Recreating a Royal Hunt in Sherwood Forest

by Richard Rutherford-Moore

Part One

Hunting Deer

Medieval accounts of how hunting was actually undertaken in the field are pretty scarce, but three references in particular offers some evidence. Hunting of course takes many different forms; here in Part One I deal with shooting at deer on foot using bows (and even then, it isn’t made clear in the three references used what form these took, being either longbow or crossbow).

An account some years ago simply declared that remains of a ‘hunting stand’ here in Sherwood served the purpose of giving the huntsmen standing upon this raised mound of earth a degree of clearer sight and  greater elevation ; obviously both are highly desirable for hunting purposes but the account didn’t mention how difficult this would be in actual practice. Firstly, the stand had to be created: available manpower could excavate and erect it but someone with a knowledge of the area, the desired game and the method of hunting would have to decree where such a stand should be erected. Sherwood offers geographical features known locally as ‘dales’ (small valleys, both shallow and deep) which would be of great use in driving game towards a given area - as any modern huntsman will know, unless driven thoughtfully and very carefully by men with experience of hunting, game will rarely go in the direction desired. Setting ‘hurdles’ (made of hazel or ash) as was done to ‘point’ the driven game in a certain direction is one way around this, but the creation and setting of these hurdles requires the same degree of manpower and a lot of preparation as the penetration-power of a longbow or a crossbow into a deer at distances up to 60 yards isn’t in doubt, but the range at which they can be used against driven game such as deer would mean that even a slight deviation by the driven game which took them above a desired range from huntsmen in a static position could ruin a hunt by causing both a high degree of missed shots and a proportion of wounded animals requiring following-up. As an unsuccessful hunt could have serious consequences for all concerned, there was a great incentive for a hunt to go as planned and result in a successful ‘body count’; though the King himself reserved the sole right to hunt in a royal forest, often invitations would be made by the monarch on a ‘political’ level to local landowners and senior clergymen from who the King desired some form of service or favour. A successful hunt in this respect would see the rewards given by the monarch afterwards probably being extended in the same ratio as the degree of any royal disappointment !

King John hunting deer in a Royal Forest using a pair of brachets and a pair of lymers. It is highly unlikely that any monarch would wear his crown during such a sporting leisure pursuit and note how the hounds completely ignore the coneys. Taken from an original medieval illustration as another example of why not to take medieval illustrations literally.

In August 1100, King William II when hunting on foot using a bow in The New Forest was struck and killed by a ‘barbed’ arrow. Various accounts of what happened exist: the earliest states that the King having been out shooting all day in the fashion described here at the end of day struck a fine stag with his arrow and wounded the animal but not enough to stop it running when a second stag appeared in range - his ‘partner’ loosed at this stag but his arrow struck the King, who managed to break off the protruding arrow-shaft before falling to the ground. Another account has the King dismounting from his horse seeking to shoot a particularly fine stag when another huntsman loosed at the same animal and his barbed arrow struck the King in the heart. In both accounts, the huntsman deemed responsible for the accident very soon after the fateful shot made off as fast as his horse would carry him leaving other ‘archers’ (who all seem to be ‘commoners’) to attend the King who was either already dead or very close to death. In an account written thirty years later, the writer has the huntsman getting tangled up in his cloak and the fateful arrow ‘accidentally or negligently discharged’ which then glanced off a tree and struck the King. It should be noted that the person concerned - Sir Walter Tirel, Tyrell or Tyrrel - was not a huntsman ‘on the royal staff’ but an invited guest for political reasons which do seemed to have been discussed between him and the King at one point during this hunt. Whilst it seems the ‘lower orders’ recovered the body of the King and also wished to seek out and kill Tirel for murder, the ‘higher orders’ present plundered the dead kings’ immediate personal possessions and then rode away to their own castles. One of the ‘higher orders’ in the hunting party (though stating later he had already left the hunt with a broken bowstring before the time of the death) was the dead kings’ younger brother who immediately filled the royal vacuum by seizing the royal treasury at Winchester and was crowned Henry I just three days later. As ever, the usual suspicions of royal assassination and even ‘witchcraft’ arose through this accession, especially as a civil war was threatened by the elder brother, Robert. In May 1100 - just a few months previously - the son of Henry’s elder brother Robert had been killed in exactly the same way in almost exactly the same spot; there was no doubt as to the perpetrator in that case and though the incident was acknowledged as an ‘accident’ the man fled to a monastery where he took holy orders and became a monk in ‘atonement’. All medieval huntsmen and foresters were by necessity very experienced in fieldcraft and trained to be highly observant and it was these men that named Tirel for the shot that killed William II (and in addition they stated the men were supposed to be hunting hinds only and named the royal forest keeping of ‘Brockenhurst’ as the spot where the incident happened and even the different types of tree the King and Tirel were standing adjacent to at the time of the incident in question). In ‘defence’ of the allegation, Walter Tirel after he reached his home in France later swore on oath several times to the local Abbot that he had not even entered the part of the forest where the King was found and added that he had not seen the King in the forest at all …

A huntsman uses a spear to dispatch a fallow stag on a riverbank near a waterfall. The huntsman appears to be floating in the air whilst delivering this very powerful thrust, but he certainly isn’t dressed for the English outdoor life and exactly what the species of the trees are in the background is open to speculation …

As previously stated, Royal Courts in the 11th-12th century seemed to have included a conspicuous set of men whose job it was to arrange and conduct a hunt. The nature of the royal court meant that it could not stay in one place for very long - the sheer number of people involved in the royal court meant that any castle used for accommodation would only serve for a few weeks before firing and foodstuffs would become seriously depleted (and more mundane things like the garderobes being full and requiring clearing) and the court would be forced to move on. In terms of hunting, this very popular royal social pastime would involve the locations of these royal residences to be arranged with the availability / proximity of local game. A person mentioned in relation to this in terms of a ‘huntsman’ or ‘forester’ probably meant someone who had the job of administrating a prospective hunt rather than a person who did anything like ‘work’. Hunting staff would devolve down through royal huntsmen, foresters or falconers attending the King down through to a permanent staff of men who actually looked after the horses, hounds, hawks and made and maintained the required tools : a number which could be anywhere from half a dozen to fifty people.

The extent and area of Royal Forests (shaded) in the year 1200 and covering in total almost a quarter of England.

Royal Forests such as Charnwood, Rockingham, Sherwood or The New Forest contained settlements, cottars and ‘vills’ but were all subject to ‘Forest Law’ which employed severe restrictions in those places against both ‘commoners’ and people of status to preserve game. Obviously - as the last Danish Kings of England quickly found - imposing such severe restrictions was useless unless strictly enforced, and their Norman successors after 1066 backed-up such severe restrictions with a permanent staff in those places whose sole job it was to catch poachers or trespassers and bring to court those and anyone else creating a living by making illegal use of land or timber and hence disturbing the ‘vert’ by causing any form of inconvenience or distress to game.

A similar administration to the royal court applied to each of the Royal Forests ; a Royal Warden of the Forests would consult a local ‘aristocrat’ who would both probably enjoy the sinecure of the position of Warden, Chief Agister or Head Verderer but both would probably employ Deputies to do any real work and actually attend the regular forest courts to deal with any real or alleged transgressions (with the exception of offences which were subsequently deemed against ‘common law’ and any offences by major local landowners which would probably go to a higher court attended by The County Sheriff)  and also meet the forest ‘reeves’ on a regular basis to receive their reports and give them any required seasonal orders and notice of an impending royal visit. Such orders not only involved the arranging of a royal hunt once or twice each year but also the maintenance of the forest itself and the stocking and breeding of game to ensure there were always enough animals to hunt. The permanency on the lowest level of Royal Forest staff ‘on the ground’ meant a vast store of accumulated and regularly updated local knowledge within the applied manpower could be accessed to arrange the site and terms of a royal hunt at any time of year.

A medieval huntsman calls to the hunt using a horn on a baldric as his hounds chase a stag into a river. The huntsman appears to have his hose rolled-down; a fact that would be cooler in hot weather but pretty uncomfortable and unlikely when on horseback. The huntsman also appears to have ‘buttons’ on his cotte two hundred years before they were invented …

A period account by Orderic Vitalis describes how a royal hunt in this fashion saw the hunting party set off and arrive to dismount and take up the following positions : the body-servants and grooms would hold the horses and any hounds well to the rear, the royal huntsmen being sent off in different directions (‘as was usual’ but probably meaning well to the flank to the right or left) with the members of the actual hunting party taking their bows and moving forward to stand in some sort of line facing the expected direction of the arrival of the driven game. Standing close behind each of the members of the royal hunting party in the first line were more royal huntsmen who would all be deemed ‘good shots’ - the reason for this is that though both ‘partners’ would shoot together, whenever a deer was struck the ‘aristocrat’ would claim any kill and an added job here for the huntsman would be to prevent any wounded animal escaping into the forest. The King himself would probably have one or two other servants in close attendance with the added responsibility of them acting as bodyguards if any hint of danger arose from man or beast. The necessity of the mechanics of the hunt would mean that any horses and servants not closely involved would have to be removed well away from the hunting line and attended by grooms as a high degree of concealment, silence and patience from all concerned would by necessity be required before and during the approach of the driven deer.

At this point whilst we are waiting for the deer to arrive, modern huntsmen will no doubt be looking with raised eyebrows in terms of group safety at this medieval arrangement. Above the fact that such an arrangement required the driving of game in small numbers rather than together in a herd, even with a good knowledge of the area and exactly where the line of huntsmen were standing, the awareness of the foresters or men driving the game must have been that any arrow that missed a target would be coming towards them. Though it isn’t mentioned anywhere, there was perhaps some form of ‘understanding’ amongst the shooters on the hunting line (as with hunters today shooting at driven grouse from a butt) that a target having reached a certain range and angle should not be shot at in terms of the safety of the drivers and the other shooters - but from one personal experience in my salad days whilst I was employed driving grouse I can say that ‘accidents’ can and do still happen. Though Orderis Vitalis doesn’t say when the hunt began, he describes one medieval hunt in the month of August still in position and the huntsmen still shooting as the sun went down, which could be taken that the hunting party had been out in the forest for around ten hours.  William I - William II - Henry I - Henry II though all extremely jealous of their hunting rights as monarchs are all recorded as having conceded or made ‘grants’ to important landowners or senior clergy in being able to hunt in or near a Royal Forest, though often adding to the grant exactly which animals could be taken (for example in one case, ‘hares and foxes only’). Some of these cases resulted from arrests being made by royal foresters of these men after they were seen or caught in a Royal Forest and the issue of a summons to appear at a forest court. The term ‘being caught red-handed’ means that game had been taken with the blood seen upon the person. All deer belonged to the Crown and were protected under Forest Law no matter where they were or what they were doing - a ‘commoner’ was amerced (fined) a large sum by a forest court in the 12th century for being seen by a royal forester driving a number of deer from a royal forest out of his garden (which incidentally was outside the boundary of the royal forest) which were in his garden eating his crops. From reign of Henry I, fines steadily replaced corporal punishment but a particularly severe punishment was applied to one man in the 12th Century who had several fingers and an ear removed when found guilty of a second offence involving poaching, against forest law.

The end of the royal hunt would be signalled at some point well before dark to avoid confusion and accidents, necessitating the use of a hunting-horn for those members or huntsmen not in plain sight. The animals taken by the huntsmen would be gathered and partially ‘dressed’ and a provision of some sort obviously made for these to be then carried away to a butcher and then to the kitchens for cooking or salting. During the particular hunt described here, attendant foresters were carrying small axes with which they cut ‘cross-pieces’ of timber to carry away some of the dead animals but it would not be untoward to expect that involving a large hunting party or a large ‘bag’ that a wheeled vehicle such as a cart might be sent for and the ‘clearing-up’ might go on for some days after the hunt : including such things as tracking wounded game, gathering and re-driving the herd back into a safe place, finding lost huntsmen (this traditionally happened once to Henry II when he was once hunting in Sherwood)  and transporting the dead animals to various locations before returning home to resume their  normal duties.

When the entire hunting party was gathered, it was a common tradition that parts of the animals would be distributed to the huntsmen, named the ‘numbles’ such as the liver, kidneys and heart but if a particularly successful hunt and if the King was ‘in particularly good heart’ after the hunt additional and more choicer cuts of flesh could have been included (in particular Henry II seems to have been on remarkably familiar terms with ‘common’ huntsmen and foresters in Sherwood during his reign which may have been the reason why this favour and loyalty was initially extended by them to both his sons, Richard I and John). At this point small gifts of money may also have been personally given by the King and the members and retinue of the hunting party to the huntsmen and foresters engaged before these same members mounted their horses and galloped off to a change of clothes, a rest and eventually take their evening meal over which the events of the day would no doubt be increasingly discussed over wine and at times, each aspect hotly debated and with the imbibing of alcohol involving a degree of personal danger as debates would cover all aspects of hunting, from horses and tools to seasons and traditions which sometimes resulted in heated quarrels which ‘the morning after’ had to be sorted out by their friends when tempers had cooled overnight.

The author authentically costumed as a Royal Forester of the 12th Century at Nottingham Castle demonstrates how to string a longbow

Part Two

Hunting the Wild Boar and the Wolf

If it is true - as most historians say - that medieval hunting ‘burned off’ some of the tension that built-up in young men when military service or fighting wasn’t an option, then hunting the wild boar or the wolf on foot would provide the required excitement through the experience of personal danger. Unlike the native red deer or the ‘imported’ fallow deer, both the animals mentioned above will fight back if wounded or cornered and nature has provided them with suitable weapons to inflict serious damage on a human body.

A mounted medieval huntsman uses his hunting-horn to blow the “T’il est Hault” in following the hounds in the chase of a ‘warrantable beast’

The wolf - Canis Lupus - was the ‘top predator’ throughout European prehistory and the early medieval era. Medieval acounts of wolves leaping onto the backs of horses to tear out a piece of flesh with their teeth before running off and wolves suddenly appearing to snatch up children and carrying them away to be devoured we now know to be the result of desperation rather than inclination on the part of these animals, whose nature makes them instinctively shy of people and more likely in normal circumstances to flee from a single human rather than attack one. Though the wolf seems to have clung on in parts of Scotland until the early 17th century, by the late 13th century in England their numbers were in serious decline due to hunting after Edward I ordered their extinction in 1281 ; no such modern awareness of the preservation of a species existed and the intention in medieval England was to hunt wolves to extinction and the last real mention of any predatory wolves in England is dated to 1290 though a hint exists that they were still wolves living in the wilder parts of North-East Yorkshire in the early 14th century. Hunting the wolf was a regular winter-time job given to foresters serving in what became the Royal Forests, who probably considered it - along with animals like the fox and marten - as a necessary seasonal control / extermination of predatory vermin. Though medieval areas of Spain, France, Germany and especially Poland and Russia were subject to roaming packs of these animals throughout the year and hence developed specialist hunters, it does seem to have been more common in England for lone wolves to be run down by mounted men with spears using enormous hounds such as mastiffs (the ancestor of the modern ‘wolf-hound’). But - their numbers in early medieval England don’t seem to have caused a major threat and during most of the year in lowland England the animal wasn’t even seen as wolves by their nature lurked in faraway highland areas such as Derbyshire or Lancashire where the people-population was very low ; but in winter-time when snow fell on the mountains and the temperatures plummeted the wolf-packs were forced down to lower altitudes to seek shelter and food ; as the month of March was nicknamed ‘Mud-Month’, so January in Sherwood Forest was nicknamed ‘Wolf-Month’. To set out alone to hunt the wolf armed with a bow and arrows called for a very brave man indeed as in such circumstances the hunter was very likely to quickly become the hunted and a bow and arrow is not much use in defence even against a single animal. ‘Wolf-pits’ were dug in known spots - perhaps along known wolf-pack routes used in previous years - and excavated well before the expected arrival of the animals, with steep sides and the bases of these pits then lined with sharp stakes or broken arrows. It is possible this task was performed as ‘boonwork’ by local cottars and only supervised by foresters. The finished pits would be covered over with thin branches and autumn leaves and left well alone to serve their purpose - it is possible that some form of ‘bait’ was used to attract the wolves and as the wolves operated in packs and could travel many miles in a single day it also seems likely that several pits were excavated in a single area rather than being spread far and wide and the pits could be filled-in or adequately covered - for the sake of animal and human - at other times of the year. ‘Wolf pelts’ were deemed quite desirable as when worn in winter, worn on the outside of a cloak the hair would shed rain and snow, and properly cured they also made a hardwearing but warm and soft blanket on a bed or chair.  The Saxon, Danish and Viking kings of England and their warriors often wore wolfskins through their religious beliefs and as an incentive to exterminate this predator their manor courts placed a ‘geld’ price on the head of a wolf for anyone who presented one at court - outlaws also became known as ‘wolfsheads’ at this time as their heads too fetched the same ‘geld’ price at court (dead or alive). This head-price steadily increased in value and was still in place by the time of King John, though the overall numbers of these animals had dropped by a large degree well before that era. By that era in England, the wolf had already become the subject of scary fireside stories ; it is highly likely that the story of Little Red Riding Hood comes from a time when cottars were forced to drive their chickens, pigs and cattle indoors and sleep with the doors and any windows firmly bolted or blocked - lying awake on a cold, snowy winter’s night after hearing a distant howl ; and even worse hearing snuffles, scratches and low growls from outside to emerge next morning and find paw-marks around their dwelling. A hungry wolf-pack could - and did - tear men and horses to pieces but stories of snatched children and blood-red eyes and a pair of slavering jaws glimpsed by peering through keyholes - though apparently it did happen - were probably widely exaggerated in later era’s, though hunger and potential starvation would force the much-maligned wolf to take a higher than usual risk in seeking any available food.

Finding and running down a wild boar using horse and hounds

The wild boar also managed to survive the medieval era in Central Europe - where it is still hunted in controlled circumstances today - though it was hunted to extermination in England (though their genes exist and emerge in certain breeds of domestic pig today). Several ‘wild boar farms’ now exist, but recent experiments concerning a re-introduction of the wild boar into English woodland have so far been ‘inconclusive’ though breeding colonies are now established in East Sussex, The Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire and Devon through past escapes - but as these animals have not yet developed any fear of humans the ensuing damage caused to private gardens and vegetable plots by these escaped animals is often likened to a passing bull-dozer.

By nature a woodland animal, the wild boar (it is correct to also name a sow as a wild boar) can both grow to a formidable size and weight ; the flesh of the boar when properly cooked is succulent and their thick hide was found very useful in making such things as boots and shoes, facings for shields or straps for armour (and boar-bristles make excellent shaving brushes).  In England, the medieval fashion for hunting wild boar seems to have developed from throwing spears from horseback to be conducted on foot using specially-constructed spears with longer thinner blades designed for deep penetration ; the boar is not known for being even-tempered so a ‘cross-piece’ just below the iron or steel head of the spear would be fitted to prevent an totally enraged animal through having eighteen inches of steel thrust into his innards from literally trying to run up the spear-shaft to reach the offending huntsman !   

A thick covert or woodland area would be ‘drawn’ by huntsmen shortly after dawn using specially-bred hounds who would ‘give tongue’ when an animal was found and would then give chase to draw in the mounted hunters who would dismount to face the animal. This is not as easy as it sounds as the boar does not readily leave thick cover in any circumstances ; faced with the hounds - who were not intended to attack the animal but it seems they sometimes did - the boar would usually seek even thicker cover and place it’s back to a tree or a similar obstacle and turn to face the threat. The huntsmen in pursuit or drawn to the noise would be forced to dismount and move into the cover ; using spears they would approach the boar and attempt to call off the hounds - but at this point it seems anything could happen, but a charge from the boar was generally expected - the boar-spear would be presented to the cornered animal with the intention that the boar would run onto it in the charge and if the blade didn’t bounce or scrape off the boar’s hide or it’s ‘armour-plated skeleton’ be deeply penetrated by the razor-sharp point. If the charge happened, the huntsman would try to point the spear at the right spot on the animal and after penetration simply hold on and try to keep his feet ; with up to a hundred pounds of enraged wild boar on the other end of the spear this would be quite a task until another huntsman appeared and used his spear on the animal. It is pretty likely that in seeing or smelling blood the hounds would join in and seize upon any part of the boar they could get their teeth into and the risk was that if the boar did not die reasonably quickly from a pierced heart or lungs, a flesh-wound would mean the entire thing would then turn into a noisy, thrashing, foaming mass of potential danger with a notoriously bad-tempered, heavyweight, bristling and terrifying porker at the centre. A fully-grown wild boar has long tusks either side of it’s lower jaw that with a sudden upwards jerk in the right place could split a man, horse or hound lengthways and the head and neck of a fully-grown wild boar are powerful enough to fling a man into the air should it manage to get beneath him (and from experience - though it has never actually happened to me personally - an additional hazard is that a bad-tempered boar will aim for the crotch to do this … enough said). Surviving boar-spears are rare but in medieval illustrations the length seems to vary from between four to eight feet and the English traditional that hunting the wild boar on foot with such a spear in this fashion in winter-time engendered courage in a young man would certainly seem to indicate a high degree of truth - not a hunt for the faint-hearted and he’d certainly have to have his mind on the job in hand as one slip or mistake made in sheer fear could mean a horrible death or more likely being maimed for life. The end of the boar-hunt would be signalled by the blowing on a hunting-horn of the ‘mort’ to bring in any other huntsmen. The wild boar would be partially flayed on the spot and the entrails presented on the ‘quarry’ to the hounds whilst the body of the animal would be carried away for butchering and cooking /preserving. Most of the body-parts would be used in some form and it is a pretty well-known English proverb that the only thing that wasn’t used from a wild boar was the ‘squeal’ …