| Author |
Message |
|
Mark Lewis
|
 Posted: Mon 31 Oct, 2016 3:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | Found a short Norwegian article about the sword find at Vesterhaug - the images you included above are the same as the one in this article.
Oldest was a burial from the Iron Age (Merovingian Period) and the younger burial was from the early viking age (750-850 AD).
PS: I would personally think that the similarity with the chamber graves found in Denmark from the Jelling Dynasty period (before Christianity was introduced) ~925-975 AD seems more likely |
Hadn't seen that... it is the exact photos! Great minds think alike and all that, I suppose.
That date does seem too early for a sword of type S... I think also the spear (type I or K?) can be a criteria for preferring a 10th century date?
|
|
   |
 |
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Nov, 2016 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Lewis wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | Found a short Norwegian article about the sword find at Vesterhaug - the images you included above are the same as the one in this article.
Oldest was a burial from the Iron Age (Merovingian Period) and the younger burial was from the early viking age (750-850 AD).
PS: I would personally think that the similarity with the chamber graves found in Denmark from the Jelling Dynasty period (before Christianity was introduced) ~925-975 AD seems more likely |
Hadn't seen that... it is the exact photos! Great minds think alike and all that, I suppose.
That date does seem too early for a sword of type S... I think also the spear (type I or K?) can be a criteria for preferring a 10th century date? |
Yes the type I/K spear is also ~900-1000 AD.
The picture is a bit to small to really see if its an I or K type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Ruhala
Location: Stuart, Florida Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Wed 02 Nov, 2016 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: |
The viking age burial was a typical "ryttergrav" where artifacts connected with horse riding was found with the sword (as well as a spear and a shield boss).
|
I never really thought about this before you typed that but come to think of it quite a few grave find swords I'm aware of were found along with riding gear. Coincidentally many of these "full size" arming swords have handling characteristics that are more similar to cavalry sabers than other early modern swords that were specifically intended for combat on foot. I wonder if the full size swords were really intended mostly for mounted combat and the "short swords" were meant for foot combat? Is it possible that we have a preservation and presentation bias? I have noticed quite a few more "short swords" in effigies and art than I see in museum displays and books on arms and armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Nov, 2016 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Ruhala wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: |
The viking age burial was a typical "ryttergrav" where artifacts connected with horse riding was found with the sword (as well as a spear and a shield boss).
|
I never really thought about this before you typed that but come to think of it quite a few grave find swords I'm aware of were found along with riding gear. Coincidentally many of these "full size" arming swords have handling characteristics that are more similar to cavalry sabers than other early modern swords that were specifically intended for combat on foot. I wonder if the full size swords were really intended mostly for mounted combat and the "short swords" were meant for foot combat? Is it possible that we have a preservation and presentation bias? I have noticed quite a few more "short swords" in effigies and art than I see in museum displays and books on arms and armor. |
Even from the iron age bog finds you find slaughtered horses of the defeated army. It seems to indicate that the rich high status warriors had horses. The viking age "ryttergrave" shows again and again horse equipment with also weapons added as grave goods.
It clearly indicates that horses was a status symbol of the elite. Yet the question is did the warriors ride to the battlefield and then dismounted for combat or did they stay on the horses possibly directing the battle behind the shield wall searching for opening to close in their own ranks or exploiting openings in the enemy's ranks? (It is off course also dictated by the terrain and the Danish landscape is often very wet and muddy - in the Iron Age possibly up to 25% bog).
Cavalry as a "military unit" (armoured heavy cavalry) seems first to be introduced in Scandinavia at the Battle of Fotevig in 1134, but it still make it possible for a few elite warriors to have been seated on horseback during combat (just not in units).
Some elite viking warriors were very tall for their age (Ivar Boneless probably the highest we know of, though possibly he had acromegaly). The viking age average height of 1.70 m can be quite misleading. The nutritional gap and thus height gap between the upper classes and the poorer farmers and thralls can have been quite noticeable.
The nickname Ganger-Hrólf (attributed to Rollo, perhaps wrongly) could indicate that he was so tall that his feet was "walking" when seated on his horse?!
So your idea that some longer viking swords could have been intended for cavalry use is certainly possible (even if it was more common to dismount and fight on foot), but I suppose it could also indicate "ground"-use by a tall viking. Reach is an advantage after all in combat.
PS: The boneless cognomen is with viking humour most likely the one member of the human body that is naturally boneless in human males (but not in chimps and gorillas) and have been of such extraordinary size to give him his nickname!
Opens the possibility for another meaning of "Ganger-Hrólf" in the more attributive sense, which to the viking mind would have been obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Ruhala
Location: Stuart, Florida Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Thu 03 Nov, 2016 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neat stuff, Niels!
I've always just accepted that Vikings exclusively fought on foot without questioning it but I did some quick image searches... lo and behold there is no shortage of images depicting mounted warriors in combat during the "Viking Age." Granted, most of these images aren't from Scandinavia but they were all using "Viking swords" which we know were just the common kind of swords that were mass produced at the time. For what matter these swords appear to be the direct descendants of the Roman cavalry spatha and that may even explain why early on single handed swords were sometimes referred to as "longsword" as the spatha was clearly longer than the gladius. The idea of elite mounted warriors among Viking footsoldiers seems plausible to me and we would tend to have more of their swords because they're the ones who would have gotten the elaborate burials that we now excavate.
It's interesting what you said about diet and the relative height of the warrior caste. The word "tall" in English nowadays refers exclusively to height but it used to mean "brave." If warriors were taller than average it makes sense that an association between the word and physical size would develop.
The full sized swords were definitely used for combat on foot but cavalry sabers can and were used on foot sometimes too even if they aren't specifically adapted for that purpose and I get the impression that prior to the 15th/16th c. there was more of an expectation that a knight or man-at-arms would have to fight on foot occasionally. For most of the past 500 or 600 years swords that were specifically intended for use on foot tended to weigh less than those meant for use primarily on horseback. Replicas of Oakeshott X.12, a.k.a. the BOAC, tend to display characteristics in keeping with those of messers, cutlasses, hangers, etc. I know similar sized Viking Age swords have also been found, with era-appropriate blades and hilts of course. Then there's the seax, too.
LOL @ the "boneless" thing.
So anyway this all ties back to the out of time type XII's for me because I don't believe they developed in response to armor because, well, there's no real chance they're going to thrust through riveted mail or a coat of plates. In fact I don't really buy into the idea that type XII's were supposed to be more "thrusty" than X's or XI's, some of which are already close to as pointy as any XII. What I've noticed is that even for the same weight and point of balance a XII tends to be a bit more nimble than the earlier types. Reach is good but it's not an absolute advantage, I'm only 5'8 and I beat much taller fencers all the time. A more maneuverable sword can be quite an advantage too and these early XII's may have been an attempt to create a weapon that had an edge in foot combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Fri 04 Nov, 2016 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Ruhala wrote: | Neat stuff, Niels!
I've always just accepted that Vikings exclusively fought on foot without questioning it but I did some quick image searches... lo and behold there is no shortage of images depicting mounted warriors in combat during the "Viking Age." Granted, most of these images aren't from Scandinavia but they were all using "Viking swords" which we know were just the common kind of swords that were mass produced at the time. For what matter these swords appear to be the direct descendants of the Roman cavalry spatha and that may even explain why early on single handed swords were sometimes referred to as "longsword" as the spatha was clearly longer than the gladius. The idea of elite mounted warriors among Viking footsoldiers seems plausible to me and we would tend to have more of their swords because they're the ones who would have gotten the elaborate burials that we now excavate.
It's interesting what you said about diet and the relative height of the warrior caste. The word "tall" in English nowadays refers exclusively to height but it used to mean "brave." If warriors were taller than average it makes sense that an association between the word and physical size would develop.
The full sized swords were definitely used for combat on foot but cavalry sabers can and were used on foot sometimes too even if they aren't specifically adapted for that purpose and I get the impression that prior to the 15th/16th c. there was more of an expectation that a knight or man-at-arms would have to fight on foot occasionally. For most of the past 500 or 600 years swords that were specifically intended for use on foot tended to weigh less than those meant for use primarily on horseback. Replicas of Oakeshott X.12, a.k.a. the BOAC, tend to display characteristics in keeping with those of messers, cutlasses, hangers, etc. I know similar sized Viking Age swords have also been found, with era-appropriate blades and hilts of course. Then there's the seax, too.
LOL @ the "boneless" thing.
So anyway this all ties back to the out of time type XII's for me because I don't believe they developed in response to armor because, well, there's no real chance they're going to thrust through riveted mail or a coat of plates. In fact I don't really buy into the idea that type XII's were supposed to be more "thrusty" than X's or XI's, some of which are already close to as pointy as any XII. What I've noticed is that even for the same weight and point of balance a XII tends to be a bit more nimble than the earlier types. Reach is good but it's not an absolute advantage, I'm only 5'8 and I beat much taller fencers all the time. A more maneuverable sword can be quite an advantage too and these early XII's may have been an attempt to create a weapon that had an edge in foot combat. |
It definitely seems that the viking age sword is descending from the Spatha with the later Iron Age bog finds of swords as an intermediary. As they were cavalry weapons originally a usage for viking swords seated on horseback sounds reasonably.
Whether the full size swords should be considered only for footmen or cavalry is perhaps thinking of a specialization, which really only becomes important later on (when you have actual cavalry units).
Probably elite warriors knew they likely would end fighting both on horse and on foot and so had a sword that was capable of both? Even a warrior fighting from horse back still had to conduct duels on foot and not be at a to big of a disadvantage.
Maybe one could even think about a loose formation skirmishing action on horseback, fighting tight formation pitched battles on foot and then chasing the routed enemy on horseback? Then you need a compromise sword.
One thing that is interesting though is whether you have found any 1-edged viking swords in "ryttergrave" (they are primarily found in Norway) -> the S-type is clearly tied to "ryttergrave" in Denmark and might be such a compromise sword?
About cavalry swords being more heavy than swords for footmen might not always be the case? Isn't cutlasses fairly heavy chopping swords and they are certainly not for cavalry use, but in cramped naval spaces.
Without being any kind of expert here:
Its probably more the weight distribution of the sword that is important, than length alone. On horseback having a sword that you can let easily "fall downwards" and so use the horse speed and height difference for increased power of hewing then recover when you ride by (and here a longer sword might be advantageous so you don't have to ride to close to your target); whereas for foot combat you would need a faster recovery after hewing to protect yourself and thus need a point of balance closer to the hilt?
There are geographically variants in the 1400's about whether knights predominately fought on foot (England) or on horseback (Italy, German) as far as I'm informed. The interesting part is because England have had 3 "Danish" invasions - Angles/Jutes, Danes and Normans, that they retained a Scandinavian martial focus of being on foot in pitched battles, that was retained far up in the middle ages even when abandoned within the Holy Roman Empire?
The type XII shows really enormous visual variance, so I wouldn't rule any use out - it is after all the individual handling of a sword rather than its type that makes it more useful for foot or on horse combat. But I certainly see your point about having a sword you can maneuver faster than you opponent is really useful when fighting on foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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