Anglo-Saxon England?

I can't be the only person who has difficulty dissociating the Anglo-Saxons of the Medieval period with the Dark Age period? I associate the Medieval period with the Norman Invasion which is obviously totally wrong, so what was England like before the Normans?

I've heard that the changes English underwent after 1066 began beforehand, and we think of pre-1066 England as being visually similar to the 6th century Anglo-Saxons when that's unlikely to be the case. Hastings wasn't Sutton-Hoo-eqsue migration period guys fighting feudal knights, so what was it? What was 11th century England like? Was it really that different to 12th century England? Was it feudal?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/anglo_saxons/anglo-saxons_at_war/).
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Anglo-Saxon England before the Norman conquests was actually closer to Saxon south and Anglo-Danish north-east England. The north-east and more Anglo areas fell under Danish rule for decades and saw lots of Danish settlement. The southern England under Alfred the Great managed to remain independent and conquer the now Anglo-Danish regions to the north.

The last "Anglo-Saxon" king Harold Godwinson was in fact an Anglo-Saxon-Dane. He and his family were huge Danish sympathisers, Harold himself was half Danish. If his Danish name "Harold" wasn't a big hint his mothers name was Gytha Thorkelsdottir.

Because the Earls in England controlled such large areas of land, especially in the north they were often troublesome and generally left to their own devices as long as they accepted southern rule.

England's legal and tax systems were apparently first class in western europe. They kept records of everything well which hints to higer literacy rates.

You're right by the time of Hastings the English had stopped using the migration period gear which consisted of seaxes and spears and much smaller round shields. Over time their shields became larger and they stopped using the seax and replaced it with swords and more spears becoming popular. With the Danish influence they are recorded to begin using the large two handed Dane Axe and the second last King Edward was very Norman friendly and so they also started adopting the use of the Norman kite shields.

Many huscarls at hastings at Hastings were using kite shields (pic related) and you can also see the use of the Dane axe.

That's pretty cool man, thanks for the info. Do you happen to have any recommendations on reading about the subject or time period in general?

>With the Danish influence they are recorded to begin using the large two handed Dane Axe

They used the Dane Axe from the very beginning because they they were originally from Denmark anyway.

So basically, Brits were pretty much vikings until Normans invaded and Frenchified them?

The English have probably written a thousand books by them desu m8. Its easy to find online.

Except evidence suggests the Dane axe only became popular in England after the 10th century. Just because they were from the same geographical area doesn't mean that their culture developed the same way. The Anglo-Saxons and Norse have like 400 years of seperation. They were close cousins but not not brothers.

Viking-Celts.

Bit more complicated than that. The Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity much earlier than the Scandinavians thanks to Celtic evangelists like Aidan of Lindisfarne and the Roman mission lead by Augustine of Canterbury. Their conversion had far reaching implications for their Germanic culture the most important being the rise of literacy and communion with continental Europe which meant increased trade. Compared to the Vikings who were illiterate people and primarily supported themselves through raiding, the Anglo-Saxons were a more stable and advanced civilization.

>Except evidence suggests the Dane axe only became popular in England after the 10th century.
What evidence? The scholars I've read (Stenton and Higham) claim that the Anglo-Saxons fought with long hafted bearded axes during their initial conquest of Britain.

>easy to find online
Right, I was just curious if y'all had any recommendations on a personal level, I don't mind sifting through other message boards and whatnot. Veeky Forums normally gives pretty good recommendations because the people that actually know what they're talking about are usually well read on the topic.

This is actually a pretty great board if you stick to topics that aren't /pol/ or /int/ bait, which is pretty easy once you learn to spot it. Posts like the OP that are actual, well worded questions that encourage discussion are always a good bet.

That aside, definitely monitoring this thread, thanks for sharing gents.

Sir Frank Stenton's "Anglo-Saxon England" was considered the authoritative book on the subject for many years but it is old. Nicholas Higham's "The Anglo-Saxon World" is more recent and benefits from archaeological advancements that have occurred since Stenton's book was written however in my opinion it suffers from a pro-Latin bias that tends to downplay the Germanic contributions to Anglo-Saxon culture. For example, Stenton refers to the Anglo-Saxon nobility as "thegns" which is their Old English title whereas Higham prefers to use the Latin "ministri" to describe them.

Excellent, thank you. That's why I like getting personal recommendations, some list isn't going to tell me that Stenton's work is a bit outdated and that Higham's is biased. I'm guessing Stenton's book is still worth reading as long as I follow up with more recent works?

Anglo-Saxon axe heads found are too small to be considered a Dane Axe. Sure you can assume any axe head with a rotten away shaft was a two handed axe but you can't prove it and its more likely they are normal axes. We know for a fact that they overwhelmingly used spears and seaxes in the early period. Axes if used were never popular and quickly fell out of use, even in the 10th century Dane axes were probably only used by well trained huscarls working in unison with others because you literally can't defend yourself with one.

Considering early migration era Anglo-Saxons seemed to have fought in a much looser formation (smaller shields) its doubtful many people would choose a two handed axe over their already small shield.

Yes Stenton contains a lot of useful information and I prefer his writing style over Higham's.

Are you sure about that? Pic related seems rather large and the BBC describes battle axes as a hallmark of Anglo-Saxon weaponry (bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/anglo_saxons/anglo-saxons_at_war/). Again, given that they originated from Denmark it seems likely that they had always been familiar with the Dane Axe. Do you happen to have a link to where you're getting your information from?

>You literally can't defend yourself with a two handed stick with an axe attached to the end of it
I don't want to sling shit here but it sounds like you're talking out of your ass. It wouldn't be any different than using a spear, quarterstaff, or any other bladed polearm.

That is a link doesn't say that dane axes were common in Anglo-Saxon warfare before the 10th century.

Axes are found in as weapons and tools in all periods of Anglo-Saxon history but the two handed use of dane axes was popularised in the later period. Accounts from Anglo-Saxon chronicles talk about spears and swords, not two handed axes.

Spears are used with a shield. Dane axes are top heavy and cannot be used in one hand. I just googled this image to show you the difference between a dane axe and a normal axe. You can see the length of the shaft is much greater for the dane axe on the right.

Right but the link does say that the battle axe was well known Anglo-Saxon weapon and I've already named two sources that say they were in use from the migration period. Do you have a link or source to support your claim?

You could still use the haft to redirect and block. It's not ideal, but you can defend yourself with it. I do appreciate you not getting super defensive and slinging shit though.

Both of your links claim that they used axes not dane axes user. While all dane axes are axes not all axes are dane axes. There is a difference in how they are used.


Seeing you demand sources as much as you do.

>"Viking Warrior vs Anglo-Saxon Warrior: England 865-1066 (Combat)" by Gareth Williams, Peter Dennis -

>The battle of Maldon is seen from the perspective of a warrior in the English fyrd. The equipment of the two sides is very similar, and in both armies the close-packed nature of the combat means that most of those in the front rank are fighting with the short seax, rather than with more cumbersome weapons, while those in the ranks behind thrust through with spears . The Vikings are distinguishable by the presence of a few spectacle helmets, and some two-handed axes.

From this information we can gather a few that Anglo-Saxon records deliberately make mention of two handed axes as a viking weapon not an English one. They mention that both sides used seaxes, spears and swords but not that both use a dane axe.

You can't keep assuming that because they have the same place of origin that they had comparable cultures. An example of this could be Japan and China, centuries of seperation make people different.

I've only given you one link, the other names I've mentioned are historians whose books I've read and I'm well aware of the distinction between long and short hafted battleaxes. Thank you for quote but I'm more interested in your claim about the earlier axe heads being too small, do you have any sources about that? The reason I'm skeptical is because it goes against what I've read and an user's word is not much to go on. As for the example you gave, it doesn't quote any primary source from the Anglo-Saxon records about two handed axes being unique only to vikings but seems only to be a modern imagining of what that battle may have looked like.

"The English Warrior: From Earliest Times till 1066 " by Stephen Pollington has a sections that covers early Anglo-Saxon graves including the axe heads found in them. The beliefis that the axe heads are more likely tools than weapons.

"Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare" by Richard Underwood is another that goes in to detail about all types of Anglo-Saxon weaponry.

"Warrior Graves"? The Background of the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite by Heinrich Harke

If axes were ever popular as a weapon for Anglo-Saxons there would be a lot more axe heads in the dirt. Unless looters favourite things to steal were axes and not swords.

Sorry for phone picture I'm at work "working" :^)

Best thread on Veeky Forums right now, you lads are great.

Now I'm really confused because the Harke picture says that axes make up 3.3% of the weapons uncovered from the 5th and 6th centuries but you're saying Pollington claims these weren't weapons but tools. So it seems that scholars aren't in agreement about the status of these artifacts. You wouldn't happen to have any info about their size because that would be the most persuasive evidence about what they were used for?

Not really, our genetic makeup is hardly changed at all, we remain broadly of a similar stock to the native Britons etc. and though the cultural influence is great, impact genetically no, the development of England is far too greatly attributed to these migrating populations and not the environment and factors affecting everyone, driving change.

I thought North Northumbria was outside Danish influence?

Pretty well-respected in the 10th and 11th centuries

I watched something on medieval times today, and the presenter said that the biggest difference between the "Early" and "High" middle ages is the extent which "nobility" is codified. In the early middle ages, being "noble" was basically just a matter of opinion. If you had a lot of money, and you were "popular" among your peers, you're basically a noble. There weren't any specific rules for who was considered nobility, nor were there any specific rules regarding what privileges that nobility should expect to have.

However, as time went on, nobility became more defined, and more exclusive. Genealogy became increasingly important for proving whether you had a "real" claim to nobility or not. Extensive family trees were developed as a means of proudly displaying one's "noble" heritage. Coat of Arms were devised as way to quickly and efficiently convey who you were related to, and why it mattered. And perhaps most importantly from our point-of-view, the practice of having more than one name came into common practice. During the "Early" middle ages, you'd just have one name, because that was enough. However, during the "High" middle ages, it became common for a person to have a first AND last name to make familial connects more prominent. And of course some noble families went much further than that. All of this made it much harder for a person to "break into" the nobility. The nobility was never completely exclusive. In some cases, you could simply purchase a title of nobility from the King if you had enough money to do such a thing. But as time went on, joining the club of "nobles" became harder and harder as more and more rules were constructed to prevent too many people from being noble.

And of course, as "nobility" became more solidly defined, so did the privileges that came along with the various titles. Nobility came to have a very specific package of rights, which varied from place to place but was otherwise quite consistent.

> implying 20% of the population weren't slaves

I've seen this too

Your civ is truly shit and you germanics are truly, i read your history and just think how hard you try to be special

Just at mesopotamia, they didnt bring that shit about noble

Are you having a fucking stroke? Want to try that again in actual English? Jesus, can't even shitpost right.

Germanics are shit and they must be exterminate

You people are so stupid and dont have any logic

we're smart and look pretty that's good enough

That's a nice strawman you've got there, you make it all by yourself?

Unlikely given that Bloodaxe once reigned there.

Well, technically there wasnt any Danish influence since Bloodaxe wasnt Danish