Blood Red Roses is a nice insight into the subject:

http://myArmoury.com/books/item.1842170252.html

Enjoy!
Cole

This thread actually reminded me of a question I once had. Why wasn't limb armour popular in the Viking age ?
Maybe anyone has any sources about limb protection the IX-XII century eastern Europe, Russia and Scandinavian lands ?
I know that some kind of early type of splint armour was found in Viking lands, but does anyone have any good info about that ?

it would appear that warriors that use shields as their primary defence did not prioritize limb armour. The same trend can be seen in antiquity, with the exception of greaves for hoplites. (who often only wore one, on the left foot).

The natural conclusion would be that in this type of warfare (shield and spear based), the hands and legs where not seen as important target areas. The hands in particular did not get ANY kind of protection before full length hauberks with integrated mittens started to appear in the 12th c.

the most probable explanation is that in tight shield formations, the spear stances place the hands well behind the shield, and sword strikes where delivered with the "crossguard" on the shield rim, similar to what is seen in the I.33 sword and buckler manual. (For that matter, the development of a enlarged crossguards on european swords is also an interesting point, as this feature is not seen elsewhere.)
When held in the overhand position, the one handed spear has a lot of punch and presure. However, it does not have a good angle to strike at the opponents legs. A spear thrust to the shin would in any case not be imediately lethal; It seems the head and torso, followed by the loins, where the areas that received the highest priority. A prime example is the romans adding another layer of mail to the shoulders of their mail, instead of extending it to cover the upper arms.

the similarity would be in using the sword and shield to form a single defence, and always cover your hands, so it is a similarity in principle rather than spesific techniqes. Anyhow, there is a lot to it, and it's not really directly related to battle wounds.

A friend of mine can't belive that a bone can be cut with a sword, he says that that's impossibile. I talked him about Wisby exavations, but he answered that all the archeologist tha worked there are incompetents and the theory that a blow can cut a bone is ridicolous.
This because he hadn't ever seen someone cutting a bone and he assures that the only way to cut a (pig) bone is using an electric saw. Are there some videos or proofs that can convince him?

butchers rutinely cut pig bone with knifes.
furhter more, I have cut pig bones with a sword on a cople of occations, both a full size ham, and a whole carcas.
One of this occations is documented at a friend's myspace site;
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/1...dde86f.jpg and onwards.
Nils Andersen has some even better pictures from a later even, but has yet to post them. (boo hiss)

If you could post some videos with bones cut in half (like in the wisby exavations) or just pics, it would be amazing!!

Ah, I tought you could see the rest of the gallery; Here is the pig after some blows with swords and daneaxe;
[ Linked Image ]

This is the pig by the time it was my go;
[ Linked Image ]

here you can see that one of the rear legs is severed;
[ Linked Image ]

Me trying a wrist strike. It easily cuts to the bone, but stops there.
[ Linked Image ]

A even more sucsessfull hit from youtube;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4j3mvrDyQ

Another test on a ham
http://www.kongshirden1308.no/galleri/2005_omf_4/thumbs.htm

Keep in mind that it is often impossible to tell whether a cut was inflicted with a sword blade or something more substantial like an axe or polearm. This would be even more apparent when you only have skeletal evidence to analyse.

Yes, but he's continiung assuring that it's impossibile to cut with a single blow a bone, even with a two handed axe, even if the bone is laying on a table and you strike at full force.

Augusto
Is it possible that your friend is getting pigs confused with wolverines?

There are a few videos on youtube of people cutting pig or deer carcasus with swords, perhaps you could find them and show them to your friend (of course "its on youtube" is usually not a food argument for truth, especialy for things like "arrows can pierce armour", but I think the design and construction of pigs is pretty similar now to how they were in the middle ages)

If your friend is still incredulous, perhaps ask him why executioners axes and swords were ever used, if it is imposible to cut through the spine.

I was thinking in terms of force per area, but the form of a weapon you mentioned would have probably made some effect (I doubt all the axes found in battlefields were combat axes, not even the majority to be honest, as peasants (a.k.a spear and arrow meat) dominated the numbers vs professional warriors who could afford combat axes (whereas the peasants would use their everyday needs axes) does this sound ok ?))

The mix of peasants vs pros could vary greatly. The tendency would be not to bring the peasants into close combat at all if it could be helped. Visby is an excellent example of what happens when peasant infantry face the pros.

Some combat axes have a wedge profile; while these fit more with the traditional view of axes as a "sharp hammer", even these cut to the shaft rather than crush. Cutting with an axe requires less technique, and produces deep wounds, though you have less chance of the spectacular "cleaved in one blow" strikes that a perfect sword blow gives.

Thrusts, both with spears and sword, feels like stabbing butter. There is almost no resistance, even against the ribs. The greatest challenge is not falling forward. :P

There is a good, in-depth study of six Anglo-Saxon skeltons with head injuries in:
Hawkes, Sonia Chadwick
Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England
University of Oxford. Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 21
1989, ISBN: 0947816216