West Frankish or Norman (III/51)

1. Regrade scouts

2. Change William 1066 options

3. Change Italian Norman options

4. Ditches at Conquereuil

1. Regrade scouts

Author: Andrew Bennetts

Proposal

Change:

Scouts - Irr LH(O) 0-3

to :

Scouts - Irr LH(I) 0-3

Remove from the list notes:

"Similar but unarmoured horsemen are depicted scouting on the Bayeaux tapestry and later 11th century manuscripts".

Replace with:

"LH(I) represent scouting parties of milites of significantly less than normal element strength."

Justification:

Norman (and by extension other West Frankish) scouts were individuals and small groups of milites sent ahead of the main body to locate the enemy. Careful examination of the Bayeaux tapestry shows that the milites identified as informing William of the location of the English army were fully armed and armoured. The unarmoured horsemen on the tapestry are in non-military, or at least non-scouting, roles.

The revised troop definitions for DBMM specify LH(I) to include "Dispersed scouts riding equids"; equids includes horses. This is understood to include otherwise competent military horsemen scouting in groups significantly smaller than usually represented by an element. This seems a better representation of Norman scouts than LH(O).

Discussion:

There was considerable debate on this subject on the TNE list during April 2007 (approximate start - msg 12119). Many argued that the absence of mounted skirmishers in a tactical role mean that the Scouts should not be represented as tabletop elements at all.

Against this is the explicit evidence that William, at least, paid attention to scouting and that, in the absence of mounted scouts, the only troops otherwise available for use with the Scouting stratagem would be Ps, despite it being clear that Norman scouts were milites.

The counter to this argument is the contention that the sort of routine scouting attested for Williiam's army in 1066, apparently no more than locating the enemy army, is not the sort of thing covered by the DBMM "Scouting" stratagem; so there is no need for any LH in the list to enable the army to use that stratagem.

As returning scouts would be absorbed into the mass of milites, an alternative would be to remove the LH scouts from the list altogether and add a list note permitting 0-3 Norman milites (Irr Kn(F)) to be used with the Scouting stratagem.

2. Change William 1066 options

Author: Stuart Whigham

Under the existing Only Duke William's Norman army in 1066 heading, add:

Replace the Milites, Spearmen, Archers, crossbowmen and Peasants entries with the following:

Milites - Irr Kn (F) @ 9AP 12-16

Archers - Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP or Irr Bw (I) @ 3AP 6-12

Spearmen - Irr Sp (I) @ 3AP 24-36

Upgrade mercenary spearmen or surplus Milites to Irr Sp (O) @ 4AP 0-8

Crossbowmen - Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP 2-6

Servants, grooms, etc - Irr Hd (O) @ 1AP 0-2

Replace:

Breton allies - List: Breton (Book 3)

with

Breton Sub-General- Irr Cv (O) @ 17AP or Irr Kn(F) @ 19AP 0-1

Breton Cavalry – all as Breton General, either all Irr Cv (O) @ 7AP or Irr Kn(F) @ 9AP 0-8

Breton Light cavalry - Irr LH (O) @ 4AP 0-1

In the Notes, add:

"If used a Breton sub general is substituted for a Norman sub general. He can command Norman or mercenary foot, in addition to his own troops. Any Breton mounted troops used must be kept in one command under either a Breton (if used) or Norman sub-general, they cannot be distributed among other commands. The Breton sub-general is graded as Cv(O) as no horse armour is shown in the Bayeux tapestry. The number of milites to foot in Duke William's army has been inverted, in order to account for the smaller number of mounted troops Duke William could transport across the Channel, with the historical consensus that mounted troops did not form the majority of his army. "

Note that if Proposal 1 in the Breton list is adopted, to change the end-date of the Breton list, there will be no need for specific entries here for Bretons in 1066, as they will be treated the same as Norman or French troops. See also Breton Proposal 2, a suggestion to delete Breton horse-armour; if this is adopted, the sentence about horse-armour in the suggested notes above will not be necessary.

Justification:

Both Orderic Vitalis and William of Poitiers say that Duke William's second line at Hastings was composed of armoured infantry, loricati, and modern historians accept this although other mediaeval sources mention only horsemen and archers.

The revised list for Hastings proposed here allows for the common figure of c.7000 a side allowed for by most historians, but also allows for the revisionist alternative proposed by M K Lawson; Lawson argues for 10-15 thousand per side and argues that more troops were present at Hastings than the historical consensus allows for, and also that the battle took place over a larger area. Note also that Bernard Bachrach, "On the Origins of William the Conqueror's Horse-Transports" (Technology and Culture 26.3, 1985), accepts the figure of 14,000 men shipped across the Channel given by the Chronique de Saint-Maixent, a 12th-century French chronicle whose author seems well-informed about William's activities.

There is also suggested an inversion of the ratio of foot to mounted from the main list with compulsory foot, as Duke William could not have transported an all-mounted army to England, and most historians calculate the mounted element to have been about quarter to a third of the armies total maximum. See also Lawson pp197-98 for the argument that Hastings more of an infantry battle than is commonly realised.

A Breton sub-General rather than Ally is suggested because there is no record of the Count of Brittany commanding the left wing of Duke William's army, in fact command was exercised by Alan Fergant in conjunction with Aimeri of Thouars of Aquitaine, a boon companion of Duke William. The Bretons are treated as a subordinate contingent as at no time during 1066 or immediately thereafter in post conquest England, did they exhibit any tendency for independent action, or defecting from the Norman army once in England.

3. Change Italian Norman options

Author: Stuart Whigham

Proposal:

Replace all "Normans in Italy and/or Sicily" options with the following:

Only Normans in Italy and Sicily from 1018 AD:

Lombard allies - List: Italian Lombard (Bk 3/21)

Only Normans in Italy and Sicily from 1041 AD:

Milites - Irr Kn (F) @ 9AP 6-18

Scouts - Irr LH (O) @ 4AP or Lh(I)@3AP 0-2

Lombard Sub-general 0-1

Gastaldi, gasindii etc, - Irr Kn (F) @ 9AP 2-8

Italian town or rural militias - Irr Sp (I) @ 3AP 12-36

Upgrade militia to Reg Sp (I) @ 4AP Any

Peasant levies - Irr Hd (O) @ lAP 0-10

Archers - Irr Bw (I) @ 3AP or Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP 4-12

Upgrade militia to Reg Bw(I) @ 4AP or Reg Ps(O) @2AP Any

Ships - Irr Shp (O) @ 3AP {Kn or any foot} 0-4

Chelandria -Reg Gal (X) @ 6AP {Kn, LH or any foot} 0-2

Galea -Reg Gal (F) @ 4AP (Any foot} 0-2

Only Robert Guiscard in Italy and Sicily from 1041 AD:

Slav colonists - Irr Ax(O) @ 3AP or Ps(I)@ 1AP 0-4

Only Normans in Sicily in 1061 AD:

Sicilian Greeks - Irr Ax (O) @ 3AP or Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP or Ps(I)@1AP 0-20

Aghlabid Sicilian allies - List: Early Muslim North Africa and Sicily (Bk 3/33) 0-24

Add the following to the notes:

The Normans' first battle in Italy was Olivento in 1041 against the Byzantines. With the defection of Argyrus in 1042, William "Iron Arm" de Hauteville took command. The

Lombard sub general is optional and must be substituted for a Norman sub general prior to 1051 A.D. As with the defection of Argyrus in 1042 and the death of Guimar IV in 1051 the Lombards lost political control over the Normans so a Lombard sub general cannot be used after 1051 A.D. The total of mounted troops available in Italy and Sicily is lower as the Normans in Italy and Sicily were often short of mounted troops. The Slav colonies had been settled by the Byzantines in Southern Italy.

Justification:

Prior to 1030 the Normans in Italy are best treated as allies in the Italian Lombard list, as until the granting of Aversa to Count Rainulf in 1030, they had no land to speak of, and were engaged as paid mercenaries by the Lombards. The change comes with the revolt of Argyros and the acquisition of Melfi in 1040 as a base for the rebellion against the Byzantines. However the Normans although nominally under the leadership of Prince Guimar IV of Salerno as their feudal overlord, and lead by the Lombard patriot Argyros, in reality conquered and held lands for themselves with leadership divided up among their 12 chiefs, with one of them acting as `chairman of the board', a state of affairs that persisted until the election of Robert Guiscard. After the defection of Argyros to the Byzantines (1042) and the assassination of Guimar (1052), no Lombard leader was ever in a position to rein in and control the Normans, as noted by Beeler p. 69 "Guimar's outwardly imposing position in essence rested on the lances of his Norman vassals, and it might be overturned at any time". Following the death of Guimar the Guiscard gradually took power for himself ending Guimar's dynasty in Salerno in 1076. Prior to 1051 and the assumption of Robert Guiscard of the leadership of the Normans in Italy, no Norman sub generals can be used to reflect the Normans being divided into a number of distinct groups, and also the fact that the Normans had divided the leadership among twelve chiefs."

The number of mounted troops available to the Lombards of Southern Italy appears to have declined in the 11th century, as why otherwise hire Norman knights to supplement the city militias of the Lombard principalities. Further support for this view comes from Nicolle p20 of Italian Medieval Armies: "Equites or cavalry are mentioned only

rarely giving the impression that the Southern Lombards were seriously short of horsemen, Infantry Pedestrium or pedites were more numerous, and defensive siege warfare was the normal Lombard strategy". This might explain why Norman knights were recruited by the Lombards in the first place, to bolster their own small numbers

of mounted troops, and counter the Byzantine kataphractoi to stop the ease with which the Byzantines defeated Lombard rebellions, as it seems they lacked sufficient numbers of horsemen to support their infantry militias in the open field.

Robert Guiscards Slav "Piratae" are recorded in Loud p83 "Malaterra described as "so loyal to him that they might have been brothers", also on p111 Loud states that that Robert Guiscard "attracted to his side a group of Slav settlers who acted as light infantry, scouts, and plunderers". However Malaterra says there were only 60 of these men. Slav colonies also seem to have been planted by the Byzantines in Italy as cited by Loud p216 "Slavs from the Balkans had settled in Bari and the Capitania. Some of these were servants or even slaves, but at Devia on the Gargano peninsula there was a

free colony ... sailors from Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and other towns formed part of his fleet in 1081."

Chelandia are recorded in Loud p35 "That the exactions of the Byzantine regime might prove just as unpopular with the Greeks of Southern Italy as with Lombards under mperial rule is shown by the local revolt at Rossano in Calbria in c965. This was caused by the attempts of the then governor Nikephorus Hexakionites to build a fleet. "He planned to build those ships called chelandia from each of the towns of Calabria". We know that horses and foot were transported to Sicily in 1060/61, and again for the invasion of the Byzantine empire in 1081, it seems likely that a Byzantine style Chelandia horse transport would have been used for this, as the Lombards as noted by Loud, were capable of constructing them.

Bibliography

Yewdale Ralph Bailey, Bohemond I Prince of Antioch, Pallas Armata

Brown R Allen, The Normans, Boydell & Brewer

Curtis Edmund, Roger of Sicily, Putnam

Lindsay Jack, The Normans and their World, Book Club Edition

Kreutz Barbara, Before the Normans, University of Pennsylvania Press

Beeler John, Warfare in Feudal Europe, Cornell

Loud GA, The Age of Robert Guiscard, Longman

Lawson MK, The Battle of Hastings, Tempus

Ahmad Aziz, Islamic surveys, A history of Islamic Sicily, Edinburgh

University Press

Morillo Stephen, Anglo Norman Warfare, Boydell & Brewer

Nicolle David, Italian Medieval Armies, 1000-1300 Osprey

Nicolle David, Medieval Warfare Source Book, Brockhampton Press

Norwich John Julius, The Normans in the South,

McLynn Frank, 1066 The year of Three Battles, Jonathan Cape

4. Ditches at Conquereuil

See the Breton list. If Proposal 1 there is adopted, to change the end-date of the Breton list, then Breton Proposal 3, concealed ditches at Conquereuil in 992, will then apply to this list instead.