Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 17:30:40 GMT
i disagree, i think viking swords could and were used for stabbing, why wouldn't a viking want to stab the $#!^ outa you? in the close melee that vikings were frequently involved in you don't think there were times when there was not room to "swing" that blade? even a rounded off point can still penetrate flesh and clothes, and most people the vikings were fighting were people with little or no armor. that being said, i think vikings would have stabbed people. i also don't think their blades would be overly whippy or flexible like u guys are saying, i think they would be more stiff. i could be wrong though, its just an opinion. i have never handled original viking blades so i don't know. haha @ taran and the viking women stiffies. i concur with taran.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 17:52:37 GMT
The way they were made precludes the stab as a credible option- have you seen some of the spatulate tips (that were sharpened as well, suggesting tip cuts as part of their repertoire)? That is not to say that a stab never occurred, only that it probably wasn't given as much precedence as the cut or slash (or hack). My op on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 18:11:03 GMT
Take a look at this: www.hammaborg.de/de/archiv/cuts_and_thrusts.phpThey tested viking swords and said that the thrust made a horrible wound. Look at the pictures. In fact they said a thrust with a viking sword was deadlier than a thrust with a later medieval XVIII due to the bigger wound channel.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 1, 2009 18:27:35 GMT
based on what Mike has said about these particular Windlass swords I would say they the models mentioned in the OP are more bendy/whippy than the historical weapons would have typically been. this doesn't neccesarily mean they are no good for the cut nor does it mean that the thrust was or wasn't used.
Norsemen/Vikings, whatever you may call them seem to have had some serious weapon skills based on testimony of other ancient peoples and period art, etc. the quality of their weapons suggest a refined view of weaponry which bespeaks a well defined martial art or fighting skill set was understood. we can assume the Viking understood what his weapon was good for and made his weapon to take advantage of the fighting style he used. if thrusting had been a major concern for the viking we would have seen something more like the leaf or carp-tongue blades of earlier times. certainly a well made type X could be used to thrust but it is hardly its strong suite. the Xa and XI were progressions towards swords that were more thrust-oriented to counter the development of better armor and its increased availability. the type XII continued this trend and was finally left behind as the Arms and Armor race heated up. to sum up: Quality weapons making means good understanding of weapons, good understanding of weapons means the weapons were used in the most advantageous ways most often, which means we can discern from the form of the weapon how it was used, therefor it is only logical that the Norsemen of yore were primarily cut fighters who used little thrusting.
further the Norsemen did use spears so they did know and understand the relevance and advantages of the thrust. this fact coupled with a sword deliberately designed to cut well with no attempt to deminish sacrificing thrusting ability is just one more nail in the coffin of the idea that Norsemen/Vikings did much if any thrusting at all. they knew about thrusting, they obviously saw it as inferior to cutting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 18:58:18 GMT
A round tip doesn't mean a blade's bad for thrusting. It only means it's bad for thrusting through armor. Against lightly armored opponents it's better to thrust with a round tip. Even with a minimal penetration the wound is way bigger than a wound caused by a smaller tip. The vikings fought mostly against unarmored/lightly armored opponents, mail was very rare and normally people wore normal clothes or non metal armour. For thrusting through clothes a round, but sharp tip is more than enough. Whereever light to no armor was used you find swords with broad, round tips. That goes for Vikings, Arabs (before the used scimitars) and also for the Lanzknechte. Look at the Katzbalger. There you have a round, sharp tip. Armor wasn't really used anymore at that time and you had to thrust only through fancy clothes, so no need for a pointy thruster the round tip does all the work. In fact it does not only all the work, it even does it better than a XVIII. Broad tip = broad wound = bigger blood loss = opponent can't fight that long, even if you don't hit any vital organts. A pointy tip is great when you have to penetrate mail or thrust in small gaps in armor. But the vikings didn't need to do that. The occasional mail didn't need to be penetrated, hit the guy somewhere else or use your axe/spear. I think the round tip doesn't prove the vikings didn't use the thrust often. Of course it doesn't prove either that they used the thrust often but it is something to think about. To me, my sword tip should be as round as possible and as pointy as necessary. Now you thrust fans, hit me ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 19:02:30 GMT
Oh, and please look at the link I posted. The last picture shows how well you can thrust with a viking sword.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 1, 2009 19:36:39 GMT
I'm sorry I didn't realize that last picture was a thrust. I still have my doubts about how much they used the thrust.
I can't read the language of that page (German?) so I am getting fairly little out of it. could you tell us what sword they are using?
just because a sword is designed to cut doesn't mean it cannot be used to thrust and just because you CAN thrust with it doesn't mean you SHOULD.
right now I have a lot of questions about that page. it seems pretty obvious that a viking would have to prepare to fight against fighting men of the places they were raiding. it would have been foolish to design an arsenal around the civilians and non-combatants of the targeted (or enemy) people. any viable military weaponry would then and will even today mow down Non-coms with little to no resistance. the fighting men of those days did indeed have armor af various types. a fighting man whose equipment was not designed to counter the defenses he was most likely to meet is a fighting man who will not survive to pass his skills on to posterity.
I'm sure what they found was accurate but there are many questions yet to be answered.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Sept 1, 2009 19:41:57 GMT
One has to look no further then the amazing shipbuilding of the Vikings in their time to know that they were NOT midnless, berzerking Barbarians... but VERY intelegent people and amazing craftsmen. Being that the whole of Viking culture was centered around raiding and warfare, I have little doubt that their craftsmenship when it came to their weapons was at least as good. The majority of Viking era swords I have seen tend to be type X style swords... which, while they CAN be used to thrust on unarmered targets, there is no doubht were designed for optimizing the CUT. That being the case, and Vikings be for sure wise fighting men and great craftsmen, tells me their fighting style must have emphisised strong cuts and did not focus on thrusting. At least, not with swords... they had spears and knives for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 20:32:08 GMT
I believe that their swords were designed to cut for several reasons. Norsemen would have had a wooden shield, an iron helm, and possibly a maille shirt. The shield was without a doubt the most important defensive item used. Very few norsemen had maille, it would seem. So yes, the tip could have been used for thrusting through unarmored opponents. There is evidence from the norse sagas that supports this. A powerful cut will incapacitate faster than a thrust will unless it is a thrust to the brain or heart. When the shield is used effectively, attacks to the torso are very difficult. However, the legs and head are the most vulnerable targets. It is easier to slash someone's leg than it is to stab someone's leg. The same principal applies to the head and neck. These are mostly theories, of mine, but I can back up most of what I said with information from www.hurstwic.org
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 20:33:06 GMT
I believe that their swords were designed to cut for several reasons. Norsemen would have had a wooden shield, an iron helm, and possibly a maille shirt. The shield was without a doubt the most important defensive item used. Very few norsemen had maille, it would seem. So yes, the tip could have been used for thrusting through unarmored opponents. There is evidence from the norse sagas that supports this. A powerful cut will incapacitate faster than a thrust will unless it is a thrust to the brain or heart. When the shield is used effectively, attacks to the torso are very difficult. However, the legs and head are the most vulnerable targets. It is easier to slash someone's leg than it is to stab someone's leg. The same principal applies to the head and neck. These are mostly theories of mine, but I can back up most of what I said with information from www.hurstwic.org and common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 20:49:25 GMT
Yes, that page is german. What questions do you have? I'll translate what you want. What I meant was not that the viking warrior designed his sword for killing civiliants but that he didn't design it for piercing armor (so no pointy tip) because most opponents didn't have armor. In fact a sword shouldn't pierce mail, it should hit where the ennemy isn't armored. A sword can't break mail with a slash anyways. If the vikings had wanted to pierce armor they would have used pointy swords. But they didn't. What tells us that? Not that they didn't use the thrust but that the didn't use it against armor. Why wouldn't they use it against lightly armored people? The sword works great for that!
What I mean, is: With the sword, the vikings never wanted to break mail. They had axes for that. The sword was used without targeting the opponent's armor if the had some. The viking thought in my opinion that the advantage of having a broad tip to create maximum damage on most opponent without mail (History guys say that only 5 to 10 percent of warriors wore mail by then) is more important that the disadvantage of not breaking the mail of the very few opponents with mail. Against 90 percent of opponents the thrust worked great (see the picture, I don't want to get stabbed with that!) as well as the cut of course. So is there any reason the viking wouldn't use the thrust regularly in combat? Im my opinion, NO, because the thrust worked so well.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 1, 2009 21:23:42 GMT
ok, thank you Chenessfan, first off I'd like to know what sword they used and what its properties are. for all I know it is no more an appropriate match to a historic viking sword than the Windlass swords mentioned in the OP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 21:43:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 1, 2009 21:57:46 GMT
Thanks Jon, I was just starting to read the Hurstwic pages, and ya know what Cheness fan, there's an english version of that page so I'm gonna read all this and be back with you all later with my impressions. for those that wish to read it here's the english page: www.hammaborg.de/en/index.phpoops that's their home page, here's the same article: www.hammaborg.de/en/archiv/cuts_and_thrusts.php
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 1, 2009 22:41:03 GMT
well I've read the page linked to by Chenessfan and I have to say that while I certainly agree with their point about thrusts making wide wounds and all that I see nothing talking about the properties of the sword. all they say about the sword used is that it was made by the author specially for these tests. for all we know it has zero distal taper and does not resemble the proper geometry of a viking sword. I'm not saying this is the case but I am saying that we do not know, and not knowing means we have to take any test results they obtained with a grain of salt.
before the viking sword was made into the shape we know as the Oakeshott Type X there were swords from even the bronze age that had very pointy points and were designed for thrusting. swords with leaf blades and carp-tongue blades that were designed to mix the best of both worlds. all these were made before maille armor was seen on the field of combat. I think we need to look beyond the wider point makes nastier wounds arguement. yes, I'm sure it's true but I think that is more by accident than design. a good thrusting sword needs more than a pinty point. the handling characteristics of a sword intended to thrust are very different than one designed for the cut or one designed to cut and thrust. an experienced swordsman could blindly hold a sword in hand and without ever seeing it or feeling its shape he could tell from the balance and handling alone what the sword's intended use would be. viking swords did not balance properly for the thrust, so even if they were made stiffly enough to support the thrust (which we could continue debating fruitlessly) their handling characteristics make thrusting awkward and non-viable in combat situations where the fastest of reflexes and refined movements are the stuff of life and death.
certainly the vikings knew of such ancient sword designs as the leaf blade and carp's tongue and chose to use a different design because it better fit their needs. there is no reason to use a sword to thrust when it is balanced wrongly to allow the thrust. they were serious warriors if they wanted to thrust their swords would have reflected that and allowed them to maneuver into and out of the thrust smoothly and quickly. I am not yet convinced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 22:46:06 GMT
I think that the swords were designed to cut, but that's not to say that thrusting was impossible.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Sept 1, 2009 22:48:45 GMT
Very well said Tom, +1 from me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 7:16:00 GMT
Well, I think I know what swords they used. Roland Warzecha buys his swords usually from this guy www.dietraumschmiede.de/ so the swords are very historically accurate. Since He also is a very experienced sword fighter I don't think he would use swords as windlasses and similar low end swords. Im mean, he used to spend 1500$ on his swords why do the testing with a windlass. You're right about leaf bladed swords and stuff but I have to disagree with you when talking about the handling of viking swords. Sure, they normally had a PoB retty far forward but, like always, there are some, that are different and can be used easily with a thrust. I think it has to do with the personal fighting skill of a warrior. Some maybe never used the cut so the had very blade heavy swords some might have even preferred the thrusting movement over the slashing one. Their swords would have been balanced differently. It's like in here. Everybody prefers a sword design, and so did the vikings. Some wanted cutting swords, some not. I never said that the vikings used the thrust more often than the slash, I only think that they used both regularly in combat. Despite the sword design thing, just think about it. There are many efficient thrusting movements when fighting sword and shield. You know that better than I do, beeing more of a longsword guy myself. Why should the vikings sacrifice those deadly attacks? By the way, Jon's link shows quite of thrusting in the fighting scenes. Not that this proves anything but still, think about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2009 7:20:19 GMT
Ah, another thing. Have you ever handled a bronze leaf bladed sword, Tom? I have, and they have a PoB very far forward and really are sluggish to use for thrusting. They do have a pointy tip, though. So, obviously they still used these swords for thrusting even if they weren't balanced that way. The vikings could have done the same. www.west-coast-shop.de/epages/61326695.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/61326695/Products/SD-00157I've not handled that one but don't you think it has a PoB far out? Broad blade and small pommel and guard... don't have to say more.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 2, 2009 14:13:46 GMT
Oh I certainly wouldn't say that NO viking EVER thrusted, I'm sure they did from time to time, I'm just saying that it stands to reason that their fighting system and style was PRIMARILY cutting. I doubt the thrust was used anywhere near as often as the cut. Honestly, I figured Mr. Roland Warzecha most likely would spend top dollar (mark/euro) to get only historically accurate swords but we just do not know the properties of this particular one. let me state also that in no way do I wish to disparage Mr. Warzecha or his group, they do a lot of really good training and study and are an asset to our community all over the world. but they still need to be challenged from time to time. ;D
on leafblades, I looked at that one you link and it looks ok but there are so many different bronze sword types it is amazing. also remember the leaf blade was designed to be a cut AND thrust blade so it's going to have to compromise between the two. that will leave the POB further out than other wise. also, I didn't see the length spec on that one but leaf blades tend to be shorter swords and that makes the thrust a LOT easier even with a distant POB. I've handled a few leaf blades but none I could say were really historically accurate.
I have used thrusts in Sword and Shield fighting and while I hesitate to use the SCA as an example since we do not have historically accurate training for large shield use (but no one does) but thrusts account for maybe only one quarter of attacks made and probably 90% of those thrusts that are made are made at the face. I feel this is probably an accurate division of attacks as used by the vikings but I can't say for sure.
|
|