Saxon Royal Huscarl Vs Norse Viking

Mr Higson · Nov 14, 2015

Domhnall Balloch said:
Find a study of a medieval or ancient rural burial ground, and scroll to the stats. Then you'll see how big a problem 'malnutrition' was (i.e., not very).

I could be wrong. My opinion is population will expand rapidly until it meets the constraints. Then those at the bottom of the social scale will have a hard time.

By Tudor times the population had doubled. This could be due to more stable social conditions. Access to better quality tools. Expanding trade. The crafts expanded so there was surplus to support more tradesmen.

Going the Swedish data the availability of iron increased greatly. The price falling seven fold from 1350 to 1720. Iron seems to have been very affordable in the early days of the classical period. But there are signs iron was becoming scarce in the 3rd century Roman Empire. For example "lorica segmenta" that used 9 kg of iron fell out of use then. A shortage of iron tools would lead to reduced agricultural output.
My estimate is the availability of iron didn't match the early classical period per capita until the 17th century. Hence iron might have been a scarce commodity through out most of the dark and middle ages.

Here is an old thread on the subject of living conditions. There might be some others.

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/21422-peasant-life-middle-ages.html

cunedda99 · Nov 15, 2015

Mr Higson said:
Er, no! From the wikipedia. The Varangian guard is precisely an example of this.

And for a time Anglo-Saxon Huscarles fleeing the Norman conquest came to dominate the Varangians. It seems the Byzantine Empire highly valued these men and there was quite a demand.

Absolutely! But with respect we are here dealing with the Saxon Royal Huscarls and not the Multinational Scandinavian Varangian Guard. True, Saxons warriors post Senlac who were worth their salt did head for the VG, but let us first deal with the SRH.

Again we come across the Jomsvikings, another specialist body of foot warriors who hired themselves out to who ever could pay.

Interesting thought that elements of the Yoms Vikings would have played a part in the proceedings we are discussing, more perhaps with the VG rather than the SRH, but again we have the problem of whether or not they actually existed....a separate thread here perhaps?

One thing I recall is Phil Barker of the Wargames Research Group stating about Germanics in history, something that is particularly notable. It wasn't necessarily they were the greatest fighters around. However they were stubborn, they simply refused to crack. They would fight on and absorb losses with their enemies cracking at a lower casualty level.

LOL, as a keen war gamer myself I can identify with this idea! It certainly does 'fit in' with the Saxon characteristics of dour stubbornness. Perhaps that was indeed the SRH secret!

Generally the opinion is that Harald of England had a strong force of archers. These he used at Stamford, but were left behind and so not present at Hastings. The opinion is he was hasty in dealing with the Normans. We don't know what drove him, but he was already flush with victory. Something that might be the case was that at Hastings he had come to fight in a very offensive manner and then found fate conspired to make him fight defensively. Confused orders might have been part of the downfall.

I can entirely agree with this scenario! It makes perfect sense and in my opinion is highly likely.

We are still left however with Snorri's famous quote!

Was Snorri making excuses for Hardradas defeat? Was there proof that the SRH were in fact that much better than anyone else at the time? Or was it a case (touched on elsewhere in this thread) that because of England’s much more numerous population and unlike the Norse, we Saxons had the luxury of replacing our warriors like for like far more easier than anyone else, giving the impression of a sort of 'Immortals' feeling to their ranks?

Will we ever know? LOL

Cunedda

Mr Higson · Nov 15, 2015

cunedda99 said:
We are still left however with Snorri's famous quote!

Was Snorri making excuses for Hardradas defeat? Was there proof that the SRH were in fact that much better than anyone else at the time? Or was it a case (touched on elsewhere in this thread) that because of England’s much more numerous population and unlike the Norse, we Saxons had the luxury of replacing our warriors like for like far more easier than anyone else, giving the impression of a sort of 'Immortals' feeling to their ranks?

Will we ever know? LOL

Cunedda

Snorri lived some time later. It seems the Royal Huscarls of England left quite an impression that lasted long after. Huscarls were generally a permanent role warrior in the old Germanic style of fighting as a foot men. Hence relative to these regions a 'professional' warrior. In other parts of the continent cavalry in the form of knights and such forth had come to dominate. It was these who were the warriors at the top of the tree in other places. So as far as high class foot warriors go they had become rarity in other places. The Saxons were still older style, knighthood hadn't made it to Saxon England yet.
From my point of view this creates military problem. In the older style of Germanic warfare they fought on foot. This had one advantage, the very best men could fight in the front rank of much lesser levies, making the whole more effective. In other places the best men were separated from the levies in a different combat role. So how good did the leaderless levies of footmen fare in other places?
A professional footmen of high quality had become a rarity on the continent. Hence the demand of the Byzantines.

I'd say part of the answer is in the Royal Huscarls of England being such a large force of such men. The Scandinavian Kings had smaller bodies of Huscarls, but nothing anywhere near 3,000 or more. Put the entire population of Scandinavia at the time together and it was perhaps 800,000. How many Huscarls could be supported by this? Compared to say England with two million people to raise taxes from.

cunedda99 · Nov 15, 2015

Mr Higson said:
I'd say part of the answer is in the Royal Huscarls of England being such a large force of such men. The Scandinavian Kings had smaller bodies of Huscarls, but nothing anywhere near 3,000 or more. Put the entire population of Scandinavia at the time together and it was perhaps 800,000. How many Huscarls could be supported by this? Compared to say England with two million people to raise taxes from.

OK, I'd agree with that idea!

So, from what we have deduced in this very interesting thread, is that Snorri (from his inherited information and perspective) looked to the SRH as being the 'Bee's Knees' on several levels, thus leading to his somewhat misleading statement about their worth compared to their Norse equivalent.

Until such time as another theory comes along, I think that's just about answered it for me!

Cunedda

Adalraade · Nov 16, 2015

Mr Higson said:
Er, no! From the wikipedia. The Varangian guard is precisely an example of this.

And for a time Anglo-Saxon Huscarles fleeing the Norman conquest came to dominate the Varangians. It seems the Byzantine Empire highly valued these men and there was quite a demand.

Canute founded the force and is said to be 3,000 or 4,000 strong. Normally they seem to have been posted in forts throughout the kingdom. Most likely ensuing the kings laws were obeyed and taxes were collected.

It really does sound like "travel the world, meet interesting people and kill them"!

In most other places the best warriors were cavalry or knights. In the case of the Huscarles and Varangians we have particularly noted foot warriors even though they used horses for travel.

Norway had a population of 200,000 they say and England two million and much more wealth besides. There was always the problem of the younger brothers that might not inherit the land. Who sort employ elsewhere. It doesn't seem that Norway had anything like the wealth to support such a large force of permanent retainers.

Huscarles with land holdings were rare. It is a problem that men with land are more interested in the harvest than serving there king. The fact they lived purely upon their Lord's pay probably increased their loyalty. (not that I blame people for being more interested in their harvest than serving the latest upstart)

Again we come across the Jomsvikings, another specialist body of foot warriors who hired themselves out to who ever could pay.

One thing I recall is Phil Barker of the Wargames Research Group stating about Germanics in history, something that is particularly notable. It wasn't necessarily they were the greatest fighters around. However they were stubborn, they simply refused to crack. They would fight on and absorb losses with their enemies cracking at a lower casualty level.

It is simply the case we have a warrior devoted to his Lord's cause rather than his farm. A Huscarles living was doing work for his Lord. A Thegn did service because it was demanded and usually didn't get anything for it, other than keeping what he already had.

Generally the opinion is that Harald of England had a strong force of archers. These he used at Stamford, but were left behind and so not present at Hastings. The opinion is he was hasty in dealing with the Normans. We don't know what drove him, but he was already flush with victory. Something that might be the case was that at Hastings he had come to fight in a very offensive manner and then found fate conspired to make him fight defensively. Confused orders might have been part of the downfall.

The Varangian guard? i thought we were talking about Huskarls here! and Varnagians were not multi-national mercenaries either.

Mr Higson · Nov 16, 2015

Adalraade said:
The Varangian guard? i thought we were talking about Huskarls here! and Varnagians were not multi-national mercenaries either.

I'm working from the view of a Norse, Saxon or whatever 'professional' warrior. A men who fought on foot steeped in Germanic tradition. A man working for gain or wages. Those skilled and fortunate enough to get a position, or a band of brothers willing to hire themselves out to whoever could pay.

Something different from the head of a household or landed man called up for war who remained busy working his land at other times.

They might be called Huscarls, Hirdmen or Varagians or the Jomsvikings of legend. Surplus sons of 'good' families might find themselves wandering. They were used to being a 'somebody' and had acquired via their background some skill in arms. They sought to sell this service. Otherwise they might becomes priests or monks or seek some other employ. Pagan Scandinavians didn't have the opportunity to become priests or monks. (unless we believe those strange bald fellows in the surrealistic Viking TV series) A Scandinavian chieftain combined the role of priest, lawyer, etc. And even as they became Christians it took time for these institutions to grow in a transitional phase.
Those that refined their military skills and were good at it might find employ as Huscarls or similar. England and Greece had the money to purchase the cream of the crop. Personally I think Snorri was on the mark!
What could Harald of Norway have afforded to keep by comparison?
Scandinavia then was a more violent society that produced the lumber of the land of more skilled warriors, as England had been centuries earlier. But now wealthy England could buy them. An enterprising Norwegian Huscarl might leave for better wage prospects in England.

cunedda99 · Nov 16, 2015

The thought of battle hardened Scandinavian warriors flocking to join the ranks of the Saxon Royal Huscarls is intriguing to say the least...but is there a shred of evidence to suggest this was the case in the build up to the events of 1066?

We have evidence that this happened in Greece but what about England? Surely some written evidence would have remained for us to find!

Cunedda

Mr Higson · Nov 16, 2015

cunedda99 said:
The thought of battle hardened Scandinavian warriors flocking to join the ranks of the Saxon Royal Huscarls is intriguing to say the least...but is there a shred of evidence to suggest this was the case in the build up to the events of 1066?

We have evidence that this happened in Greece but what about England? Surely some written evidence would have remained for us to find!

Cunedda

The Royal Huscarls started out as battle hardened Scandinavian warriors. They were troops from Canute's army that were given the permanent position. Canute's reward for many of those troops that followed him to England was a job for life. It was an Anglo-Danish dynasty that lasted until Hastings. The cultural transition at the time wasn't that bad, they would be traveling to a country that was already had many communities that spoke mainly Danish anyway, or Norse on the West coast. At the time Britain so the historians say was on the verge of going into a permanent Scandinavian orbit. The main oceanic trade of Britain was dominated by the Danes of the East coast and Hiberno-Norse on the West coast. The latter's influence extending throughout the middle ages.

It was now a different world to what had prevailed at the time of Ragnar's brood or Old Gum.
Scandinavia itself began to lose out to German trade and slowly became a back water.
The question is rather, how many Anglo-Saxons joined the Royal Huscarls? Edward might have favored anything but Scandinavians with a preference for Normans at court. But the Godwinson's were firmly in the Danish camp.
The Scandinavians by this time were a majority of Christians (at least nominally), so were now palatable to the English.

cunedda99 · Nov 17, 2015

Thankyou for your reply, I appreciate the time difference, I hope you have already had your supper! LOL

Mr Higson said:
The Royal Huscarls started out as battle hardened Scandinavian warriors. They were troops from Canute's army that were given the permanent position. Canute's reward for many of those troops that followed him to England was a job for life. It was an Anglo-Danish dynasty that lasted until Hastings.

Yes, I am fully aware of the origins and legacy of the Huscarls, but I am questioning just how Scandinavian they were in make up prior to the events of 1066.

The cultural transition at the time wasn't that bad, they would be traveling to a country that was already had many communities that spoke mainly Danish anyway, or Norse on the West coast. At the time Britain so the historians say was on the verge of going into a permanent Scandinavian orbit. The main oceanic trade of Britain was dominated by the Danes of the East coast and Hiberno-Norse on the West coast. The latter's influence extending throughout the middle ages.

I agree that culturally, the Norse and Danes were no strangers to the Saxon England of circa 1066

The question is rather, how many Anglo-Saxons joined the Royal Huscarls? Edward might have favored anything but Scandinavians with a preference for Normans at court. But the Godwinson's were firmly in the Danish camp. The Scandinavians by this time were a majority of Christians (at least nominally), so were now palatable to the English.

I would venture to suggest that being ‘Christian’ was no guarantee of acceptance where the warring states of Norway Denmark and Normandy were concerned!

But I am interested in your theory that native Saxons may have in fact been a minority within the ranks of the Royal Huscarls by 1066? If so, this would explain a lot of what we have been discussing here, but again I ask....are there any contemporary records to support this idea, or are we lateral thinking our way to a logical outcome?

Cunedda

Adalraade · Nov 17, 2015

Mr Higson said:
England and Greece had the money to purchase the cream of the crop. Personally I think Snorri was on the mark!
What could Harald of Norway have afforded to keep by comparison?
Scandinavia then was a more violent society that produced the lumber of the land of more skilled warriors, as England had been centuries earlier. But now wealthy England could buy them. An enterprising Norwegian Huscarl might leave for better wage prospects in England.

Good enough to enflict equal casualties with lesser numbers and less armor,
what does that say about your ''the cream of the top'' Huskarls and Snorre's claim?

Mr Higson · Nov 17, 2015

cunedda99 said:
But I am interested in your theory that native Saxons may have in fact been a minority within the ranks of the Royal Huscarls by 1066? If so, this would explain a lot of what we have been discussing here, but again I ask....are there any contemporary records to support this idea, or are we lateral thinking our way to a logical outcome?

Cunedda

Not a theory, merely a suggestion. I only guess that the Royal Huscarls still had a strong Scandinavian element in their latter age. Whether they were people direct from Scandinavia, or people born to Scandinavian communities in England. The Godwinson's were a Danish party. The Father was member of the AS landed gentry that defected to Canute. The mother was Danish Royalty. One can guess there were rivalries between Saxons and Danes in England. Eward the Confessor was a Saxon partisan. It seems the Danish and Norse elements in England were the ones most opposed to the Norman regency. This was a world were even somebody from a different county was a stranger, a wag. It was the King, the supreme arbitrator that gave unity.

Adalraade said:
Good enough to enflict equal casualties with lesser numbers and less armor,
what does that say about your ''the cream of the top'' Huskarls and Snorre's claim?

You imagine? Somehow I don't think so, Hardies army was pretty much exterminated. One can only guess at the impact on Norway with so many of its leading men never returning.

But more violent societies do tend to produce more habitually violent men. In "Ingimunds saga" the Hiberno-Norse are described as being particularly vicious and stubborn by the Irish. Although the Irish had a sneaking admiration for their valor. Of course for us moderns even the latter Saxon world would have been a very violent place. However the Christian authorities worked hard to keep public demeanor, with a series of heavy fines for bad behavior. As one Historian put it, the medieval world was very much the "wild west". And Elenor's romances are misleading.

Alfred's answer was to regularly train his Thegn's in the arts of war. And then they proved just as effective.

Mr Higson · Sep 27, 2016

Of course the word Huscarle, simply means "house-men". When one was the Houseman of a King or an Earl, this was something significant. So it was, the house-man of 'something'! The housemen of the Norwegian King were a mere 240 strong or there abouts. This is no greater than the housemen of a major English Earl. But Norway was a small place that could at best muster a half-leidang of 12,000 to 15,000 men. The 240 strong number suggests the nature of their function. Half the force was probably home keeping the King company. The other half was out and abouts performing various duties throughout the Kingdom. Some had to strong arm the collection of taxes. The lower jobs might consist of a single Huscarle with the support of conscripted freemen. Checking the coast, making sure the warning beacons were stocked with timber ready to blaze. I assume this double century would have rotated duty. Those guarding the King having the easier time, drinking ale....telling Icelandic jokes. Considering this was Medieval Norway, sobriety was perhaps a punishable offense.
One would assume most were tall men, dressed to impress. With better armor and arms of the time. Rather like the later Grenadier. Men who would look imposing and also grand. In most places the common freemen of England only had to do a day's service per annum. But my guess is in Norway the period of service was longer. At least 2 weeks, perhaps longer. The Huscarles would have mustered freeman for various tasks. But there was perhaps no need that all freeman perform service every year. The freemen would settle at home telling grand stories of how they went about with big tall handsome dude in some year, chopping wood and doing such and such! Hearing stories of how grand the King was!

notgivenaway · Jan 2, 2018

anglo-Saxon and Norse battle tactics and weaponry were pretty similar. I don't see the difference in capability, considering the Norse arguably lost more major battles vs. the Anglo-Saxons than vice-versa.

The notable Norse victories were:

Fulford
Assundun
Maldon
Castleford
Merton
Reading
York
Thetford
Nottingham
Basing

The English victories were:

Ashdown
Edington
Cynwit
London
Tettenhall
Tempsford
York
Brunanburh
Ripon
Stainmore
Brentford
Canterbury
Stamford Bridge

I kind of see the Norse/Anglo-Saxon conflicts like how WWII unfolded, or WWI. the Central Powers/Axis had initial advantages in many wars, but the Allies/Entente got their act together and used their advantages to win.

Adlan Kurchalo · Jan 3, 2018

Anglo-Saxons descendants of Israel.
Anglo-Saxons – lineal descendants of one of the people which followed Moses. Genetics discovered the Chechens and the Germans common Northern German mitochondrial DNA, that is maternal (see Yavus Akhmadovs statement in a round table of “RIA News” in Moscow).
Patrilineal the Chechens and the Ingush have Y DNA of haplogroup J2a, which in major of Cohens, descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses. The grandfather and his grandson from daughter will not have the same Y or Mt DNA, because these lines either only patrilineal or only matrilineal. Y DNA or Mitochondrial DNA are not betrays Anglo-Saxons as descendants of Israel, but they are their lineal descendants, as in the example of grandfather and his grandchildren by his daughter.
Middle Eastern Cohens Y DNA J2a of Gargareans-Chechen in the Caucasus moved to Northern German Mt DNA of Amazons. The historians well know that the Amazons were in alliance with Gargareans in Caucasus and in the three years bring back sons to their fathers. (as it written by Strabon)
Later Amazons have turned to patriarchy and the part of them with Sarmatians moved to Europe.
In the eddas of Vikings (descendants of Amazons!) is not random they pointing to Caucasus as their homeland.
Dr. A. Vagapov found over 5 thousand Chechen words in Old English language. Marcus Aurelius also resettled the Sarmatians - emigrants from Caucasus, to the Britain. Thousands of Chechen words in contemporary Europeans languages are not coincidental. Such known names as Lars, Akka, Utt, Buri, Hattuary, Angus, Van, Sassannach and others links Southwest Asia and Western Europe since ancient times of first civilizations. Albert Machigov.

Search

Search

Saxon Royal Huscarl Vs Norse Viking

Mr Higson

cunedda99

Mr Higson

cunedda99

Adalraade

Mr Higson

cunedda99

Mr Higson

cunedda99

Adalraade

Mr Higson

Mr Higson

notgivenaway

Adlan Kurchalo

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions