Rumour has it that the rest of the world also existed at this time. I wonder why gamers confine themselves so heavily to Britain. The armies aren't that interesting, for a start, especially if you look at what was happening in the near east and in China. Is it just too much knights of the Round Table in early years?

It's a handy name, that's about all. I think there have been too many years of bad history taught to change it. A lot of it is based on lies of catholic church, hiding the strength of the celtic church. All dark until the light of Rome returned.

I think, Mr Kitty, you mistake "interesting" for "exotic".

Britain in the "Dark Ages" was a very interesting place. It always amuses me that the "early Dark Ages" was spent fighting off the dastardly Saxons, and the "late Dark Ages" was the good Saxons fighting off the dastardly Normans and Vikings.

Scotland was a very interesting, but not much observed part of the country.

But not exotic. There wasn't even any Irn Bru.

No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.

QuoteLots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest.

That just about sums it up in terms of wargaming, the period itself is facinating, the creation of modern Western Europe from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire.   The period got it's unfortunate name and reputation from the Victorians who saw nothing interesting between the Legions leaving Britain and William the Conqueror arriving.  Modern scolarship has advanced a lot since then but the name remains and your description of warfare is pretty accurate, certainly all the rules and army lists I'm aware of are very limited.

The period makes for nice skirmish games, I've played and enjoyed both Saga and Dux Britaniarum with the latter having the advantage of not having the 'Vikings with Danish Axes' cliche and being designed arround a very simple but workable campaign system.

If you want something from the Dark Ages which is far from dark I'd recommend looking Eastwards to the Byzantine Empire.  While Britain and Western Europe was languishing the Byzantines were developing the Roman Empire way beyond the Imperial Legions of Ancient Rome.

The Byzantines had a full range of troop types and fielded big armies against some of the most colourfull opponents in history, ideal for 10mm games.  The history is also very exciting, the fall of Persia and the rise of Islam.



The Byzantines ready to ride out



To face (among many others) the Armies of the Prophet.

Oh, yes, I'm crazy about the East Romans. I'm not even that hostile to dark ages games; just irritated that it's all the same. Why not a bit more of the Ice Slaughter and less of Stamford Bridge? Britain is not the only country of historical significance.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 07:04:03 AM
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.

I think the tactical manoeuvrability of armies in other eras or regions is over estimated, particularly by many wargames rules.

Druzhina
10th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Quote from: Druzhina on 15 April 2014, 08:48:32 AM
I think the tactical manoeuvrability of armies in other eras or regions is over estimated, particularly by many wargames rules.

Druzhina
10th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Makes you wonder why peltasts gained so much ground at the expense of hoplites, or skirmishing Turks often beat mailed religious fanatics,doesn't it?

Well I think the term Dark Ages  in my mind describes Britain in the 5th-12th century . I am sure other places in the world have also had their 'Dark Ages' but at different times but I wouldn't know enough about them to say exactly when

As an aside

They think parts of Offa's Dyke was built 200 years earlier than previously thought


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-26921202

Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 07:04:03 AM
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.

Tactically, armies that are all, or largely, infantry are no more or less interesting than ones that are more mixed in composition.

Lets face it, the manoeuvring that many wargames armies indulge in is rather rarer in real life. Battles tend to consist of two lines of troops facing off and hacking and/or shooting at each other until one side breaks and runs. The lines may be a couple of hundred tribesmen facing each other over the local irrigation ditch or stretch from Switzerland to the sea. The one is not intrinsically more interesting than the other, though the challenges and techniques of the period may be wildly different.

Battles between completely mismatched combat styles -  normally melee heavy vs missile heavy - are much less interesting to me.

Most of the interesting part of the battle is the actual campaign ie getting to the point where you win the battle. I think most battles are point and charge at the end of the day  all the fancy manoeuvring comes long before that

Since noone living has actually participated in the type of combat we're talking about, I'm inclined to reserve judgment. But I've got this humility habit with the passage of years.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 April 2014, 07:04:03 AM
No, I have the habit of using the word I intend. Lots of melee infantry with close-quarters arms, a few missile foot sometimes, and almost no mounted. They can look fun, but tactically there's not much real interest. It's like bridge with no trumps. A "Johnny One-note" period.

... and two armies for the most part identical in composition (if we're tralking Britain.) That, to me, is what MAKES it fun. It is general against general, both trying to get the most out of the options available. It's like the ACW or late WWI Western Front. You have limits that mean that only an excellent general can make a decisive difference.

I agree though, that the Byzantines and their sundry enemies are most fascinating. The expolits of the Normans in Sicily are such fun! As a descendent of a Norseman, I find the exploits of the Vikings (sic) in America and Eastern Europe and Italy quite fascinating and worth a game or two.

I would agree that the English can only remember two dates, 1066 and 1966.  However, cast your eye around and the Dark Ages in Western Europe can be very entertaining.

Tours 731 springs to mind