Warrior: The Amazing Story of a Real War Horse

In this video, Brough Scott recounts the story of Warrior, bred by his grandfather Jack Seely and ridden by him on the battlefields of World War 1.


Brough will be speaking at CVHF on Sunday, 28th June in ‘WARRIOR: THE REAL WAR HORSE
. He will follow Warrior’s extraordinary journey from birth to his survival through Ypres and the Somme with his grandfather, General Jack Seely. Surviving five years of war, this will be the story of men and horses who fought and died, for ‘God and Country’.

Fighting on the Home Front: The Legacy of Women in World War One

Audio from Kate Adie’s talk at the Chalke Valley Festival on Monday, 23rd June 2014.

Renowned broadcaster and bestselling author Kate Adie reveals the ways in which women’s lives changed during WWI with fascinating details of their struggle for admission into the world of men. She charts the seismic move towards equal rights that began a century ago and show how women emerged from the shadows of their domestic lives.

Coup D’état Oman

Ray Kane - Coup d'etat OmanOn the 23 July 1970, the Sultan of Oman was shot and deposed in the only known military coup d’état executed by British or other NATO officers during the Cold War, or by British officers in living memory.

Why?

In 1970, two years after the Tet Offensive and just months before the last major clash between American forces and the North Vietnamese Army, the world’s attention was still monopolised by the Second Vietnam War and America’s agony.

However, six thousand miles away, events in a country unheard of by most people spelt potential catastrophe for the West. In Oman’s Dhofar Province, a parochial nationalist insurgency with limited aims had morphed into a Marxist communist revolutionary movement with supra-national ambitions. PFLOAG, Popular Front for the Liberation of the Arabian Gulf – armed and trained by China and the USSR, and emboldened by the UK’s intended withdrawal from the Gulf in 1971 – was on the cusp of victory. If achieved, Oman would join the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen as the only two communist states in the Arab world.

Why did it matter to us in the West? On its Musandam Peninsula, Oman stood sentinel over perhaps the world’s most strategically important sea choke point. Laden with 43% of the Free World’s crude oil, tankers exited the Persian Gulf through the 10 kilometre-wide navigable stretch of the Straits of Hormuz.

Calling in its debts after a PFLOAG victory could have earned the USSR bases in Oman and in particular, a base in Musandam with its spectacular and dominating views over the easily blocked Straits of Hormuz below. Already in Egypt as its main adviser and arms supplier, the USSR was also sitting comfortably in Aden since the UK’s expulsion from South Yemen in 1967. Should the cold war turn hot, the USSR could block sea passage to both the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, linking with the Suez Canal – closed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War – in an embrace that isolated the Arabian Peninsula from sea access.

On the night of 11/12 June 1970, the Iraqi-backed NDFLOAG – National Democratic Front for the Liberation of Oman and the Arabian Gulf – attacked Omani army camps at Nizwa and Izki towns in Oman’s heartland. While Nizwa was a failed IED effort, Izki hummed with small arms fire from an 11-man ground attack party. Captain Charles Hepworth, camp commander, assembled an ad hoc force from those few soldiers not on Jummah (Friday, Muslim Holy Day) vacation and set off in pursuit. Twelve hours later, 10 attackers were either KIA or WIA; the 11th escaped – but only for a few weeks.

Now Oman had two conflicts to handle – a nascent insurgency war and a developed rural revolutionary war, one in the north, the other in the south and both separated by 800 kilometres of desert. Politics motivated both liberation movements against an obscurantist Sultan who refused to play politics by either his own volition or the persuasion of others (mainly the UK’s FCO).

Sultan Said bin Taimur al-Busaidi had to go. In the absence of a democratic ballot box to remove the Sultan there was just one alternative.

Force.

On 23 July 1970, just 35 days into Mr Edward Heath’s new Conservative government, Ray Kane, Commander of Red Company, Desert Regiment, was ordered to assault al-Husn palace and seize Sultan Said bin Taimur al-Busaidi – alive, if possible.

The operation’s successful outcome led to Oman’s renaissance, heralded the beginning of the end of the Dhofar War and removed a potential threat to the passage of almost half of the Free World’s crude oil through the Persian Gulf.

Extracted from his memoir Coup D’état Oman, Kane’s talk at the CVHF gives a blow-by-blow account of the coup’s execution from his receipt of orders into action to its successful conclusion. It is not a dry recital of facts. Salisbury artist Fred Fieber’s sketches illustrate and bring to life the coup’s ‘waypoints’, while maps and the odd few photograph show its geopolitical context and give just a hint of Oman’s magical landscape.

Attendees at Kane’s talk will be unsurprised to learn that in the coup’s execution, as in most military endeavours, not everything went according to plan. The Muse of Comedy walked hand-in-hand with the God of War and, uninvited and unwelcome, the lurking Goddess of Retribution exacted her dues. After all Kane, like others involved in the action, had betrayed his pledge of loyalty to Oman’s legitimate Ruler.

The talk finishes with a point for consideration linking the 1970 Oman coup d’état with events in the Middle East in 2003.


Kane, RayRay will be speaking at Chalke Valley History Festival on Thursday, 25 June

 

The Arc Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood

Recording from Dr Irving Finkel’s talk at CVHF on Monday, 23rd June 2014.

British Museum expert Dr Irving Finkel will reveal how decoding the symbols on a 4,000 year old piece of clay has led to a radical new interpretation of the Noah’s Ark myth. This enthralling real-life detective story begins with a modest-sized babylonian tablet from 1850 bc and will challenge our view of ancient history by decoding the story of the flood.

The Norman Conquest

Audio from Marc Morris’ talk at the Chalke Valley Festival on Monday, 23rd June 2014.

Acclaimed historian and broadcaster Dr Marc Morris brings to life the momentous events of 1066 and the Norman conquest. How was England, at once so powerful and yet so vulnerable, totally dominated by the Norman invasion? Buildings ripped down and rebuilt, an ancient ruling class swept clean away, even attitudes towards life itself were altered forever by the coming of the Normans.

The Battle to Include Women

From Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Myrlie Evers to Title IX, the long struggle to ensure that half of humanity is not kept down and out.

ElizabethCadyStanton PHOTO:UNIVERSALHISTORYARCHIVE/UIG/GETTYIMAGES)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton PHOTO:UNIVERSALHISTORYARCHIVE/ UIG/GETTYIMAGES)

Since its staid beginnings in 1971 as an annual management symposium at a Swiss ski resort, the World Economic Forum in Davos has grown into the premier talking shop for the global financial elite. Unsurprisingly, given the opportunities it offers for smug pronouncements and ostentatious parties, Davos (as it is known) has attracted—and earned—some trenchant criticism. The late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington coined the term “Davos Man” to pin and puncture a kind of obnoxious alpha male who flits from one international meeting to the next in self-serving pursuit of wealth and power.

But Huntington’s Davos Man highlights another issue about the forum: It was (and is) overwhelmingly male. This year, some 19% of the 2,500 delegates were women, according to the forum—a number that has barely changed since a (widely ignored) quota system meant to involve more women was imposed by the event’s corporate sponsors in 2011. (Saadia Zahidi, who heads the forum’s gender-parity initiative, said that the gender ratio in Davos reflects “global leadership as a whole” and that the forum is working to increase women’s participation.)

Behind some of the most famous public gatherings in history lie arguments and controversies about whether to include women. One particularly egregious example was the first World Anti-Slavery Convention, which met in London in 1840. Women on both sides of the Atlantic had been campaigning to abolish slavery since the 18th century. Nevertheless, the 350 male delegates were divided over whether to allow seven American women to participate. One faction, led by William Lloyd Garrison ’s supporters, favored their inclusion; friends and colleagues of the New York abolitionist Lewis Tappan vehemently opposed it. The latter won, and the women were forced to watch from the gallery.

Half a century later, women faced similar discrimination when the first modern Olympic Games were held in Athens in April 1896. Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the International Olympic Committee, refused to include women. It would be
“impractical, uninteresting, unaesthetic and incorrect,” he claimed. Four years later, when the summer games were held in Paris, the Olympic committee ignored his objections, and 22 women were allowed to compete alongside the 997 male athletes (although only in five sports: sailing, equestrian, tennis, croquet and golf). At the 2012 London games, some 44% of the athletes were women.

One notable irony relates to the U.S. civil rights movement. The only woman listed as an official speaker on the program for the famous 1963 March on Washington was Myrlie Evers, widow of the murdered Medgar Evers ; she got stuck in traffic. Leading female activists—including Rosa Parks —were not allowed to accompany the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. down Constitution Avenue but were sidelined to walk alongside the wives of male activists. After the women protested, organizers added a short tribute to their work. No women were among the delegation that met with President John F. Kennedy.

But in the long run, these slights only deepened women’s determination. Furious over their exclusion from the 1840 conference against slavery, the activists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott went on to hold the Women’s Rights Convention at Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848, marking the start of a 72-year fight for women’s suffrage in the U.S. Similarly, frustration among women’s rights activists in the early 1960s led to the rise of second-wave feminism, from the founding of the National Organization of Women in 1966 to the passage of Title IX and Title X in the 1970s to guarantee educational and employment equality.

Davos Man still rules today, but history is against him. One day, he will be joined by Davos Woman—and she will, we hope, be as unlike him as possible.

“The Battle to Include Women” by Amanda Foreman, originally published as a “Historically Speaking” column in the January 24, 2015 issue of The Wall Street Journal. Copyright © 2015 Amanda Foreman, used by permission of The Wylie Agency LLC.


Foreman, AmandaAmanda Foreman is the award-winning historian and internationally best-selling author of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and A World on Fire. She won the 1998 Whitbread Award for Biography. In addition to her writing and lecturing, she has served as a judge on almost every major literary prize on both sides of the Atlantic, including the Man Booker Prize and the National Book Award. She is currently a research fellow at Queen Mary, University of London. Her latest book is The World Made by Women with a BBC documentary this spring.

Amanda will be speaking at Chalke Valley History Festival on Sunday, 28 June with a talk entitled ‘The World Made by Women: A History of Womankind’

Why is the Spitfire is such a British icon?

I’ve flown the Spitfire. It’s magic. The first time, it nearly reduced me to tears.  And I am not alone as it is the pinnacle of most people’s flying experience.

And it is an experience which stays with you for ever because the Spitfire is everything that is special, that is familiar; that is right; that is British. But why is the Spitfire so special and such a British icon?

The Battle of Britain might have something to do with it. The Hurricane might have shot down more enemy aircraft but in the public imagination it is the Spitfire that counts. More elegant and more streamlined, it also stayed in service longer than the Hurricane and didn’t stop operational flying until the 1950s.

There might have been fighters with longer range and better endurance. But there has never been one with such graceful lines which when married to the Merlin engine create the visual and audial perfection.

Sitting in the Boultbee Spitfire – the survivors all have names which reflect their heritage – watching the fields flash by and have the view interrupted only by the silhouette of the icon Mitchell elliptical wing design it pure magic. People happily pay £6,000 for this privilege and the queue is growing longer each day. And it is not as if the entry qualifications are easy, for most two-seat Spitfire trips the punter has to be a qualified pilot before stepping into the cocpkit.

There is a scarcity value too. The Spitfire Society, which watches these things, says there are 51 flying condition Spitfires left from the 20,000 or so built between 1938 and 1946. There are only half a dozen two-seat conversions which can be used as trainers for a new generation of Spitfire pilots.

Matt Jones and Paul Beaver after record flight from Norway. Goodwood. 13 May12Today’s refurbished Spitfires are virtually re-built. There are very few with original parts. It can take several engineers many months of painstaking attention to detail to rebuild a Spitfire. The market for wartime aeroplanes in flying conditions is still buoyant but the buyers seem to be fewer and more demanding. They want a Spitfire with a pedigree.

Even the gate-guardians of former wartime RAF Stations have been taken off their plinths and re-engineered. It is not rocket science – the propeller, engine and undercarriage need careful attention but the complex curves of the wings and fuselage might need skilled workers – some of which are in short supply. There has never been a greater need for a Spitfire Technical Academy.

The vintage warbird business is big business. A  Spitfire with many original parts can fetch up more than £3 million but so much depends on provenance. In simple language, has the Spitfire actually served with a squadron, taken part in operations or even shot down enemy aircraft?

There are few which have and there are fewer which have many of the original parts with which they were first manufactured.  Three years ago, the Aircraft Restoration Company at Duxford – where the Spitfire first entered Royal Air Force service in 1938 – completed work on the Casenove Spitfire.

This Spitfire Mk I was flown by Fly Lt Peter Casenove of the stockbroking family. On his first mission, he was shot down over the Dunkirk beaches on 23 May 1940 and the aircraft lay in sands for 60 years until discovered by French aviation enthusiasts. This Spitfire has real provenance.

It has been restored with as much as 40% of the original parts reconditioned and made like new. The cost of the rebuild has been estimated at £5 million – compared to the £9,500 this machine would have cost the taxpayer in 1940.

Yet the early Spitfires were built with a very limited service life in mind. Designers at Supermarine talked of 50 hours or perhaps 200 hours in later models. Not because the Spitfire is flimsy or the technology too demanding but because that was the way in which the Air Ministry planned in the late 1930s: a short, swift fight with plenty of replacements.

Yet, 75 years after entering service at RAF Duxford, there are still enough around to thrill crowds. The Spitfire remains the most evocative, iconic fighter of all time. It makes you proud to be British.

Beaver, PaulPaul Beaver is an experienced vintage aeroplane pilot who will be speaking on “DUNKIRK 1940 – the misunderstood triumph of Air Power” at the Chalke Valley History Festival,  June 2015.

Edward III and D-Day

Edward III landing miniatureOnly twice in English history has a full-scale sea-borne invasion of France been attempted. On both occasions, at the height of summer, a huge invasion fleet appeared off the Normandy coast south-west of Cherbourg. D-Day in 1944 was an unparalleled operation, with a huge range of ships of all sizes, and involved landings on a wide front along the Baie de la Seine. Six hundred years before, Edward III’s fleet in 1346 had landed from ships more similar in size to those of the armada of ‘little ships’ that rescued the survivors of Dunkirk  in 1940. There are some extraordinary similarities between the two operations, as well of course as the sharp contrasts brought about by the six centuries that had passed. The D-Day invasion has been called the ‘largest seaborne invasion in history’, but remarkably, in proportion to the population of the British Isles at the time, Edward III’s operation involved a much higher share of the men available. In 1944, the first invasion force deployed 61,000 British troops out of a total of 19 million, while Edward’s 15,000 troops were drawn from a total of 1.9 million.

Objectives

The aim of Edward III’s invasion is surprisingly hard to define. Edward claimed to be rightful king of France through his mother, the granddaughter of Louis IX of France, whose brothers had all died without heirs; but the succession had never passed through the female line before, and Philip VI had established himself as king. Though his relationship to Louis IX was more distant his claim was through the male line. Edward had proclaimed himself king in 1340, and had already attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade France. As far as we can tell, he was not aiming to conquer the territory through which he passed, but to demonstrate that his military capacity was superior to that of Philip, and that if the French wanted security from English invasion, they should switch their allegiance to him. He was particularly anxious to challenge Philip to a battle, knowing that his forces might be smaller, but that he had a huge advantage in the English archers, who had never been seen in action on the continent. He intended to march through Normandy and join up with his allies in the north eastern corner of France, and mount a combined attack from there. Whether he intended from the outset to besiege of Calais is very unclear: it was probably an opportunist attack which he undertook after the victory at Crécy once he knew that there was little immediate threat from the French if he began such a siege.

The D-Day invasion, codenamed ‘Operation Overlord’ – an interesting use of a feudal term from Edward’s time – had a much clearer primary aim: to liberate a country which had been recently conquered. The object was to clear the territory of enemy troops and to hold it against counter-attacks, from a foothold to be established on the Normandy coast. Its first targets – Carentan, St Lô, Bayeux and Caen – were all towns taken by Edward in the first days of his campaign. But the aim was to secure all the territory north of a line between Avranches and Falaise in three weeks, and to push forward to Paris in three months. Edward also marched on Paris, but this was not his original intention. He reached Paris because he was unable to cross the Seine as he had planned; it was only when he repaired the bridge at Poissy, now in the Paris suburbs, that he was able to march north to join his allies.

The invasion site

The same problem faced the planners of the D-Day invasion and Edward’s commanders: the obvious place to attack, with the shortest sea routes and a potentially excellent harbour was across the straits of Dover. However, in both cases, the enemy anticipated that this would be the chosen route, and the coast was heavily defended. The French coast offers very little in the way of substantial harbours, but this was less of a difficulty for Edward, whose small ships could come close inshore and could be beached to disembark the troops, their horses and the supplies. For this he needed a large sheltered bay.

Edward’s choice of the little harbour of St Vaast-la-Hougue was precisely the same as that of the ‘Utah beach’ landing. What made it highly suitable as his landing place was the shallow sloping beach of firm sand, relatively free from rocks, on which he could beach his ships on a falling tide, unload them and refloat them on the next tide. The process took five days, and he was fortunate in the absence of French troops in any number during this time. This beach was only one element in the D-Day plan, where the certainty of enemy opposition meant that landings had to be on a very broad front and very quickly executed, so the neighbouring beaches of the Baie de la Seine were brought into play, including the much less suitable Omaha beach, with soft sand and exposure to westerly winds.

The D-Day planners had also considered Brittany, the Cherbourg area and the Pas de Calais. Both Brittany and Cherbourg were peninsulas, and a strong defence across a relatively small line would mean that the Allies would have difficulty breaking through; neither were really suitable in terms of port capacity and beaches. The Calais area had been heavily fortified by the Germans, anticipating that an invasion might be attempted there, and was therefore out of the question.

Deception

The first issue was to get the fleet safely across the Channel, and to try to conceal the intended target from the enemy. It was impossible to conceal the preparations, but Edward was able to keep any news of the possible landing place from the French by tight control of all travel to and from England, and by taking precautions. He said in a letter to his ministers in London that he was aware of spies in London, and the contents of the letter are very vague. Furthermore, he either decided on the destination at the last minute, or kept it secret from his own commanders, as a letter from his close companion Bartholomew Burghersh the elder, written ten days later, was positive that the king had intended to go to Gascony.

In the run-up to D-Day, the Allies put in place carefully planned disinformation campaigns aimed at concealing the true destination of the assembled troops. One of these used false radio messages to create the idea that the actual target was not France at all but Norway; another used the fact that all German agents in England had been arrested or had come over to the Allied side. The biggest fiction of all was the supposed existence of the ‘First United States Army Group’ in the south-east of England, under the command of General Patton, which would open the campaign with an attack on Calais; even after the invasion had begun, messages were maintained in order to persuade the Germans that a second front at Calais was planned and an attack was imminent.

Gathering troop and supplies 

The provisioning and shipping of an expedition was a mammoth task even without the raising of the army itself. There was no standing army in medieval England, and for each new campaign, a new army had to be raised. Edward had a great deal of experience of bringing together an army, but an invasion of the kind that he now had in mind was a novelty. In Scotland in the 1330s he had used tried and trusted methods of recruitment, which harked back to the old duties of defence of the realm which were part of the duties of all who held land by feudal service. In the campaigns in Flanders and Brittany from 1337 to 1342, he had relied heavily on local allies, which had not served him well. He had tried to recruit princes like mercenaries, for pay, and they had failed to deliver when their political interests outweighed the money on offer.

By 1346, Edward had determined to rely exclusively on his own resources. To do this, he had begun to move towards a new system, since the traditional feudal service did not carry the obligation to serve outside England. Edward therefore took a different approach and arguing that he was responding to a threat of invasion by France, raised what was in effect a tax according to income to pay for a hired army. Income of £5 a year  meant that a mounted archer had to be sent; twice that, and a hobelar or lightly armed horseman was required. Over £25, a man-at-arms was to be provided and from then on the scale was in proportion to income: a lord with an income of £1000 would provide forty men-at-arms. The cost to the landowners was either that of hiring men to serve, or losing the value of their labour for the duration of the campaign. The men themselves would be paid the king’s wages, and would either be led by their lord or would be attached to another lord’s retinue if their own lord was not serving in person. The king also used commissions of array, the traditional method of raising foot soldiers for royal service. The commissions were sent to the local officials, and requested specific numbers of archers or spearmen.

As to the total strength of the army, we can only estimate this. The best guess from a recent study is that the commissions of array raised a total of 8,000 men, of whom 5,000 were archers. We then have to add to these the great lords and their retinues, which consisted in broad terms of equal numbers of men at arms and knights, and mounted and foot archers. Again, we have to use estimates, and the best guess is 2,800 men at arms and knights, and the same number of archers. If this is correct, we are looking at a total of 13,600 men who boarded ship at Portsmouth. The driving force behind this army were the retinues raised by the king himself, his great magnates and the lesser barons and bannerets. It was around these retinues that the three divisions of the army were arranged, and they were in effect the building blocks of the force.

An even more formidable bureaucratic effort had been in process to purchase the necessary provisions and cart them to Portsmouth. Relatively little was held in the royal depots such as the Tower of London, and although many of those recruited for the army came with their own weapons and all the mounted men had their own horses, a great deal of material had to be specially  purchased, such as the equipment for the army’s engineers, and even coracles for the king’s fishermen. Huge numbers of bows and arrows were needed, and these had to be manufactured to order. Although we lack any secure idea of what sort of total number was involved, one suggestion is that at the rate of 70 per man, half a million arrows weighing four ounces each would be the kind of quantity involved, and that they would weigh 55 tons, which in turn required fifty to sixty carts to carry them – and the carts also had to be shipped from England. At the end of the day the archers in the field would be permanently reliant on being able to retrieve spent shafts, and on a regular further supply of arrows made en route. Similarly, guns, which had only been used experimentally in Scotland before, had to be made. Instructions were sent to the head of the Tower  in 1345 to supply  a hundred ‘ribalds’, small multi-barrelled guns firing lead shot. These were experimental weapons at the cutting edge of a new technology: even so, Edward seems to have had some ‘guns’, i.e. cannons, and as much as 2000 lbs of gunpowder, a substantial amount.

Alongside the archers and the handful of gunners there were forty carpenters, the engineers of the army, led by William of Winchelsea. Although there is no surviving record of what materials were supplied for their use, in Brittany three years earlier, enough timber for three complete bridges had been shipped, the medieval equivalent of the Bailey Bridge of the second world war. The engineers played a vital role in the progress of the army when they succeeded in repairing the bridge at Poissy. The gap was sixty feet, and they threw a single beam, a foot wide, across it, from which they built up a roadway strong enough for the army to cross.

Another vital element in the army’s composition does not appear separately in the accounts. A huge number of carts must have been needed to convey the stores overland once the army reached Normandy. Quite apart from the fifty or sixty carts carrying bows and arrows, there were the vital provisions which the army needed to supplement what it could find by foraging, and the cooking equipment with which to feed the troops. A medieval army on the march did not consist of serried ranks of horsemen and footsoldiers marching in tight formation: it was more like a huge straggling merchant caravanserai. It included live beasts and birds who were slaughtered for food en route. Feeding the army was probably the greatest concern after the levying of the troops. The operation to provision the forces on this campaign was huge, on an unprecedented scale, because once the army was on French soil, opportunities for sending further provisions would depend on the weather and the whereabouts of the king and his men, and would therefore be highly unreliable. In effect, an English force fighting in France had to take as large a supply as it could, because the availability of local provisions was uncertain in the extreme. Foraging was a constant preoccupation, but deliberate burning of crops and slaughter of cattle by the defenders was a recognised technique for starving out a raiding force and ensuring that it would not remain in the area for long.

Recruitment and supplies offer the strongest contrast between 1346 and 1944. At D-Day, there were highly organised supply chains and an army which had been at war for the previous five years. The huge operation of raising forces from scratch and levying provisions for one particular campaign throughout the country which Edward had to undertake was not required. However, huge numbers of troops had to be moved, particularly Americans – one and a half million American troops were brought into England between 1942 and 1944. And the landing craft needed for the operation had to be manufactured in large quantities. More specialised equipment specific to beach landings and the lack of port facilities was also designed and made: the artificial ‘Mulberry harbours’ and the ‘Pluto’ fuel line under the Channel. And existing tanks had to be modified to deal with the likely fighting conditions.

The fleet

Assembling Edward’s fleet was an elaborate operation, because there was no royal navy.The king owned a number of ships, but they were not organised in any way. Indeed there were only twenty-five royal vessels in the entire fleet that gathered at Portsmouth.  The bulk of the fleet was therefore created by summoning ordinary trading and fishing vessels from the ports around the country, to serve at the king’s wages. The total for the 1346 flotilla was over a thousand ships, the largest seen in England before the sixteenth century. All this was organised by the admiralty, a highly efficient government department whose task it was to gather this enormous quantity of shipping. There were usually two admirals, and the country was divided into the admiralty of the north  and the admiralty of the west; the dividing line was Dover, so the admiral of the north was in effect in charge of the ports on the east coast, and the admiral of the west covered everything from London round to Cornwall. The admirals had overall responsibility for the operation: their lieutenants oversaw a substantial staff devoted to the task of organising the requisition of ships, and the coast was subdivided into smaller sections for this purpose. Officials would be sent to individual ports to ‘arrest’ ships for the king’s service, and to contract the shipmaster to be at Portsmouth at the agreed time. However, contracting for a ship to be at Portsmouth was one thing; getting it there, particularly from the admiralty of the north, was another matter. The prevailing westerly winds meant that the voyage from major ports north of Dover through the straits of Dover was likely to be much slower than a voyage from the south-western ports, and distances were greater.

In the event, despite generally excellent organisation, there was the inevitable delay in assembling the ships. The summons for the fleet was issued rather hopefully for the end of February, and then postponed to the end of March. The equinoctial gales, usual at that time of year, again forced a delay, and it was the end of April before the first ships began to appear in the Solent. Once they arrived at Portsmouth, they were under the admiral’s command, and they were provisioned and allocated a mooring, while they waited for the rest of the fleet to assemble. The process of gathering the ships was as usual a long affair; the king would have known that the earliest that he could expect to sail would be in April, in time for a spring campaign. In the event, it was the end of June before the ships were ready.

All the troops brought their own weapons, armour and personal equipment, but the men at arms and knights also brought horses; many knights would have two or more horses, so the total was probably well over 5,000 for these two elements of the army. We have to add another 3,000 or so for mounted archers, so something in the region of 10,000 horses would have needed transport. Shipping horses presented a huge number of problems, from getting them on board ship to making sure that they were rested after the voyage and in good condition for the arduous life of the campaign. The ships which had been collected were similar in type, usually about eighty feet long,  but each would have to be adapted individually for transporting horses. The hold was divided into stalls by hurdles, and thousands of these were ordered as part of the supplies, as well as feed racks, and barrels of water. It seems that relatively small ships were used: we have detailed specifications for the building of horse-transports used in the kingdom of Sicily in the late thirteenth century, which carried thirty horses each in specially constructed stalls.

Moving horses by sea was a skilled and specialist operation, commensurate with the value of the horses, and the vital role they played in the expedition.Obviously the adaptation of existing ships was a less satisfactory method, but the Channel crossing was usually quite rapid. When in 1344 Reginald Cobham raised a fleet for an expedition to Brittany, the smaller ships were specifically reserved for horse-transport. In similar circumstances in 1303, the number of horses ranged from 10 to 32 per ship; if we allow twenty horses on average per ship, this would mean that there were 500 boats to be loaded and unloaded, an immensely slow process even when each of the great warhorses might have its own groom. Methods of loading were cumbersome: each horse had to be led up a gangplank, either over the full height of the side of the boat or through a loading door specially cut in the stern, which would then be sealed for the voyage. Sometimes the horses had to be put in a sling and winched aboard on a crane. Once the horse was on board, it would have to be manoeuvred in a confined space into its stall.

Fortunately, the voyage in 1346 was relatively brief, though even the horses were on board for a week or more from loading to unloading. Often horses had to be rested for several days before the army could begin its march: when Richard I landed in Cyprus in 1190, ‘the horses were walked about, because they were all stiff and lame and dazed after being at a sea for a month, standing the whole time, unable to lie down. The next day, without giving them any more rest than they had had (although they deserved more), the king … mounted’.

Edward’s fleet had no need of defence against attacks by the enemy, as the French channel fleet would not have been able to find them before they landed, as the news would only have reached them well after that time. The D-Day fleet, by contrast, needed roughly one warship for every five other ships, the bulk of which were about 4000 relatively unseaworthy landing craft. Two thirds of the fleet was either British or Canadian, and they had been gathering over a period of a little more than a week, as the number of men to be carried made it difficult to keep them on board for any length of time.

Troops were disembarked on the beaches using landing craft, which had been developed during the First World War. They were relatively unseaworthy, but in calm weather the larger types were capable of crossing the Channel under their own power. These were mostly used on the easterly beaches, and the assault on Utah Beach seems to have used the smaller type which took the troops from the ships lying offshore to land. The larger craft were 120 feet in length, and the smaller ones around eighty feet, not dissimilar from the average size of ship in Edward’s fleet.

Weather

Weather was critical in both invasions. Edward had no real weather forecasts, other than visual observation of the local conditions, and the general knowledge of the prevailing winds. Indeed, by assembling his fleet off the Isle of Wight, Edward reduced the likelihood of a landing near Calais, and the possible destinations were effectively Brittany or the Cherbourg peninsula, because of the limited capability of the ships. Medieval ships could not sail to windward, that is, into the prevailing wind. If the wind was south-westerly, the prevailing wind direction in the English Channel in June, they can head north-west, through north and east, to southeast. Their range, so to speak, is only 180˚ or half of the compass. By contrast, a modern yacht, under the same conditions, can head within 30 degrees of the wind direction  and use 300˚, five-sixths of the compass, from south of west through north, east and south to west of south. So expeditions for Gascony left from Plymouth, in the hope of catching at least a north-westerly wind; even so they would need a wind in the east to clear the Breton peninsula. To get to Brittany from Portsmouth a westerly or northwesterly was needed, and Normandy could just about be reached in a westerly. Anything from the north or east made these journeys easy, but these are not the usual Channel winds in summer. Because the timing of the crossing was so uncertain, tides could only be used to certain advantage at the outset of the voyage: going to Normandy from the Solent, to get as far to windward as possible. This would mean leaving at the beginning of the ebb for a west wind, the beginning of the flood for an east wind, since the tides flood towards Dover and ebb away from it.

In 1944, weather forecasting was more advanced, but delays such as the six weeks Edward spent waiting would have meant the detection of the fleet, and severe difficulties in keeping it in place. There was a limited window of opportunity, and once the ships were in place, the operation had to move forward quickly. The initial date chosen was June 5, but the previous day it was clear that the weather was too adverse, with stormy winds preventing landing, and cloud obscuring the full moon which was needed for safe beaching of the landing craft and for the supporting air cover. Fortunately, the weather forecasters saw an opportunity the following day; the Germans, without access to information coming from the Atlantic to the Allied forecasters, believed that there would be two weeks of storms, and had to an extent stood down their troops. Rommel, in overall command, had actually left for Berlin.

Edward, with fewer problems about the actual landing, simply had to wait for the right wind. It was a long wait, given that the fleet had started to gather at the end of April. It was not until July 5 that the ships were ready to sail. That day they got as far as the Needles, off the western end of the isle of Wight, but contrary winds made it impossible to proceed further, and the king ordered the ships back to Portsmouth. The weather changed for the better by July 10, and on July 11 the expedition set sail for Normandy. The crossing was very swift, and in the morning of July 12 the ships moored in the anchorage of the Grande Rade off St Vaast-la-Hougue close to Cherbourg itself, the place in the Baie which offered the best shelter .

The landing

What is less easy to see is how Edward’s disparate mass of men was organised, both on the march and on the battlefield. There were three divisions in the army, and it seems that these may have been used as an organisational scheme from the start of the journey. The problem was that there was no clear chain of command. At one extreme, men from the towns were under the command of a relatively humble leader, whose authority was probably not very strong; at the other extreme, there were the battle-hardened and reliable men at the heart of the noblemen’s retinues. How all these were welded into an effective fighting force is also something we know almost nothing about. Nonetheless, on landing in France

‘. . . the English king appointed the earl of Northampton constable, and the earl of Warwick marshal of the army, to check the rashness of the troops. Then they divided the army into three divisions: the vanguard under the prince of Wales, the centre under the king, and the rearguard under the bishop of Durham.’

The author goes on to name the leaders of retinues who ‘raised their banners’ in each division, so we have a picture of three separate bodies of men with the banners as visual rallying points and rendezvous for the members of the retinues within each division.

On Edward’s arrival off the Norman coast on July 12 the length of time it took to unload the ships seems to have been determined by the sheer amount of material that was involved. The day by day diaries of the clerks of the army all agree that five nights were spent at La Hogue, which would mean that around 200 ships were unloaded each day. It is unlikely that they were all taken into the small harbour at St Vaast-la-Hogue for the purpose, which even today is about 500 metres by 200 metres overall. In the medieval period there would probably have been little more than a small jetty, to allow four or five ships at most to moor alongside. The shallowness of the bays to the north and south of St Vaast, protected from the westerly wind which had probably brought the fleet across, meant that a good number of ships could be moored so that they dried out at low tide. High water was at about 11 a.m. on July 12, and the first ships would have been moored inshore at that point, and unloaded in the afternoon. The same pattern would apply to the following days, with the time of high tide moving on by about an hour a day. The tidal range is on average around five metres, and the beach is largely firm sand with smooth rocks. Unloading could then have been done across the beach, with plenty of space to work on a number of ships at the same time. The selection of this landing place, ideal for a large fleet, points to good local knowledge, and thus almost certainly to the advice of Godfrey d’Harcourt and his companions, since the Harcourt lands lay only a short distance away: his base was the great castle at St Sauveur-le-Vicomte. The English fleet came into the bay early in the morning, at low water, and the leaders of the army only disembarked when the tide was nearly high, at noon.

The D-Day landings took place across a much wider front involving almost the whole of the Baie de la Seine. A much higher level of local knowledge was needed, and this was obtained by daring reconnaissance raids combined with aerial reconnaissance flights. Vital information such as the fact that the sand on Omaha beach would be very difficult for tanks to cross could only be obtained by landing small parties to survey the area.  The northernmost beach, codenamed Utah, corresponded to Edward’s landing place. Before the troops landed, there had been intense naval and aerial activity, for which there was obviously no equivalent in 1346. At Utah beach, the 4th Infantry Division landed successfully, but the landing craft – which were relatively primitive craft – were taken a mile south of their target by the strong current which sweeps along the coast in the Baie. They met little resistance on the beach itself, and one gun emplacement on a nearby headland was quickly disabled. They had also landed out of range of a battery to the north, and other defences had been largely  destroyed by bombing raids. The situation was so favourable that further landings were diverted from the original area, and by the end of the day 21,000 troops had landed with less than 200 casualties, far better than the results anywhere else.

Engagement with the enemy

Edward’s expedition achieved its first objective: complete surprise. It was only at the end of June that the French government in Paris had realised what the destination of the English force was likely to be. Preparations for raising a fleet to challenge any sea-borne invasion had been made as early as March, but this relied on hiring galleys from Genoa, which had to make the long Atlantic sea voyage to reach the channel: in early July they had got only as far as Lisbon, and there was no French force at sea because the local shipping (including seventy-eight galleys built in Normandy) was to be under the command of the absent Genoese. Although the French should have been able to deduce that the only likely objectives were Brittany or Normandy, because the fleet had assembled at Portsmouth,no real provision had been made for the defence of the north. This was because the French had their attention focussed elsewhere because of English armies in action; in Brittany,  Thomas Dagworth had defeated the troops of Charles of Blois on 9 June, and in south west France Henry of Grosmont was harassing the French besiegers of the great fortress at Aiguillon on the river Lot. As soon as it became apparent that the English fleet was ready to move, the constable of France, Raoul count of Eu, was ordered to return from the army in the south west to take command of Harfleur, the port on the mouth of the Seine. The garrisons along the coast to the north of Harfleur were reinforced; from all this,  it is clear that the French believed that the landing would take place  in the Seine estuary. The Cherbourg peninsula, over a hundred miles away, was only defended by local militias and a few mercenaries. At St Vaast itself, the only troops in the neighbourhood, five hundred Genoese crossbowmen, had withdrawn because they had not been paid. A handful of local men attempted to ambush Thomas Beauchamp and his party, but were quickly driven off. Robert Bertrand, one of the two marshals of France, who had summoned the militia to resist the English landing, withdrew once he saw the overwhelming size of the English force.

Edward was thus able, as his clerk Michael Northburgh reported later in the month, ‘to disembark the horses, to rest himself and his men and to bake bread until the following Tuesday’. Raids were carried out on nearby towns and villages on the first night after landing, after which Edward issued his proclamation that the inhabitants of his new kingdom were not to be harmed, unless they resisted him. However, this did not prevent further raids across the peninsula, and an attack on the port of Barfleur, which was burnt: this was a legitimate target, as the port contained ‘seven curiously fitted-out warships’. Destruction of shipping along the coast, to prevent it being used in naval operations, was a regular feature of operations while the army was within reach of the sea.

German response to the D-Day invasion was much swifter, and there were German armoured divisions along the coast. The landing at Utah encountered the least resistance, while that at Omaha was quickly engaged by a Panzer division. The beach obstacles at Utah had partly been swept away by strong currents. It took six days for the Allied landing groups to join up because of German resistance. In this respect, D-Day was very different from Edward’s experience, and the absence of French forces in the area in 1346 is underlined by the experience of the two armies at Caen. Caen was besieged on both occasions: Edward was able to take it in two days, though the citadel held out successfully until his departure. In 1944, the siege was long and highly destructive, and lasted for five weeks. Edward did not engage seriously with French forces until the battle of Crécy; it was only at the end of August that the French army was able to assemble at Amiens. Before that, he had faced nothing more than local militias and the retinues of local knights.

There are striking parallels between the invasions of 1346 and 1944. This is mostly due to the geography of the Channel coast of France; the considerations – landing large numbers of troops in a hostile country, where no base had yet been established – meant that the same destination was chosen. From that, the further parallels follow. But it is clear that the D-Day command was conscious of following in Edward’s footsteps. The area around Utah beach was code-named ‘Black Prince’, a salute to the success of their forebears six centuries earlier.


richard-barber-conv

Richard Barber has had a huge influence on the study of medieval history and literature, both as a writer and as a publisher. His books include The Knight and Chivalry (winner of the Somerset Maugham Award), Edward Prince of Wales and Aquitaine and The Holy Grail: The History of a Legend. He is currently Honorary Visiting Professor in the department of history at York University.

His CVHF talk ‘ EDWARD III AND THE TRIUMPH OF ENGLAND’ is on 26th June 2014

The Cockleshell Heroes And The Most Courageous Raid of WW2

Recording from Paddy Ashdown’s talk at CVHF on Tuesday, 25th June 2013.

This is the story of the remarkable canoe raid on German ships in Bordeaux harbour told by a man who himself served in the Special Boat Squadron. The plan was a suicidally daring one: to drop twelve Commandos at the mouth of the Gironde River and for them to paddle ‘cockleshell’ canoes right into Bordeaux harbour. There they were to sink the enemy ships at anchor. To do this they would have to survive terrifying tidal races, the heavily defended port, and then escape across the Pyrenees. In this compelling talk, Paddy Ashdown reveals some devastating new research that serves only to make the achievements of the ‘Cockleshell Heroes’ all the more remarkable.

STALINGRAD: Hunting the Reality of War

Recording from Antony Beevor’s CVHF talk on Thursday, 27th June 2013.

Antony Beevor’s monumental book, Stalingrad, has been one of the most read and highly praised accounts of the Second World War to have been written in the past twenty-five years. It was also the book that ignited our fascination with the war anew, published, as it was, nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union and drawing on previously unseen Russian archives. It was these archives, barely examined by historians, that revealed the depths of the brutality, depravations and horror of one of the most terrible battles in history. In this talk, Antony Beevor discusses this important turning-point in the war, his own search to unlock the truth about that terrible battle, and shares some of the heart-breaking stories he discovered and the lengths he went to in order to foil the guards watching over him in the Moscow archives.