OLD DUFFER'S
BOOK CORNER

Warfare Under
The Anglo-Norman Kings

Warfare Under The Anglo-Norman Kings (David Morillo for Boydell)

This is Morillo's own book balancing much of the content of his (edited) book on Hastings reviewed above. The limited topic (three kings) allows a good range of thematic comments. Morillo has one advantage as a historian, he tends to have a chapter on each topic you might need so that if you disagree strategically why you still have his political or his tactical sections.

Chapters in the Contexts section cover: the part of the military system played in government; the warrior aristocracy; warfare as used in policy and the strategic geography of the borders of the Anglo-Norman state. Morillo has moved forward from the Omanesque view of a stupid chivalry into a world where battles are thought of as dangerous episodes that get in the way of what wars are about - control of territory.

The chapters on the system itself cover leadership, army size and composition, the household mesnie, fyrd and other forms of military taxes. The two warfare sections covers firstly campaigns (castles and field forces, movement and maintenance of field forces) and secondly sieges and battles.

Because the new medieval historian does not come complete with a bile sac of contempt for his topic he can view the administration and activities of a medieval army in a style closer to that time than the 19th century historians managed. Morillo does however make the telling point that if (pace Keegan) each army is a crowd waiting to get out, then the crowd was nearer the surface in most medieval armies than in, say Infanterie-Regiment No 45 Alt-Foppington. In battle therefore the elements of cohesion will be less and indeed combat may tend towards individual "heroic" action.

On campaign, things are rather different with armies being locked in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse (though here Gillingham's summaries on Richard I and William I will tell you more). My only criticism is the continued support for this being the age of cavalry since in none of the battles of the period did a charging chivalry win, but such a force did lose a number. But then Morillo uses cavalry as a short-hand for men on horses as well as men fighting from horses. Why did anyone dismount to fight? In my view because it is hard enough to find hand-to-hand, try doing it on the back of a horse and see how much harder. A dismounted knight is tantamount to an admission he faces a hard fight and is "rolling up his sleeves".

More Book Corner:

Back to Perfidious Albion #94 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1997 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com