Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Or a Roman shield wall but I've seen some interesting arguments that the iconic Roman forces were actually primarily close range missile troops and stabby time didn't start till the enemy morale broke. Also Roman blades were rather specialized to the role of stabbing in confined space if memory serves.

Thanks.

Stabby time with Hellene troops was pretty much the same. The short sword (xiphos) or a slightly larger short sword (kopis) really didn't get used till the longer Dory was broken or dropped or things were really in a tight and confined space from what I understand. Confined space could also be the front rank of the phalanx where the short sword could be thrust through gaps in the shield front to stab the attacking force. Admit though never quite understood if it was the second rank doing this or even third rank as first rank would be engaging using the Dory as would the second rank.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Just a guess, but the kopis, which looks like a forrunner of the Ghurka kukri, would be pretty useless as a stabbing weapon, but devestating as a chopping weapon. That makes it likely that it was used for in-fighting.

So if the enemy got through the first two ranks the third rank would be ready to hack them down.

I've never handled a kopis, but I do know kukris. They are still standard military issue for Ghurka regiments, and are horrendously devestating. They combine the best features of and ax and knife, with the cutting power of an ax and handling characteristics more like a knife.

The big problem with an ax is that all the weight is at the end, making recovery time long. With the weight spread out along the blade a kukri is much faster in regards to recovery time. Still somewhat awkward, but better than the ax. Plus, the blade edge allows to draw-cuts and slashing when in close combat. That weight at the end of the blade would make slashing extra devestating.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Cool, thanks for the info. Any idea why they went for the specific combo of axe and shield? Axes as weapons aren't something I'm particularly familiar with and I'm curious if they specifically liked the pair or if axe and shield was just cheaper than sword and shield.

Militarily off topic but perhaps culturally on topic. I wonder if the idea of barbarian's and civilized people come into play here. In literature, in folk lore, in films the axe as a weapon often denotes the barbarian while the sword frequently denotes civilized societies. Whether it be Civilized England against the raiding Viking; Civilized Rome against the Goths, G ermantic tribes, Celts tribes, etc; The Roman Church against the uncivilized Germanic tribes, The so called Civilized Southern Europe against the Barbarian Northern European's it seem's it's always the civilized nations with the sword against the barbarians with their axes. Not so much so in the east but to a limited degree you see it with the Mongols and the invasions into Europe. Even if they had swords, the axe as a sign of the barbarian or inferior placement is what is recognized and pushed. Even our modern media continues to push that sterotype, sort of the same with regards to Indians being savages with bow's and arrows and nothing more.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Militarily off topic but perhaps culturally on topic. I wonder if the idea of barbarian's and civilized people come into play here. In literature, in folk lore, in films the axe as a weapon often denotes the barbarian while the sword frequently denotes civilized societies. Whether it be Civilized England against the raiding Viking; Civilized Rome against the Goths, G ermantic tribes, Celts tribes, etc; The Roman Church against the uncivilized Germanic tribes, The so called Civilized Southern Europe against the Barbarian Northern European's it seem's it's always the civilized nations with the sword against the barbarians with their axes. Not so much so in the east but to a limited degree you see it with the Mongols and the invasions into Europe. Even if they had swords, the axe as a sign of the barbarian or inferior placement is what is recognized and pushed. Even our modern media continues to push that sterotype, sort of the same with regards to Indians being savages with bow's and arrows and nothing more.

.....

That's one of the more interesting tangents I've seen recently. Media has a tendency not to arm people with axes unless they are pushing a savage theme with that character. I'm not sure it's a point that I would explore in depth here. This thread tends more toward military practicalities (and fiction screws up portrayals of the military so often it isn't funny) but it could be an interesting discussion of its own.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Just a guess, but the kopis, which looks like a forrunner of the Ghurka kukri, would be pretty useless as a stabbing weapon, but devestating as a chopping weapon. That makes it likely that it was used for in-fighting.

So if the enemy got through the first two ranks the third rank would be ready to hack them down.

I've never handled a kopis, but I do know kukris. They are still standard military issue for Ghurka regiments, and are horrendously devestating. They combine the best features of and ax and knife, with the cutting power of an ax and handling characteristics more like a knife.

The big problem with an ax is that all the weight is at the end, making recovery time long. With the weight spread out along the blade a kukri is much faster in regards to recovery time. Still somewhat awkward, but better than the ax. Plus, the blade edge allows to draw-cuts and slashing when in close combat. That weight at the end of the blade would make slashing extra devestating.

I agree about the kopis. It looks like it came along a bit later after the xiphos. Where the xiphos was made for thrusting and stabbing probably not much use as a slicing weapon or against a foe coming in from the sides. The kopis would be a development for slicing especially against a foe advancing from the side and not having to turn to directly face to engage them. Figure once the phalanx broke you no longer had the locking shields to protect your sides and probability wise might not have a friend there either to cover you. Add a bit of weight to the back of the blade and it's a heavy swing you can control but not awkward like an axe.

Ironically though I can't think of an equal weapon in the Roman Army as part of a Roman legionnaires Equipment.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

It's a good observation.

The sword - particularly if it has a straight blade - often seems, both in art and in life, to represent "civilization," with other weapons being "barbarian." It holds the primary place in European imagination, despite being a less effective, and even less common weapon - even in Europe. This might be tied to the mythos of the noble (but largely non-existant) knight (in medieval times, knights were much closer to organized bandits than examples of nobility).

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Another item just for consideration is what does the average person imagine when they think of what an axe looks like?

Lots of people probably think of the bi-pedal (double bladed) axe head you tend to see in the movies or a single pedal axe head that looks like something from LOTR's. Yet the average foot solider probably had something that looked nothing like the pedal headed axes but more like hatchet headed axe we are familiar with today. Maybe a bit longer on the head and thicker perhaps with a spike on the back but nothing like the bi-pedal or single pedal axe heads most people probably think of. Not to say those didn't exist but not as common as the movies and fantasy weapons makers make them out to be.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Even in ancient Greece, the bow was seen as somehow 'cheating' because it allowed archers to kill at a distance, while the armed hoplites tended to come from wealthy families (on account of their armour and weaponry being so expensive.) The Greeks did use archers of course, but rarely against themselves. They saw nothing wrong with using them against outsiders, since these were considered barbarians anyway. Of course, the Scythian archers - and the Greeks used these - went a step further with poisoned arrows...

One point about the Anglo-Saxons - they didn't (generally) build stone castles. That was the Normans who didn't arrive until much later, 1066.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

It's always important to kill politely...

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

It's always important to kill politely...

At least, when Greeks were fighting Greeks. I've gone off topic a bit though.

I must say here that I'm not sure the original article is all that accurate. It does depend on the context of the find. Swords intended as offerings to the gods are never always all that good - they were intended to be symbolic with real swords used for fighting. Swords found in graves ought to be properly used for fighting - but of course, again they might have been symbolic of status.

I've managed to find an interesting article about Viking swords and if anyone is interested do please pm me.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

Huh... I wonder if burial swords might have been something like the paper money used in some Asian funerals - not intended to be real, but more symbolic?

If so, that would mean that you can't judge tool swords by examining burial swords. You'd have to look at battlefeild artifacts...

I think, maybe, we've hit the nail on the head..?

[Rae'ya]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

What about the Ulfberht swords and crucible steel? Weren't they thought to be of Viking origin? Granted, I've never looked into this academically or done any particular fact checking, and weapons are well outside of my sphere of knowledge... so I could be completely and utterly misguided on this. But if the Ulfberht swords are truly Viking Age then we have like 150 or so examples of strong swords that were well ahead of their time, don't we?

[ThePaganMafia]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

There is a really good series called "The Saxon Tales" which is a series of historical novels set in the time of the Danish invasions of England. The author is Bernard Cornwell is famous for the Richard Sharpe series. He goes into fairly good detail on combat and has a section at the end of each book explaining the historical events and what he did and did not embellish for the sake of the novel.

It was also turned into a BBC series which is really, really good and on Netflix. The television series is called "The Last Kingdom".

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

What about the Ulfberht swords and crucible steel? Weren't they thought to be of Viking origin? Granted, I've never looked into this academically or done any particular fact checking, and weapons are well outside of my sphere of knowledge... so I could be completely and utterly misguided on this. But if the Ulfberht swords are truly Viking Age then we have like 150 or so examples of strong swords that were well ahead of their time, don't we?

This is something I was actually thinking about when I read that article. There are examples of outstanding Viking swords - most notably those marked "Ulfberht," that are made from crucible (or wootz) steel, and are definitely usable. It's the same steel used in the Middle East to make the legendary scimitar blades, and it's not exactly rare, either (I have a Bedouin scimitar made of wootz steel in my collection).

Anyway, they ARE of the right time period, and the right culture. The question about them is more about whether they were made of home-made steel or imported steel. The Norse could have learned to make the steel in the Middle East - they were there at a pretty early date, or they could have traded for it. The the swords were definitely usable, and of high quality.

I think that the pop articles (I got to the Livescience article from a repeat on Fox) claiming that Viking swords were decorative are drawing overly broad conclusions based on a limited number of example. That's why I wanted to read the original article...

(this is where Thalassa jumps in to talk about the deplorable state of science reporting in pop media. And would be absolutely right...)

[anunitu]

Re: Did Vikings use swords, or just wave them around?

When you say "It's the same steel used in the Middle East to make the legendary scimitar blades",is that what is known as a Damascus blade?