Which rules are best for mid 19th century warfare. Of course it helps to know which continent your on because apparently the North America Civil Wars were nothing like those happening in Europe…..
My current preoccupations are with the Italian Wars of Unification that, depending on your viewpoint, ran from 1820-1871 or 1848-1870 or even just 1859-1861!
Whichever timeline you choose the events threw up numerous conflicts across the Italian peninsula.
These last three were considered here and here for my Kloster Arens Encounter
I guess I had settled on the Neil Thomas set with Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles offering a solution for larger battles generated by my mythical campaigns.
The thing is I had not actually tested Piquet for this period so that was still an unknown. And so was A Gentlemans War for that matter.
And then at Hammerhead 2022 I played Fire and Fury. It reminded me that this ruleset had caught my eye the odd decade ago (!) only to fade away.
I enjoyed the participation game and to cut a long story short, tracked down a 1990 1st Edition courtesy of Dave Ryan at Caliver Books. It included some photocopy extracts of post publication comments which suggested a lot of improvements! There were a lot of complaints at the time it would seem. Nice touch from Dave Ryan to include these contemporary articles with this ruleset.
With so much negative noise why bother with them though? Well they have continued to be published. And it seems they have been morphed into other era’s. My Hammerhead participation game was for the Renaissance: Perhaps this endurance shows the core mechanics work for lots of gamers.
I thought, just maybe an ACW (American Civil War) ruleset might suit my 19th century European wars in Italy after all.
The Italian Wars of Unification fit between the Crimean Wars and the Franco Prussian War while they also bracket the American Civil Wars.
Next up will be some simple tests of Fire & Fury to start with.
*In 2020 I was all Anglo Saxon and shieldwalls and tested a few rulesets to see which might work for me.
So this is part 3 of a three wargame test of shieldwalls using two rulesets – Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas and Dux Bellorum (DuB) by Dan Mersey.
In the first two games which used AMW I first tested two shieldwalls against each other and then pitched a mounted force against a shieldwall.
The third game used Dux Bellorum. Now I have used AMW quite a few times whereas this was only a second time use of Dux Bellorum (DuB). DuB was published in 2012, 5 years after AMW and arguably a different offering. AMW perhaps looks back to traditional gaming techniques refreshed while DuB uses more recent approaches.
It emphasises the “leader’s influence” and is very much a game to be enjoyed. So although I think the latter applies to AMW, AMW is more about the collective 8 units working together to achieve victory? By that I mean the capabilities given to the units are the signficiant factor
I used the same “impetus style” elements (80mm x 60mm) to represent each DuB unit.
Instead of Nobles, Retainers, Peasants, Spearmen and Archers we have Companions, Shieldwall, Warriors, Riders, Bow and Skirmishers.
In keeping with a more modern terminology a stat line defines each type of unit.
Move – movement allowance in base widths (BW)
Bravery – equates to command, control and morale of the unit
Aggression (including missiles) – the striking effect of a unit
Protection – the defence value of a unit
Cohesion – endurance, numerical strength, will to fight ( so not the same as bravery above?) interesting that this cohesion is the stat that declines during the game though. Does that mean the unit always has the same morale but loses its will to fight?
Building an army is quick and simple. I went for two almost identical forces of 32 points maximum.
1 x 5 point companion + leader
3 x 5 point shieldwall nobles
3 x 3 point shieldwall ordinaries
2 x 1 point bow skirmishers
Except the “tinkerman” changed the Kings force swopping out one unit of foot skirmishers for some 2 point mounted skirmishers armed with javelins.
So in theory one side had the advantage of 1 point! 32pts (for the king) versus 31pts (for the rebels).
The Rebel Force was the Aggressor who normally goes first in each turn and each phase of a turn.
The battle took place on a plain devoid of any terrain features.
A companion or leader element was supported by 3 noble elements (1 unit to the left and 2 units to the right). At their left flank was 2 ordinary shieldwall units with 1 such element on the right flank. At each end of the line a skirmisher element of bowmen was deployed in the case of the rbels. The only difference was the Kings army having a unit of mounted javelin riders and only one unit of bow skirmishers. These horsemen were deployed on the Kings Earls right flank.
In the photos you will see some mounted troops in the centre of the Kings shieldwall – being a bit short of foot units these posed as foot companions in this battle! It should not affect the visual aspects of this post.
The arrangement being mirrored meant that each unit was matched except for nobles versus ordinary shieldwalls and the mounted javelin horse who squared up to some bow armed foot skirmishers.
roughed out set up of both forces before tinkering………
Narrative
Earl Toki continued his relentless march through the Wessex and even now the King still did not attend to him. He just sent another Earl, Earl Mathedoi, a Breton immigrant, to deal with Earl Toki.
Earl Mathedoi gathered a scratch force of infantry and again pursued the wily Earl Toki.
Earl Toki elected to give battle again on a flat plain confident that his men would be victorious whatever enemy force was sent against him.
Game set up
I used the set up rules positioning the two walls as close together as possible and aligned – 3 BW’s from an imaginary table centre lineThe Rebels are on the right in this view above. The rules are in small font compared to the AMW rules – not so good for quick reading mid game but the quick reference sheets were very useful.I used a large dice to show the units cohesion – red for the companions/leader. I used some silver beads to show their leadership points.Rebel left wing bowmen with some leadership points and a failed bravery throw (2 x D6 needing equal or less than 6)The right flank rebel bow skirmishers has more luck and moves forward. Generally small WHITE dice show hits for the rebels as well as tests such as braveryEarl Mathedoi with his impressive 6 cohesion and golden leadership points – both armies started with the basic 6 points leadership allocation.I like the leader bases even though neither DuB or AMW require them.An Ordinary shieldwall fails to move needing 7 – they then used the leadership points to achieve the roll.elsewhere on the rebel left flank good bravery throws were to be seenEventually Earl Toki and his rebels advance on the unmoving KIngs men
Earl Mathedoi elects to wait on events – he who waits………maybe?fruitless exchanges between bow armed skirmishers on the rebel right flank. Blue or purple small dice show hits for the King or things like bravery testsequally fruitless bowfire on the rebel leftThe two shieldwalls make contact – the rebels moved as a group using the leaders successful throw for bravery.Kingsmen at top throw basic aggression dice (three for ordinary shieldwall and four for noble shieldwall). The rebels moving into contact throw an extra dice on this occasion. The kings ordinaries won their fight and pushed back their opponents while their noble neighbours were both beaten and had to retire half a base width. Feels a bit like DBA here.Rebel success on each flank while the Kings men drive back the rebel centreThe Kings men attack in the flanks but lose again some initiative in the centreThe rebel bow skirmishers on the right pick off(with a 5 die roll) some more javelin horseman on the left flank they can just be seen in the bottom left trying to stay clear of the pesky bowmenon the rebel right flank some swift exchanges finally result in the rebel bow skirmishers fleeing the fielda bit disconcerting view that shows best the cohesion losses with the rebels having the worst of it.however the aggressive attacks by the rebels still give them some advantages, in DuxB attackers are well rewarded with more chances to hit – the issue is can the dice role well and has the repeller played their leadership points not so well?The rebels have the upper hand in the centre in attacksand also on the rebel left flank the rebels have the potential to damage the kings men.now the dice roll well for the rebels on their right flank as seen from the kings side herein the centre it is a disaster as the Mathedoi throws well – very well.On the rebels left flank they also stumble with the Javelin armed horse throwing in their lot as well.Earl Mathedoi’s left hand ordinary shieldwall collapses thoughin a blur they are gone!again this pitcure shows the cohesion dice well – everywhere both sides are on the verge of collapseThe rebel left flank bowmen skirmish with their javelin horsed opponents – firing into a melee is permitted under certain conditions. Here Mathedoi has thoughfully put some leadership protection in place to save the day for now.The battle reaches its height and yet the battle lines are still discernableThe rebels right flank shieldwall make contact with the kings left flank skirmishers who put up a fight using some valuable leadership points – opting to go for the kill rather than in this case saving themselves.in the centre the battle goes against the Kings menOn the kings right flank disaster strikes – three rebel sixes destroy the kings ordinary shieldwall and Mathedoi’s right flank shieldwall collapsesThe ordinary shieldwall retires from the fieldAgain the rebel skirmishers fail to make any impact on the kings javelin armed horsemen who bravely now face the rebel shieldwall alone. It is here you must remember Dan Merseys words that the battle is a whirling mix of individual fights and not the apparent order conveyed by our neatly based models!The final act as everywhere the rebels inflict terrible losses on the kings lineThe kings ordinary men still have some fight in them (the blue dice) though, as they destroy a rebel shieldwall while their noble brothers succumb at their sideMathedoi, his companions and more nobles give up the fight. The loss of units earlier in the battle has reduced the kings leadership points and fatally weakened Mathedois ability to keep units in the fight including his own hearth troopsEven the kings javelin horsmen run out of luckIn the distance the javelin horsemen flee as do the nobles, companions and Mathedoi himself. Nearby some rebels give up the fight as wellAs Mathedoi is swept away by his own troops he has no time to reflect on how his decision to wait on events probably made all the difference between victory and defeat. Dux Bellorum on this occasion rewarded the brave and agressive rebelsAs the fighting ends and the line thins out, the Kings men have just 3 units left and with their leader fleeing they are defeated. The rebels hold the field with 7 of their 9 units intact.
In my next post I will comment on these three battles.
Narrative ending for now
Earl Toki was beginning to feel confident as were his men who had now seen off many of the Kings forces. Who would come against them now?
Nobles – Dark Age Infantry – medium armour, Elite between 1-3 units
Peasants – Dark Age Infantry – light armour, Average between 4-6 units
Archers – Light Infantry (bow) – light armour, Levy between 0-1 units
Special rules
Shieldwall can be adopted by both Nobles and Peasants. This formation imposes movement limits while providing enhanced saving rolls equivalent to the best you can get.
Integral Archers gives extra firepower to a unit just in the first turn of combat
Cavalry – one unit of nobles can be reclassed as
Cavalry – Heavy Cavalry – light armour, Elite
The warband option only applies to armies before 600AD and is mandatory before that date. I was interested in the shieldwall so my armies were post 600AD and in fact more like 900AD, what’s a few hundred years in dark age time………..
The Gloom of morning catches the scene – Rebels in the foreground with the Kings men approaching in the distance
I opted for two identical armies conveniently named Wessex 1 (Kings Earl) and Wessex 2 (Rebel Earl). Nothing like some internal dissention.
The 8-unit armies were both the same.
2 units of Nobles
4 units of Peasants
Shieldwall capability applied to the above 6 units
1 unit of Archers
1 unit of Cavalry
I had intended to give the rebels the integral archery option but forgot to do that in the actual game. So much for testing!
The core of each army were peasants and noble units forming shieldwall
The six infantry units squared up against each other while the light infantry supported the right wing in each case with the Cavalry withdrawn on the left.
The Rebel Earl stood with his men in the ShieldwallThese Kings men look like interlopers both mounted and on foot, hmmmmm
The nobles were in the centre of each line and both lines matched each other so as the battle got underway it was noble against noble and peasant against peasant. I did not pitch each leader’s unit against each other though. Remember that the leader confers no extra benefit or disadvantage if lost.
At the centre of both lines the leaders fought adjacent to each other, something which would affect the battle outcome in an unexpected way.
The Kings men expected to make short work of these insolent rebels.
The sun began to shine although the glare did not seem to affect the rebels on the left flank
In the early stages, it was the rebels who made rapid gains on both flanks racking up hits before everything hit a stalemate or rather a slower rate of hits, now being equally inflicted.
The Kings men of the left flank take an early barrage of hits omniously.On the rebel left the Kings men were just taking a bit more punishment than they handed out. Maybe these rebels were no pushover after all
Finally, the left flank peasant unit of the Kings army fled the field after some hard fighting. And even the Cavalry behind them were no support to keep them in line.
The left flank peasant shieldwall dark age infantry reduced to a yellow ring indicating two bases left had already incurred 3 of the 4 available hits left to them on this ring. Three hits (yellow dice) were incurred while no saving throws made the cut (orange, 3,1,2 versus required 6) so with one base lost a nasty twist in AMW rules is triggered – throw for morale due to a base loss. Here the Kings men needed 4-6 and threw a measly 2. Already down to one base that went as well. The left wing of the Kings men leave the field in full view of the cavalry reserveThe Kings men cavalry reserve approaches the shieldwall which was now reforming. As they came up to the line the levy archers poured a few arrows into the hapless cavalry
These Kings horsemen rode into the fray. They crashed into the victorious rebel peasant unit who held them. The battle now continued until the rebels centre crumpled and a noble unit turned tail. The triumphant Kings Army Leader drove forward into the gap and turned onto the Rebel Leaders flank to deliver the killer blow. However, the rebel cavalry charged into the centre and took the Kings Noble Leader unit in the rear.
A rebel nobles unit on a yellow ring and with 2 hits remaining repeats the same trick of losing a base to combat (yellow 4,6 versus orange saving throws of 1,2) and then their remaining base to morale (green 2 when a 3-6 would have done the job)The rebel nobles unit retires leaving the Kings men with the opportunity to exploit the collapse of the rebel centre.The rebel leader and the right flank are dangerously weak with 2 red rings and one yellowthe kings men leader attacks the rebel leader while the rebel cavalry reserve come to the rescue of their leaderNow the tables are turned as the Kingsmen leader unit is caught in the rear by the Rebel cavalry
Meanwhile the Kings own cavalry unit gave up its fight with the rebel peasants and left the field. And in the centre the Kings Leading Nobles also succumbed, failing to destroy the Rebel nobles and unable to deal with the Rebel Cavalry attacking their rear.
On the Kings men left flank their own cavalry have had enough and retireThe kingsmen leader unit routs and the adjacent peasant shieldwall joins them.
A Kings Army peasant unit also abandoned the fight at this point.
Th Kings Army had now been reduced to just 1 noble unit, 1 peasant unit and 1 unit of archers. All three of these units were quickly attacked by the Rebels. The result was no longer in doubt. And the first to flee were the nobles!
The remaining Kings men shieldwall is now outflanked while the archers on the right flank can do little but watch their army disperse and look to their own survival.The end of resistance by the Kings men as the last noble unit abandons the field
With just two Kings Army units remaining the Rebels had the field and could celebrate a great victory.
The Kings Army had melted away and now the Rebels could enjoy their freedom for a while.
in this game I used rings and dice. You could use coloured dice to achieve the same result although I think the combination is quite neat.The battle turned on situations where the combat losses forced a morale test which when you fail it can be devastating – here a unit goes from blue (4 bases) through green (3 bases) and onto yellow (2 bases). Yes I know its really pale blue in the photo but the middle ring looks green in real life – ok thats sea green!
The casualty method I adopted here was to show nothing where a unit had all 4 bases intact with no losses. When the first hits were incurred the unit acquired a dark blue ring and a die showing hits received. A pale blue/green ring showed a unit was now on three bases. No die meant all 4 hits were intact. More casualties took units through yellow rings for just two bases remaining before the last remaining base was indicated by a red ring. You could use coloured dice of course.
The game uses saving throws which is something of a regression for some rule writers. In a way you get no more dice rounds than DBA – one for one against. What you do get more of is the number of die thrown for a unit in a fight. That’s the buckets of dice syndrome. That means you throw 4 dice at full strength instead of always just one in DBA per base/unit. On the upside even DBA has the dreaded list of “plus or minus factors” and AMW only uses this approach in the optional rules per army which add some flavour.
With no push backs the line remains static or rather you don’t see the push and shove and gradual break down of the line: It is not played out physically by the gamer, so you have to imagine it happening. This is a greater abstraction than DBA where the push back is required to be seen and of course gives combat benefits being integral to the next or adjacent base combat. DBA push back also alerts both players to outcomes allowing helicopter management: Appropriate for tournament play maybe. Of course, “transparency” is a competition issue and “imagination” has no place in tournament play.
During the slogging match the rebels were losing and at times it looked like the king’s men would make the decisive shieldwall breakthroughs. In fact, it was the Cavalry that made the difference. The king’s cavalry filled a gap in the line but were then quickly seen off by the shield wall peasants. The rebel cavalry was far more useful when the kings leading nobles exposed their rear in attacking the rebel leaders.
The moves I made were all logical – in the heat of battle why would you not descend on your enemy leader’s rear to finish him off and Leaders wheeling to expose a flank or rear – so what – those cavalry in the distance might not move our way……but they did.
For both armies I sent in the cavalry in response to an adverse situation that would be seen by the cavalry sat patiently to the nearby.
The combats were close such that on another day it might be the rebels fleeing from the field.
History Note: If you accept that Anglo-Saxons rode to war, which I do, then the army list is fine. The two situations in the battle (allowed under the rules) suggest why their use may have been more restricted and why the rules could be amended.
The Kings Cavalry charged a Shieldwall that had just defeated another Shieldwall. If we allow for the defeated men to drift away the cavalry will have been faced with a tired but formed body of men experiencing euphoria and relief. It is possible to conceive that the cavalry leader believed they were so tired that he could drive them off. In the event the Shieldwall reformed and defeated the cavalry. That seems reasonable as well.
In the other situation the cavalry reserve could see their own centre begin to collapse and after they own men had streamed away, they could see the “backs” of enemy troops. That assumes they could tell the difference at a distance. It seems reasonable to make that assumption because their own men had just left a gap in the Shieldwall line. With the backs of the enemy in sight why not charge into the fray.
In both cases it is about the morale and the decision to move rather than the outcome of the subsequent fight. And AMW allows you freedom to move. No pips, no movement decisions testing and no morale tests prior to moving.
AMW Rules note
On the face of just one playtest the temptation is to put in some control. AMW is attractive because it lacks the rule quantity of other sets. Restricting decisions to move or rather introducing wide ranging controls feels wrong here. Can we solve this problem another way? I think so and the answer lies in AMW having optional rules.
The Anglo-Saxon cavalry was an optional rule itself.
AMW House Rule No1
Anglo-Saxon Cavalry are permitted in battle and may advance into combat areas. They may charge into contact. After one turn of fighting they withdraw one full move unless they have at least one more base advantage than the unit they attacked.
So, the thinking here is that unless they make some rapid impact, turning the fight in their favour, they will use their mobility to withdraw before being destroyed.
This is not such a punishing rule as it seems. The withdrawn cavalry remains a threat and effectively may pin the opposition or at least make them think twice about their next moves. And they remain one of the three units required by the whole army to stay in the fight.
I think this rule reflects the likelihood of Anglo-Saxon cavalry being opportunists and pursuers in battles where the victory tide has turned one way or another.
Summary
The game was enjoyable and the result fine. I must admit allowing either army to fight with 3 units always looks a bit odd. Yet if you think in terms of abstraction – there are other men on the field all retiring or surrendering and not modelled. The few units left on the field show where the remaining core of resistance still exists. I can live with that.
One final thought is that shieldwalls are strong. How strong are they against a concerted cavalry attack though?
In my next post I will explore the classic dark ages infantry versus cavalry conflict.
I have enjoyed the first book so can look forward to many more…………..
Having bought the first book of Bernard Cornwell’s Last Kingdom series and found it an easy and interesting read – so nearly finished in short order – I have bought part 2.
The first book ends with a big battle and the hero? well the storyteller, has gone from childhood to close proximity to the big players of the day Alfred and Guthrum.
Uhtred is used by Bernard Cornwell to observe both sides and he conveniently lives and fights for both. It allows him to comment on a whole range of subjects and this in turn enriches the story. He can also play out the conflict between christian and pagan showing the differences through Uhtreds own eyes.
I have found Bernard Cornwell writes in such a way that you tumble along with the words, sentences and paragraphs aiding rather than hindering your progress. Likewise he pitches the content just right – you want entertainment and enjoyment – not a history lesson.
Yet the depictions of events are sufficiently convincing to make the reading more compelling. I can think of other fiction where a good storyline is hard going precisely because the background material is so jarring.
elements of impetus having received their red brown base colour
My anglo saxon army is growing with the addition of many more bases. I am settled on 80mm wide impetus style basing where the idea is to inject a little variety into figure presentation. This is quite easy with strelets who produce a reasonable pose mix with each set they make. In the case of the anglo saxons it gets even better when you buy they big battle sets as I did. The stamford bridge set is the only one currently available though.
Bases have the red brown base coating applied in foreground and plain budgie grit in background
I decorate the base with budgie grit on pva glue (games workshop idea) and use a three colour painting technique. Dark red earth base colour with heavy dry brush of yellow ochre over it followed by a light yellow/white top dry brush. I am looking for sandy and dare I say summer like conditions, no green green grass of home for my troops.
peco grass to the fore and little big man shield transfers
I used some little big man shield transfers for 28mm anglo saxon bucklers on a few of the figures. They blend in ok I think.
I finish with some foliage. In this case I am using Peco Railway scenics which are autumnal or greenish brown grasses.
This unit is actually going to be also the start of my ottonian/lotharingian or very late Carolingians. More about the red/green colours in a later postalthough I have not based the figures for shield wall as described in various historical records my anglo saxons still look good en masse.
So thats it for now, next up on show are my first “el cid” Hat 1/72 figures posing as Italo-Normans.
Many years ago, although it seems only recently to me, I bought several titles from the Warhammer Ancient Battles booklist – they included Siege & Conquest – all about the siege; Chariot Wars; the WAB basic rule set itself; The Chinese Warring States and all that plus Shieldwall. A fairly random mix you might say which is correct.
I never really bought into Warhammer or Games Workshop after I returned to wargaming in the late 1990’s. I dropped neatly into 15mm and DBA. The 600mm square tabletop battlefield, relatively small metal mountains that could be painted and a simple ruleset that was popular all fitted my constrained interests and time.
And yet despite plenty of enjoyment 15mm became a compromise and once the restrictions on table size were removed I returned to the idea of 25mm (old style) which I suppose is my roots. Despite buying some 28mm figures that size has failed to ignite my interest.
I have discovered that 20mm/25mm or 1/72 is the figure size that appeals to me: Sufficient in size for each individual warrior, painting repays in the visual look while the table top is of the order 6′ x 4′ or 1.8m x 1.2m which is my limit.
And my 25mm wargaming odyssey has taken me back to the past with 1/72 plastics displacing metals but in the modern style from prolific manufacturers such as Zvezda, Strelets, Hat, Ceasar and the occasional Orion, Mars, Emhar and ok even vintage Revell. But it is not all plastic – tumbling dice miniatures have offered up some really nice figures to compliment the plastics. And so to have SHQ, Newline and Irregular Miniatures.
One thing I have done since returning to the hobby is read and that includes reading rulesets. In fact reading them more than I play them!
You need only one ruleset to play wargames for any one period. So I can’t explain why I have dozens. Yet rulesets are personal statements. In their way they seem to me someones interpretation of history albeit through their take on gaming mechanisms. So they are still history books in a way and thats how I consume them.
I only have historic wargames rulesets – fantasy wargaming is something I left behind in the 1970’s – Sci-Fi I could never get my head round.
And fantasy was for me doing dungeons and dragons in the 1970’s before it all took off. And yet my historical interests have always been tempered by an interest in historical fiction. Not the Sharp novels ilk. More a case of a parallel universe where so much is instantly recognisable yet the story lines, characters, countries have different names.
Each to their own as they say.
Well being inclined to Anglo-Saxons at the moment I dug out the Shieldwall book which I kept because like Chariot Wars it felt like a well researched and back then a well designed package. I never played the WAB ruleset with Shieldwall. Just maybe I might give it a go now.
Of course it is approaching vintage (25 years plus) and oldhammer is probably in the Oxford dictionary as a particular type of old wargamer already.
The constant theme though is to enjoy reading history, enjoy imaginative history and paint miniatures and if with a fair wind play some games. In short it is escapism – taking pleasure in playing with imagination.
Paul Hill’s The Anglo-Saxons at War is a good source book. He covers the period of 800 – 1066 in themes.
Campaigns describes how the anglo saxons conducted their warfare and while often a reaction to viking raids they had a method and of course fought amongst themselves.
He discusses the use of fortified places – again I thought this was a good chapter.
Strategy and tactics left me less happy – somehow this part was too bitty although I liked the ruses discussion which included how they used the land to their advantage.
Military Organisation covered quite a few aspects and I welcome the coverage he has given on naval capability and activity. Mercenaries are dealt with as is the issue of tribute and how that impacted on military organisation. Tribute giving and taking plus exchanging hostages were all part of the fabric of warfare and should be seen as such and not detached.
He inevitably deals with cavalry and is clear they rode to war and fought “battles” on fought yet fought on horseback when pursuing for example. Similarly the bow is discussed although he is muted on its use acknowledging that before contact shieldwalls exchanged a whole array of throwable missiles. The argument for some bowmen behind these shieldwalls seems obvious – you could also I think draw parallels with late roman armies of spearmen who threw darts. Why would spear armed infantry not use a few missile men? That is a world away from massed units of bowmen which seems sometimes to be the only option in these discussions.
Paul includes the size of armies as well as recruitment – this last part feeds on another chapter (below) very well. Logistics and communciation are also discussed – I felt the logistics was of value but I did not like his approach or the content of the communciations section. I thought he could have made a better argument for more organised communciations even on the battlefield. And he could have made parallels with warfare of the time going on elsewhere. He does this to good effect in other parts of the book yet not here.
The chapter on warfare and society includes obligations and why go to war in the first place looking at the individual perspective as much as the hierarchy. This was good material. Not so good was the part on where battles were fought although some parts were interesting such as the occurence of “ford” battles. Again it felt as though there was more to be offered but either he lacked of room or the author had no desire to go beyond those limited areas that he wanted to cover.
This book is not about battles themselves and probably reads better if unlike me you have read a narrative history of the period first.
In some respects this book felt like a series of articles written maybe over time and now stitched together to form a book. This may even explain the degree of repetition. If so it was not a problem for me.
Overall this is a book I am pleased to have bought and I am not sure there is a book quite like it despite my reservations of the way some areas have been covered.
Unlike even some books I have really enjoyed this book does lend itself to being a reference book. And I aim to revisit it.
I have been reading up on the world of anglo saxons which strangely I have never read about in depth before. I have been drawn in by reading about the Normans. The fact is that the Normans are far more successful at having history written about them. I guess this is not surprising – Anglo Saxons were losers. Unless of course we are talking about King Alfred, who was singled out as a hero in the Viking Wars. The more I read, the more this is all feels quite unbalanced. History is all about being unbalanced despite the efforts of many historians and simply because of the efforts of others. Historians have their preferences like most people, so you can get a period neglected simply because no one takes that much interest in it.
Every day though, history is being rewritten, not least through the ever burgeoning efforts of archaelogists. So discoveries like the staffordshire hoard help the cause of “dark age” Britain.
So what about the two curators. Well in successive books I have enjoyed learning more about the “anglo-saxons” from Paul Hill and then Gareth Williams.
Paul Hill takes us on a journey through anglo-saxon warfare discussing their horsemanship, use of the bow, defence in depth “burhs”, use of the shieldwall as well as their seamanship but above all their ability to hold ground over centuries despite the viking onslaughts.Gareth Williams authors a popular format osprey comparing the fighting abilities of viking and anglo-saxon. Needless to say the softcover booklet explores more than just their combat face to face.
Paul Hill was Curator at Kingston Museum. Kingston upon Thames saw many Anglo-Saxon kings crowned so has a close relationship with the period. It is not surprising that a former curator should be pro Anglo-Saxon to the extent of writing a trilogy on their histroy and how it has been handled over the centuries. His writing style is what I would describe as traditional and he explores the subject in depth with balanced arguments and overall I enjoy his style.
I actually discovered Paul through his Norman Commanders book. I enjoyed that book enough to read his Anglo-Saxon warfare book. Now firstly it should be said he starts in 800 AD so for some that might be a bit frustrating because he does not start way back in 500AD to set the scene. He has much to discuss in the 200 year slot he set himself, so I think he was right to draw a line.
One reviewer complained about repetition. I think this is because Paul adopts a thematic approach yet still tries to develop the story over time. Inevitably he returns you to specific moments to expand on a different theme each time.
I had no problem with this yet for some people I think this would prove hard work esepecially if they just want a narrative approach.
I especially liked one section when the Anglo-Saxons caught a Viking force in an estuary, the story showing excellent viking seamanship and perhaps overly keen but equally expert Anglo-Saxon sailors caught by the tidal flows.
Paul Hill brings to life warfare in the Anglo-Saxon period and poses and answers questions, he rightly remains uncommitted where the evidence is just simply not sufficient.
Paul ends his story in 1066. In many respects this is the only thing in common with Osprey’s “Combat : Viking Warrior versus Anglo-Saxon Warrior”.
Gareth Williams a curator at the British Museum specialises in Anglo-Saxon and Viking periods so is an ideal author for the Osprey “Combat Series” booklet. He adopts an episodic approach to the timeline starting in 865 and again ending in 1066.
Even in the title the Anglo-Saxons play second fiddle, so you might be worried that such a populist series might play to the viking storyline. It does not and is a refreshing and in my view balanced narrative of the 200 years during which the Vikings made their biggest mark on Britain, ruled it, eventually being defeated comprehensively in 1066.
Unlike an earlier Osprey which bundled the Normans into the same title this author sticks to the two main participants. The book does have a postscript which briefly describes the subsequent events of 1066.
I enjoyed Gareths approach and as you would expect the content is not short of stunning artefacts from museums. It is this – the production and layout of a more “image” oriented approach that marks it out from Paul Hills text heavy book.
Both the books though make common cause to show the Anglo-Saxons have been too often “under” written while the Vikings have been “over” written.
Because Gareth wrote around 3 key battles – Ashdown 871AD, Maldon 991AD and Stamford Bridge 1066AD he compliments Paul Hills book where battles are discussed but always in the context of a theme – say seamanship, hostages or fortifications.
I liked the scene setting for each battle which briefly described the events that led to the battle, then tactics of the time and then the outcome. In each case Gareth uses the appropriate battle to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the warriors as individuals, within their warbands and as parts of an army or more usually a raiding force.
Overall then, two books which have increased my interest in this period significantly.
If you want a quick and accessible book on the subject then the osprey is spot on even to the extent of allowing you to read up on just one of the three battles in isolation.
If you want a more considered approach to aspects of warfare in the anglo saxon period then I recommend Paul Hill’s book.
I am now reading Paul Hill’s trilogy of the Anglo Saxons and their place in this island history.
The feature photograph shows my recently completed anglo saxons from strelets. More on them in a future post.
Carole Raddato from FRANKFURT, Germany / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)
Dover Lighthouse by the Romans is featured in the latest set of Royal Mail stamps
The Royal Mail have just issued some new stamps showing aspects of Roman Britain. Dover Lighthouse is one while the Roman Cavalry helmet in the feature image is another.
It set me thinking and a quick check confirms it I suggest. No Angles, Northumbrians, Mercians or Saxons have been commemorated by the Royal Mail.
OK so the Anglo Danish army feature in the 900th anniversary Hastings stamps of the last century. But that is a Norman story really.
And Bretwalda Raedwald (an East Anglian king) who was maybe Sutton Hoo man made a bit part in the 2003 British Museum set.
But surprisingly King Alfred – the Great of course – has yet to get on an envelope as far as I can see. So maybe the Royal Mail should do a set of “English” (whatever that term really means in a dark age discussion) Kings from the dark ages – Offa (except he was a Mercian), Athelstan, Edward the Elder, Edgar (all West Saxons though) and maybe even Cnut. Cnut was admittedly Danish but we tended to call him Canute so he can be an angle or saxon englishman if we squint a bit!
And what about the Kings of Wales, Ireland and Scotland during the 500 odd years between Roman Britains’ demise and the Norman Conquest? Surely the Royal Mail could have made something of characters like High King Brian Boru, King Malcolm II or Rhodri the Great to highlight the diverse history of all these islands off the european coast.
Actually Alderney island published some stamps with interesting artwork showing the battle of hastings; note artwork not blocks of stone or metal artefacts.
The Romans look a bit boring set against these more mysterious Dark Ages characters.
I had seen these figures by Orion many times on screen and decided against purchase. But byzantines in 1/72 is not a happy hunting ground. So I have taken the plunge.4 identical strips giving you 52 figures in 13 poses. it says on the box 11th to 14th century – so for my needs – 10/11th century they should work.One strip showing the flash that plastic soldier review complained about generally. back and front with some awkward poses to deal with and the other issue that plastic soldier review mentioned – flatnessbut look at the detail – plastic soldier praised the detail on many orion products of this era, sad that poor mould/manufacture compromised these figures. The animation like more recent strelets releases is what I like Next up again Byzantines in 1/72 are few so again a set I had looked at many times were finally purchased.You get two rounds of small unarmoured cavalry plus one sprue of horseman. The infamous? flash is visible.If the flash proves to be a non issue in prep, I think I have another promising set of figures with some excellent detail on well proportioned figures.These byzantine infantry are on the edge of my project timeline – 11th century. But again some nice designs should prove useable.The dark plastic does not do justice to the design quality – I hope my average painting will not let them down.These chaps are almost too early but I reckon you have some latitude in this era – ” we have not had new uniforms here in decades the new recruit was informed by the byzantine clothing department”Again the flash is present but also again some good designs and excellent detailsAnd now for something completely different! Strelets doing Marlbrough. Despite having hundreds of Zvezda Russians and Swedes I had to try some. I think these are my preference from the BritishOne command sprue and 4 rounds of infantry. sufficient poses that are similar. Unlike my dark age figures I like a degree of uniformity in my “baroque” era armies.Some complementary reading matter from a reknowned author Paddy Griffiths – I remember a library book by him on gross scaling of simulated battles as in army level or corps level etc. Great ideas. This book will complement my biography of the master builder Vauban.And we finish up with two more books on the anglo saxons – in themselves a side project of my “Normans in the South”. One day I will read John Julius Norwich Both books are by Paul Hill and having enjoyed his Norman Commanders and nearly finished his Anglo Saxons at War books I have taken a punt on these earlier two books which having more sweeping titles. A quick look at the contents suggests Paul will stick with his thematic – episodic approach which some reviewers did not like but I think it helps in what is a difficult era to write clearly about. Now i really need to crack on with my saxons and angles.
The Wargaming Erratic 
