|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 12, 2024 23:09:14 GMT
Inspired by a discussion that Andi and I were having, I want to talk about the weights of Petersen type H swords. Because I think there's sometimes an idea that the 'good swords' of that period are like the Albion examples that weigh like 1100 g, and I'm not sure the historical evidence backs this up.
I'm going to use Androschchuk's book for this, because he has some fairly complete data about his swords. Now, he gives the following table:
Let's talk about some of these. The first thing to note is that almost all of them are incomplete and corroded. While sometimes, that corrosion could possibly add weight, usually I'd say these are underestimates of the weight as it originally would have been.
Up 26 has a blade of length 56 cm so probably quite incomplete, but it does not specify the width of the blade. Still, this one was probably quite light, maybe 1000 g to begin with.
Up 129 has a blade that is not complete. Still weighs 850 g or so.
Go 69 has a blade with a guard width of 5.2 cm, length 79.5 cm, and seems fairly intact. This is definitely an 'Albion' style of blade that we have here. Light, lots of taper, etc.
Vg 6 has a 72.5 cm blade (quite short or incomplete) with 5.2 cm width. Probably another Albion-ish blade.
Go 113 has a 5.2 cm width and 75 cm blade. And a really big set of hilt parts. Weirdly large for such a small blade.
Öl 14 has a 5.8 cm width blade with 82.5 cm length. This seems incredibly light for such a large blade!
Up 157 seems incomplete and has a 5.5 cm blade width. Probably the complete sword was heavier. Either that or it's the shortest blade ever because the total length is only 73 cm (including hilt).
Up 108 has a 5.5 cm, 76 cm long blade. And we're getting up to the 3 lb range.
Up 156 has a 5.8 cm 69 cm blade. Probably incomplete and weighed more to start.
Up 235 Blade L 82; W 5.7-3 cm.
Up 134 Blade L 76; W 5-2.7 cm
Up 28 Blade L 75; W 5,5-2 cm
Up 220a Blade L 85; W 6.3-2.8 cm. Ornamentation: Remains
Up 122a Blade L 77.7; W 6-3.7 cm
Ok so as we can see, there's some pretty big blades, especially in Uppland.
Oh, and there's an 1850 g sword from the Netherlands that Ypey refers to as, 'good in the hand.'
Now, the question is, were these purely decorative or ceremonial designs, so they didn't care about weight? Or was this deliberate? The swords in Uppland appear to possibly be earlier than the ones from Gotland, etc., and this may be one reason, but would anyone have wanted to use such heavy swords?
And I think part of the answer is that if you just wanted a ceremonial sword, a big heavy blade isn't necessarily needed. You mostly want to show off the hilt of the sword. While I suppose a big blade is also nice, it's not the first thing you would think of.
Next, are such heavy swords 'bad?' Sure, if you want to use them like a rapier, or smallsword. But not necessarily if you are using them for sword and shield combat in formation or in the viking holmgang. Because you mostly use your shield for defense. And your main goal in both cases is to break your opponents' shields. You do not really care about finesse in this process. In battle this is because breaking a shield presents an opening in the wall of shields. In the holmgang, the rules essentially make it so breaking the opponent's shield is necessary. The vikings in particular were in favor of strong blows and not quick blows according to Saxo Grammaticus.
I can also say from personal experience that a 1500 gram type H sword is easier to swing around than a fairly small viking axe. The weight distribution is such that it's not as tiring. Now, in fairness, I am a fairly strong individual, but I doubt I have any more functional strength than a viking who would train with these types of things much more. It also helps to think of driving the power with your whole arm and torso, not with your wrist. The hilt isn't designed to allow a lot of wrist action anyway.
While I imagine that stabbing into gaps in armor would be hindered by the weight of these heavier swords, I think cleaving shields and even chainmail would be helped. And most of the attacks described in the sagas with swords are cuts or blows, not stabs (see Men of Terror by Short and Óskarson).
Personally, I reject the theory that these swords were used like later lighter arming swords, such as we find in MS I.33, etc., and which have inspired Warzecha's interpretation. Not to say that viking combat was slow, but that it was about power rather than finesse. And for that purpose, a heavier sword isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Of course, this is just my educated guesses!
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 13, 2024 7:27:59 GMT
Still seems like most were indeed lighter, 10 of 16 examples are under 1200g. My guess is personal preference has a lot to do with it, those weren't mass produced like later arming swords so in my mind the wielder had more input on the design. Some people can just use bigger, heavier swords. I do agree that power was a big thing for the Vikings, but then why use a sword at all, just go with an axe, easier to make and the most power you can get. The sword is, as you say, more nimble than the axe (at similar weight), so I think the people using swords did prefer to have something more nimble than an axe. Although IIRC most things that are being collected from viking battlefields were/are indeed axes. Ceremonial swords can be heavy, exactly because they are not used to fight. Bigger blade means more people can see it. That's the reason why some movie props look so outlandishly big: Visibiliyt! A "real" sword would not show up well on screen so they somethimes go with those overemphesized blades, like you can see in Conan for example. Thicker, wider and heavy. but that's just a theory if the same is true for ceremonial swords. I don't think there were that many ceremonial swords in the viking worlds, they were pretty utilitarian. In my mind it's down to the person wielding it how heavy they like it to be. And as I mentioned in the thread: You can wield a lot heavier swords if you were to train 24/7 so to speak. Having a sword back then already was a high accomplishment since they were a lot harder to produce than an axe head, lance or a knife, so why not make it something you can use?
I'd be interested how thick the blades were.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,850
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 13, 2024 11:27:23 GMT
I don't believe in the Viking shield smashing. To hurt your opponent you have to hit him "around" his shield. Hacking into the shield might catch your blade there and boom you are dead. The holmgang thing was some kind of show I believe. Three shields destroyed, both have their honor kept and nobody is hurt. Perhaps some heavier sword were made for exactly this. For a real fight I have doubts. There speed kills, not heavyness. And it makes a difference whether a 1,3 kg blade has a good balance/distal taper or not. Even in Viking times existed Albions and Windlasses I think.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 13, 2024 13:00:31 GMT
I don't believe in the Viking shield smashing. To hurt your opponent you have to hit him "around" his shield. Hacking into the shield might catch your blade there and boom you are dead. The holmgang thing was some kind of show I believe. Three shields destroyed, both have their honor kept and nobody is hurt. Perhaps some heavier sword were made for exactly this. For a real fight I have doubts. There speed kills, not heavyness. And it makes a difference whether a 1,3 kg blade has a good balance/distal taper or not. Even in Viking times existed Albions and Windlasses I think. Also probably depends a lot on the shield, if it is only wood with linnen, something with rawhide or has an iron rim. The Holmgang shields might have been constructed to break more easily, not unlike jousting lances.
Yeah, the distal taper is exactly why I would be interested in thickness measurements.
I wonder when you would lose striking power, would a 1800g sword with a PoB at the guard outperform a 1000g sword that has it further out?
|
|
Greg E
Member
little bit of this... and a whole lot of that
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by Greg E on Jan 13, 2024 18:20:08 GMT
A question comes to mind as I was reading this thread and the other, the Type H is a hilt typology. In the grand scheme of things, does the hilt type matter this much? Not all type H hilts are the same. Some have guards that are thicker, wider and taller than others. And the pommels are different in the same manner and of how hollow the pommel cap is. I am sure one can find other hilt types that have the same or different mass distribution than the H and not all H's have the same mass distribution. Or am I missing the point about this being about the hilt type.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,850
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 13, 2024 18:50:56 GMT
You're right in principle, but hilts are typical for certain time periods or areas and sometimes are combined with also typical blade types. Afaik type H ist a classic widespread Scandinavian type from 800 - 950. Dunno if it is a hint for bigger blades.
|
|
Greg E
Member
little bit of this... and a whole lot of that
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by Greg E on Jan 14, 2024 0:08:37 GMT
You're right in principle, but hilts are typical for certain time periods or areas and sometimes are combined with also typical blade types. Afaik type H ist a classic widespread Scandinavian type from 800 - 950. Dunno if it is a hint for bigger blades. But going with this and the chart above we see that there is a wide range of weights for blades that type H hilts are on, so it seems to matter little. The type H is the most commonly found hilt type and stayed more in use in the eastern areas and Baltics later. And hilts can be swapped out on different blades. I just think that focusing on a hilt type seen for such a long period is very broad. But it is interesting to see the different weights. Ignore my irrelevant musings and carry on.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Jan 14, 2024 0:52:08 GMT
we need the super-mega-hybrid table that combines the weight data with the length and width
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 14, 2024 21:20:21 GMT
we need the super-mega-hybrid table that combines the weight data with the length and width
We cannot do that exactly because of lack of data but I have studied the statistics extensively and found that the bigger type H/I hilts statistically correlate with bigger blades. Quite strongly correlate in fact*. Which suggests something about trying to balance them.
As to Mr. Stabby's point: yes, but a lot of those examples are incomplete. 4 of them are incomplete.
We will not really know how the Scandinavians fought with swords. My interpretation is only that, an interpretation (and that holds for anyone else's interpretation as well). And I'm not saying lighter swords weren't a thing, but rather, that swords up to 1.6 or 1.8 kg were also used in combat. I don't think these were ceremonial. And I don't think the 'finesse' style of combat was the primary one used, based on the design of the swords, the accounts in the sagas, etc. I would like to study the manuscript drawings too, to see what they suggest, but the ones I know of seem to indicate cuts and not thrusts.
Oh and yes the holmgang was probably designed as a way to let people fight without fatalities, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't want a sword that was good at hacking shields for it, anyway. And in war, the spear was probably the primary weapon. I don't think a particularly dextrous and fast sword is necessarily what you want when fighting in formations. The Landsknecht preferred spears and really heavy two handed swords. The except was probably the Romans but they were moving from the short stabbing gladius towards the spatha as well.
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 15, 2024 1:08:41 GMT
Just as an additional remark, I'm not disagreeing that speed usually beats power with swords. Not at all. There are exceptions (like, if your goal is to break a shield or attack a pike wall maybe, but then again, maybe not). However, we do see a trend with viking age swords that they get smaller over time. Well, to be more precise, they seem to get larger, peak in the 9th century, and then get smaller again until we end up with the early medieval arming sword.
I would almost compare this to the modern debate between people who favor 9 mm vs. .45 acp. Many people, including myself, hold that 9 mm is superior because it hits hard enough to do what you need, it is softer shooting and more controllable, and you can carry more ammo both in the magazine and on your person. But some people have maintained, and still maintain, that 'muh 2 world wars and muh stoppin' power!' is better.
We can't just say 'We know, in hindsight, that this design has an edge over that design, so therefore they all must have used it, or else the alternatives were cheap garbage or purely ceremonial.' Sometimes, the mindsets of the people who were using the weapons would have been fixated on other aspects of the question, or fixated on the idea that 'more power is more better,' or whatever. Heck, the European generals leading up to WWI had seen, repeatedly, how devastating machine guns could be, and yet the French still maintained 'élan will beat zem out!'
And of course there were light and nimble viking swords, including light and nimble type H designs and other designs. There were quite a wide variety of blades in fact! So I'm sure you had some Scandinavians who did have a preference for the lighter type. However, some of the high end makers, knowing that the modern audience tends to only want swords that handle like smallswords (I'm being deliberately hyperbolic here) tend to take the lighter of the known historical examples and then only make those.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,850
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 15, 2024 5:22:33 GMT
An 1100 g viking sword still doesn't handle like smallword. I prefer the lighter swords because I'm thinking of a longer fight, more than a minute of relative constant swinging. Then you feel every ounce twice. 1600 g viking swords are just for posers! (which also explains blingbling hilts on them )
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 15, 2024 12:43:49 GMT
There are also mass produced military sabers from late 18th and early 19th century that were much heavier than the standard 0.9 - 1 kg, up to 1.3 kg, and we have descriptions on how much more devastating their proper use seemed to persons receiving the blows. So I wouldn't discount just pure psychological impact (hue, hue) against the shield or in parry, even if the heavier weapon doesn't do much more damage to leather or linen reinforced shields and isn't an advantage wheen meeting lighter sword. Combined with the obviously stronger individual going berserk...
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 15, 2024 18:53:23 GMT
It also very much depends on weight distribution.
A heavy hilt? No problem! Heavy blade is more of an issue. Because it's the moment of inertia around the shoulder, elbow, and to a much lesser extent wrist, that will determine how tiring it is to use.
A lot of the heavier type H swords seem to have had hilts that weighed in the 0.6-0.8 kg, in other words, 40% or more of the mass is in the hilt.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 15, 2024 21:01:50 GMT
It also very much depends on weight distribution. A heavy hilt? No problem! Heavy blade is more of an issue. Because it's the moment of inertia around the shoulder, elbow, and to a much lesser extent wrist, that will determine how tiring it is to use. A lot of the heavier type H swords seem to have had hilts that weighed in the 0.6-0.8 kg, in other words, 40% or more of the mass is in the hilt. I wonder when a heavier blade but with lower PoB so it feels lighter will not be as effective as a lighter blade with a higher PoB any more. I mean as soon as you have the weight too close to your hand the cuts just won't be as effective any longer. I don't own any swords with a PoB too near to the guard, but a few 30cm/12"daggers, and the one that has the PoB right on the guard or slightly below it is a far less effective cutter than a lighter one with the PoB 1" further out. Just feels as if the object you are trying to hit is pushing the blade away instead of the blade hitting the object (can't explain better, hope it makes sense). But yeah, it's the old speed vs weight debate, but there is a sweet spot which would be different for everybody. I don't think the heavy examples are neccessarily just for show, unless they have more bling than a Svarovski store. Although some of the very heavy ones could be a "use it to be the king" type deal, I don't believe so unless they are very ornate. Also would depend where they were found. Battlefield vs homestead. Might have been a training device.
Thinking about it a thicker blade is less likely to get stuck in wood. A very fine blade will go deep between the grain and might get stuck more easily. But looking at the few examples we have I don't believe it was commonplace to go really heavy.
But should the modern smith produce historically accurate swords or something we modern apes can use? Because if it has to be historical, most longbows sold should have a draw weight of over 100lbs. To be honest I want something I can use regularly without braking my wrist, not something "Roger the Barbarian" swung and cleaved a mountain in two. Although.....
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 16, 2024 1:49:10 GMT
The really ornate examples are pre-viking age, and who knows, may have been usable as well as stylish! Things like the Behmer VI.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,850
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 16, 2024 2:26:42 GMT
I just don't like that 95 % of the not Albion viking swords on the market are on the heavy 1300 g + side, esp. Windlass and other Indian makers. You see a review of a new maker's viking, boom, again 1300 g +. You buy one of the few ones advertised as only 1200 g, boom, arrives with 1300 g. And this combined with nearly no distal taper or even negative distal taper because of the diamond cross section above the fuller One or two of them ok, but not all.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Jan 16, 2024 3:27:50 GMT
The Arms & Armor Viking sword is 28" blade at 1.8 pounds (816g)
Valiant has 2 - 30" blade at 2 pounds 15 oz (1330g) 31.5" blade at 2 pounds 12 oz (1250g)
so quite a range from manufacturers who do get distal taper correct. I think you get a better proportioned blade from the companies which expect to sell them sharp.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,850
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 16, 2024 4:42:16 GMT
Good, unfortunately they are not offered here in Germany. Here are only the Hanweis a choice. The newer Indian forges are sometimes available but they're all too heavy.
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 16, 2024 5:43:40 GMT
I should also say a lot of the other types of swords are lighter. Type H has some of the heaviest, including the very heaviest sword from the viking age that I know of, to wit, a 2300 gram sword. From Finland. With a 1 cm distal thickness at the hilt. Possibly actually a crowbar?
I would love to have some lighter options. Of course, since I go with custom swords most of the time, maybe the weight isn't so bad because custom smiths tend to do reasonable distal taper?
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Jan 16, 2024 5:57:27 GMT
And yes, this is a very fair point, it'd be nice to see the whole spread of options on offer. I'm a bit surprised they aren't. You'd think making a slightly thinner and skinnier viking sword would be no big deal.
I should also say that a lot of type H swords on the market do not have nearly large enough pommels or guards and are thus probably poorly balanced. Now granted, the originals were often hollowed out a bit to reduce weight, but I'm guessing that they handled better than the cheaper modern reproduction stuff.
|
|