"Anglo Saxon vs Viking 890 vs 1016" Topic
5 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 don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Dark Ages Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Book Review
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.
| Louie N | 06 Jun 2018 4:37 p.m. PST |
Hello there, A space for simple speculation. Why did Wessex stand against the Vikings in the 890s while England fell against them in the early 11th Century (1016 – opposing Svern and Cnut) Thanks |
| saltflats1929 | 06 Jun 2018 6:04 p.m. PST |
|
| advocate | 06 Jun 2018 10:41 p.m. PST |
A failure of leadership didn't help.
Arguably they did fight the Vikings to a halt in both cases. A divided kingdom earlier, a shared crown in 1016. |
| Aethelflaeda was framed | 07 Jun 2018 6:04 a.m. PST |
Aethelflaeda was there. More seriously, the Danes and Norwegians were not well organized in the 890s. Unified kingdoms in their homelands had not been established. Mercia and Wessex basically became one kingdom, the burgh and fyrd systems were now in place as an answer to Viking mobility, and a fledgling navy in the works. |
| leofwine 3 | 08 Jun 2018 1:47 a.m. PST |
A better and less divided Viking leadership. Also less good Saxon leadership in 1016 |
|
