Talk:Anglo-Saxon warfare

[originators comments]
How about we start an article on this subject, of interest to many people who study the period.

This first bit is my contribution, and I hope others will add to and alter it, in accordance with the open source concept of Wikipedia.

If it gets deleted altogether, I cannot see what the point would be.

This is a legitimate encyclopedia entry topic, and there are many people who could add to it.Kozushi 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, I HAVE cited my sources! I have QUOTED from two of them and indicated exactly which parts! I have done my bit in starting the page, and I hope others will contribute to it as well with their particular areas of expertise. I will add to it when I have time. With my busy job I can't just sit around writing encyclopedias all the time, but I can certainly collaborate with other wikipedians in creating great entries.

I mean everything in good faith and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I also know that this is a collaborative project, and I expect collaboration, not immediate and impatient perfectionism.Kozushi 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Some sources for further work
Here are 2 works directly on the topic if anyone is interested:
 * Anglo-Saxon weapons and warfare / Richard Underwood. Stroud, England : Tempus, 1999. 159 p., [16] p. of plates : ill., maps ; 26 cm. ISBN 0752414127
 * The English warrior from earliest times to 1066 / Stephen Pollington. Norfolk, England : Anglo-Saxon Books, 1996. 267 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. ISBN 1898281106

--RCEberwein | Talk 11:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Awesome! Now let's build this thing!Kozushi 09:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research
This article appears to draw heavily on the personal opinions of an editor, backed up by selective quotes of primary material and may constitute original research, which is not accepted within the encyclopedia (see WP:OR). It also does not provide a balanced overview of the topic - many scholars would not accept this viewpoint. The viewpoint is not wrong in itself but must be referenced to published scholarship and alternative theories should also be given some coverage. Monstrelet (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reworking the article
I have now reworked the article, adding structure, references links etc. I have left the personal essay section - it is well written but lacks any published support. It is acceptable as a part of an article rather than the whole IMO but others may judge it more harshly. Further work could easily be done on this article to broaden it to cover the whole topic rather than just battlefields. The aricle is heavily biased toward the later Saxon period and could do with more on early warfare. Sections which could be added include: I hope others will be able to pick these challenges up. Best wishes Monstrelet (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Military organisation (perhaps merge with Anglo-Saxon military organisation?)
 * Naval warfare (quite an important gap)
 * Strategy, including early raiding warfare and the development of burhs under Alfred and after.

Wedge shaped formations
A new subsection has been created on wedge shaped formations. Personally, I have some doubts there is much actual evidence for these in A/S warfare and certainly none is given in the section. Can other interested editors comment on whether this section should stay in the article, or provide evidence of Anglo-Saxon use of the tactic? Monstrelet (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not showing up much on Google Book searches. I'd be inclined to remove until a reference can be found. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First this stand alone article was declined that's why I put it here. It was called Keilerkopf, the ancient German word for this tactic. In principle this is a shield wall moving forward like a wedge. Where to put this information? I have no idea. It would be nice if this article would have more linkings. Prophet of Hell (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The reasons why it was rejected is there is already an article on wedges Flying Wedge - not really the best title but there you go. I think that you could drop this section in between greek and roman uses and Saxos description of the Viking wedge and it would enhance that article - especially as you've taken the trouble to properly cite.  If doing that, I would subdivide the Ancient and Medieval section e.g. greek& roman, ancient germanic, Byzantine, medieval (inc Viking in this.  If this sounds too complex, just drop the piece in and I'll do the restructure.  Alternatively, you could expand the section on ancient german warfare here Ancient warfare.  There isn't an article on Ancient German warfare per se but such an article would need more than just a piece on the keil, I think.  Hope these suggestions are useful. Monstrelet (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the wedge section and repasted it into the Flying Wedge article as suggested Monstrelet (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)