"It was true, you can't go home again, but sometimes you don't need to"
Not only do I like the TL so far, but I really like your way of writing.
Not only do I like the TL so far, but I really like your way of writing.
The Anglo-Saxon 'line' was the primary defensive formation as it allowed for the numbers of of the AngSax to come to effect while limiting the effecitiveness of a cavalry charge, or more likely, a\ infantry charge such as the Vikings were so famouse for. For the attacker i would think that a infantry charge would be a favored tactic or possible just moving the 'line' forward until it hits the other line. The AngSax military formations and tactics are not well known but it was probably heavily influnced from their experince fighting the vikings and most likely was largely defensive. Another important factor to remember is that archers were rare in a AngloSax and Viking army so they had little relevence to how military leaders decided tactics and strategies, which is another reason why the 'line' was probably a favored method. The problem with a AngloSax formation is that should range weapons be used behind a 'line' it would mean a almost garaunted victory as the archers would be properly defended while the opposing line would be near defenseless as the 'line' was so compact that a arrow had to hit somthing. That is why i would guess that the welsh bow would appear on the english scene much earlier. Mayber Harold enters wales but is but is ambushed by welsh bowmen and after his conquest of wales demands that every fyrd member in wales be trained in the welsh bow instead of other weapons?
The arrows will hit something but it will just be a shield. A shield at arms length provides good protection from arrows. The shields overlap aswell providing double protection. Even in all demontrations or Roman Scorpios I have seen the bolt always gets stuck in the shield. Sources often describe shieldwalls as resembling the back of a serpent which surgests a formation as impenetrable to misiles as the Roman Testudo. Which would also explain why Vikings and Saxons did not bother with bows much.
After all if the shieldwall was as vunerable to arrows as you imply, then as William brang many bowmen the battle should of been over quickly rather than lasting all day. And if historians were willing to agknowledge that the Bayaex tapestry was made by a bunch of housewives rather than Jane's Medieval Weapons they could of even been longbows. As all archeological finds of bows in europe since the Mesolithic tend to be of full length longbows rather than these shortbows historians keep on sugesting they used.
The idea that Saxon or Viking shields could have formed any formation as formidable as the Roman Testudo is ludicrous on it's face. Unlike the Roman Scutum, which was a large rectagular shield which covered most of the body, the Saxon/Viking shield was a much smaller round shield which covered the torso and possibly the upper thighs at most. A man could be incapacitated just about as much by a arrow in the leg as by one in the torso. And if you lift the shield to catch arrows falling from above, you make yourself vulnerable to arrows coming in on a flatter trajectory. The Romans, because of the shape and size of their shields, were able to form a roof over themselves using the shields of the rear ranks while still maintaining a solid defense to the front. The Saxons/Vikings would not have been able to achieve this with their much smaller round shields.
There are accounts of Welsh attacks on English castles, for example, where Welsh arrows penetrated straight through castle doors made of 6-8 inches of solid oak. Clearly a Saxon or Viking shield is not going to pose an obstacle to such a projectile.
The idea that Saxon or Viking shields could have formed any formation as formidable as the Roman Testudo is ludicrous on it's face. Unlike the Roman Scutum, which was a large rectagular shield which covered most of the body, the Saxon/Viking shield was a much smaller round shield which covered the torso and possibly the upper thighs at most. A man could be incapacitated just about as much by a arrow in the leg as by one in the torso. And if you lift the shield to catch arrows falling from above, you make yourself vulnerable to arrows coming in on a flatter trajectory. The Romans, because of the shape and size of their shields, were able to form a roof over themselves using the shields of the rear ranks while still maintaining a solid defense to the front. The Saxons/Vikings would not have been able to achieve this with their much smaller round shields.