Questions on 8th-10th century Anglo-Saxons + Vikings (raiders and Danelaw)

[Darthvegeta800]

Hello all. Been ages since I dropped by the forum but I wanted to consult the hardcore Dark Ages experts here.
I hope i'm in the right section for this. I was not 100% sure as i'd both like to discuss the historical facts AND the wargaming side of it all.

On Kickstarter there is currently a 15mm Dark Ages project running and it seemed like the ideal moment to jump into both the era and that scale.
However... I had questions.
I've been reading up on the subject somewhat and the topic is unsurprisingly ill defined. Due to a lack of sources.
Still I'd love to hear how others have tackled their army projects based on at least a good and acceptable 'historical' flavor. (doesn't need to be 100% correct but I do like my historical forces to be 90% correct)

I also wish to point out I'll be using Dux Bellorum for the period. I know the system is aimed at the pseudo 'Arthurian' era. But it seems easy enough to reflect the early Vikings with the Sea Raiders army list and the Late Anglo Saxon list for well... the Anglo Saxons. (shield wall and all that fun)
The Anglo Saxons i'll be TRYING to reflect would be 8th-10th century. Rise of Mercia, Alfred the Great etc.

1) For starters and to my immense regret the Huscarls in their signature fashion were only an 11th century emergence.
So what kind of equipment should I aim for when going for noble retinues. As the large shield won't be in use.
I assume I can get away with some guys using a large 2 handed axe but most would use round shield, spear, chainmail.
How frequent would the elite of the army have swords? I take it even they would still start off with spear/round shield as a basic element?

2) Would I be able to get away with using well armed Vikings or is the divergence in aesthetic too large? The basic equipment is the same but perhaps some elements would still ensure a wide divergence on the 15mm scale? I know Vikings tend to be stereotypically depicted as 'bearded' and the Anglo Saxons as just 'moustached'. But how historical is this?

3) I'm in no way an expert but it does seem like the Fyrd was way more professional than the way it was depicted in the past. Could I get away with depicting the entire lot as at least competent quality? As there seem indications the same guy(s) were sent off to serve, I presume a minimum of experience can be on average be assumed.
Would it be okay to slam the armored and unarmored Fyrd members together and do you think I'd be correct in assuming the more armored members should be depicted up front the shieldwall line?

4) What side of the fence are you guys on when it comes to the concept of the general levy among Anglo Saxon kingdoms? Frequent? Or rare? A minor element in the army to bulk out forces or recurring in large quantities?

5) Viking mercenaries. How likely are they? I saw them mentioned before but with little backing. (so much on the topic of the Anglo Saxon military seems speculation)

6) Finally Anglo Saxon cavalry in the 8th-10th century. Yay or nay? AND how were they probably equipped? And skirmishers. When it comes to archers or other kinds of ranged units... how frequent were they used and roughly what number percentage if at all? And if so would they just be integrated as support behind the shieldwalls or operate more independantly?

And then the Viking side of things:

1) When it comes to Viking Raiders I'd presume the typical raiders would on average be well armed and equipped overall. So elite smaller forces. Few if any spearmen/archers. But a good amount of armor, swords, axes of all sorts etc. Could I get away with lightly armored units of axe + shield + helmet and chainmailed mix of helmet/shield/axes/swords etc. How recurring are the 2handed axes?
2) Danelaw Vikings. When it comes to Viking Rulers with an established 'domain'. Could I get away using basically Fyrd models to reflect the locals serving? And have the elite retinues of the lord + professionals/mercenaries etc be Viking styllistically? How different would the appearances even be? Because if little... it seems like i could easily make a large Anglo Saxon army and split it in 2 if need be just by replacing the top tier units and Lords by a Viking equivalent.
3) An odd one but architecture... when it comes to Danelaw villages. Would they remain for the most part Saxon in style or would a mixture of Viking aesthetic be added? Are there traces of this?


A horde of questions but these bizarre things occupy me when pondering the topic.

...in the meantime i'll tackle some books that arrived on the topic to explore it even more!

[Andreas Johansson]

1) When it comes to Viking Raiders I'd presume the typical raiders would on average be well armed and equipped overall. So elite smaller forces. Few if any spearmen/archers. But a good amount of armor, swords, axes of all sorts etc. Could I get away with lightly armored units of axe + shield + helmet and chainmailed mix of helmet/shield/axes/swords etc. How recurring are the 2handed axes?

Spears should be very common actually. Basic equipment would be spear and shield, with sword or axe as backup. 2-handed axes are mostly a phenomenon of the later half of the 10th century and later, altho home defense levies will undoubtedly have included poorer men wielding 2-handed "civilian" axes (for felling trees) long before then. Metal armour was very expensive, but probably got more common over the period. Surely never universal in army-sized forces however. Helmets would be commoner than mail, obviously. Lamellar armour might also be used by a few.

Many men would have bows, but few if any would operate as specialist archers.

[Darthvegeta800]

1) When it comes to Viking Raiders I'd presume the typical raiders would on average be well armed and equipped overall. So elite smaller forces. Few if any spearmen/archers. But a good amount of armor, swords, axes of all sorts etc. Could I get away with lightly armored units of axe + shield + helmet and chainmailed mix of helmet/shield/axes/swords etc. How recurring are the 2handed axes?

Spears should be very common actually. Basic equipment would be spear and shield, with sword or axe as backup. 2-handed axes are mostly a phenomenon of the later half of the 10th century and later, altho home defense levies will undoubtedly have included poorer men wielding 2-handed "civilian" axes (for felling trees) long before then. Metal armour was very expensive, but probably got more common over the period. Surely never universal in army-sized forces however. Helmets would be commoner than mail, obviously. Lamellar armour might also be used by a few.

Many men would have bows, but few if any would operate as specialist archers.

Spears would even in be raiding parties be common? As in Sea Raiders? I know it is cheap and widespread but i'd assume it's use would be much more common in larger forces planning to form up cohesive shieldwalls and the likes not quick, hit and run forces.
Then again I suppose when facing local militia and untrained peasants a spear is more than effective enough if not superior due to reach.

[Andreas Johansson]

Everybody going viking would be bringing a spear along. Presumably they might leave it with the ships / in camp if expecting to fight in a built up area or similar where a shorter weapon would be more convenient.

Spears were also particularly favoured for shipboard fighting.

[Darthvegeta800]

Everybody going viking would be bringing a spear along. Presumably they might leave it with the ships / in camp if expecting to fight in a built up area or similar where a shorter weapon would be more convenient.

Spears were also particularly favoured for shipboard fighting.

For shipboard fighting? How would they use it in that context?

[Andreas Johansson]

For shipboard fighting? How would they use it in that context?

Presumably similarly to the naval boarding pikes of later ages.

[Duncan Head]

On spears:

You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords. But if the fight is on shipboard, select two spears which are not to be thrown, one with a shaft long enough to reach easily from ship to ship and one with a shorter shaft, which you will find particularly serviceable when you try to board the enemy's ship. Various kinds of darts should be kept on ships, both heavy javelins and lighter ones. Try to strike your opponent's shield with a heavy javelin, and if the shield glides aside, attack him with a light javelin, unless you are able to reach him with a long-shafted spear.

This is from the Speculum Regale, which is 13th-century Norwegian, but a lot of the advice would no doubt apply in earlier periods as well.

[Darthvegeta800]

Hmm interesting but I presume they'd be discarded when on the opposing ship itself. Seems like the space  would be quite cramped.

[Erpingham]

Hmm interesting but I presume they'd be discarded when on the opposing ship itself. Seems like the space  would be quite cramped.

It would but it depends on two things IMO.  Firstly, both sides are primarily spearmen and spear handling would be their basic skill, so it may not have seemed as awkward for them.  Secondly, in this earlier period, what secondary weapon do they have?  I don't think long swords would be ubiquitous in this early period, with the seax being a common secondary.  That might be less appealing in a boarding fight than a spear.

BTW, nice to see you around again Ronald.

[Darthvegeta800]

Hmm interesting but I presume they'd be discarded when on the opposing ship itself. Seems like the space  would be quite cramped.

It would but it depends on two things IMO.  Firstly, both sides are primarily spearmen and spear handling would be their basic skill, so it may not have seemed as awkward for them.  Secondly, in this earlier period, what secondary weapon do they have?  I don't think long swords would be ubiquitous in this early period, with the seax being a common secondary.  That might be less appealing in a boarding fight than a spear.

BTW, nice to see you around again Ronald.

True. Though a short blade or a hand axe in a cramped space may still be better.
Then again that's assuming everyone even considered that factor... as you indicated there is habit and the 'feels better' aspect.
Not to mention the question if it would be that 'cramped'.

Glad to be around again somewhat.
Life has been hectic and the year will be quite busy for me.
Moving, house, a lot of stuff coming my way work-wise.

But it feels good to just be able to discuss things. It unstresses!

[Andreas Johansson]

It would but it depends on two things IMO.  Firstly, both sides are primarily spearmen and spear handling would be their basic skill, so it may not have seemed as awkward for them.  Secondly, in this earlier period, what secondary weapon do they have?  I don't think long swords would be ubiquitous in this early period, with the seax being a common secondary.  That might be less appealing in a boarding fight than a spear.

Like I said, the secondary weapon would be sword or axe. While the 2-handed axe is mostly a feature of the later Viking Age, the 1-handed one is found throughout.

I don't know if it would be all that cramped, however. We're talking about low, open vessels after all.

[Erpingham]

It would but it depends on two things IMO.  Firstly, both sides are primarily spearmen and spear handling would be their basic skill, so it may not have seemed as awkward for them.  Secondly, in this earlier period, what secondary weapon do they have?  I don't think long swords would be ubiquitous in this early period, with the seax being a common secondary.  That might be less appealing in a boarding fight than a spear.

Like I said, the secondary weapon would be sword or axe. While the 2-handed axe is mostly a feature of the later Viking Age, the 1-handed one is found throughout.

For Vikings, perhaps.  I'm not sure how much Saxons used single handed axes and, again, I'm uncertain that everyone would be sword armed by this point.  But I confess not to being an expert on this period of Anglo-Scandinavian interaction.

To return to an earlier comment by Ronald, I'd be careful how you approach the fyrd.  Our general model of what the fyrd was like is later than the Alfredian one.  It would perhaps be helpful if someone could detail the Alfredian system.

[Darthvegeta800]

From what i've noticed the non elite/noble warriors seem just depicted with a mix of:
spears, small axes, round shields, helmets and caps of a variety of sorts.
So they are hard to distinguish from Viking native forces.

Still I read interpretations that made the Fyrd look even 8th-9th century likely to be more professional and well armed as frequently depicted.
Hence I wonder if I shouldn't depict a larger ratio as well armed, decently trained.
And use the more ragtag fellows for the general levy units.

[Andreas Johansson]

For Vikings, perhaps.

I was indeed only referring to the Scandinavian side.

[Darthvegeta800]

For Vikings, perhaps.

I was indeed only referring to the Scandinavian side.

But why would some of the Anglo Saxons not use small hand axes?
Seems like affordable and hardly unknown in Brittain.
Might not be the go to weapon but I doubt it would be scoffed up as a backup weapon.

And the more noble and veteran troops?
Swords were mentioned as being veritable 'gifts' given to worthy warriors and leaders by the local kings.
So at least a good portion of the retinues would not wield swords I presume. Then again popularly they are depicted with a lot of swords in combo with spears.
They'll have had access to the seax for sure but fancy axes or would they avoid those?

I also bumped into mention of 'javelins' potentially being used by warriors besides the spear. Would this be done by the fyrd/levy or might it be more likely among the hird guard?
Also there is an evolution from more individualistic warfare to the stereotypical shieldwall.
But what role and in what numbers would archers and javelins operate in that shieldwall context?