"Anglo-Saxons armor" Topic

I'm a little perplexed by the lack of armor for Anglo-Saxons. I'm considering doing an Angry Saxon warband for Saga and am looking at various figures.

So whats the deal, why is it full chain mail (Hearthguard) or nothing but a shield for the Ceorl? The only thing that seems to separate the Ceorl (warriors) from the Geburs (Levy) is an odd helmet or two on the warriors and a lack of shoes on some of the levy.

It seems to me these guys would have at least some ad hoc body armor. Maybe a chain shirt, some leather, something. I'm I just wrong? There would be scant archeological evidence of a padded jacket but I have a hard time believing they were not used.

The Normans seemed to be using padded armor to some extent. I don't think it was super secret technology so I have to assume that it was adopted across the channel as well at some level.

Perhaps the "Dark Age" figures and force compositions we are used to seeing as gamers are overly represented wearing armor?

Chainmail was (and is) expensive, requiring many hours of labor, I'm sure you already know. Seems like most warriors from Goths to Saxons had little armor save a shield and helmet, both of which can be made cheaply (depending on quality). If there was other armor, its scant findings in the archaeological record probably its scant finding among miniatures. Maybe the padded type just leaves little archaeological trace. As for Normans wearing armor types, armor might have been more common on the continent or that there are more sources showing armored warriors.

Given the difference in wealth and the difference in amount of fighting each type would have seen it is not surprising.

It isn't really that different from today if you look at snow clearing equipment and readiness. Since the mass of Ceorls aren't going to see much, if any, combat why would they give stuff they don't have for armour they don't need. Why would Georgia spend money it doesn't have on snow clearing equipment it will barely use.

Possibly one difference is that the Normans more represent an invasion force rather than the mass levy and would have had a higher percentage of professional soldiers of various ranks.

If we're talking about the Normans that actually invaded England, most of that army were professional warriors & soldiers rather than levy anyway, made up of knights, Flemish and French mercenaries, with possibly the only "levy" being the archers (which might have been sailors from the ships doing double duty as such), though even among their ranks may have been professional soldiers as well (few figures on the Tapestry show armored troops using bows).

Also when talking about a "levy," where and what status were those troops? Allegedly IIRC the fyrd centered around London was very well equipped with mail shirts, helmets, shields, etc. as would befit one of the leading cities in the Kingdom of England.

But back to the OP's question, the big difference would be that the Housecarls were semi-professional soldiers in service to a lord, whereas the ceorls were a lot more like a militia serving as obligation to their landholdings (though the exact nature of service might vary depending on the time…I'm mostly thinking of the late AngSax era here, with the Fyrd service, etc).

Damon.

Regular warriors had a shield and spear. Helmets were pretty optional and the possession of a sword was a legacy item passed from father to son.

Excuse the off-topic, but…

Pictor,

You here in Georgia or just mentioning us?

I'm in PA. But we get pictures from all the way down there.

I've been reading a few books/articles recently which challenge the notion that late Saxon armies lacked armour and that the Fyrd was made up of low level levies. Historians such as Ryan Lavelle and Paul Hill maintain that the Fyrd (or what is anachronistically known as the 'Select Fyrd') consisted of Thegns each with a few ceorl followers. Legal obligations for providing armed warriors meant that there were potentially around 10,000 mail clad warriors in late Saxon England (according to Hill, p. 46).Yes, I 'm sure this is debatable.

But Saga like most wargames which field 'factions' needs more than one or two troop types in order to make an interesting game,regardless of historical accuracy, and there are a lot of unarmoured Saxon miniatures already in the market from all the manufacturers.

I am not convinced that lack of archaeological remains means lack of armour. Metal was a precious commodity. Would a piece of armour not have been scrapped, melted and re-used once its original condition had deteriorated to the point of uselessness?

In "Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England", Richard P. Abels points out (among other things) that the heriot, or death settlement, of a thegn included at the very least two horses and a mail byrnie. This was the property given back to the lord on the death of a thegn, which he had been given upon taking service with the lord.

Also we have the "one warrior per five hides" system for parts of England. Whereas we lack information for the rest, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The ratio probably extended throughout the united realm more or less from Alfred's successors on. None of these men were unarmored. All of them had helmets and mail. Aethelred (the badly advised) executed a ship tax upon all his kingdom meant to increase the size of the "navy" and crews. And every oarsman was to possess a mail shirt.

There is plenty of evidence to show that A-S armies were every bit as well armed as any of their neighbors, and possibly better armed, since A-S England was a more highly organized and administered state than any other in Western Europe….

Chain was sort of common in that era. Looking at the beyux (SP) tapestry you see almost everyone wearing it. I used Warlords theigns for my hearthguard and warriors and Dark age warriors for my leavies. That mix looks right and works well.

But only one king in Ælfric's Anglo-Saxons Hexateuch wears mail.
There are also Anglo-Saxons in Prudentius, British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra C VIII, c.1000AD,
‌Anglo-Saxons in Prudentius, Corpus Christi College, Ms. 23, c.1000AD &
Anglo-Saxon drawings from the 'Caedmon manuscript', c.1000. There is a general lack of mail.

Compare these with continental manuscripts:
Prudentius' Psychomachia, St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms. 135, 10th-11th century
Prudentius' Psychomachia, Lyon, Bibliotheque du Palais des Arts, Ms. 22, 11th century

Druzhina
11th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Generalizations concerning a culture that lasted over four hundred years are always going to be problematic with the early Germanic invaders/migrants being very different from the Anglo-Danish army that fought at Hastings.

As an aside Ryan Lavelle is a wargamer as well as a fine historian

Or it's just a wargaming convention used in Saga to distinguish between the troop types more easily. I agree with others who have previously noted in similar contexts that they are your armies to raise how you want.

Rick

As others have already said, most Anglo-Saxon warriors would have had nothing more than a shield, and perhaps a leather helm or "Phrygian" cap for protection, with mail byrnies only being worn by the most wealthy nobles and their huscarls.

That said, there is some evidence for 'battle-sarks,' though no one is quite certain about their construction, with most assuming leather and/or padded wool.

Below are a few examples from contemporary manuscripts-

Here's an example of another type of simple helm, a skullcap, most probably of leather-

I agree that the artwork is a problem when trying to identify the appearance of AS soldiers. As Druhzina points out, the continental manuscripts illustrations do show well-armored men. However there are aspects to those examples which are questionable. Why are the figures in the first example wearing ankle length tunics? would these be realistic battle wear? The second example shows what seems to be a highly stylised, classicly inspired attempt at historical costume.

The English illustrations might be accurate renditions of contemporary soldiers or they might be attempts to portray the biblical characters and situations which are referred to in their accompanying texts. While the costumes look like 'modern dress' of the time, several commentators have thought the the Phrygian cap is an artistic convention to suggest an 'historical' type of headgear – a stylized classical helmet crest for example.

Saying, as Mayponce Mtepe does that 'most Anglo Saxon warriors' were lightly armored implies that most of the Fyrd were less well-off free farmers. As Great War Ace states, a number historians have looked at legal regulations of the time and found evidence to suggest that this was not the case.I'm talking about the later Saxon period here. However, it might also be accurate to suggest that earlier Saxon warfare, especially of the raiding type before the Viking incursions, took place between war bands rather than armies consisting of levies.

The Staffordshire horde suggests that elite warriors were very well equipped.Richness of helmet and sword hilt decoration indicates the kind of wealth which could also afford mail armour. Even if these remains are those of the most well off, their splendor would indicate that the next level down were still pretty well equipped.

The 1st picture posted by Mayponce Mtepe does not display unless you have already visited the site (no hot-linking allowed) it is:
Indulgence making her way to war

Why are the figures in the first example wearing ankle length tunics?

Because they are female, as are those in the other 3 posted by Mayponce Mtepe. Not biblical characters, but, Vices and Virtues.

Druzhina
11th Century Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

I'm confused… I see only one depiction of an 'ankle length' tunic or gown, and that's in the first photo only, and obviously is a female.

The others show warriors garbed in a typical knee-length Dark Age tunics, supplemented by the mysterious 'battle sarks,' and/or mail byrnies.

Perhaps my photos aren't appearing correctly?

Anyway, I agree with Hobwood4, that upper class warriors--huscarls--were well-armored, that said, I still believe the levy troops--even in the later period-- would have been mostly just shield-bearers, with helms and 'battle-sarks,' and even byrnies for those lucky enough to get their hands on them.

That larger cities such as London had a better equipped fyrd, makes sense to me, but I have a hard time believing that ALL or even most of the levy were issued mail shirts en-mass.

Some of the Anglo-Saxon Vices and Virtues don't look very feminine, but all the Vices and Virtues in Prudentius manuscripts are female. Where the caption above says "Saxon ceorl" this is the author's interpretation of what is being depicted – to the artist it is a female Vice and Virtue in combat. In other scenes the biblical Job is also depicted passing through the vices, but not with weapons, and there is Abram and his men (usually mounted).

The 4 illustrations above are from Prudentius' Psychomachia ‘Conflict Of The Soul', British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra C VIII, c.1000. It is not a coincidence that the same drawings appear in Saxon, Viking and Norman as in A RECORD OF EUROPEAN ARMOUR AND ARMS THROUGH SEVEN CENTURIES by Sir Guy Francis Laking (who identifies his sources). Another armoured Anglo-Saxon that appears in both is Goliath (who must be armoured) in British Library, MS Harley 603 – the Harley Psalter, 1st half of the 11th century, where other soldiers are unarmoured.

12th century British Prudentius manuscripts like British Library, Cotton MS Titus D XVI, St Albans, England, 1120AD have a lot more armoured figures.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Great War Ace raises excellent points. Saga – and other systems – do use armour classification to denote different types of unit, but whether that is really valid is a different question, especially for skirmish games. The same happens in 'big battle' rules as well of course, so we see -for example – English armies of 14C date with distinct mounted units of 'knights' and 'squires' or 'hobilars' or similar. In reality English cavalry of 14C vintage was deployed as a single-class of unit – homines ad arma.

I still believe the levy troops--even in the later period-- would have been mostly just shield-bearers, with helms and 'battle-sarks,' and even byrnies for those lucky enough to get their hands on them.

This is the first time I have seen the term "sark" discussed as something other than a mail "shirt". To me a byrnie and battle sark are the same thing. "Shirt" is what a "sark" is. And a battle sark is nothing else but armor, and the main armor was mail. Scale might qualify but is less common. It may have been more common in reality, being easier to make, therefore cheaper, but also less preserveable. Any armor made on a leather or canvas foundation was very temporary compared to ring mail.

When we say "levy" in regard to A-S armies, especially late ones, we are not talking about the "fyrd" system of raising the standing militia of land holders and men of the noble class. "Levy" would only be locals, i.e. those within c. a day's march of their homes. For example, at Hastings there were men from Sussex and Kent mustered alongside the king's army of huskarls and fyrd. The fyrd was provided by fielding one man per five hides, or some similar rotational system throughout the realm. There is no reason to assert that these men were substantially different from the huskarls in their equipment. The "levy" of every (local) freeman would be a mixture of shield-bearing spearmen, right down to men with improvised weapons, with very little body armor of any kind in their ranks. There was no royal standard of equipment established for the "levy" as there was for the fyrd….

Great War Ace--for information on the battle-sark--i.e. a leather/padded organic armor--as distinctly different from mail byrnie, read here--

link

And the Osprey Saxon, Viking and Norman--

link

And while you are correct that the term--battle sark, or war coat--describes a byrnie or shirt of mail, I was using it in the context of the linked article, to distinguish the two different forms of body armor, one of mail rings, the other of padded leather, or other organic materials.

As far as scale armor goes, I think it was probably widely used in the Dark Ages, even if the archeology isn't there yet, considering the amount of artistic examples, especially Frankish--and Byzantine--and that it was much easier to produce than mail.

Thanks everyone for the responses.

I think I'll just use the better equipped guys as warriors. Helmets and hand to hand weapons. Guys lacking in those will be the levy's.

As for guys without footwear forgetaboutit.