It seems they are belong to the baltic region. When found in russia, they are called norse, or viking knives.
In sweden it is norm to stress their eastern origin.
The type might be traceable to eastern cultures, but the making was most certainly local, as the decorations and construction method is exactly the same as the smaller utility knives knives often found in women´s graves.
Hi Pete
I agree, they seem to draw some elements from eastern/steppe peoples. Especially the suspension of the sheath.
Also and you would know this too as would many, allot of nomadic highly decorated belts are found in Sweden and other Baltic regions.
There certainly is a link.
Cheers
PS- Great pic of a original!!!
Nick
Well, from my personal experience, the size of the seax dictates where/how it is carried. Small eating/utility knives seem to work best hung vertically wherever they fit comfortably. My seax I use as a back up weapon is appx. 17 inches tip to tip, and I find it best to wear it horizontally (handle end slightly higher than point end) across my front side, handle to the right. However, others in my group wear this size blade, and larger langseaxes horizontally across their back. The smaller back up blades have the handle again pointing to the right, but the larger combat langseaxes can be handle to right or left (depending on which hand you use it in). yet others wear the larger langseaxes suspended on the left hip (right hand draw) either vertically or angled (same as a sword would be hung for both methods).
The reason I give my ways, and that of others in my group, is that for many years we have tried numerous ways, and these tend to work best....comfort, accessability, utility. Warriors in the Viking Age were not of strict military discipline as todays armies, so they would have worn their gear whatever way worked best for them, in our opinions.
Here is a pic of how my seax hangs (sorry if pic is too large, still trying to figure out how to get the size right). It never gets in my way, and follows my hip movements perfectly.
The reason I give my ways, and that of others in my group, is that for many years we have tried numerous ways, and these tend to work best....comfort, accessability, utility. Warriors in the Viking Age were not of strict military discipline as todays armies, so they would have worn their gear whatever way worked best for them, in our opinions.
Here is a pic of how my seax hangs (sorry if pic is too large, still trying to figure out how to get the size right). It never gets in my way, and follows my hip movements perfectly.
Hi Phillip,
That looks pretty nice- I like your method.
Jeremy
That looks pretty nice- I like your method.
Jeremy
Hi guys!
As already indicated there is a problem talking about "seaxes" since the term could fit knives of very different looks. When most guys here talk about seaxes they generally refer to the anglo saxon brokenback model (like Chads) or the eastern weapon-knife model (like the ones in Peters posts). Current archeology suggests that these two knives were not carried the same way. There are finds suggesting that the eastern knives, with two or three rings, were fitted to a new set of rings to form a pyramid shape. While this can seem impractical finds suggests that these high status knives were carried in this way. The rings were supported by bronze or brass spirals. This kind of knives are also common in Finland.
Below are a picture of a find from Latvia that shows the pyramid form and my reconstruction of belt and bronze spiral carrying system:
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
The weapon knife is made by Robert Lazinski.
/Ville
As already indicated there is a problem talking about "seaxes" since the term could fit knives of very different looks. When most guys here talk about seaxes they generally refer to the anglo saxon brokenback model (like Chads) or the eastern weapon-knife model (like the ones in Peters posts). Current archeology suggests that these two knives were not carried the same way. There are finds suggesting that the eastern knives, with two or three rings, were fitted to a new set of rings to form a pyramid shape. While this can seem impractical finds suggests that these high status knives were carried in this way. The rings were supported by bronze or brass spirals. This kind of knives are also common in Finland.
Below are a picture of a find from Latvia that shows the pyramid form and my reconstruction of belt and bronze spiral carrying system:
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
[ Linked Image ]
The weapon knife is made by Robert Lazinski.
/Ville
Ville,
Good point. :) I guess my question should have been: How do you wear an English style broken back sax of Honey Lane form in the 10th and 11th centuries? :)
Good point. :) I guess my question should have been: How do you wear an English style broken back sax of Honey Lane form in the 10th and 11th centuries? :)
Nick Trueman wrote: | ||
Jeroen. here are a couple of extant sheaths for you to look at.....Though these are Frankish from memory? They are still Viking age. Cheers |
N.b. for langsaxes, there's the depiction of someone wearing a langsax from Repton UK:
Attachment: 49.93 KB
Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: |
N.b. for langsaxes, there's the depiction of someone wearing a langsax from Repton UK:[/quote]
The Repton sax seems to be carried much like a sword on the left hip, although more horizontally.
One good reason to wear the knife with the handle to the right is that you can draw it without reaching across your body. If you are beeing attacked, there is a real chance that your opponent is so close to you that you can not draw your weapon from the left hip.
(of cource, there might be some seaxual deviants who have other preferences)
Edit: Bad pun added
(of cource, there might be some seaxual deviants who have other preferences)
Edit: Bad pun added
Jeroen Zuiderwijk wrote: | ||||
N.b. for langsaxes, there's the depiction of someone wearing a langsax from Repton UK: |
Sorry Jeroen, without looking at the picture properly before sending, I thought it was more intact than it is. My apologies.
Nick
So is it a safe statement to say a large seax/war knife would have a scabbard made using leather, with no wood core, and worn using a suspension system close to one that would be used for a sword? My understanding is that a large seax/war knife would be used/worn in place of a sword, so on the left hip, either hanging down vertically or in most cases at a slight angle. Also if worn in this fashion which direction would the edge be facing?
Edit: I was thinking about the parallel between the large seax and the single edged viking sword, so with that reference it should make sense to have the edge facing down/forward... But since the seax was usually the simple/cheaper option verses the sword, would having the scabbard use only leather and no wood be appropriate in this line of thinking?
Edit: I was thinking about the parallel between the large seax and the single edged viking sword, so with that reference it should make sense to have the edge facing down/forward... But since the seax was usually the simple/cheaper option verses the sword, would having the scabbard use only leather and no wood be appropriate in this line of thinking?
As far as I have been able to determine, seaxes were generally worn edge up, and I find it rather frustrating that scabbards for most modern "production" seaxes seem to always have the edge down.
Marc Blaydoe wrote: |
As far as I have been able to determine, seaxes were generally worn edge up, and I find it rather frustrating that scabbards for most modern "production" seaxes seem to always have the edge down. |
Hi Marc, I agree that smaller seaxes that are more a general/all purpose tool should be worn edge up, plus this would put less wear on the sheath as you are not "cutting" the sheath every time you draw it in or pull it out. However if a large seax was worn in place of a sword shouldn't the edge be facing the same direction as a sword? Granted the only other single edged viking weapon is the Geibig Type 14, which I think was worn edge forward and down. I could very well be mistaken... Seems like I'm getting off topic here, perhaps it's time to start a new thread...
A sword lenght seax would for intent and purposes be a sword, and be carried like one. However, the single edged swords mentioned by Gebig and Pettersen are just that; swords. They have fullered blades and rounded tips, like their double edged bretheren. Some of them where also quite long (Pettersen mentiones a 90 cm specimen)
Michael Pikula wrote: |
So is it a safe statement to say a large seax/war knife would have a scabbard made using leather, with no wood core |
Quote: |
and worn using a suspension system close to one that would be used for a sword? My understanding is that a large seax/war knife would be used/worn in place of a sword, so on the left hip, either hanging down vertically or in most cases at a slight angle. Also if worn in this fashion which direction would the edge be facing? |
Quote: |
Edit: I was thinking about the parallel between the large seax and the single edged viking sword, so with that reference it should make sense to have the edge facing down/forward... But since the seax was usually the simple/cheaper option verses the sword, would having the scabbard use only leather and no wood be appropriate in this line of thinking? |
Thanks for the feedback Jeroen, I am going to have to spend some time looking up the difference between a long seax, broad seax, and all the others/names that they are called and all the characteristics that separate each one. I wish I had years of research behind my belt so I could attempt to put together a classification system for the seax.
Michael Pikula wrote: |
Thanks for the feedback Jeroen, I am going to have to spend some time looking up the difference between a long seax, broad seax, and all the others/names that they are called and all the characteristics that separate each one. I wish I had years of research behind my belt so I could attempt to put together a classification system for the seax. |
Has already been done :):
http://1501bc.com/files/saxes/sax_evolution.jpg
Translation (early to late): small long sax, short sax, light broad sax, heavy broad sax, atypical broadsax, long sax. This is for Germany, but the neighbouring countries follow similar evolutions.
Missing here are the Hurbuck type (brokenback long sax) and Honeylane type (shorter sized brokenback sax).
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum