Inconsistency and Confusion 365 again my contention. What seems to have happened is that he got into his head (I can imagine how) that the "light-armed" formed the wings, and arranged the battle on that asssumption. Then remembering, when it was too late, that, according to his own precedent, they ought to have been in the rear, he hesitated to introduce a change which would affect his whole theory of the battle, and compel him to approach it de novo.96 But indeed, even apart from this, it seems doubtful, examining Mr. Freeman's narrative, whether he had formed a clear conception of how the English troops were arranged, and whether, if so, he kept it in view, consistently, throughout. If we honestly seek to learn what his conception was, a careful comparison of pp. 472, 473, 475, 490, and 505, with the ground-plan, will show that the whole right wing was composed of "light-armed troops, who broke their line to pursue." And this view seems to be accepted and defended by Miss Norgate, who, writing as his champion, declares that to her the conclusion embodied in his ground-plan "seems irresistible." 97 On the other hand, pp. 471, 480, 487, and 732 most undoubtedly convey the impression that, as I have maintained, the heavy-armed English were extended along the whole front, and that their defeat, in Mr. Freeman's words (p. 732) was "owing to their breaking the line of the shield-wall." I suspect that he was led thus to contradict himself by the obvious concentration of his interest on "the great personal struggle which was going on beneath the standard" (p. 487). Here, as is often the case throughout his work, Mr. Freeman's treatment of his subject was essentially dramatic. To bring his heroes into high relief, he thrust into the background the rest of his scene as of compara 96 Miss Norgate, unable to deny the glaring "self-contradiction" involved in Mr. Freeman's words, dismisses it as a matter of secondary importance" (E.H.R., ix. 74). 97 E.H.R., ix. 74. 98 Q.R., July, 1892, p. 19. tively small account. In this spirit, for instance, he wrote: A new act in the awful drama of that day had now begun. The Duke himself, at the head of his own Normans, again pressed towards the standard. . . A few moments more and the mighty rivals might have met face to face, and the war-club of the Bastard might have clashed against the lifted axe of the Emperor of Britain (p. 483). Homer, doubtless, would have made them meet; but a great dramatic opportunity was lost: the "mighty rivals" seem never to have got within striking distance. Meanwhile, however, the warring hosts are left quite in the background; their fate is that of a stage crowd engaged in a stage battle. I do not mean, of course, that Mr. Freeman ignores them, but that he was so engrossed in the personal exploits of his heroes as to be impatient of that careful study which the battle as a whole required, and comparatively careless of consistency in his allusions to the English array. The charge, in short, that I have brought throughout against the disposition of the English in Mr Freeman's narrative is that his view, "with all that it involves, was based on no authority, was merely the offspring of his own imagination, and was directly at variance with the only precedent that he vouched for the purpose." 99 There is absolutely not a scrap of evidence that--as shown on the accurate" ground-plan-the English army was drawn up in three divisions, the "housecarls" forming the centre, and the "light-armed" the two wings. We do not even know that it formed an almost straight line.100 The whole arrangement is sheer guesswork, and analogy, here our only guide, is wholly against it. 99 Q.R., July, 1893, pp. 102-3; cf. Q.R., July 1892, p. 18; E.H.R., ix. 254. 100 It might, for all we know, have formed a crescent or semicircle, its wings resting strongly on the rear-slopes of the hill; or even a "wedge," as, indeed, Mr. Freeman twice described it (i. 271, iii. 471). Disposition of the English 367 I cannot insist too strongly on the charge I have here made. It is no "matter of secondary importance"; 101 nor is it the case that my argument as to the "palisade" is, as Mr. Archer pretended, "the only definite and palpable charge" that I bring "against Mr. Freeman's account of the great battle." 102 For, as I wrote from the very first, "rejecting Mr. Freeman's views on the grouping of the English host, we reject with them in toto the story he has built upon them." 108 My own view is based upon the fact that, in the military tactics as in the military architecture of the age, the defence trusted largely to its power of passive resistance: this was the essential principle of the ponderous Norman keep; and precisely as the walls of that keep were formed of an ashlar face of masonry backed by masses of rubble, so the fighting line of a force standing on the defensive was composed of a compact facing of heavily-armed troops backed by a rabble of half-armed peasants, or at best by what we may term the light infantry of the day. When the foe was advancing to the attack, these rear lines could discharge such weapons as they possessed-darts, arrows, stones, etc., from behind the shelter of their comrades,10 while at the moment of actual shock they would form a passive backing, which would save the front ranks from being broken by the enemy's impact. As the great object of the attack was to break through the line, a formation which virtually gave the advantage now possessed by a solid over a hollow square would naturally commend itself to the defence. 101 E. H. R., ix. 74. 103 Q.R., July, 1892, p. 19. 102 Cont. Rev., p. 353. 104 Since this passage appeared (as it stands) in my original article (Q.R., July, 1892, p. 19), I have noted a curious confirmation in Æthelred's words where he speaks of the archers at the Battle of the Standard as "militaribus armis protecti [ut] tanto acrius quanto securius vel in hostes irruerent, vel exciperent irruentes." For, as I wrote (p. 20), "it would naturally be they who, like cavalry in modern times, would harass and follow up a retreating foe." Now in these tactics we have the key to the true story of the battle. But, first, we must dismiss from our minds Mr. Freeman's fundamental assumption, and understand that the English "hoplites" were not massed in the centre, but were extended along the whole front, precisely as they were in battles fought both before and after. The fighting face of Harold's host was composed of this heavy soldiery, clad in helmets and mail. Arrayed in the closest order, they presented to an advancing enemy the aspect of a living rampart (quasi castellum "). How the Normans attacked that rampart it will now be my task to show. THE NORMAN ADVANCE. From Telham Hill Duke William scanned that living rampart, and saw clearly that "his only chance was to tempt the English to break their shield-wall."105 It is chiefly from Baudri's poem that we learn how he set about it.100 There is no question that the fight began with ance an adv of the Norman infantry. William of Poitiers and Bishop Guy are in complete accordance on the fact.107 But as my description of the infantry has been challenged, 108 I may show that it is quite beyond dispute.109 To my argument, 105 Old English History, p. 334. 106 For Baudri's poem see Q.R., July, 1893, pp. 73-5. As to Baudri's authority, I need only repeat what I wrote in the English Hist. Rev. (ix. 217): "Mr. Archer endeavours, of course to pooh-pooh it. Now I call special attention to the fact that the test I apply to Baudri is that which Mr. Freeman applied to the Tapestry, the obvious test of internal evidence. But Mr. Archer's ways are not as those of other historians: instead of examining, as I did, Baudri's account in detail he dismisses it on the ground that the writer's 'description of the world' at that date could not be accurate (Ib., 29). We are not dealing with his 'description of the world'; we are dealing with his lines on the battle of Hastings." 107 N.C., iii. 467, 477. 103 E.H.R., ix. 42-3, 603. 10 Though I have already done so in E.H.R., ix. 250. The Norman Infantry 369 as reprinted below, it has been objected that I fail "to take account of the distinction between light-armed and heavyarmed infantry."" It will be seen that my argument turns, not on the armour, but on the weapons of the foot. I have challenged my opponents to produce mention of any weapons but crossbows," or bows and arrows, and need scarcely say that they cannot. Describing the "armour and weapons of the Normans," Mr. Freeman, avowedly following the Tapestry, represented the infantry as all archers, and divided them into two classes: (1) "those "without defensive harness"; (2) those who "wore the defences common to the horse and foot of both armies . . . the close-fitting coat of mail and the conical helmet." 118 Now this division is exactly reproduced in the words of William of Poitiers, who divides his "pedites" into two classes, distinguished only by the fact that in one were the "firmiores et loricatos." He does not say that the latter were not archers, or crossbowmen, nor did Mr. Freeman venture to assign them any other weapons."14 Bishop Guy, moreover, distinctly tes us that they were crossbowmen (vide infra). The advance, 110 E.H.R., ix. 42. 11 Mr. Freeman rendered the "sagittis armatos et balistis" of William by "archers, slingers, and crossbowmen." "Balista" can hardly mean slings and crossbows, and I think, on consideration, it is best referred to the latter; but the question is not of much importance. 112 So, too, in Arch. Journ., xl. 359: 'You may call up the march of archers and horsemen across the low ground between the hills." 113 N.C., iii. 462. I regret that I must call attention to the fact that I gave (E.H.R., ix. 250) this precise reference for my statement that, according to Mr. Freeman, the infantry were all archers, explaining that in another passage (p. 467) William of Poitiers had led him to take a somewhat different view. Mr. Archer, however, has printed (E.H.R., ix. 603) the other passage (p. 467) in triumph by the side of my statement. He further denies that Mr. Freeman held, even on p. 462, that the infantry were all archers. Anyone can test the value of Mr. Archer's denial for himself by referring to N.C., iii. 462, where he will find that Mr. Freeman, describing the Norman host, mentions no infantry but archers. 114 As he had merely copied from the Tapestry on p. 462, so he copied William of Poitiers on p. 467. B. H. BB |