Bernard Cornwell karacters in SAGA?

[guitarheroandy]

The Hardradda brothers what "age" would they fit in... (I like em so much that I went ahead and traded for them with a nice Laf'er)?

Much, much too late for the Arthurian Age (5th-7th century). The Hardrada brothers are 11th century - the armour and weapons are all wrong for the Age of Arthur.

However, don't let that stop you using them!!  
If you just want cool models that give you a 'Dark Age' feel, just go for it! Cornwell's Arthurian series may be set in the 5th century, but the fighting styles he uses in his battles (massed shieldwalls) almost certainly didn't really emerge until the 7th century and beyond and other famous Arthurian authors (including the great Rosemary Sutcliff) have Saxons wielding two-handed axes that didn't appear in Britiain until around the 10th century.

[Mo!]

Ill probably try to find a use for them in a Lord of the Rings game anyway 

Thanks for the replies!

[aecurtis]

Cornwell's Arthurian series may be set in the 5th century, but the fighting styles he uses in his battles (massed shieldwalls) almost certainly didn't really emerge until the 7th century and beyond and other famous Arthurian authors (including the great Rosemary Sutcliff) have Saxons wielding two-handed axes that didn't appear in Britiain until around the 10th century.

Mmmph.  Strange days indeed, when I find myself defending the dreadful Cornhole!

Although we now have this convenient wargaming stereotype of pre-600 Saxons fighting loosely with wee bucklers, and proper shields and shieldwalls coming later, things probably weren't that neatly separated or cut and dried.  In the case of the late Roman army, the fulcum (phoulkon) formation is described in Maurice's "Strategikon":

http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

(No-one's eyes rolled back in their heads yet?)  If we accept a close-locked shield formation was a standard formation (even if perhaps anti-cavalry) for the later legions, we should be inclined to see--in the absence of other evidence, and for the c.5-6th it is painfully rare--that the late Roman legions were most likely as tactically flexible as their earlier "imperial" counterparts.  And if the later legions could adopt shield-locked formations at need, I think it's a little dangerous to assume their their heirs, both in the British kingdoms and among the Germans who had often served them as foederati, were unfamiliar with the practice.  I find that the more you look at military developments in post-Roman Britain, there's greater continuity, and less sudden change and revolution, than we may have been led to believe.

Just re-read the Blessed Rosemary's "Sword at Sunset" for the umpteenth time.  I may be wrong, but I only remember her mentioning light axes thrown before contact; in other words, the Saxon version of the francisca.  Four actual franciscas were found in graves in the c.5th Saxon cemeteries in Alfriston and Abingdon, Sussex (in contrast to only two seaxes in the same groups of graves), and others elsewhere.  These may reflect the presence of actual Franks as foederati or mercenaries, but more likely indicate cross-Channel contact betwen the Saxons in the south of Britain and Merovingian Gaul.

As to two-handed axes--well, I'm inclined to disbelieve that for a thousand years after Divus Iulius checked out the island, that trees in Britain simply fell down by themselves.  Does a felling axe make a good war axe?  Not always.  But a felling axe uses little more metal than a spearhead, and is a lot easier to make than a nifty sword (especially the really good type found stuck in rocks or tendered by watery tarts), so I would not automatically dismiss long-hafted axes in a Saxon warband.

Heinrich Haerke, who's probably done more analyses of weapons in grave sites of the period than anyone else, wrote this paper (as just one example of his extensive work) back in the Dark Ages of the 1980s, when the last lights of civilization seemed about to go under under the onslaught of barbarians like ABBA and New Kids on the Block:

http://uni-tuebingen.academia.edu/HeinrichHarke/Papers/473252/Early_Saxon_weapon_burials_frequencies_distributions_and_weapon_combinations._In_S.C._Hawkes_ed._._Anglo-Saxon_weapons_and_warfare._Oxford_University_Committee_for_Archaeology_monograph_no._21_._Oxford_1989._49-61

(I hope the link works, 'cos it was a bugger to find...)  Note the rarity of axes in Saxon burials.  But it's not hard to imagine that a warrrior, of any class, might be buried with his sword, or spear, or francisca to take with him to hang with Wodanaz and the lads; but a general-purpose axe would be handed off to the little missus, or son, or grandson, as a perfectly good tool to keep the kindling split.  I dunno.  Just a thought.

Allen

Edit: fixed speling errer.

[Mo!]

Wow you really know your stuff! Interesting read thank you for your time!

So you don't like Cornwell do you 

[max]

I have read quite a bit on this subject, and to me it seems likely that the southern britons (where Roman presence was stornger) they fought in closer formation, the famous shield wall. Germanic tribes at this date fight in a loose formation, and it is possibel that the briton kindoms further to the west and norht (where rule by this time had passed onto british rulers) they either fought loosely or perhaps copying the romans, or even both; close on defence, looser on the attack?
Near the end of the 6th century, shield bosses became larger, and damage indicates attacks from ther front and a more passive use of the shield (whereas before it was lighter, and had a spike to attempt to catch enemies weapons), suggesting closer, supporting ranks.
On the subject on two handed axes, i always believed the bigger version to be from scandinavia (they're not called dane axe for nothing!) but i can't say anything for certain. All i will say is that my sources say '...the broad axe, first popular circa 1000'. Of course, we don't always have to believe the books   

[Patrice]

English historie is not really taught in our schools...

It was not yet called England, anyway  
"Lloegr"-ish history perhaps?

things probably weren't that neatly separated or cut and dried.

Yeees.
In my rules I accept that Romano-British trained troops with large shields can form a shield-wall and can move in shield-wall. For the Saxons I only accept it for one small group of the chief's bodyguard, and only immobile, if they move they break their wall. Some axes with half-long staff can be used but they have no bonus as the later Viking axe, they just benefit from a half-long handle which is longer than swords etc.

My friends and I have mostly miniatures from Foundry, and a few older ones which mix quite well in the lot (Citadel and old unknown minis); we are now buying Gripping Beast and WestWind to add to these troops, although size can be a problem.

We had a very good game yesterday, a big fighting and adventure for a remote northern Romano-British village whose Lady owner (a female player who fit perfectly in the role) had to negociate for protection with four rival players: two Bretons, one Saxon, and one Pict, and also she wanted them to kill a terrible giant who lived in a forest not far from the village...


I'll post more pics when I have them.

[aecurtis]

Nah, Mo!  I don't know much.  Just been reading about this period since that noted reiver Nixon was in office.  I have a grudging appreciation of the later Uhtred novels, which seem to me to be the best series.

I don't disagree, Max.  We're just drawing conclusions from a period which lacks much of the detailed information we have in other periods of military history.

It was not yet called England, anyway  
"Lloegr"-ish history perhaps?

Or just stick with Pretania/Britannia/Prydein, which confusingly has the same meaning and etymology as Cruithen-tuach/Pryden/Pictland.  Best to call it all the "Place where folk draw on themselves", perhaps?  The fact that "Britain" has survived to describe the whole lot--including the "lost lands"--suggests that the Angles and their hairy cousins were not completely successful in imprinting the island with Germanic culture!  And of course, the Celtic practices of spiking the hair and marking the skin have survived to the present day, making the persistence of "Pretani" the more noteworthy:



Allen

[max]

@ aecurtis
I'm not arguing, just putting forward all my thoughts on the period, your thoughts on the long axe have made me wonder...
The more info we have, the clearer our wargames become 

[aecurtis]

As long as you're wondering...   

Not directly relevant, but on the subject of continuity, this article describes a hoard that is assessed as probably having been deposited in the 11th century:

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/dissemination/pdf/vol27/27_027_039.pdf

But as you review the plates and descriptions of the axes, it's noteworthy that *most* of them, rather than being clearly of Scandinavian origin, are quite indistinguishable from designs used in Roman times, and continuously thereafter.

The idea keeps nagging at me that if young Ethelbreth (oh, yes: Messrs. Sellar and Yeatman have much to answer) was offered a place in a boatload of raiders headed for Thanet, and didn't happen to own a spear or sword, it might have been a terrible temptation to borrow a sharp tool from the family carpentry chest, one that looked like it might be good for whacking Britons.  And if young Ethelbreth were cut down by the likes of Peredur, or Lancelot, or even Arfur on his mighty steed Horsa, his mates might not have chucked his weapon in the ground with his bleeding corpse, but might have said (in some Ingvaeonic dialect), "Oi!  Nice axe!  I'm having that," and taken it home to work on the next boat.

Allen

[guitarheroandy]

Just re-read the Blessed Rosemary's "Sword at Sunset" for the umpteenth time.  I may be wrong, but I only remember her mentioning light axes thrown before contact; in other words, the Saxon version of the francisca.  Four actual franciscas were found in graves in the c.5th Saxon cemeteries in Alfriston and Abingdon, Sussex (in contrast to only two seaxes in the same groups of graves), and others elsewhere.  These may reflect the presence of actual Franks as foederati or mercenaries, but more likely indicate cross-Channel contact betwen the Saxons in the south of Britain and Merovingian Gaul.

I think the Saxons in Rosemary's 'The Shining Company' have huge axes...I can't remember whether or not they have them in the Sword at Sunset...haven'r re-read it in a while...

[aecurtis]

That may well be; it's been a while for me, too, and I need to read the kiddos "The Shining Company" aloud before we start playing any games. 

As a point of trivia, in "Y Gododdin", the only mention of axes concerns one of the Britons who has them along with his swords (Stanza 84, if anyone is interested)!

Or that line is actually about the same one of the Britons who wasn't much impressed by the *enemy's* axes and swords.

Or the same line isn't about axes at all, but the word supposedly meaning axes is misread, and it's all actually about another British fellow...

Ain't it great?

Allen

[Mo!]

Hahaha I love it when threats derail like this! Keep up the good work lads 

[Patrice]

The Pict on the carved stone in Rhynie is probably 6th or 7th century: later than Arthur but earlier than SAGA



He seems two be holding a long axe, but the blade is not as broad as the large crescent-shaped viking axes of later periods.

MDS miniatures makes one such figure:



Aaargh did I just write this: "later than Arthur but earlier than SAGA"... This IS a very precise historical datation ...from a wargamer's point of view, but I wonder what university scholars would think of it 

[max]

Earlier axes had quite small heads (as shown on the link), and the true 'broad axe' with a larger head appeared later.
I'm sure long shafted axes have been used for quite some time before the 5th century (germanic/pictish tribes?) but they only became 'famous' under the vikings.