A somewhat rambling video looking at two main themes: 1) how to analyse how a sword may have been used and 2) some overall features of Viking era swords.
Well I can give what input I have as a viking re-enactor: The constricting pommel helps your leverage with the sword - as you mentioned spears and large dane axes were very common weapons, and when fighting them, it is the job of the men with swords and axes to keep bashing the enemy spears into the ground/stopping them from getting to you and your shieldbrothers, when they thrust at you. Both the front heavy nature and constricting handle help making this task easier as it allows you to apply more downwards force more easily. And the small guard may be as a result of when used with the shield in combat it is often kept in contact with the edge of the shield as much of the time as possible, letting it slide along the edge, to create more points where you can catch/deflect an opponents weapon more easily, and a wide guard might get in the way when you get the chance to strike quickly (might get hitched on the shield when moving quickly forward from behind it). Hope this was useful :)
scholagladiatoria I'm obviously not serious ;) You should role play along sometime, it's quite fun. Great way of turning something sad and quite horrible into something else more likeable.
scholagladiatoria I agree that raping and plundering and other things vikings did is nothing that should be glorified. its not something good. But its actually not worse than much of what other cultures has done. Even christian europens did thigns as bad and even worse things. And lots of that has been glorifed to so i dont really see much of a difference. both vikings and most other cultures was doing loads of "bad" things But as usual the video was great. keep up the good work
scholagladiatoria But then also the Franks, Angelo-Saxons and Friesians had slaves and slave trade. According to the doomsday book 10% of England's populations consist of slaves in 1086. My point is that the vikings was not better or worse than eny people living in northern Europe in the early middle ages.
9 лет назад
scholagladiatoria Sorry but I have to agree with "everyone" here. The raping and slavery was common in those area and area before and area after. Same for child slavery. Romans had child slaves and it is difficult to consider Romans as "brigands". Let's be clear here : Vikings were violents. Toward christianity. Toward those who could write about them. They didn't respect monastery ? Why should they ? It was not their religions nor their culture ! Christian cutlures (or Muslim or any other religions or cultures for that matter) didn't stop at those things either when facing other cultures than theirs ! It is ethnocentric to consider Vikings "brigands" and far from the historical truth. Facts remains that they were more described that way because they were pillaging those who could write. They had bad press. But they were not more brigands than other cultures of those years. Not more than Angles and Saxons and Vandales and Gallics and Franks and any other, globally speaking. Remember that slaves were often freed and considered as their own blod, after a while. They had their own codes, their own nations, their own authority, their own justice and law, their own ethic. This is not the definition of brigands. Or it can be applied to everyone. One cannot rape and enslave in the name of the Christ be not put in the same bowl of those who does it in the name of any other god.
I liked your rant on Vikings...and found it very interesting. In my opinion, a lot of people love to romanticize whatever eras they particularly like and stick their hands in their ears and refuse to listen to any criticism of that era/culture...but at the same time I'm not sure that you're quite giving them enough credit either. They DID do a lot of really cool things and while their relationships with other peoples of the time were at the best of times tenuous, but characterizing them as the average guy being less decent than Charlemagne is a pretty intense statement. Let's not forget that the viking era lasted several centuries and the vikings themselves were several different people (so the Danes had different practices than the Sweedes and the Norwegians for example). Yes, the people who praise vikings to no end are annoying. Yes, vikings were often pillagers and raiders and slave traders, but at the same time, give credit where credit is due. They also had a very successful culture and if you were one of the vikings they tended to take care of each other very well. They had a system that had some similarities to what we would call democracy (voting and everything), and while their relationships with different places pretty much always started out rocky, at different times they also were really well liked by all those people too. I say that, like any culture, they had really bad things about them and people need to recognize that and not glorify everything about them, and really good things that they should be given credit for.
Kyle Flanagan I do give credit where credit was due - as mentioned in the video. We could make a comparison with 18th century Britain, in that one one hand Britain invented the industrial revolution and conquered great chunks of the world. However we also had an economy largely built on slavery, child labour and exploitation of various other cultures. You have to acknowledge both sides.
scholagladiatoria The same goes for Franks. I read a publication (www.jenny-rita.org/Annestamanus.pdf) where it is speculated (but not a wild speculation), that +Ulfberh+t swords were produced in a Frankish manufacture ran by a bishop, but that the slaves provided most of the labor, if not all of it. (The speculation is mostly about slave labor; that it was a Frankish manufacture ran by some clergy guy seems to be reasonably well established, at least to me.) I'm not saying that it takes away any of the Frankish achievements, but if we accuse Vikings of slavery, we should do the same with Charlemagne... ;-)
Kyle Flanagan I love the viking era - but I am aware they were raping, pillaging, child murdering, village burning, sea faring psycopaths, warmongerers and many other lovely things. But they were also traders, craftsmen, farmers, family loving etc. They're not better than other civilizations, but I would for a large part say they aren much worse either - comparing to the crusades, conquering of America, slaves of egypt, and many others... What I'm trying to say is they're just one amongst many - but one that like many of the other civilizations, some like a lot :P
I love it how you got really into it when you started talking about how Vikings were basically bandits. I can tell you really couldn't help yourself but talk about it. :) I'm really looking forward to hearing about it further, as it is a very interesting topic. :)
"Always used in conjunction with the shield" - and then you see all the movies and the games where everyone swings their swords wildly while the shield is kinda just flopping around.
paulus phillipos history is politics, what are In the schools book. In school most teachers said that the most was farmers, then it was traders and a few bad ones who raided Europé. teachers loves the civilised stuf in history. the roman empire was good in that way, It mutch more then a warrior society.
paulus phillipos Well, but the way Romans enslaved people was not quite as bad as the way the "barbarians" did it. In the Roman Empire you even had a chance you buy yourself your freedom, if your master was kind enough. I doubt you had such opportunities east of the Rhine. :)
***** Or you had a chance to be literally worked to death on someone's estate. Have a look at Cato's advice on farming some time and tell me slaves had it alright in Roman society. Sure, if you were educated etc... you might have a decent life and a reasonable chance at manumission, but that's ignoring the vast numbers of slaves who were used as unskilled labour.
Hey schola great video! Butt I have a question. In your video you said that shields where used as an weapon. Could you maybe in the future do a video about this. It looks like a great subject.
Hello matt. Speaking of vikings, what doare your comments about the siege of Paris in episode 08 and part of episode 09 of Vikings season 3. I noe there are a lot of things that not fit with the real history, but a im interest in what you thing about how the siege was made, if it is a good representation of sieges in the medieval era.
How late did the Brazilian nut pommel stick around for? Talhoffer's treaties features longswords that seem to have a similar style, but it could also be a scent-stopper. It seems like the shape would be advantageous if you wanted to hold the sword by the blade and use it like a war hammer.
Ah the leg-biter,quick question isn't the guard and the pummel supposed to be equally wide? so you can more easily hold it at back of a shield without it glancing off for example your in a shield wall and pushing?
Yes! yes! YES! I LOVE YOU! I am part of a Viking era HEMA group and I just bought a shield, but i'm not at all into the romanticized Viking culture, so i decided that i'll paint my shield with a Carolingian symbol (a cross pattée).
So, from my, limited, understanding I gather that a shorter blade length and confined hilt mean there is less focus on reach and linear fighting, and more on angled cuts (possibly draw cuts) and thrusts from closer in. That would fit with shield fighting where the shield allows you to step into measure more safely and often occupies the centre line. What about the spatulate point? Does it do more damage? (Assuming an unarmoured opponent- clearly narrowed points are better at bursting rings or getting into gaps.) What do you make of the claim that it was used to thrust at the edges of the shield, pivoting it to make openings, without getting stuck as a finer point might have done?
Testacabeza Are there even helicopter rotors made of steel? I would assume they'd be some sort of composite or maybe a titanium or aluminum alloy, none of which would make a usable sword. You don't see much carbon steel on airplanes due to the weight.
Matt, I have a question. Do you have any information on Lithuanian swords and assorted other arms, more specifically from before the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
JNC5297 No. Rust has to be removed - usually mechanically with something like steel wool - and then the blade repolished. How you do that depends totally on the level of rust and damage.
When you talk about how the confined hilt changes the way that you hold and swing the sword, I'd love for you to go into detail about how a basket hilt does it as well.
scholagladiatoria , perhaps a reason for the point of balance was to add some "weight" to the cuts. I own two "viking" style shields that i have been experimenting with and with lighter, more balanced swords I have difficulty getting enough force in to the strike while staying behind the shield in some manner. However, when i use heavier, more forward balanced weapons like you described for this one, it makes it somewhat easier to generate enough force. Just thought I'd share my experiences so far, hope this helps!
Laglemamu'g Gjiga'qaquj This and the confined hilt would be beneficial in moving with the shield uninhibited by a larger more defensive hilt. That's all I can guess. I would also assume Rollo Red to be correct and that it would be an effective draw cutter.
Laglemamu'g Gjiga'qaquj My read is its an ideal sword for use in a shield wall. Its maneuverable to use in one hand, relatively short. No cross gaurd to tangle on your shield or the guy to your right. Its primariy a short chop and draw cut weapon. Again ideal for use in a confined space like a shield wall, or in a close ship to ship melee. It does look as though it would thrust well, but not against an armoured target. The taper is far too wide to use against a mail or gambeson, or even thick padding. So to sum up it looks as though it was designed to use in a shield wall against an unarmoured target, or in close combat on a ship. You could also argue that, when combined with a shield. It would make a neat duelling weapon combination against a like set of weapons.
How comes usualy Baltic thigns are never mentioned and forgoten? although very similar swords and weapons were used. But Vikings, saxons and others are mentioned but Blats are never mentioned :(
Hi Matt, thanks for the video. I am really looking forward to what you will have to say about the pommel of a Viking sword, I happen to have one similar and this tight grip you point out is actually kind of irritating, I figure it has a lot to do with how exactly it was used, I imagine more hacking (against the shields perhaps?) and less fancy blocking; also it does not really help with the reach, because if you use it like you do at the end - to point something - it can be quite painful if done repeatedly, with more force... Anyway, waiting :)
First off, thanks not just for this video, but for picking up the subject. I'm very interested in the techniques associated with earlier swords. My thought on the confined grip: I think it's about purchase. I don't own a viking-era sword, so I can't test this, but it seems to me that in such a grip you not only use the palm of your hand, but also the top and bottom of your fist to handle your weapon. If the sword is balanced towards the tip, this kinda makes sense. I think the fighters of this period sought to make their movements smaller and faster by designing the grip so that it would be easier to turn the weapon, without losing the oomph of an end-heavy blade.
I have the tinker pearce viking sword which seems to have a similar restrictive hilt. If you cut with it like an arming sword your wrist pays the price. Seems to me like it encourages drawling cuts by keeping the angle of the wrist higher.
Great summation of the Viking impact on Ireland, Matt! I can't remember where now, but they've found a sunken hole with dozens of young skeletons in fetters from the Viking Age in Ireland, the prevailing theory is that they were slaves being held before being transported elsewhere, something happened to their captors eithe preventing them from retrieving them, or they simply bugged out & left them to die...
Tight hilt reminds me of the tulwar videos you posted, so maybe the use would be somewhat comparable - sword held at 90 degrees with long, powerful cuts at short range... Seems like a real challenge to use that type sword to get past those round shields they were paired with...
The Dark Ages were distinctly lacking in "heroes". I still respect the Vikings, Goths, and Vandals for their determination and willingness to do whatever it took to succeed.
Lyra Booey I think people like Charlemagne, Charles the Bald and Alfred the Great probably qualify, as they seem to have actually improved the state of living for a lot of their citizens and helped create modern laws.
Lyra Booey Disagree. Most dark age societies were hero cultures. We have dark age heroes in huge quantities. Some real, some on the edge of myth. Roland, King Edmund the martyr, Athelstan, Hereward the wake, El cid, Charles Martel, the list goes on.
@scholagladiatoria That short hild looks a bit inpractical... Or is it that its measurements are still scaled to early-medieval people and not to your 'modern' hand 🤔? Excuse my uninformed question 😄
I've always considered a shield to be a weapon rather than armour, it's just a weapon which is specialised for blocking. You could make the same argument for gauntlets, helmets and foot armour I guess and they can all do devastating damage. I would definitely call those armour but qualitatively where do you draw the line?
Thank you Matt, for mentioning the Frankish contribution to this period/region's sword development. When I read about or see videos and docs (History ch.) about the Viking sword I always wonder what kind of swords the Irish, Franks, Saxons, Byzantines, Visigoths, Magyars, and Moors where using at the time. What were the similarities and differences, and what were the influences or connections they had to the Roman spatha if any at all. I've noticed most of the discussions on Dark Age swords center and exclusively revolve around Viking swords and weapons with little attention paid to the other cultures and societies that developed in that era and region. I still remember the Kirk Douglas movie "The Vikings" depicting the English/Saxon using 12th century swords, kite shields, and mail hoses. And the Moors in "The Long Ships" with scimitars. Thanks again for posting and I understand the rant. No beef here. Btw, i was looking at buying the Albion Clontarf from viking-shield.com: www.viking-shield.com/p/467/albion-squire-line-clontarf-sword. Can you give a little more on the feel and handling?
Kirk Johnson That's the same sword as I have and I'm really happy with it. The only thing is that this hilt style is tight to the hand, so some people will find them more comfortable than other people - back in the day the hilts were probably sized and shaped to suit the buyer's hand individually. Generally speaking, the Northern European countries were all using more or less similar swords. Most of what are now known as Viking swords should really be called Viking-era swords, because very many of them were probably made in France, Germany and England (certainly the blades, if not the hilts). They were sold to the Scandinavians, as well as taken in war of course, but because the Scandinavians were still pagan they buried a lot of their swords with the dead, unlike the rest of Europe. Probably for this reason, swords of this type are seen as Scandinavian, because so many have survived from Scandinavian graves.
scholagladiatoria Yeah, I'm going to have to get my mitts on the Clontarf. And thanks for part 2. Didn't Christen Europe bury their nobles and knights in tombs with their arms? Just wondering. And though these swords were common in Northern Europe (spread through trade and raid), wouldn't it be possible that they would have found their way to the Eastern, Western, and Southern Europe? I imagine so and it just comes done to archeological evidence or historical records. I did find an auction piece from Oct. 8, 2011 depicting a sword found in Garonne, France. It bears a striking resemblance to Albion's Stamford sword, this maybe another type of Frankish Sword. There really needs to be more research done on the Viking Era/Dark Age swords of the other European countries. Here's the link: www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/a-viking-type-viiib-sword-297-c-5c35e1a078 and can be found in The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, R. Ewart Oakshott, London, 1964. The plate 1 depicts a similar sword, dated by Oakshoot around 950 and listed as Type VIIIB. dating: 10th Century
Your description of the vikings fits extraordinarily well to the british and spanish and mostly any other fluorishing expansionist empire developed by man.
In line with some of the other comments, it looks like the sword is meant to be used with the shield held more or less in front of the body, singly or as part of a shieldwall. It can easily make a series of chops, cuts, and the occasional stab over, around, and sometimes under the shield. The restrictive angles of the blade forced by the grip seem to prioritize holding the shoulder and elbow at right angles to get around the shield. If this was a frequent fighting style it may also influence the surprisingly small size of period shields you mentioned in a previous video -- they had to be small enough to allow the striking arm to reach around. It may be interesting to explore a correlation between the development of the crossguard/pommel and the use of shieldwalls. TL;DR: the sword combines the chop of an ax with the stab of a spear, adds cutting, and is primarily used over a shield held in front of the body.
What I find strange is that this sword seems very similar to a katzbalger of the 15-16th century.. with the exception of the cross-guard.. the length, the width, the weight.. Normally the Katz was used as a secondary in pike formations... I can only guess it would have a powerful cut, to chop through poles.. but oddly from examples i've read about the balance of the blades are normally closer to the hilt (3-4 inches).. making it more of a thrusting weapon.. I wonder.. where is the point of balance for this Frankish sword?
I want that sword. That is a nice damn sword. :) They were not savage raiders but pre-emptive salvage engineers. ;) (If you haven't I can link to the shirt for Crazy Einar's Sea Going Concern)
You talk about the scandinavians as if the frankish and others didn't pillage, plunder, rape and trade slaves as well. The scandinavians just had a different (perhaps less hipocritical) religion.
Thiago Monteiro The vikings were full-time raiders - taking slaves, stealing, killing. That's not how most European countries functioned, even at that time. This is not war we are talking about - this is a group of people who every year went out to attack the unarmed and defenceless citizens of other nations.
scholagladiatoria Are you implying that Vikings represent a majority in Norse society? There are cases where they are described with distaste by their own culture, seen as outlaws dangerous to even their own, in your rants on Norse society you make it sound as if the activity to "Vikingr" represents the majority of the Scandinavian populace. I do agree that the ones who did subjugate and inflict violence upon others were bad, though, but that can be said about any violent faction within greater cultures.
Ch Th I think that vikings were critical to Scandinavian economies and often state-endorsed in that period, yes. Several prominent vikings were nobles back in their home countries.
scholagladiatoria What does "state-endorsed" even mean in this period? Majority of self-sustenance was not reliant on the trade of thralls. There's no centralized government in Scandinavia at this time, that comes a lot later with the advent of Christianity. It's almost like blaming a 17th century Englishman for the Transatlantic Slave Trade. I definitely agree with you on the point of Norse-speaking raiders being quite awful people in most regards, but as much as the romanticization of "Vikings" should be discouraged, so too should the demonization of the general Scandinavian populace. I just really dislike generalizations in history.
scholagladiatoria Actually it was not only about pillaging many of these attacks was sort of a self-defence war against expanding christianity, this cause also united the different scandinavian tribes.
In addition to the broad blade swords of this period often have a wide fuller and a quite rounded tip. These are not stabbing swords. They are designed for hacking and slashing. The use of the shields to get quite close would probably mean you wouldn't want to do the kind of big reaching lunge that might be seen in fencing as that would mean coming out from behind the shield to leave yourself quite open. So, in a way, the shape of the sword reinforces the way it is designed to be used.
It maybe that the move towards more tapered blades was a response to more people wearing mail. Against someone in mail I believe you want to thrust and burst the links, for which you would need a tapered point. Chopping at mail is much less effective (which is why butchers will often wear mail gloves)
From they way this sword is described, specifically the hilt it sounds like this sword works similar to the Indian style swords like the Khanda and Talwar. The hand grip stops wrist motion and increases the cutting power. This would be good for hacking through shields/ mail and probably helps in fighting in shield walls.
Speaking of romanticising Vikings and use of swords, I am reading an old Swedish book on general weapon history. On the Middle ages it has what you would expect, the armour made people so clumsy that the sword-fighting consisted of giving the strongest blow possible. But it also says that the Viking era had an advanced way of fighting were not only strength was important but also agility and swiftness (which is probably true but the same thing could be said about other eras)
The swords with longer grips were probably just made for people with large hands. My hands wouldn't fit 8cm (my pinky wouldn't have room), 9cm would be uncomfortable but 9.5 to 10cm would probably work well.
Matt, please do some guards and strikes with the Viking swords. I would also like you to revisit the 12 guards from Fiore, but do it slower so that I can learn from you.
Schola Gladiatoria should look at some Hurstwic stuff. Basically writing treatises and the like by translating and experimenting with information given in the Sagas. ThegnThrand also has a good series revolving around Viking/Dark Age combat :)
All due respect and all, but Matt, I usually go to Thrand for Migration Era info, and Thrand, I usually come to Matt for High Medieval and Renaissance info. Because that's what each of you seem to be good at :) Perhaps a collab video or stream could be good?
perhaps a good way to approximate their use is to study a very old arming sword treatise, and trying to evolve it to be more practical with the other weapons. i mean, if the early use of arming sword and buckler evolved to idealize the use of a "modern" arming sword and "modern" buckler is based off of the ideal use of a migration era sword and a boss-gripped shield, then perhaps if we take the treatises of early buckler/arming sword and idealize the techniques for the migration era sword and boss-gripped shield (with a bit of so-called frog DNA it would re-evolve in to a system that would be very close to historically accurate.
When you mention that the shield was actually the primary weapon, I remembered that various troop types in the times of ancient Greece were determined by their shield types, I am not entirely sure but, yeah. It kind of makes sense.
it is a sword made for fighting in a shield wall. Short like the axe so you can use it without decapitating the fellow next to you. Heavy so that you can break some shields. The pommel is probably made that way to ensure that you didn't lose the sword in battle and became a weak link in the shield wall hence putting everybody's life at risk. Also the reason for the simple and solid build and why many preferred the axe, reliability. When fighting in small groups every man counts, a bend sword could be fatal.
Ben Hanson It depends how strong you are. It will flex as much as any other piece of spring steel, but being this broad it would take a lot of force to bend it very far.
scholagladiatoria How about in comparison to other spring tempered swords? Your 1796 pattern infantry officer's sword for instance. Or a stiff thrusting sword like your non-regulation cold stream guard sword? Or a general purpose cut and thrust sword like the 1845 pattern saber or your Mary Rose backsword (one of my favorites of yours btw).
Excellent video. I am so sick of people going "wuah wuah, Vikings were awesome. Vikings never did anything bad wuah wuah." It is so refreshing to hear someone not scared to state the truth.
The good thing about the Vikings/Scandinavians is that they stopped the slavery, land grabs and plundering way before the English :D Anyway, it would be interesting if you could go through some of the different sowrds/weapons used during the different holy Crusades.
As you examine the viking sword, perhaps a look at viking tactics would help. Most viking raids were not designed to gain or defend territory, but to win loot and economic prosperity. Thus, raiders were not likely to fight to the death. Mobility was key to viking combat. Viking ships could attack unexpectedly and escape before reinforcements arrived. If the battle didn't go their way, they could rapidly retreat. Egil and his brother in Egilssaga went into battle with no armor except for helmet and shield. This decision is not explained, but allegedly the chainmail would have weighed them down. There are accounts of vikings practicing jumping and swimming in chainmail (I think they do in Beowulf) suggesting that armor was only good as long as it didn't interfere with mobility. Viking armor consisted primarily of the helmet, shield and if lucky, chainmail. Unlike plate armored knights and samurai, vikings relied most on the active defense of their shield. There's a common perception that viking swords were heavy so that they could cause wounds even if the blade wasn't sharp, but I never get that vibe in the sagas. Sharpness seems very important to them and a dull blade is seen as useless. However, in Kormakssaga, Kormak (or Cormac)'s blade is dulled "by magic" during a duel, but he swings the sword so hard it breaks his opponent's back.
I generally agree with you on not romanticizing a culture to the point that we ignore the terrible things they did. Even the word Viking comes from the Norse word for raider or pirate. However, I'd remind you to follow that advice with Charlemagne too. He did a lot of awful things to the Celtic tribes he conquered, for example the Massacre of Verden. Anyway, I look forward to your future videos on sword analysis.
Hey, I really like your videos, they are very instructive. Just as a friendly and constructive criticism, you could try to make them slightly shorter. I don't mean to split it in seven 2-minute videos, but try to be a bit more succinct. I think that's the main reason of Lindybeige's and Skall's higher view-rate, and, sadly, that also takes lots of interest out of ThegnThrand's videos (which I find very nice, for the first 5 minutes) Well, Just that; youtubers are more inclined to watch a fun 5 min concise explanation of something, than a 20m minute video about the same Still, because of the other 3 channels and yours, I wanna start HEMA training this summer! Thanks and keep the awesome job!
I've seen theories that suggest that the viking type sword might also be used with the little finger over the pommel with the hand closer to a saber grip. Seems kinda far fetched to me, but thought I'd throw it out there.
Will nonya there isn't much farfetched about it. It could easily be done. And in some context would be advantageous, provided it's not sharp near the base.
i'm not talking about putting the ring finger over the cross guard, That was used plenty. I can't find the link to the picture of what i'm talking about.
Oh, you said the pommel. My bad. Maybe it could be done. I've seen recommendations on hand placement in japanese swordsmanship that the little finger "drop off" the end. Those swords don't really have a pommel though. I'm just trying (desperately) to make myself useful.
i've heard more about vikings being traders then being raiders(slim margin tho). the sword seems like a heavy chopper to me. C.O.B far from the hilt, wide blade and the confined hilt(like tulwars only staight). there even is a nice single edged version found in Telemark(?) in Norway. at this point the viking era sword isn't far from a falchion. i think Albion even makes a replica of the single edged one. love your videos keep it up! btw live in Norway and love viking history and art
I think in terms of balance the Viking pattern swords were trying to increase cutting power over the migration era spatha like swords. So they increased blade presence, and reach a bit. But without crucible steel they were on the bleeding edge so to speak of what folded steel and iron can accomplish. Hence the shield. You cannot parry with a period correct Viking sword for long without it breaking, much like a Katana. And formation combat, shield walls in this case, work better with shields as well in the absence of pikes and heavy armor.
big papi watch?v=wUQIfpHD-DU or watch?v=vyUkYJeZtW4 might be a good place to start. Though any search for Viking pattern welding would suffice. Viking swords were forged by layering mild steel and iron and forge welding them together. These layered ingots were then twisted, and hammered together to form the core of the blade. The outer edge was harder steel that was forge welded onto that. The net result is not unlike a Katana. And done for the same reasons. The smelting technology in Europe at the time could not reach a temperature high enough to render iron to molten metal. The only ones who had that technology were India and perhaps the middle east. Though later on they did trade with the Vikings and some of these mono-steel ingots made their way to Scandinavia. Most famously as the Ulfberte swords. When you pattern weld a sword it is to compensate for poor quality material. You fold twist and layer it to such a degree that it somewhat overcomes the weaknesses that contaminated ore have. It wouldn't have just been raw iron out of the forge. Several grades, from pig iron to mild steel and other metallic contaminants would be present. If I am incorrect in any of this, historians please feel free to point it out. I am only a hobbyist scholar and have no formal training.
big papi I wish I could recall where I read it from, but I haven't seen any destructive testing videos ether. Personally I wouldn't want to after putting all that time and effort into making the damn thing.
big papi /watch?v=4Cbv92_ZuJ8 perhaps this will help. Sorry it's only in dutch. A German blacksmith made a katana in a traditional manner then struck it against a European sword of the same era in a vice. The folded steel did not fare that well. Which is the reason Europe abandoned it in favor of crucible steel. Mono steel is simply more resilient.
Based on the balance characteristics and the familiarity of the weapon I suspect that the viking sword was probably used very much like a one handed axe. I also think the empire building topic is interesting and very central to European history. In an era of subsistance farming you have to use some form of exploitation (slavery or otherwise) in order to concentrate the resources that sustain the warrior elite. That probably is more true the further north you go because resources become even more scarce.
I love your videos but when you said Charlemagne was a more admirable character. I had to comment. Charlemagne murdered and butchered his way through Europe and almost performed Genocide on the mainland Saxons. In fact their King had to seek refuge at the Danish court. One of the theories for why the Viking age began is that it was a reaction to Charlemagne's butcher of 1000s of Saxons. Danish offensive went hand in hand with defensive measures in the reinforcement of the Danevirke wall to keep out the Franks. I would There is also no evidence that vikings raped more than anyone else or behaved like backstabbing pirates. On the contrary, their codes of honor made them the most celebrated mercenaries of their time.
+Reed W Charlemagne was brutal, but he also created modern Europe, built an Empire, reduced external threat, ushered in a new age of scholarship and learning, built amazing structures etc etc etc. The Scandinavians did not.
So by pretty much changing Europe forever and creating a host of Nations including Russia, a new England, Normandy, Poland, making new cities such as Dublin, York. Scattering castles all over Europe (normans) and building vast trade networks, discovering Greenland, Iceland, America is nothing? Charlemagne built what again? A few churches and then when he died his fragile empire started crumbling as soon as they faced the Danes (who were grossly outnumbered but still managed to fight all over Europe at the same time). Not once did they even manage to mount a proper offensive. Purely defensive. The Frankish Empire was build on the void left by the Romans.
Actually they did Matt- in Scandinavia and on Ireland; who founded Dublin? They also reopened the trade between East and West that died with the Moslem conquest of half the Mediterrenean. Vikings (not Norse) were violent, pillaging, raping, etc brutes when on campaign. But so were everybody else. Not least Charlemagne. BTW, the first Viking raids were on The British Isles. Not much of a defence against Charlemagne is it? It is however a good source for wealth for the warlords' retinues and the key to Viking- Anglo-Saxon- Frankish armies far into the Middle Ages was the distribution of wealth and other gifts to the retinue that was in effect the army.
scholagladiatoria he also extinguished unfathomable among of pre-Christian culture. Sure, his empire helped facilitate learning. But how much knowledge could never be learned because he destroyed it. I think of the Roman model where you could still worship your own god(s), again this is pre Christian control Roman Empire. Or along the lines of Alexander the Great who adopted culture as he spread his, as far as I understand. Those models are confusing for trying to figure out what was original and what was added even you look at the foreign cultures that came under control. But they still existed at the very least.
The Frank's . the angles . the jutes The saxons. Some ended up in england and settled so I wouldnt say it was just a frankish sword . besides the fact they were all in the same general area before they left to england or up north
