Read on Twitter
Time for a small rant that I call: misinterpreting the Bayeux Tapestry.
One of the biggest hinderances to understanding Anglo-Saxon - and Early Medieval warfare in general - is the Bayeux Tapestry and how it gets misinterpreted by military historians /1
One of the biggest hinderances to understanding Anglo-Saxon - and Early Medieval warfare in general - is the Bayeux Tapestry and how it gets misinterpreted by military historians /1
This all comes out of a discussion with @JoshuaRHall3 and @BretDevereaux about @DrMichaelJTayl1's paper "The Evolution of the Manipular Legion in the Early Republic". In one of the footnotes, the Bayeaux tapestry and the Anglo-Saxon shield wall is invoked as evidence of /2
massed heavy infantry formations. The problem is, the Bayeux Tapestry is not good evidence of how "massed" the Anglo-Saxons might have been.
This is the image most often used to illustrate the dense ranks of the Anglo-Saxons: http://www.pompanon.fr/photos/sd/t/k/h/533e808f5a15d.jpg /3
This is the image most often used to illustrate the dense ranks of the Anglo-Saxons: http://www.pompanon.fr/photos/sd/t/k/h/533e808f5a15d.jpg /3
The problem? The overlap of those shields is, if not impossible, then certainly impractical. From medieval artwork and a few surviving oval and kite shields from the 11th and 12th century, it's clear that the shields are 60-70cm wide, and usually closer to 60cm. /4
As Paul M. Bardunias has pointed out, it's very difficult for a spearman to fight with only a 60cm spacing, and something closer to 70cm is more comfortable. In order for those shields to be overlapped, each man would occupy less than 50cm of space. /5
This might be practicable for a purely defensive formation, such as the Byzantine fulcum designed to repel cavalry, but would not allow for much spear or sword play, let alone throwing javelins as Beowulf, Maldon, etc suggest was common. /6
Also important is that the Sylloge Tacticorum, a 10th century Byzantine text that describes kite shields, has a maximum tightness of 60cm for the infantry, which the manual calls "synaspismos" and which must mean that the shields are touching. /7
More importantly, there is an even tighter formation called "the locking of the shields" that is equated with the testudo and is, from the context, not a particularly common formation. /8
Additionally, it's not uncommon for the front a line to be portrayed with overlapping shields or weapons, even if it's not physically possible for the overlap to happen. Should we assume that Ottonian cavalry formed shield walls or that Swedish peasants formed "crossbow walls" /9
because they're shown with overlapping shields or crossbows? Do we expect Arabic cavalry to form shield walls or Norwegians to form shield walls on ships?
In my view, no, we shouldn't, and we should see these overlapping shields for what they are: artistic limitations /10
In my view, no, we shouldn't, and we should see these overlapping shields for what they are: artistic limitations /10
What of the "shield wall" or "board hedge" of the Anglo-Saxons? Is that evidence of close ordered infantry?
No. The sole reason we think that these terms mean close order infantry is because of the influence of older scholarship on Classical warfare. /11
No. The sole reason we think that these terms mean close order infantry is because of the influence of older scholarship on Classical warfare. /11
In fact, none of the terms that Anglo-Saxon writers equated with "testudo" are used in poetry as a military formation: "snægel" (snail), "randbeah" (shield boss), "hæfð hus" (head house), "byrdling" (tortoise), "gehused snægl" (housed snail), "bordðeaca" (board thatch) /12
and "fen-ȳce" (fen-frog, probably a turtle). These are the terms that the Anglo-Saxons associated with very dense formations.
Often left out of the usual poetic terms, however, is "bordhreoðan", which translates as "board cloaks". Note the plural and /13
Often left out of the usual poetic terms, however, is "bordhreoðan", which translates as "board cloaks". Note the plural and /13
selection of an individual garment to symbolise the multiplicity of shields. This doesn't sound much like an extremely dense formation, does it?
Similar observations can be made for the other terms. "Bordhaga", for instance, can be literally taken as /14
Similar observations can be made for the other terms. "Bordhaga", for instance, can be literally taken as /14
"board hedge", but "haga" can also mean "fenced enclosure", so the stress is placed not on the idea that the formation is a dense as a hedge but on the idea that the shields form a protective barrier. Edge to edge or overlapping shields is not necessarily implied. /15
"Scyldburh", while more strongly conjuring up the idea of an unbroken line of shields, also has figurative possibilities, so it could just as easily refer to the collective identity of the force or the protective nature of the shields as overlapping/rim-to-rim shields. /16
Additionally, if we look at the internal evidence of the poems, we find that warriors could indeed leave the formation to fight, as Byrhtnoth and a couple of his retainers do in response to the Vikings doing the same. This could be dismissed as pure heroic nonsense /17
or it could be contextualized with studies of early 19th century warfare in Afghanistan, 19th century warfare in the Philippines, mid-20th century warfare in New Guinea and poetry from Archaic Greece /18
to produce an entirely different picture, one which has a looser formation and is more akin to Homer than The Last Kingdom.
Is this the right idea? Well, I clearly think so, but even if the alternative dense formation is equally viable, my point is that /19
Is this the right idea? Well, I clearly think so, but even if the alternative dense formation is equally viable, my point is that /19
the Bayeux Tapestry and Anglo-Saxon terms for military formations can't be used as definitive evidence for dense, close ordered formations as many scholars have done. There is a second possibility which, in my view, is better supported by the evidence. 20/20
