Hello all,

Im interested in what people think happened to the Scramasax/Seax, particularly in relation to Anglo-Saxon England. Did it just vanish, evolve? Did it slowly transition into the bauernwehr/messer which seems a highly related weapon?

I am quite intrigued, as it seems we stop hearing about them after hastings.

Thanks,
Z

Simple (and slightly cheeky) answer: Time.

Longer answer: Odds are that the dagger simply became more of a popular form with time. Why? Who knows? Arguably, Islamic and Levantine influences during the Crusades played a part. And yes, they may have morphed into the messer/baunwehr/rugger type knives. I'm not sure what all the historic connections are going on there...

Seax seemed to be used longer than we commonly thought. There is a nice thread somewhere here about 12thC daggers I think, which shows nice images of men at arms in around 1200 or 1250 still using what very much look like broken back seaxs.

Tod

Leo,

That would be really interesting.. do you have any idea where those images might be? I basically think it looks like the seax developed in sort of three distinct ways.

Group 1 transformed into just an everyday knife --seax/belt knife/whatever

Group 2 transformed into a hunting carving knife 12th-14th century's we still see knives very similar to broken-back seaxes, on the continent I think they call it Bauernwehr/hauswehr... but in British isles it just becomes a hunting knife/ carving knife seen in table.

Group 3 become distinct weapons.. could the falchion have developed from the seax/single edged 'viking' sword? And on the continent become a messer?

I'm thinking I am kinda on to something, in the evolution of blade shapes... but am not certain. Anyone with more knowledge/book ideas would really help!

Z

I suppose it was not very fashionable to wear anything associated with Saxons after the Norman invasion - is that the normal explanation?

Zach have a look at this thread - this is the one I was thinking of.

http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=301...ight=12thc

Tod

It’s just my hypothesis, but I think a major factor that lead to the decline of the seax as weapon is the development of the dagger. Shortly after the time that full suits of mail armour have become common for the upper nobility, circa 1200 AD, we begin to have references to early daggers. In the 12th century daggers thread, I alluded to the weapons mentioned by William the Breton during the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 AD: “In this battle the King’s enemies made use of a type of weapon which had never been seen before. They had long and slender knives with three sharp edges from the point to the guard and they were using these in the battle as swords and glaives.” The part of the quote following “and” seems to be specifying that the “knives” were being used as military weapon, as a sword [point] or glaive might be. While we don’t know exactly what these “knives” looked like, the description of them being slender, and the fact Stephen of Longchamp was struck through the eye hole of his helmet all the way to the brain with one of them suggests they are narrow, tapering blades. One of the earliest manuscripts to visually represent what are unambiguously daggers, rather than seaxes or seax relatives, is the Maciejowski Bible. Here too, the daggers have triangular profiles that are far more acute than the rounded, tapering sword points.

So daggers start to arise as mail becomes common and of good quality, and I think they are meant to serve as a close-quarters means of defeating warriors dressed from head to foot in mail and perhaps also wearing a great helm. A seax blade is not so well suited for this purpose, but a dagger is excellent. Thus, in a context in which mail is reasonably common both among the nobility and also serjeants and lower soldiers, a seax will not be useful as a weapon, but a dagger would be.

It might just be coincidence, but daggers also start to become more popular as knightly weapons right around the time when there is a hardening of attitudes towards rebellions of the nobility against the king, and the subsequent decline of “capture and release” as a standard policy towards enemy knights and men-at-arms on the field. Therefore, daggers might also represent a shift away from the “chivalric” attitudes towards nobles during the High Middle Ages towards the brutality of the Late Middle Ages.

Craig. Another item which appears in the 12th century is the gambeson. Perhaps this also played a part in the decline of the seax, and the rise of the dagger.

This is an interesting topic. My hunch is that - as sidearms - the long seax was replaced by the sword. Especially as quality mono-steels became more available. As utility tools, the seax simply continued to evolve into myriad purpose-driven designs. The wharncliffe, and sheepsfoot blade styles, being prime examples.

My most likely guesses:

1) As mono steel became of high quality, it became cheaper and easier to create full-sized swords and thus the need for decent-ish short swords (such as seaxes) that didn't need great steel due to their size diminished.
2) As the shield wall disappeared from the battlefield and cavalry became more prevalent with the rise of the mounted man-at-arms the usefulness of a mid-length sword like a seax (that would be very effective in the push-and-stab style of shield wall fighting) diminished.