Home Forums Medieval War of succession of England Reply To: War of succession of England

#79649
Ruarigh
Participant

I speak of differences between these army and well for example as in my post of 21/12/2017 at 17:03 ??? …… Well, I bet you that in 1066, the Norwegians had many more archers than the Saxons for the reasons explained in my post of 21/12/2017 at 17:03 !  … I hope you know that the Saxons have always had the reputation of having very few archers it’s not a legend I hope ?

Paskal, you did not give any reasons why the Anglo-Saxons had fewer bows than the Vikings. You mentioned the medieval leidang laws from Norway, but did not discuss the evidence for Anglo-Saxon bow use. That is why I asked you why you thought the Anglo-Saxons did not use bows much. Just because a group of people have a reputation for doing something does not mean that this was actually the case. So, what evidence do you have for the Anglo-Saxons using fewer bows?

And you, you go on the use of modern terms that everyone understands and admits even if they are not appropriate (something we do not care about) as “viking”, “national” and that we will use even if it displeases you, that for more facilities

Terminology is important. It shapes how we approach research, and it shapes the way people think about the past.

For your current project, is it reasonable to refer to a national army? Think about who was actually in the Norwegian army of 1066. How many of those people were Norwegian? How many were Danish, Swedish, or Frisian adventurers? How many Anglo-Saxons did Tostig have with him? One manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle talks about the Norwegian army as Norwegians and Flemings. This addition dates from c.1200 but shows that the medieval scribe thought not in terms of a national army, but in terms of an army that included several nationalities. This is important, because each of these groups might have a different appearance, and so the uniformity of appearance and differences between the armies might be much less than you seem to be looking for.

I appreciate that you are trying to find differences to make each army have a slightly different character, but I am not sure they are really present in a form that could be represented on a wargames table although beards vs moustaches would be one way, as we discussed earlier. If you can identify the make-up of each army in terms of armoured/unarmoured troops, and types of weapons, I am sure there were differences, but there is minimal surviving evidence for that. Instead you’ll have to go with your best guess based on what evidence does survive.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://envirocitizen.eu
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/