Duc Belloram

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Nothing to do with tanks - I'm looking to get two armies for these rules - probably 10mm may be 6.

Choices are Welsh, Saxon, Radiers on land and sea, Sub-Roman Brits, Irish and Pichtish. (Late Roman is reseved by Steve Oates)....

Figure susgesstions please.

IanS

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Clibinariums's Later Romans and Early Saxons are AMAZING!

[FierceKitty]

As if what this forum did to English weren't enough, now Latin's taking a hammering! O tempora! O mores! O et linguas!

[GordonY]

Early Saxons??

Where are they, the only ones I could find were the Anglo-Saxons, and to be honest they strike me as a good bit later than 500AD.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

ARL16 http://www.pendraken.co.uk/ARL16-p2705/
Command pack of ARL8 http://www.pendraken.co.uk/ARL8-p2697/

[sunjester]

I'd also go for Romano-British using the Late Romans.  (Lovely figures  )

Obviously no cataphracts/clibinarii.   

[Steve J]

Yep, lovely figures those late Romans and a future purchase for some skirmish gaming or small scale Warmaster Ancients.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Problem with late Romans and Romano-British is that they are period limited, would prefer one that covers the lot, so early Saxon might be the way to go...

Thanks Guys.

IanS (being nice.... )

[sunjester]

Problem with late Romans and Romano-British is that they are period limited, would prefer one that covers the lot, so early Saxon might be the way to go...

Thanks Guys.

IanS (being nice.... )

The problem is that really all the armies are "period limited". Early Saxons (5th century) would also do for the 6th/7th centuries, but are quite different to Anglo-Saxons at the the time of the Viking raids/invasions (8th/9th centuries) and utterly different to 10th/11th century Saxons (actually more Anglo-Danish rather than Anglo-Saxon).

Even the Irish change over time. You would probably get away OK with the same army for the 4th-8th centuries, but the Viking influence made them a different army by the 9th century.

[Luddite]

ARL16 http://www.pendraken.co.uk/ARL16-p2705/
Command pack of ARL8 http://www.pendraken.co.uk/ARL8-p2697/

Aye, the problem with these though is that they aren't early Anglo-Saxons.

The early Saxons/Anglo-Saxons (mainly 5th-mid-7th Century - during the 'raiding and early settlement' period) didn't use the large round shield.  They tended to use a small shield like the later Scots Targe, or perhaps even a buckler.  Either that or they fought without shield, either with a Dane-axe or two have weapons (typically ax and seax).  They tended to fight aggressively in the manner of a 'warband'.

The large shield emerged later once the Anglo-Saxons actually settled and established the fryd system.  There's the arguable possibility that they adopted the larger shield from the Scandinavian raiders (Danes, Swedes, etc. - the socalled Vikings).

I guess however, it doesn't matter too much since this period of history is widely open to interpretation as there are no primary sources that give this detail, other than sparse archaeological evidence.  Even Gildas, the closest text we have, is writing from a biased position.  Bede plagiarises and expands upon Gildas' work.

[sunjester]

Aye, the problem with these though is that they aren't early Anglo-Saxons.

The early Saxons/Anglo-Saxons (mainly 5th-mid-7th Century - during the 'raiding and early settlement' period) didn't use the large round shield.  They tended to use a small shield like the later Scots Targe, or perhaps even a buckler.  Either that or they fought without shield, either with a Dane-axe or two have weapons (typically ax and seax).  They tended to fight aggressively in the manner of a 'warband'.

The large shield emerged later once the Anglo-Saxons actually settled and established the fryd system.  There's the arguable possibility that they adopted the larger shield from the Scandinavian raiders (Danes, Swedes, etc. - the socalled Vikings).

I guess however, it doesn't matter too much since this period of history is widely open to interpretation as there are no primary sources that give this detail, other than sparse archaeological evidence.  Even Gildas, the closest text we have, is writing from a biased position.  Bede plagiarises and expands upon Gildas' work.

Any sources for these suggestions?
There is a lot of archeological evidence for use of large shields long before the Viking raids started, Sutton Hoo being just one example. As for the idea of the two-handed daneaxe in the 5th-7th century, that's news to me.

[irregularwars]

Speaking as an archaeologist, I have to second the comments of mr sunjester.

[Luddite]

Phew!  Well, its been a good long while since i've had to cite sources, etc. so i'll try to keep this as light as possible.

OK, some normative references.

1.  There are no primary sources for the Early Saxon period in Britain.  the closest we have is Gildas, whose writings have to be seen the their context of early Christian propaganda and admonitions against the 'paganisation' of the Post-Roman period.  Bede doesn't help much as he writes after the period in question, builds on Gildas' work and throws in a good deal of his own biases.  It may also be worth referring to Tacitus' writings about the Germanic warriors from the 1stC as it's possible their descendants in the 2nd-5thCs may have continued their way of war until the Christianisation of burial practice in the 6thC-7thC

2.  The archaeological evidence from the period (i.e 5th-7thC) remains a relatively small population makiing for debatable interpretations.  'Weapon burial' for example is unlikely to represent warrior status, as it's frequency, form and prevalence doesn't easily correlate with paelopathological evidence of perimortem violence.  Indeed, its likely (and current research suggests) that the fundamental role of armament in Early Saxon graves was as a medium for expressing and promoting male identities, and status within family, local community and larger polities.  Put simply, a chap buried with a sword and spear cannot be said to be a 'warrior' with any certainty.

3.  Irrespective of the archaeological evidence, the lack of primary source documentation gives very little clue as to how these arms were used (evidenced by the debate on what a 'shieldwall' was and how it actually worked) makes all interpretation from the 'migration period' essentially subjective.

Although focussed primarily on social symbolism, identity inferences and status, the research of Heinrich Harke, Tanya M. Dickinson, Nick Stoodley, and others like Lotte Hedeager, Barbara Yorke, and widening it out into continental deposits, Karen Høilund Nielsen and Siv Kristoffersen are worth a read, at least to get you started.

OK, so...


There's certainly some archaeological evidence of larger round shield types from the earlier period, however, the 4th-6thC evidence from Eastern England seems to show a tendency towards the smaller types.  Its not until the later 6th-7thC deposits (such as the evidence from Sutton Hoo you point out sunjester, that we begin to see the larger 'Anglo-Saxon round shield' styles predominating).  Unfortunately its around this period that Christian burial rites begin to take hold and we lose the 'grave goods' evidence.   

Of course in terms of weapons the spear is by far the most common, but it has to be seen in the context of a 'utility weapon'; in that it could just as well represent a hunting tool as a battlefield weapon.  Other weapon types are very rare in the UK.  Swords are found in only about 12% of accompanied burials, axes in about 2% and seaxes only about 4%. This makes for an interesting comparison with the Saxons" continental homelands where some 50 - 70% contained seaxes.  As for the 'Dane axe', all i can say there is i've personally excavated a large axe-head of a 'Dane axe type' from a mid-5thC grave-cut context in an unpublished site in Southern Hampshire.  Uncitable therefore so make of that what you will.


What of the accounts of the 'large shield and shieldwall' style of fighting?  Well, these largely come from the later Anglo-Saxon 7thC-11thC sources, such as Beowulf (written down sometime between the 8th-11thC) or the Finnesburh Fragment (transcribed in the late-17thC and as i understand it, somewhat debateable!  I'm unsure of its provenance prior to that).  It is likely therefore that they simply assumed their current style of fighting and war tactics and technology were available to their ancestors.  Its well established that art in both imagery and liiterature is often not historically accurate as we would perhaps understand it today.  Evidence Victorian depictions of Medieval and Roman arms and warfare!

The point is that these later sources are references to fighting styles post-Christianisation and after the settlement and formation of the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd system.  It seems unlikely that such defensive styles of warfare would suit 'invaders and raiders', especially those armed with smaller, lighter shields more reminiscent of a mobile fighting style.

As I said in my earlier post and indeed at the start of this ramble - the evidence is debatable...

From my own studies and interpretations of the evidence i've been of the opinion for some time that the early 'Migration Period' Saxon warriors were lighter, mobile, aggressive warriors and raiders, more in the style of the Germanic warriors described by Tacitus; not the later 'shieldwall' (whatever that may be).

Hope that helps clarify things a bit?