Dark Ages Saxon cavalry

[Deleted User]

What’s the feeling about having cavalry in my Dark Age Saxon warband/army?

In terms of gaming, even a single unit would be a nice counter to the hordes of L. Roman mounted troops but I’m not sure how historical it might be?

Might I be better considering them to be some sort of mounted infantry?

 

donald

[Patrice]

Um, a heavily discussed subject…

I always consider them as mounted infantry. A bit frustrating, but it should open reflexion to different tactics (depending on your ruleset).

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Ruarigh]

I side with Halsall and Lavelle on this: there were no fixed bodies of cavalry, but socially elite warriors were capable of fighting both mounted and dismounted at need. Think of them in similar terms to medieval knights who also fought both mounted and dismounted at need. I find Halsall’s analysis of the vocabulary of battles quite convincing in this regard, and am certain that early analysis of warfare in this period is dogged by the persistence of nineteenth-century ideas which were shaped very much by the tripartite division of armies of their own day into fixed formations of infantry, cavalry and artillery. One of the helmet plates from the Staffordshire Hoard features a mounted warrior in battle, as does the Sutton Hoo helmet, so cavalry are part of the iconography of the period which further suggests that some warriors fought mounted. I have a feeling that Anglo-Saxon warriors were probably not as effective mounted as they were on foot, but that is not really rooted in any real evidence.

On a side note, I would find it odd for the Anglo-Saxons not to be influenced by continental fashions in warfare. To develop a style of warfare that was far removed from those around them, they would have to be completely cut off and circumstances would have to conspire to make fighting on foot the most effective or the only viable option. I find that hard to swallow.

In wargaming terms, I would be happy enough seeing at least some of the noble warriors being given the option to fight mounted unless they are fresh off the boat and have not brought their mounts with them. You’ll need to make your own mind up about how effective they should be though.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[OB]

The Laws of Ine specify ‘the King’s Welsh horsemen’ if you want to use that as a justification.  There’s no mention of the King’s Saxon Horsemen although I’m quite sure most of Ine’s nobles owned horses.

Elite Anglian or Saxon warriors might have been able to fight when mounted but that is a different thing to operating on mass as cavalry.

Halsall’s use of the Gododdin to support his theory of Saxon cavalry does not stand a close reading of that poem and from memory that is the only early evidence he used.

I’d go for mounted infantry or the Welsh horsemen.

 

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[Ruarigh]

OB wrote:

The Laws of Ine specify ‘the King’s Welsh horsemen’ if you want to use that as a justification. There’s no mention of the King’s Saxon Horsemen

Is that the reference to their wergeld or is there another reference? In that instance, I would be careful of translating it as Welsh. Old English horswealh is more usually translated as groom or equerry (literally ‘horse-slave’). Wealh has several meanings, only one of which is Welsh and even then it’s more of a general term for foreigners than any ethnically Welsh types without additional clarification. In this case, the context does not greatly help. Looking at the law, it reads more like a reference to an unfree aide-de-camp rather than to a Welsh/foreign cavalryman. On the Saxon Horsemen front, I would assume (because I’ve not checked directly) they were covered by other wergeld laws, so no need to specify them as horsemen, as long as they are free and Saxon.

The helmet plates I cited previously belong to the seventh century, like the Laws of Ine. I think they offer better evidence for warriors fighting mounted and would suggest that those mounted warriors were Anglo-Saxon warriors because these are status items with possibly apotropaic functions. What self-respecting Anglo-Saxon lord is going to want to be depicted as a foreigner or slave on his helmet?

Halsall’s use of the Gododdin to support his theory of Saxon cavalry does not stand a close reading of that poem and from memory that is the only early evidence he used.

He’s certainly better on the later material.

Elite Anglian or Saxon warriors might have been able to fight when mounted but that is a different thing to operating on mass as cavalry.

The question of fighting en masse is certainly a good one. I suppose it depends how you envisage formations of warriors on horses operating in this period. I imagine them to have been fairly unsophisticated, limited by the command and control mechanisms available to them just as the infantry were. They’re certainly not formations of regular cavalry who drilled together all the time. I wonder if we could look to cavalry in similarly organised societies for analogous examples and extrapolate from there. If the Welsh fielded cavalry in this period, how did they operate their cavalry? And what is different about their society that would make their cavalry more able to function en masse than the equivalent Anglo-Saxon horsemen?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[OB]

Look at their wergild it’s far too high to be that of horse slaves. From memory it’s below that of the Saxon nobles and higher than that of most other Saxons.   I’ve found no reference to Saxon horsemen in the Laws of Ine if you have one I’d be very interested.

I wouldn’t read too much into the panels if I were looking for evidence of Anglian/Saxon cavalry.  Who are the figures depicted?  Where were the panels made?   Are they mythological figures or warriors on horseback?  If the former it doesn’t help if the latter we already knew rich Germans knew how to ride.

As I recall Halsall’s later evidence wasn’t very good either.

The native British military tradition from Caesar to the Picts was quite horsey.  If you are interested have a look at the surviving early Welsh poems not least the Gododdin.  I don’t doubt for a moment that aristocratic households drilled together, took part in raids together and generally honed their military skills together as much as possible.  It was what justified their status and they had to be as good as they could be.

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[Alan Hamilton]

Using what I call “military probablility” as much as Dark Age poetry, folk tales and the ever changing archaeological opinion I would say that firstly it depends on the “period”.

The Saxons, Angles, Jutes may initially have arrived as mercenaries hired by the Romans.  Very likely these would have been infantry.  Later as more arrived they too would (probably) be infantry.  However, this is where military probability comes in, an expanding force needs recce forces to find the enemy or to give warning of an approaching enemy.  Now if we accept that the enemy (the Britons) employed cavalry as scouts, raiders and in battle then it is probable that the Saxons copied them.  This cavalry may have been Saxons copying the Britons or even been mercenary or subject Britons in the conquered lands.  Remember that the British kingdoms were just as likely to fight each other as the Saxons.

So a Saxon warlord advancing to war in British territory would be incredibly daft not to say at a huge disadvantage to do so without a cavalry force.  Since horses were expensive these chaps would be the lords etc and would ride rather than walk to war.  They would be able to fight on horseback or on foot.  Maybe not as well as their enemies to start with.

No doubt others will have different ideas but I say that a small Saxon armoured cavalry force of nobles backed by retainers as light cavalry would be certainly permitted in any game that I play.

[Ruarigh]

@OB I agree their wergild is higher than would be expected of a slave but it’s not that high overall. It’s roughly about the same as the value of a free man with a hide and a half or so of land if I have done my maths right. I’m just pointing out that the translation has the potential to be problematic and the specific law does not make them sound like cavalrymen as is noted in the commentary on the laws in Attenborough. Instead it makes them sound like king’s messengers while the vocabulary used suggests servants not warriors.

I know of no references to Anglo-Saxon horsemen in the Laws of Ine, but that is not surprising when the laws are incomplete and cavalryman is not a known Anglo-Saxon rank. They would be covered under other provisions for wergild based on their rank and land holdings.  This makes the case for the horswealh in the laws being a horse-related servant stronger because it treats it as a rank or social position.

On the helmet plates, the smaller figure behind the rider is a mythological figure/numinous power. The rider is generally thought to represent the helmet-wearer. Given that most of this type of plate feature a dismounted figure attacking the horse of the rider, it certainly looks like a battle scene and not just a Germanic warrior riding along. There’s a fairly hefty body of research into the symbolism of these things, but most agree that they represent the helmet-wearer in battle.

I disagree with your take on Halsall’s analysis of later material. There are some issues with it, but overall it stands.

I’m not disputing that there was a significant British horsey tradition. Instead, I’m asking what was there about Welsh society that made them able to field mounted warriors that the Anglo-Saxon societies did not have? Why is it so improbable that a lord’s huscarls or equivalent could have drilled together both on foot and on horseback just as the Welsh did and for the same reasons?

In the end these questions are substantially academic for this topic. However we come to it, we both agree that there is an option for Donald to field some cavalry of one description or another to counter those fiendish late Romans.

On a side note, I’m often struck by the lack of a cavalry option in army lists for the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavians/Vikings in the early medieval period, and wonder why their predecessors in those same lists get cavalry, their successors get cavalry, but the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings seem to have forgotten how to ride in battle. I can’t help but feel that it is a product of early historiography and a simple lack of sources that describe them in sufficient detail.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Norm S]

I think if you don’t have them, you are on safe ground. If you do, then you are in the realms of speculation and discussion …. but you will have some nice figures 🙂  I am guessing not having organised bodies of cavalry is the line that perhaps should not be crossed.

[Patrice]

Um, this kind of thread is always difficult to handle… it includes different questions, academics, wargaming… and the Universal Right of Gamers to do what they want as long it doesn’t harm their fellow gamers…

Saxon noblemen were certainly able to ride horses, to hunt on horseback, and this could lead to learn to fight mounted.

However… were they willing to do it? did they feel a necessity for regular training to do it, and did they train their retinue to fight as groups/units? …If they had done so, there would be more records of Saxon cavalry in battle. If not, why?

If it’s not the case, what’s the interest of such troops on a gaming table? Some years ago, on another wargaming forum, someone asked if it’s possible to use a longbow on horseback? Oh, yes, probably, it could happen …but if we’d answered “yes”, the next thing on all HYW gaming tables would have been English longbowmen riding fast and shooting like Huns.

IMHO Dark Ages Saxons (and Vikings too) had mounted infantry… Scots (Irish) had no bows, or not many… 9th century Bretons had light cavalry tactics but avoided contact and should not be allowed to charge… etc. When you choose an army, one of the most interesting things is to deal with what it cannot do.

OOoops… Ochoin I’m just giving my personal answer, because you asked… then you’ll do what you wish on your gaming tables.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[OB]

A Welsh noble’s wergeld as per Ine was half  that of his Saxon equivalent but never the less three times that of a Saxon Ceorl.  Try Alex Woolf’s Aparthied and Economics for what that meant.  I cannot think why King Ine would decide that it was best as a matter of policy to exclusively use foreign slaves or servants to deliver his messages.  That is normally a job for junior kinsmen you sent high status messages via high status messengers to high status men – touchy nobles and all that.  If you have a reference for the slave/servant messenger theory I would be interested to read it.

Halsall’s theory was once the subject of a well informed discussion on TMP!  His later evidence didn’t fare well but that need not detain us I think.

If you have a link on the helmet stuff I’d enjoy the read.

What did Welsh society have that the Angles and Saxon societies didn’t?  I’d say a horsey military tradition.  British aristos normally fought mounted as cavalry.  Germanic gesiths or whatever normally fought as infantry because that was their military tradition.  Perhaps if we look at the areas  they came from and, for the Angles, initially settled in we get a clue.  It’s not great cavalry country. When we look for solid evidence for Anglian or Saxon cavalry we cannot find it in the early period as Halsall discovered when he reached for the Gododdin.

I like Alan’s point above but I struggle with the absence of English cavalry from the historical record when it would have been really useful.  At the end of the period when 6000 horsey oriented Normans turn up a cavalry oriented English military could have kept them penned up and denied supplies.  Instead the Anglo Danes fought an infantry battle.

We know the English did attempt to fight a cavalry battle (their first some say) under the Norman Earl Ralph against the Welsh but were badly beaten.

Post Conquest many surviving English aristos went to horsey Byzantium and opted to serve as infantry in the Varangian Guard.  Had they possessed cavalry skills they could have served as an equally high status cavalry unit Optimates Anglorum would have had a nice ring to it  but that didn’t happen.

If there ever was an Anglian/Saxon/English cavalry tradition it’s proving very hard to find.  That’s probably reflected in the Army Lists where some of them allow fighting at a disadvantage as mounted infantry rather than as cavalry proper.

Certainly, we agree that Donald can field whatever suits him best and thanks to him we get to discuss an interesting topic.

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[Ruarigh]

OB wrote:

A Welsh noble’s wergeld as per Ine was half  that of his Saxon equivalent but never the less three times that of a Saxon Ceorl.

Where in Ine is that? I looked through Ine’s laws for the Anglo-Saxon equivalents and did not see any wergild rates. I did note that rates were given for Welsh but not for Anglo-Saxons. Other, earlier, law codes list rates for Anglo-Saxons, but I am not sure how directly comparable they are.

Halsall’s theory was once the subject of a well informed discussion on TMP! His later evidence didn’t fare well but that need not detain us I think.

I remember reading that discussion and not being impressed by it, as often happened on TMP when the discussion strayed into areas around my specialism. I think it may even have been the one where someone commented that Lavelle did not know everything (or possibly as much as the TMP discussants; my memory is unclear precisely which) when I mentioned his research on Alfred’s wars, despite that research being directly relevant to the discussion.

If you have a link on the helmet stuff I’d enjoy the read.

I’ll dig out a few articles and point you at them. Might take me a little while though. If you want to get a head start, the archaeology section of my thesis touches on them (downloadable here: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/28819/) and includes a couple of references, although it does not focus on cavalry per se.

I struggle with the absence of English cavalry from the historical record when it would have been really useful.

That’s a fair point, although the historical record is not only patchy but also vague when it does mention things. That’s a problem for making definitive statements about presence or absence. It’s often only the exceptions that show up, as may have been the case with Ralph and his falling-off cavalry.

If there ever was an Anglian/Saxon/English cavalry tradition it’s proving very hard to find.

I accept your point about the Anglo-Saxon types preferring to fight on foot and choosing the Varangian Guard over cavalry units, but I’m not sure we are talking about a cavalry tradition per se. This is more about whether the social elite were willing and able to fight battles while mounted as and when they needed to. As you state, they seem to have preferred to fight on foot but the argument is that they could fight on horseback at need. This may come down to a matter of definition: cavalry versus mounted infantry. As I noted originally, I suspect that the argument is made more difficult because of modern preconceptions around what constitutes cavalry, and for all I know we are in closer agreement than we realise but are defining the terms slightly differently in our heads. Yes, I do get really hung up on matters of definition!

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed this discussion. I’m not sure I can add much more to it at this time, especially given that the focus of the discussion is really about the earlier period which is slightly before my time, as it were.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Deleted User]

[quote quote=110436] I am guessing not having organised bodies of cavalry is the line that perhaps should not be crossed.[/quote]

There’s the rub. I do understand the concept of “mob” with the A-S forces but my rules need to recognise a unified body of similarly armed troops to function. Thus, if just for show, they’re not a primary objective but if one small unit is OK, then I’d purchase & paint.

I’m reluctant to add something that is entirely mythical but if I did, I guess they’d be less capable than their opposites on the L. Roman/Arthurian British side?

 

donald

[OB]

For the Laws of Ine I looked at The Making of English Law by Patrick Wormer and Martin Grimmer’s Britons in Early Wessex.  For the former the Alfred section deals with Ine’s code which Alfred ‘forflet’, that is he left it alone and still enforceable except where explicitly replaced.

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[Ruarigh]

OB wrote:

For the former the Alfred section deals with Ine’s code which Alfred ‘forflet’, that is he left it alone and still enforceable except where explicitly replaced.

Thanks for those references. We have Wormald in the library so I’ll check it out. I was looking at an edition of the laws themselves for the evidence. It will be interesting to see what Wormald and Woolf have to say on the topic. Are you familiar with the Early English Laws Project?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Patrice]

Deleted User wrote:

I guess they’d be less capable than their opposites on the L. Roman/Arthurian British side?

I would say that.

And they probably would like to dismount, and fight on foot, after they have arrived very fast on horseback to the part of the battlefield where you want them to stand. If your rules allow them to dismount.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Deleted User]

Thanks to the information & considered opinions offered above, I’ll think about whether I will include a small Saxon cavalry force.

 

If so, it’ll be from Tumbling Dice:

http://www.tumblingdiceuk.com/product-category/172/1066-dark-ages

An 8 figure (or 2x 4 figure) unit would be the maximum. I would buy suitable foot figures from the same source to represent the “cavalry” dismounted.

 

donald

[Cerdic]

Hmmm….might it be simply that they favoured fighting on foot as they were more militarily effective that way?

Sort of analogous to the Wars of the Roses. The nobility certainly could and did fight mounted, being knights and all. But most often they seem to have fought on foot.

Through most of history after all, formed and steady infantry have been able to see off cavalry….

http://28mmreview.blogspot.co.uk

[Deleted User]

The arguments “for” are summed up in this “wargamey” article.

http://merseybooks.blogspot.com/2012/04/anglo-saxon-cavalry-horseplay-or.html

One strong argument for “against” seems to be horse size. Does archaeology confirm that Dark Age horses in England were all titchy?

….my research continues…..

 

donald

[Alan Hamilton]

If you can get it there is an interesting study that deals specifically with the horses of the Anglo Saxons

Neville, Jennifer (2006), “Hrothgar’s horses: feral or thoroughbred?” it the journal :  Anglo Saxon England Volume 35 Dec 2006 pp 131 – 157

And this is her original manuscript https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/718433/Horse%20ASE%2004%2010.doc 

Alan

[Ruarigh]

Cerdic wrote:

Hmmm….might it be simply that they favoured fighting on foot as they were more militarily effective that way? Sort of analogous to the Wars of the Roses. The nobility certainly could and did fight mounted, being knights and all.

I’m not sure about the earlier period, but that is certainly how I view it in the later part of the early medieval period.

Deleted User wrote:

The arguments “for” are summed up in this “wargamey” article. http://merseybooks.blogspot.com/2012/04/anglo-saxon-cavalry-horseplay-or.html One strong argument for “against” seems to be horse size. Does archaeology confirm that Dark Age horses in England were all titchy? ….my research continues….. donald

Thanks for the link to that article. I had forgotten about the Repton Cross which is very bad of me since I had it on display for four months last year. If anyone is near Derby, it’s back on display in Derby Museum but it is a clear depiction of a mounted, armoured warrior waving a sword around while on horseback.

All horses were relatively small in this period, but that did not stop the Welsh from using them in combat, so there is no reason that it should stop the Anglo-Saxons. In this period, I think we’re looking at horses about 14hh (4′ 8″ to the withers) which is also larger than earlier light cavalry horses.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Author]

Posts