[Tomm Skotner]

[Ken Speed]

Lafayette quoted me,

"I don't claim to have any tactical experience but I've read that the feigned retreat is extremely difficult and dangerous because it is too easy for it to turn into a real retreat. My impression is that only highly trained and well disciplined fighting forces could pull off a feigned retreat."

and responded,

" And we, being the ignorant moderns that we are, tend to underestimate the level of training and discipline of the warriors of yore! While not all Vikings would have been able to do it, I'm entirely sure that at least some groups were sufficiently trained and disciplined to practice it. After all, it's such a basic and instinctive tactical ploy that we can find in almost every warrior culture for which we have a sufficiently large body of records."

Lafayette,

Did I say anywhere that Viking warriors didn't execute the feigned retreat? Did I say that they were incapable of it?
Did I even say they attempted it and failed? No, it is laughably demonstrable to anyone who opts to read this thread that I said none of those things. So why then are you trying to misconstrue and misinterpret what I DID say?

[Chad Arnow]

Ken and Lafayette,
Let's make sure we keep things civil and courteous.

[Tomas Kringen]

I hope no one gets offended by my revival of this topic

As a new member, I'm currently browsing the forum reading and learning when I came across this thread and decided to throw in my 2 cents.

Viking swords were certainly not the best of their time. From what I know, Spanish and French Steele were the Ferraris of those days. Norsemen would buy/trade/steal swords in southern European countries and modify them with their own hilts. In terms of craftsmanship, wood was the material Norsemen were masters of as Scandinavia was packed with it.

In my opinion, the sword was more a symbol of status, while the axe was a weapon of choice. BBC had a documentary called 'the blood of the Vikings' where its mentioned that theres an old saying that a good axeman can shave someones mustache. An axe is also far better against an armored oponent.

It is true, that Vikings preferred the element of suprise, I mean who wouldn't? Why risk your life when you can be smart about it? But they were also fierce warriors who could stand their ground. The thing that separated the Vikings from the rest of Europe, is that they had a different view on death than their neighbors. In order to get to heaven, you had to die in battle. You could say they were a part of a death cult.

To sum it up, the Vikings were a large group of outsiders who had nothing to loose, who were extremely greedy, extremely skilled in the arts of combat and had great success because of the factors mentioned.

[Jim Adelsen]

Don't forget the spear! Was probably the most used weapon.

[Bill Tsafa]

I don't think that the experts in the program intended to come across that the vikings had inferior swords to the rest of Europe. I think they just wanted to make a point that the viking success was not due to superior swords or other weapons. They did give a lot of credit for viking success to their longships which aided in hit and run tactics by sea. The longships where sturdy enough for ocean travel and yet shallow enough to get into rivers and drag overland between water-bodies.

In the age of the vikings there was no Spain. There was the Islamic paradise of al-Andalus on the Iberian peninsula. The vikings did make at least one raiding attempt but were stopped cold by the more organized Muslims. The Muslums in this period were more advanced in many ways. The viking found it much more fruitful to sell Noth European captives to the Muslims for profit then fight them.

I am going off-topic here but it is interesting how the West today accepts the Reconquest of Spain as a noble deed but looks down on the attempted reconquest Byzantine lands as opportunistic.

[Tomas Kringen]

[Ville Vinje]

Thomas and Jim,

If by viking you mean an invading and/or raiding individual, then sword would be the far most common weapon. Swords are very common in scandinavia and there is really nothing to suggest that the vikings prefered spears or axes to swords in combat.

/Ville

[Jim Adelsen]

A spear is a much more effective weapon in a shield wall. Also, a spear would be much more affordable. All my research has led me to believe that a sword would have been extremely expensive. There have been quit a few spears found and I just want to keep everyone open to the possibility they were the most common weapon. The fact is we don't know for sure.

[Elling Polden]

The vikings did quite well in their raiding. However, you do not need superior weapons to do this.
Also, sword quality does not necessarily win battles.

From the earliest known norwegian milita laws, every free man is required to own a shield, spear and axe or sword. It is not a question of one or the other; they are both parts of the warriors equipment.
Spears are not only used for standing in the shield wall. They can also be thrown, or used to keep foes at a distance.

On sword quality, it would, as in other eras, vary wildly. However, it would seem that they where not as uncommon as one migth think, base on price. For comparison, a high end modern era assault rifle costs 1500$+, which is rather expensive, but not prohibitive, and in some countries second(or fifteenth hand) ARs cost less than a chicken...

[Chase S-R]

[Tomas Kringen]

I agree with Chase S-R regarding swords. It's commonly known Scandinavians were quite fond of axes. Swords were more a symbol of status.

I cant recall the numbers, but in a book called 'verre enn sitt rykte' (worse than their reputation) written by Norwegian historian Yngvar Ustvedt its said that a good sword would be more expensive than a slave and even a horse.

[Bill Tsafa]

[M. Eversberg II]

I do recall an article stating the cost of a sword was something like sixteen milk cows. I'll attempt to find the article so this statement has worth, but even as a non-farmer I know full well that sixteen milk cows is quite expensive.

M.

[Ville Vinje]

Tomas Kringen:
"I agree with Chase S-R regarding swords. It's commonly known Scandinavians were quite fond of axes. Swords were more a symbol of status."

Jim Adelsen:
"All my research has led me to believe that a sword would have been extremely expensive."


I have no idea were this researche come from. As Elling pointed out, there are laws in Norway (and in sweden) that say that every free man should own a sword. With every free man you mean everyone not being a slave, hence lots of people. In the documentary above prof Stausberg says that they have more than one thousend swords in that museum only, all of wich are found in middle Norway. Add the rest of Norway and scandinavia and you will get several thousend swords.

If we have finds of several thousend swords and laws in different scandinavian countries saying that every man was obligated to own a sword than it is not that far off to say that the sword was quite common and not overly expensive.

The notion that swords was only for the very wealthy is a modern myth. I have no idea were it comes from, perhaps roleplaying games or movies.

Yes, spears and axes are cheaper to make but if you are going to have guys trying to kill you from time to time a sword is not a bad investment.

[Jim Adelsen]

What is your source for the laws that every free man should own a sword? I'm pretty well read and don't remember seeing that before.

[Tomas Kringen]

[M. Eversberg II]

You can't hotlink images from there it appears.

Also, an axe is a practical weapon on the move -- it doubles as a tool to gather wood for your fires. I'm sure emergency ship repair could use an axe, too

M.

[Tomas Kringen]

Should also add that the axe were used since the stone age, and the sword was really just a dagger that evolved into something longer. While the axe became less popular with time in the rest of Europe, it got it's renaissance in the Nordic countries.

There were mainly two types of battle axes. The (directly translated) older beardaxe and the newer broadaxe. The beardaxe had an edge that were shaped downwards like a beard, originates from the 7th century. The broadaxe with specially hardened edge is from the 10th century. Both would be decorated with silver in both the blade and handle. In early times the axe together with spear would be the choosen combination, as time passed the spear would be swapped with a sword.

[Ville Vinje]

maybe it is not so strange that you have not heard about norwegian and Swedish "landskapslagar" if you are not scandinavian (Jim?). Elling is from Norway and know about norwegian medieval laws, I am from sweden and know of swedish medieval laws. I have heard that there are similar laws in island although I am not sure this is correct.

The laws were used by the king to control and regulate the ledung and to make sure there was proper defence. If you did not obey this laws (own a sword an several other weapons) you would be fined.

I don't really like when people refer to "historians" as reference to arguments as they (as in all other humanistic academic spheres) are not a singular group with a single mind. I have seven years of academic university studies and live in an area of scandinavia (and sweden) wich have an enormous amount of finds from the viking era.

For some reason people tend to think that there are ten to twenty finds of swords from the viking era when in fact there are many thousands.