More notes:

"Plate mail" is a phrase which is detested by most people who have an interest in historic (as opposed to fantasy gaming) armor. Plate is plate, that is solid sheets of metal. Mail (or maille) is linked rings making a flexible fabric. Composite armor of both did exist, where metal plates were linked by strips of mail, but those are from Persia and India, and (as far as I know) are a late development.

The francisca and angon are a fine suggestion; but they were typical of earlier Frankish warfare rather than the 9th or 10th century. They could be used, but (if this is historical) would be considered old-fashioned if not obsolete.

Back to shield woods - from "Early Anglo-Saxon Shields" a quick count from a chart gives these figures:
(including possible/probable identification)
Alder wood - 11 (includes 1 maybe birch, 1 maybe hazel)
Maple - 1
Oak - 2
Lime - 3
Ash - 1
Willow or poplar - 12
Willow or hazel - 2

Thank you for those insights. I will be able to more expressly describe the spears that they carry until now I had a straight - simple spear - but now i will refine that to inclue that angon type spear. That fighting tactic will come in handy - very expressive dexcribtion indeed. In the story - I have included swords - what type of swords they carry I havn't really described in detail - but have just referred to them as Arming Swords. Is that correct or should it be changed?

The term Plate Mail will now be changed - i will - on my part try to avoid that terminolgy - however - would "plate armour" be appropriate - also what other terms could be used for such a thing?

It seems - on shield that Aldar and willow/popular are pretty common - however, was lime used mainly by the Roman's - wondering what reasons there might be for that if that is the case - maybe it is due to the enviorment and the region - differnt trees growing in different regions?

michael

Sword terminology is confused and confusing. A Viking / Carolingian sword was roughly the same size as the late Roman spatha, which was considered a long sword by the ancients. On the other hand, it was shorter than the hand and a half or bastard swords (also the great swords and great swords of war) which were often used in two hands without a shield -- these can be called "longswords" or in German "langenschwert". Since normal single-hand swords of the late Middle Ages were shorter than these longswords, they were sometimes called arming swords. That term was not used in the Viking/Carolingian era, since all of the swords were single-handed at that time. To top it off, a single-hand sword with a blade of pretty much bastard sword length is referred to as a "short sword" by George Silver circa 1600, since it was shorter than a rapier.

Simply, I would use just "sword" or maybe "long sword", since there were shorter singlehand blades in the Viking / Carolingian era (i.e. the sax /seax).

I believe that you are right about the availability of poplar or alder vs. linden trees, but I haven't seen any data to confirm it.

Yup - I am confused.

So, the term arming sword was used later in the middle ages and normal refers to a hand-and-half or Bastard Sword - excuse my german. However, in the Carolingian era, they would have had shorter single handed swords which would be similiar in length to the roman Spatha.

Tell if I got this right - the Spatha would be termed a sword which would be wielded single handed? Maybe in conjuction with a shield. Their would also be 'Long Swords' which would be wielded two handed without a shield.

What I'm thinking is that the normal warrior would be carrying a shield, with angon spear and a sword and a sax dagger by his side. However, what could one use for a knight - as a long sword wouldn't do - as I want him to have a shield as well but something different then your regular foot.

The Sword's I presume would have a straight Cross Guard?

hmm . . .

M. Enwia

Part of the confusion, I think, is that the weapons used in an early "Frankish" period (400 to 600A.D.) would be different than in a late "Frankish" or "French" period: Some of the weapons and armour that you mention belong to the late Medieval period.

Around 800 to 900 A.D. you would not have the use of true twohanded swords, but you might have some swords with 30"
blades or a bit more.
The Angon was mostly a throwing spear and a warrior might also have a more conventionnal spear to use in battle or a lance if on horse back. ( At this time period the difference between a spear and a lance might be small or nonexistant.)
The Sax could be anything from knife sized to Longsax sword size. ( Think Bowie Knife as the sax was shaped a bit like one.)
If you want an example of truly NOT historically accurate weapons used in a Film, I would use the John Booreman version of the King Arthur story "EXCALIBUR": In this film set around the 5th or 6th century you see Phantasy Plate Armour that is in use almost 800 years too early!

Also the concept of Knights as understood in the 14th century probably would not apply (Except in a primitive way) to the 9th or 10th century.

I am not sure myself at what date you would call a mounted warrior with a spear a Knight ?

I think that you need to decide first on a time period if you want to keep the weapons and the customs accurate.

Hope that some of the above may help, I also used dates loosely, please don't take anything said here on faith alone, please double check any opinions using good historical reference materials.

M. Enwia

Just a quick reply here.

I think you are going in the right direction: Gradually refining your story parameters.

You are right in that Nobles would play the role of Knight, I just wanted to point out that "Knights" in the Romantic Chivalry sense were a later historical thing.
Your second type of Knights remind me of the religious fighting Orders such as the Knights Templar or Teutonnic Knights.

In conclusion, I would interpret from your post that you will have regionnal differences were the arms an armour would be appropriate to different historical periods: This is fine for a fantasy novel!

Note: A javelin is usually a bit smaller than a spear as it is meant mostly for throwing, spear heads can also vary a lot in size: a 10" bladed spear can still have a usefull cutting edge and the tip itself can also slash.
I would have a look at the A&A site for spears 12th century & Viking.
Also, If you haven't already, look up the different arme suppliers linked to this site for arms & armour references.
If you look at the Albion Armorers site, their first generetion swords include early dark age and Viking swords.
(Their site seems to be having technical problems at the moment.)
Oh, your peasants would most probably be armed with axes in a variety of types &/or spears as they are the least expensive weapons. I can see also some bows and the general use of slings at least as backup weapons.

M. Enwia
OOOps sorry for those typos: Always seem to see them after I press submit.

Another place to look at a few Viking swords (and later medieval ones for comparison) is here: http://www.vikingsword.com/virtmus.html .

All the swords of the Viking era and later up to maybe 1250 were primarily cutting / slashing swords, although the thrust was certainly used.

Technically speaking, the sax is not really a dagger; it is a blade shape which could be anything from knife size to short sword (i.e. 18-20"), and even a sword-size version (langsax).

Padded / quilted garments could be referred to as either aketon / haketon / etc. or as a gambeson. As far as anyone now can tell, the two meant pretty much the same thing. They were also worn as armor by themselves, by those fighters unable to afford metal armor - and could be pretty effective.

Medieval infantry usually included archers, although the number and effectiveness varied - this was true of the Carolingian period as well. The lowest class of men were archers who usually didn't have any armor, and maybe not even a shield (since a shield of any size larger than a buckler gets in the way of archery).

If the sax is not a dagger - but not a sword - then what is it? If you know what i mean. In the sense that how could one refer to it in writing. Would Sax blade be appropiate - if you can see what I'm getting at - when writing I'm not sure how to refer to it and in what context. Up till now - I thought of it as a dagger in essence.

What is the difference between Sax and a dagger? If sax is different then what catagory is it under - is it a sword? Or does it have its own unique catagory.

You're very spot on about the Knights Templar - religous order kinda of thing - that's what the second class of knights which span all the regions in essence are. About the differing regions - your right again, in that differing regions will have differnt arms and armour - just within the Empire itself we have five Princedoms - one is going to be Charlemagne style - while another will be norman style. The othe three Princedoms I'm not sure quiet yet - but I will try to keep them all roughly within the same time periods as much as possible - so as not to give any major - or huge advantages to any one - main aim is to show differences between them - give them their own unique characer rathe then anything else.

There are other kingdoms bordering this Empire such as (these are not the names but rather the style of kingdom it will) such as English, Scottish and Welsh to the north - with some Irish, Spanish to the West of it, and down south the remaint's of roman type kingdom that once ruled all the lands but is now dwindled to a smaller power. In a sense a sort of rough reflection of the history of europe. As you go further South, North, East or West there will be other types of kingdoms, such as the norse up in the north and Egyptian, African and Arab down the south, to the further East there will be the Russian types and Mongols, with also Chinese influence in the far east, not forgetting the Indian types of kingdoms somewhere south-east..

The make up of it is very similiar in certain respects to our own world, but also very differnt in some other respects. But alot of these placements and cultures are in a certain position for no othe reason then 'Nature' - in the sense that the equater has to be in the middle, and therefore you have hot and cold regions, and as such certain things grow in certain areas and therefore humans have to live a certain way to adapt to their enviorment - for example, an Arab - Camal culture would have never flourished in europe as the enviroment would just not have allowed it - and so on.

I've got the armour - helm and shield down to a reasonable understanding. I will now try to take a closer look at the weapons and try to get a more indepth insight into them. Thanks for the links and tips I will check them out. The thing is - as with all things I guess - the more you find out - the less you realize you know.

M. Enwia

A sax looks somewhat like I mentionned before a Bowie Knife: They would have been used as a weapon but also as a general utility blade or camp knife.

To get a bit more specific: A large single edge Knife or Short Sword with a clip point .
The ones I have seen reproduced have simple wooden handles with little or no guard.

The details of what the handles looked like are not certain as mostly only the blade have survived.

Note: The Bowie knife is just a much later application of the same design idea as the sax and is not a direct descendant of the sax: Sometimes the same idea/design is used by different cultures simply because it works really well.

A good idea if lost is bound to be reinvented!

Note: A dagger is usually double edged, a knife it single edged. (This may seem like obvious information but maybe if you are very new thinking about edged weapons you might have been confused thinking that any short blade must be a dagger!) Again check out the comparison ( Click on COMPARE) tool at the top of the site Home page you will be able to see different weapons by various suppliers shown at the same scale.

Thank you for that - I am new to this - in that though I have been interested in such things since a kid - its a completly different thing when you try to find out about things in their reality - instead of what you just watch on TV or read in books.

Basic is good - you can always learn from basics. After a bit of reading up on the sax - it seems that there were two types - one as you say one would use for everyday chores - as well as eating with, and another one which would be used in battle, the latter being more robust and pointed. In battle its main purpose would be for a thrusting strike - the latter sax would be able to puncture through maille and the padded undergarment beneath to leave quiet a ghastly wound - it would not be so useful as a slashing weapon.

Wow - I'm gonna have so much damn detail by the end of it - its gonna feel like your in a real Frankish Manor. lol.

Once again thank you all for your wisdom and comments - its has been of great help and has added some real sense of realism to the pages that I am writing - not only that - it has allowed me to more clearer picture my characters in my own head.

M. Enwia

Sorry to correct your conclusions: You are half right the clip point does make the sax an effective thrusting weapon but that does not mean that it is inneffective as a slashing weapon.

A small sax might be more of an utility knife but a "medium" sized one 10" blade would be very ALL purpose.

If the blade is 10" to 18" long, an 1 1/2" to 2" wide and single edge it is going to be a very good cutting (Slashing) weapon.

Sax: Think "Machete" with a very pointy clip point.

A " Longsax" IS a sword but single edged with the same kind of point as the smaller sax. ( 20" to 30" long approximately.)

The problem with the most basic information is that everyone assumes that there is no need to mention it, so for someone new to any subject it is the information they are least likely to come across and the information they might feel most selfconscious asking about.

Hope this help.

M. Enwia

Your are right different spellings for Longsax: I went for a descriptive spelling as opposed to a traditionnal spelling that reflex more the Scandinavian or Germanic spelling, longsax as in LONG......Sax..

I also agree with you about the different effectiveness against an Armored opponent.
But I think the same is true about most swords.

You might use the search option to look up in the forum discussion threads discussing the effectiveness of various types of armour at resisting sword cuts or thrusts.

I personnally have NO personnal experience doing cutting tests against armour. ( Others on this forum probably do have a great deal.)
I assume that if armour didn't at least minimize the effects of a sword cut there would be no point in using it.
In the confusion of battle, armour of any kind would protect you very well from light hits that if UN- Armored could cripple you for life or even kill you! It might not protect you completely from injury from a well aimed full force blow.

I would recommend the book by JOHN CLEMENTS, MEDIEVAL SWORDSMANSHIP , published by Paladin Press .
I am sure that it would help you a great deal in writing REALISTIC as opposed to HOLLYWOOD fight scenes.
He has whole chapters explainning the differences between Stage fighting and real swordsmanship.
Also very good explanations about what the different type of swords were better at: There is at page 36 of the book a graphic like a familly tree showing the evolution of swords and their general shapes & relative sizes that I know would be of great help.

I thought that this would be a short one! Wrong.........again. (JOKE)

I have a question.

Maile - plate - lamellar - scale. The debate goes on. However, on some forums I have seen where scale, lamellar etc, is not allowed in 600 - 900 time frame, particularly in the Nordic, Pictsh, etc realms. Well....... "They" did not use butted mail either!!!! So........


In H. W. Koch's book "Medieval Warefare" dated1978 he mentions the following on page 29:

"In the sixth century one bishop among the Franks was chided because when riding into battle he wore armor plate across his chest instead of the sign of the heavenly cross. By the middle of the seventh century, however breast plates had come into general use among the Franks."

Kock does not mention his source. Does anyone have a clue as to what he is talking about? He discusses mail and lorrica in detail in other places of his book, so I would assume that he is being specific, particularly as he uses the same adjective twice in the same paragraph.

Any help out there? I know the Vikings imported sword blanks into the North from Frankish states so.........


Thanks guys, and gals!