"How do you represent Vikings and Dane Axes?" Topic

Fiddling with my One Hour Wargames mods for the Dark ages, and have been doing some reading.

Most battle rules seem to make Vikings more "warband" like than their Anglo-Saxon / Anglo-Dane opponents. i.e. better at attacking, less so defending. Yet everything i am reading so far, for the late Dark Ages I am focused on (say 900 – 1066-ish) they both found in shieldwalls in a similar manner.

Opinions?

I am looking at doing battles not man to man skirmishes, so waffling on how to portray them. Right now I am thinking to represent both with Shieldwalls (grade depending if you were Huscarls or Fyrd, etc.) and maybe giving the Vikings a few additional units of axemen that attack better but defend worse.

But I am not entirely settled on that, as axemen (or Dane axes) may have just been baked in to the shieldwall in, say the second line. hacking between shields of the guys in front. Of course this is the Dark ages so you can come up with text or artifacts to support a host of interpretations.

Just dipping my toes in to the period, what do you guys think?

I doubt there would be units of axemen. I'd go so far as to say I'm sure there weren't such units.
But I might not mind them in a game to add some flavour to what can, if you're not careful, be a very bland game.
Having said that, the Anglo-Saxon v Viking game below seemed to work.

They most probably both used the same formations and tactics. Abstracted games like 1HW and DBA create unhistorical differences so that the games are not boring, which is fair enough I suppose. Later Viking or Danish axemen may not have formed 'units' as advocate says. Bayeaux tapestry seems to have them standing in the front of a defensive formation.

Yes, a unit of 'elite' troops for the leader's bodyguard is probably OK. I've done Viking and Saxons in 1HW using rules as written and even then it was a bit dull. Vikings versus Irish or Franks, Saxons Versus Welsh or Picts might be a lot more interesting.

Depending on size and use, the axes are rated as two handed or one hand d. The ability to throw the smaller ones depends on your rules. Also two handed axmen cannot use shields while one handed axmen can.

We play Hail Ceasar with our own mods for dark ages.

Takes an action to go into Shield Wall.
Shield Wall halves movement.
While in shield wall the unit suffers a -1 to hit and a +1 to morale (save)

In each turn every hit that a unit puts on the other unit gives a 1 in 6 chance of breaking the shield wall. (3 hits = 3 in 6 chance).

You can drop Shieldwall voluntarily for no action cost.

If you go disordered you lose the shieldwall automatically.

A unit can also go in the Swinehead formation to make it easier to break the shieldwall. They then get a 2 in 6 chance per hit inflicted.

Would you even have many units let alone men with different weapons in special units? At Hastings weren't the Anglo-Danish basically deployed as one huge unit right across the high ground?

At Ashdown you basically had the Saxons deployed in two big units either side of a causeway. The Danes following suit.

The problem with Saxon-Danish wars is that generally the bigger battles (as opposed to raiders and skirmishes) seem to have been a big scrum between troops in close order until someone's morale gives out and the killing starts not a lot of fun to game under most rules.

I quite like they way The D.A.I.S. (Dark Age Infantry Slog) System deals with this type of warfare.

link

Thanks for the responses! Interesting, I need to digest DAIS. I left out that I am using 6mm and am putting ~48 figures on an 80mm wide stand for a "unit."

I like the idea of peppering them in to the units, maybe allowing a few Boar snout or swine head units for the Vikings.

Here is kind of what I am thinking for OHW:
I am going to use the mods similar to what I use for AWI, so each unit gets 4 hits (tracked by casualty markers)

Huscarl type shieldwalls will be considered armored, if they are elite, say leader's personal guard, they get +1 die (equivilent to +2 in basic OHW)

Decent Fyrd are considered armored until they have taken a casualty marker (equivalent to 4-5 hits in basic OHW)

Lower level guys, rabble, will be considered unarmored.

Pig's snout formation could maybe be unarmored but +1 die on initial contact and move at 1 1/2 BW when charging instead of 1

Units with Berserkers get +1 dies, but only on initial contact of first combat (gotta have berserkers!)

Will use 'Leader points" kind of like Dux Bellorum where they can be used to rally off hits, like in my AWI rules.

Throw in skirmishers, Normans and Bob's you uncle!

Will percolate some more and let you guys know what I come up with.

Any good book recommendations? I have Dan Mersey's guide to 1066 to get me started.

A major misunderstanding relating to this period revolves around the Victorian myth of the 'Peasant Warrior'.

It suited the politics and social attitudes of the 19th C to play up the role of the humble citizen in the armies of history because it is what the Victorians wanted and wanted to believe. The gallant Redcoated Tommy, scum of the Earth, scourge of Johnny Foreigner and the Savages. At the time warfare was the preserve of the Nobility. Alfreds laws (late 9thC) set down very clearly who fights for the land, the landowner ! For every 5 hides a warrior is required in mail, with 2 horses, a sword and 2 (or was it 4) spears.

These men were the Thegns, each of who controlled about as much land as a post-Conquest Norman Knight, and had the same now disenfranchised farmers under them.

The fictions of 'Great Fyrd' and 'Lesser Fyrd' are just that, fictions. The fyrd was the army, composed of wealthy landowners, fighting for the King as an integral and unavoidable duty connected with their land. Ceorls might well have accompanied their Lord when he joined the army as servants or helpers and they would fight in extremis with whatever they had to hand, but were never a serious part of the army.

Stephen Pollingtons "The English Warrior from the Earliest Times Till 1066" is an excellent place to start, but now sadly very expensive.

For use of weapons, best place to ask I think is reinactor groups. They will have a good idea how the weapons can be used.
Battles, shieldwall for both sides.
I think man for man, Vikings and Saxons would have been the same. Its just the difference of a bunch of trained/experienced men looking for trouble against either similar warriors, or a bunch of farmers looking to defend their homes with whatever tools they can use as weapons. The farmers would not be expected to have much success.

Hi Tin Man…….I just coincidentally posted an AAR for Hail Caesar yesterday…..

link

I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the subject and from what I gather, Saxons, Vikings, and Anglo Danes were similar in look and tactics, but the Anglo-Danes were famous for their axemen integrated into the shield wall with other spear men/swords men, while the weapon of choice for the earlier Saxons and Vikings was primarily the spear (with a few Viking axes and swords thrown in). I don't think it makes much of a difference for larger battles, except for the look of the unit, but might impact a skirmish game more.

Focussing down on one subject, in general the Raiding Vikings should be in a looser formation than defending Englisc. Fighting in shieldwall was integral to the warrior code. There is some evidence to suggest Vikings had more swords (Scandanavia being very Iron rich) and may have been better individual combatants.

In stand up battles the Englisc were at least as good as the raiders, but less so in skirmish engagements.

Men with big axes are first mentioned in the 990s – not before. Exactly how they were used in the wars up to 1016 is unclear, but following the Danish takeover units of dedicated 'Huscarls' appear in England. Professional warriors, in armour, with sword and shield. In 1066 they were used as shock troops at Stamford Bridge and as the front rank of the army at Hastings.

By the way, based on the law codes, the Fyrd at Hastings should have been 9 ranks deep. Front rank Huscarls, 2-6 men in armour with spears, 7-9 no armour probably fewer swords. However, the 8 ranks of Fyrd ALL had spears and shields.

It was the law, and failure to attend your duty properly equipped could result in losing your land.

Spear is a great weapon. Uses a small amount of metal and can also be used for hunting.
But why so few bows? They were certainly used for hunting. So even a poor man might have one.

Spear use is deeply ingrained in Germanic culture, as is the idea that serving in the Fyrd is both honourable and manly. Men in the Shieldwall are brothers in arms, the line of shields providing a physical and spiritual division between Us and 'Them'

Since anyone – even a woman ! – can use a bow, it is a valued skill but not part of the Warrior ethos so is used mainly for hunting.

For reference, I'm one of those re-enactors mentioned above. Studying combat, warfare and the make up of the warrior class from about 700-1066 on both sides has been my passion.

That is so cool Guthroth…..would love to re-enact a shield wall fight….

Madmac64 – If you are serious I think I know folks in your state.