| Author |
Message |
Elling Polden
|
 Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 6:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Why on earth would you want to hold a seax in two hands?
There is simply no reason for wanting a two handed blade in the viking age. The lack of body armour and prevailence of large shields and spears make any style not including a shield disadvantageous at best.
The longsword gains popularity during the late middle ages due to very spesific cirumstances, mostly related to the use of plate armour, and disappears (outside civilan fencing schools) along with the full harness.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
    |
 |
|
Rex Metcalf
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the earliest "great swords" are dated correctly mid 12th- early 13th centuries this is well within the age of maille and their use continued at least in Scotland until the 16th century...A two handed sword just makes sense. So I must respectfully disagree with your statements. I'm not arguing the historical correctness of long swords in the viking age, but I for one can certainly see their utility, especially compared to two handed axes, and considering a sword of any kind was a secondary weapon with polearms taking the fore in battle
~RD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If the earliest "great swords" are dated correctly mid 12th- early 13th centuries this is well within the age of maille and their use continued at least in Scotland until the 16th century... |
It seems "great swords" do not entirely co-ordinate with the age of plate. However the do seem only to come into vogue when you start seeing mail from about head to toe. And I'm not sure when you start seeing the Jack or similar over mail - but it seems that it roughly co-incides with this period as well.
But from the above it appears that you do not see the beginnings of "great swords" until you see very complete mail armour, with additions such as a Jack. Does this seem correct?
I guess one question is if the great sword was designed to counter the increase in armour, or if the ability to have good protection from head to toe is what initiated the use of this sword type without a shield. I'd guess more the latter.
The 2 handed Danish axe though runs a bit counter to this whole thought 
Why the difference I do not know, what makes a 2 handed axe more feasible than a two handed sword?
The later era Viking types, when this type of sword came into vogue were armoured reasonably well, a long sleeved mail hauberk seemed the norm for the 2 handed axe users. But, you have 11th century Irish warriors depicted with 2 handed axes and little or no armour, and even illustrations of 11th-12th century feudal foot soldiers with a two handed axe.
| Quote: | | and considering a sword of any kind was a secondary weapon with polearms taking the fore in battle |
A one-handed sword may be a secondary weapon, but a two handed sword was generally the primary weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Clark
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think one must also consider the iron availability for such a weapon to be a feasible notion. In the Icelandic Sagas there are several instances of a warrior having to straighten their sword blades during a fight as it is said that the particular weapon was made of inferior metal or crafting. The "Dane" axe, on the other hand, used relatively little metal for such a long and devastating reach.
It also seems to have been used to rend shields, something a great sword could do, but would, from my own experimentation, be more likely to get wedged into a wooden shield than its axe counterpart due to its thinner blade and longer point of impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah David, from everything I have read the 2-handed axe is a particularily devastating weapon, I have not seen much testing of a two handed sword, but the tests I have seen with a two handed axe has it doing far more damage than a one handed sword. I have seen it tested against reconstructions of period shields, and even with iron rimes and leather or linen facing, it cuts through them pretty well, well enough to sever or at least deeply inbed itself in the shield users arm. Of course, you don't want to block an axe head on with a shield, but I'm sure it would invariably happen at times.
The one thing a two handed axe cannot be used for is in half-swording tehcniques.
The axe could also be used to "hook" the shield, though I'm not sure how effective this technique would be - you are encumbering the use of your opponents shield, but at the expense of your own (and only) weapon, wherea they should still have a free weapon available.
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Rytel
Location: Pittsburgh Joined: 23 Oct 2011
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I could see a Viking with something similar to a Dacian Falx.
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why the difference I do not know, what makes a 2 handed axe more feasible than a two handed sword? |
From the 'practical' or whatever point of view, maybe not much, be as mentioned, looking at history that way can give only deceiving results.
My humble and amateur opinion is that changes and evolution in arms etc. to "combat" or "react" to other equipment in tactics, while important, are somewhat secondary to general circumstances and conditions.
Longsword appeared, because large steel blades were more and more available to somehow wealthy and well armored people, who had enjoyed sword that could serve as 'rangier' and more powerful sword from the horseback, and as two handed/personal weapon that's still handier to carry around than shield and blade.
Before this occurrences, probably somewhere around ~ 1200, all those things didn't quite come together.
Especially for a Norseman around 10th century something like "proto longsword" would have been huge fortune with no really apparent necessity behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
My impression of longswords on the battlefield based on reenactment and full body/fencing mask experience. Most of the time, they get run down by sword and shieldmen, or poked to death by spears.
With full body target, even the 2m daneaxe has a hard time against spears, as these are longer and faster. I'm planing on experimenting with a 1m broadaxe, in one hand or combined with a slung shield, and see how this works for defence/offence vs spears and sword/shield.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | My impression of longswords on the battlefield based on reenactment and full body/fencing mask experience. Most of the time, they get run down by sword and shieldmen, or poked to death by spears. |
Why the prevalence of these on the battle field in later times you think, Elling? Or perhaps they were not that prevalent?
| Quote: | | With full body target, even the 2m daneaxe has a hard time against spears, as these are longer and faster |
But the Danish Axe enjoyed much usage with the Danish, Saxon and Varangians.
I'm wondering perhaps if comparing these weapons with sparring results, we may be missing something. The ability of a 2 handed axe to injure/wound is much greater than that of the one handed spear perhaps, if both are mailed?
But really sure about this thought, more curious.
| Quote: | | Longsword appeared, because large steel blades were more and more available to somehow wealthy and well armored people, who had enjoyed sword that could serve as 'rangier' and more powerful sword from the horseback, and as two handed/personal weapon that's still handier to carry around than shield and blade. |
Problem I see withthis thought is that the two handed sword was not a cavalry weapon - it was an infantry one.
| Quote: | | My humble and amateur opinion is that changes and evolution in arms etc. to "combat" or "react" to other equipment in tactics, while important, are somewhat secondary to general circumstances and conditions. |
Yeah, perhaps tradition was more of a factor than innovation - the idea of a two handed axe was around for a while, the two handed sword was more of a new thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Etienne Hamel
Location: Granby (QC) canada Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 443
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Dec, 2011 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
Why the prevalence of these on the battle field in later times you think, Elling? Or perhaps they were not that prevalent? |
As far as I can see, the longsword becomes a "thing" when knights start to fight dismounted.
If a 1340s knight was to jump right of his horse, he would be armed with a 3-4m long lance, which he will use in two hands as a spear, an armingsword and a dagger, as well as a smallish heater shield that is slung over his shoulder and strapped to the arm to allow him free use of the reins. He is also armoured with a full mail and plate harness, as well as a full face helmet.
In this context, the knight has both hands free to begin with, and is so well armoured that he can withstand most sword or glancing spearhits. Thus, he might find it advantageous to replace his arming sword with the greatsword hanging from his saddle. If nothing else because the halfsword guard gives better defence for the head. This in turn leads to the development of thrusting hand-and-a-half swords, which are basically a backup spear.
With the adoptation of the longsword as a knightly weapon, it and its study gains prestige towards the end of the 14th century, resulting in the development of unarmoured longsword as a form of dueling or competition, similar to and competing with sword and buckler.
By this time, battlefields where dominated by heavily armoured profesionalls with small or no shields, and civilian use is more dictated by fashion. And, despite the presence of longswords, there are still lots of arming swords around. Not every knight prefered one as his personal sidearm, nor are they very convenient for causual carry.
| Quote: |
But the Danish Axe enjoyed much usage with the Danish, Saxon and Varangians.
I'm wondering perhaps if comparing these weapons with sparring results, we may be missing something. The ability of a 2 handed axe to injure/wound is much greater than that of the one handed spear perhaps, if both are mailed?
But really sure about this thought, more curious.
|
Don't get me wrong. I am a daneaxman myself, and love the weapon. But they also have their limitations, and we know less about them than we might think.
Based on practical experience and cutting tests, the long hafted daneaxe is best used as a fast cutting and slicing weapon. No need to swing it over your head; moving the heand slightly to the side, and using your hips is more than enough to put the axe to through an arm or rib cage.
However, the spear is even faster. This is why you see later period polaxes held cue forward: With the head forward, blocks become to slow to stop a direct thrust.
The long hafted daneaxe is very efficient against swordsmen, though. However, it would be curious to have dedicated anti-swordsman troops when the battles are determined by spears. Perhaps they served as reserves or bodyguards, similar to landsknecht Trabants.
When it comes to the long sword, however, these are generally to short to gain the same advantages.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Dec, 2011 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luka Borscak wrote: | | Rex Metcalf wrote: | Historical? No. However, I loved the concept and commissioned this sword from Micheal Pikula
Type XVIa blade: 36" Long x 2.5" Wide @ the base
Grip: 9.5"
Fittings are type AE based loosely on the Suontaka sword.
I made the scabbard and belt.
I call this sword Skrep and dont let her massive size fool you she handles beautifully.
So while not historical I think Viking and Anglo-Saxon influences coupled with later blade styles can be a great outlet for creativity while still maintaining excellent handling characterisitics and performance in solo drills and cutting practice. Considering the bulk of training material out there deals with the long sword, and so many of us are vikings at heart, I find it an excellent balance of performance and preferred aescetic. So in my opinion the concept is very valid for a modern collector/practicioner.
~RD |
I am very surprised nobody yet commented on this, this sword is one beautiful beast! |
I agree. While it may not be period the aesthetic just really seems to work.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rex Metcalf
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Dec, 2011 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm fond of that peice 
My thanks to both Gentlemen who complimented my sword.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Dec, 2011 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | However, it would be curious to have dedicated anti-swordsman troops when the battles are determined by spears. Perhaps they served as reserves or bodyguards, similar to landsknecht Trabants. |
Per period sources, Saxon Huscarls and Varangians usually formed the front ranks in battles. But they also seemed at least in the Saxons case to maintain a shield wall with the rest of the infantry as well.
Perhaps prior to initial conact a spear was sued with the shield, and after initial contact, hopefully after they interpentrated opposing infantry, they discarded the spear and used the ax?
Of course, they seemed to be moderately effective against cavalry as well, and if infantry one does not try to interpenetrate cavalry, so it really does not make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Dec, 2011 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | | Gary Teuscher wrote: |
Why the prevalence of these on the battle field in later times you think, Elling? Or perhaps they were not that prevalent? |
As far as I can see, the longsword becomes a "thing" when knights start to fight dismounted.
If a 1340s knight was to jump right of his horse, he would be armed with a 3-4m long lance, which he will use in two hands as a spear, an armingsword and a dagger, as well as a smallish heater shield that is slung over his shoulder and strapped to the arm to allow him free use of the reins. He is also armoured with a full mail and plate harness, as well as a full face helmet.
In this context, the knight has both hands free to begin with, and is so well armoured that he can withstand most sword or glancing spearhits. Thus, he might find it advantageous to replace his arming sword with the greatsword hanging from his saddle. If nothing else because the halfsword guard gives better defence for the head. This in turn leads to the development of thrusting hand-and-a-half swords, which are basically a backup spear.
With the adoptation of the longsword as a knightly weapon, it and its study gains prestige towards the end of the 14th century, resulting in the development of unarmoured longsword as a form of dueling or competition, similar to and competing with sword and buckler.
By this time, battlefields where dominated by heavily armoured profesionalls with small or no shields, and civilian use is more dictated by fashion. And, despite the presence of longswords, there are still lots of arming swords around. Not every knight prefered one as his personal sidearm, nor are they very convenient for causual carry.
| Quote: |
But the Danish Axe enjoyed much usage with the Danish, Saxon and Varangians.
I'm wondering perhaps if comparing these weapons with sparring results, we may be missing something. The ability of a 2 handed axe to injure/wound is much greater than that of the one handed spear perhaps, if both are mailed?
But really sure about this thought, more curious.
|
Don't get me wrong. I am a daneaxman myself, and love the weapon. But they also have their limitations, and we know less about them than we might think.
Based on practical experience and cutting tests, the long hafted daneaxe is best used as a fast cutting and slicing weapon. No need to swing it over your head; moving the heand slightly to the side, and using your hips is more than enough to put the axe to through an arm or rib cage.
However, the spear is even faster. This is why you see later period polaxes held cue forward: With the head forward, blocks become to slow to stop a direct thrust.
The long hafted daneaxe is very efficient against swordsmen, though. However, it would be curious to have dedicated anti-swordsman troops when the battles are determined by spears. Perhaps they served as reserves or bodyguards, similar to landsknecht Trabants.
When it comes to the long sword, however, these are generally to short to gain the same advantages. |
you mention a small heater shield, how small?
because i reckon, like with a buckler, it might be theoretically possibe to hold the handle of the heater but also grip the longsword as per normal to lend weight to do a 2 handed blow,
as for daneaxes,
its worth pointing out that while they are slower than spears
*particularly since 2 handed spears i have seen as thrusting by using the 'sliding punch method,i.e the spear shaft is held loosely in the forward hand allowing the shaft to easily slide back and forth allowing much greater speed, (its thought this is how various eastern cataphracts using the kontos would have used the kontos)
this method means a spear 8 feet long, held with hands 3 feet apart on at the butt end, can VERY rapidly change the reach of the spear (to the point that i liken the 2 handed spear to a sniper rifle, because it can come out of nowhere, )
ive noted the danish axe is great for hooking not just shields, but legs too, and while not all daneaxes have these, alot of designs have an upswept 'horn' that juts out beyond the top of the shaft, this lets you, make quick slicing tip cuts, but it also extends the surcface area of the cutting edge, allowing a better slice..
one other thing about viking warfare. yes we have large shields,but as far as i understand, metallic protective equiptment was quite scarce.
the main reason why most viking weapons seem to have thin cross sectionsand are well suited to slicing flesh and light armour, so pummeling through armour wasnt a big requirement since
my understanding is that only 10% of a large force during the viking/ saxon era, if that, actually wore armour, in the form of maile hauberks andbyrnies, and if helmets were won at all frequently, which i dont think they were they still didnt lend themselves to protecting the face, (the germundbu and a vew vendel helms plus a few russian ones, are a notable exception)
as for shield rending one anecdote ive heard is that during a shieldwall demonstration at the ironfest medieval faire in blacktown this ear one guys shield, a roundshield, which was made of 9mm thick plywood, or even slightly more, was punctured quite deeply by a daneaxe, a blunted one may i add, to the point the club is considering changing the rules to say that if you get hit hard on the shield by a danish axe your arm is considered useless or something of that nature.
plus, one thing mentioned already regarding the axe is its ability to hook, a typical tactic for us is to hook a guys shield, and then have a guy with a long 2 handed spear skewer the person whoes shield yu have disabled, you could also hook and pull down the top of the shield and then use a sliding punch maneuver to thrust the horn of the axe into the guys face which would be very sharp and pointy,
|
|
 |
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Dec, 2011 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | its worth pointing out that while they are slower than spears
*particularly since 2 handed spears i have seen as thrusting by using the 'sliding punch method,i.e the spear shaft is held loosely in the forward hand allowing the shaft to easily slide back and forth allowing much greater speed, (its thought this is how various eastern cataphracts using the kontos would have used the kontos)
this method means a spear 8 feet long, held with hands 3 feet apart on at the butt end, can VERY rapidly change the reach of the spear (to the point that i liken the 2 handed spear to a sniper rifle, because it can come out of nowhere, ) |
I guess one question here - When comparing spears to swords and axes, what type of spears and usage are we talking about?
I've thought (thugh not with cetainty) that the most common length spear was in the 6-8 foot length range at this time (Roughly 10th-12th centuries, the time of the Danish Axes greatest notoriety). I think the Northern Scots and welsh used longer spears though, and later in this period longer spears became more commonplace in the low countires in particular.
But from what I have seen, in battlefield use at least, these spears were used with one hand, not two. With the lack of body armour during this time, shieldless masses of spearmen without shields would be very vulnerable to missile usage.
Now, is the two handed axe slower than a one handed spear, 2 handed spear, or both? It would seem a one handed spear would have a longer recovery time than one used with two hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Dec, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | its worth pointing out that while they are slower than spears
*particularly since 2 handed spears i have seen as thrusting by using the 'sliding punch method,i.e the spear shaft is held loosely in the forward hand allowing the shaft to easily slide back and forth allowing much greater speed, (its thought this is how various eastern cataphracts using the kontos would have used the kontos)
this method means a spear 8 feet long, held with hands 3 feet apart on at the butt end, can VERY rapidly change the reach of the spear (to the point that i liken the 2 handed spear to a sniper rifle, because it can come out of nowhere, ) |
I guess one question here - When comparing spears to swords and axes, what type of spears and usage are we talking about?
I've thought (thugh not with cetainty) that the most common length spear was in the 6-8 foot length range at this time (Roughly 10th-12th centuries, the time of the Danish Axes greatest notoriety). I think the Northern Scots and welsh used longer spears though, and later in this period longer spears became more commonplace in the low countires in particular.
But from what I have seen, in battlefield use at least, these spears were used with one hand, not two. With the lack of body armour during this time, shieldless masses of spearmen without shields would be very vulnerable to missile usage.
Now, is the two handed axe slower than a one handed spear, 2 handed spear, or both? It would seem a one handed spear would have a longer recovery time than one used with two hands. |
due to the 8 foot length of the spears we use, one is able to stand BEHIND the front rank of men using shields and swords and use that slidey-lunge method i described before, (does anyone know what thatsort of technique is actually called?)to dart the heads back and forth at people, the thing is that technique means you have a full 7-8 feet of reach using the spear we alsomake a point, during combat training, to cover the spearmen with shields when their standingnext to us, but the ranks in front would use a one handed spear i would agree, or maybe even a sword, axe or saxe knife
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Dec, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | due to the 8 foot length of the spears we use, one is able to stand BEHIND the front rank of men using shields and swords and use that slidey-lunge method i described before, (does anyone know what thatsort of technique is actually called?) |
You make a good point, William, spears do indeed allow a second rank to fight from what I have read. IIRC, many Nordic/Saxon/Varangian axemen carried multiple javelins as well. I would think that some of these would be withheld until contact, allowing the 2nd rank of axemen to have an influence on combat as well, at least for the initial period.
Question though I would have for the use of spears in this manner froma second rank - what do you do with your shield? And if you, due to a casualty, all of the sudden become a front rank person, are you then fighting without a shield? I would think if slung across one's back it would take time to re-equip.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Wed 14 Dec, 2011 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
It would seem that the norm was one handed spears for everyone.
In reenactment it is quite common to have swordsmen in front and two handed spears behind. However this means than you loose one ranks worth range over someone who has their spearmen in the first line.
A two handed spear can be longer and is more powerfull but this is, as mentioned, offsett by the threat of missile weapons in an enviroment with little armour.
When it comes to shields used in conjuntion with two handed spears, you can easily sling your round shield in such a fashion that it covers your shoulder and body while fighting. This is what I do when fighting with both the daneaxe and two handed spear. Of late, I have taken to carrying both onto the field, and discarding the one least usefull.
However, I think maybe we should move this discussion over to one of the daneaxe threads :P
 Attachment: 88.3 KB
Me in assault tank configuration; Daneaxe, sword and shield. Who says you have to chose?
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Woodruff
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Feb, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The longest grip on a "viking" sword that I have been able to find was on a type P found east of the baltic at Aleksandrijoje Lithuania. Kazakevecius gives the grip length as 12cm. J1 at the Musee de l'Armee in Paris has an 11cm grip. J3 has a 12cm grip, but this example probably had an organic pommel that is now missing, so it's original grip length was probably about 10cm. A 12 cm grip with a disk, wheel or sperical pommel is conducive to 2-handed use, but the wide pommels on the above-named examples probably restricted them to 1-hand use despite their very long grips. Long grips on "viking" swords were probably just a way to manipulate mass distribution and pivot points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic