Anglo-Saxon era military equipment

[Ryan]

I am slightly confused about Anglo-Saxon era military equipment. I have read many books on the subject and all seem to have a different view about what kinds of weapons the average Saxon carried to battle.
Some tell me that Saxons used a framea spear, a hand axe and seax knife. Others tell me they had a seax knife one spear and two javelins. whie others say they only had a spear and a seax reasoning that a Saxon would not have bought any more spears than he had to and little mention has ever been made of axes.
This is quite confusing does anyone know what the Anglo-Saxon carried?

[Chuck Russell]

well safe bet is either a spear, javalins and or a saex

i'd say agood mix of those. maybe a sword here and there for richer fellows.

dont forget about a bow

[Caius Fabius]

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that the Anglo-Saxon warriors were uniform in equipment. Different warriors had different equipment, based on their status and finances.

[Robert Vermaat]

Basic gear - shield and spear
Basic gear - shield and spear
Basic gear - shield and spear

sort offa mantra

[Martin]

I have always imagined axe to be the primary weapon next to spear - archaeological findings should say the same and it is logical also - axe is a cheap weapon, both comfortable and extremely lethal when used properly.

[Robert Vermaat]

Of course the axe would be a common weapon, because it would be the same one used in and around the house.

But first of all, the axe is a secondary weapon. It's meant for throwing, not for fighting with. It would be if it were a two-handed axe, but these are much later and a specialist weapon.

Second, the axe is most useful against a massed enemy, so not a preferred weapon on raids I'd say. But against a massed enemy you'd be in a shield wall yourself, using the spear first. The spear remains the primary weapon, with the saex a close second.

[Matthew Amt]

While I agree that spear and shield would be by far the most common equipment for any Anglo-Saxon-era warrior, there is apparently some regional variation in grave finds. One area will generally have a shield boss and spearheads in a grave, others will turn up more axes, etc. Of course, we can't prove that a man was always buried with exactly the gear that he usually went to war with! There is comparable variation (over time and space) in graves in Denmark and northern Germany.

I'm not sure that an axe was generally for throwing. Some certainly were (the francisca), but others were probably meant to be used as hand weapons. Some of these could double for domestic work, but many battle axes were clearly not tools, and many carpenter's axes were clearly not meant to be weapons. Two-handed axes were used by Harold Godwinson's housecarls at the Battle of Hastings (and presumably had been well-known for a while)--I understand they were introduced by the Vikings, who had arrived in force in England in the 9th century.

Valete,

Matthew

[Ryan]

Thanks for all the replies, I've just read an Osprey book about thegns, it seems that they found a mass weapon sacrifice in a bog in southern Denmark dated to the 4Th century. From the weapons found they were able to determine that the Angles would have had a shield, a seax, a stabbing spear, a javelin and 1/3 of the warriors would have had a sword. Perhaps we can account for the axes and framea spears among the Saxons by saying that the Saxons who invaded southern Britain would have had to fight concentrations of Roman style militia. They would need a heavy throwing spear to defeat Roman shields and a hand axe to defeat armor.

[Arngrim]

Thanks for all the replies, I've just read an Osprey book about thegns, it seems that they found a mass weapon sacrifice in a bog in southern Denmark dated to the 4Th century. From the weapons found they were able to determine that the Angles would have had a shield, a seax, a stabbing spear, a javelin and 1/3 of the warriors would have had a sword. Perhaps we can account for the axes and framea spears among the Saxons by saying that the Saxons who invaded southern Britain would have had to fight concentrations of Roman style militia. They would need a heavy throwing spear to defeat Roman shields and a hand axe to defeat armor.

If you mean the same danish bog as i think you do, its not saxon equipment at all, but West Gothian (Not Gothic - South Western Sweden). The locals sacrificed the loot taken from a vanquished invasion force from my home turf. The spearheads is of a typical West Gothian type, and the swords are roman second hand Gladii, which is rather peculiar since, at the time, there was a total ban on weapon exports from the Roman Empire. Maybe the West Gothians were Romes versions of Montagnards, paid and equipped to harass the harassers?

My info comes from archaeological articles I've read years ago. I might remember wrongly, or new deductions might have been made by now.

The Saxons would however probably not have been much differently equipped than their neighbors

[Ryan]

The bog deposit I read about was the Ejsbol deposit. I think Ejsbol is in the southern part of Jutland which would have been the Angles' northern border. It would be interesting to find out if the swords found in this deposit were Roman in nature.

[Robert Vermaat]

Heinrich Härke compared 700 5th-7th century Anglo-Saxon and Saxon warrior graves to male and infant burials without weapons. He concludes that Anglo-Saxon weapons burial was most probably purely symbolic and unrelated to historical warfare nor real weapon use. About a quarter of all weapon combinations proved incomplete or not functional. Härke concluded therefore that any conclusions about weapon use among the living based on weapon graves might be misleading.

However, here are some figures: (Härke 1993 fig. 3).
5th-7th centuries:
Spear 589 (83.9%)
Shield 317 (45.2%)
Sword 76 (10.8%)
Seax 30 (4.3%)
Axe 14 (2%)
Arrows 7 (1%)

During the period 450-700, spears are always predominant, with shields a close second. At the bottom of the graph are swords in 3rd place, losing that place to saexes around the second half of the 7th century. Arrows only occur between c. 450-550, axes disappear after c. 650.

Bibliography:

Härke, Heinrich (1990): Early Saxon weapon burials: frequencies, distributions and weapon combinations" in S.C. Hawkes (ed.): Weapons and warfare in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 21, pp. 49-61.

Härke, Heinrich (1990): Warrior graves? The background of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite, in: Past & Present 126, pp. 22-43.

Härke, Heinrich (1993): Tombes à armes anglo-saxonnes: sépultures des guerriers ou symbolisme rituel?, in: F.Vallet, M.Kazanski (eds.): L’armèe romaine et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, Paris, pp.425-436.

Weapon burials and the social context: http://www.millennia.demon.co.uk/ravens ... urials.htm

Continental graves of the period are superficially very similar; however, the frequency of the various weapon types varies. Spears are found in 80% of Anglo-Saxon weapon graves and only 50% of continental; shields are again more common in Anglo-Saxon graves (50% as opposed to 20%), whereas seaxes (4% - 60%) and arrowheads (1% - 30%) are markedly less popular. It should be further noted that the seax occurs only towards the end of the pagan period in England.

[Felix]

It can be seen from the above that axes were not terribly well represented. Axes are clearly attributed to the early Franks, and to the later Danes, and Anglo-Saxons thereafter. The Frankish axe is, of course, the francisca, and was primarily a throwing weapon. The Dane axe is a big two-handed war axe. One-handed fighting axes are known from other eras - the Holkham picture Bible has a nice one, and there are plenty from Middle Eastern sources; but not, I think, a particularly common weapon for the Anglo-Saxons.

Also, Anglo-Saxon weaponry did change somewhat over the centuries. The earlier surviving shields tend to be smaller, the later ones much bigger. There is some contention that the smaller shields were symbolic burial pieces, but I am not sure of this. There are other places which used spear and small shield as a weapons combination - i.e. as pictured in the Book of Kells, not related to burial ceremonies. The seax also changed in popularity over time, waning by the time of the Norman
Conquest, as I recall.

[nithijo]

The bog deposit I read about was the Ejsbol deposit. I think Ejsbol is in the southern part of Jutland which would have been the Angles' northern border. It would be interesting to find out if the swords found in this deposit were Roman in nature.

The Ejsbol deposition like all the other major weapon sacrifices is
actually a number of sacrifices:


Ejsbol North: Mass sacrifice of military equipment ca 300 AD

Ejsbol South: Pars pro toto sacrifice ca 400 AD

Ejsbolgaard A: 1.c. BC Small sacrifice of knifes and lanceheads.

Ejsbolgaard B: 1.c. AD 2 shieldbosses and a lancehead

Ejsbolgaard C: Commander's equipment and gold from ca 250-300 AD.
(Probably originating from Angel)

Ejsbolgaard D: Mass offering of military equipment from c 300 AD.

Ejsbolgaard E: Mass offering of military equipment also from ca 300 AD.

Ejsbolgaard F: Officers belt buckle from ca 400 AD.

From 'The spoils of victory',2003

Ejsbol are like the other major sites not considered to be fully excavated.

Cheers
Nithijo aka Soren Larsen

[egfroth]

Ryan, the Anglo-Saxon period lasted from the 5th century AD to the 11th. Over that time things changed a fair bit.

What period are you interested in?

Unfortunately, the information we have available is much less complete than that for Rome, so a lot of it has to be guesswork. But yes - spear and shield, spear and shield . . .

[john m roberts]

Years ago I wrote a paper on the use of weapons and armor in Beowulf, the only surviving Anglo-Saxon epic. I counted every mention, including kennings. Sword and spear get many mentions, as do helmet, cuirass and shield. The seax is mentioned twice, the bow once and that is only to shoot a tarn-beast. The axe is never mentioned as a weapon.[/b]