08-10-2006, 01:36 PM
This is good 
One of my bugbears has been the "numbers" thing as I have again and again read that Dark Age warefare was a "hobby" thing for elite warrior bands who might have numbered in the hundreds at the most and that implies a non free non warrior element who were expected not to fight. ( out of period but I recall that the Viking "Great Army" which spent a summer wreaking havoc in north England is said to have numered 800 at most )
I have alway found this a little concerning as just three tribes of Sioux managed to get 1500 warriors together to wipe out old long Hair! I know British kingdoms as we call them are only counties but their populations would have been far greater than the Sioux could muster from ?
When an ancient mentioned a keel of warriors is the only translation the amount of men from one ship ...could it not mean, as with a "lance " in medieval times ... a warrior and his retinue ...i.e his ship and any others he owned ?
As those of you who know me another bugbear is the sword ownership thing ( the Fearrai of the Dark Ages ..only for the elite etc etc etc ) as I have trouble believeing that a far larger proportion of warriors "could" technically have been armed with swords as technically it was possible. Only the denial by a ruling elite would have stopped that.
Anyway my ramblings have a point ..... if one is to assume a sizable defence force any sneaky influx of a small force would surely have been crushed before it could have rooted itself ?
A larger force with the aim of getting a foothold would have to be in the thousands ?
One of my bugbears has been the "numbers" thing as I have again and again read that Dark Age warefare was a "hobby" thing for elite warrior bands who might have numbered in the hundreds at the most and that implies a non free non warrior element who were expected not to fight. ( out of period but I recall that the Viking "Great Army" which spent a summer wreaking havoc in north England is said to have numered 800 at most )
I have alway found this a little concerning as just three tribes of Sioux managed to get 1500 warriors together to wipe out old long Hair! I know British kingdoms as we call them are only counties but their populations would have been far greater than the Sioux could muster from ?
When an ancient mentioned a keel of warriors is the only translation the amount of men from one ship ...could it not mean, as with a "lance " in medieval times ... a warrior and his retinue ...i.e his ship and any others he owned ?
As those of you who know me another bugbear is the sword ownership thing ( the Fearrai of the Dark Ages ..only for the elite etc etc etc ) as I have trouble believeing that a far larger proportion of warriors "could" technically have been armed with swords as technically it was possible. Only the denial by a ruling elite would have stopped that.
Anyway my ramblings have a point ..... if one is to assume a sizable defence force any sneaky influx of a small force would surely have been crushed before it could have rooted itself ?
A larger force with the aim of getting a foothold would have to be in the thousands ?
Conal Moran
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
