| Author |
Message |
Richard Martell
Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 15
|
 Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: Need help: Historicity of the "Hedemark Viking Sword&qu |
 |
|
Hello!
I have a simple question - simple for you experts, not for me.
What do you think about the blade of the "Hedemark" viking sword, made by Valiant Armoury?
The fuller looks quite small.
But is it too small for a 10th century viking sword?
At least the hilt looks typically for 10th century - if you ignore the hex nut 
And also the point looks a little bit strange to me.
What kind of oakshot type is this blade???
This sword is so confusing.
Hope you can help me!
 Attachment: 9.97 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
  |
 |
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fuller does appear suspiciously narrow for early Viking age. Some late 10th to 11th century swords (NM 11840, 3631, and 704 near the end of examples shown in "Swords of the Viking Age") do start to exhibit similarly narrow fullers. But, the hilt forms for those don't look that way (much more modern) by this point in the text. I would expect the fuller for that hilt form to be roughly in the range of 3/4 to 1 inch (20 to 25 mm) wide and to be fairly shallow on a blade that is roughly 1/4" (6mm) thick near the guard.
The point form is also more rounded and blunt than the examples I have in the same text.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With a fuller that long, you'll be looking at something in the X or XI family. A X would be the most typical for late Viking-esque swords. From our Type X spotlight:
| Quote: | | This fuller is generally very wide and shallow, but in some cases may be narrower (about 1/3 of the blade's width) and more clearly defined |
The fuller might be on the small side for a typical sword of the type, but a quick flip through Peirce's book shows some that may be close to being that narrow. The point looks a little abrupt to me, but I've seen much worse.
The hex nut is obviously not historical, as you've mentioned, nor is the use of stainless steel hilt components.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tried to find a "narrow" fuller example. This type XII 11th century one from Records of the Medieval Sword has a roughly 3/4" wide fuller. (I have assumed blade width near guard to be close to 2", and scaled it photographically.) The point is more acute though.
Attachment: 85.73 KB
[ Download ]
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Martell
Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you all for your quick reply!
So would you say this could be a rarely but still plausible viking sword (hilt+blade)?
Or is it eventually more like conan the barbarian? 
Last edited by Richard Martell on Sat 08 May, 2010 2:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have kept a bookmark to Kirk Spencer's post since it was such a good one. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...typologies
I think you can see the type R or S pommel types falling near 10th century. But the more narrow and long length fuller is closer to 12th century according to his studies.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | I tried to find a "narrow" fuller example. This type XII 11th century one from Records of the Medieval Sword has a roughly 3/4" wide fuller. (I have assumed blade width near guard to be close to 2", and scaled it photographically.) The point is more acute though. |
There are at least 3-4 narrowed fullers in Peirce. As you'd imagine from the title "Sword of the Viking Age" it has more Vikign swords than Oakeshott's works, which typically cover later period (Medieval vs. Viking).
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chad,
Would you please post a couple of images of these? I do not have that text to look at, and am interested.
Thanks.
Jared
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | Chad,
Would you please post a couple of images of these? I do not have that text to look at, and am interested.
Thanks.
Jared |
When I have time to lay the book on the scanner, I'll do so.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Martell
Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: |
I think you can see the type R or S pommel types falling near 10th century. But the more narrow and long length fuller is closer to 12th century according to his studies. |
Yeah, I know that posting and it was the main reason for my doubts
Well, it seems I have to find an alternative pommel and an alternative cross guard for this sword.
That will not be easy, I think 
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Hooper
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The grip length (as measured by KOA) of 4.5 inches is not historical. The typical Viking sword's grip was so short that you supposedly had to put your pinky finger around the pommel in order to wield it.
Since most moderns dislike the short grip length, many swordmakers lengthen the grip at least a little to make the sword more marketable.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Martell
Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roger Hooper wrote: | The grip length (as measured by KOA) of 4.5 inches is not historical. The typical Viking sword's grip was so short that you supposedly had to put your pinky finger around the pommel in order to wield it.
Since most moderns dislike the short grip length, many swordmakers lengthen the grip at least a little to make the sword more marketable. |
That is a good point.
But people of oure days are bigger - so they have bigger hands too...
And a bigger/taller viking would use a bigger grip.
It is a matter of proportion, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since this sword does not appear to be modeled after any particular historical example I guess we can let our imaginations roam free. To me, it does not look like a true Viking sword but rather one of those early medieval swords that still had Viking stylings - the Xa blade and longer grip would be consistent with that idea. If you buy this interpretation, then I guess its historical (except for the assembly).
I owned one of these briefly and thought it was really nice esthetically, but with the prominent grip risers and thick, heavy, parallel-edged blade I found it rather uncomfortable to wield. A better (although more expensive) option might be the similar sword in the Fletcher/Trim 'chimera' line, which uses the same hilt components, a more conservative grip style, and AT's Xa blade, which looks almost certainly to be much lighter with a better weight distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Roger Hooper wrote: | The grip length (as measured by KOA) of 4.5 inches is not historical. The typical Viking sword's grip was so short that you supposedly had to put your pinky finger around the pommel in order to wield it.
Since most moderns dislike the short grip length, many swordmakers lengthen the grip at least a little to make the sword more marketable. |
As with everything, there are ranges to historical pieces. Speaking in absolutes gets us in trouble.
Many were that short. Not all.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Martell wrote: | | Jared Smith wrote: |
I think you can see the type R or S pommel types falling near 10th century. But the more narrow and long length fuller is closer to 12th century according to his studies. |
Yeah, I know that posting and it was the main reason for my doubts
Well, it seems I have to find an alternative pommel and an alternative cross guard for this sword.
That will not be easy, I think |
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. As I said, there are Viking swords with narrow fullers. That's proven. They're earlier than 12th century (which isn't Viking). The narrower Oakeshott typology blade forms (which is much of what Kirk was showing) typically do lie later in the period, but not all.
Getting hung up on typology things doesn't always help. The typology tracks the typical (hence the word relation). There are always outliers.
I will say that if you're looking for a typical Viking sword, this one may not be it.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Martell
Location: Austria, near "Conans" birthplace Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
I will say that if you're looking for a typical Viking sword, this one may not be it. |
I am not a viking fanboy
Actually I am only searching for an early medival sword.
Does that mean this could be one?
Ich dien.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Sat 08 May, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
About the grip length, this type M viking sword has 12cm long grip:
And this type T has quite narrow fuller:
Basically, you can find a lot of unusual things among swords, not all of them are very typical...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic