Piédalf
Sergeant at Arms
I'd like to discuss about tactics used by the britons, the anglo-saxons and the gaels during early medieal brittain.
There is some topics I'd like to discuss, things that were featured in the Viking conquest DLC and I'm not sure about the accuracy.
The aim of this thread is to collect materials that can help reconstruct warfare in this area.
The Brytenwalda team did a great job reconstructing the british island in the 7th and 9th century, but some of their choices seems not well supported by any source.
There are the following topics I'd like to discuss first:
Cavalry:
In VC, the anglo-saxons are depicted as poor cavalrymen, using only cavalry as scouts. But, to me, it doesn't make sense. There is some materials that are supposed to depict anglo-saxons as competent and well equiped cavalrymen, even if they might be few in number: the Aberlemno stone, the Repton Stone, and the 13th century depiction of the battle of Stamford Bridge that depict an attack of saxon horsemen using javelins (the source is questionnable but it might be correct for this episode).
I knew about some sources that stated that the church wated to spread the use of cavalry, but I don't remember where this information is from. Do anyone know about this?
I also want to point there is good sense about them having a decent cavalry: the anglo-saxons had the land and the horse to raise some sort of cavalry, they knew about cavalry tactics because they were in contact with cultures that used cavalry (extensively, with the franks) and they woould have been disadventaged against them (the Britons and Gaels) if they had not.
VC also depict the britons as strong infantrymen supported by weak cavalry and some skirmirshers. I didn't find clear proof, but it seems that the elite of the welsh and britons (from Brittany) would fight mounted. There is the ulchewr, the nobles, and the Teulu, the personnal guard of the lord, but which are the one that are supposed to fight as mounted warriors? I would go to the ulchewr, as they would have to possess horses as a symbol of status. Maybe some bodyguard would fight mounted with the lord. But I'd like to know more sources
For the Gaels, there is no question: the carving show many cavalrymen.
There is problems with the scandinavians: theyre is no proofs of them using cavalry I can remember, exept in an irish context of the 10th century (in a text I should reference). But there is stirrups found in Scandinavia and Danelaw in 10th century contexts.
Body protections:
There is several sources that provide material to reconstruct the kind of protections people would carry in this context.
The first protection is the shield. It is everywhere, in the tombs and representations. There is a special mention of the pict square shield, that is represented in the stones of Scotland.
For the saxons, there is some carving, like the Franks casket, or some tombstones, that indicate that helmets and mail were not incomon among them, but mainly for the professionnal warriors, not the fyrdmen. There is also some fids like the Coppergate or Sutton hoo...
For the norse, it's a bit tricky: we have the gjermundbu finds and the vendel era finds. This is always very rich context, and there is also some of Charlemagne's laws that forbid exportation of armors to the heathen that indicates that thew would possess some. Maybe they would be possessions of important men (as jarls) and their personnal retainers.
But I'm not sure the small bands of viking would posess any (exept the leader) because they didn't have to fight that much, and they were coumposed of men from humble origin, and from different cultures (expeditoins would go from Scandinavia and theiy would recruit men from various area, while traveling). So, for me, they would look like a heterogeneous band of raiders, with low equipment, just spear, shield, knifes and some swords, with some advanced protections they would get from plunder.
There is no evidence britons would have carried protections other than shield I can remember. However, there is the O Guddodin poem that describe the warriors wearing lorica. They might be aware of those protections ecause they are inheritors of the roman culture, and they were in contact with the gerrmanic people who are known to have carry some.
For the Gaels: the carving from Scotland and Ireland would be proofs that all the warriors, even the high status, would fight with little pretections, maybe only shield and padded armors. There is a word that means helmet in gaelic, that is used in the Cuchulainn poem, but I don't know if it can be generalised. Maybe some of the most important people would have carry some helmets. Maybe they would buy them from frankia, because there were a lot of trade since the 7th century.
There can also be a discussion about padded protection from this period, they would be present as a cheap option for armor. Some fom of padding is necessary to carry mail protection.
About the mail protection, there could be discussion about the form of it, if it could be mail shirts (lorica) or rigid pieces of leather with rigns stitched on it (byrnie).
Tactics and battle formation:
I'm not very aware of the battle formations oof this period, but it seems that the principal formation would be a line of infantry in a shieldwall formation. This formation would resist a cavalry frontal charge.
I wander if the frontline would use javelins or throwing spears, as they would have spears on their hand, but the backline might have javelins to throw, with several javelins on their back. There is exemples from the Bayeu tapisserie of javelinemen on the back of the frontline.
For the frontline warriors, I think there is a rational equipment of the warrior:
a main weapon, that is carried for contact or skirmishing, such as a bow, a spear, a pike, a two handed polearm (like a daneaxe, a halberd, a long bladed spear), javelins (with 2-4 attached on the back), or a heavy throwing weapons (throwing spear, axe, pilae or angons, that can incapacitate enemy shields or disturb formations). The warriors could pick only one of them (no spears + Javelins or polearm+javelins) because of encumbrance issues.
They would also crry a sidearm, like a sword or a big knife (seax).
For the skirmirshers, I don't know much, but they would have used mainly javelins, along with some bows (and crossblows for the Picts) and a sidearm. I'd like more informations about slings and staff slings.
Well, that's all I know about the period. Criticism is welcomed.
I will add further references later.
There is some topics I'd like to discuss, things that were featured in the Viking conquest DLC and I'm not sure about the accuracy.
The aim of this thread is to collect materials that can help reconstruct warfare in this area.
The Brytenwalda team did a great job reconstructing the british island in the 7th and 9th century, but some of their choices seems not well supported by any source.
There are the following topics I'd like to discuss first:
Cavalry:
In VC, the anglo-saxons are depicted as poor cavalrymen, using only cavalry as scouts. But, to me, it doesn't make sense. There is some materials that are supposed to depict anglo-saxons as competent and well equiped cavalrymen, even if they might be few in number: the Aberlemno stone, the Repton Stone, and the 13th century depiction of the battle of Stamford Bridge that depict an attack of saxon horsemen using javelins (the source is questionnable but it might be correct for this episode).
I knew about some sources that stated that the church wated to spread the use of cavalry, but I don't remember where this information is from. Do anyone know about this?
I also want to point there is good sense about them having a decent cavalry: the anglo-saxons had the land and the horse to raise some sort of cavalry, they knew about cavalry tactics because they were in contact with cultures that used cavalry (extensively, with the franks) and they woould have been disadventaged against them (the Britons and Gaels) if they had not.
VC also depict the britons as strong infantrymen supported by weak cavalry and some skirmirshers. I didn't find clear proof, but it seems that the elite of the welsh and britons (from Brittany) would fight mounted. There is the ulchewr, the nobles, and the Teulu, the personnal guard of the lord, but which are the one that are supposed to fight as mounted warriors? I would go to the ulchewr, as they would have to possess horses as a symbol of status. Maybe some bodyguard would fight mounted with the lord. But I'd like to know more sources
For the Gaels, there is no question: the carving show many cavalrymen.
There is problems with the scandinavians: theyre is no proofs of them using cavalry I can remember, exept in an irish context of the 10th century (in a text I should reference). But there is stirrups found in Scandinavia and Danelaw in 10th century contexts.
Body protections:
There is several sources that provide material to reconstruct the kind of protections people would carry in this context.
The first protection is the shield. It is everywhere, in the tombs and representations. There is a special mention of the pict square shield, that is represented in the stones of Scotland.
For the saxons, there is some carving, like the Franks casket, or some tombstones, that indicate that helmets and mail were not incomon among them, but mainly for the professionnal warriors, not the fyrdmen. There is also some fids like the Coppergate or Sutton hoo...
For the norse, it's a bit tricky: we have the gjermundbu finds and the vendel era finds. This is always very rich context, and there is also some of Charlemagne's laws that forbid exportation of armors to the heathen that indicates that thew would possess some. Maybe they would be possessions of important men (as jarls) and their personnal retainers.
But I'm not sure the small bands of viking would posess any (exept the leader) because they didn't have to fight that much, and they were coumposed of men from humble origin, and from different cultures (expeditoins would go from Scandinavia and theiy would recruit men from various area, while traveling). So, for me, they would look like a heterogeneous band of raiders, with low equipment, just spear, shield, knifes and some swords, with some advanced protections they would get from plunder.
There is no evidence britons would have carried protections other than shield I can remember. However, there is the O Guddodin poem that describe the warriors wearing lorica. They might be aware of those protections ecause they are inheritors of the roman culture, and they were in contact with the gerrmanic people who are known to have carry some.
For the Gaels: the carving from Scotland and Ireland would be proofs that all the warriors, even the high status, would fight with little pretections, maybe only shield and padded armors. There is a word that means helmet in gaelic, that is used in the Cuchulainn poem, but I don't know if it can be generalised. Maybe some of the most important people would have carry some helmets. Maybe they would buy them from frankia, because there were a lot of trade since the 7th century.
There can also be a discussion about padded protection from this period, they would be present as a cheap option for armor. Some fom of padding is necessary to carry mail protection.
About the mail protection, there could be discussion about the form of it, if it could be mail shirts (lorica) or rigid pieces of leather with rigns stitched on it (byrnie).
Tactics and battle formation:
I'm not very aware of the battle formations oof this period, but it seems that the principal formation would be a line of infantry in a shieldwall formation. This formation would resist a cavalry frontal charge.
I wander if the frontline would use javelins or throwing spears, as they would have spears on their hand, but the backline might have javelins to throw, with several javelins on their back. There is exemples from the Bayeu tapisserie of javelinemen on the back of the frontline.
For the frontline warriors, I think there is a rational equipment of the warrior:
a main weapon, that is carried for contact or skirmishing, such as a bow, a spear, a pike, a two handed polearm (like a daneaxe, a halberd, a long bladed spear), javelins (with 2-4 attached on the back), or a heavy throwing weapons (throwing spear, axe, pilae or angons, that can incapacitate enemy shields or disturb formations). The warriors could pick only one of them (no spears + Javelins or polearm+javelins) because of encumbrance issues.
They would also crry a sidearm, like a sword or a big knife (seax).
For the skirmirshers, I don't know much, but they would have used mainly javelins, along with some bows (and crossblows for the Picts) and a sidearm. I'd like more informations about slings and staff slings.
Well, that's all I know about the period. Criticism is welcomed.
I will add further references later.
