Mounted combat

[Norseman]

In the VI add on English/Irish factions use cavalry that can win in melee; Mounted Nobles as BG unit and Medium cavalry. Even the Vikings get a horse-unit; Viking Raider Cavalry.

However, I have found some sources on www that indicates this was not the case. From what I have found, both the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Irish and Celtics had a culture for fighting dismounted, in addition to the fact that brittish horses were relativly rare, small, slow and expensive, and therefore only used for transportation.

The sources I have found for this info mainly use the following findings in their articles:
-Except for a very few late 1000 century noblemen graves, no warrior graves have remains of horses. Their equipment is also very infantry-like.
-Written sources from the era stating that only from the late 1000c/early 1100c was every warrior required to have a horse for quick transportation inbetween battles.
-Bayeux Tapestry indicates that in the hastings battle of 1066, all Saxons faught on foot. Also, the Saxon king and his warrior elite looks very much like the VI Saxon Houscarle.

So, as I know very little about this from before, my question is does anybody know anything about this? Is what I have found so far correct?

I'm currently working on a mod called "Fury of the Northmen", and if what I have found is correct I may remove those cavalry units mentioned.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

If that's the case, just make them very expensive and with very high requirements. Besides you can mimic their week behaviour in combat, by changing their stats.

It will allow a correct historical feeling to the game. Rare units, not that effective in combat. So, they are available but not really worth having, just like in those days.

[Plantagenet]

Both Anglo-Saxons and Vikings fought on foot. Those with horses functioned as "mounted infantry" instead of cavalry; they used horses strategically for mobility & speed, but tactically, they dismounted for battle. So they'd land and "acquire" some horses for cross-country transportation, but would dismount to fight.

I don't think the Scandinavians took to cavalry warfare until later; the Normans quickly perfected it after settling in France, and the Danes similarly adopted it after contact with German knights.

Prior to the Saxon invasion, the Romanized Celtic elite did fight on horseback (King Arthur http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif); and later, both Ireland (without stirrups) & Brittany were famous for light horse. The Bretons were so comfortable on horseback that they refused to fight on foot at the Battles of Tinchebrai (1106) and Lincoln (1141), even though the rest of the army, including the Anglo-Norman knights, did.

[Auxilia]

My twopence worth-

IIRC, Edward the Confessor tried to introduce Norman tactics during his reign, using small numbers of mercenaries from France (this was hugely unpopular with many his subjects and caused Edward's feud with the Godwinson family). One by-product of this was an attempt to 'modernise' the Saxon army by training some better equipped elements of the fyrd (and I would assume some huscarls ie nobles also) to actually fight on horseback. This they did in a battle with the Welsh outside Worcester - it was a disaster.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Auxilia @ Jan. 29 2004,16:39)]IIRC, Edward the Confessor tried to introduce Norman tactics during his reign, using small numbers of mercenaries from France (this was hugely unpopular with many his subjects and caused Edward's feud with the Godwinson family). One by-product of this was an attempt to 'modernise' the Saxon army by training some better equipped elements of the fyrd (and I would assume some huscarls ie nobles also) to actually fight on horseback. This they did in a battle with the Welsh outside Worcester - it was a disaster.
Really? What happened? Was this "test drive" during Harold II's Welsh campaign?

[Auxilia]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 29 2004,21:54)]Really? What happened? Was this "test drive" during Harold II's Welsh campaign?
Damn I was afraid you'd ask that - as I've had to retreat to my library and do some digging http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif

The short answer is I believe no - here's the long one

Edward the Confessor,as I've mentioned above had strong familial and political connections with Normandy and other French dukedoms. He had a small but influencial Norman party at court - among these was his nephew Ralf the Timid - not the most encouraging nickname Ralf was given a dukedom which including Hereford and Oxfordshire, and appears to have been allowed to govern pretty much as he pleased - a proto Marcher Lordship if you like. So, off Ralf went and built his motte and bailey castles and attempting to get his vassals to fight on horseback. This appears to have been in answer to the increasingly bold raids by Llewellyn ap Gruffydd. To quote Frank Barlow in The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216:

'..it seems to have been too novel, or too timidly handled to have been much of a success at the time.'

The net result was that Worcestershire and Herefordshire suffered seriously at the hand of Welsh raids - unfortunately I can't find any details of battles where Saxon mounted troops fought. The campaign that you mention was I believe 'revenge' for these raids and was extremely effective, involving as it did Harold's frightenly hard kinsman Tostig.

Hope this helps.

[Aleksandr Nevsky]

Sorry just a bit off topic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif

The Bayeux Tapestry is amazing The museum that houses it and the exhibit is amazingly well done. A beautiful piece of work and the pieces' history alone is an amazing thing (It was almost destroyed during the French Revolution when it was used as a cover for a wagon). I love the story of Harold
Godwinson and William the Conquerer before the battle, especially when Harold saves some of Willam's men from the quickmud/sands around Mon St. Michel, despite being "captive" Harold was a "good" guy.


I have always felt sorry for Harold http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif .

Anyone else been to see the tapestry?


On topic:

I think that VI handles the Cavalry pretty well, I have never really used them as an effective force on their own, usually only as archer deterrents and rear harrassment and chasing down routed troops...maybe my strategy has been flawed?

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Auxilia @ Jan. 30 2004,16:03)]
Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 29 2004,21:54)]Really? What happened? Was this "test drive" during Harold II's Welsh campaign?
Damn I was afraid you'd ask that - as I've had to retreat to my library and do some digging http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif

The short answer is I believe no - here's the long one

Edward the Confessor,as I've mentioned above had strong familial and political connections with Normandy and other French dukedoms. He had a small but influencial Norman party at court - among these was his nephew Ralf the Timid - not the most encouraging nickname Ralf was given a dukedom which including Hereford and Oxfordshire, and appears to have been allowed to govern pretty much as he pleased - a proto Marcher Lordship if you like. So, off Ralf went and built his motte and bailey castles and attempting to get his vassals to fight on horseback. This appears to have been in answer to the increasingly bold raids by Llewellyn ap Gruffydd. To quote Frank Barlow in The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216:

'..it seems to have been too novel, or too timidly handled to have been much of a success at the time.'

The net result was that Worcestershire and Herefordshire suffered seriously at the hand of Welsh raids - unfortunately I can't find any details of battles where Saxon mounted troops fought. The campaign that you mention was I believe 'revenge' for these raids and was extremely effective, involving as it did Harold's frightenly hard kinsman Tostig.

Hope this helps.
Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Auxilia]

Quote[/b] (Aleksandr Nevsky @ Jan. 30 2004,17:42)]Anyone else been to see the tapestry?


On topic:

I think that VI handles the Cavalry pretty well, I have never really used them as an effective force on their own, usually only as archer deterrents and rear harrassment and chasing down routed troops...maybe my strategy has been flawed?
Off topic (ish)

Yep I have and it is breathtaking. The fact that the actual tapestry is the last thing you see is in my opinion absolutely spot on - also visited the castle were William was born - fantastic

Oh and don't do yourself down The Tapestry reminds us that Harold campaigned with Duke William while a hostage and saw his cavalry at first hand. However (and please correct me if I'm wrong anyone), I don't believe he witnessed any major pitched battles and that the issue (Duke Conan of Brittany's rebellion) was decided by a series of sieges, raids and skirmishes. Had Harold witnessed, say the battle of Monte Maggiore in 1041, where an infantry dominated Byzantine army got absolutely flattened by Norman cavalry, it might well be that some of his army would be fighting on horseback at Hastings Lest we forget that by the time of his death, Harold had experienced every mode of warfare, on land and sea prevalent in Western Europe, from the dogged shield-wall of the English and Scandanavians to the schiltrons of the Scots and the guerilla tactics of the Welsh and Irish. Most if not all of these he met with the old-English way of fighting - if it ain't broke..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Lest we also forget what a close run thing Hasting was...

Oh and yes I use my cavalry in more or less the same way in VI http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif