Breton (III/18)

1. Change the list end date

2. Drop armoured horses

3. Ditches

1. Change the list end date

Author: Duncan Head

Proposal:

Change the end-date of the list from 1072 to 931.

In the notes, replace:

"until assimilation into the Norman military system."

with:

"until the destruction of the Kingdom of Brittany by Vikings. The new, smaller, Duchy of Brittany reconstituted by Alain Barbetorte after 936 was influenced by its feudal neighbours and is covered in the West Frankish or Norman list (III/51)."

Justification:

Breton cavalry are described as javelin-armed skirmishers in Carolingian sources, by authors such as Ermold ("Hermoldus Nigellus" – "Ermold contrasted the heavy cuspis Franciscus with the light spears, hastae or missilia, thrown by the Bretons" - Coupland). But the last reference to this style of fighting appears to be Regino of Prum's comparison of the Bretons with the Magyars, written in the early 10th century in the context of describing events of the late 9th. He says that the Bretons, like the Magyars, do not push their attack home but swerve their horses after each attack, and differ from the Magyars only in hurling javelins rather than shooting arrows.

After that I am not aware of any specific description of Breton fighting styles. However the Bretons at Hastings do not seem to be treated by the sources for that battle as any different from the Normans or other French in weapons or tactics, even when Wace describes Alain Fergent as "a very brave and valiant knight" . The feigned retreat ascribed to the Bretons (if it happened; William of Poitiers at least in any case regarded it as a genuine rout) is matched by the second feigned retreat ascribed to the Normans, and by Norman milites' feigned retreats on other occasions, so cannot form a strong argument that the Bretons were lighter troops. And for what it's worth, the few explicitly Breton figures shown on the Bayeux Tapestry, the defenders of Dinan, are shown as identical to Normans.

Discussions about whether the Bretons at Hastings should or should not be treated as an allied contingent seem irrelevant when we consider that they probably shouldn't be any different from the Normans in the first place.

If we are not to introduce spurious "Carolingian Breton" troop-types into the army at Hastings, it seems a good idea to find a point when the Breton military system might have changed. An obvious candidate is the Viking destruction of the Breton Kingdom in the early 10th century. Brittany had been subject to Viking attacks in the 9th century but they increased after 911 and the objective was now land rather than just loot (see Price, p.40/358 et seq.). In 919 the chronicler Flodoard speaks of the Vikings depopulating Brittany, and certainly many settlements were abandoned. "By 920 Rognvaldr had gained complete political control of Brittany" (Price 43/361). A Breton rebellion in 931 was soon defeated.

In 936, Alain II Barbetorte, grandson of Duke Alain I (d.907) returned from English exile with an army of Bretons plus some troops supplied by the English king Aethelstan (Price 47/365) and proceeded to win several battles against the Vikings, eventually storming their fortified camp near Nantes and expelling them from Brittany. The new Brittany created by Barbetorte was a different state from earlier Brittany - smaller, because much territory had been ceded to the Normans in 922, and feudalised. Seigneurial families exercised considerable local power independently of counts or dukes; knight-service had appeared certainly by c. AD 1000; and castles were being built (Gaillou & Jones pp.169-172).

It is difficult to pinpoint an exact date when Breton javelin-throwing cavalry were replaced by Norman-style milites, but the change seems to have been in place well before 1066. Between about 910 and 1000 we have found little or no direct evidence for Breton troop-types, so while a somewhat later date might be possible, the Viking conquest is a convenient break.

References:

Bernard S Bachrach, "The Origin of Armorican Chivalry", Technology and Culture 10.2 (April 1969)

Simon Coupland, "Carolingian Arms and Armor in the Ninth Century", Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies v.21 (1990), online at http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/coupland.htm

Patrick Gaillou and Michael Jones, The Bretons (Blackwell 1991)

Neils S Price, "The Vikings in Brittany", Saga Book: The Viking Society for Northern Research 22 (1989) online at http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/price.htm

2. Drop the armoured-horse option for the general

Author: Duncan Head

Proposal:

Delete from the definition of C-in-c:

"or, if on armoured horse, Irr Cv (S) @ 19AP"

Justification:

Javelin-throwing cavalry on armoured horses should probably be Kn(I) not Cv(S) under DBMM. But in any case there is no good evidence for the horse-armour, so the option is best deleted. Evidence for the idea seems to be:

1. The reference in Ermoldus to the Breton leader "arming" his horse - "Armat equum, semet, fidos armatque sodales; Ambas missilibus armat et ipse manus,Scandit equum velox, stimula prefigit acutis Frena tenes; giros dat quadrupes varios". As Matt Bennett, I think, pointed out in Slingshot some years back, this is ambiguous as armat doesn't necessarily mean "he armoured" his horse, but more generally "he equipped" it.

2. "Isidore {of Seville) describes some 7th-century Alans in Armorica riding armoured horses". This from the list notes, drawing on Ian Heath's Armies of the Dark Ages. But is it correct? Even Bachrach, who emphasises Alan influence on Breton warfare, doesn't mention it although he cites Isidore in another context. And there seems to be no reference to Alan horse-armour in either Isidore's Etymologia - online at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Isidore/home.html - nor his History of the Goths (translated in Wolf's Comquerors and Chroniclers in Medieval Spain).

3. Ditches or pits at Conquerueil in 992

Author: Duncan Head, Lawrence Dunn

Proposal:

Add the following lines -

Only after 900 AD:

Ditches to fortify camp - TF @ 1AP 0-12

Flooded pits and ditches covered with sod, as Hidden Obstacle - FO @ 2AP 0-16

Ditch and bank earthworks – TF @ 2AP 0-16

Add to Notes:

Only one type of TF can be used.

Justification:

I can do no better than quote the paragraph of John France, Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades 1000-1300 (Cornell UP 1999), which suggested the idea (pp158-159):

"Rather different infantry tactics were used at Conquereuil in 992. Fulk Nerra had seized Nantes, whose citadel defied him, so he raised an army of vassals and mercenaries, but Conan of Brittany moved against him with a large force. At this point accounts differ: according to the Nantes chronicle, Fulk surprised the Bretons in their camp but was unable to break across its trenches and suffered heavy casualties, while Richer and Glaber say that the Bretons lured Fulk to a place where they secretly dug and covered over a deep trench, into which the subsequent Angevin cavalry charge fell. The use of such field-fortifications at Alençon and in Italy shows that this was certainly a viable tactic."

Other accounts suggest that before the battle, Conan carefully prepared the field, placing pits and ditches covered with sod across the level ground, behind which was dug an earthwork with flanks secured by impassable swamps, water from which was directed into the hidden pits and ditches. Feigned flight by the Bretons successfully lured Fulk the Black’s cavalry into charging across the flooded pits, causing considerable disruption in the Angevin army.

This was the second of two Angevin-Breton battles at that site, and is normally rated as a Breton victory, although Conan was killed (Patrick Galliou and Michael Jones, The Bretons, Blackwell 1991, p188). However the 1911 Britannica says that Fulk routed Conan's army - http://87.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AN/ANJOU.htm

I suspect that the fortified camp account is the more likely of the two, the other version having its origin in propaganda - the Angevins excusing their setback by blaming the sneaky Bretons for an underhanded ruse in digging a concealed ditch - but this is not a strong enough reason to reject the Richer/Glaber version, so I suggest allowing for either.

Twelve elements is the closest there is at the moment to a standard for fortified camps. The start date is fairly arbitrary, but if the ditches were for the camp they were presumably common practice so shouldn't be limited to one year.

Comments:

Note that if the end-date proposal 1 above is adopted, this one will no longer fit in the Breton list, but will affect the West Frankish or Norman list (III/51) instead.

Originally proposed by Duncan Head under DBM, later by Lawrence Dunn under DBMM, pointing out the aptness of the Hidden Obstacle stratagem.

This proposal provoked a discussion on the dates for the ditches. It was suggested that ditches could plausibly have been used by Breton armies prior to this date (as they were known to their neighbours). The lack of evidence available meant the date-issue could not be resolved. Jean-Pierre Riviere mentioned a French gamer who had produced several articles on the Bretons. To date, these articles have yet to be identified.