Plate XI.
The Battle, showing the “packed shield” formation of the English.
This method of fighting particularly impressed William at Hastings, and no doubt the English employed it with great skill. But whereas the most important part of William’s army was the cavalry, Harold’s army consisted entirely of foot soldiers. The Thanes and other important men might be able to ride up to the scene of battle on horseback, but they dismounted for the fight. The “packed shield” formation they proceeded to employ consisted, as is seen in the Tapestry, of a thick wedge of men, widening out from about two in front to an uncertain number at the base; the officers and better armed men formed the front wedge, backed by a dense column of the inferior troops.
The English and Normans wear for the most part the same armour, the body of which goes down to the knees in one piece, a type of armour known as the “hauberk” or “byrnie.” These hauberks occasionally extended to the ankles, but the legs were generally cased in leather gaiters, somewhat resembling the “puttees” of to-day. Later, in the border, the hauberk is correctly shown being pulled off the body of a dead soldier over the head, like a shirt.
In most cases the shields of the two armies are of the same shape, being pointed at the bottom and rounded at the top, a type that succeeded the kind which was narrow at each end and broadest in the middle. This old-fashioned shape of shield was still used by the English as well as the round embossed shield of yet earlier times.
An English warrior, probably Harold himself, is to be seen wielding one of those terrible battle-axes that did such execution at Hastings. This weapon was the mainstay both in attack and defence, and the glory of the Saxon army. But, nevertheless, it marks a far less advanced point in the history of war.
William’s army is seen to be wearing stirrups, which, according to some authorities, were new to Europe at the beginning of the 12th century, having been introduced from China by the Mahommedans. But it seems extremely doubtful if they were such a late discovery as this. In any case, their use brought with it great changes in horsemanship, as the cavalry were enabled to sit forward on their saddles, often charging with their lances under their arm instead of leaning right back and charging with the arm erect.
It will be seen that the helmet is conical with a “nasal,” that is to say, with a bar coming down as a shelter for the nose. The huge “vizor,” covering the whole face and leaving only peep-holes for the eyes, was a later invention. Also the horses are here quite unprotected, not “tot couvert de fer” as Wace, a 12th century historian of the Conquest, would have had them be. The armour would certainly be very heavy, but lighter than the massive defences of the 14th and 15th centuries.
But the whole question of this early armour raises many points of difficulty and dispute. The subject of Saxon and Norman armour is well treated in Mr. C. H. Ashdown’s “British and Foreign Arms and Armour” (1909), where special attention is devoted to the body-armour of the Bayeux Tapestry.