[Nick Bourne]

Good day everyone,
So, I'm depicting a Danish Viking from the southern Danelaw region of late 9th early 10th century and I'm thinking, should I have a langseax?
I know the weapons were popular among Anglo-Saxons, but am also aware of the Norweigan langseaxes used by Vikings as a primary weapon. However, I'm thinking more of a back-up or short sword for use in the close-up press of the shield wall.
Any and all knowledge on the subject will, as always, be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Nick

[Neil Langley]

Nick,

A good start is here: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...eax+charts

Kirk has provided some great charts on a number of topics - all worth reading!

Neil.

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[Ken Speed]

OK, so long saxes had gone out of favor in Scandinavia and continental Europe. What did these warriors carry for back up blades? Nothing? Seems unlikely doesn't it?

[Paul Mortimer]

[Ken Speed]

Paul Mortimer wrote, Smaller seaxes, of course."


Just so I'm sure I understand; you think Scandinavian and Continental European warriors thought a knife was a sufficient backup weapon against an opponent armed with a shield and sword or spear. Confident fellows weren't they?

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Also, I don't think "backup" weapon is really accurate. I think plenty of folks had a RELATIVELY larger seax, say 10-14 in and no sword at all. Probably a spear. Swords were not carried by the majority of soldiers, by any means.

I don't know but I believe that a seax could be used along side a shield.

I also don't believe that most folks had a sort of "collection" of weapons to choose from on their person. Nor during the period in question. Metal/steel was precious.

[Petr Florianek]

swords, spears and axes as weapons, seaxes for close combat. It was not the only matter of preference, but also of economy - seax i better than nothing

[Ken Speed]

Jeremy commented, ".... I think plenty of folks had a RELATIVELY larger seax, say 10-14 in and no sword at all. Probably a spear. Swords were not carried by the majority of soldiers, by any means."

OK...so not a LONG seax but a sort of long seax, I see!

Frankly Jeremy, I don't think anyone really knows, almost everything seems to be more or less educated guesswork. As long as we're guessing, my guess is that a more experienced warrior had more and better weaponry than most newbies. I don't think thinking of them as soldiers is a helpful image, many of the concepts we associate with being a soldier were lacking, many of the concepts we associate with a military were lacking.

Yes, metal and steel were precious but there were probably a lot of bodies to loot too.

Yes, I suppose a seax could be used with a shield, so could a club. The point I was trying to make is that a warrior probably wouldn't want to have only one weapon available to him.

[R D Moore]

This links to a seax typology posted by Kirk Lee Spencer that illustrates sizes and time periods:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=26738

And if you'll click on the zip file link under Jeroen's signature, a whole new world of seax history will open up to you.

Cheers

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

The sword already is a back up weapon. The spear is the primary weapon. Long saxes were alternatives to swords (unlike earlier saxes, which are often combined with swords). There are Viking saxes, but they are far less common compared to swords, and I don't know if they were found in combination with swords.

[Ken Speed]

Jeroen, thanks for the clarification. I have to admit I always visualized the seax as a backup to a sword. But that’s the thing, everyone has a visualization of how things looked and how warriors were equipped.

First, I’m sure you know your field very thoroughly and I think the typologies that Kirk has put together are wonderful tools; I have no reason or intent to disparage anybody or their work. There is, however, a thread about recent archeological finds here in which an archeologist laments the fact that they are trying to draw general conclusions from small samples. That's one of the things I'm talking about. Secondly the world doesn’t work in as clear cut a manner as typologies tend to lead you to believe. We have all read about swords handed down for generations and, for that matter, looted from tombs. There is no reason to assume that weapons of a given type virtually disappeared on a given date. Some people talk and behave as though someone said “ OK, guys, it’s the start of a new millennium, everybody put away their lang saxes right now!” There were, I’m sure, anachronisms( by our standards) and by the standards of the time they may not have even been anachronisms. I have a feeling that they weren’t worrying too much about whether their weapon was “up to date” but if it could help keep them alive, you know? Just recently there was another thread about cross bows being used in southern Appalachia long after people would have thought they were obsolete. Anomalies just seem to keep cropping up and some people seem to have this almost religious orthodoxy in their sense of how warriors equipped themselves. I suspect that things were very much catch as catch can.

[Anthony Savage]

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[Jeroen Zuiderwijk]

[Ken Speed]

OK, so Nick's question was what would be appropriate equipment for a 9th or 10th century Danish viking. So? A sword? Maybe? a round shield? A spear? a shorter sax probably? An axe? What kind of axe. if any?

We all have these images in our minds of what these guys looked like and what arms they carried, I'm trying to get a more realistic mental picture.

[Scott Woodruff]

From the standpoint of portraying the norm for the period, a spear and shield and maybe a handaxe or knife. If you're re-enacting combat, you might want to go toward the more heavily armed end of the spectrum. Most re-enactment groups look very a-historical with every single man in helm and armor, with shield, spear, sword, sax and/or axe. It may be worth looking like an army of kings if it keeps your head from getting broken. I have recently been checking out a local viking re-enactment group, but have not started fighting. I am going to try to portray a fairly low-class warrior to kind of balance out the group, with a helmet disguised as a hat, a simple tunic, shield and spear.

[Connor Ruebusch]

Personally, Nick, I think a great weapon would be a nice one-handed axe. If you're going to depict a typical Viking, then I think an axe would be more in-line with your rank than even a simple sword. Also, the Hurstwic site mentions how it is possible to hold an axe in the shield hand while fighting with the spear, so that if your spear were to get lost or broken, or if perhaps you threw it, you could immediately have a weapon to hand by just reaching behind your shield and grabbing the haft. A helmet, shield, spear, axe, and maybe a small belt knife seems to be a very cool kit, to me.

[Elling Polden]

Large fighting knifes are not very common in the norwegian viking age material. There are some broken back seaxes in the early material, but in the later period they take the same form as medieval single edged daggers.

A large knife of this kind would definitely be appropriate for a warrior. I would however definitely be a knife, and not a sword. You might carry a sword as well. And an axe, for that matter.

Reeactment wise, a full "Warrior package" of spear, shield, sword, and knife is definitely very effective, in addition to being perfectly historically correct. If people complain that you have a sword, complain about their woman's jewlery (yea, that hammer.) and run them out of camp for crossdressing.

[Sam Gordon Campbell]