"Worlds of Arthur" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Dark Ages Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleIf you were a kid in the 1960s who loved history and toy soldiers, you probably had a WOW figure!
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Henry Martini | 12 Aug 2016 1:30 a.m. PST |
I finally got around to reading Guy Halsall's take on the early Anglo-Saxon period. It seems to me that, for those who wish to adopt the Halsallian vision for their games, the only disruption it causes to the standard tabletop representations of the era is to introduce an additional faction type: Romano-Saxons – for which, given that he sees Saxon foederati troops as serving in Britain in regular Roman army units, I think Romano-British army lists should suffice as written. That leaves their visual representation as the only potential feature with which to differentiate them from Romano-British armies, one important aspect of which is their religious proclivities. Were they more likely to have been Christian or Pagan? |
Wulfgar | 12 Aug 2016 3:58 p.m. PST |
Hi Henry, Great post. Both Dux Brittaniarum and Dux Bellorum allow for foederati allies. I'm sure that it would be a lot of fun to have a campaign game in which there were a wide range of minor southern British "kingdoms," northern British, Welsh, and numerous Angle, Saxon, and Jutish kings or warlords all vying for power. Both rules sets would lend themselves to it, I think. As for whether Saxons could be "Christian," my own guess is that most would generally be worshippers of Woden in the earlier era. The Saxons didn't really begin converting to Christianity overall until the 7th century . . . too late for Arthur. On the other hand, if a gamer wanted to have a few Christian Saxons a bit earlier, why not? Its your game. |
Henry Martini | 12 Aug 2016 5:47 p.m. PST |
Thanks Wulfgar. My points are: 1. Halsall believes that some Saxon polities originated with Saxon regular units of the Roman army stationed inland, and that the Saxon expansion was therefore bilateral: drilled Romano-Saxon forces expanding from inland at the same time as the traditional tribal Saxon invaders landed in the east. That would make for Saxon regular forces that constituted armies in their own right, and not merely auxiliaries or allies of other factions. 2. The late Romans were Christian. Does this imply that all regular Roman troops, including Saxons, would also have been Christian, and even if they were originally Christian, is it possible that Saxon regulars in Britain might have reverted to Paganism after the collapse of Roman authority? |
Wulfgar | 12 Aug 2016 8:25 p.m. PST |
I love your posts, Henry. Point #1 I don't really know enough about the late Roman army to give an intelligent reply to that one. Perhaps that is true! Is that what Halsall is saying? I'd love to hear more about your own ideas on that one. Point #2 I'm sure that a lot of the Roman troops were, indeed, Christian, but perhaps that was somewhat flexible? I'm under the impression that the worship of Mithras was commonplace among Roman soldiers. Perhaps many of the Germans also maintained some beliefs in Germanic mythology, just as many Celts held to older beliefs. Perhaps for many, the religions became a bit mixed up? I have a sample copy of Halsall's book on my Kindle, Henry. I guess its time to enjoy a great read, because you seem very inspired! |
Oh Bugger | 13 Aug 2016 1:43 a.m. PST |
Henry, point 1. Halsall won't punt that one to peer review though. He seems to have taken Laycock's belt fittings evidence and decided Germans! Laycock on the other hand firmly thought Celts! Every thing we have shows the Germans advancing slowly from the coast. After the Saxons were checked the Englishing of Britannia lay with the Angles, hence the name, and East Anglia was the powerhouse that led to Mercia and Northumbria. The Dorchester Saxons being a notable exception and last time I looked they were thought to be Laeti. Folks might find the following article interesting. link 2. We don't know if there were any Saxon regulars but Saxons remained pagan long after this time. Koch notes the absence of Christian imagery in Marwnad Cunedda which he dates to the late Roman period, of course those were Celtic rather than German soldiers. |
Hobhood4 | 13 Aug 2016 4:29 a.m. PST |
Halsall is a good read, especially his debunking of Arthurian 'pseudo history'. However he makes some pretty big claims. Yes the belt buckles re-appear, Saxons are already taking power before any 'invasions' occur. But 'Vortigern' is actually Magnus Maximus, the Germans are hired by him. He also presents a really interesting idea about Gildas – that the Pictish wars and the Saxons wars were taking place at the same time not succesively. The fundemental notion, , which underpins most wargames, where Romano-Brits are fighting Saxons from the East is almost completely undercut in his account. He argues for bigger quicker Saxon takeovers and wars in which Britons and Saxons are fighting internecine wars as as well as joining forces. It is a much more complex scenario than Arthur trying to keep the Saxon hordes at bay. Not sure that Christianity completely penetrated even the all British. It seems to have been a top down thing – Kings, Bishops and nobles practising official christianity while the ordinary folk used a mixture of the new christianity and older rituals. Robin Fleming has a lot of good info about this. |
Oh Bugger | 13 Aug 2016 5:05 a.m. PST |
Yeah you can see why he didn't want to stick that lot into an academic book. I'm still puzzled why he bothered it actually read for me like the pseudo history he decries- with a similar lack of notes and sources. |
Hobhood4 | 14 Aug 2016 2:44 a.m. PST |
I think Halsall keeps his real academic stuff separate from other writings.I wonder whether historians who are also gamers and write or have written wargaming stuff (Ryan Lavelle is another) are a tad embarrassed about it. Hallsall's blog is interesting and provocative. There is actually a lot of good Arthurian wargaming material by him on link which I've posted on before. |
Oh Bugger | 14 Aug 2016 3:04 a.m. PST |
Yeah he does, but is Worlds of Arthur supposed to be an academic effort or not? I'd say not given the tone and the lack of an evidence trail-but published by the OUP. Its not a war games book so what is it? His latest essay on the subject fails to impress just more speculation of the kind he deplores in others. I think he has lost his way-there are some interesting things to say about the subject but some how he is not getting there. |
Henry Martini | 14 Aug 2016 5:54 a.m. PST |
I wasn't actually looking for critiques of Halsall's thesis; there are plenty of those on other TMP threads. Clearly you either accept it or you don't. I'm interested in how those who do accept it might represent its version of the early Anglo-Saxon era military situation in Britain on the tabletop. |
Oh Bugger | 14 Aug 2016 8:00 a.m. PST |
Do what he did and make it up. So Gothic cavalry for the top lads, some Christian symbols, Arrian if you can, and some pagan imagery for the infantry. The odd smatter of Roman gear to represent the subsumed regulars. Or whole units of them. Whatever you feel really. |
Hobhood4 | 14 Aug 2016 9:44 a.m. PST |
Use rules that allow you to use allies and different types of units rather than those which focus on 'factions' (SAGA for example). Actually WAB might be a good one as it is very adaptable in terms of lists. In terms of visuals your insular Germanics might look much like any late roman regulars in terms of armour. I guess the incoming Germanics might be a bit 'hairier' in appearance if you want to make that distinction. Although for those historian that propose a massive breakdown in material culture at this time in Britain, there may not have been much in the way of armour even for the elite warriors. Basically as Oh states it is all up to what you think works and what you like. Personally I really like the period but having gamed it on and off for 15 years I'm coming to the conclusion that any attempt to be really historically accurate ends in frustration and sometimes dull games. I'm just about to start on Dux Brit. I don't believe the history behind it, but that's not the point. A fun game which pits Romanised Britons against hairy Saxons might well be more enjoyable. Because the events of this period are available for multiple interpretations, I think that its better to seize on a a piece of good Arthurian historical fiction – Cornwell, Sutcliff etc and base the games around that. in the end these were relatively small and unimportant wars, used to reinforce self aggrandizing, petty leaders, in a post imperial outpost. They did little to effect the historical development of Britain. Mass migration and the acceptance of elite 'Saxon' culture probably changed Eastern Britain rather than the heroic downfall in battle of the 'once and future King'. Play the idea which appeals, historical or semi-historical. The 5th century kingdoms are, to us, nearer to 'imagi-nations' than anything anyone might like to invent. |
Henry Martini | 15 Aug 2016 8:42 p.m. PST |
You still have your '… Romanised Britons against hairy Saxons…' with Halsall. As I said in the OP, the only change is the addition of those insular, drilled Romano-Saxon armies. Look at the map on page 251. I know Halsall spins this as a representation of his 'hypothetical political takeover', but we'll never know to what degree the transition was political and how much of it was determined on the battlefield – and anyway, as we all know, 'War is politics by other means'. For most battles you also still have homogenous armies. As Halsall reminds us, it's only in the biggest, kingdom-changing battles that alliances become unavoidable (simply in order to be able to amass the numbers needed for a knock-out blow). However, alliances should always be available as an option in any battle, so the usual army selection systems, such as that in Dux Bellorum, should be used as is. |
Oh Bugger | 16 Aug 2016 5:49 a.m. PST |
"but we'll never know to what degree the transition was political and how much of it was determined on the battlefield" There were politics, but even internal politics were often decided by fighting. External politics were mostly violent. For determining who is in control a good start is whose law is being used The Laws of Ine are interesting. The status of the British language in Northumbria ditto. Clever fellows have written about these things foot notes and references galore. We know more every year or so. |
|