"Dark Age Saxons, Buckler Wall???" Topic
11 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.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion 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 Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
nnascati | 05 Jun 2017 5:51 p.m. PST |
All, I'm working on a SAGA Saxon Warband for a friend. I was more than a bit surprised to see that they are given small bucklers instead of proper shields. What happened to the Dark Age shield wall? Is there any evidence to support bucklers versus shields? Nick |
Henry Martini | 05 Jun 2017 6:08 p.m. PST |
Although it appears that there was never a standard Anglo-Saxon shield-size, the archaeological evidence suggests a general increase over time, with a marked increase around 600AD. The smallest shields were indeed of 'buckler' proportions, or from about a foot to eighteen inches in diameter, whilst the largest approached three feet across. From this evidence military historians have extrapolated a change in tactics from aggressive, fast-moving, loosely-formed warbands, to defensive, tightly-formed shield-walls. Your friend's figures (Gripping Beast?) are obviously intended to depict early Anglo-Saxons. |
nnascati | 05 Jun 2017 6:30 p.m. PST |
Yes, they are Gripping Beast. Well that makes me feel slightly better. |
Ivan DBA | 05 Jun 2017 6:41 p.m. PST |
What Gripping Beast figures have bucklers? All the ones I've seen have proper shields. |
nnascati | 05 Jun 2017 6:44 p.m. PST |
This is the Aetius and Arthur Saxon Warband. |
ColCampbell | 05 Jun 2017 7:07 p.m. PST |
This is the Aetius and Arthur Saxon Warband. To my mind that would explain the "buckler" type of shields since Arthur was supposedly a Romano-Briton war chief who fought against the Saxons at the beginning of their incursions into the former Roman Briton. Jim |
LongshotGC | 05 Jun 2017 8:35 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the education, Henry! Useful stuff! |
Ivan DBA | 06 Jun 2017 6:24 a.m. PST |
Ah, that explains it; early Saxons indeed, and I'd never bothered to look at them before. They do have pretty small shields! link |
Henry Martini | 06 Jun 2017 7:12 a.m. PST |
I have some of the newer GB Early Saxon range that was released to coincide with the publication of the WAB 'Age of Arthur' supplement. At the time you could select either full-size shields or bucklers when ordering, as the AoA book allowed for either option, there being only educated guesswork rather than historical certainty where shield sizes are concerned. Some other rule sets take this progression into account. For example, Dan Mersey's Osprey Arthurian rule set Dux Bellorum makes provision for only two types of heavy infantry: warriors (the loose, warband type) and shieldwall, and assigns them by period: Early (before 450AD); Middle (450 – 600AD); Late (after 600). The HI in a Saxon army can be warrior in any of the three periods, but can be shieldwall only in the Late period (a Late period warrior-based army would probably represent the troops of an unreformed kingdom; maybe the last Pagan hold-outs). Arthur is usually placed around 500AD, which would put him in Dux Bellorum's Middle period, but his Saxon opponents would still be warrior in DB terms. |
nnascati | 06 Jun 2017 9:17 a.m. PST |
Henry, thanks for all the information. My image of Dark Ages warfare is clashing shield walls, so you have definitely opened my eyes. I guess these Saxons would still be more like sea borne raiders that formed armies. |
Henry Martini | 06 Jun 2017 6:00 p.m. PST |
Not necessarily Nick; they could just as well represent the army of one of the small Germanic kingdoms established in Britain in the early Anglo-Saxon period. If you look at general ancients rules, such as the DBX family, you'll see that the HI of most Germanic peoples in the LIR/early DA period is commonly treated as fighting in warband fashion – so this interpretation isn't exclusive to the Anglo-Saxons. Your point is relevant though: along with its ethnically specific army lists Dux Bellorum includes a couple of generic 'raider' lists that can be used to represent most of the combatant peoples covered by the rules, in which even armies that would normally be shieldwall-based are obliged to field their foot as warrior units (the idea being that the conditions and time-span of a raid weren't suitable for the deployment of formed arrays). BTW, if you get into the Arthurian period yourself I recommend that you give Dux B. a try. It's a fun, challenging, streamlined design, with enough chrome to keep things interesting for many a game. |
|