SoA Forums

Strictly prehistory rather than history, but this was interesting:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

One need probably be a journalist to find the clash "colossal", but it's pretty big compared to what one might expect for the northern European bronze age.

It is interesting, Andreas, because despite the hyperbole it does appear to be evidence of a clash of more than just local tribes.

"Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland and Scandinavia."

Given the estimated dating, I wonder if we shall observe a 'Sea Peoples' hypothesis emerging in the near future ...

Its a very interesting article and a nice balance of popular style vs science. The only thing that made me laugh (inadvertently) was the first illustration pointing out things like a spear, a horse, a bow and arrow....... :-)

The most interesting aspect is the potential 'ripple effect' of elevated warfare in that period and how it might all interlink

This appears to be academic publication of the same site

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250308033_A_Bronze_Age_Battlefield_Weapons_and_Trauma_in_the_Tollense_Valley_north-eastern_Germany
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250308033_A_Bronze_Age_Battlefield_Weapons_and_Trauma_in_the_Tollense_Valley_north-eastern_Germany)

It is apparently a free download (though internet issues prevents me from trying it).

Anthony's link - which indeed is a free download - apparently reflects an earlier state of research, as it states some interpretations - e.g. concerning signs of healing and one casualty having fallen a horse - that are described as superseded in the article I linked to. But it's more scholarly and in some respects more detailed, so worth a look nevertheless.

(Oh, and I note that Sw. gyttja "mud" has apparently acquired a technical meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyttja) in English-language pedology. I confess to curiosity as to how it's pronounced in English.)

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 27, 2016, 10:52:57 AM
(Oh, and I note that Sw. gyttja "mud" has apparently acquired a technical meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyttja) in English-language pedology. I confess to curiosity as to how it's pronounced in English.)

Apparently like this (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gyttja).  (Approximately "yut-cha".)

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 27, 2016, 11:09:09 AM
Apparently like this (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gyttja).  (Approximately "yut-cha".)

That's not too far from the original, given that English has nothing really like the Swedish 'y' vowel. The Swedish is ['jʏtːja].

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 27, 2016, 10:52:57 AM
Anthony's link - which indeed is a free download - apparently reflects an earlier state of research, as it states some interpretations - e.g. concerning signs of healing and one casualty having fallen a horse - that are described as superseded in the article I linked to.

If you scroll down, the citations section below the main text gives access to some update studies, including the re-interpretation of the arrow head wound.

Looking again at the reconstruction drawings in the article, I was wondering how best to model a force of this period.  In 28mm one might be drawn to the Foundry Bronze Age range http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/europeanbronzeage/ (http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/europeanbronzeage/) , though these are a bit later and feature quite a high proportion of individuals with helmets, breastplates and bronze shields.  They do have cavalry too.  If we wanted something more like the reconstructions - lots of hair and furs - maybe Foundry Savage Germans http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/germans/ancient-german-warriors-collection-bcag003/ (http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/germans/ancient-german-warriors-collection-bcag003/) ( Or naked Pict fanatics http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/picts  (http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/picts)) with the addition of some miliput fur costumes. 

Or how about working from Copplestone cavemen http://www.copplestonecastings.co.uk/prod.php?prod=149?
(http://www.copplestonecastings.co.uk/prod.php?prod=149?)
One thing difficult to source might be appropriate archers - there are only a couple in the Bronze Age skirmishers

One thing not mentioned in the article are shields.  We know some wood survived (the clubs) and wooden shields are found in bog deposits.  Were there none in use?  Were they collected and carried off, as assumed with the swords?  Our Bronze Age Foreign Legion might be given rounded rectangular shields of wood orwicker or maybe round leather shields as found in Ireland?

Like this.
http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/Clonbrin_shield.htm

Quote from: Erpingham on March 27, 2016, 05:29:46 PM
Looking again at the reconstruction drawings in the article, I was wondering how best to model a force of this period.  In 28mm one might be drawn to the Foundry Bronze Age range ...

In 15mm the equivalent might be the Mick Yarrow "Northern Barbarians" - http://www.spanglefish.com/mickyarrowminiatures/index.asp?pageid=188024

I would think for archers you could use any generic barbarian archer model and just give it  a bronze or flint arrowhead and maybe very plain garments (grey, white or brown with no embroidery)

I happen to be painting some ancient German archers at the moment which would fit the bill perfectly (don't know what make)

With regard to the stuf about isotopes in the teeth (not dna by the way) how reliable is it really?  The method is also cited a lot in studies of Arthurian Britain but to a layman I all sounds a bit tenuous to be honest.

Quote from: eques on March 27, 2016, 10:47:06 PM
With regard to the stuf about isotopes in the teeth (not dna by the way) how reliable is it really? 

One'd think it more reliable than DNA, for the purpose of identifying where you're from, as it depends on your own history and not your ancestry.

That said, I can't give you any confidence intervals or the like.

Quote from: eques on March 27, 2016, 10:47:06 PM
I would think for archers you could use any generic barbarian archer model and just give it  a bronze or flint arrowhead and maybe very plain garments (grey, white or brown with no embroidery)

I happen to be painting some ancient German archers at the moment which would fit the bill perfectly (don't know what make)

Wouldn't the issue be the trousers?  Were trousers in use in Europe at the time?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 28, 2016, 09:35:56 AM

Quote from: eques on March 27, 2016, 10:47:06 PM
I would think for archers you could use any generic barbarian archer model and just give it  a bronze or flint arrowhead and maybe very plain garments (grey, white or brown with no embroidery)

I happen to be painting some ancient German archers at the moment which would fit the bill perfectly (don't know what make)

I wondered about that and thought it would be worth checking some of the 'bog bodies'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bocksten_Man

" his legs were covered by hosiery."
Wouldn't the issue be the trousers?  Were trousers in use in Europe at the time?

Interesting stuff. I don't know if you guys already had a chance to look at my article on the "Trojan War" in Slingshot 304.  At the top of page 19 it says something about the spread of "modern" bronze age swords.  "After 1300 BC elite Greeks warriors wielded a new type of Aegean sword, which was bronze and two and a half feet long. Much more efficient at inflicting slash-wounds than its predecessors, its blade also had roughly parallel edges for most of its length, rather than the tapered edges of a dagger, so that it was also good at cutting. With a single piece of metal for both blade and hilt, it was less like to break than old type of sword. This so-called Naue II or grip-tongue sword originated from central Europe (Northern Italy and the Balkans) and had spread to Scandinavia and the British Isles, before it began to appear in Greece, Crete, the Levant and Egypt between 1300 and 1200 BC."
In my view we too easily tend to assume that everyone outside the typical "classical civilisations" in the Mediterranean area, Near East and what have you, used to look and live like "barbarians" in those days. The fact that the Naue II sword apparently spread to Scandinavia and the British Isles, before it appeared in Greece etc. belies this popular assumption.
Yes, I do think that those northerners wore trousers, had bloody good swords and shields (probably in various shapes and sizes - also see my article) and perhaps even helmets.

The Bocksten body's medieval, so doesn't help much. The closest bog bodies in date that I can find on a very quick search are Emmer-Erfscheidenveen man from the Netherlands and Trindhøj man from Denmark, who both have well-preserved clothing but no trousers:

http://www.mummytombs.com/bog/emmer.html
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a4/09/c4/a409c447d5f25f087597a1091bfa9ff0.jpg

http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-bronze-age/men-and-woman-in-the-bronze-age/the-man-from-trindhoej/
http://earlyworks.weebly.com/clothing.html

Excellent links Duncan.  These are the guys I have in my head when I think preserved bronze age bodies.  They are also, I think the prototype for the Foundry Bronze Age guys (with added metal work from other finds).  No trousers. Otzi had leggings rather than trousers (i.e. separate hide tubes, not joined together) so they would be possible.  It used to be said trousers were a steppe fashion spreading from the East in the late Bronze/Early Iron Age (i.e. much later) but I've no idea what the modern view is.

On Robert's point, we know we have swords (from the bone damage) but none found so far on site (valuable loot?).  Helmets could have been present but how common, what type and what made from?  Shields I'd say yes - Roy has pulled up a copy of an Irish example but I suspect bigger shields ancestral to the oblong/rounded oblong type which turns up in this area in the iron age would be possible - maybe bossless?  Not sure on body armour - certainly around later in the Bronze Age.

Incidentally, while rumaging around on the look out for Bronze Age Northern Warfare I found this http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21662282.2013.838832 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21662282.2013.838832) Unless you are a bit of a weapon tech person, the abstract contains the useful bit for us :)

Speaking of prehistoric finds (many of you may already know it): in 1991 the mummified body of a 40-year old guy sticking out of a melting glacier was found, 3210 m above sea level in the Ötztal Alps (South Tyrol, Italy). He must have died (shot by an arrow) over 5,000 years ago.
The guy is called Ötzi, after the area where he was found. He wore trouser-like leggings made of fur and was well equipped, a.o. with a simple but effective copper axe. I have attached a nice picture of a reconstruction of the guy.  More info (in English) on the following website: http://www.iceman.it/en/oetzi-the-iceman.

OK, I now see that Anthony already refers to him. :o

Also close in time is the Egtved girl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl). Not helpful for warrior attire, but I imagine the excuse to cast a (pre)historical figure in a miniskirt will be welcome to some. 8)

Incidentally, isotope analysis suggests that she, too, was a long-range migrant, having grown up in the Black Forest region.

Quote from: Robert Heiligers on March 28, 2016, 03:26:31 PM
In my view we too easily tend to assume that everyone outside the typical "classical civilisations" in the Mediterranean area, Near East and what have you, used to look and live like "barbarians" in those days. The fact that the Naue II sword apparently spread to Scandinavia and the British Isles, before it appeared in Greece etc. belies this popular assumption.
Yes, I do think that those northerners wore trousers, had bloody good swords and shields (probably in various shapes and sizes - also see my article) and perhaps even helmets.

The 'missing link' may be the culture the Greeks termed the Pelasgi, identifiable as the Frisian culture by readers of the Oera Linda Book - or at least by readers of a translation of the Oera Linda Book.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 29, 2016, 07:33:18 AM
Also close in time is the Egtved girl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egtved_Girl).

She's already imortalised in the Foundry range - http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/ancients/europeanbronzeage/, set BRNZ016.

A fine selection of inappropriate females modelling an earlier form of the garb cam be seen here

http://cavegirlwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/one-million-years-bc-miniatures.html

::)

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 29, 2016, 11:43:31 AM
A fine selection of inappropriate females modelling an earlier form of the garb cam be seen here

http://cavegirlwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/one-million-years-bc-miniatures.html

::)

Trust you to lower the tone in a serious debate :)

Returning to Otzi for a moment,  this graphic is quite useful on the layers of Otzi's clothes

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/archaeology/otzi_clothes.jpg (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/archaeology/otzi_clothes.jpg)

I suspect that something like this underpins the original "hairy" reconstructions.  However, Otzi was considerably earlier and the Scandinavian finds we have been discussing have woven woollen clothes.  We should certainly consider fur caps of some sort though, as both Otzi and the Scandinavians have them.

Quote from: Robert Heiligers on March 28, 2016, 03:26:31 PM
Interesting stuff. I don't know if you guys already had a chance to look at my article on the "Trojan War" in Slingshot 304.  At the top of page 19 it says something about the spread of "modern" bronze age swords.  "After 1300 BC elite Greeks warriors wielded a new type of Aegean sword, which was bronze and two and a half feet long. Much more efficient at inflicting slash-wounds than its predecessors, its blade also had roughly parallel edges for most of its length, rather than the tapered edges of a dagger, so that it was also good at cutting. With a single piece of metal for both blade and hilt, it was less like to break than old type of sword. This so-called Naue II or grip-tongue sword originated from central Europe (Northern Italy and the Balkans) and had spread to Scandinavia and the British Isles, before it began to appear in Greece, Crete, the Levant and Egypt between 1300 and 1200 BC."
In my view we too easily tend to assume that everyone outside the typical "classical civilisations" in the Mediterranean area, Near East and what have you, used to look and live like "barbarians" in those days. The fact that the Naue II sword apparently spread to Scandinavia and the British Isles, before it appeared in Greece etc. belies this popular assumption.
Yes, I do think that those northerners wore trousers, had bloody good swords and shields (probably in various shapes and sizes - also see my article) and perhaps even helmets.

Superb article, by the way. Really enjoyed it.  Although on the downside it has made me very tempted to start yet another army I'll never finish!

I know what you mean Harry. The perfect army for rules like Saga and similar  8)

Quote from: Jim Webster on March 29, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
I know what you mean Harry. The perfect army for rules like Saga and similar  8)

I only know the basics of Saga.  Would they make a good set for Bronze Age warfare, with a bit of imagination?

Quote from: Erpingham on March 30, 2016, 12:40:22 PM
I only know the basics of Saga.  Would they make a good set for Bronze Age warfare, with a bit of imagination?

That'll be down to what you think Bronze Age warfare was like!

That said, it's a skirmish set - the Tollense encounter was evidently a grander affair than what Saga aims to represent (a typical Saga battle being in the neighbourhood of fifty warriors a side).

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 30, 2016, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 30, 2016, 12:40:22 PM
I only know the basics of Saga.  Would they make a good set for Bronze Age warfare, with a bit of imagination?

That'll be down to what you think Bronze Age warfare was like!

Hence the imagination :)

What if we imagine it was like Homeric warfare? While that takes some speculation at least we have somewhere to start.

With Homeric we'd need rules for chariots. There were horses at Tollense, were they ridden or were they chariot horses? It's just that the chariot and horse harness might have been salvaged

I've not played a lot of Saga but could see it as being a good place to start from

;)

As I understand it, the Tollense battlefield has a boggy river valley with meandering river crossed by a causeway.  Not ideal territory for deploying chariots, even if you have them to hand. 

As for the Homeric, it may give us a model of "Big Man" and followers which we could build a Saga force around.  Perhaps at Tollense, the leaders might mount their mighty Icelandic ponies, rather than their Homeric chariots?

Sorry, should have clarified, the article I was praising was Robert's in Slingshot, about the Trojan War (although I enjoyed the one about Tollense as well!)

Homeric would work great with Skirmish Games - the 2 I play are Lion Rampant and Of Gods and Mortals.

Quote from: Erpingham on March 30, 2016, 01:37:21 PM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on March 30, 2016, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on March 30, 2016, 12:40:22 PM
I only know the basics of Saga.  Would they make a good set for Bronze Age warfare, with a bit of imagination?

That'll be down to what you think Bronze Age warfare was like!

Hence the imagination :)

What if we imagine it was like Homeric warfare? While that takes some speculation at least we have somewhere to start.

Would it be an idea to outline what we mean (or think we mean) by Homeric warfare?  Common ground for a starting point and all that ...

Patrick

You might have to set up a whole new forum to record all the opinions and 'evidence' in support of a common definition of 'Homeric warfare'...

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 31, 2016, 07:45:00 PM

Would it be an idea to outline what we mean (or think we mean) by Homeric warfare?  Common ground for a starting point and all that ...

Bronze Aged Aegean?

Problem is it has meant different things at different periods. Alexander the Great didn't sleep with a copy by his bed because he felt it was just about spear throwing heroes in chariots  :-[

Quote from: Tim on April 01, 2016, 05:39:37 AM
Patrick

You might have to set up a whole new forum to record all the opinions and 'evidence' in support of a common definition of 'Homeric warfare'...

Hence the question. ;)

We may also want to think about what stage of the fighting is represented by the assembled bodies: are they the slain from a sanguinary struggle on the actual battlefield or the losses from a pursuit which caught a fleeing foe attempting to struggle across a river, in which case the actual battle might have been fought on higher and drier ground?

If the remains are from a pursuit, or at least pressure on a rout, it presumably implies massed combat between bodies of men, perhaps formations, as opposed to everyone-stop-and-cheer-the champions.  Or do we conclude that upon the fall of champions the lower ranks broke and ran to be gleefully butchered by their opposite numbers?

The presence of equine skeletal material suggests cavalry or possibly chariotry.  Dead horses are more likely to result from a battle than a pursuit unless the said deceased equids broke legs in animal burrows or similarly suffered severe mishap in a slippery riverbank environment.  Hence this point also may be inconclusive.

What might be enlightening could be to widen the search a little and see if any suitable battlefield adjoins the river valley.  We could then make inspired guesses about whether the loser had suffered an Argentoratum, being tumbled back to the river and slaughtered in its vicinity, or, if the river valley is the only viable battlefield, whether one side learned the hard way about the drawbacks of fighting your way across a water obstacle in the teeth of the enemy.

It is conceivable that the Oera Linda Book may throw some light on this engagement, or at least its context.  Source here (http://sacred-texts.com/atl/olb/olb23.htm).  First a bit of scene-setting, albeit not fully explanatory.

"The priests are the only rulers; they call themselves Magyars, and their headman Magy. He is high priest and king in one. The rest of the people are of no account, and in subjection to them. This people have not even a name; but we call them Finns, because although all the festivals are melancholy and bloody, they are so formal that we are inferior to them in that respect. But still they are not to be envied, because they are slaves to their priests, and still more to their creeds. They believe that evil spirits abound everywhere, and enter into men and beasts, but of Wr-alda's spirit they know nothing. They have weapons of stone, the Magyars of copper. The Magyars affirm that they can exorcise and recall the evil spirits, and this frightens the people, so that you never see a cheerful face. When they were well established, the Magyars sought our friendship, they praised our language and customs, our cattle and iron weapons, which they would willingly have exchanged for their gold and silver ornaments, and they always kept their people within their own boundaries, and that outwitted our watchfulness."

The Frisians were then surprised by an invasion.  Apparently the land invaded was Scandinavia.

"Eighty years afterwards, just at the time of the Juulfeest, they overran our country like a snowstorm driven by the wind. All who could not flee away were killed. Frya was appealed to, but the Schoonlanders (Scandinavians) had neglected her advice. Then all the forces were assembled, and three hours from Godasburgt they were withstood, but war continued. Kat or Katerine was the name of the priestess who was Burgtmaagd of Godasburgt. Kat was proud and haughty, and would neither seek counsel nor aid from the mother; but when the Burgtheeren (citizens) knew this, they themselves sent messengers to Texland to the Eeremoeder. Minna—this was the name of the mother—summoned all the sailors and the young men from Oostflyland and Denmark."

A counterattack was planned, and with it cam a subsequently famous name.

"From this expedition the history of Wodin sprang, which is inscribed on the citadels, and is here copied. At Aldergamude there lived an old sea-king whose name was Sterik, and whose deeds were famous. This old fellow had three nephews. Wodin, the eldest, lived at Lumkamakia, near the Eemude, in Oostflyland, with his parents. He had once commanded troops. Teunis and Inka were naval warriors, and were just then staying with their father at Aldergamude. When the young warriors had assembled together, they chose Wodin to be their leader or king, and the naval force chose Teunis for their sea-king and Inka for their admiral. The navy then sailed to Denmark, where they took on board Wodin and his valiant host."

The Frisians were based in Western and Northern Europe at the time.

"The wind was fair, so they arrived immediately in Schoonland. When the northern brothers met together, Wodin divided his powerful army into three bodies. Frya was their war-cry, and they drove back the Finns and Magyars like children. When the Magy heard how his forces had been utterly defeated, he sent messengers with truncheon and crown, who said to Wodin: O almighty king we are guilty, but all that we have done was done from necessity. You think that we attacked your brothers out of ill will, but we were driven out by our enemies, who are still at our heels. We have often asked your Burgtmaagd for help, but she took no notice of us. The Magy says that if we kill half our numbers in fighting with each other, then the wild shepherds will come and kill all the rest. The Magy possesses great riches, but he has seen that Frya is much more powerful than all our spirits together. He will lay down his head in her lap. You are the most warlike king on the earth, and your people are of iron. Become our king, and we will all be your slaves. What glory it would be for you if you could drive back the savages! Our trumpets would resound with your praises, and the fame of your deeds would precede you everywhere. Wodin was strong, fierce, and warlike, but he was not clear-sighted, therefore he was taken in their toils, and crowned by the Magy."

The archetypal deceit employed by a cynical manipulator upon a valiant but naive warrior is a key element in many tales, including the Mahabharat, but may yet have been true.  What we see in this account is a victorious campaign by warriors assembled from northern Europe to clear Finnic peoples out of Scandinavia, a situation which appears to be more or less reflected in the ethnicity of the participants at Tollense.

"Very many of the sailors and soldiers to whom this proceeding was displeasing went away secretly, taking Kat with them. But Kat, who did not wish to appear before either the mother or the general assembly, jumped overboard. Then a storm arose and drove the ships upon the banks of Denmark, with the total destruction of their crews. This strait was afterwards called the Kattegat. When Wodin was crowned, he attacked the savages, who were all horsemen, and fell upon Wodin's troops like a hailstorm; but like a whirlwind they were turned back, and did not dare to appear again. When Wodin returned, Magy gave him his daughter to wife. Whereupon he was incensed with herbs; but they were magic herbs, and by degrees he became so audacious that he dared to disavow and ridicule the spirits of Frya and Wr-alda, while he bent his free head before the false and deceitful images."

This campaign was also successful, but there are more ways of conquering than by armed force.

"His reign lasted seven years, and then he disappeared. The Magy said that he was taken up by their gods and still reigned over us, but our people laughed at what they said. When Wodin had disappeared some time, disputes arose. We wished to choose another king, but the Magy would not permit it. He asserted that it was his right given him by his idols. But besides this dispute there was one between the Magyars and Finns, who would honour neither Frya nor Wodin; but the Magy did just as he pleased, because his daughter had a son by Wodin, and he would have it that this son was of high descent. While all were disputing and quarrelling, he crowned the boy as king, and set up himself as guardian and counsellor. Those who cared more for themselves than for justice let him work his own way, but the good men took their departure. Many Magyars fled back with their troops, and the sea-people took ship, accompanied by a body of stalwart Finns as rowers."

And so the reconquest ultimately had an unhappy ending.  It might however provide the context for the Tollense engagement, and if so, would mean one side had a 'Germanic' army and the other a tribal assemblage from Eastern Europe with a significant mounted component.

I deliberately used the term Homeric Warfare because we could focus on warfare as described by Homer, in the hope of giving us a conceptual model of organisation and practice of war in the late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age.  This is later than Tollense but closest in time and space for something we have a description of, as opposed to simply the archaeological evidence.  If we want to talk about Bronze Age Aegean warfare, we would need to unpick Homer to try and work out which descriptions belonged to that period and where they are appropriate to.  There is also a danger we would bog down in an argument about chronologies.  So, if folks want to do that, I think it deserves a thread all of its own.

QuoteIt is conceivable that the Oera Linda Book may throw some light on this engagement, or at least its context.

Great, then we can move on to Ossian and what he tells us about Dark Age Scotland :)

I certainly wouldn't count Northern Europe as "Homeric".  That would be like calling the Chinese Jin Dynasty "Arthurian"

The Aegean world is surely very very integral to Homer and his characters.

Quote from: eques on April 01, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
I certainly wouldn't count Northern Europe as "Homeric".  That would be like calling the Chinese Jin Dynasty "Arthurian"

The Aegean world is surely very very integral to Homer and his characters.

Interesting you see such a huge difference Harry.  What model of military/social organisation would you go for as more fitted to the Northern European Bronze Age?

A Aegean warlord probably needed more capital, he had a ship to buy as well as arming his warriors.

Quote from: Jim Webster on April 01, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
A Aegean warlord probably needed more capital, he had a ship to buy as well as arming his warriors.

Fair point.  Bronze Age northern boats seem to be either log boats (or log and plank) or frame boats as shown in Scandinavian art.  So a coastal warlord may have to have boats but smaller ones.  Assuming we are OK with the concept of warlords and warriors as a basis for wargaming the Northern Bronze Age, of course.

Quote from: Jim Webster on April 01, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
A Aegean warlord probably needed more capital, he had a ship to buy as well as arming his warriors.

As I understand it, late Bronze Age northern Germany is culturally closer to Scandinavia than to neighbouring regions to the south. Consider frex this map from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_late_bronze_age.png). Apart from suggesting that any southerners at Tollense would be genuine outsiders, this presumably implies a good deal of maritime trafic across the Baltic.

(By "culturally" I here of course intend in the archaeological sense; material culture.)

To return briefly to suitable figures, for those fancying the period as a skirmish game, how about 40mm?

http://www.monolithdesigns.co.uk/prehistoric_europe.htm (http://www.monolithdesigns.co.uk/prehistoric_europe.htm)

Largely based on our previously discussed Scandinavian material, with flashes of slightly later central Europe.

Also, in 28mm, for those who fancy their warriors rocking more the Otzi look

http://www.stevebarbermodels.com/35-28mm-prehistoric-settlement (http://www.stevebarbermodels.com/35-28mm-prehistoric-settlement)

Replace a few flint weapons and Ugg's your uncle.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 01, 2016, 01:54:21 PM

Quote from: eques on April 01, 2016, 01:23:22 PM
I certainly wouldn't count Northern Europe as "Homeric".  That would be like calling the Chinese Jin Dynasty "Arthurian"

The Aegean world is surely very very integral to Homer and his characters.

Interesting you see such a huge difference Harry.  What model of military/social organisation would you go for as more fitted to the Northern European Bronze Age?

Well my main point was simply that "Homeric" is the wrong word to use, because it has such very strong associations with the Aegean and Greece.

But I think there were big differences between "Mycaenean" and Northern Europe in the Bronze Age - fewer/no cities, no writing, little or no sailing, different Gods, different climate and terrain, different (more primitive?), different political structures, different arts and crafts.

At a guess, I would say that Northern Europe somewhat resembled Celtic Europe, or the Ancient Germans of the Early Roman Empire.

Quote from: eques on April 15, 2016, 03:51:44 PM


Well my main point was simply that "Homeric" is the wrong word to use, because it has such very strong associations with the Aegean and Greece.

But I think there were big differences between "Mycaenean" and Northern Europe in the Bronze Age - fewer/no cities, no writing, little or no sailing, different Gods, different climate and terrain, different (more primitive?), different political structures, different arts and crafts.

But we are specifically talking about a homeric model of combat. While arts, architecture etc. were different, they aren't directly relevant.  "Homeric" warfare (which is not necessarily the same as Mycenaean) envisages a battlefield of well-equipped  "Big Men" (kings, princes, heroes) who engage other "Big Men", supported by less well-equipped bands of followers and lesser individuals, who seem more inclined to group combat.  Is this a workable model for wargaming the Northern Bronze Age e.g. could you take a set of Homeric rules and create a convincing Bronze Age battle?

Looking at the aftermath of the Tollense battlefield, we do seem to be dealing with a "war to the death" model, not a more limited form of ritual warfare or sacrifice capture model.

Quote
At a guess, I would say that Northern Europe somewhat resembled Celtic Europe, or the Ancient Germans of the Early Roman Empire.

Certainly possible but our descriptions of Celtic and German warfare are often those of huge actions against the classical world.  It is harder to get handle on exactly how "tribal" warfare worked.  Reading accounts of the Romans v. Britons or Irish epics, you might conclude that the natural form of Celtic warfare involved chariot-riding hero elite supported by bands of followers and lesser mortals, broadly the same as the "Homeric" model.

But surely any Germanic model must take account of the ritual sacrifice of captured equipment and perhaps prisoners?

Quote from: Jim Webster on April 16, 2016, 10:11:21 AM
But surely any Germanic model must take account of the ritual sacrifice of captured equipment and perhaps prisoners?

Archaeologically, I think this is an interesting difference between other military finds in a similar area.  These do seem to be collections of weapons/boats/human remains not in situ but put into a bog, whereas Tollense seems to be in situ battlefield remains.  This could reflect significant cultural/religious differences.   In terms of modelling the fighting, I'm not sure whether it would make much difference though.

Somewhere there may be a bog deposit to go with the battle of Tollense, and there are obviously battles to go with the bog deposits.

Quote from: Erpingham on April 16, 2016, 09:20:29 AM
Looking at the aftermath of the Tollense battlefield, we do seem to be dealing with a "war to the death" model, not a more limited form of ritual warfare or sacrifice capture model.

Agreed.

QuoteIt is harder to get handle on exactly how "tribal" warfare worked.

Tacitus, writing in the Germania, suggests that it could be quite dedicated and vicious.

"After the Tencteri came, in former days, the Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and utterly exterminated them with the common help of the neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the conflict. More than sixty thousand fell, not beneath the Roman arms and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes." - Germania 33

Outright annihilation was, of course, the norm rather than the exception, but it does illustrate that Germans took their warfare very seriously.  Caesar's early chapters in his account of his conquest of Gaul are replete with accounts of tribes being displaced by hostile neighbours, which in itself suggests there was more to warfare than chieftains having it out in front of rival audiences.  The big question is how much and how methods of, and approaches to, warfare had changed between the time of Tollense and the first century AD.  If there had been a ritualistic/posturing approach it would soon have been submerged by the more dedicated and serious application of organised butchery.  Tacitus does not comment on trends, but does comment on the Chatti as thriving through being more organised and disciplined than their neighbours.  Note that his concept and treatment of 'Germania' includes the Suessiones (we would nowadays with at least partial accuracy say 'Swedes') and borders on the Fenni, or Finns.  We might thus tentatively apply the 'Germanic' model of war-dedicated, formation-fighting tribes who treated their opponents' deaths extremely seriously across the whole of northern Europe as a faute-de-mieux interpretation.