Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Need help: Historicity of the "Hedemark Viking Sword" Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Richard Martell




Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace
Joined: 25 Apr 2010

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 12:47 pm    Post subject: Need help: Historicity of the "Hedemark Viking Sword&qu         Reply with quote

Hello!

I have a simple question - simple for you experts, not for me.

What do you think about the blade of the "Hedemark" viking sword, made by Valiant Armoury?


The fuller looks quite small.
But is it too small for a 10th century viking sword?
At least the hilt looks typically for 10th century - if you ignore the hex nut Wink

And also the point looks a little bit strange to me.
What kind of oakshot type is this blade???
This sword is so confusing.
Hope you can help me!



 Attachment: 9.97 KB
[ Download ]
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 1:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The fuller does appear suspiciously narrow for early Viking age. Some late 10th to 11th century swords (NM 11840, 3631, and 704 near the end of examples shown in "Swords of the Viking Age") do start to exhibit similarly narrow fullers. But, the hilt forms for those don't look that way (much more modern) by this point in the text. I would expect the fuller for that hilt form to be roughly in the range of 3/4 to 1 inch (20 to 25 mm) wide and to be fairly shallow on a blade that is roughly 1/4" (6mm) thick near the guard.

The point form is also more rounded and blunt than the examples I have in the same text.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,137

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 1:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

With a fuller that long, you'll be looking at something in the X or XI family. A X would be the most typical for late Viking-esque swords. From our Type X spotlight:

Quote:
This fuller is generally very wide and shallow, but in some cases may be narrower (about 1/3 of the blade's width) and more clearly defined


The fuller might be on the small side for a typical sword of the type, but a quick flip through Peirce's book shows some that may be close to being that narrow. The point looks a little abrupt to me, but I've seen much worse.

The hex nut is obviously not historical, as you've mentioned, nor is the use of stainless steel hilt components.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 1:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I tried to find a "narrow" fuller example. This type XII 11th century one from Records of the Medieval Sword has a roughly 3/4" wide fuller. (I have assumed blade width near guard to be close to 2", and scaled it photographically.) The point is more acute though.


 Attachment: 85.73 KB
[ Download ]

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Martell




Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace
Joined: 25 Apr 2010

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you all for your quick reply!
So would you say this could be a rarely but still plausible viking sword (hilt+blade)?
Or is it eventually more like conan the barbarian? Big Grin


Last edited by Richard Martell on Sat 08 May, 2010 2:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have kept a bookmark to Kirk Spencer's post since it was such a good one. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...typologies

I think you can see the type R or S pommel types falling near 10th century. But the more narrow and long length fuller is closer to 12th century according to his studies.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,137

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
I tried to find a "narrow" fuller example. This type XII 11th century one from Records of the Medieval Sword has a roughly 3/4" wide fuller. (I have assumed blade width near guard to be close to 2", and scaled it photographically.) The point is more acute though.


There are at least 3-4 narrowed fullers in Peirce. As you'd imagine from the title "Sword of the Viking Age" it has more Vikign swords than Oakeshott's works, which typically cover later period (Medieval vs. Viking). Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad,

Would you please post a couple of images of these? I do not have that text to look at, and am interested.

Thanks.

Jared

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,137

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
Chad,

Would you please post a couple of images of these? I do not have that text to look at, and am interested.

Thanks.

Jared


When I have time to lay the book on the scanner, I'll do so. Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Richard Martell




Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace
Joined: 25 Apr 2010

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:

I think you can see the type R or S pommel types falling near 10th century. But the more narrow and long length fuller is closer to 12th century according to his studies.


Yeah, I know that posting and it was the main reason for my doubts Wink
Well, it seems I have to find an alternative pommel and an alternative cross guard for this sword.
That will not be easy, I think Cry
View user's profile Send private message
Roger Hooper




Location: Northern California
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 4
Posts: 3,954

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The grip length (as measured by KOA) of 4.5 inches is not historical. The typical Viking sword's grip was so short that you supposedly had to put your pinky finger around the pommel in order to wield it.

Since most moderns dislike the short grip length, many swordmakers lengthen the grip at least a little to make the sword more marketable.
View user's profile Send private message
Richard Martell




Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace
Joined: 25 Apr 2010

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Roger Hooper wrote:
The grip length (as measured by KOA) of 4.5 inches is not historical. The typical Viking sword's grip was so short that you supposedly had to put your pinky finger around the pommel in order to wield it.

Since most moderns dislike the short grip length, many swordmakers lengthen the grip at least a little to make the sword more marketable.


That is a good point.
But people of oure days are bigger - so they have bigger hands too...

And a bigger/taller viking would use a bigger grip.
It is a matter of proportion, I think.
View user's profile Send private message
J.D. Crawford




Location: Toronto
Joined: 25 Dec 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,609

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Since this sword does not appear to be modeled after any particular historical example I guess we can let our imaginations roam free. To me, it does not look like a true Viking sword but rather one of those early medieval swords that still had Viking stylings - the Xa blade and longer grip would be consistent with that idea. If you buy this interpretation, then I guess its historical (except for the assembly).

I owned one of these briefly and thought it was really nice esthetically, but with the prominent grip risers and thick, heavy, parallel-edged blade I found it rather uncomfortable to wield. A better (although more expensive) option might be the similar sword in the Fletcher/Trim 'chimera' line, which uses the same hilt components, a more conservative grip style, and AT's Xa blade, which looks almost certainly to be much lighter with a better weight distribution.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,137

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Roger Hooper wrote:
The grip length (as measured by KOA) of 4.5 inches is not historical. The typical Viking sword's grip was so short that you supposedly had to put your pinky finger around the pommel in order to wield it.

Since most moderns dislike the short grip length, many swordmakers lengthen the grip at least a little to make the sword more marketable.


As with everything, there are ranges to historical pieces. Speaking in absolutes gets us in trouble. Happy

Many were that short. Not all. Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Cincinnati, OH
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 21 pages
Reading list: 231 books

Spotlight topics: 15
Posts: 9,137

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Richard Martell wrote:
Jared Smith wrote:

I think you can see the type R or S pommel types falling near 10th century. But the more narrow and long length fuller is closer to 12th century according to his studies.


Yeah, I know that posting and it was the main reason for my doubts Wink
Well, it seems I have to find an alternative pommel and an alternative cross guard for this sword.
That will not be easy, I think Cry


Let's not get ahead of ourselves. As I said, there are Viking swords with narrow fullers. That's proven. They're earlier than 12th century (which isn't Viking). The narrower Oakeshott typology blade forms (which is much of what Kirk was showing) typically do lie later in the period, but not all.

Getting hung up on typology things doesn't always help. The typology tracks the typical (hence the word relation). Happy There are always outliers.

I will say that if you're looking for a typical Viking sword, this one may not be it.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Richard Martell




Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace
Joined: 25 Apr 2010

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:

I will say that if you're looking for a typical Viking sword, this one may not be it.


I am not a viking fanboy Wink
Actually I am only searching for an early medival sword.
Does that mean this could be one?

Ich dien.
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,234

PostPosted: Sat 08 May, 2010 6:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

About the grip length, this type M viking sword has 12cm long grip:



And this type T has quite narrow fuller:



Basically, you can find a lot of unusual things among swords, not all of them are very typical...
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Need help: Historicity of the "Hedemark Viking Sword"
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum