kingdoms as well for Princess Anna Comnena (1083-1148) commented on the First Crusade’s use of them at the end of the eleventh century, as weapons previously unknown in Byzantium.10 They were however mentioned at the Siege of Senlis (947) and at Verdun (985)11 and, although it cannot be proved, I wonder if these 1066 arbalestiers were recruited from Basque whalers out of Bayonne, for Norwegian whalers continued to use primitive crossbows right up to 1900. Our earliest reference to Basque whalers is in 105912 and Norwegian crossbows were powerful enough to slow a Right Whale. The bows themselves could therefore have been very strong. We know of yew-bows fitted to arbalests much later when other materials, often presumed by modern authors to be more effective, were commonly in use. We do not know when the composite bow, built-up from wood, horn and sinew in ‘sandwiches’, was first employed in England, but the technique was used for ordinary reflex bows in Central Asia even before the Crusades.
The advantage of the crossbow, as said, is its ease of employment. Held with the tiller on or under the shoulder it can be easily aimed and a reasonably powerful bow would, according to Payne-Gallwey,13 probably shoot point-blank at 50-60 yards and certainly carry for 200-300 yards, proving very dangerous at 100 yards. The kinetic striking energy of a bolt or quarrel at a range of 50-100 yards would be considerable, even using a self-bow. Such weapons required greater force than could be exerted by the arms alone to span them, being loaded by lying on the back to use the feet or by employing a belt-loop. The Carmen14 tells us that shields did not stop the bolts. Reloading was relatively slow but the other advantages allowed rapid training of recruits and power was all important. The principal disadvantage at Hastings would have been that expended bolts were non-returnable, placing great demands on the supply of ammunition.
Judging by the archers on the Tapestry and by the usual practise in battle of volley-firing, ordinary bows would have been used for 45 degree angle parabolic fire, whereby their weighty projectiles would transfer kinetic to potential energy. This would allow them to fire over the heads of the crossbowmen and at considerable speed. In this way a steady point-blank, flat trajectory fire from crossbows would ensure that English shields were presented to the enemy while parabolic fire rained-down from above. Unless the English had been trained in the Roman testudo formation the results would have been murderous. Harold has been our witness to this. The range of self-bows is difficult to estimate. Later longbows regularly practised at 10-12 score yards (200-240 yards) and 14 to 14½ with lighter shafts. Thus, a range between 150 and 200 yards parabolic is not unlikely in 1066 and although not capable of piercing a shield at 100 yards was still injurious.
Though not a weapon, mention should be made of the triangular stirrupiron and the use of stirrups so clearly shown on the Tapestry. Especially when employing a heavy-horse, as opposed to a pony, the stirrup does provide a rider with additional stability and even the ability to rise slightly from the saddle in order to increase the downwards force of a descending sword-blow. This said the horsemen on the Tapestry do appear to ride ‘deep saddle’, which would be less tiring over a period of time than ‘posting’ and together with stirrups and the high cantle-pommel saddle such a posture would make couching of the lance effective. And stirrups, of all things, tell us that these warriors are not copied from some ancient Roman document, they tell us beyond a doubt that these scenes are from the life and contemporary for stirrups were, in 1066, a recent introduction. They had not existed in the Roman world.