"Maybe Crimea should be British again" Bold my friend.

Horsemen were used for reconnaissance and scouting missions but so far as we know the Anglo Saxons dismounted before a battle because they fought in the shield wall.

Hengst is also the German word for stallion, and mähre found it's way into German as a term for an old useless horse. Ross is used mostly in literature and means a horse ment for riding specifically.

I find it really interesting that I can understand a bit of anglo-saxon/old english as a german. Goes to show the common root of these languages.

If I had to guess I would say they likely had a small light cavalry unit to work as scouts, cut enemy supply lines, hunt down fleeing enemies and such. No cavalry charges of course, they might have been equipped with short bows instead but such a unit would be very useful so I don't think they would have skipped them altogether. Such unit could also rely messages, fetch things for the commander and similar things. There is no evidence for them having a large cavalry force, instead it seems like they fought more like dragoons then cavalry in later terms but having something like 5% of your troops on horses would be useful during a campaign and not having any would be a disadvantage. If your enemy have a few guys at horse and you don't have any you would have to spend a lot more work keeping your supply lines open. I guess they could dismount during larger scales battles and join up with the infantry but just having 50 guys on horse riding around at your flank would worry any commander even if they are lightly armored. So my view is that the Anglo Saxons probably had a small light cavalry unit assigned to their army, but it would have been a joke to the Norman knights.

Now you’re talking . . . Keep speaking Anglo-Saxon too, it’s what got me interested in your Channel to begin with.

Give us more Norman and Anglo Saxon content. I want to know who actually made the bayeux tapestry

Tolkien's Eorlingas are more like proto-Anglo-Saxons from my understanding. Seen as the names of their progenitors are allusions to horses, and they believed these progenitors carved out a land for their people through war, it allows for the mind to wonder what if at one point in their past horses were an integral part of their warfare. Whether that be when the Anglo-Saxons invaded or a trope carried over from a more ancient memory

I really appreciated the Old English narration.

I wonder how different the history of the UK would be if Doggerland still existed and the UK wasn’t an island separated from mainland Europe. I wonder if the UK would’ve even come to exist at all.

In the Middle Ages armies on foot drawn up on higher ground often defeated cavalry. A notable example was Crecy in 1346.

30:54 “Anglo-Saxon cavalry? Yay, neigh, maybe?” Are you serious Hilbert? Great video btw as always.

Old English sounds like an Dutch speaker with an English accent.

Download Hunting Clash for FREE here huntingclash.onelink.me/LNzZ/HistoryWithHilbert and use my code HUNTWITHHILBERT to get $15 worth of gifts for new players only. Let me know if you enjoyed the video and would you like to see something similar on Viking cavalry?

last time I was this early, England was still known as the kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons

I know I'm gunna enjoy this

I will add that there are some horse combat scenes on the sutton hoo helmet - at least on the reconstruction.

I hold a 8th century Spur in my hand right now... Very long spathas were found. Raedwalds battlehammer. In some scenarios horses could give an advantage I guess. It is possible but maybe not an average occurrance for the exact battle custom you mentioned. But don't forget: In war opportunity wins battlesn

There is an image of a high-status Anglo-Saxon with sword drawn charging over the top of their enemies on the Sutton Hoo helmet.

Ross also is an older word for Horse used in Germany, same goes for Hengst, not just in the Netherlands

Both "hingst" and "merr" still commonly used inn norway today

Hello Hilbert. Very interesting video. The first "Ancients" wargames armies I painted, Viking and Anglo Saxon never saw use in competition. I grew up in Yorkshire, hence Viking, at a time when history on TV meant watching Magnus Magnusson or Michael Wood's tales about them and Anglo Saxons. The lack of cavalry made attacking to score points impossible. It did mean I went on to learn more about the history of other armies and places though, all whilst doing a science degree, thinking my love of history and language would not get me a job. Well done pursuing what you obviously love and keep going for the rest of us who find all this fascinating. P.S. the argument was always that the Normans had stirrups that were suitable for charging with lance and that you can see this was the step change. I watched some videos on fighting on horse on a KZfaq channel called "Modern History" that sort of back this up.

Thanks you for making a video about this I really like when you cover British history one my favorite topic to learn about and Anglo-Saxon are one of the interesting time In the British isles

Aye yes! I love your Germanic Videos and have been binging your Viking content. Please a video on the Swedes/Varangians soon please!

Concerning the Aberlemno's Stone, it's rather doubtful it actually depicts the battle of Dun Nechtain. The only reason a connection was made is because it's not far from the alleged battle site, but given it's likely around 200 years more recent it's doubtful that it's an accurate depiction in any way, and it could very well be representing no battle in particular, a mythological one, or one against other powers of the old north, which seemed more keen on using cavalry than the saxons. The battle is also supposed to be an ambush, which doesn't really fit the stone which seems to depict repelling a cavalry assault. Also pretty much everyone was using round shields, not only the anglosaxons, there is a bit of evidence for picts using square shields, but most likely Brythonic kingdoms of the north or scots would use round shields similar to the saxons. A note too on the "square" shields could very well be a domed shield from side view. (Their depiction is different from the square shield depictions of other stones.) The roundshield shape not being optimized for cavalry is also not a very convinving argument. We have tons of period art of Frankish cavalry and they used round shields.

As a linguist, your pronunciation is amazing. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for doing a video on anglosaxon military, I am quite interested in the subget and hope that in the future you may do a video on the military organization of both anglosaxon and vikings. And if possible how the former evolved from the tribal armies used during the invasion of the british isles and the subsequent wars to the formation of the fyrd with the consolidation of the anglosaxon kingdoms

I so enjoyed your video, even though I was not specifically looking for it. My first major in college was Anglo Saxon, and I still have my text books, received from my professors and advisors. In my Sweet’s Anglo Saxon reader, The Battle of Ashdown has a passage that I recall a half century after first reading it. “…ridon ii eorlas ūp….” This means twa eorlas (two earls) rode up. The earls would not have fought from horseback but would readily use the horse as conveyance. My professor was rather emphatic about this. He asserted that the phrase “rode up” implied that they would not have already been engaged in the fight. At least at the battle of Ashdown. I am glad to see that you understand.

🐎 Horses are called 'An' in the Limbu language and 'Ghoda' in the Khas Nepali language. 🇳🇵

This has been one of my favorite videos of yours, and I have seen every single one. Keep the old English, keep the style, and keep talking about topics that are interesting to you :)

Hilbert my lad, you're needed on minisiege! (and great video on a very interesting topic)

loved it thanks Hilbert ~ also the old english was really interesting to see, I liked having the text on screen to follow along with your reading, which I also enjoyed. Old English sounds bad ass 🤺 Cheers ~

Hilbert, waar denk je dat het fryske woord hynder voor paard vandaag komt? Komt dit ook voor in Old English?

Thx for nice video, calvary wise more like dragonia footmen unit moving around on horseback but fighting on foot

Keep reading the old language texts. I really love to listen to old speech.

Finally. I subscribed for medieval history. Not Yemenese civil war. loved the video

I would love it if you would talk about the tocharians

I find it hard to believe that no Anglo-Saxon ever fought on horseback, but it doesn't seem to have been a normal tactic.

Hi Hilbert, I really found this video informative and interesting. The only thing I would challenge is your view of the fyrd as peasants bearing meat hooks etc. perhaps initially this was so but after awhile i think the 5 hide men developed into a more semi professional soldier who would be called up for 2 months a year to perform their duty. Probably they were from the thegnly land holding class who provided this service as part of their duty to the king or whomever they held their land from. To have peasants in the main army would have been more of a liability, they would have been easily killed and then who would bring in the harvest? That’s not too say perhaps in times of emergencies they would not have been drafted in to help in some way but generally I believe the 5 hide man was a semi professional fighter who would have been a land holding thegn or a man he provided.

Needed more kinds of forging yeah

Hilbert, History, and LOTR… sign me up.

Love the period, love the reading of ancient sources, love you Hilbert ❤️

Mearas, Eored, ... I didn't knew how many words in Rohan culture were actually Old English.

I would've thought sending the horses far away, was if the horses were unfamiliar with battle, they could play up.

There is the Repton Rider, an Anglo-Saxon relief sculpture showing a man on horseback in armour (scale or mail) he wears a sword, or long seax, and is holding up a small round shield. It looks very much like he is actively using the shield to protect his head. Some of the panels on the Sutton Hoo helmet show a mounted, spear-wielding, warrior riding down a footman, who stabs the horse's chest as he goes down. A society where mounted combat was unknown would surely not employ such images. One of Hyland's arguments is that horses are mentioned directly alongside armour and weapons, and that the monetary worth of some horses suggests that they were not mere riding 'hacks', but were expensively trained warhorses.

Very interesting video. The shape of the shields makes sense to me now. I also like hearing the primary sources in their original language since I am trying to teach myself OE. Thanks!

Using the higher ground as an advantage is also a modern tactic. There's always an advantage if you're higher than your foe.

Very enjoyable and thought provoking video. Thanks for doing it!

The equestrian culture, the political position of the Rohirrim and the similarities between Theoden and Theodoric I always made me think of the Rohirrim being inspired by the Visigoths also

Wessex and Mercia had Welsh allies who are known for their horse mounted spearmen

Anglo-Saxons

I love when they read an ancient dead language that nobody understands and you have to wait for the translation just go to the translation

Guys. The Anglo-Saxons absolutely had Calvary. But it wasn’t huge in the Germanic world because only the Nobles could afford horses. So they were primarily infantry, but absolutely had small contingents of Calvary. The Noble class could ride well.

I assume it was a cost thing. Horses were too few or too expensive to maintain in large numbers, and they didn't want to risk losing them.

While still on the battle of Burranmb...Brumbang....BahHumBugLand, I myself live on the Wirral and as you know there was a hell of a lot of Viking and Roman argy-bargy here. The announcement of a 'significant find' over the past few years (evidence of a sizeable weapons manufacturing site under a local golf course) in or near the town of Brombrough (close to Chester) seems to lay claim to finally answering the site of the great battle once and for all? Or does it? I'd enjoy a video on this for sure.

Very interesting! Thanks. I must note that I'm blown away by the accuracy of the stone carvings of horses! So beautifully presentation of their legs, shape and size. Even in the middle ages and much later in paintings, the display of horses is way worse. Like both legs of the ground and lengthened up front. Can you tell me a bit more of where this stone is?

It seems that the general decentralised nature of Anglo-Saxon England would've made it difficult to roll out any sort of military reforms, but possibly Edward the Confessor recognised that the technology the Normans had was the future of warfare.

Really interesting subject that I had not considered, excellence as always from Hilbert

Tbf Many dragoons well into the modern period would also dismount and mount depending on the fight. This doesn't preclude heavier cavalry tactics.

God morgen Hilbert, would you ever cover the murky origins of the Jutes? I think there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting a link between them and the Geats/Gauts.

I heard my name. Hi

love learning about anglo Saxon england because I only know a few key figures and I love the rohirrim

Brilliant mate. We’ll enjoyed the video. Thanks

...anglo saxon my little pony twins." Instant sub. 😂

i didn't even know i wanted to know about this stuff. great job m8

Great video! I think that it is important to consider the technology and training of the soldiers of the period. At this period infantry were well armoured and fought in tight formation, so would be very difficult to attack with horsemen. Horses were therefore probably not very useful in warfare for the English. To counter this, the Normans used the couched lance, which greatly increased the power of a strike, fastened their shields to their arms so that they had a free hand to ride with and wore more armour and a longer shield (as you mentioned). They may also have developed better saddles and stirrups although I think this is debated. These techniques were recent innovations and probably not known to the English at the time. Additionally, horses are naturally spooked by noise and aggression and to be useful for war they would have to be trained to overcome their instincts, and to bite at and kick enemy soldiers. This would have required time, extensive training and a body of experienced people to build and maintain a cavalry force. Since there is no evidence of people being trained in cavalry combat specifically pre-conquest it seems this did not happen in England. This does not rule out occasional use as skirmishers though.

8:10 - I wonder if the Normans "ran away first" because they were using hit and run tactics to take advantage of their mobility, while the Anglos got stuck in because they were used to fighting on foot.

This is a longwinded historical response (sorry) to say I totally agree, even though I secretly wish I'm wrong. 😜 Different geographically, but culturally comparable. When Håkon the IVth marched into Sweden in the bitter cold January of 1225, they used a lot of horses (and troop-sleds). Their mission was to punish the local Swedes for housings Norwegian rebels, by chevauchée. Included were 100s and 100s of Hirdmen (men at arms or retainers) and Skutilsveinir (equivalent to knights) on horseback, as well as 1000s of leidangr (levied troops). I read one thesis on medieval Norwegian horsemanship, that hypothesised the Norwegians could well have had more horses than men during the Värmland campaign, depending on how we interpret a key source. Thousands of horses, it must've been an impressive sight to behold a 24 km column marching over frozen lakes and boreal forest covered in white snow. It was a big raid. They left no farm standing and sacked the whole region of Värmland to ashes, as a lot of medieval warfare was done at the time. Pitched battles were rare, as Vegetius stated, a risk to be avoided at all cost. This is the opposite state of mind to the modern mindset, used to movies and games. I think this is *really* important, because once you realise warfare was about sieges and raids, it opens the door to understand other crucial aspects. Women, for example, did participate in war. Especially the logistical side of siege defence. If the modern concept prevail, that medieval war was just a pitch battle, then suddenly women didn't participate at all. This skew the reality of warfare to the margins, but I'm going off on a tangent. Let's return to northern horsemanship. Back to Norwegian horsemanship. We also have written Norwegian sources that are well aware, and instruct their nobles to train and clothe themselves in the fashion of the continent in the most granular details. (King's Mirror, 1250) Even including some of the earliest mentions of plate armour. The know-how was definitely there. One of their noble titles after ~ 1270 was Ridder, equivalent to a knight or baron. We also see descriptions back to Sverre Siggurdsson (late 12th century) commanding his army from horseback, however. I've jet to read about any text that describe the tactic of contingents of Norwegian horses charging into battle. What we read is that they dismounted and fought on foot. I'd love nothing more than to be wrong, but alas. The Anglo Saxons and later Norwegians could well have had cavalry contingents designed for charging into battle, but the point is that I'm not convinced strongly either way however in the absence of any explicit evidence... 🤷‍♂️ Why? In a 1000 years, people might wonder why Americans owned a lot of big gas guzzling trucks, while Europeans owned far fewer and smaller cars. They can't sum it up in one sentence, even with our contemporary knowledge. Thank you

Love the way you say Montana

12:57 this would be a pretty freakin awesome name ( pretty sure one of the first kings was named this)

Even had the Vikings not brought but stolen horses, supposing there were enough, they might not know which horses were "our three fastest". They don't know the pedigree of the horses, so the only way to find out would've been to have horse races to test them, which would've been a waste of time.

I have read somewhere on the internet that the current British are a mix of Anglo-Saxons (Germanic tribes) and Romano-British (Celtic tribes) Good video btw

My guess is that they had horses, and used them in battle, but most of their army was heavy infantry and feudal draftees/levies. They had raiders and scouts on horseback.

Does anyone know the song at the beginning of the video, truly fits the subject.

Depictions of a diferent period than of when the events took place tend to show weapons and armor of the period when that depiction is made. Or mxistures of equipment. Sometimes the one drawing has some idea of how the people on that time fought. I tend to believe other sources.

Having the highground is always good Both in morals and battles

I'm of the opinion that Anglo-Saxons did not use horses in warfare. I've read a bit of Roy Strong's book _The Story of Britian:_ chapters 1-8 pretty much cover the first 500 years of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and there is never any mention made by Strong that the Angles or Saxons made any utilitarian or militaristic use of horses. However one of the most interesting ironies is that Hengist and Horsa, the mythical brothers who came to Britain in the 5th century, both had equine based names; Hengist meaning stallion, and Horsa being derived from the Old English word _hors._ The Old Irish word _ech_ and Old English _eoh_ are also phonetically very similar, which isn't surprising considering they are both derived from a common Proto-Indo-European ancestor. The horse definitely seemed to have been more of a status symbol among the Germanic and Celtic peoples: horses were also very ritualized it seems. Giraldus Cambrensis' description of the Irish ceremony involving copulation with a female mare comes to mind. At the Battle of Hastings the Normans had an advantage because of their cavalry, which was absolutely devastating to the Anglo-Saxons.

Ooh intresting

Very intresting video keep it up!👍

The Anglo Saxon period never finished 💪

In Icelandic sagas they say (the went of the horse and fought)

The Anglo-Saxons did use cavalry: academic historians don't really understand how war works. It's a rule that once you put men on horses there is an irresistible tendency for them to become fully-fledged cavalry. I can think of at least three examples. The first is the mounted archers of the Hundred Years War, who initially dismounted to fight, but at the Battle of Rouvray in 1429 they charged the French and Scottish infantry and routed them. Similarly, in the 17th Century, dragoons were issued horses to give them battlefield mobility to enable them to secure bridges, etc. Yet by the 18th Century dragoons had become essentially medium cavalry. Lastly, in Palestine during WWI, the British had lots of mounted infantry, but these - notably the Australians - still charged home using bayonets as swords. The whole myth that Anglo-Saxons didn't use cavalry is largely based on the Battle of Hastings, but you can't generalise from one, fairly atypical, example. The English had just fought a major battle and surely lost quite a few horses in the process, and then they'd ridden rapidly from York to the battle. which would have exhausted the horses. Given that the English were severely outnumbered, it was entirely sensible to dismount and take up a strong defensive position. It is notable that for the century after Hastings the Anglo-Normans dismounted in most of their battles, but no-one imagines that they were incapable of fighting on horseback. Also it's nonsense to keep quoting the Hereford example in 1054-5: as Glover pointed out long ago the area was wooded and hilly - entirely unsuitable for cavalry - so it's no wonder that the Fyrd were not accustomed to mounted combat. It's also noteworthy that the English had large numbers of warhorses available to mount these men, since I doubt the idiotic Norman commander turned up with a string of several hundred trained horses in tow. Lastly. the Bayeux Tapestry shows some of the English soldiers using the kite-shield too, though there'll doubtless be some dodgy explanation for this.

Norwegians barely used any cavalry for warfare. Mostly due to the fact that the geography makes it impossibly to use it effectively so warfare based on ships was better suited since controlling norway meant controlling the coast. Not that horses in combat was not used at all. In a battle in Bergen king Sverre was on horseback when he chased his enemies (but this is just him and no others on horseback are mention). Then we have king Håkon Håkonsson (grandsson of Sverre) who led an army into Sweden where there was units on horse, but this was more of a raid and there where no battle.

Please keep up the Old English.

If you consider the Normandy landings of WWII, soldiers landed near bridges in gliders to take the bridges, which is very much like riding to a strategic site, then dismounting & fighting a battle on foot.

Wouldn't a possible way to determine it to look into it via archeobiology? To look if there are horse remains and based on those to determine if they were even capable of being used for fighting (stature, size, strength) or not. And to find out where they came from. Maybe there was "native" horses that came over with Anglo Saxons or even before and were more of a travel/transport animals and maybe there were designated horses simply for fighting like in the mainland

The dubble headed raven

I love your videos, it’s funny you asked though. I would just translate the texts to streamline the videos a tad.

It’s not a question where the angle Saxon used horses in warfare it was a question of, perhaps did the Anglo-Saxons under Have enough horses and cavalry organized at the battle of Hastings That becomes a resource allocation challenge more than likely they didn’t. They had a malicious style Military force, where they used a shield wall, and they didn’t have the kind of multi layer Military force with a cavalry in reserve

I want the poetry both ways...keep up the good work

Having cavalry would have turned the tides and helped the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings

I've often asked myself the same question.

Cool video dude!

Great video love this topic and this in depth research stuff

The Rohirrim lived in a very different kind of country, more like Hungary than England. Did the Anglo-Saxons avoid using horses in war because they didn't think horses were effective on English terrain?

Adored the oe reading. Keep it up

25:08 derpy helmets haha

The Latin word _equestri_ is not a cognate of the English word cavalry: Celtic experts like Peter Bresford Ellis said the word comes from the Latin word _Caballus_ which is derived from Gaulish _*Kaballos._ The word "cavalry" is really a borrowing from Celtic, as quite a few words in Latin are derived from Gaulish. Portuguese: Cavalo French: Chavel Italian: Cavallero Spanish: Caballero

Were the Angles and Saxons the only Germanic tribes the Romans couldn't recruit for Calvary auxiliary?

They were late also in sailing And many things