War in Britain: English Heritage

The recreation of early medieval arms and armour by numerous re-enactment groups has allowed the testing of medieval combat tactics. Dan Shadrake of Britannia has found the experience illuminating, confirming several truths of medieval warfare but also shattering a few illusions. ‘What was no surprise to us,’ says Shadrake, ‘was that armoured footsoldiers in disciplined close formations on open ground were virtually unstoppable by more lightly armoured opponents. They would just plough through them.’ This explains the success of Roman legionaries as well as later Roman-style armoured warriors and dismounted knights in the medieval period. ‘In a forest or rough ground, which breaks up formations, armoured men are at a distinct disadvantage. Less aware of what is going on around them, they are far slower to react to more agile lightly armoured troops using spears rather than swords. Panic sets in and soon armoured groups collapse and run.’

Shadrake remembers a particular occasion when they practised with a rival group who they invited to join them on ground of their own choosing in a forest. ‘Early that morning we dug some shallow pits in the ground before our position and then covered these with brushwood. When our rivals advanced, the first rows plunged into the pits and tumbled forward, tripping up the warriors behind them. From being a terrifying, slowly advancing horde, they turned into a surprised muddle and we counter-attacked with our spears to great success.’

Saxon and Viking clash during a Viking raid, recreated by members of Regia Anglorum. Both sides wore similar arms and armour, including short mail shirts and large round shields. [Regia Anglorum]

One of the great myths of medieval warfare is the power of horsemen over footsoldiers. Armoured knights are supposed to have been able to crash into groups of footsoldiers like tanks, shattering the defenders on impact. In reality, horses do not act like this. They try to avoid collisions and when confronted with a wall of shields and spears, prefer to veer away from it or just stop. ‘We had one very fierce horse, used to police work and loud noises,’ recalls Shadrake, ‘but even he just halted at our shield wall, reared up on two legs and showed us his hooves, nothing more effective than that. Just so long as we stood tight behind our shields we were safe.’ What horsemen hoped for was that their mere appearance would unnerve footsoldiers sufficiently to make them run, thus enabling horsemen to outpace and slash down at them from their mounts.

English bowman draws an ash arrow across his yew bow. Archers carried several kinds of arrow with different heads, some long and pointed intended to punch through mail, others broad and curved intended to inflict crippling flesh wounds. [Wolfshead Bowmen]

KNIGHTS AND ARCHERS (#ulink_06a640e5-35e5-5111-be63-1e6c414ebee9)

In Medieval Britain victory in battle was regarded as a sign of divine endorsement. War itself was the pursuit of justice by other means, and kings, noblemen and the common people were prepared to fight for their rights.

The history of medieval Britain is peppered with campaigns, battles and sieges. Kings were repeatedly challenged by powerful nobles. On the battlefield the mounted knight was challenged by the humble, but deadly footsoldier armed with bow and arrows. Kings and barons, knights and archers, were the political and military checks and balances that operated throughout this period. It is perhaps no surprise therefore that the most enduring hero of this period is Robin Hood. Neither a noble or king but a yeoman, a member of the free class of ordinary Englishmen of no great wealth or power, Robin Hood is presented through numerous ballads and legends as a good outlaw. With his band of followers, he battles against corrupt officials; he is not opposed to the good king Richard, but violently resentful of bad government. The money he steals from the rich, he gives to the poor, thus establishing a check on bad power. And the base for his actions was the forest.

Ever since William the Conqueror won the English crown at Hastings, the forest has been viewed in Britain as a home for freedom fighters and righteous outlaws. This may stem from the fact that William and the succeeding Norman kings brought in new laws which sought to turn the forests of England into private estates, reserved for the hunting of game by the king and his loyal knights. The New Forest in Hampshire in southern England is the most well known of these newly established royal estates, being brought under direct royal rule in 1079. Strict laws punished the unauthorised harvesting of the forest’s resources by people who had previously considered it their natural right. A sense of this new Norman tyranny of noble huntsmen is conveyed in the Laud Chronicle:

Gatehouse of Carisbrooke Castle.

Early 13th century knight of the type involved in the murder of St Thomas à Becket at Canterbury. He wears a new form offlat-topped helm with visor. His kite-shaped shield is a later, shorter version of that used by the Normans at Hastings. [John Cole/Conquest]

‘Many men both saw and heard a great number of huntsmen hunting. The huntsmen were black, huge and hideous, and rode on black horses and on black he-goats and their hounds were jet black, with eyes like saucers and horrible.’

Earlier, in 1086, the same chronicle sums up the rule of William in a poem:

‘He caused castles to be built

Which were a sore burden to the poor.

A hard man was the king

And took from his subjects many marks …

He set apart a vast deer preserve and imposed

laws concerning it.

Whoever slew a hart or a hind

Was to be blinded.

He forbade the killing of boars

Even as the killing of harts.

For he loved the stags as dearly

As though he had been their father …’

[translation by G.N. Garmonsway,

Everyman, 1953]

It is little wonder then that when Robin Hood killed a deer for his followers to eat, it was an act of defiance which made him a hugely popular hero. Finally, and perhaps most importantly for British military history, Robin Hood had as his main weapon not a sword or a lance but a bow. Until the popularity of Robin Hood in tales from the 14th century onwards, the bow had always been the sign of a bad sort in medieval literature. ‘Cursed be the first man who became an archer,’ wrote the 13th century poet Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube. ‘He was afraid and did not dare approach.’ As far as knights were concerned, the only manly way of fighting was with sword and lance. If treachery was suspected in a death, then it was usually claimed to have been delivered by an arrow. In a drawing by Matthew Paris, the king of France is shown unhorsed at Bouvines in 1214 by an arrow, while William Rufus, son of William the Conqueror, was assassinated by an arrow in the head while hunting in the New Forest in 1100.

Previously considered the weapon of the coward, in the hands of Robin Hood the bow became a weapon of freedom, an equaliser against the armoured knight, and it is no surprise that the reputation of this greatest hero of archery should flower in the minds of the English people just at the time of their greatest victories against the French at Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415), all of which were victories largely achieved by English archers against French knights. By the 16th century, the bow was a much loved weapon, emblematic of English freedom and retained in the Tudor army long after guns dominated the battlefield.

If Robin Hood and the growing reputation of the archer symbolised individual liberty in medieval Britain, the hard work of limiting royal centralised power was actually achieved during a series of civil wars fought between nobles and the king. None of these was fought for the ideal of political freedom, far from it, they were largely struggles for personal power, but some of the by-products of these conflicts, such as the Magna Carta, added substantially to the rule of law and to checks on the power of the state.

Simon de Montfort was a prime mover in the civil wars of the mid-13th century. Born in France, he was earl of Leicester and a leader of the English barons who protested against the rule of King Henry III. In 1258, these noblemen forced Henry to agree to a plan of reform called the ‘Provisions of Oxford’, which restricted royal power by placing government administration in the hands of 24 barons. A few years later, g Henry broke the agreement and compelled the barons, led by Simon de Montfort, to take up arms to assert their authority. It was a reckless act on the part of the king, for Simon de Montfort was a formidable warlord. His father had led the Albigensian Crusade which crushed the Cathars in southern France with exceptional brutality; now Simon embraced this Barons’ War as a crusade also telling his soldiers to wear white crosses on their tunics as the king ‘had broken so many oaths that he had become the enemy of God.’

KNIGHTS IN ARMOUR

The age of Edward I saw a transformation in the armour worn by knights and their retainers. The beginning of the 13th century saw the final evolution of the mail shirt. Called a hauberk, it was a long, close-fitting tunic of mail down to the knees with sleeves of mail that included mail mittens as well as separate pieces of mail worn over the legs and feet. A mail hood finished off the complete armour with perhaps a conical helmet with a nasal worn over it, in earlier Norman style, or a completely closed helmet called a helm. A cloth surcoat was worn over the mail and this served as a means of identification being coloured in the heraldry of the family to which the soldier belonged.

By the middle of the 13th century, armourers were experimenting with new forms of armour, namely pieces of steel plate. Rectangular plates called ailettes were attached to the shoulders and protected against downward sword blows. Knees were protected by plates called poleyns. Visors were added to helms so that the knight could open his helmet when not in combat. These developments established a trend that grew in the 14th century. Larger pieces of plate armour were attached to arms and legs over mail. Armoured gauntlets took over from mail mittens. The surcoat was shortened and became known as a gipon. Smaller helmets following the shape of the head came into fashion, either worn by themselves or under the great helm. These were called basinets and had visors added to them later in the 14th century.

Early 12th century knight, typical of the Norman-style warriors that now ruled Britain. He wears a long mail shirt with mail mittens and carries a mace. [Regia Anglorum]

It is an old view that knights in armour were ponderous fighters who, if unhorsed, would be useless on the ground and, if knocked over, would flail around like turtles on their backs. Re-enactors have shown that warriors in armour in fact faced no particular problems of weight as both mail and plate armour were designed to distribute the weight over the body. Warriors thus equipped can run and jump and fight with great speed and agility. Problems arise mainly from heat exhaustion, when fighting on a warm day can create excessive heat and sweat under the armour.

John Cole of medieval re-enactment group Conquest describes the experience of fighting in armour:

‘Beneath our mail we wear a thick quilted aketon which helps to cushion blows against our armour, but on a warm day it becomes stiflingly hot and we just use a half-strength one. These quilted coats filled with padding could absorb several arrows and warriors must have considered it worth the discomfort.’

The tight fitting mail also prevented completely flexible movements.

‘In close combat, mail enclosing the entire arm with mittens as well as mail leggings is highly effective against sword cuts and the sacrifice in movement would have been worth it. In pauses between combat, you can see many of our re-enactor members jumping up and down to loosen the mail which can bunch, or hitching it up so the belt supports its weight on the hips as well as the shoulders. This must have happened in real combat.’

Close-up of mail leggings worn beneath the long mail shirt by 12th century knights. As the century progressed, mail armour was increased to cover every aspect of the body, including hands, feet, and face. [Regia Anglorum]

Members of Conquest re-enactment group recreate an encampment. [John Cole/Conquest]

The two armies met at Lewes in Sussex in 1264. King Henry commanded the central body of his supporters, while his brother commanded the left flank and his son, Prince Edward, the right flank. Simon de Montfort led an army he had divided into five groups, with one held in reserve. On the morning of the battle, he seized the heights above the town of Lewes, provoking King Henry to attack without any plan, just unleashing his mounted knights led by Prince Edward. Many of de Montfort’s supporters were not professional soldiers and his body of Londoners fled before the royal assault. The mounted warriors pursued the fleeing footsoldiers for four miles, giving no quarter, slashing downwards with their great swords, until heaps of bodies littered the battlefield, but Prince Edward’s charge had weakened the royal army and de Montfort took prompt action to exploit this. With a furious attack downhill he pushed the main royalist army back into the city of Lewes and when Prince Edward returned from his pursuit, it was only to join his father as a prisoner.

Simon de Montfort was declared Head of State and in 1265 he established a parliament in which representatives from all the boroughs and cities served alongside the barons and clergy, thus including the Commons for the first time in English government. However, de Montfort’s triumph was short-lived, breaking down in acrimony, and Prince Edward eventually led the royalists to victory at the battle of Evesham. King Henry was restored to the throne, his power restricted, and the court was dominated by Prince Edward who became King Edward I in 1272.