[A. Jake Storey II]

I have been trying for a while to find examples of Norwegian Longswords, and haven't found anything. All I ever find are the famous earlier viking swords, such as the +Ulfbreh+t. Sometimes I find something from a little later that looks like an early arming-sword (meaning it's a "one-hander"). Did they not have any longswords, or where they basically just German longswords?

[Ian Hutchison]

[Peter Johnsson]

Most every kind of scandinavian sword of the high and late medieval period are either imported or versions of swords that were common on the continent.

A trend among scandinavian long swords are weapons with unusual long grips in proportion to the blade.
You may want to read this thread:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...ht=pretzel

[Baard H]

[Peter Messent]

No Viking Longswords - there have been a few incomplete finds that have been touted as two-handers, but for the most part it's been due to bad pictures and no specs.

I have often thought that it probably did occur to a Viking-age swordsmith that a sword could be used two-handed (I seem to recall that using a typical Viking-age sword with both hands had some mention in one of the Sagas, but my memory's too foggy to be sure) and thus that a dedicated two-handed sword could be made, but they would be faced with several large problems:

1) Longer swords require better balance. While I wouldn't consider it beyond their skill, starting from scratch as it were would involve trial and error, which would be very costly considering the following:

2) Longer swords require more steel, and steel was expensive.

3) Longer swords require better quality steel, or they are at a higher risk of breaking - leverage!

And add that to the following:

4) Longer swords aren't of any significant benefit in the Viking age. Shorter swords and axes cut quite fine and spears poke very well.

5) The scarcity of armor compared to later eras (and the total lack of plate armor) would render the Longsword user very vulnerable - contrary to modern movies, swords don't make good shields. Due to the large length of useable handle, a spear or even a larger axe can be utilized with a shield easier than some two-handers - my GSoW is one sword I would NOT want to use with one hand.

May also be worth noting that swords were more than likely not primary weapons, and a two handed sword is a much less appealing 'backup' weapon.

Hope that helps some,
Pete

[Peter Johnsson]

Peter Messent brings several good points.
The last two are the really central ones however.

Shield *and* sword (or axe or spear) was the main weapon combination for close quarter fighting during the viking period. The use of the shield was integral to the use of the weapon (sword, spear or axe). The shield was much more than a bucket lid to hide behind. It was most probably used actively to lock and block the options of the opponent to open the line of attack for the sword. The shield could also be used offensively in direct attacks with boss and rim.
Those accounts of finds of long swords from the viking period should not be given much credence. At best they are based on confused evidence. As mentioned, the idea of a long sword used with two hands would not seem very worthwhile to a viking period warrior. The weapons that required two hands were various kinds of hafted weapons that gave longer reach than even a big two handed sword could manage. Without his shield he would not be able to take on opponents with longer haft weapons and also be in a disadvantage against other swordsmen who had a shield.

The accounts of viking age warriors using two hands to wield their sword should be seen from the perspective of how fighting was done at the time. Only in desperate situations or if the fighter showed a complete contempt for (or acceptance of) death would he willingly discard the protective and tactical use of the shield.
A raging or cold blooded warrior showing a complete disregard for his own safety, and hell bent on the utter destruction of his enemies would have been a terrifying sight.

The design of the viking period sword is optimized to work well together with a shield. Its size, weight, balance and proportions work really well in combination with a centrally gripped round shield.

[Chad Arnow]

Check out this thread: Early Great Swords.

Longswords, the way we moderns define them, didn't exist. Some things you could call great swords (a period term), may have existed in the late Viking era.

[Peter Messent]

Very interesting; the sword in that thread does have a somewhat earlier look than I would consider typical (though it is outside my main realm of study) - the broad cross, relatively short grip and somewhat boat-shaped pommel give an interesting aesthetic.

Only the blade measurement is given from what I saw, but by scaling it (at 34 3/8") I get a grip size for that one of a touch over 6 1/2" from cross to pommel. That would make a very short grip (IMO) for a dedicated two-hander, particularly considering that the pommel is not ideal for being part of the grip, as in later scent-stoppers and the like. To me, the pommel looks distinctly designed to be comfortable on a single-handed sword.

But that really just raises more questions - why such a big grip for a one-hander, why such a small grip for a two hander and why a less-than-ideal pommel for a hand and a half?

Very cool nonetheless!

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

I think Chad is right. Longswords were never made or carried by Vikings. They would never carry a two-handed sword to battle as opposed to their lighter one-handed sword.

[Tjarand Matre]

I would also think it was a matter of metallurgy and steel quality. A lot of the viking grave sword finds have been ritually bent (almost into a knot). If such a degree of bending was possible with a short sword I would think a longer sword would be prone to deforming in combat use.

[Chad Arnow]

[Peter Johnsson]

[Jussi Ekholm]

Just throwing this out for folks with more knowledge to comment on.

Viking swords are my favorite European style swords. On my visit to Riga I visited couple museums and I was thrilled to see the viking age items. There were many intresting items to be seen, unfortunately all info was in Latvian.

Here is one sword which had quite long grip length. I just smashed my keyboard as I didn't took a picture of the info table on the wall that might have indicated the approximated period of this one... stupid me.




Sorry for the bad pics. But I think you can see the overall propotions on it. Unfortunately I can't provide any more info than these 2 pics of it.

This sword reminds me of Oslo Universitetets Oldsaksamling C18798, which can be seen in Peirce's book pg. 126, tapering blade & long hilt.

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

This rare archaeological find from a museum in Riga must be one true example of a Viking longsword, I should say.

[Peter Messent]

I have to disagree. The handle might be longer than the norm (maybe, but can't be sure without measuring it) though it is almost certainly made to look longer by the fact that the upper guard is out of place, and the blade is fairly narrow, probably due to the heavy corrosion. If we cut out the upper guard and put it back into place, there is nothing unique about its grip proportions, and it is certainly no two hander:

[Baard H]

Even if it had the right proportions of a longsword/hand-and-a-half/two-hander. It would be one (1) among thousands of viking swords found. In other words; it would probably be either a failed experiment, or a "one of" made for a richman who wanted to be noticed. Either way, it had no widespread use.

[Robin Smith]

[Peter Johnsson]

This topic about two handers or long swords used in the viking age keeps returning.
It is a longing, a wish-it-was-so topic. Just like the carrying of swords on ones back.

The examples that has been brought forward as possible examples of long swords in the viking age are not supporting the idea very well. There are no swords of viking age type that has two handed grip. There are no viking age swords that are of long sword proportions.

There are some early cruciform swords with longer than usual blades that are very big. They do not really belong to the viking age or a viking culture setting.
They are weapons of a later period and a later era.
There is f course a gradual shift in sword development but the sword we recognize as the *viking sword* was never made in long sword or for two handed use.
We have to wait until the cruciform sword has emerged to find variations of this type that have long sword size and proportions.

Something happens in the shift between what we know as the viking age to the high medieval period that involves a change on many levels in society. Warfare is just one such are where there are some pretty dramatic changes. The design of weapons and changes in tactics and even the role and ideals of the warrior changes in a fundamental way.
This means new types of swords were made to meet the needs of their time.

The fact there is a lack of long swords and two handed swords in the viking age and that we se a trend towards longer swords with longer grips after the end of the viking period (@ 1066) is in itself interesting. It is worthwhile to study why this change was brought about, but it is not worthwhile to keep looking for long swords that are dated to the viking period.