Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: State of Salisbury - Onset of Anarchy

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Morien View Post
    The NORTHERN Saxon are, Octa's Nohaut and Eosa's Deira. However, Essex, Sussex and Kent have been sitting this one out, and are ready to take advantage.
    (Although the fact that they don't already pounce in 495 is puzzling. If I were to GM through Anarchy again, I'd probably have Essex gobbling up Caerwent ahead of schedule, and Kent making moves on London, only to be thwarted by Thames and fortifications, and Ulfius coming to help. I might have Sussex reduce Anderida ahead of schedule, too.)
    Think about it this way:
    Wessex. They have just arrived and still need to consolidate. And they take the isle of Wight in the early years. And just as they think their are ready Port comes along to mess things up. Also Cerdic first tries to introduce himself as a Cymri king, and not a Saxon. this may make him hesitant to act against other Cymri lands. Going to war with them may not win their trust.

    Kent. the oldest Saxon Kingdom, but lacking a strong leader. Furthermore the alliance between Silchester and Sussex is something to consider. They are the ones that are most silent in the early years, and you would expect them to increase their power, but I think the lack of a strong leader prevents that.

    Sussex. They skirmish with Kent in the early days and manage to quickly enter an alliance with Silchester. Aelle already tries to make a bid for the position of Bretwalda, and I think he hopes to gain the support of other Cymri lands. Raiding would probably be counter productive to that. Also they have to take into account the position of Wessex. Btw from all the Saxon kings I always see Aelle as the one that is the most political savvy. So he may try to gain power not by conquest, hence the alliance with Silchester.

    Essex. In the early years they are probably the most aggressive. They make Huntland (Huntington) their vassal. But then the angles arrive in full force and take up the mantle of most agressive. Essex then pairs up with Kent to enter Silchester's land and take London. I think that although they are agressive they lack the numbers. And probably the problems in Caer Colun also keep them busy.

    Angles. They arrive later to the party, but they come with a vengeance. Unfortunately to them at that point Nanteleod has secured Gales and is moving into Cumbria and bringing Malahaut and Lindsey into his fold. He is the one that manages to stop them.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelius View Post
    Think about it this way:
    Yes, but all of that is 496 or after. I am thinking more why the Saxons are not taking advantage of the chaos of Uther and the Barons dying right after St. Albans. One explanation might be just the normal inertia; it takes time to get the news and assemble armies and start raiding. But I think it would add some urgency to the Anarchy, if, instead of 495 being taken in state funerals and the like, the whole thing goes down the toilet with usurpations, Saxon raids, uncommunicative/lost outliers, etc. Really hammer in the chaos in the immediate aftermath of 495, rather than give the PKs a breather. Having the Saxons be more active already in 495 would serve in underlining the chaos, I think.

    Then, when the dust starts settling in 496, then the other whammy of Wessex being established right on Salisbury's doorstep happens, and Essex is pushing in the East and Cornwall in the West and the Lords of Logres squabble amongst themselves who should be the next king and Ulfius even allies with Sussex (to kick Kent out of Thamesmouth and protect his southern flank?)...

    As for Kent lacking a strong leader... That depends. By GPC, they are led by Aesc, the son of the legendary Hengest. By the correction in BoU, Hengest dies in 469 (not 488), so it is Aesc who is kicking ass in the Battle of Windsor (I think it is called) in 473, and who is the mastermind behind the Battle of Salisbury in 480, even though that ends in defeat. He is also the one to support Essex in their invasion of Colchester in 486. So Aesc has quite a lot of gravitas by 495. However, my personal suggestion is to make Aesc die in 488 (instead of Hengest) and be followed by his son Oisc (alternative spelling of Aesc), to not have octagenarian Saxon kings fighting at Badon. Even so, Oisc would probably be in his mid to late twenties in 488, making him around mid-thirties in 495, with several years of ruling experience, and the weight of the bloodline behind him.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    425
    True. Getting the Saxons more acvtive in 495 would add to the confusion.

    In my game I had the knights of Salisbury split into factions. The PKs had to choose which side they would back. they supported Robert's claim and manages to bring the other factions into the fold without too much bloodshed. Since this was their first problem I did not play up the Saxons in the first year. Then the arrival of Wessex and the conquests of Cornwall were more pressing for my PKs.

    As for Kent. I did not know the changes. In my game Aesc more or less just lived of his fathers fame, but was not a strong leader himself. Hence the lack of Kent's actions in the early years. If you follow your suggestion you could also play it out the same way. Oisc may have some years on him, but no real major victories like his father and grandfather. But in hindsight I might play them out more strongely.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornelius View Post
    In my game I had the knights of Salisbury split into factions. The PKs had to choose which side they would back. they supported Robert's claim and manages to bring the other factions into the fold without too much bloodshed. Since this was their first problem I did not play up the Saxons in the first year. Then the arrival of Wessex and the conquests of Cornwall were more pressing for my PKs.
    I did this too, with none other than Syagrius himself trying to take over Salisbury as well, and Levcomagus joining in to take advantage of the confusion. The PKs ended up rescuing the Countess and her children from Sarum, which allowed them to crush the usurpation party, and then married Jenna to the Praetor/Steward of Levcomagus to forge an alliance against Syagrius. So they were quite busy in 495, too.

    That being said, I didn't expect that the PKs would do anything about the Saxons in 495. But the news that the Saxons have already done stuff in 495 would add more urgency, and the arrival of EVEN MORE SAXONS in 496 would also feel like it is just piling on.

    As for Kent. I did not know the changes. In my game Aesc more or less just lived of his fathers fame, but was not a strong leader himself. Hence the lack of Kent's actions in the early years. If you follow your suggestion you could also play it out the same way. Oisc may have some years on him, but no real major victories like his father and grandfather. But in hindsight I might play them out more strongely.
    Well, like said, I would have killed Aesc off in 488. But Oisc should be hungry for Glory. He has his father and grandfather to measure up to, and clearly he is not ready to play second fiddle to Aelle (until forced to do so). So he should be itching at the opportunity to establish his own badassery: after all, Essex has Aescwine and Sussex has Aelle, both founders of their own kingdoms. Oisc should have a chip on his shoulder to bring back the Glory days of Kent.

    That being said, Kent is VERY passive in GPC. They skirmish with Sussex. They join in to fight the Angles. They join Essex in taking London. That is it. Or at least what we know. Given that Ulfius is allied to Aelle, I would make Kent the major opponent of Ulfius' throughout the Anarchy: they want London! There should be raiding and skirmishing all around the southern bank, until Kent finally allies with Essex and they take it together.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •