I was rereading the KAP4 Saxons! book, and it has a few interesting bits in the timeline. Specifically that stirrups and lance charges (with horse db) are something introduced by Aurelius. Now I relaise that was KAP4, and Green Knight to boot, but does anybody know if that holds true or not for the KAP5 timeline?

At least from SIRES onwards, yes. :P

Thanks!

As a side note that works out wonderfully for what I ha in mind for my early campaign. I was thinking that shock calvary charges where a new thing, took everyone by surprise, and gives Aurelius an advantage over everyone else. It also helps to explain why his cavarly was so effective at Kaerconan (Coinsburogh) in 469. Of course eventually all the other nobles pick up on this, and by the Anarchy Period all the Knights are doing it.

As a side note that works out wonderfully for what I ha in mind for my early campaign. I was thinking that shock calvary charges where a new thing, took everyone by surprise, and gives Aurelius an advantage over everyone else. It also helps to explain why his cavarly was so effective at Kaerconan (Coinsburogh) in 469. Of course eventually all the other nobles pick up on this, and by the Anarchy Period all the Knights are doing it.

I would make the military adoption quicker, since surely everyone wants in on this, and the High King wants his army to be great.

However, in my headcanon, this might be the reason why Aurelius gets his ass kicked in 473 Windsor. The Cymric nobles are like 'heck yeah, cavalry charge is OP!', but since Aurelius has lost many of his Breton & continental mercs after 469, he doesn't have that elite heavy cavalry core and most nobles are still kinda picking it up (this being just 4 years after 469, i.e. about half of the larval (squire) stage). The raids and fighting against the Saxons in smaller skirmishes during the rest of 470s lets the nobility get better at lance-charges, and in Salisbury and Menevia 480, the heavy cavalry shows its worth again.

It is clear from KAP 5.2, UTHER and WARLORD that knights as lance-charging heavy cavalry is the norm by Uther's reign.

I would make the military adoption quicker, since surely everyone wants in on this, and the High King wants his army to be great.

Yeah, I probably should have said, by the Uther Period. I figure that Logres gets it right away, but that it takes a few years for it to get out to the borders, or up north, like in Lothian.




However, in my headcanon, this might be the reason why Aurelius gets his ass kicked in 473 Windsor. The Cymric nobles are like 'heck yeah, cavalry charge is OP!', but since Aurelius has lost many of his Breton & continental mercs after 469, he doesn't have that elite heavy cavalry core and most nobles are still kinda picking it up (this being just 4 years after 469, i.e. about half of the larval (squire) stage). The raids and fighting against the Saxons in smaller skirmishes during the rest of 470s lets the nobility get better at lance-charges, and in Salisbury and Menevia 480, the heavy cavalry shows its worth again. [quote]

Yup, plus the Britons probably don't have the discipline to hold ranks and wait. In Conisburg, the Calvary stayed in the reserves throughout most of the fight, making their charge into the Saxon flank all the more effective. I suspect that the typical British Knight probably lacked the discipline to sit back in reserve while everyone else was grabbing lots of glory. Maybe the reserve rushed in on the second or third battle turn.

It might also explain why the Freisan Campaign seems almost aborted. Several years building up ships for what turns out to be one small inconclusive battle. It could be that enough of the Freisans had sussed out the strirrup thing, and what was expected to be a cakewalk suddenly looked like it could turn into a serious campaign, so he called it off.


[quote]It is clear from KAP 5.2, UTHER and WARLORD that knights as lance-charging heavy cavalry is the norm by Uther's reign.

Yeah, that's what promted the question. With the statement that Knights existed in Britain before Aurelius, and the Norman parallels I was curious as to if they had lance charges or not.

It might also explain why the Freisan Campaign seems almost aborted. Several years building up ships for what turns out to be one small inconclusive battle. It could be that enough of the Freisans had sussed out the strirrup thing, and what was expected to be a cakewalk suddenly looked like it could turn into a serious campaign, so he called it off.

In my mind, Frisian campaign was never intended to be more than a quick retaliatory raid writ large. Burn ships and villages to show the Frisians (and any Saxons living in the area) that Britons can and will strike back if they continue to support the Saxons in Britain. Against the background of 474-479, this raid seems to have a great success, since other than the final big push in 480, the Southern Saxons are remarkably quiet until 485, when there is another influx of Saxons (Essex). Even after Essex is established, pretty much nothing else happens in the south: all the trouble Uther has with Saxons are with Octa and Eosa in the north.

In my mind, Frisian campaign was never intended to be more than a quick retaliatory raid writ large. Burn ships and villages to show the Frisians (and any Saxons living in the area) that Britons can and will strike back if they continue to support the Saxons in Britain. Against the background of 474-479, this raid seems to have a great success, since other than the final big push in 480, the Southern Saxons are remarkably quiet until 485, when there is another influx of Saxons (Essex). Even after Essex is established, pretty much nothing else happens in the south: all the trouble Uther has with Saxons are with Octa and Eosa in the north.

Yeah the Frisian adventure was always intended to be a major raid that burned ships and supplies and set the "oh hey let's go to Britain" crowd back on their heels. Go plunder elsewhere, you Germanic blokes!"

The Frisians would be well aware of the stirrup and Roman heavy cavalry charge, as they were neighbors to the Franks, who skirmished plenty with Soissons. In fact, I suspect the abortive nature of the raids could be explained as much by them reaching their purpose as by the appearance of Frankish relief to the distraught Frisians. (In my headcanon I bring in Dayraven to this, just because he has an awesome name.)

So yeah, the raid did it's thing well enough and sets up Uther to think later "it worked last time, let's do it again!"

--Khanwulf

Based on the info in the KAP Timeline (15 Glory x1D6x1) it would seem to have been an inconclusive battle. But then if the battle were nearly a holding action while the Britons destroyed ships, it could be still be a draw, but the overall mission a success. Considering the buildup prior to it, there had to be something beyond a small, indecisive battle.

Based on the info in the KAP Timeline (15 Glory x1D6x1) it would seem to have been an inconclusive battle. But then if the battle were nearly a holding action while the Britons destroyed ships, it could be still be a draw, but the overall mission a success. Considering the buildup prior to it, there had to be something beyond a small, indecisive battle.

Or it could have been a more distributed effort, and only a small part of the army is actually engaged in that battle, where the barbarians managed to muster enough local resistance. The Britons are not that keen on fighting a war of conquest, so they are happy enough to draw and retreat when the resistance stiffens.

Here is what it says about this (emphasis mine):

"In this year, he musters his army
and sets sail, sweeping around the southern coast, where he de-
stroys the fleets of the Saxons in Britain. Then he sails to the
Continent, destroying all the hostile shipping as he goes.
The British army lands in Frisia, doing great damage to the
Saxons there, and winning a battle against the barbarians."

So clearly, the raid itself was a smashing success, and the battle in Frisia is more of an afterthought, not the main effort.

Yeah. Doing great damage could mean a lot of things. Based on the context, they probably trashed the dockyards.

Yeah. Doing great damage could mean a lot of things. Based on the context, they probably trashed the dockyards.

They burned the dockyards and did some looting and one of the knights in BoU got his hand lopped off while heroically running around with a torch. (Don't remember his name.)

There's quite a bit to work with, but not enough to say for sure what was going on in response by the "Saxons".

After this, the Frisians pretty much fade into obscurity as far as the threat to Britain is concerned. Destroying the fleet and the dockyards would pretty well ensure this happens, I would think. A part of the Frisian people split off and join with others to form the Frankish Empire which will cause problems for Soissons and others.

Looks like enough to work up an adventure or two through. I'll check BoU. A Book of Aurelius is starting to look pretty solid already, and SIRES hasn't even come out yet.

Looks like enough to work up an adventure or two through. I'll check BoU. A Book of Aurelius is starting to look pretty solid already, and SIRES hasn't even come out yet.

Yes, you have the shipping raid under Uther to serve as a template, with several skirmishes and then at least one battle. May as well set it at Finnsburgh in Frisia, and perhaps even throw in some opportunities for diplomacy? I mean, it was always strange to me that the Frisians sided with the Saxons after what Hengest did.

Even if they DO switch sides, a Frankish advance would trigger the battle and retreat, burning the ships and essentially resetting the situation.

--Khanwulf

Yes, you have the shipping raid under Uther to serve as a template, with several skirmishes and then at least one battle. May as well set it at Finnsburgh in Frisia, and perhaps even throw in some opportunities for diplomacy? I mean, it was always strange to me that the Frisians sided with the Saxons after what Hengest did.

Speaking of Finnsburgh and Hengest, since this Raid is a generation later, are you suggesting that someone rebuilt Finnsburgh?

As for why Frisians might go along with Saxons, well, they all have their various feuds. Could be Frisians that thought Finn was getting too big for his breeches. No reason to assume that they would be one monolithic entity. I mean, we have various Saxon kings fighting one another, too (most notably during the Anarchy: Sussex vs. Kent, Cerdic vs. Port, and everyone vs. Angles).

Interestingly enough, there is archaeological and genetic evidence for Frisians being amongst the Angles and Saxons and Jutes settling in Britain during the Dark Ages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisians#Migration_to_England_and_Scotland

Although it is no doubt difficult to tell those Northern Germanic tribes apart anyway.

As for why Frisians might go along with Saxons, well, they all have their various feuds..

THat's the most likely answer. Especially since Aurelius had to have been fighting somebody during his military career in Gaul. Chances are he gave them a bloody nose and they wanted a chance to get even.

Lacking evidence to the contrary, and in need of story hooks, I see no reason why the Frisians wouldn't rebuild Finnsburgh. I presume it was sited for a reason, and Hengest doesn't seem to burn it as he's leaving with the loot and etc.

And yes, I'm sure there were competing factions and families. The Frisians are presented as archers, seamen (raiders and slavers) and traders. Thus they serve as the boat-building engine for the North Sea Saxon waves. Kneecapping them slowed things for a decade, and if you wanted to be cynical might have contributed to swelling the Franks and their success against Soissons. After all, the men have to go somewhere to fight and plunder, right?

And I point to the Franks as Aurelius' main military target during Gaul. Franks and Visigoths.

--Khanwulf