"Anglo-Danish/Saxons. What's the difference?" Topic

Firstly, let me preface, I'm not an ancients wargamer per se, however I have been lured into buying an Anglo-Danish warband via friends who introduced me to Saga. I have purchased my 4pt warband from Gripping Beast, however I have looked at augmenting them with other manufacturers figures and to the untrained eye, ie mine, there does not appear to be any difference between Saxons and Anglo-Danes physically, in appearance. My question is a) can I mix them and b)will, say Crusader or Renegade figures mix in well? Actually c) did the Anglo-Danish use cavalry or were horses purely used for transport and dismounted prior to battle?

Not sure about different ranges, but normally 'Saxons' (as in Anglo-Saxons?) would be 5th-10th century, while Anglo-Danes would be 11th Century (Knut and after).

Not a great deal of difference really. Anglo Danes would have some kite shields. Did they use cavalry? Historians have argued about that but it seems likely that they did. Besides, Anglo Saxon / Dane types on horses look cool.

I always thought Anglo Danes have a more viking look to them.

'Anglo Danes' usually represent English armies after the conquest of Canute in 1014, so 2 handed axe men are integrated into 'English' armies in the Viking style.
Other than that, equipment and armour the same as Saxon types. Kite shileds probaly only used at the latter end of the period – 1050s. Both ranges you mention are right for the period, but as far as I am aware, Renegade, though fine figures, are very big and don't mix well with other ranges.

The horse issue is hugely debated but cavalry seem to have been used in campaigns against the Welsh by Ralph the Timid in 1055.The campaign failed, and the cavalry might have been part of a Norman influence on late Saxon English warfare. Mounted warriors do seem to have been used to pursue fleeing enemies. But for skirmishes, perhaps only a lord would have been mounted.

Crusader do a nice set of mounted Saxons and I'd like to buy a unit just to add an extra dimension in a 6pt warband. I feel that Saga might be more forgiving than other sets of commercial rules!

There may have been more Danish influence under C'nut but there had always been some.
The big difference in the Anglo-Danish period was, I think, the appearance of large numbers of Housecarls.
The post Alfred army started using horses to pursue similarly mounted norse raiders, along with the development of Burghs (Earth and Stake defensive forts). The continuing use of horse is probably best attested to by the ease landed Vikings gathered them!.
Like the bow, mounted combat was used most likely, but was not De Regeur for the Saxons.
Good army – enjoy using it! (Ut, Ut, Ut !)

One fact that is often overlooked is that in the immediate post conquest period huscarles formed part of the Norman Army so it is quite historical to field them alongside Norman heavy cavalry

Dave,
Huscarles were the household warriors of the Anglo-Danish aristocracy, so to that extent they could have fought alongside Normans at some points in William's reign. However in the early stages they would have hardly been trusted, while later on the Saxon aristocracy would have been increasingly replaced by Normans. On at least one occasion when William called out the Fyrd (ie the military service owed by the English) he took their money (they were due to turn up with £2 to supply themselves over the period of service) and sent them home. Huscarles would have lost heavily in the battles of 1066, and others (as well as Saxon nobility) left the country – getting as far as Byzantium and joining the Varangian Guard in numbers.

Hi

It all depends which Anglo-Danes you are talking about.

The Great Army of the 860's was disbanded and it's members settled as a landowing class in what was called Danelaw. So from about 870 until about 950 this area was very much culturally Anglo-Danish in nature. In 28mm the differences between these Anglo Danes and Anglo-Saxons would probably be limited to -

1. Shorter tunics for the AD with different embroidery styles
2. More swords and axes and fewer spears. However, the 2H axe so beloved of figure manufacturers only appeared in this country after 991.

Based on Alfreds laws, there is a case to be made for suggesting that after 900 the AS may have had a bigger % of ring shirts, but that's stretching it a bit. As always however, the lesser numbers in a population tend to merge towards conformity with the majority, so by the time Eirik Bloodaxe was killed on Stanemoor in 954, the differences would have disappeared.

For second period (1016-1066) it's a slightly different in that Knut introduced a whole new class of warriors 'The Huscarl' who was supposed to have 2H axe as part of his equipment. They were employed as bodyguards, tax collectors and as general King's 'Enforcers'. Most nobles would have striven to have some under their command.

The Kite shield may have become part of the Huscarls equipment from about 1042 when Edward the Confessor brought Norman (he was in exile in Normandy from 1014-1042) mercaneries to court. (Their presence eventually led to the brink of civil war in 1052 but that's another story).

So, for 1016-1066 the only distinctive 'Anglo-Danes' would be the Huscarls with big axes as a bodyguard or maybe leading a small detachment of the Fyrd. Otherwise the main body of troops would have all been very similar in appearance with sword, spear and big round shield.

Harolds deployment of the Huscarls in the front rank at Hastings was unsual and probably reflects an attempt to stiffen his army – parts of which mave have already fought 2 major battles in the preceeding 4 weeks. Generally they fought as a unit or smaller complete units – one of which would be charged with protecting their particlar Lord – or indeed the King.

The mounted question is very vexing. It is widely believed that the from about Alfreds time the Fyrd rode to battle and fought on foot. This is mentioned in the Maldon poem and the idea of mounted Thegns pursing Viking raiders is not at odds with this concept.

It also explains how Harold marched from London to York, fought a battle and than back to Hastings in only 3-4 weeks.

The ASC records very clearly how, in 1054 (?) the Englisc tried to fight a mounted campaign against the Welsh and came a serious cropper as a result. IIRC the ASC blames this on making the army 'fight in a style they were not accustomed to'. However, suggesting that they were capable of performing as 'Cavalry' in the same was as the Franks of the same period is, in my opinion, simply beyond credible.

Pete

Going by Saga rules, Anglo-Danes don't get any cavalry, but I'm sure if your opponent is ok with it, you can use them, either with the same cavalry rules as for Normans (they get hit easier in missile combat) or just as foot (with the horses just for show).

You've got to love a period that produces a commander called Ralph the Timid.

uh oh. cue naughty TMP'ers with alternative names!

Charles the Rash?