Research for Dark Ages battles - where??

[MikeBrn]

For SELWG 2012 we are thinking of doing the battle of Otford 775AD as it is a location that is pretty close to us in Kent and where I have walked in the past.

Now, of course, like a lot of Dark Age battles the oob's, locations etc are sometimes not readily available although we have found out a few useful details.

Apart from the relevant books on the subject (the general "battlefields in britain" and "Dark Ages battles" type of books) what else is there?

Would local archeology societies or local authority records hold any clues on the battle? I guess I can just ask any of these, of course, but just wondering if there is a line of enquiry anyone would also suggest. We have a reasonable idea of what the forces would be but a little more on topography would always be useful. Of course, there was a second battle fought there in early 11 century (Canute) so it would never do to get our bones mixed up 
Mike

[Mark]

This may sound obvious, but Google on otford and battlefield turns up:

http://wargamesdiary.wordpress.com/the-first-battle-of-otford-775-ad/ (Hail Caesar scenario with maps)
http://thehistorymanatlarge.blogspot.com/2011/01/battlefield-at-otford-kent.html (extract from Kent/Sussex battlefield walks book which includes Otford; the entire chapter on Otford seems to be available on the Google Books copy)

M

[Patrick Waterson]

Mark seems to have covered the necessary bases; I might add the text of the modest Wikipedia article on the subject:

The Battle of Otford was a battle fought in 776 between King Offa of Mercia and the Jutes of Kent at Otford in the English county of Kent.

Although the outcome of the battle is not recorded, the re-establishment of Kent as an independent kingdom implies that the battle was won by Kent.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle notes only that the Mercians and the people of Kent fought at Otford, without giving the outcome. It is from the four charters issued by independent kings of Kent in the years after 776 that we can deduce that Otford was a Kentish victory. S 35 (dated 778), S 36 (dated 779) and S 37 (not precisely dated) are in the name of King Ecgberht, while S 38 (dated 784) is in the name of King Ealhmund. The changeover between Ecgberht and Ealhmund cannot be dated more precisely than 779-784.

Kent was struggling to retain its independence against the growing power of Mercia. In the 770s Kent's rulers were resisting their demotion to subkings. According to Henry of Huntingdon, the Mercians were victorious at this battle near Sevenoaks. But Stenton argues that Egbert of Kent defeated Offa and that Kentish independence was restored for some years. But after Offa's victory over Wessex at Bensington, pressure was resumed and Kent subdued and absorbed into Mercia.

Everyone agrees the battle was fought at Otford, and the general consensus (with the odd individual demurring) is that it was  Kentish victory (the logic being that otherwise Kentish kings would not have been issuing their own decrees).  Everything beyond that seems to be inspired guesswork, though the articles Mark pinpointed seem to make reasonable surmises.

Does anyone else have knowledge of and/or a special interest in the armies of these kingdoms or even just the period?

Patrick

[aligern]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Warrior-Earliest-Times-Till 1066

The above is the sort of book that would have information about how battles of the period were fought. I think that the biggest  challenge is to introduce tactical decisions into the game.  What is there to this battle except a couple of thousand men on each side  throwing weapons at short range and then whacking each other with heavy swords. It's unlikely that there are many missile troops or skirmishers or cavalry so some of the variety that we have in the standard ancient battle is gone.

I don't know which rules you are using, but  I suggest that you look at giving elite warriors some special attributes  and small groups of followers and having an element of almost skirmish warfare  (though they'd be in battle lines). So there would be the odd archer shooting at particular leaders, spears launched at them  and individual duels that the progress of 'units' depended on.   You need your players to have decisions that advance their cause if they work and retard it if it goes wrong.
Look at the poem, 'the battle of Maldon' There isn't much Dark Age literature on how battles were fought, but 'Maldon' has quite a bit of description and it tells us that the life and death of leaders and heroes is important to the outcome.
What we do have of other period fights tells us that Maldon is not far off the mark.

So, if I were using 'big battle' rules I would  interpose a phase between each major move in which heroes and leaders fought ... and I'd give the Kentishmen some decent warriors!! Then I'd have that phase affect the regular fighting, so if their leader/warrior lost a unit would go down on fighting value .

Roy

[MikeBrn]

Thanks for the replies.

Mark,

The google link you sent me is from a fellow player - the HC scenario mentioned is from the sources we have gathered. I was just looking to see if any bases we had not covered. Had overlooked the seconfd link somehow so will look at that, thanks.

Mike

[gavindbm]

On big battle rules with a strong Dark Age flavour ... You could try looking at Andy Callan's old Dark Age Infantry Slog (DAIS) system or the sets by Daniel Mersey which seem to have been inspired by DAIS.