Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

The Dark Age Warrior Early Saxon list (#3) ends in 885 (the
establishment of the Danelaw by Alfred the Great). The Dark Age Warrior
Anglo-Danish list (#36) doesn't start until 954 although the notes
mention Saxon king Edward completing the re-conquest of the Danelaw in
920, the fall of Mercia in 942 and Danish York in 954.

So.

Just what army did the West Saxon kings and Braetwaldas use for those
conquests?

Is the presumption that the Danelaw encompassed all of England (which
was certainly not the case - the kingdoms of Northumberland, Mercia and
East Anglia fell but Wessex was still around and in fact the Danelaw was
the creation of Alfred the Great's treaty with the Danes after he
defeated them) or just that the West Saxons in their darkest hour were
so culturally and military dominated by the Danes as to become just
another army of 'Viking' rebels (which would be odd in exactly the era
they were finally defeating their tormentors - and the Viking list does
not seem from the notes to encompass this)?

Alfred acquired London after the 885 establishment of the Danelaw, and
his son Edward and (particularly) his grandson Athelstan came to
dominate England, which Edmund and Eadred then continued and extended
until the beginning of the Anglo-Danish list.

My guess is simply that one of the dates is incorrect here and the notes
simply mis-implying a hole rather than an entire separate army being
missing.

This comes up because I have been messing around with the PC game
"Medieval Total War" which covers this period and went looking for the
relevant lists in Warrior, only to find the rest but be unable to pin
the West Saxons down.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

I just checked the 6th ed lists and now I really am wondering. There
was an obvious change in the start date and notes of the Anglo-Danes
from 6th (which had Anglo-Danes begin in 885 with the establishment
of the Danelaw - the same spot where the Early Saxon list ends) to
Warrior to seemingly make a point of excluding the armies of Wessex,
with no change elsewhere to allow for them.

[scott holder]

John: I will put this in my growing list of list things to look at but don't
expect a quick answer.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:09 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: LISTS where are the Saxons?


I just checked the 6th ed lists and now I really am wondering. There
was an obvious change in the start date and notes of the Anglo-Danes
from 6th (which had Anglo-Danes begin in 885 with the establishment
of the Danelaw - the same spot where the Early Saxon list ends) to
Warrior to seemingly make a point of excluding the armies of Wessex,
with no change elsewhere to allow for them.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[scott holder]

My guess is simply that one of the dates is incorrect here and the notes
simply mis-implying a hole rather than an entire separate army being
missing.

>I don't understand that sentence other than the seperate army bit. There is no
seperate army. I don't get the rest.

[John Murphy]

If there is no seperate army (whew!) then I would guess the changing
(from 6th to Warrior) of the Anglo-Danish start date from 885 to 954
is incorrect.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> My guess is simply that one of the dates is incorrect here and the
notes
> simply mis-implying a hole rather than an entire separate army
being
> missing.
>
> >I don't understand that sentence other than the seperate army
bit. There is no seperate army. I don't get the rest.

[scott holder]

Not necessarily--I remember working thru the rationale for this at the time.
But, I would have to go back, pull my books and plow thru the material again in
order to come up with that rationale--no time at the present for that.

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Murphy [mailto:jjmurphy@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:26 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: LISTS where are the Saxons?


If there is no seperate army (whew!) then I would guess the changing
(from 6th to Warrior) of the Anglo-Danish start date from 885 to 954
is incorrect.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> My guess is simply that one of the dates is incorrect here and the
notes
> simply mis-implying a hole rather than an entire separate army
being
> missing.
>
> >I don't understand that sentence other than the seperate army
bit. There is no seperate army. I don't get the rest.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/