Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Unlucky General on January 16, 2021, 08:04:01 PM
-
Okay, confession .. I don't know if this is a problem, or rather if it's a wargaming problem or not. I am interested in people's perspectives or insights into early medieval (or 'Dark Age') wargaming.
Do the Saxons suffer an image problem and does this affect their popularity and uptake in the wargaming world?
In movies and TV Saxon characters and Saxon armies as depicted very poorly and generally look dreadful. To say that accuracy is absent is an understatement. They also often look very 'uncool' compared to how the Vikings (Norse) are portrayed.
Do you think there is a more general and subliminal view that Saxons were 'losers' becasue they were ultimately defeated by the Normans or becasue they were given a hard time by Norse Vikings? The stories being told and retold in recent years has them mostly on the defensive.
If this is so, are Saxon armies considered 'bronze medal' contestants for people collecting and playing early medieval wargames? Can anyone tell me how Saxon figures sales compare to Vikings or Normans?
I don't know but I suspect they are a third option but this might be me becasue as yet I have a Norman army, have bought a Viking one and have not considered a Saxon collection ... yet. If it's true for others, then this is a shame becasue the reality of who Saxons were, what they achieved, their success on the battlefield and how they looked is nothing like how they are handled on TV. There are some fellow gamers and figure painters posting right now and on these fora who are producing some great looking and very cool Saxon figures and units.
So ... are they misunderstood in popular cultural memory or have I missed something? I often do.
-
The Anglo Danes of the 11th Century were considered to be some of the best infantry in Europe at that time.
I don't really pay that much attention to how they are portrayed in any TV series I've seen, but you're right, it is usually dire. Though nothing will ever make me laugh out loud as much as ahistorical as the 'Welsh' in The Last Kingdom series one who had huge holes in the centre of their shields lol lol lol I still giggle to myself when I think of it as I type :P
-
My perception is no; but then I barely watch television or films,and much rather read. Just thinking about this makes me think of how many words we use that have an Old German root,our thought processes given light because of how we think,partially constructed by our use of these forms. However this is a huge digression...And I am biased Harold,Hereward et cetera have always been heroes of mine rather than the perfidy of the Normans lol
-
Can't really speak for how they're portrayed on the screen - save for weary resignation that in any series I happen to see (e.g. some series' of The Last Kingdom, some of Vikings) they'll be in absurd kit, possibly just to make them look 'different', but from a wargaming perspective I've always been put off because to me the nature of the warfare is very much based on the shieldwall.
Mind you, that's also what puts me off doing anything Vikingy too, and if I've considered the Normans it's to do something with them in Italy or Sicily rather than Northern Europe.
Granted, my historical knowledge of the nature of their warfare might be less than it ought, but I wouldn't be surprised if a perception that wargame battles would be dependent on shieldwalls puts off gamers who want a bit more variety available?
Painting-wise there are some great figures out there, and I guess if you're into skirmishes the shieldwall aspect isn't such a big issue, but otherwise it does feel like Saxon armies (and Viking) are a bit limited wargames-wise.
For all that, I'm also very much pro-Harold and anti-Norman, and am forever frustrated by the defeat at Hastings (and for all the times I've been to see the re-enactment, what beats me is why they charge down that hill every time lol )
-
When I think of Saxons, I think of Hengest & Horsa, the Bretwalda Aelle, Penda, Alfred and Aethelstan and Edmund Ironside.
-
When I think of Saxons, I think of Hengest & Horsa, the Bretwalda Aelle, Penda, Alfred and Aethelstan and Edmund Ironside.
It's the opposite end of the scales for me, my imagination always draws me to this man......
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UmRrw2q40v4/VgWHH06YomI/AAAAAAAAjdI/Np6bLHu5YwU/s1600/HAROLD%2BGODWINSON%2BCOMMAND%2BSTAND%2B1E-001.JPG)
Not that I'm averse to diving further into the past.....
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vUgMNaNF52w/VkHc9sPHuXI/AAAAAAAAkAA/pAVPtqcS2X0/s1600/P1060045.JPG)
Though, it has to be said, they have always got to be in the right kit lol
-
Unlucky General, an interesting question. I think the Vikings have a fascination for people as they travelled so widely and are part of the history of many nations. Plus the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes would keep their memory/folklore current as part of their history . Without getting too political "history is written by the victors" and after Hastings the Anglo-Saxon story was over-written by the Normans. I think if you asked 90% of British people to name any Anglo-Saxon you might get "Alfred", but not much more.
In wargaming terms however I can see why the period isn't played too much. For big battles the armies are pretty bland with mostly "shieldwall", not much choice of troop types. Drop to skirmish level and things become more interesting. That probably takes you back to the interest in the Vikings with raids, longboats etc etc .
That said I find it a fascinating period. I have forces for the 5-6th centuries but will admit they don't see the table as much as they should.
-
I blame Steve Coogan.
-
I blame Steve Coogan.
He had a nice car and theme tune though.
-
Interesting question about historical fiction/entertainment.
When fighting the "nice" Christian British of Arthur the pagan, vicious, avaricious, rapacious land grabbling Saxons have to look and be dressed as "baddies" - lots of dirt, hairy cloaks, dark colours, scars, tattoos
When fighting the "nice" Christian Saxons of Alfred the pagan, vicious, avaricious, rapacious land grabbling Danes have to look and be be dressed as "baddies" - lots of dirt, hairy cloaks, dark colours, scars, tattoos
-
Interesting question about historical fiction/entertainment.
When fighting the "nice" Christian British of Arthur the pagan, vicious, avaricious, rapacious land grabbling Saxons have to look and be dressed as "baddies" - lots of dirt, hairy cloaks, dark colours, scars, tattoos
When fighting the "nice" Christian Saxons of Alfred the pagan, vicious, avaricious, rapacious land grabbling Danes have to look and be be dressed as "baddies" - lots of dirt, hairy cloaks, dark colours, scars, tattoos
I think the movie The Warlord set the standard in that regard.
-
I think there is something in the OP's question, at lest from my perspective as a non-expert.
I have little specialist knowledge of this period and have never played a dark age wargame, but I have used figures from this period in fantasy games. When I think of Vikings I think of wild beards, tattoos, huge axes, horned helmets (yes I know, but I still think of them...), beserkers, raping and pillaging etc. Essentially barbarians! Plus all the Norse mythology Valhalla etc which again is very powerful and distinctive.
Normans on the other hand are perhaps associated with being more organised and disciplined (although just as ruthless) and have a distinctive sinister look with long mail suits and kite shields.
Saxons just seem a bit blander (which can make them useful for generic fantasy soldiers). Now I know they may also have used axes in battle like Vikings or kite shields like Normans and in fact may have fought in a similar manner (and with considerable success) as the other two more glamorous groups mentioned, but that cannot quite override the fact that in my mind at least their image is not quite as distinctive or compelling. Just my opinion obviously. ;)
-
I doubt there was any real difference between Saxons and Vikings in how they looked. After all, the Angles were from the same area (ish) as the Danes, just a couple of hundred years earlier, trade would have continued and for all we know family links could have been maintained. Wargamers like to have noticeable differences between armies though.
-
Vikings are always popular and seem to be more appreciated than neighbouring people. ::)
There was a Tristan & Isolde, French movie in the early 1970... which said they were from Iceland... :( >:(
...(because most French people didn't know a thing about Cornwall, and Brittany was not fashionable enough then).
-
Saxons just seem a bit blander
This. For me, they will always be not quite as good or interesting as the dudes they're fighting. Tactically (or at least, my flawed impression of), you have spear-armed infantry dudes who form a shieldwall and hope to grind down the opposition. No berserks (historically suspect or not) or fun raiders like the Vikings, no cavalry or massed archers like the Normans, no terrain-using guerillas like the Welsh. I've always enjoyed the rich flavour of interesting troops - either small numbers of elites or guys who did something out of the ordinary. The rather vanilla aspect of Saxons has never appealed to me.
-
I think it's an image problem, as Alfred the Great is relegated to the background of history in popular fiction. Even in something like The Last Kingdom he is a background character. Never mind he not only fought off the Viking invasions but he also introduced the first navy, and introduce the first permanent structure of lasting laws for both noble and commoner but to date there's only 1 film iirc that focuses on him is Alfred with David Hemmingway from about 1970, with Ian McKellen in a supporting role amongst others.
Problem is when Saxons get mentioned its usually in context of 1066 and oh they lost, can't be very good then...
After all how many 1066, dramas, and documentaries about that are there, and half the time the fact a Viking invasion got beat by the Saxons and then walked across the country to fight again at Hastings. Compare that to the focus or point being lack Alfred gets.
A lot of the Saxon weaponry and appearance was similar to Vikings whilst they didn't have the 'cool' Norse Pantheon to spout, or berserkers they did have The Great Dane Axe wielding Huscarls.
-
Here is a Saxon Shieldwall. There are 264 figures here with a plan for 371-501 figures total.There are suppose to be another 100 cavalry,140 infantry and 120 archers for the Normans.The guy putting this together is having the diorama professionally done.These figures are 60mm (1/30).The foot figures cost in the $40-$50 range and the cavalry are over $100.This guy has a lot of money! :o
I thought you might like to see it.
Mark
-
The Vikings have that trendy and cool image in pop culture, a bit like the Spartans do, where the little bit most know about them makes them seem like the more badass characters. Thus, Saxons get to be the stuffy mooks that the cool biker-esque viking lads smack about while yelling about Odin, ancestors, and listening to heavy metal or Wardruna. And remember to put on your eye shadow!
-
Her's a couple more pictures from other collectors.
Mark
-
That’s it! Huscarls are cool; but no cavalry, no berserkers, no blood eagle dioramas. The poor old Saxons are just a bit bland - which the Uhtred books just emphasise.
-
That’s it! Huscarls are cool; but no cavalry, no berserkers, no blood eagle dioramas. The poor old Saxons are just a bit bland - which the Uhtred books just emphasise.
I think it all comes down to how you model each individual model on a base and how they interest with one another. If you choose your rules carefully (I won't get into that as I don't want to open a can of worms).
It's possible to make quite a dynamic looking unit. Here's the latest of mine.....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HIDqxUCpDJo/X_xDm_7IS_I/AAAAAAABFkc/RfLKyeiYU6ETthsj1EWaF_HODtl85KGBQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/ANGLO%2BDANES%2BUNIT%2BFOUR%2BABOVE%2B1B.jpg)
-
For me, the late Saxons will always be the good guys because Robin Hood was a Saxon. Its been built into me since I saw Errol Flynn portraying him when I was a kid (a long time ago).
I tend to view them as the underdogs. With the Vikings, because their Christianity prevented them from being as cruel.
Against the Normans, because the Normans were haughty, were invaders and spoke French (!).
And they were mostly on the defensive against both. That's fine. Someone has to defend.
I solved the gaming aspect by sticking to skirmish games (I use Pig Wars).
By the way, the area of scholarship about the Saxons is on the upswing. A number of new books in the past 10 years.
-
I love the idea of a defensive "volks"army, consisting of "draftees" who are obliged to turn up at battle but probably rather would be anywhere than there, strengthened by some marginally better trained freemen ( Ceorls ) and of course led by landowners and lesser nobles with their household tropps who actually did know a thing or two about fighting and got some decent equip aswell. Looks great on the battlefield and can be a challenge to play too; get the rabble in check and maybe, just maybe they can even do something right ;).
On the other hand I picture offensive armies more like professional ones so they would not be that very different from Danish armies, spear, shield, sidearm, helmet and probably some kind of leather, scale or even mail armor. If you want to invade you don't take the rabble with you, of course.
And later in time armies would integrate more, influence each other and the odd alliances, mecenary captains and hirelings would bring their own tactical influences and fashionable kit with them.
So yeas, I don't think an army from ( Viking ) Northumbria after 1000 AD would differ that much in appearance, equip and tactics from one of ( Saxon ) Mercia.
-
Atheling,
I've been quietly admiring your figures for some time and I think you are completely on-the-money.
I'd love to know how Saxon figure sales compare with the Vikings and Normans.
If British wargamers in particular tend to prefer non-Saxon armies in this period that would be strange to me given how strongly the public historical memory favours Saxon heritage these days.
-
I don't think that the Saxons were lesser capable then the Vikings or Normans in any regard. The Jütten , Angeln and Sachsen invaded around 449 what we today call England. So it was the last invasion before the Norman one. That in itself is no small achievement I think and they ruled for nearly 500 years then ( until 1066).
-
Atheling,
I've been quietly admiring your figures for some time and I think you are completely on-the-money.
Thanks.
I'd love to know how Saxon figure sales compare with the Vikings and Normans.
I really don't know (nowadays). If you had asked me a decade or so ago I would have been able to give you an accurate picture of what sells as I used to paint for one of the biggest Early Medieval manufacturers. Just going on the evidence of the proportion of Anglo Danish armies that used to turn up at the WHW Campaign weekends, I would have to say that they were reasonably popular.
If British wargamers in particular tend to prefer non-Saxon armies in this period that would be strange to me given how strongly the public historical memory favours Saxon heritage these days.
To some extent I think this is inevitable. I've found myself looking at stuff like a Late Med/Early Renaissance Mughal army but have never managed to find a good enough range, or even parts to convert for that matter.
-
I blame Steve Coogan.
You mean Saxondale? lol
-
I think the popularity of the Vikings stems from their use in skirmish/raid type games where they can fight in England, Ireland, France, Spain, the Mediterranean and even America. In my experience you don’t see many people building Viking armies for large battles.
-
I think the popularity of the Vikings stems from their use in skirmish/raid type games where they can fight in England, Ireland, France, Spain, the Mediterranean and even America. In my experience you don’t see many people building Viking armies for large battles.
True. I think that is perhaps more to do with the general trend towards skirmish level games (what ever that really means, one man's poison etc.). From my own personal perspective, as soon as my Anglo Danes are finished later this year I'm "going deep" into the Norse in creating the army of Haadrada. I think it's all a combination of wallet power, somewhat mitigated by the availability of quality plastics, and the trends towards one rule system or another.
It's an interesting subject and I'd love to hear what people have you say on this particular aspect.
-
I think in the popular imagination Saxons are still too often shown as perennial losers. Repeatedly losing to the Vikings (who are cool), and having to pay for them to go away. Even Alfred is relegated to being a guy who hid in a marsh and burnt cakes. Later they lose to the Normans. Even in their earliest iteration they are only really shown as proto-vikings.
Obviously anyone who looks at the history of the period a bit more closely knows that none of this is true. But we are still in a place where the general received wisdom is of the Dark ages as a dark and unknown time. It might change, Vikings are still flavour of the month but maybe Saxons will have their time and public perceptions will change? There needs to be a few BBC 4 documentaries about Saxon art, culture and history, and maybe a lavish HBO type show about Alfred, or Harold or something.
-
One problem of the Saxons was probably that it is a term covering a pretty large and diverse era and area.
When I think of Saxons, I have Widukind or the early German cavalry armies under the Ottones in my mind. Saxons can be anything from tribal confederations of the late Roman phase to forces fighting for and against Napoleon at Leipzig. Lower Saxony includes Hanover, and Westphalia was once part of Saxon before it was divided in 1181 to cull down its prominence in German politics.
Imho, the Saxon problem is one of "lacking a precise definition". Anybody has an incling what a Ango-Dane army should look like, or Vikings. Saxons is just too broad a brush.
That said, I have more "Saxons" from Wargames Factory (WG), Gripping Beast or Victrix then I have Vikings, simply because they are more versatile and useful for staple armies.
-
One problem of the Saxons was probably that it is a term covering a pretty large and diverse era and area.
Absolutely.
When I think of Saxons, I have Widukind or the early German cavalry armies under the Ottones in my mind. Saxons can be anything from tribal confederations of the late Roman phase to forces fighting for and against Napoleon at Leipzig. Lower Saxony includes Hanover, and Westphalia was once part of Saxon before it was divided in 1181 to cull down its prominence in German politics.
To take nothing away from your point, but, to be fair on Unlucky General, I think he was taking about a wide margin of what we consider to be Saxon within the confined of what we loosely define as the Medieval period.
-
Is this in reference to the British wargaming scene? I've no experience of other European perceptions of the Vikings, but I'm pretty sure the reason Vikings are so well liked here involves two factors:
1. We perceive them as those rough pioneers, the last free people before everything was ruined by Christians and their rigidity. Better yet they battled against those other stuffy Europeans and even won so must be better. Going wherever the f**k they want, setting fire to everything, getting rat bothered and shagging so hard things started to fall off.
2. Culture. I think a lot of Brits (read English, sure the Welsh and Scots are more into their Dark Age history) just don't believe they have a Culture. "Vikings" are an easy identifiable historical group that has an apparently exciting 'culture' which stands in utter opposition to todays supposedly emotionally repressed "Anglo-Saxon" culture. You can also champion "Viking" culture without attracting too much criticism. After all in the post-imperial age, its difficult to contend with the history of the last 300 years without incurring historical and/or political debate and raising questions of identity etc.
Now obviously this has nothing to do with a proper analysis of history or even of our current realities after all it seeks to avoid both. Though I think a pre-existing passing interest in the Vikings certainly helped bring us to this state. I remember a decade ago being mates with a lass who was well into "Viking History" and when I asked her what she thought about the Saxons she brushed them off as being a bunch of smelly stuffy roobs who never bathed and weren't particularly sophisticated. The Vikings were everything the Saxons weren't.
Flash forward years later and I volunteer every Friday at the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. I'm almost always dumped with looking after the Staffordshire Hoard exhibit (which imo, is really the best exhibit BMAG has to offer) and after spending hours with all that stuff I can virtually memorize each and every piece (my favourite piece is the Iron sword hilt that originates from Germany and predates the rest of the hoard by a few centuries, one hell of a story there!). However I think outside the significance of the Staffordshire hoard for archaeologists and historians, most visitors just saw it as gold. I remember distinctly having card board cut outs of Saxon warriors guarding the entrances and visitors referring to them and the exhibit as 'vikings' or 'viking gold'.
Now could all this have an impact on Dark age wargaming? Definitely, as popular media churns out more games and series on Vikings they'll remain a popular choice even if the only reason is a simple, honest "I think they're kinda cool".
-
2. Culture. I think a lot of Brits (read English, sure the Welsh and Scots are more into their Dark Age history) just don't believe they have a Culture.
Of course, to the Welsh the Saxons were literally the dudes who nicked most of our country and forced us into a little bit to the west. They are the original 'English' enemy, never mind the fact that the Norman and Norman descendants were the ones who actually did most of the oppressing! Welsh culture certainly does primarily tap into pre-Saxon (or even pre-Roman) themes, or the Victorian reinvention of them.
-
I do think there's something here, at least in Britain and the various former settler colonies. There's a sort of... blandness that seems to have adhered to the pop image anglo-saxons, which is not at all fair.
Vikings are cool, because they're the last well-known polytheist lots in western Europe so they're immediately distinct if you're picking sports teams. Plus I think there's this maybe interesting juxtaposition with contemporary stereotypes of Scandinavian countries, which all have pretty nice PR now - kind, attractive, well adjusted people, with most of the sordid portions of their histories brushed nicely under a rug, and you stick that alongside the cartoon vikings swilling ale and going on adventures. And the figures! Because we think of them as having got around a lot, from a wargame standpoint you can just have a lot of viking figures and they always work just having a punch-up with each other, and half your collection can almost always just stand in for anglo-saxons if you take the "cool" models out. And outside of Britain you have options for raids on across the western coasts and into the mediterranean, palling around with the byzantines, fighting in eastern Europe... lots of scope for the same set of minis (and we can accept the mild anachronisms).
And then you have the Normans - not that I'm particularly a fan, really - but, like their norse antecedents, they do have the benefit of getting around some. If you're an early medieval wargamer, you can use the same figures for Normans, early crusaders, frankish mercenaries in the south, Iberians - so they have versatility going for them too.
But what does that leave for the poor (anglo)saxons? They go from being hired goons and the ruination of roman britain to local bullies to settled villagers who lost in 1066 real quick - there's a sense staid WASPy repression to them. It's really quite hard to keep your aethelstans from your aethelreds, and if you go to the effort of making them look suitably distinct from your hairy vikings of the 800s, then they just seem less versatile.
An age ago I was reading a book on nation-building, and the author opined that it seems that a particularly English form of national mythmaking emerges in the early modern period, where the cultural norm becomes to paint the archetype of Englishness as the bland but effective bureaucrat, who, when needs must, will pick up arms or make art or build cool machines, but for the most part is content to sit in the shire and read a paper - but that book leapt to mind when I was reading this thread. Like all myths there's a lot of rose-tinting going on, but I think the later anglo-saxons, post Christianisation, suffer and/or benefit from that.
-
Longstrider, I think you've nailed it. The Vikings get a great press from kids books, TV documentaries , TV drama series , museum exhibitions all over the world. I was in France a few years ago and found a fascinating exhibition in a museum there on the Vikings in Europe, and we recently had a major exhibition at the British Museum. In York we have the "Jorvik Viking Centre", I don't think we have anything similar for the Anglo-Saxons. The nearest would be the small museum at Sutton Hoo in out-of-the-way darkest Suffolk. No wonder they are so popular in wargaming circles when they are so engrained in popular culture. Add to that their gaming flexibility and you have a winning combination.
-
To bring back Puster‘s point: We have the Saxon problem also in Germany.
They are far less popular than the Vikings. And it was those guys who fought Romans, conquered Britain, resisted Charlemagne and inspired Tolkien for his Riders of Rohan.
I’m a museum curator for the prehistoric collection in Hanover. My colleagues present one of the biggest collections of saxon artifacts. There is a lot of interest on the local level. People interested in migration period or medieval history. Local clubs financing excavations etc.
But it’s nothing compared to our northern neighbors, who have viking stuff. And with the continental Saxons you also have all the cool stuff: germanic pantheon, raiding around the world etc. Maybe it’s just media referring to itself without going deep itno the burdensome scholarly texts?
-
I don't believe there are many areas in Europe, outside the Scandinavian countries of course, who refer to Viking symbols for their identity... That's the case in Normandy (France) and is remarkable when you know the usual tendancy of many French administrations and local councils to get rid of medieval-looking or supposedly "ancien régime" symbols.
Till recently the official emblem of Région Basse-Normandie (lower = western, Normandy) looked very much like a Viking longship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fr/thumb/f/fa/R%C3%A9gion_Basse-Normandie_%28logo%29.svg/320px-R%C3%A9gion_Basse-Normandie_%28logo%29.svg.png)
Eastern and western Normandy having been reunited in 2015, the new emblem of Région Normandie shows the Plantagenet lions (deprived of their claws and some other parts, poor beasts) on a field which very much looks like a Viking ship sail (or ar least people would believe it is).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fr/thumb/7/72/Logo_R%C3%A9gion_Normandie.svg/287px-Logo_R%C3%A9gion_Normandie.svg.png)
-
Does this signal Normandy is about to accept the suzerainty of England? I wish you had done this four years earlier, you could have saved everyone a lot of bother. ;)
I quite like the Basse-Normandie logo. Looks like a cos lettuce leaf about to be overcome by a tsunami.
-
Personally my thing will always be Saxons in this period,Unlucky General may remember a couple of Saxon vs Norman games we played...
Anyway could I suggest that for anyone interested should read Guy Halsall’s books for a different perspective :)
-
Does this signal Normandy is about to accept the suzerainty of England?
They would say it should be the other way round... lol (...or at least till the early 13th century).
As usual, although there was everything at hand (the heraldry etc.) the regional council decided to hire a creative agency from Paris so it would look more serious. These professionals erased the (historical) blue claws of the leopards, and suggested that the best name to advertise Normandie could be "Normandie". These clever ideas did cost 140,000 euro from taxpayers money.
Well, at least (back to topic) it shows that when in need for local historical references the Viking era is appealing.
(...and perhaps also the fact that when people of Normandy visit neighbouring Brittany they see Breton flags everywhere and see how a feeling of local identity can boost economy and tourism etc. so they wanted their own, and Vikings seem more fashionable to some people than the traditional culture of rural Normandy, but that's another political subject).
-
Interesting, I think Normandy as a region does play on its Viking Heritage so not surprised that their motifs reflect this. When I talk to those of my Parisian work-colleagues with a good knowledge of history they acknowledge that the people of Normandy are "different".....much as it can pain them!
-
I think it's just an overall image problem. Some relatively new scholarship is shedding more light on the true Saxon heroes of Dark Age Britain though. I highly recommend King of the North by Max Adams. Centers on the military and political life of Oswald Iding but also goes much deeper than just "Whiteblade" who was btw was Tolkien's inspiration for Aragorn son of Arathorn and a right interesting warlord. Although I must say my favorite of the Anglicine warlords is Penda of Mercia followed by Aethelflead, Lady of Mercia.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61qvPR0j5mL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
I love all dark age/early medieval history.
I have the following armies in my collection:
Arthurian
Saxon
Norman
Viking
Byzantine
Generic Feudal
Feudal Fantasy
I have most of these armies in 10/15/25mm scales.
The Saxons are one of my favorites. I love the gritty, earthy colors, especially the greens and browns that look so effective when shaded. My latest addition is a Footsore band of Saxons led by Alfred. The figures were just TOO good not to have. Like most of us, I am thrifty when it comes to collecting, priding myself on finding good deals on most of my figures. The Alfred model (Gripping Beast) was so good, I debated paying $8 for a single bare metal foot figure, which I have never done. Debated it for a whole year, while I painted the rest of the band. The wife finally ordered it for me (probably thought I would never get it myself).
Saxon history is every bit as interesting as the Normans or the Vikings. Just does not get the press. Probably because they are more boring. They were basically homebodies who took care of families, business and got on with life, but got the job done on the field when needed. Just ran into some bad luck in 66. (1066, that is).
-
For those looking for a potted history; full of events that you might not have heard about, many you might have and packed with excellent humour bordering hilarity, David Crowther does an excellent job on the Anglo Saxons on his History of England Podcast:
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/podcasts/history-of-england/ (https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/podcasts/history-of-england/)
-
I've always liked Saxon armies and at various times have had early ( raiders/ foderati/ invaders of Roman Britain), middle (Alfred's armies) and later (in reality Anglo Danes) armies. They are quite different in character.
The 'traditional' loser saxons image I think came from the middle period where they simply reverted to paying off the Danes with the Danegeld.
A big but often forgotten change came in 1016 when Cnut's Danes ended the rule of the house of Wessex and England became one component in a larger empire, ruled together with Denmark (from 1019) and Norway (from 1028) so in effect England became part of a Scandinavian empire.
The Godwinesons came from Godwine, a Cnut appointed ruler of the Wessex part of England. Even though the Anglo Danes lost at Hastings they beat a viking army just over 2 weeks earlier and marched the length of the country and came close to defeating one of the most vigorous armies of the age. Their elite infantry were considered good enough to be hired by the Byzantines post Hastings as Varangians.
-
From a continental European point of view, I'm not sure if it's (just) the Saxons: it's more that the Vikings are just really rather popular!
They tend to get a lot of the screen time in shows, the focus in books and feature prominently in video games - they even have a subgenre of metal music named after them.
At least where I'm from, you rarely hear or see anything about the local boys, the Carolingians, and the few notable books or museum exhibits somewhat specialized on the topic tend to focus mainly on when the Vikings visited. Based on my limited experience at least.
All that is a positive feedback loop too of course. Specifically for wargaming, the figures that are expected to be popular may nowadays get some plastic sets from Victrix or Gripping Beast, which will then feature Vikings among their number, and as a result they are popularly played because you can get a large and varied army for cheap, or a SAGA warband out of just a single box. Meanwhile, Byzantines are only now becoming available through Fireforge, for instance the Dark Age Irish have a single sprue from Wargames Atlantic, and those aforementioned Carolingians should just be converted from Normans, if you don't fancy the available metals.
Not that I'm complaining, as, well, I do also like Vikings...
-
Coenus, I totally agree. How many Merovingian wargames armies do you see and Carolingian/Ottonian ranges are pretty thin on the ground. I guess the Anglo-Saxons are well represented by comparison!
I talk to my French work colleagues some of whom are very interested in military history. They don’t talk at all about anything post Clovis or pre-Norman.
-
I'd like to see a Charles Martel army and maybe a Visagoth too to fight the Moslem invaders.
Mark
-
Marco, agreed. I would also like to see a true “Arab Conquest army” range of the 7th century. I hear rumours that Aventine may produce some Arabs as “allies” for their Byzantines and Sassanids so there is hope....
-
That would be nice.
Mark
-
Marco, I was in correspondence with Aventine a few months ago and was told the sculptor had no interest in Arabs. Since then I hear he is thinking of adding a few packs. They would be a natural fit with both Byzantine and Sassanid ranges as Ghassanid/Lakhmid allies, and from what I know no-one produces suitable figures. Gripping Beast produced a “Desert Frontier” range but they seem to have been discontinued.
-
Coenus, I totally agree. How many Merovingian wargames armies do you see and Carolingian/Ottonian ranges are pretty thin on the ground. I guess the Anglo-Saxons are well represented by comparison!
I talk to my French work colleagues some of whom are very interested in military history. They don’t talk at all about anything post Clovis or pre-Norman.
Yes the Franks are even more under-represented than the Saxons! lol
Many reasons probably... In French it's called "le haut Moyen Âge" (thus a different meaning than High Middle Ages in English) but it seems less appealing to the public and kids than later periods: no plate armour, no fairy castles, no heraldry... Also this period was somewhat despised by French 3rd Republic nationalist historians and schoolteachers in the late 19th and early 20th C., Merovingian kings being called "rois fainéants" etc. it was not overally considered a good example for national unity and romanticism that they felt was necessary to prepare children for the next war. Time has passed since! but some contempt for this period has unconsciously survived.