Anglo-Saxon military organization

This article is part of the series: Anglo-Saxon society and culture

Government

Anglo-Saxon economy

Anglo-Saxon charters

Anglo-Saxon kings and kingdoms

Anglo-Saxon military organization

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain

Anglo-Saxon warfare Religion

Anglo-Saxon Christianity

Anglo-Saxon paganism

Material culture

Anglo-Saxon architecture

Anglo-Saxon art

Anglo-Saxon burial

Anglo-Saxon dress

Anglo-Saxon glass

Other

Anglo-Saxon language

Anglo-Saxon literature

Anglo-Saxon women

view talk edit

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2011)

Anglo-Saxon military organization is difficult to analyze because there are many conflicting records and opinions as to the precise occurrences and procedures. Anglo-Saxon England was known for its tumultuous nature and the constant presence of outside threats and dangers made it necessary for a solid military to constantly be in place. However in spite of this by the 10th century the Saxon kingdom of England was perhaps the best ordered state in Europe with a highly efficient administration that had a solid currency and could raise taxes to support a military establishment. Even though there is some controversy as to the accurate forms of military organization, some aspects can be deduced from the records that have been preserved. The period can however be split into two, before settlement, AD 400 to AD 600, and the settlement period when the Saxons had established organized kingdoms, AD 600 to AD 1066.

Anglo-Saxon helmet from Coppergate, York

Military organization in the pre settlement period

The Saxons were organized into warbands led by a chief. The warriors comprising the warband were professional soldiers though perhaps without the discipline of the Romans or a modern army. There were three classes of warrior.

The Gedriht were the personal followers of the chief and were sworn to die with him. There would have been few of them in a warband. They would have been well armed and the majority would have worn a helmet and chainmail armour. The main weapon was the Gar. This was an 2.5 m long spear with an ash shaft (Old English, gar = ash) Many would have carried long slashing swords.

The second group were the Geoguth, or young warriors. They would have formed the bulk of the warband and would have carried a shield, spear, and Seax (a single edged dagger or short sword). Few would have had helmets or defensive armour.

The Duguth, or old warriors, appear later in this period. They would have carried the same equipment as the geoguth and served mainly to provide a stabilising element in battle.

In addition there would have been skirmishers armed with either a bow or sling.

Method of fighting and army composition

This appears to have changed over this period. At the beginning the shield was small, more like a buckler. This suggests that they fought in open order. Later the shield was enlarged and was up to 1 m across. The warband then fought in close order. This required a reasonable level of training and discipline. This style of fighting had a long history. It was essentially the same system used by the Greeks and Spartans before the advent of the Macedonian phalanx.

The use of the horse in battle is very unclear and probably only the gedriht would have had them. However horses at this period were small and would have had to be battle trained. They could have been a logistical nightmare. On balance the sources indicate that the Saxons fielded a balanced and effective infantry army. It seems likely that horses would have been used either for scouting or transport.

It is not clear how large armies were, the Saxons themselves described anything more than thirty warriors as an army. Interestingly this would have been about same number as a ships crew. The general view is that army would have been made up of a number of warbands under a senior chief or Althing and would have been between 200 to 600 strong.

Settlement Period

Pictish Stone at Aberlemno Church Yard. The stone is believed to commemorate the Battle of Nechtansmere, where the Picts destroyed the Northumbrian army. The figures to the right show Anglo-Saxon mounted warriors wearing Coppergate-style helmets and these are shown unambiguously fighting from the saddle. The only unmounted Anglo-Saxon warrior depicted is dead as indicated by the carrion bird near his head.

The organisation undergoes considerable changes becoming essentially more feudal. The Gedriht become a more organised household guard and also provode a core of military specialists. Individual Earls also would have had their own household troops. There is also a new class of lord the Thegn.  These men were roughly the equivalent of the later Norman Baron. They held land from the king and were responsible for raising the Fyrd in their area and leading them into battle. The richer Thegns would also have had their own household troops. The major innovation is however in the organization of the Fyrd.  This in the post Alfred period is called up in groups either to man the Burghs [Each burgh had a manpower level calculated on the length of wall] or to serve in the field army. By this process a Saxon army could remain in the field all year as there are always enough men at home producing food and goods. The army was thus significantly larger than in the early period. It may not however have been as well trained or effective as in the early period.

Weapons and equipment remained broadly the same. Most of the household troops would have had swords and worn helmets and chain mail. Most of the Fyrd would have had helmets but would have still carried the large shield and heavy spear. The only addition would have the Dane Axe. This required a great deal of training and was only used by household troops.

Tactics and strategies

Anglo-Saxon land battle tactics have also spawned much debate. The conflict lies in how the armies fought. Some historians believe that horses were used, though most argue that the battles took place on foot. Infantry battles are reported in many texts from the period. Anglo-Saxon military organization is difficult to analyze.

The combat strength of the Anglo-Saxon army is another issue which cannot be agreed upon by scholars. Some believe that the army was weak and only used infantry as a means of defense and battle; whereas others believe that the army was much more powerful, employing both infantry and cavalry. The former argument suggests that the infantry was great but did not have very much power and that the Anglo-Saxons did not carry many strong weapons, but they did have archers as their early literature relates.

This is clearly not a valid argument. The early Saxon armies were very formidable indeed, specializing in high-intensity close combat. The large shield was an offensive weapon as well as defensive. In the later period the Saxons adopted the Danish battle axe, which had a 1.3 m shaft and could decapitate a horse or break up an opposing shield wall.

There was thus no cavalry in western Europe capable of breaking a well ordered Saxon phalanx. This was demonstrated at Hastings when the Normans, who probably were the best cavalry of the period, tried all day.

To judge the effectiveness of any military formation one first needs to determine what was its function. The early Saxon armies were aggressive small raiding units that could be quickly combined in a larger unit to take land and goods. The later army's function was defensive and was the military expression of an organised state. It not only depended on raising manpower through the fyrd but on a network of burghs that provided supply bases and mustering points. It was this system that allowed Alfred and his successors to conquer England and for Harold to move his army rapidly against the Danes and defeat them at Stamford Bridge then move elements 250 miles south to Hastings.

There are some battles in which scholars generally agree on which tactics and methods were used. The Battle of Hastings, in 1066, demonstrates some interesting military tactics. At Hastings, the soldiers were organized with the best soldiers in the front line and the less adequate fighters in the following lines. They formed a tightly packed shield wall, with spears projecting from it. Protecting the areas behind and to the side were archers and slingers. The Bayeux Tapestry also shows armoured Saxon warriors using the long handled Danish axe. Either they stood in front of the shield wall or the wall opened to let them through. Though this formation has been criticised, it was highly effective; it provided reasonable cover from missile weapons and was capable of resisting cavalry. It also needs to be remembered that all the Saxons needed to do was to hold their position and the Normans would then be penned into a small area and with no way of feeding themselves or their horses would have had to retreat.

It was in fact rather effective at repelling the Norman Cavalry and it was only the death of Harold and his brothers, probably at the beginning of the battle, that caused the Saxon command system to ultimately fail and the battle to be lost. This strategy was also used in the battle of Sherston in 1016, only with a slight difference. Instead of simply standing in a solitary position, the army moved to the opposing line as a large solid group. They moved very slowly and managed to maintain their formation while advancing on the enemy. This tactic was further developed and used in the crusades. The same procedure would take place, however at an eventual point in the advance; a hole would open in the wall of soldiers to allow a charge of cavalry to attack the opposition. Military tactics did develop gradually throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. Though there is still much debate as to how efficient the soldiers and the fighting was, it is clear that as the ages progressed, so too did the power and intelligence of the army.

See also

• Battle of Maldon
• Battle of Dyrham
• Battle of Ethandun

Notes

References

• Campbell, James, Eric John, and Patrick Wormald. The Anglo-Saxons. Ithaca: Cornell University P, 1982. 59-201.
• Fisher, D J. The Anglo-Saxon Age. Aberdeen: Longman Group Limited, 1973. 220-340.
• Hollister, C. Warren. Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1962. 18-152.
• Levick, Ben. "Saxon Military Organisation." Regia Anglorum. 31 Mar. 2003. Regia Anglorum Publications. 30 Oct. 2006