Before the expected storms put an end to summer, perhaps its a good time to reflect on the occasions that we have been saved by the weather. Hitler's invasion was called off because of it. D day invasion was unexpected because foul weather made it seem unlikely - the sinking of Roman ships was more to do with misunderstanding of tides, I think. but perhaps the Armada debacle was more to do with bad weather than Drake. There must be other instances of another nature when bad weather influenced an event ... other than a bad storm that meant I could not take an exam on a scheduled day.

It depends who the 'we' are. Don't forget this is a Norwegian-based forum with a global membership.

Bad weather and poor visibility is said to have hampered the British navy during the Battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812 resulting in an unexpected victory for the American navy. This was a turning point in that sector of the war and saw British confidence begin to wane while American confidence grew. The following month the Americans were able to deliver a decisive blow at the Battle of the Thames routing the British and killing their charismatic ally the Shawnee chief Tecumseh.

If memory serves, the battle of Azincourt was a victory for the English because of wet weather.
The heavily armored French became hoplessly bogged down in the mud, enabling the shoeless and lightly clothed Welsh and English archers to win the day.

And there's the timely typhoon - the Kamikaze or Divine Wind - whose unexpected arrival in 1274 scuppered the Mongol fleet and spared Japan from invasion.

There's also the attrociously wet weather in the summer of 1815 (itself probably a result of increased worldwide volcanic activity).... At Waterloo on the 18 June 1815 the unseasonably wet conditions delayed the deployment of Napoleon's forces by a crucial few hours until the ground had dried out sufficiently for him to move his artillery. Those few lost hours were Napoleon's undoing as they gave the Prussian army just enough time to get to the battlefield and bolster Wellington's forces before night fell that same evening.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

I think the weather might have had a bearing on the Battle of Hastings.  Though whether the Normans are an us or a them is a bit uncertain, even if you are considering the English point of view.  If William had not been held up, Harold would not have need to dash up north before he got there; he might have had to dash up north afterwards, of course, and had to figth Harald immediately afterwards.  Or things might still have worked out the same with William.  Though he might have had to go dashing up north.

I remember reading and writing about an odd Russian or Swedish or both battle affected by ice, but I can't remember any details at all.  Well in the past.

Henry Tudor might have become king in 1483 had Buckingham's rebellion against Richard III succeeded: Richard was saved by the terrible weather:

"Buckingham's rebellion was planned to begin on the 18th October, and Henry of Richmond was to land in Wales on the same day. The duke unfurled his standard at Brecknock; he intended to cross the Severn at Gloucester and so join his allies, the Courtenays and others from the West of England, but he was stopped by a fearful storm and floods which made the fords impassable. The river rose so high that it overflowed all the country adjoining; men and beasts were drowned and babies floated over the fields in their cradles. It was ten days before the floods went down, and they were remembered long after as 'the Duke of Buckingham's great water'. The storm brought disaster to the cause, for the bridges had been destroyed by some of the King's adherents, and Buckingham, held up in Wales with insufficient supplies, was deserted by his Welsh followers..."

Weather had an impact on a number of the battles of the wars of the Roses most notably the snow storm at the battle of Towton and the fog at the battle of Barnet.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

Weather had an impact on a number of the battles of the wars of the Roses most notably the snow storm at the battle of Towton and the fog at the battle of Barnet.

The Barnet fog was just "a ton of mystical dry ice", Tim, conjured up by those Woodville witches - see episode 5 of "The White Queen"!

Just realised that the wording of my post above suggests that P. Gregory had thought up the whole business of the fog at Barnet. Fog, of course, did play a huge part in the outcome of the battle:

http://www.historyextra.com/blog/fog-war

I am afraid that I have not seen the White Queen Temperance and so in my innocencse I will continue to think that it was fog.

Oxford’s troops, while pursuing Hastings' broken Yorkist left wing, reached Barnet and started pillaging the town.  This gave Oxford the opportunity to try and regain some sort of order over his men.  Eventually he was able to gather together about 800 men which he led back towards the battle.  Realising how easy it would be to get lost in the fog he followed the line of the road which should in theory have taken his force into the rear of Edward’s division and certain victory.  However, the result of the two outflanking attacks in the fog  was that the battle-line had skewed around through ninety degrees such that instead of the battle lines being east-west they were north-south.  As a result rather than approaching the rear of Edward’s army, Oxford and his men were in fact moving towards the flank of Montagu’s division.  Montagu’s men seeing troops approaching from the south naturally assumed they were part of the Yorkist army.  This error was reinforced by Oxford’s heraldic symbol, the rayed star, looking in the fog not unlike Edward’s sign of the sun in splendour.  Montagu’s men opened fire and Oxford’s replied when suddenly both sides realised that Neville followers (Montagu) and Lancastrians (Oxford) were firing on each other.  With shouts all round of ‘treachery’ all of Oxford’s men (Oxford may have been wounded in the exchange) and many of Montagu’s men fled the battlefield and the whole of Warwick’s army was shaken.

Crossed posts I think, Tim!

Weather, whether bad or good, doesn't just affect battles. We have touched on this before in the "Volcanic Eruptions" thread but it is perhaps worth repeating here that the atrociously wet summers (in Europe) between 1812 and 1817, and in particular the year 1816, the so-called “year without a summer”, did have long-term effects other than just Napoleon getting bogged down at Waterloo:

In 1816 the incessant rain during that, "wet, ungenial summer", forced Mary Shelley and her friends to stay indoors for much of their Swiss holiday. They decided to have a contest to see who could write the scariest story, leading Shelley to write 'Frankenstein'.

And the lack of oats to feed horses, because of widespread crop failure, may have spurred the German inventor Karl Drais to research new ways of horseless transportation, which led to his 1817 invention of the velocipede, the first bicycle and a major step toward mechanised personal transport.

PS:

And Temp why did you change your "Princes in the Tower" comment about doing a Pas de deux with reverence à la Giselle at Covent Garden to the Countess of Wessex, ....  or however it was that you put it. The wording, the image just made me laugh out loud. A pity you edited it. You should put it back prontissimo.

Yes Temperance our posts did cross but I realised that you knew that the 'fog' had not been dreamed up by Gregory. rgds Tim

On the impact of the snow storm at Towton in 1461.  About 11 a.m. it began to snow heavily with a strong southerly wind blowing the snow into the faces of the Lancastrians and blinding them.  Fauconberg, a Yorkist commander, took the opportunity to order his archers to advance and fire a volley of arrows at long range, but he ordered them to use heavy shaft arrows normally reserved for close range fire.  When these arrows fell amongst the ranks of the Lancastrians they concluded that the Yorkists must have advanced quite close to them under cover of the snow and immediately the Lancastrian fired off all their arrows.  But they were firing into the wind and also Fauconberg had immediately ordered his archers to fall back with the result that all the arrows of the Lancastrian fell short.  Fauconburg then ordered his archers to run forward to collect up most of those arrows such that they could fire them back.  He also ordered them to leave a few of the fallen arrows in the ground to impede any Lancastrian advance.  I am not convinced that those arrows would have formed much of an impediment but they would have had a psychological effect on the Lancastrians showing that all their arrows had fallen short to no effect.  Faced now with fire from the Yorkist archers to which they could make no reply, the Lancastrians had no option but to abandon their defensive position and attack.  The Yorkists both now held the terrain advantage and also were able to inflict heavy casualties on the Lancastrians as they advanced.

Meles meles wrote:

Weather, whether bad or good, doesn't just affect battles. We have touched on this before in the "Volcanic Eruptions" thread but it is perhaps worth repeating here that the atrociously wet summers (in Europe) between 1812 and 1817, and in particular the year 1816, the so-called “year without a summer”, did have long-term effects other than just Napoleon getting bogged down at Waterloo:

In 1816 the incessant rain during that, "wet, ungenial summer", forced Mary Shelley and her friends to stay indoors for much of their Swiss holiday. They decided to have a contest to see who could write the scariest story, leading Shelley to write 'Frankenstein'.

And the lack of oats to feed horses, because of widespread crop failure, may have spurred the German inventor Karl Drais to research new ways of horseless transportation, which led to his 1817 invention of the velocipede, the first bicycle and a major step toward mechanised personal transport.

Your remarks about wet summers are surely very important, MM. I haven't studied English social and economic history at all, but I should imagine that poor weather and consequent bad harvests were of huge significance. People may not have cared very much about kings and popes, but they did care about the price of bread. I've only read a little bit about this - harvest fluctuations during the Tudor period, in particular the terrible harvests of 1556 and 1557, also during the 1590s - but it has been argued that it was lack of cheap food in those years, not religious controversy, that was the root cause of rebellion and social unrest.

EDIT: Some interesting info here on the effects of the "little ice age", 1150 - 1850.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature...

Quote :

Before the expected storms put an end to summer, perhaps its a good time to reflect on the occasions that we have been saved by the weather. Hitler's invasion was called off because of it

Surely the invasion was called off because of the failure of the Lufwaffe to win air superiority over the Channel for without that air superiority the Royal Navy would have cut off any invading force.

I'm sure you are right, Tim - maybe I've been watching the wrong Docu progs but bad weather would have been a handy excuse for Hitler and co. Bad weather - or likelihood of it is such a useful excuse for not doing something; used it myself.... my excuses have been an imminent cyclonic monsoon storm, possible  torrential flooding and earthquake after shock. The latter never happened, the others did as it happened - bringing me somewhat guilty feelings of relief.

The weather is playing an interesting part in  the 3rd Ashes tests today. Too much rain and there will be a draw and England wins the ashes, not enough and they will get bowled out pdq, I suspect and Oz wins - making for the next two tests interesting , money making and loads of delightful bad feeling. Pity there are no/few cricket enthusiasts on RH.

Normally I love the Ashes P, but I'm ignoring it this year.

Quote :

Pity there are no/few cricket enthusiasts on RH.

I am, P.  Not a great fan of the English slowing tactics on the fourth day.  I call it cheating, though I suppose gamesmanship might do.  Not always on Australia's side in sports, but I have been for this series, especially as it has gone on and you need a bit of evenness in a contest.  Still it's Australia's own fault they didn't win the first test.  (These English games take place in the middle of our night, so apart from an hour or two in our evening we just have to wait and hear what happens on the radio.)

Ah - I bet ID enjoyed the cricket in the 90's though - Oz on top - and as for gamesmanship, Caro, going slow and on field muttered slagging off are all part of it - and have been for years.

As for the spirit of the game - mm? Not as of yore by all accounts. WG Grace once cleanly bowled early in his innings turned and replaced the bails saying that the crowd had come to see him bat....

Then there are the tail end batting bowlers who chew up the turf to have something to bowl into when they take to the field  - and so on. And that bit was explained to me by a fast bowler.

Come on ladies - you just don't want to see England win - at anything. That's OK by me, we are very used to being the world's Aunt Sally. It only makes us smile - if I  wasn't English I would feel just the same... as it is though, for some perverse smug English sort of reason I quite enjoy the English being the fall guy for assorted ills. It invokes a sort of back to the wall chaps  strength.

At which point, I had better do a dash of shelter -

Priscilla wrote:

Ah - I bet ID enjoyed the cricket in the 90's though - Oz on top -
Come on ladies - you just don't want to see England win - at anything.

 No P, I enjoy cricket for the game and when the game is played well by any team, I really don't care who. In fact, I didn't enjoy much of our cricket under the captaincy of Ponting, I loathed the arrogance and win at all cost competitivenss that he bought to the game.

And those two sentences of yours P are exactly why I don't talk cricket with anyone. No-one seems to be able to discuss the game without dragging  nationalism into it.

Besides which, I don't think His Eminence would be best pleased to come back from his hols only to see his lovely history site turned into a sporting brawl, one upmanship fest.

Quote :

 Come on ladies - you just don't want to see England win - at anything

Fairly accurate statement as far as I'm concerned, P.  The English losing are a far more attractive sight that the English winning.  Or at least the English media ditto.

Cricket and weather go very well together, and anyway this is Priscilla's thread - she can do what she likes with it.

Oh we are awful winners too! Delicious - doesn't happen that often but it must be as you say. Actually you can't win if you are English just by being English - the trouble is that doesn't really bother us much.  We  only   live    to annoy. How I would hate us if I wasn't one:

Good grief - Priscilla has used three emoticons, including the rather rude, Catigernesque "tongue".

What on earth is going on? It is very unsettling.

Who me? Unsettling? Must be the weather. Just a pebble to make soft rings in the turgid pool. I'd prefer stone skimming on a wind rippled lake but there it is.

Turgid - 'ere - who you callin' turgid?

Turgid is a horrible word - "tediously pompous or bombastic".

But you can have a turgid bladder too, which sounds really dreadful.

Bombastic bladders are age related .... so I am told. I have a small  pool in the garden with a bloated dead frog in it - not at  all pompous but for want of another word turgid seems about right -it being still treacly thick opaque water. Even the nocturnal fox visitor has not fished out the frog though probably the cause of the death, I suspect. My garden is a killing field at the moment with the neighbours cat catching, playing with and then eating cabbage white butterflies - and in the myopic way of cats on a mission, not caring how many flowers are destoyed in its obsession.
I need to get out more.

A horrible morning as my mind is in turmoil  with turbids, turgids, turbots, turbines and small black pellets found in the garden type turs. It must be the weather.

Temperance wrote:

Henry Tudor might have become king in 1483 had Buckingham's rebellion against Richard III succeeded: Richard was saved by the terrible weather

Prompted by P’s comment on the Rant thread about the possibility of early snow in Britain, I've been consulting the work of Dr Cornelis Easton who was a member of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands during the First World War. With the Netherlands being neutral and with international travel severely curtailed, Easton spent much of that time compiling a history of the weather (or more specifically the winters) in western Europe by reference to the available texts. His book Les hivers dans l’Europe occidentale was published in Leyden after the war and was subtitled étude statistique et historique sur leur température, discussion des observations thermométriques 1852-1916 et 1757-1851, tableaux comparatifs, classification des hivers 1205-1916, notices historiques sur les hivers remarquables, bibliographie. Although the subtitle gives the earliest date of his classification as 1205 AD, the content of the book actually dates back to 396 BC. As well as providing an historical register of the winters, Easton also attributes estimated temperature coefficients to them by comparing known thermometric data for winters since 1850 and then, by use of a complicated formula involving astronomical data etc, back-dates these for the winters of previous centuries. The accuracy of that aspect of the work is debateable but the book is, notwithstanding, a very useful resource.
 
While looking at Easton’s register with reference to the ‘winter of our discontent’ discussion on the Elephant thread, I was struck by just how varied and dramatic the weather in the 15th century was and how this provided a fascinating backdrop to the relevant conflicts of that century (the Armagnac v Burgundian civil war in France, the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses in England). Easton grades the winters on a scale of 1 to 8 from the mildest ‘hiver très doux’ thru to the coldest ‘un grand hiver’. He lists only 6 grand winters which have occurred in western Europe over the last 1000 years. These all took place during the Little Ice Age (1300-1850) and the years in question were 1407-8, 1434-5, 1564-5, 1607-8, 1708-9 and 1829-30. Note how 2 of the grand winters occurred during the 15th century. But not all winters during the Little Ice Age were hard. Indeed, even during the 15th century, there were mild winters not dissimilar to the record-breakingly mild winter which recently occurred in the British Isles in 2018-9. Here is a list of different types of winter from the 15th century to which I've linked related historical events:

Grade 1 - a very mild winter ‘hiver très doux’ such as that of 1477-8 with an estimated mean temperature of 45°F. This was when George, duke of Clarence was executed in the Tower of London by being drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine. With the almost summer-like temperatures, he was probably grateful for the drink.

Grade 2 - a mild winter ‘hiver doux’ such as that of 1421-2 with an estimated mean temperature of 39°F. This was when Catherine of Valois, wife of king Henry V, gave birth to a prince who would become Henry VI. When he later became mentally ill (with catatonic depression?) his physicians assumed that, because he had been born during the winter (i.e. in December), Henry’s brain was probably overly phlegmatic and prone to chilling and moisture and that this derangement of his humours was what could be affecting his recall. They really should have checked the record, however, because the winter in which he was born was so mild that trees were reported to already be bearing fruit the following spring.



(The coronation of Henry VI in Notre Dame de Paris 16 December 1431.)

Grade 3 - a tepid winter ‘hiver tiède’ such as that of 1481-2 with an estimated mean temperature of 32°F. This was when 8-year-old Anne de Mowbray, Countess of Norfolk died suddenly at Greenwich. Anne was the child bride of Richard, Duke of York who was even younger than her at 7 years old. Richard, along with his older brother Edward V, would disappear from the Tower of London 3 years later.



(A Georgian painting imagining the 1478 wedding of Lady Anne Mowbray and Prince Richard.)

Grade 4 - a normal winter ‘hiver normal’ such as that of 1477-8 with an estimated mean temperature of 27°F. This was when William Caxton published the first printed edition of The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer. Anyone that year thinking of buying an edition as a gift for someone was likely to have found it ideal Christmas shopping weather – crisp but dry.



(The Wife of Bath stylishly sporting a warm and practical, saddle chausson in case of changeable weather and to guard against mud, from an illustration in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.)

Grade 5 - a cold or rude winter ‘hiver froid ou rude’ such as that of 1419-20 with an estimated mean temperature of 14°F. This was when Charles VII of France and Henry V of England were negotiating the Treaty of Troyes which would see the latter marry the former’s daughter Catherine and be acknowledged as Charles’ successor. Parisian chroniclers noted that the hard winter resulted in great hunger in the city and there were reports of wolves seen in the suburbs. The ‘wolves’ could be taken literally or could be seen as being a figurative term for the Burgundian and English forces camped outside the walls. Later that year Henry would enter the city in triumph (something which neither Edward III nor even the Angevin kings Henry II or Richard the Lionheart had achieved) and Paris would remain a Plantagenet-ruled city for 16 years.
     
Grade 6 - a severe winter ‘hiver rigoureux’ such as that of 1464-5 with an estimated mean temperature of 6°F. This was when the ageing Charles, duke of Orleans died. Charles had been taken prisoner at the battle of Agincourt and had then spent a quarter of a century in England during which time he had gained a reputation as a poet writing verse in both French and English. Not only did the aristocratic bard die but many types of birds, including song-birds such as blackbirds and thrushes also perished.  

Grade 7 - a very severe winter ‘hiver très rigoureux’ such as that of 1422-3 with an estimated mean temperature of 4°F. This was when former mayor of London Richard Whittington lay on his deathbed dictating his will. He left his considerable fortune to various almshouses, hospitals, libraries, prisons, drinking fountains and public toilets etc primarily for the benefit of the city’s poor. The design of Whittington’s public toilets was such that they were flushed by the river at high tide. They and the drinking fountains, however, would have been out of service that particular winter because the Thames froze over.



(Walbrook Wharf in London with Southwark Bridge in the background. Formerly the site of Whittington’s Longhouse, an almshouse and public toilet which operated for over 200 years before being burned down during the Great Fire of 1666.)

Grade 8 - a grand winter ‘un grand hiver’ such as that of 1407-8 (with an estimated mean temperature of approximately 2°F) when Louis, the duke of Orleans was assassinated on the orders of his cousin John, duke of Burgundy. The weather was so cold that rivers and lakes froze all over western Europe. In England there was unprecedented and constant frost and snow lasting 15 weeks from December to March. Further east, the Baltic Sea froze and so too did the Kattegat between Copenhagen and Scania and the Skagerrak between Jutland and Norway. People were able to ride on horseback over the ice between those countries thus giving physical reality to the newly united kingdom of Denmark, Norway and Sweden under Queen Margaret I. In Paris ice destroyed bridges over the Seine and riverfront warehouses and dwellings. The cold weather did nothing to cool human tempers, however, as the assassination of Louis saw France riven apart and descend into civil war between the Armagnacs and Burgundians. It was a conflict which would trouble that country for much of rest of the century.

Concerning the Preston campaign of 1648 and the Scottish invasion of NW England.

To add to the woes of both the location population and the Scottish army, the summer of 1648 was truly dreadful.  This was not the sort of summer that holidaymakers regularly complain about; but relentless rain, cold, storms and bitter winds.  Even small rivers became unfordable and roads were turned into muddy quagmires.  Parliament had even ordered a day of fasting and prayer in a bid to get God to relent of this terrible weather sent, it was thought, to punish the nation for its sins.

Concerning your suggestion that Hitler postponed his invasion because of the weather, I take it this refers to the invasion of Britain [operation Sea Lion].  The cancellation of Sea Lion, had nothing whatsoever to do with the Weather, Germany had lost the "Battle of Britain" and did not have command of the air, in addition they did not have the ability to confront the powerful Royal Navy.

Yes indeed FW, the weather all the summer of 1940 was generally very good. This was of course important for any potential German invasion (Operation Sealion) although that operation's timing was mostly dependent on matters other than the weather. The weather was however far more crucial for the preceding (May 1940) Dunkirk Evacuation (Operation Dynamo) which couldn't be delayed at all. To evacuate the British and allied armies off the flat sandy beaches at Dunkirk required absolutely calm sea conditions with no wind. On that exposed coast if there's even just a moderate onshore wind the waves will roll up the beach as massive surf-able rollers. In that event it would have been impossible to get even the smallest boat in close enough to get anyone off the open beaches. However, thankfully, in May 1940 the weather remained calm and the Channel remained as flat as a millpond over those critical ten days.

"Fuhrer Weather" the Germans called it.

10th Panzer Division near Sedan, 13th May 1940:

While Operation Barbarossa is usually linked to failure in Winter, heavy Autumn mud was also a contributing factor in slowing the German advance:

Deleted youtube.

I thought I'd found some even muddier footage from the Allied advance up through Italy ... but no, you win.

Meles meles wrote:

Deleted youtube.

I thought I'd found some even muddier footage from the Allied advance up through Italy ... but no, you win.

Post it again, Meles. It would be interesting to watch.

Probably the ultimate in battlefield mudscapes, Passchendaele 1917: