Slitherine

Obviously not wanting anyone to give out any info they can't.....

Will the Huscarls be considered Elite or merely Superior in the new lists ?

What if any difference will there be between the Select Fyrd and the Great Fyrd ?

Cheers

Scrumpy wrote:Obviously not wanting anyone to give out any info they can't.....

Will the Huscarls be considered Elite or merely Superior in the new lists ?

What if any difference will there be between the Select Fyrd and the Great Fyrd ?

Cheers

Can't say for certain yet, but I would suspect:

HF, Armoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon for Huscarls.
HF, Protected, Average, Offensive Spear for Select Fyrd.
HF, Protected, Poor, Offensive Spear for Great Fyrd.

Note that Elite troops are very few and far between in the lists.

Thank you for the info.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:Obviously not wanting anyone to give out any info they can't.....

Will the Huscarls be considered Elite or merely Superior in the new lists ?

What if any difference will there be between the Select Fyrd and the Great Fyrd ?

Cheers

Can't say for certain yet, but I would suspect:

HF, Armoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon for Huscarls.
HF, Protected, Average, Offensive Spear for Select Fyrd.
HF, Protected, Poor, Offensive Spear for Great Fyrd.

Note that Elite troops are very few and far between in the lists.

Richard,

Given each 8 hides of land should support a warrior to be furnished with Sword, Spear, Helm, Byrnie (mail shirt), Axe, and Shields(s), and Horses- as Decreed by both Aethread and Cnut
I would certainly give consideration to an option that the "Select Fyrd" (the terms Select and Great are apparently coined in the 1960's) could have contingents which could be classified as Armoured.

Spike

(War in the Middle ages- ISBN 0-631-14469-2
Osprey- Campaign of the norman conquest- ISBN 1-84176-228-8
Osprey- Anglo saxon theign 1-85532-349-4

Also see re-enactor websites @
http://www.regia.org/saxons2.htm
http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resourc ... saxons.htm

Can I assume you will include a MF option for the lightened Huscarls, covering the Welsh campaigns of the mid 1060s ?

I hope there is an option for at least some of the Select Fyrd and/or Housecarls to fight as efficient cavalry.

Yes and yes - probably

I wasnt aware that the Aglo Saxons really used a lot of mounted troops if any, I know they rode to battles but from what I've read tended to dsmount once at the battle and formed their shield walls (ie Stamford Bridge and Hastings), even going back to there fighting the Vikings in a few set battle mounted tended to be rarely used if at all

Earl Ralph the Timid commanded at Worcester where they tried and failed.

There has been considerable debate on this matter. Wargames tend to treat the early English as just infantry fighters but there is evidence of pre-conquest Englishmen fighting as cavalry. (Not just the Earl Ralph episode where he, a Norman, insisted on making the local soldiers fight on horseback when it is stated that was contrary to their custom - this applying to those fyrdmen living near on the Welsh border which was largely of steep wooded hills and one may suppose the locals fought in a way suitable to the conditions.)

It is also very unlikely that the English would have been so peculiar as to neglect cavalry forces when their neighbours had them.

The English Historical Review has a good article on the subject but I am afraid I cannot remember who the author was.

Wargamers tend to be divided on the issue, and it would be good for army lists to have an option that enables cavalry forces to be fielded.

Quintus wrote:Wargamers tend to be divided on the issue, and it would be good for army lists to have an option that enables cavalry forces to be fielded.

They do. They are Cavalry, Undrilled, Average, Armoured, Light Spear, Swordsmen.

They can of course dismount as their normal type. (The Huscarls are of course Superior on foot, but deemed to be somewhat less effective when mounted).

Yippee!

Things just sound better and better.

(The all-infantry view of the "Anglo-Saxons", that has been so strong in organised wargaming over the years, has been somewhat frustrating for the likes of me. I can see me spending a lot of time painting an English army that comes close to how I believe it really was.)

Fenton wrote:I wasnt aware that the Aglo Saxons really used a lot of mounted troops if any, I know they rode to battles but from what I've read tended to dsmount once at the battle and formed their shield walls (ie Stamford Bridge and Hastings), even going back to there fighting the Vikings in a few set battle mounted tended to be rarely used if at all

One of the accounts of Stamford Bridge has the Saxons charging mounted

Now whilst this was written many years after the event when mounted warfare was definitely used so may be anachronistic the account does have a number of details that are correct for the time of Stamford Bridge so it may not be wrong ...

Guy Halsall's "Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West" has some good discussion on the topic of English fighting methods if you're interested.

This picture might be of interest.

Pictish Stone at Aberlemno Church Yard

This is believed to represent the battle of Nechtansmere in 685AD. This took place between the invading King Ecgfrith of Northumbria and the Picts under King Bridei. This resulted in a defeat for the Northumbrian English.

The carving shows the Northumbrian warriors wearing helmets with long nose guards, whilst the Picts are bare-headed.

Useful info re the bulk of the Saxon foot, thanks.

Slight problem regarding the lighter troops though, as I am in the middle of basing a pile of late Saxons/Anglo-Danes.

I can see that the javelinmen will be LF, along with any slingers, but what of the archers? LF or MF? Or might both be possible?

ermtony wrote:Useful info re the bulk of the Saxon foot, thanks.

Slight problem regarding the lighter troops though, as I am in the middle of basing a pile of late Saxons/Anglo-Danes.

I can see that the javelinmen will be LF, along with any slingers, but what of the archers? LF or MF? Or might both be possible?

LF and very few of them.

rbodleyscott wrote:LF and very few of them.

Thanks Richard. Makes good sense to me.

Quintus wrote:
This picture might be of interest.

Pictish Stone at Aberlemno Church Yard

This is believed to represent the battle of Nechtansmere in 685AD. This took place between the invading King Ecgfrith of Northumbria and the Picts under King Bridei. This resulted in a defeat for the Northumbrian English.

The carving shows the Northumbrian warriors wearing helmets with long nose guards, whilst the Picts are bare-headed.

Note that the Northumbrian kingdom was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom at this date IIRC and the Northumbrian warriors with the helmets are mounted.

Those interested in Saxon armies may wish to ponder this

But can the stone, from the late 7th Century, be considerd as evidence of tactics/fighting stle some 400 years later?

This could be like using the Bayeux Tapestry as evidence for the fighting styles and equipment at Towton.

I'm not saying to ignore the Aberlemno stone - just treat it with caution when using it as evidence of "Anglo Saxon" tactics outside of seventh century Northumbria.

X - his Mark

I agree but at least it provides evidence that the early English had developed cavalry forces since arriving in Britain.

There is a fairly recent historical tradition that the English always fought on foot, and this evidence (and other later evidence) is to the contrary.