The Armies of Strongbow

7/30/2019 The Armies of Strongbow

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-armies-of-strongbow 1/29

The Armies of Strongbow

Below are some very general remarks about the forces depicted in the army list

cards. As with the army lists of Ironbow, we can only make educated guesses asto the exact complexion of these armies. Medieval chroniclers tended to grosslyinflate numbers involved in battles- when they even bother to mention them; our best bet for the real numbers involved are the few actual payrolls for some royalhouseholds that remain extant. These sources are rare enough for the greatkingdoms of France and England- but for the armies at the fringes of Europe, wehave even less examples. Please keep this in mind when examining these lists.

A note on Commander’s titles on each list: in most cases, we’ve tried to use theactual native title for each available commander. In many cases, this is mere guesswork; in others, we’ve chosen one out of many known from the time to represent a class.

I. Feudal Europe

1. Capetian FrenchThe Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne, which stretched from the Pyrenees tothe edge of the Slavic kingdoms of Eastern Europe, did not remain unified for very long after the Emperor’s death. Charlemagne’s grandsons divided it intothree realms, each with its own king. West Francia, which included much of thearea of the future France, had its last Carolingian monarch in Louis V “the

Indolent”, who unsurprisingly died without heir in 987 AD. The nobles of therealm elected Hugh Capet as king, beginning the most enduring royal dynasty inEuropean history.The Capetian monarchs directly controlled only a small demesne around Paris,known as the Île de France. Their influence over the many turbulent counts of France came from their prestige, flowing from the Carolingian past, and proppedup by the aura of the king’s anointing by the Church. That being said, it was thequality and character of the king that held the counts in check; a strong kingcould confidently call on the counts for defense or foreign crusade; a weak onecould barely hold sway over his own lands. Surprisingly, genetics were also anaid to their rule- the Capetians tended to have long lives and a high fertility. They

had very few minorities during our era, and the crown often passed smoothlyfrom aged father to mature son. At first, a Capetian king would associate his heir with him as co-king, allowing the younger time to ease into the role; by the end of our era this was no longer necessary, as the rights of an heir became sacrosanctin western European custom and law.Their influence was stronger north of the Loire, and it is here that feudalism wasmost prevalent as an institution. The bureaucratic infrastructure that a centralizedstate required would not exist for centuries to come, so feudalism, with its system



of nestled vassalage that tied the serf to the knight to the baron to the count tothe king, would have to serve. While being a member in this lineup would entail asubmission on your part to the liege above you, it also included his guarantee of your rights and possessions. A clever king could make his will ride down the lineeffectively, but an obstinate or grasping monarch could find himself stymied at

every turn.Outside the Île de France, the rest of the realm was divided amongst the greatregional counts, which ruled and made wars and treaties as if they were pettykings. The major counties of the north (the south is dealt with in the SouthernFrench list) were Anjou, Blois, Champagne, Flanders, and the duchies of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy. Flanders and Normandy have been giventheir own lists, while the rest are covered by the present one.The basic coin in the currency of war was the mounted knight. He had developedfrom the socii or fidelis of the Carolingian day, who held a benefice of land thatsupported his military activities and accoutrements only as long as his lord’spleasure lasted. By the late 10th century he was becoming the miles of the feudal

system, holding a fief as an inalienable hereditary possession, which would passto his heirs.This list ends at the accession of Philip II Augustus, whose reign can beconsidered a watershed in French history.

Military Tactics: Knights ruled the feudal battlefield, and a number of the battlesin the early part of the era may have only been between knights on either side.The famous mounted charge of a fully armoured and shielded nobleman onhorseback, his lance couched in his arm, was still in development in the mid 11th century. Most knights at that time would have only a short hauberk (mailed shirt),a simple helmet, and a round or almond-shaped shield. The lance was probablymore a spear at this point, usually held overhand, and sometimes still thrown likea javelin; some knights may have even carried a couple of true javelins alongwith a spear. Mounted charges were probably faster, and would sometimes havean almost skirmishing quality to them, with feints and evasions being common.By the end of the century, the more familiar couched grip was the norm, andalong with it, the somewhat slower but more powerful direct charge in closeorder. This tactic led to an increase in the weight and coverage of armour, and tomodifications in horse furniture that increased the impact of the headlong attackthat became the standard cavalry tactic of the Middle Ages.Infantry spearmen, once the main troop type in Frankish armies, of coursecontinued in one form or another throughout our era. Although lacking theprestige of the knight, these less expensive and therefore more common soldiersoften formed the core of most western armies of the time, providing a stableanchor around which the knights could operate. In fact, there are a number of battles known where a significant portion of the mounted knights present woulddismount and form up with these troops, stiffening their resolve, and creating aless flexible but doughty force that could not be easily put to flight. Somespearmen might have been either part of the free landholders, raised by feudalarray, or the burghers of a local walled city. More and more, these were replaced



by mercenary specialists, which tended to be more reliable than their feudalcounterparts. Whatever their origin, they usually went by the name, both militarilyand socially, of servientes (servants) or latterly, sergeants .In the years just prior of our era, archery played a very minor role; often only ahandful of men compared to the spearmen, they tended to form up within the

latter’s ranks, and fired at close range. Sometimes they separated themselvesinto a loose chain of skirmishers, but lacking any form of defense this wasprobably only rarely done. Things began to change once the crossbow began togrow in popularity, and larger amounts of archers, now professional andsometimes armoured, begin to appear sporadically in the mid 12 th century andon.Occasionally, larger amounts of infantry would be required for an army, usually toserve in siege operations, and for other fieldwork. These would be suppliedthrough the free peasantry- the remnants of the old Frankish levy known as theheerban , and at this point called the Arrière-Ban , who could not afford proper arms. On very rare instances, these men could be pressed into the line of battle,

using mostly improvised weapons, but were generally useless.List Notes: 1. Breton armies: while in the pre-Viking era they had more in common with their Celtic relatives from the British Isles than their Frankish neighbors, by 1050 theBretons probably fielded a force much like a Norman or Angevin one. However, if wanting a Breton force, the Breton Mestr should be the first choice for Irregulars.

2. Ducal NormanIn 911, an army of Norse raiders under one Rollo (Rolf) were defeated by theforces of Charles III (the Simple) of France. Strangely, instead of driving theremnants of Rollo’s forces away, Charles granted them lands in the northern partof Neustria that soon became known as Normandy - “land of the Northmen”. Hedid this most probably to create a buffer region against further Norse raids. TheNorman dynasties that Rollo founded would become some of the most powerfuland influential families in the history of Western Europe, as well as that of theMediterranean and the Crusader states. Their culture was a strange commixtureof cruelty and piety; Norman rule was marked by the constant struggle tocentralize power in their troublesome states, and paradoxically by a degree of adaptability so notable in an inflexible age that it allowed them to easily graftthemselves into lands as widely separated as the marches of Wales, the costalcities of Sicily, and the hills of Northern Syria. Few peoples could display asnumerous an array of crafty adventurers as William the Conqueror, RobertGuiscard, Robert of Normandy, Bohemund of Taranto, and Tancred of Antioch.Normandy, devoid of naturally defensible frontiers, was under constant threat of invasion by its neighbors. Just as frequently it was wracked by civil war betweenits duke and his restive nobles, or between rival claimants to the ducal throne.Fraternal violence seemed to be the default setting for the ruling caste, and theycarried this virus into English history with them. The Capetians, just up the river Seine, were models of familial harmony compared to their northern vassals.



Normandy has been upheld by some historians as the most perfect feudal state.It is no paradox that the endless and often ruthless Norman struggle for land andproperty should result in their laying the foundations of one of the greatdemocracies in history. By carefully delineating the rights of everyone in the bodypolitic, they were able to at least limit the anarchy and violence to which their

rough lives were prone. After the conquest of England, their various charters of liberties, built on the substrata of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, would eventuallyproduce the Magna Carta and the English parliament. No mean feat for a bunchof covetous brigands.

Military Tactics: Like their Capetian cousins, the basis for Norman militarypower lay in the feudal array. However, William the Conqueror ’s particular situation- being in need for troops to be in continual service in the months andyears after Hastings, as he subdued England- made him a great enthusiast for paid troops and outright mercenaries. He used and maintained large numbers of them from 1066 on. The differences between paid troops and mercenaries was a

delicate one- paid troops were usually actual vassals who were kept (quitevoluntarily) in service beyond the standard 40 days, while mercenaries were menwho made their livelihood from the sword. The need for these troops causedWilliam to rely greatly on forms of taxation to pay them, whether from early formsof the money-fief (where a fief-holder gave cash rather than personal service), or from the heavy taxes in England that were made possible by the famousDomesday Survey. This would lead his successors to lean more heavily on thesystem of scutage (from the Latin scutum- the shield- literally, shield levy) thatwould make hired troops the norm for most royal armies of the 12 th and 13th centuries.In terms of their fighting style, the Normans quickly dropped their Viking warrior ways in favour of the growing military doctrines based on the mounted feudalknight. By our era, they did not differ from those of Capetian France. See theCapetians for details.

List Notes: William I: the army that William used to conquer England had a larger number of mercenaries than most other armies of the era, and William’s planning andorganization seems above and beyond the usual for the time. Therefore, hisResources are at the Rich level, he may use Scutage for his commander generation, and his Full Muster counts as Monarchial.Normandy: Although the Anglo-Norman list kicks in at the accession of William IIin 1088, armies raised in Normandy (mostly by his brother, Robert Curthose)continue to use this list until the battle of Tinchebrai in 1106.

3. Southern FrenchThe King of France was acknowledged as the liege lord of most of what is knowntoday as France. However, with communication being very limited in the Feudalera, he often found it difficult to make his will felt south of the Loire valley. Thedeep south of France below the Gironde, also known as le Midi , was very much a



different world from that of the north. It had a distinct language- Occitan; likeFrench, it is a Romance language, but it has as much in common with Catalanand north Italian as it does with the French spoken around Paris. It had differentlaw of inheritance (the Visigothic Code), allowing women to succeed more easilyas heirs to land and titles (that would make Eleanor of Aquitaine the most

fabulous heiress of her age). Most importantly, the majority of land was heldunder allodial title- i.e. as free-held land, acknowledging no overlord. This made itdifficult for feudalism, and the centralizing effects that it usually brought, to growin the south. Geographically the south was remote as well, with much of it takenup by the mountainous region known as the Massif Central. The fertile plainsand rolling hills of the north were more easily gathered together into the greatcounties of Normandy, Anjou, Maine and others, but in the rugged south itseemed that every valley contained its own sovereign state. The greater lords,such as the Duke of Aquitaine and the Count of Toulouse, held sway over largeareas, but were often more hopelessly embattled by their own vassals than thosein the north were.

The south was also notable for the growth there of the Cathar heresy in the late12th century. This dualistic sect engendered the ire of the Papacy; thepervasiveness of Catharism amongst the population, combined with the sense of independence common amongst the southern nobility, soon gave one of themost authoritarian popes, Innocent III, the excuse to call a Crusade against theregion in the early 13th century. The after-effects of this bloody conflict saw theend of the power of the Count of Toulouse, and finally the extension of theFrench crown’s authority throughout much of the south.

Military Tactics: The mode of warfare of the Midi generally followed the patternseen in the rest of France, along with a few notable differences. Due to thelimitations on southern feudalism, mercenaries were prevalent in the region.Urban centers had more in common with Italy than French ones north of theLoire, so some of the same features, namely large and more independent militiascould be found there, along with more urban knighthood. Also, Gascony,Navarre, and the neighboring parts of the Aragonese Empire were sources of much good light infantry (sometimes referred to as bidets or bidowers , and of course the famous almughavars of Catalonia), who could be raised en masse, or be found leavening the many companies of routiers (mercenary free companies)that operated in the theater. Furthermore, parts of the south owed fealty to theKings of Aragon, who might sometime venture north to establish his authority- anotable (and fatal) example of this was Peter II’s campaign in 1213, against the

Albigensian Crusade.

List Notes: Bishop: Town militia contingents were often under the command of local bishops-these should be predominantly Communal Sergeants, with some shot and a fewknights.Amounts: This list covers three general types of armies. The first- the Minor County- may be used to raise those forces of the minor nobles of the region,



such as the Counts of Foix, Angouleme, la Marche, Perigorde, Carcassonne,Comminges, and countless others. The second- the Duke of Aquitaine- is usedfor the larger armies of the Duchy, including those raised by the Angevin-Normandukes such as Richard the Lionheart, before he ascended to the throne of England. Finally, the third- the Count of Toulouse- is self explanatory, and lasts

until Toulouse fell under the crown of France.

4. Medieval FlemishThe Low Countries are essentially a vast delta formed primarily by the RiversRhine, Meuse, and Scheldt, where they empty into the North Sea. From ancienttimes on, this geographic character allowed the denizens of the region to act asmiddle men for trade coming from England, and the lands around the North andBaltic Seas, and that coming up from the interior of Western Europe. Asinternational trade grew throughout the early Middle Ages, the region becamequite wealthy and densely populated, which fostered the growth of towns and

cities. Furthermore, being at the mouth of the Rhine, that great divider of theFrench and German influences, the Low Countries found itself coming under thesway of these two great cultures, often drawn into one sphere or another.In the division of Carolingian lands Flanders fell first to the King of Middle Francia(sometimes referred to as Lotharingia). By 870, Middle Francia was partitionedby the Kings of France and the Holy Roman Emperors, with the Scheldt river acting as the line of partition. This left most of Flanders squarely with the King of France as an overlord, although some of the county stretched into Imperial lands.The region had a different cultural footprint from France due to the higher level of urbanization; like the great cities of northern Italy, the larger cities of Flanders(like Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres) shared a strong tendency for independence,often quarreling with their counts. By our era, the population of the region hadgrown further in size, due to greater prosperity brought on by being the mainclearing-house for English wool. These two factors, an independent urban cultureand a growing population, led Flanders to become one of the greatest sourcesfor mercenaries in our era. “Brabancons” (technically, men from Brabant, butgenerally applied to many troops from the region), both cavalry and infantry,could be found in most western armies of the time, and often in large numbers.The counts of Flanders wielded great power in the surrounding counties; attimes, the Counties of Artois and Hainault were unified with his lands. As thecities continued to grow in power and wealth, they began to resent their over-mighty lords and assert their own rights. The revolt of towns would become afeature of political life in the Low Countries from then until the Renaissance andReformation.While Flanders saw enough peaceful times during the 12th century to allow their counts to go off Crusading (Thierry and his son Phillip spent most of their reignsin the Levant), the county went through a number of violent dynastic struggles.Most notable were the aftermath of the murder of Count Charles I in 1127-28,and a war of succession from 1244-54. There was often conflict between



Flanders and other states of the Low Countries, like Hainault, Liege, andBrabant.

Military tactics: The counts of Flanders could depend on the usual feudal trooptypes, but they could also field a large amount of urban militia spearmen. While

these might not seem so formidable at first glance, Flemish militia seemed to bea cut above most other similar formations. During our era, castellans- lords or officers of the count who oversaw the main fortifications of the land- could raisenoble and bourgeois troops out of the various quarters of each town; but as acities trade guilds began to grow in importance, these maintained their own militiaunits. They were known to be more highly motivated than other militia of the era,and had developed a few distinct weapons and tactics. One such tactic was thepike block; although not as maneuverable or hard hitting as later Swissexamples, they did fair service time and again against more conventional feudalarmies. Like most town militias of the era, some crossbowmen and knights couldbe raised along with the pikemen. There was of course a larger amount of urban

chivalry available as well.List Notes: This list covers specifically the armies of the County of Flanders, but may beapplied to surrounding regions like Hainault, Brabant and Liege as well.

5. Medieval GermanDuring our era, German Emperors were preoccupied with civil wars at home, thelong power struggle with the Papacy, and the odd crusade (whether in the Balticor the Levant); this left little scope for fighting with France or other westernpowers. Only two expeditions into France are of note: that of the Emperor HenryV in 1124, which amounted to nothing, and the campaign that led up to the battleof Bouvines in 1214.For the purposes of Strongbow, the Germans are relegated merely to theseforces- an early era force for the 1120’s and a latter era force for the early 13 th century.The Holy Roman Empire will be dealt with more fully in a later Ironbowsupplement- dealing with the enduring conflict between the Guelph andGhibelline in the Empire and the Papacy.

Military Tactics: German armies of the time were similar to other westernforces. There are references from the era stating that their knights were inferior to those of the French on horseback, and that they dismounted frequently,preferring foot combat to mounted. This is generally accepted, and oft repeatedby army list designers, perhaps from the concern to add some variety to their work. However, while it might be safer to follow a contemporary opinion than amodern one, it’s difficult to back this up with consistency, as there are manyinstances of Norman knights- famed for their ferocity on horseback- dismountingas well, and many referring to German knights engaging in mounted combat.



Perhaps these contemporary stereotypes referred to the knights of someGerman regions, like Swabia or Saxony, where older military traditions remained.

Another aspect of German warfare that is often mentioned by game designersare the Ministriales - the “unfree” knights and sergeants. While an interestingsocial and organizational phenomena, these troops did not differ much from their

free or landholding counterparts. All German chivalric contingents probablyincluded a number of these, but those provided by clergy (a much greater sourceof Imperial troops in Germany than in the west) had a larger percentage of ministriales amongst their men. German emperors greatly depended on suchtroops, but this probably stemmed more from the political reliability of thesebishops (who might have owed their elevation to a bishopric to the emperor) asapposed to other feudal vassals.Town militias would also be seen frequently in Germany, particularly during oneof the many civil conflicts, while the usual mercenary “Brabancons” could makeup the foot contingents of armies outside the Empire.There is also some evidence that German cavalry favoured a wedge-like

formation when mounted.6. Medieval FrenchPhilip II Augustus came to the throne of France in 1180, at the age of 15. Fewmust have expected great things of the boy, especially because he lived in theshadow of Henry II’s Angevin empire. Henry had power, wealth, prestige, and agaggle of sons to succeed him- he seemed on the verge of creating a great andenduring dynasty. Philip had a demesne little larger than the Ile de France. Yetby Philip’s death in 1223, all of Henry’s sons were dead, and only his weakestson, John, left a weak heir, Henry III; The Angevin empire had been largelydismembered and Philip had more that tripled his lands and the Angevins’expense, and was undoubtedly one of the greatest kings in Europe. His longstruggle had done more to set the French monarchy on the path to absolutismthan any of his predecessors… but that goal lay far in the future. Philip’s heirsalso absorbed lands of the south of France in the aftermath of the AlbigensianCrusade, extending their direct control to the Mediterranean coast for the firsttime since the Carolingian Empire. All in all, the French King became not onlyone of the most prestigious monarchs, but the most formidable in Europe.

Military Tactics: The later French armies continued much in the same vein asin the days of the earlier Capetians, but with greater emphasis on mercenariesover feudal levies. This is only logical, as even a great feudal lord like the King of France really couldn’t count on much help from his vassals. For instance, theCount of Flanders, a French vassal, had up to 500 knights at his disposal, butonly owed the service of 20 to Philip Augustus, and might have merely sent anexcuse in place of his presence in any case.

List Notes: Professional Status: The later part of Philip Augustus’ reign saw his army go fromstrength to strength; as he was freed from the menace of Richard I of England,



and was able to swallow up former Angevin lands, he grew richer and was ableto reorganize.Resources: Due to Philip’s conquests, when using this list for a French Royalarmy, Rich resources are available. For armies raised by other French magnates,

Average resources are the limit.



II. England

1. Anglo-Danish

The warriors who founded the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms arrived in Britain in the 5th

and 6th centuries, and came from areas that eventually became Denmark, Frisiaand other northern German regions. They settled and intermarried with Britons,and came to accept Christianity in the years to come. This changed them enoughso that when a similar wave of warriors arrived in the 8th century from almost thesame regions, the Anglo-Saxons were shocked at these “heathen” and “pagans”and their barbaric fury.While the initial Anglo-Saxon invasion resulted in a number of petty kingdoms,the second, Scandinavian invasion served to cull the weaker of them, leavingonly one in a position of primacy- Wessex. These new invaders carved out acultural empire for themselves in Britain, called the Danelaw, but their tempering

fury forged a chain of strong kings in Wessex, starting with Alfred the Great. Hissuccessors gradually brought the Danelaw under their firm control, and ablydefended their realm, now known as England, from further attacks of Norsemen.However, the long reign of Aethelred the Unready (from unraed - unable to takegood counsel) in the 10th century saw England again prostrate before Norseraiders. The weakness of the regime invited invasion in 1013 by the Danish kingSwein and his son Cnut, who conquered the realm and joined it to that of Denmark for a number of years. In 1042, Aethelred’s son Edward the Confessor was crowned, restoring the line of Wessex to the throne. The large Danishinfluence of the early 11th century began to wane, as Edward’s Norman relativesand friends strove to make their presence felt. Edward’s death would bring on a

collision of the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Norman worlds in the fatefulyear of 1066.

Military tactics: The standard battlefield tactic of the Anglo-Saxon warrior wasthe shieldwall . This was a long multi-ranked formation of shielded spearmen onfoot, with the better-armed and higher status soldiers (thegns ) in the front rank.The commander of this host, usually a king or other high nobleman would takeup a central position in this block, surrounded by his closest companions knownas his hearth troops. The vast majority of the spearmen would be freemen(ceorls ) called up for a limited feudal duty, known as the Fyrd . Usually, only thebetter men amongst this class would be used, now known as the Select Fyrd, but

at times all men would be accepted into the army, which is the Great Fyrd (theseterms are modern ones, having no contemporary corollary; they merely describea process that possibly existed, and have now fallen from favour with historians).Leavened amongst these spearmen would have been a few bowmen andslingers, who rarely deployed separately and did not use massed fire; they shotfrom behind and between the spearmen at targets of opportunity, and usually atclose range. Although most thegns could afford a horse and brought them oncampaign, this was for transportation only. While there were a few late



experiments with cavalry (probably due to Norman influence), they tendedtowards failure.

After the Danish conquest, the regular thegn hearth troops were replaced withthe Huscarl who relied on Danish war axes (used two handed, with their shieldslung behind the back) as well as spears and shields.

List Notes: Post-Conquest: a number of Saxon uprisings and invasions (in concert withScandinavian armies and Ostmen from Ireland) occurred after the conquest,particularly in Devonshire, Gloucestershire, East Anglia, and the North. Armiesfrom this era should often include allied contingents from the Late Viking or Menof the Isles list.

3. Anglo-NormanThe Normans successfully imprinted their own image over that of Anglo-SaxonEngland. The Saxons, if the monastic historians are to be believed, chafed under

the heavy taxes the Normans imposed, but for the most part accepted their rule.The real problem for these new kings were the restless and troublesome Normannobility, who seemed bent on limiting the power of the King or Duke of Normandyat almost any cost.Up until the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, the main unrest in the united countrieswas the struggle between the successors of William I, specifically betweenRobert, Duke of Normandy and his brothers William II and Henry I, who wereKings of England in turn. At the aforementioned battle, Robert fell into the handsof Henry, and languished in captivity until his death in 1132. His capture gaveHenry a breather to deal with other matters, although Robert’s son, William Clito,also proved a problem as the latter tried to retrieve his lost inheritance (with nosuccess). Things might have ended more happily for Henry I, had not his onlyson perished at sea in 1120, preventing any chance for a clear succession. In1135, Henry died, and the era known as “The Anarchy” began.

Military Tactics: Anglo-Norman tactics, like their ducal Norman predecessors,closely followed the developments that were common in France and the rest of Europe. One added wrinkle was in the use of auxiliaries that were available in theBritish Isles; first, the remnants of the Saxon Fyrd, and then later, the warriors of Wales who would be happy enough to fight for English gold. The use of mercenaries was already in place from the reign of William I, and continued togrow apace, with cavalry and spearmen from Flanders, known as Brabancons,becoming very common. The crossbow increased in popularity, but would onlybecome prominent in mercenary bands during the Angevin Empire.

List Notes: Normandy: This list does not include armies from Normandy between 1088-1106,which are still covered under the Ducal Norman list.Fyrd: The remnants of the Saxon Fyrd continued to be available for some time tothe Anglo-Norman kings. If they still existed as a distinct entity, they cease to be



mentioned after the turn of the 12th century, but may have still been a noticeableforce in the north for a little longer. Thereafter, peasant levies are simply referredto as “English”.

4. The Marcher Lords

A remarkable feature of the Anglo-Norman regime was the emergence of thelords of the Welsh Marches. In the wake of the Conquest, a few adventurerswere licensed by King William I to overrun Wales, and to retain certain rights thatother feudal vassals did not have. They were given the right to essentiallybecome medieval entrepreneurs- while other vassals had to get royal permissionto wage war, build castles, and dispose of lands to their own vassals, marchlords were free to attack whom they liked (as long as they were Welsh), and buildand people their own fortifications and holdings. They were exempt from royaltaxes, and could divert all their resources in the subjugation of their Celticneighbors. Of course, they were never flush with resources, so much of the jobwas done by a surprisingly small number of hard and ruthless men. In like

manner, they took their conquest “on the road” when the same modus operandi was used in the conquest of Ireland in the mid 12 th century, by a few hundredmen of the Marches (which now included Welsh auxiliaries as well). Such wasthe drive for land, and the prestige and wealth that it brought, to the ruggednobility of the era.This is not to say that the conquest was all one sided; at times when the Welshhad had enough and could be united in broad revolts, they could drive back or slaughter the Norman, French, Breton and Flemish invaders and undo for a timetheir settlements and fortresses. One such era of contraction of the Marches wasin the aftermath of the revolts of 1136 and the battle of Crug Mawr, striking whenthe king of England was preoccupied (in this case, in the early stages of the

Anarchy), and freeing much of what was the old kingdom of Deheubarth fromNorman rule. It was not until the 1150’s when Henry II began to help the Marcher Lords grow their lands again.Unfortunately for these hardy borderers, the success of the Welsh wars of Edward I eroded their powers, as royal authority was extended fully into Wales,and national coffers had to be opened to construct the great fortifications of thelate 13th century. The complete assimilation of Wales would continue into the 15 th century, and the palatine powers of the Marchers became unnecessary. A legacyof this long conflict was the growth of the massed Welsh/English longbowmen(many of whom were raised in the 14th-15th centuries from the Marches) thatwould become the main feature of English armies in the Scottish and HundredYear’s Wars.

Military Tactics: While the Marcher aristocracy continued to fight in like manner as their other Norman counterparts, some innovations arose in the aftermath of the first forays into Wales. One was the proliferation of small castles (which littleconcerns us); another was the increased use of irregulars and archers. Welshmercenaries begin to be seen in divers places from the mid 12th century on, andbecome a flood in Edward Longshanks’ time and thereafter. At first these are



their general Milwyr -type warrior, but increasingly their archers are seen. Another controversial creation is the muntatores of Shropshire, sort of lightcavalry/mounted infantry that excelled at scouting and anti-raiding duties; theymay have been the forerunners of the later medieval hobelar .

List Notes: Fierce Feudal Status: The Marchers that made the first forays into Wales andIreland, while similar to other Anglo-Norman and English troops, knew that theywere up against long odds and that their chances of survival (let alone success)were dubious. Hence their fiercer character than their relatives “back home”.

5. Angevin EmpireHenry II inherited a sprawling, multilingual and multiethnic empire in 1154. At theoutset, it must have seemed impossible for any average man to govern such ahuge and fractious realm, keeping in mind the poor communications, differencesin languages and dialects, puny administrative tools, and the utter lack of

centralization that characterized these regions. But Henry was no average man;he had boundless energy, a crafty and devious intellect, and an indomitable will.While most feudal courts were peripatetic, Henry’s seemed positively airborne!He was known to be constantly on the move, appearing at will and unannouncedin one county after another, armed with demands to see the financial statementsof his officers and the verdicts of his judges. He reformed numerous institutionsin his empire, and laid much of the foundations of a more centralized Englishstate. His neighboring brother kings proved no match for him, particularly theFrench King Louis VII, whose wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry had seducedaway and married. In the early years of his reign, the only worthy adversary for him proved to be that great rival of every 12 th century western monarch- theChurch. His conflict with his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, is wellknown, but not atypical for the age.Without any fitting temporal rivals, it was up to Henry to create his own. He filledthis role with his turbulent sons- Henry (“the Young King”- at one point Henry II’sco-ruler, in Capetian fashion), Richard (“the Lionheart”) Duke of Aquitaine,Geoffrey Duke of Brittany, and John (“Lackland”). Together with their mother Eleanor, these princes continually intrigued against and revolted from their father,and generally wore him down; when the old king died in 1189, he was a brokenman. Richard I followed him (Young Henry died in 1183, and Geoffrey in 1186),and proved as tireless and crafty as his father, although he was somewhat moreviolent; Henry II, like many monarchs in his age, generally avoided field battles,preferring guile, coercion, and sieges, while Richard had a knack for the mountedcharge. However, few adversaries would indulge the Lion King (unsurprisingly,as he was arguably the greatest knight and general of his age), with France’sPhilip Augustus making flight from Richard’s army a regular habit. Even so, Philipproved the ultimate victor in the struggle between Capetian and Angevin, as heoutlived Richard (who died in 1199) and soon detached and swallowed up Anjou,Maine and Normandy from brother John by 1204.



John’s reign proved troublesome for the remnant of the empire (Aquitaine aloneendured of his continental possessions) as he soon exhibited a couple of thehallmarks of bad medieval kings- a love of favourites, and an inconstant nature.

Although he inherited some of the Plantagenet craftiness of his father, in him itseemed a fault. His kingdom went through a long excommunication from the

Church on his account, and his grand strategy and coalition against Philip Augustus collapsed on the field of Bouvines in 1214. Soon his barons conspiredto oppose him, and enforced limitations on royal power through the GreatCharter, AKA the Magna Carta- not the only charter of that sort from the feudalera, but the one often pegged as the first shoot of English democracy.John died in 1216- although his son Henry III acceded him, the Angevin Empireis said to end with his reign.

Military Tactics: The Angevins cemented some of the changes to the feudalmilitary establishment that had developed in Anglo-Norman lands. The mass of feudal knights and their followers were thought to be less than effective on

campaign, as it was difficult and costly to keep them in the field beyond the bareminimum of their term of service- if they showed up at all. As often as not duringthe era, these campaigns were actually attempts to bring recalcitrant vassals toheel! Scutage, and the mercenaries it paid for became the normal tool for theraising of royal armies; Brabancons, Genoese mercenary crossbowmen, Welsharchers and the infamous Routiers of the latter half of the century all wereregular, and more reliable features of Angevin forces.

List Notes: Richard I: This army uses Fierce Feudal Status when Richard is the C-in-C.

6. Medieval EnglishThe disastrous reign of King John left the crown of England weakened. He hadlost many of his possessions in France (including Normandy, the home of hisancestors) and had antagonized his barons enough to make them establish limitsto royal authority, and make a number of them call in Prince Louis of France asJohn’s replacement. After John’s death, Louis was driven off, leaving John’snine-year old son Henry III on the throne. Royal minors would often grow intoweak and unsteady monarchs, and would time and again prove catalysts for political turmoil in English History. Like most royal minors, Henry found himself isolated amidst a powerful nobility, and sought the support of foreign favouritesas his closest advisors, which alienated his barons, who at this point were stillwary from John’s reign. Henry III was also a stunning profligate, who kept alavish court and soon burdened the state with debts. This course, unwise in anyland of the time, but downright stupid in England, which had seen a baronialrevolt in living memory, soon drove the nobility to extreme measures. They calledon Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester to lead them in wresting administrativepower from the king, and vest it in a council of nobles. Simon, although the king’sbrother-in-law and a former foreign favourite, was an able administrator andpolitician and a former crusader; he led the baronial faction in two famous battles;



Lewes in 1264 (which he won) and Evesham in 1265 (where he was killed). Inthe aftermath, Prince Edward “Longshanks” and his faction established a royalcouncil to govern the realm (and promptly left on a crusade), and Henry III wasreduced to a powerless figurehead until his death in 1272.

As king, Edward I would become as famous as Richard I as a warrior and

general. His grasp of strategy, tactics, fortification and logistics was formidable,and his campaigns against the Welsh succeeded where many kings since theConquest had failed. By 1282-83 he had conquered the independent Principalityof Wales, slew its last Prince and secured that title for his first-born son. AlthoughWales seethed with revolt for years to come, Edward felt sufficiently free to turnhis attention to the Continent, and from 1296 to the end of his reign, to theScottish succession. However, that conflict rests outside our chosen era.

Military Tactics: Although mercenaries were banned by the Magna Carta, paidtroops continued to be the backbone, and often the whole body of MedievalEnglish armies. The majority of the feudal array seemed to fight with motivation

only when in revolt! …… Quite a lot of detail remains of the military organization of the reign of Edward I,which may shed light on many of the armies that preceded it, and set the tone for those that followed. Edward at times raised large amounts of troops for campaigns in Wales, Scotland and the Continent. Records show that he relied onboth feudal array and paid troops for his cavalry- with feudal troops becomingpaid troops during the length of a campaign. He also planned for large amountsof infantry (English and Welsh) to be called up, usually from shires close to theembattled regions, arranging for successive replacement levies as troopsdisbanded once their term of service was up (after 40 days). Although puremercenaries were frowned upon, there were a few formations occasionallyrecruited, particularly Continental crossbowmen, especially in times of crisis.

List Notes: Baron’s War s: these conflicts are covered under their own list. This list is meantfor campaigns of Henry III on the continent, and any English army fighting theWelsh or Scots (outside of the War for Independence).Edward I: This king was a formidable campaigner, and had his pick of the nativetroops that had battlefield experience from the Baron’s Wars, and the manymercenaries available at that time. Therefore, his armies can be characterized asProfessional.



III: The Celtic Fringe

The story of Celtic Europe, at least the part that had been recorded by the

historians from the Roman era and onward, is sadly one of its slow conquest andrecession before the onslaught of the Mediterranean civilization. Those Celtswho would not submit to the southerners had to travel beyond the edge of thecivilized frontier (by civilized we mean merely city dwelling). As for the remainder who stayed within the Roman sphere, the first generation felt an initial trepidationand chafed under their new rulers, but they soon became thoroughly Latinizedcitizens and prospered within the Pax Romana. A few centuries later, during thetwilight of the Western Empire, the wandering Germanic tribes that crossedRome’s frontiers found only Romans in their path.

Although much of Celtic culture was subsumed into the Roman world, itcontinued to flourish in various forms within the less-accessible highland areas

on the western fringe of Europe. Replacing the Romans as their antagonistswere the Germanic invaders, who even transferred their own name for a Celticland- Gaul (from walha - “foreigner”)- to some of the new refuges- Wales (Wallia)or Cornwall. Many of these new areas hosted cultures that retained features fromthose of ancient times, even well past the Feudal era; petty kings, clan feuds,cattle raiding, a limited transhumance, the bardic tradition- all were marks of thecommon life of the peoples of Ireland, Strathclyde, Pictland, Scotland, Cornwall,Wales and even Brittany.

1. Medieval Welsh

Prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, Britain had been a province of the RomanEmpire. The Roman government and their legions abandoned the island in the5th century, leaving the remaining inhabitants to their own devices. Their cultureis often referred to by the less-than-flattering name of “Sub-Roman Britain”. Itwas comprised of people of mixed Celtic-Roman ethnicity, as the lowland Celts(in what is now England) had intermarried with and adopted the mores of their Roman rulers and other citizens of the Empire. Their resistance to the newinvaders was spirited at times, but generally they found themselves driven out of the best lands, and had to make do with the western and northern highlands of the island, which although less arable were at least more defensible.Their Roman heritage slowly diminished over the centuries; they kept their

Christianity, and certain titles that lent their rougher life some veneer of theprestige of past glories. They hammered their Late Roman soldiers andpatricians into enduring legends that crossed the frontier and even the sea, andgave the feudal world a template for the future chivalric and romantic ideals thatinspired all of Europe. However, the Cymry , as they now referred to themselves(from the word combrogi - “countryman”), returned to the old Celtic way of life thathad never disappeared from the regions wherein they now found refuge (for theCeltic tribes and clans of the less-Romanized highlands remained for the most



part intact). The tribal areas they held soon became kingdoms, the mostprominent being Gwynedd, Powys and Deheubarth. (The northern kingdoms of Strathclyde and Berenicia, and the southwestern kingdom of Dumnoniadisappeared before our era, and do not need to be considered here.)Occasionally one king from these lands would rise to a certain prominence and

would be acknowledged as King of the Britons. The first of these was RhodhriMawr (the Great), who ruled most of Wales, and founded a line of kings thatwould include Hywel Dda the Good and Llywelyn the Great. However, unityamongst the Welsh kings was rare, and war remained endemic amongst them for most of their history. The Welsh were successful in resisting the pressure exertedby Saxons like Offa of Mercia and Harold Godwinson, and the incursions of Viking Raiders; but they had much more trouble with the Norman knights whofollowed in the wake of the Conquest of 1066.These Norman “Marcher Lords” had much autonomy from the English Monarchy,being licensed to build their own castles wherever they desired. They used thesestrongholds to overawe the Welsh, who could not best the Normans in open

battle. Within a couple of decades, the entire south and much of the northeast of Wales were under Norman control. However, the continuous guerilla tactics of the Welsh, and the ruggedness of the terrain made it difficult for the invaders tohave a firm grip on the land, and when unified, the Welsh could sometimes pushthem back, especially when the Anglo-Normans were mired in civil war. AlthoughDeheubarth and Powys were generally controlled by Anglo-Norman lords,Gwynedd managed to maintain its independence, and its kings soon styledthemselves the Princes of Wales, a title confirmed by Henry III of England in theTreaty of Montgomery in 1267. By the 13th century, the Welsh princes had begunto learn other tricks of their English foes; castles began to be built, townsappeared and grew, agriculture became more advanced, and even someheraldry and the trappings of chivalry and feudalism haltingly appeared. Theprinces owed fealty to the English King, but little else, and inhabited a position tohim similar to the King of Scotland. They played the game of being vassals oneminute and enemies the next, until 1282, when their last Prince, suitably (andposthumously) named Llywelyn the Last, was killed by the forces of Edward I atthe battle of Orewin Bridge. Thereafter, “the Prince of Wales” became thehereditary title of the heir to the English Crown.

Military Tactics: Like most Celtic peoples, the most common form of Welshwarfare took the shape of predatory raids and ambushes. This was especiallynecessary in the face of the power of Norman chivalry; the Welsh were mostlyunarmoured footmen, although some of their nobles, known as the Uchelwyr (“high warriors”) could have mail shirts and could fight mounted. However, theWelsh sometimes mustered sufficient numbers and risked an open battle, withsome effect. Even then, difficult terrain was often nearby to afford a hasty retreatinto safety if the battle did not develop favourably. Another aspect of Welshwarfare was their resilience to defeat- a loss of an open field battle seemed tocause the Welsh little consternation (an attitude that caused their Norman foesmuch annoyance), merely causing them to return to guerilla warfare.



Most Welsh foot warriors (the “Millwyr Traed”) had maybe a shield for defense,and a spear or javelins for offense. Much has been made of the Welshlongbowmen (“Saethwyr”), rather inaccurately- the longbow or warbow was not aWelsh invention. Furthermore, although it was used extensively in Wales, it wasnot used in massed warfare, or with the same fire discipline found in the English

armies of the 14

th

century and later. Still, it did make an impression on the Anglo-Norman leaders, so that they began to recruit bands of Welsh mercenaries intoeffective units beginning the early 12th century. They proved significantly useful inthe invasions of Ireland and the wars with Scotland in the later 13 th century andon.

Also well known is the difference in armament between northern and southernWales; in the north, spearmen were favoured, while in the south, bowmen werein the majority. However, it must not be construed that there were no bowmen inthe north, nor spearmen in the south. As the era progressed, there may alsohave been a shift in the tactics of the more long-lasting northern kingdom of Gwynedd; the irregular masses of javelinmen and some long spearmen of the

earlier era may have adopted something akin to the Scottish schiltron formationand tactics by the mid 13th century (although this theory is controversial, as it isbased on a questionable account of the battle of Orewin Bridge in 1282).Furthermore, the later kings of Gwynedd may have been able to field a smallnumber of heavy cavalry similar to armoured knights.

List Notes: Resources: The Poor resources after 1100 reflect the collapse and colonization(by the Normans) of the Southern Welsh kingdoms by that time, althoughuprisings and warfare amongst the remaining nobility continued up until at least1197.North/South Wales: Players should choose the location from which their armiesoriginate; either way, they may take contingents from either North or South asallies.

2. Medieval IrishThe Celtic way of life survived untouched the longest in Ireland. The numerousclans and petty kingdoms lived very much like their ancestors must have beforeRome took an interest in the world north of the Alps. Although the medieval Irishchroniclers could trace their history extremely far back into prehistoric times,these tales were entirely legendary, and little is known of Irish history before theRoman era.Irish indigenous culture at the beginning of our era was still tribal. The basiccultural unit was the household (teglach ), which was an individual extendedfamily. These households were grouped into hundreds, and a few of thesehundreds together would form the tuath (lit. people), under a Ri or king. Thesekings also had over-kings above them, and above them were the regional kingsof the “fifths” (coiceda )- the general, early-medieval provinces of Ireland: Ulster (Ulaid ), Connacht (Connachta ), Leinster (Laigin ), Munster (Mumu ), and Meath



(Mide ). Above all was the High King (Ard Ri ) that came from the Ui Neill dynasty,who generally came from the northern provinces, and whose seat of power wasthe sacred Hill of Tara. The Ard Ri was more a sacral king than a politicaloverlord; like most of the kings in Ireland, his power over his under-kings wascustomary rather than direct. Weak kings could be ignored, while strong ones

had to be deferred to; but essentially, Ireland was a loose confederation of tribes,well within the long traditions of the Celtic culture.While the disunity of Ireland did not attract a Roman incursion, later invadersfound that the divisions in the land invited colonization; the Vikings, coming fromsnowy and rugged regions, found the charming isle a wonderful place to stake aclaim. Their raids commenced at the beginning of the 9 th century, and within afew decades they had already establish trading settlements along the east coast.By the 10th century, the towns of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Wexford and Limerickwere being established, and soon, their inhabitants became yet another part of the cultural and political fabric of the isle and had kings of their own. Suchcolonists are often referred to by modern historians as the “Hiberno-Norse”.

The Viking challenge brought changes to native Irish life. As in other realms thatthese reavers attacked, the Irish and their leaders became hardened, and beganto gain ground on the invaders. Most prominent in this inevitable native backlashwas Malachy the Great (Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill), the Ard Ri who broke thepower of the Norse King of Dublin in 980, and his more famous contemporary,Brian Boru (or Boruma), of the Dal Cais clans of northern Munster. Brian rosefirst to the kingship of all of Munster, and then to be the first High King of Ireland(deposing Malachy in 1002 A.D.) in centuries that was not of the Ui Neill dynasty.He managed to unify much of Ireland- although only through near constantwarfare- including some of the coastal Scandinavian kingdoms.This greater unity did not survive Brian’s death at the battle of Clontarf in 1014,and Ireland reverted to form as a loose collection of kingdoms and clans,engaged in endless raids and minor warfare for the next century and a half. Oneking who was deposed in this perpetual scrum, Diarmait Mac Murchada of Leinster and Dublin, sought foreign help to regain his place, and found this inEngland- specifically, from Richard “Strongbow” de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, alord of the Welsh Marches. He commissioned Robert Fitz Stephen and Raymondle Gros to lead expeditions of Normans and Welshmen to retake Leinster for Diarmait, and in which they were successful. This invasion (and others in theyears to come) began the long struggle between the native Irish peoples andEnglish colonists, which has raged at times down to our own day. Of course, likethe Norse before them, the Anglo- Norman lords soon became assimilated, andlater English colonists took the descendants of these early invaders for Irishmenthemselves.Many Irish kings swore to accept Henry II and his descendants as their liegelords in 1171, but this was probably in the hope that royal power would protectthem from further Norman adventurers. It was a vain hope, as a number of pettyNorman lordships are carved out of Irish realms throughout the 12 th century.Henry gave his son John the Lordship of Ireland in 1185, and with his accessionas king of England in 1199, it became a holding of the Crown. However, the



English monarchy was usually a distant power, and the endless internecineconflict continues throughout our era, and beyond.

Military Tactics: Irish tactics developed more from the endless raids andcounter-raids that were a common feature of tribal life, than from stand-up field

battles. That is not to say that battles in the open, with marshaled units, did notoccur; but it is difficult to determine whether they had a ritualistic quality, andfeatured individual combats between heroes, or that this is merely a literary idealpresented by the early chroniclers. The military organization of their forces wasdecimal, with units of 100 (a cet ), 700-1000 (possibly a cat ), and 3000 (tricha-cet )men often being mentioned in early records. These may also have been literarydevices, but are reflected in the social organization of households within a tuath ,so may be accurate. Most warriors (Ceitherne or Kern) in the pre-viking era werearmed with small wicker shields (if any), knives, light spears and javelins, withlittle or no body armour being used, except perhaps by the high-status nobilityand some of their retainers (the Lucht Tige ), who also may have also deployed

as light horse (Marcshluag ). These warriors were mostly called up from relativesand kinsmen, although kings would also have some household warriors,depending on the division of booty and gifts from the royal coffers.

After the advent of the Norsemen, large axes, swords and some armour becomemore common, with the axe becoming a day-to-day accessory for a warrior,much as the sword became for most European gentry. Hiberno-Norse warriorsknown as “Ostmen ” from the coastal towns and Scots-Irish Isles also becomepopular as auxiliaries. These troops, particularly those from the Scots Isles (asthe Hiberno-Norse of the coast begin to lose their distinctiveness after theNorman Invasion) soon become the famous “Galloglass” (galloglaich ) in the 13th century, who from then on form the paid backbone of Irish armies. Another later component in Irish forces after the Viking invasions are the Bonnachti . Althoughthese troops similar to the traditional Irish warrior, they were men maintained inpaid bands, rather than called up from relatives and farmers when needed. Theyprobably could fight in closer formations than the ceithernachti , and includedmore axe-men. After the Norman incursions, some Irish kings even call on their new neighbors to serve as paid troops (knights and foot) against their owncountrymen.

List Notes: Ulster Marcshluag : The north of Ireland may have had a better equestriantradition than the rest of the island, a conclusion that some draw from Gerald of Wales description of the campaigns of John de Courcy; however, this iscontroversial.

3. United Scots Although at the extreme edge of Europe, Scotland proved to be quite acrossroads for wandering nations and adventurers. The Celtic Picts (the Romanname for this collection of tribes- although it may be a garbled tribal name) were



its main inhabitants until the Irish Gaelic raiders known as the Scotti invaded inthe 5th century, and created the kingdom of Dal Riata (centered in what became

Argyll). The Saxons moved north into what is now southeastern Scotland andconquered the kingdom of Bernicia (formerly a Sub-Roman British kingdom),while the Britons retained a foothold in the southwest as the kingdom of

Strathclyde. Norse invaders began to occupy the isles to the north and west,along with parts of the mainland from the 9th century on. For much of the 7th to 9th centuries, Pictland seemed to be the ascendant power in the region. Thetransition to the name Scotland, or the Kingdom of Alba, dates to the late- 9 th century when the descendants of Pictish king Kenneth MacAlpin began to stylethemselves as the kings of Scotland. (MacAlpin was traditionally thought to haveunified the Scots and Picts through conquest, and with the slaughter of thePictish aristocracy, but this theory has fallen out of favour.)Sometime around the start of our era, the Scottish crown absorbed Strathclydeand Bernicia, leaving only the Norse and northern Gaelic lands outside their rule.The dynasty of MacAlpin failed in 1034, and was replaced by the house of

Dunkeld; under their rule, Scotland began to develop a more southern-lookingstance, possibly due to expanding English influence.There were of course teething problems for the new united realm- mostsignificantly the usurpation of the throne by the semi-independent Mormaer of Moray, the infamous Macbeth. Moray was a Gaelic area in the northernhighlands, which may have acted as a buffer between Scotland proper and theNorse raiders of the surrounding isles. His short-lived dynasty was finally drivenout by Malcolm III Canmore (“Bighead”), of the house of Dunkeld, aided byEnglish troops.

Military Tactics: by the mid 11th century, Scots armies still retain the tribalorganizational character of most Celtic nations, with a few variations due to themix of cultures. Western areas seem to have maintained the fleet-footed

javelinmen of their Irish cousins, with some Norse influences mixed in. While thePicts fielded similar formations in the early days, the eastern and southernlowlands began to develop the masses of long-spearmen that characterizedScots armies of the Middle Ages. Cavalry continued to be in limited supply andwhat was available was poorly mounted. Mass archery was not practiced. Some

Anglo-Saxon type troops became available once Bernicia was added to thecrown; while these may have initially formed their own units on the battlefield,they seemed to have assimilated with the ruling classes in no time and may havemerely been added as the front ranks of the later militia spear units.

At this time, the famous “schiltron ” tactics may not have existed, but would be indevelopment in the era to come.

List Notes: Amounts: Early Scots Speres depict a looser formation than those of the later Common armies. We posit that as the latter became the norm in the lowlandareas, the older form was retained in the highlands.



Moray and Galloway: These Gaelic/Scandinavian highland areas maintained amore independent stance during our eras, and were in some ways more“backward” than the lowlands. Moray lost its independence in 1130, andGalloway was brought to heel by 1234.

4. Feudal ScotsFundamental changes came to Scotland during the reign of David I in the early12th century. David had spent much time in exile and under the tutelage of the

Anglo-Norman King Henry I, and upon his return and accession introduced manyfeudal reforms to the land, known to historians as the “Davidic Revolution”.Norman knights were imported, and many of these founded noble families thatwere to become prominent in the centuries to come- the Bruces, Balloils,Douglases, Montgomerys and others descend from these Norman, French andFlemish knights. Many other continental-style changes occur at this time, bothecclesiastical (Gregorian reforms, abbeys) and social (military feudalism,

urbanization, native coinage). Most significantly, these reforms tied Scotland tothe international European culture; it is interesting to compare Scotland andIreland with each other at the start and at the end of our era to see the depth of the transformation begun by David I.This era also saw the growth of the crown’s power, with the last Mormaer of Moray done away with in 1130, and with the Kingdom of the Isles becomingofficially part of Scotland in 1268. This is not to say that these regions settleddown under royal authority; the Highlands of Scotland would resist lowlandculture and control on and off until the mid-18 th century.

Military Tactics: The core of this army continued to be the masses of spearmenlevied from all able-bodied men, now known as the “common” army. In theorythese could be mustered in vast numbers, and some chronicles echo this,although most modern reconstructions consider these amounts as ridiculouslyexaggerated. Such formations were usually fronted by the petty nobles thatbrought them to the field. The schiltron formation, which may have existed as far back as the Pictish kingdoms, was probably in use at this time, although somesay that this came into being only from the days of William Wallace andhereafter. Archery continued to be rare and largely ineffective, but the influx of Norman knights starting with the reign of David I meant that the cavalry arm hada better punch, although they were still numerically inferior to their English. Alliedand Irregular Gaels from the west coast and highlands still fought in their traditional warband styles, and continued to be unreliable.

List Notes: Commanders: The “Adventurer” type of Constable represents the early Normanknights that David I imported into Scotland. In time these men were settled aspart of the ruling class, and therefore become synonymous with the other listednative commanders.



4. Late VikingBy the start of our era, the Scandinavian Viking tide had ebbed throughoutWestern Europe. Many of their former targets in the 8th to 10th centuries (likeparts of France, England and Ireland) had hardened sufficiently that little hope of

conquest or tribute remained. Other areas (like Normandy, the Scots/Irish Islesand coasts, and the Danelaw of England) had been conquered, and the former Viking settlers were in the process of being assimilated into the cultures of their former underlings. Additionally, the rise of centralized monarchies andChristianity in the Scandinavian homelands quelled much of the roving spirit, andminor Viking lords and bands found themselves more tied to affairs at home.Their aggressive energy would be channeled into royal armies and crusades,which would not abide the anarchy that made the Viking era possible. WhenCanute, Harald Hardraada, Sweyn Ulfsson, Magnus Barelegs, and Haakon IVcame west, it was not as raiders seeking loot and new lands to settle, but kingsfollowing foreign policy, and sometimes seeking their rights of succession.

Danish kings had strong ties to (and strong designs on) England in the 11

th

century, but by the dawn of the 12th century had begun to look eastward for empire, and limited their dynastic struggles to Scandinavia alone. Norwegiankings on the other hand had numerous small holdings around the British Isles.They claimed the isles west and north of Scotland as their tributaries, but theroyal administration was a distant one, and these lands generally actedindependently. After Magnus Barelegs’ second expedition in 1103, no king of Norway led a major expedition west until Haakon IV in 1263.(Note: there were a number of expeditions of exiled pretenders to the Lordship of the Isles that the Norwegian crown sent out during our era, but these are bestrendered as armies of Islemen with strong Late Viking allied support.)Organization for these expeditions centered around the ship’s company, whichcould generally range from 80 to 150 fighting men in size. (There are someaccounts of longships holding 500 men, but these were rare, and probably onlyoperated in Scandinavian waters.) Some royal fleets could number from 120 toas many as 300 vessels, giving a possible army size of 30,000, but this may beexaggerated; most armies mentioned at the time number only a few thousandwarriors. Some “freelance” pirate ships from the Western Isles might join upuninvited, and the Earls of Orkney would regularly provide ships of their own.

A king would be followed by a band of his own picked followers (usually 100-120in number) called the hird . Other jarls (synonymous to English earls) had similar followings. For large armies close to home the leidang , the general muster of able-bodied men, could be called out, but these were rarely taken over seas.

Military Tactics: Scandinavian armies used the shieldwall tactic from of old; ablock of warriors armed with spears and large round shields, the latter beingoverlapped for protection. The higher status warriors, with finer weapons andsome armour, would form the front rank, and a ring around their king or lord, andwere ready to die to the last man with him, if necessary. An added feature to theScandinavian shieldwall was the common use of the two-handed axe by the



warriors, necessitating a somewhat looser formation, with their shields slungbehind their backs. Archers were sometimes included within the shieldwallformation, and bows were at first mostly used as a close range weapon-however, as the era progressed, they became more common as most low statuswarriors would carry a bow as well as melee weapons. Cavalry began to appear

in modest numbers as the chivalric culture took hold and grew in Scandinaviafrom the mid 12th century on; however, most seaborne forces that appeared inthe British Isles were entirely infantry in nature.

List Notes: This list is divided into two distinct eras; one up until 1103, andanother for 1263. In the interim between these eras, Norway went through ashort period of stability and peace (which made it possible for a number of their kings to go on crusades), followed by a much longer one from 1130-1240 knownas the “Borgerkrigstida ”, a period of seemingly endless civil war. This divertedNorwegian kings from foreign ventures.

5. Men of the IslesThe western coast of Scotland is riven with many firths (fjord-like inlets andstraits) and studded with many craggy, wind swept islands, now known as theHebrides. These afford many landings and coves ideally suited for hardy typeswho had a taste for sea-roving. In the earliest days they were sparsely occupiedby Pictish tribes, but they enter history with the invasion of the area by an Irishtribe of sea-raiders known as the Scotti . They founded the kingdom of Dal Riata(in what later became Argyll and its neighboring isles) and eventually lent their name to Scotland. Dal Riata was known to be in existence in the 6 th century, butIrish settlement may have come earlier; at its greatest extent in the 7 th century, itstretched from Antrim in Ireland to the Isle of Skye, and held almost the entirewest coast of Scotland.In the 8th century the power of Dal Riata had waned, and a new group of raidersbegan to appear- the Vikings. These Norsemen found rich plunder amongst theregion’s monasteries (including the famous Iona Abbey, founded by St. Columbain 583), and saw the potential of the Isles as good bases for further raids intoIreland and the west coast of England. By the 9th century, thanks to these raidersand the Norse settlers who followed in their wake, the Isles began to take on aScandinavian appearance. In the late 9th century the first king of a unitedNorway, Harald Fairhair, absorbed the Hebrides, along with the more northerlyOrkneys and the Isle of Man (in the Irish Sea) into his kingdom. As many of thesettlers had left Norway to get away from Harald, his pronouncements did not goover well with the population. From that moment until the end of our era, anumber of Norwegian kings would be found from time to time invading the regionwith a fleet and army to press his claims to sovereignty over the Isles.There were other claimants over these turbulent and independent communities.Separate kingdoms had been established at Dublin and on the Isle of Man, andan Earldom of Orkney as well, all of which claimed control over the whole of the



Isles. And in time the Kings of Scotland themselves also tried to make their willobeyed in the west; in the end, they proved successful.Perhaps the high point in the history of the Kingdom of the Isles (theScandinavian name for which was Sudreyjar , and the Gaelic, Innse Gall ) was thereign of Somerled, who was of mixed Celtic and Norse decent, although he is

claimed by many as a leader of a Gaelic revival in the Isles. Originally king of Kintyre, he conquered Man from his brother-in –law, Godred Olafsson in 1158,becoming King of the Isles and Argyll- essentially reuniting the old kingdom of Dal Riata. He felt himself strong enough to take on Malcolm IV, King of Scotland(who had demanded fealty from the Isleman) and so reportedly invaded themainland with an army of 15,000 men (from a fleet of 160 ships), but was killed inthe ensuing battle of Renfrew in 1164. The numbers for this campaign areprobably greatly inflated, as the population of the isles would find it hard tosupport such numbers- a few thousand is surely more likely.Somerled’s short reign proved important for the people of the Isles, as it isthought that he subdued the Norse elements in the region, allowing a more Celtic

culture to emerge. He also fathered at least 5 sons, and through them hisbloodline ran through the many Galloglass clans that originated in the Isles, andthat settled in Ireland. His descendants can be measured in the hundreds of thousands.Even though the Kingdom of the Isles “officially” had became a Scottishpossession by 1265 (the Earldom of Orkney remained a Norwegian possessionuntil the late 15th century), their kings’ penchant for independence if not outrighthostility to the Scots crown would stretch into the 16 th century.

Military Tactics: In general, the military organization and doctrine of theseislands followed Scandinavian patterns. As most campaigns consisted of navalexpeditions, their armies tended to be wholly made up of infantry. Some horseare seen in visual records, but these may probably were used only to transportthose who could afford them, rather than as cavalry.The one military convention that the Kingdom of the Isles brought to the BritishIsles’s military complexion was the famous gallogaich or gallowglass. Thesedoughty foot warriors, usually well mailed and armed with either a long sword or a great axe, saw action throughout the region as mercenaries, especially inIreland.

List Notes: This list includes three distinct sources for armies. First is theOstmen of the coast of Ireland, Man and the Western Isles up until 1170;afterwards, the petty Scandinavian kingdoms of Ireland are either conquered bythe Anglo-Norman invaders or essentially become assimilated by the Irish.Second is the Kingdom of Sudreyjar, which includes all the western Isles and thewest coast of Scotland, until the end date on the list. Parallel to the first twoarmies is the third source, the Orkneys, which continue throughout the era,nominally as vassals of the King of Norway, but as he was usually preoccupied,as essentially free agents.



Appendix: The “Special” Lists

From time to time, we may issue special lists focusing on a particular conflict.

Below is the first of these.

1. The AnarchyIn 1135, King Henry I of England died, leaving no male heir (his son, William

Adelin died in 1120 in the infamous “White Ship” shipwreck), but merely adaughter, Mathilda. She had been the wife of the German Emperor Henry V, butafter being widowed, had been married off by her father to the Count of Anjou,Geoffrey Plantagenet. This marriage was not popular with the Anglo-Normanaristocracy, as Anjou had long been thought of as the main enemy of the regime.Before his death, Henry extracted an oath from his barons that Mathilda shouldbe allowed to succeed him, but clearly this was not popular, and most of the

barons had instead accepted Henry’s nephew, Stephen of Blois as king. Stephenwas a grandson of William I, and had become prominent in Henry’s reign, andwas of course, not a woman. However, Mathilda was not one to back down, andeventually convinced her half brother (he was a bastard of Henry I), Robert, Earlof Gloucester, to champion her cause. He had a number of barons at his backthat had been dispossessed of their lands dur ing the late king’s tenure, whofollowed Mathilda in hope of redress. What followed from 1141 on, wassomething of a seesaw war, with one side up and the other down at varyingintervals. Stephen and Robert were both captured in succession (andsubsequently exchanged), and Mathilda made at least three daring escapes. Anumber of prominent barons switched sides, and then switched again; and a

couple, even again. Local disputes and rivalries boiled into violence, and mostbarons saw more to their own squabbles than to the struggle for the crown;hence the term “Anarchy”, as oppression, pillaging and all the other earmarks of civil strife became common. Throughout the Anarchy, Stephen, stronger inbaronial support, generally prevailed; this support was tentative and ephemeral,as barons mistrusted his mercurial and vindictive nature, and looked for a morestable candidate. Mathilda was even more disagreeable, but her youthful son,Henry Curtmantle seemed a more likely choice. Stephen’s own son, Eustace wasunsuited to rule, and predeceased his father in 1153. He finally accepted that theyoung Angevin, would have the crown after him. When Henry did accede in1154, he became the ruler of England, Normandy, Anjou and Maine (from his

father Geoffrey of Anjou) and the Aquitaine (from his wife Eleanor). The AngevinEmpire was born.

Military Tactics: The battlefield tactics of the Anarchy did not differ from that of the Anglo-Norman era. Perhaps the only aspect that is striking is that the loyaltyof subordinate commanders was suspect- reflected in the “Allied” quality of thearmies.



List Notes: This list is only used for the armies engaged in engagementsbetween Anglo-Norman armies during the Anarchy; for other English Armies of the era, use the Anglo-Norman list. For Angevin armies raised in Anjou andattacking Normandy, use the Capetian list.

2.The Baron’s War

sThree conflicts are covered by this list: first is the Young King’s Revolt of 1171-1174; and the first and second Baron’s Wars, of 1215-1216 and 1258-1267respectively.•The Young King’s Revol t-1173-74: Henry II Curtmantle, having built andsustained an astounding empire, felt that the only way to guarantee itscontinuance was to make such a task a family undertaking. To this end, in 1171he bestowed the Aguitaine on his second son, Richard (the Lionheart); the Duchyof Brittany would go to Geoffrey, his third, who was betrothed to a Breton heiressin 1164. John, his fourth, had no inheritance for the time being, but Henry workedon a number of schemes on his behalf. The real plum- the crown- would of

course go to his first-born son, Henry; to that end, his father took a page fromCapetian custom and had his heir crown as co-king in 1170. Henceforth, he wasknown at the Young King. Unfortunately, the older Henry had attached no actualrealm and holdings to his oldest son, and retained full power and authority tohimself, so that the Young King soon grew frustrated at the hollow title. YoungHenry had garnered some fame in tournaments, and soon was followed by arestless gaggle of young firebrands, who prodded him to take power to himself.He had the sympathies of a large number of disgruntled nobles and vassals(exacerbated by Curtmantle’s complicity in the murder of the future saint,Thomas Becket), and the kings of France and Scotland- in fact, just about all of Henry II’s rivals, sons, and his wife rose against the old king, threatening todismember the Angevin empire. What saved the realm such a fate was thetenacity and energy of the Old King, and the loyalty of his close supporters;invasions from Brittany, Flanders, France, Scotland, and eruptions throughout hisown lands were all defeated in turn in the space of 18 months. Even William theLion, King of Scots ended up a captive at the battle of Alnwick. Soon all his familysubmitted to the great king, but the rust of baronial discontent, and the ire of thecrown of France, would only be put to sleep for a while.•The First Baron’s Revolt -1215-17: With the wily Henry II long gone, and thefierce Richard I in an early grave, France saw its opportunity with the inconstantand devious King John, and struck at the heart of Angevin continental holdingsfrom 1203-04. Philip II’s success in conquering Normandy, Anjou, and all John’slands in Europe (with the exception of the Aquitaine), seriously wounded theEnglish king’s reputation. It had already suffered from John’s incarceration anddisappearance of his rival for the throne, his young nephew, Arthur; and it further deteriorated during his conflict with and subsequent excommunication by theformidable pope Innocent III from 1208 on. Finally, with the treasury devastatedby his spending, and English arms defeated again at the battle of Bouvines,many English barons had had enough of King John, and demanded reforms anda limitation to royal power. This initiative (that ultimately culminated in the Magna



Carta in 1215) was interpreted by John as a declaration of war, and he began togather mercenaries from the continent. The rebel barons responded by declaringtheir feudal responsibilities to John dissolved, and soon they offered the crown of England to Philip II’s heir, the future Louis VIII of France. England endured aFrench invasion in 1216, and may have seen a second conquest by continental

forces, but the situation changed when John suddenly died later the same year.Suddenly, the baron’s saw a greater opportunity to achieve their aims with aminor as king, rather than a stern French usurper at the helm, and they threwtheir support to John’s young son, Henry III. Soon Louis was driven out of therealm in a number of engagements, and Henry endorsed the reforms of theMagna Carta- or rather, his baronial regents endorsed it.•The Second Baron’s Revolt - 1264-67: Unfortunately for the barons of England,Henry III proved a little too much like his treacherous father for their comfort.Gathering the reigns of power in his grasp upon his majority, Henry proceeded toentrust them to creatures of his own making and member of his Provencal wife’sforeign relatives. He also kept a lavish court, and borrowed, extorted and spent

copious amounts on foreign adventures, like the disastrous Saintonge War in1242, or his failed attempt to secure the Kingdom of Sicily for his son, EdmundCrouchback. All these caused a measure of discontent amongst the barons, whostill retained a memory of the rebellion of their fathers. All that was needed wasfor a leader to rise and turn them towards open revolt; they found this leader inSimon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, one of Henry’s former foreign creatures. Hefell out with the king in the 1250’s, and soon gathered s ix other magnates to callfor a return to the limitations of royal power in the Magna Carta. They coercedHenry to swear to pass all his decisions by a council of barons, but once Henryobtained papal nullification of this oath (like his father in the early days of the 1st Baron’s War), both sides began to call up forces. The rebel baron’s scored avictory at the battle of Lewes in 1264 where they captured Henry, and Simonreduced him to a figurehead while he wielded power through a fledglingParliament. This situation would not last while Henry’s son, the formidableEdward Longshanks was on the loose, and in the subsequent battle of Eveshamin 1265, Simon was killed and the barons routed by the victorious prince. By1267, Edward cleaned up all the loose ends, and established himself as the realauthority in the land, while Henry was reduced to a mere powerless shadow of himself.

Military Tactics: like the Anarchy, the tactics of the various Baron’s Wars wereidentical to those of the main English lists covering these years, except thatvassals and supporters were more apt to switch sides.

List Notes: This list is only used for the armies engaged in the listed civil wars or rebellions; for other armies of this region or era, use either the Angevin Empire or Medieval English lists.



Documents

The Armies of Strongbow