The Last Kingdom's Depiction of Anglo-Saxons

[-Peter-]

Can anyone enlighten me as to how accurate it is?

Things like the Saxon rectangular shields, the elaborate shield wall and use of sharpened sticks etc in battle. I always thought Danes and Saxons would have been similarly equipped and similar fighting styles due to their origins?

Also, does anyone know how the battles were on a much smaller scale in comparison to Ancient battles? Is this just due to less exaggeration or something else?

Thanks in advance for any insight!

 

[Anarion]

The Saxons definitely did not use shields of that kind and most of them would have been armed with axes or spears, not farming equipment. The Last Kingdom's Saxons are probably equipped that way to differentiate them from the Danes because someone thought it would confuse viewers if they all had the same equipment.

 

[-Peter-]

The Saxons definitely did not use shields of that kind and most of them would have been armed with axes or spears, not farming equipment. The Last Kingdom's Saxons are probably equipped that way to differentiate them from the Danes because someone thought it would confuse viewers if they all had the same equipment.

Thanks, I thought not, seems a bit daft because the small rectangular shields look incredibly ineffective.

The constant portrayal of Anglo-Saxons as absolute morons with no fighting capability is annoying. Vikings being the worst offender.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Also, does anyone know how the battles were on a much smaller scale in comparison to Ancient battles? Is this just due to less exaggeration or something else?

In the early saxon period (i.e. before the big names like Athelstan and Alfred the Great) it was unusual for Saxon armies to be much larger than a few hundred men. The Saxon period began before feudalism and Britain lagged behind the rest of Europe in how centralised it was, so early on it was common for an army to consist of a king and his retinue and little else.

The constant portrayal of Anglo-Saxons as absolute morons with no fighting capability is annoying. Vikings being the worst offender.

This portrayal has been around since the Victorian period. Someone discovered that there were Saxon settlements which were run by near anarchism with things/folkmoots, and no government to speak of. The Victorian artistic class then proceeded to romanticist the hell out of the Saxons, portraying them as a pacifist pastoral utopia with democracy, and the "protagonists" of Britain. The Hobbits in Lord of the Rings are part of this trend.

 

[-Peter-]

In the early saxon period (i.e. before the big names like Athelstan and Alfred the Great) it was unusual for Saxon armies to be much larger than a few hundred men. The Saxon period began before feudalism and Britain lagged behind the rest of Europe in how centralised it was, so early on it was common for an army to consist of a king and his retinue and little else.

This portrayal has been around since the Victorian period. Someone discovered that there were Saxon settlements which were run by near anarchism with things/folkmoots, and no government to speak of. The Victorian artistic class then proceeded to romanticist the hell out of the Saxons, portraying them as a pacifist pastoral utopia with democracy, and the "protagonists" of Britain. The Hobbits in Lord of the Rings are part of this trend.

Very interesting! That also explains the Lord of the Rings link in the 1066 mini-series thing a few years back.

So it wasn't a case of ridiculously low population, but more an inability to recruit the population as fighting men? Because that's what had me confused, how armies in the time of say Caratacus could number 150,000 (I know possibly exaggerated and includes non-combatants), then a few hundred years later it drops to a few hundred.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Because that's what had me confused, how armies in the time of say Caratacus could number 150,000 (I know possibly exaggerated and includes non-combatants), then a few hundred years later it drops to a few hundred.

The Roman sources for almost every battle against the Celts are massively exaggerated, almost as a rule. For propaganda purposes, the Romans made the Celts out to be endless waves of superhuman barbarians who the Romans just steamrolled over because they were so manly and badass (a lot of people still believe this). The Celts probably had around the same number of men as the Romans in that battle, if not less.

The difference between the Celts and the Saxons is that the Celts were a warrior culture through and through. Almost every adult male was expected to be levied during a war, and the vast majority of their material culture was related in some way to warfare. Of course it was never logistically feasible for a Celtic ruler to levy literally everyone, but it was definitely much more of a militarized society than the Saxons, who had something resembling a loose military class.

 

[matmohair1]

Saxons did use round shields like most Eurasian warriors

Spoiler

In a typical battle between Saxon and Vikings, or any other
Nordic forces,both sides would look the same from a distance...

Spoiler

Oval shields or rectangular shields are depicted in the Osberg tapestry, but are considered rare

Spoiler

typical rectangular shields are more of a Slavic item,
commonly seen among, Eastern Vikings, Varangians and Russians.

Spoiler

The Last Kingdom's depiction of round vs rectangular shields was a stupid decision, just Imaging
giving two opposing Greek hoplite forces different shields supposedly to tell them apart!

Spoiler

 

[Anarion]

I heard the BBC is making a miniseries based on the Trojan War. I hope it turns out better than The Last Kingdom. 

 

[matmohair1]

I hope they don't repeat the same
mistake they had with biker musketeers!

Spoiler

 

[Anarion]

I would actually love some biker charioteers!

 

[matmohair1]

I would actually love some biker charioteers!

that would actually be cool...

Spoiler

lets pray its in bright colors thou 

Spoiler

 

[-Peter-]

Jacobhinds and matmohair1 thanks for the posts, really interesting stuff!

The Roman use of propaganda is something I've only recently come across so really interesting to read. Something I read the other day said the Romans used the fear of an attack from "Barbarians" to get the public to be in favour of war/expansion. Obviously I imagine some of the time the threat was real, but I wonder how much of it wasn't. Julius Caesar being a big culprit!
here's so many things we can learn & relate to from the ancient world.

Matmohair1, the Greek part is a perfect example, it'd be ridiculous. Or in the Rome series, if during the battle of Philippi they gave Antony and Octavian's men Hoplons... bit of a sell out in my opinion, would have taught people a lot to show how similar they were.

 

[havoc]

Those shields look so stupid.
As well as their round shields, Saxons started using kite shields in the 11th century, or so I have read.

Would be keen to see a show that actually depicts Saxons accurately. Would be neat.

 

[-Peter-]

Those shields look so stupid.
As well as their round shields, Saxons started using kite shields in the 11th century, or so I have read.

Would be keen to see a show that actually depicts Saxons accurately. Would be neat.

Definitely. I'd love to see a show that depicts battles realistically as well, formations, hesitation etc. Not just sprinting full force at each other with no fear of death with loads of extended individual battles going on. I suppose there's some aspect of that with the shield walls in The Last Kingdom but it's done a bit ridiculously.

 

[Anarion]

I hate that shield wall so much. Vikings started it, or maybe it was 300? The literal shield wall.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I have a sinking feeling that for the next decade or so, Game of Thrones is going to cement the depiction of warfare for every TV show or movie set between the invention of bronze and 1700. Art directors simply can't help themselves, everything MUST BE GREY AND BLUE. There is NO SUN

 

[funk]

Also, does anyone know how the battles were on a much smaller scale in comparison to Ancient battles? Is this just due to less exaggeration or something else?

In the early saxon period (i.e. before the big names like Athelstan and Alfred the Great) it was unusual for Saxon armies to be much larger than a few hundred men. The Saxon period began before feudalism and Britain lagged behind the rest of Europe in how centralised it was, so early on it was common for an army to consist of a king and his retinue and little else.

Such small armies where solely made up of professional warriors with mail armour, good helmet and swords, you know all the things that no one has in the battle scenes.
That not to say the king couldn't raise more people they could under the fyrd system a kind of general levy of everyone in a set area.
But that was slow, expensive, needed planing and let every one know what the plan was, after all it could be thousands of men.
And then you realise that most of them are only armed with spear and shield and maybe some throwing spears.

The Last Kingdom's depiction of round vs rectangular shields was a stupid decision, just Imaging
giving two opposing Greek hoplite forces different shields supposedly to tell them apart!

I was slapping my head and shouting paint at the TV, why not just paint the dam shields!

I hate that shield wall so much. Vikings started it, or maybe it was 300? The literal shield wall.

If there was some CGI spear and arrows being fired at the shied wall then it would be less stupid.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Such small armies where solely made up of professional warriors with mail armour, good helmet and swords

Yeah, nah.

 

[Anarion]

The sad thing is, movie and television makers aren't entirely wrong in expecting viewers to get confused if combating armies have similar arms and armour. As I remember it, that was a criticism levied at Stone's Alexander at Gaugamela, and it was fairly obvious to me at least who was Macedonian and who was Persian.
Most people aren't history buffs. As much as it sucks that they continue to underestimate the viewing public, and maybe if they did give viewers the benefit of the doubt they might surprise them, there's a reason why it happens.

Vikings also had colour coded shields and one of the sides fought naked in their first battle scene.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

As I remember it, that was a criticism levied at Stone's Alexander at Gaugamela

...how? The sides didn't look alike at all? I genuinely don't understand that, if true.