"Early Saxons and Late Saxons?" Topic

What is the difference between early Saxon and late Saxon warriors in terms of dress, arms and appearance? I know there is a fair gap between the fifth and eleventh centuries but I'd never really thought about the issue before.

Footsore miniatures have both types on their site. I believe the later ones tended to use horses more! Double check that,
Triple check that.

Saxon helmets simplified over time (non of the elaborate face masks in later Saxon equipment. Helmets also resembled more of what we think of as Saxon/Viking/Norman than the earlier helmets, many of which resembled late Roman (early Saxon).

Mail and swords became more prevalent in later Saxon armies (as landed families with wealth arose in England, they just had more money than early Saxons and a better arms industry).

For the rank and file unarmored infantryman, not a huge difference.

The Saxons all went to France. The ones that were early got drunk and started fighting. The ones that were late were mad that they couldn't get drunk, so they started fighting too.

Shields changed over time from small ones with prominate bosses to larger "shield wall" types. I think the Bayeux tapestry show housecarls with kite shaped shields at Hastings
Chris

LOL, Best thing that could ever happen to the French.

'I believe the later ones tended to use horses more'

Not really – later Saxon nobles, the Huscarles, favoured a two handed ax – not really a cavalry weapon. They could ride though – see the history of Harold in Normandy.

Lots of Saxons would still be using a round shield at Hastings.

Hi, from my reading EG: regia.org/research.php – I would say:

In the Early period, Only the very rich would have access to mail and good helmets, probably only they would regularly have horses.
Before Alfred's reforms (?880s AD) most of the army (Fyrd) would be part time and pretty basically armed, mostly with spear and shield, though some of the better Fyrdmen may have had some sort of armour and possibly a helmet.
Alfred appears to have built Burghs, fortified encampments, and tried to regularise the Fyrd, so that men were called from the fields more often for training, garrison duty or patrolling. He also seems to have insisted the richer men all be horsed to chase the Vikings! The Fyrd, now, was often more a selective militia, rather than a local massed call out, which probably improved the quality of the army in the field.
The Vikings seem to have been using 2 handed axes from about the 950's, the Saxons seem to have taken it up from about 1000 AD.
Moustaches alone seem to be more common in later depictions, beard and moustaches tended to be less full than, say Vikings.Clean shaven is very common.

A lot of this is, however, far from hard provable fact, as our resources are scanty, and mostly from ecclesiastical sources, which may be inaccurate.

In battle, though, would tend to fight dismounted.

I had thought that Early Saxons were pagans and later Saxons were Christians.

Gripping Beast Saxon Thegns, for example, are modelled with crucifixes.

link

In battle, though, would tend to fight dismounted.

Quite correct, there is little evidence Saxons fought mounted as cavalry except in the infamous battle of Hereford 1055… and the Northumbrians against the Picts at Nechtansmere… link

I think its a given they fought mounted in pursuit at times though.
Either way, although it was normal--and preferred-- for them to fight on foot, they could, at times, use cavalry.

Helmets appear to have become more conical with the passage of time, too.

That GB plastic thegns set really screams post-600AD, what with the crucifixes, large shields, and static, defensive, shieldwall poses.

Lovely thanks for all that. I think Hereford took a bit of a kicking in the 1050s. I excavated a site near the cathedral and found a massive burning layer of late Saxon deposition date.

All their music was terrible, early late and middle period. Now Motorhead on the other hand….