Late Viking Era & Early Norman Swords

Could the qillons be used to hook away a shield

As always entertaining and engaging thanks your show is my favourite on this subject . I've started collecting and my first buy is a sword from this era used by Norman's . Also I've brought a kite sheild to sit on my wall with the sword. I'm going through your videos and my enthusiasm for the subject is only guarded by financial situation as a injured person who can't hold either due to injures back in 09

Because it was like modern warfare but without the comfort of fronts, where a full blown attack could happen at any time, from anywhere, most of the time, folk would have been unarmoured. Also, wolves and bears, also as a tool to gather nettle for food.
Andrew***°

This category is God's also.

90% of all fights the Vikings got in to was against other Vikings and very few could afford mail they could barely afford to feed them selves which is why they went Viking.

The difference in sword might be because of ... A kite shield strappede to the arm, are more limited in reach (it is held close to the body), and for that reason the shield cannot follow the sword hand as far out in reach, making the sword hand more exposed ... ?

On the subject of older weapons being used long passed their hey day. Recently in my home state in the US, a few criminals who were wanted by the police were found living in a cabin in a very rural area. They were previously convicted of felonies, and were not legally able to purchase firearms, so they were armed with crossbows and reproduction muzzleloading revolvers (which are generally cheaper and unrestricted legally) when they were arrested.

In the earlier days of the ongoing conflict in afganistan, it was not uncommon for tribal warriors to be armed with rifles patterned on weapons from the victorian period made by small, cottage gunsmiths. And it's not uncommon to encounter weapons from WW1 still in active use around the world simply due to their historic abundance. The taliban tended to be better armed and financed, but individual men, or local militias tended to make do.

So, it could be a combination of historic weapons preserved, and the body of knowledge with in the community of arms makers. Maybe they made swords the old way becuase that's what they knew how to make, or for the purposes of their customers they didn't need to innovate. My father, who's in his 60s now, still carries a pistol who's design fell out of favour shortly after the american civil war in the 1860s. Not because it's better than modern designs, but because it works for him. Manufacturers still make these things in great numbers, even though they're technically inferior.

Not only is there no evidence they wore gloves, there's next to no evidence they wore mail either. at least not in the 9th century and even into the 10th. Not in the British Isles nor during their forays into the Carolingian empire. No helmets, no mail, no gloves.

Charlemagne gave sword manufacture to the bishops and from that like the bible everything came down to gernomatry. Gods perfect 6 days labour one day of rest the the eighth day we start again . How many swords would be measured saw by blade length is 'A' guard length is a percentage of that length. The grip again would be 'B' the the pommel might be the same shape as new chapels eight sided area where babies are blessed in the oblong font .....maybe it's worth the thought and in retrospect viking swords don't have those measurements because of being pagans.

Many societies used that sword. Frence and anglo saxons may be able to afford mail. I heard it said it ireland the value of a mail shirt was comparable to a house. That would mean many went without.

Older style Revolvers area still used even tho many ppl have semi autos pistols.... Cuz they still work

It always strikes me that with a short guard, when thrusting hard you risk your hand sliding up the blade if your grip isn't strong enough.

If the guard gets wide enough, it becomes unlikely even with a slack grip.

Did you ever do the follow up video? cant find it, wanted to see the new sword and the different design.

I norden på 800 o 900 kosta en brynja 3 till 5 hästar i dagens värde typ 25000 till 30000 kr

cruciform= christendom, gott mit uns, we're OK, yer not; die, infidels

I've always thought that one reason for the development of longer (and thinner) cross-guards is for turning the sword round,and gripping by the blade as is sometimes shown in pictures from the time, that the guard can then be used similarly to a war spike. So your sword tip may not be able to thrust through chain-mail, and maybe, even half-swording, you're just bad at finding gaps, so using your cross guard as a war spike will allow you to penetrate and kill, when otherwise you'd not be able to

En tanke att religionen spelade en liten roll. Med tanke på de första korståget runt 1090 talet. Sen att två typer av svärd användes är enligt vad jag tror det beror på är att svärd va dyra och gick i arv.

Duelist1954 sent me.

Been a subscriber for a while, but duelist1954 sent me here because he started doing sword reviews on his channel where he primarily features 18-19th century firearms.

Duelist1954 sent me

Duelist1954 sent me here

Christian symbology? dark ages swords maybe from pagan peoples.... maybe a crucifix image as part of the sword became important as people converted to christianity?

here's my thinking. we see a change from large round center grip shields and minimal armor, to less large strapped shields with slightly more armor. Because in earlier time you had less armor, you had to rely on that big round shield. Since that shield was center grip, you had more length of shield extending out into your right side, where your sword would swing from. Having a large crossgard or long handle/pommel could interfere with your shield - the space you fit your sword around the shield could really matter, especially if you don't want to move your shield out of the way and potentially open your (fairly unarmored) self to attack. If you look at the shape of the classic "viking" sword pommel/crossgard it really does look like they were trying their best to not take up any more space around your hand than they absolutely had to.
Later on with a strap shield, the shield protrudes less far into your right hand side. This allows the right hand more room to maneuver, and take advantage of having a crossgard.
I can't say that I am 100% for sure right, but it fits all the facts as I know them.

The old style were still used because of cost to replace sometimes but more likely comfort with what your use to using and most likely in scandinavia is sentimental reasons having been handed down in the family

I've always considered the Viking shield a more "active" shield if you can call it that, than the kite shield. What I mean is that I've always used the Viking shield in a more combined way with my sword, simply because it's lighter and has better reach, whereas the kite shield is heavier and thus easier to use when held closer to the body to form a sort of wall, you can attack from behind. You don't need as much skill, at least that's my experience, when you're using a kite shield, as you need with a Viking shield. And you only need to angle the bottom a bit towards your opponent to cover your legs. It's very small an simple movements compared to how you use a Viking shield, and thus easier for people learn. Maybe formation fighting became more static with the invention of the kite shield, and as it wouldn't be used in combination with the sword to protect the hand, create openings and so on, it might've made sense to people back then to improve hand protection some other way. Just a thought.

Nothing overly Anglo-centric about the Battle of Hastings: it was an event that had affected everything that happened afterward--- even to the ends of the earth.
This video addressed the exact question I was pondering: what did the swords the Normans used at the Battle look like? The replicas I have seen of the classic Norman knightly cruciform sword all seem to be identified as reflecting "12th Century" designs.
My other question concerns the Norman helmets used at the Battle. Did welded two-piece, one-piece, or riveted helms dominate at that time?

Matt you lied you never showed us this

The Viking round shield is used for more for winding and binding than the kite shield or the heater shield. Control of the center was established with the shield before the blade was used. With the kite shield, because of the way it is strapped to the arm, there is much less extension and the sword must be used to wind and bind and control the other blade. The shield has gone from an offensive weapon to a defensive one. Because the blade is being used to more to control and counter the opposing blade, the hand and arm are more exposed and greater protecting is needed. And extended crossguard provides the protection and also aids in the bind in controlling the opposing blade.

As to why Viking blades were not pointed, it is perhaps because, like axes, there were used for chopping and cutting rather than thrusting and the target was most often the legs as evidenced by the wounds referenced at Stamford Bridge. Sword of the era were mostly pattern welded and only the most extensively forged blades were not prone to bending or breaking under stress, and the thrust against armor is highly stressful to a blade. This is why the +ULFBERTH+ blades were so highly prized. As forging improved, so did blade quality and strength allowing swords to withstand more and more contact both in offense and defense.

Not sure why, but the sword dude is using is the most beautiful sword to me.

i'm getting the Noman from Valiant, thats a brazil nut pommel, 31 inches

I would love to see a comparison of a Gallowglass Sword and a Claymore.

Seems odd for a sword fitted with 9thC hilt and pommel to be named Clontarf.

Piercing dedicated maille armor was not going to be doable with any single-handed weapon anyway.
- Unlike a dummy tied to a stand, a live human opponent wearing maille as primary passive defense over textile armor can still be pushed around and thus will not have its armor easily pierced by a handheld weapon, even with a spear point, even less so a pointy sword. The main reason for this is that it often takes less force to push the body back than what it would take to pierce the maille links. Therefore you would almost never pierce the maille unless you were pinning your opponent to a wall or a tree.
- The maille voiders of later plate armors had lighter maille and their links were not as strong as those of a full primary-protection hauberk and could, in theory, be pierced; though in practice that would still be incredibly rare because effectively stabbing the small gaps in plate armor with any significant force while still being accurate enough to connect with the gap is extremely difficult and unlikely.
- The best way to counter and defeat early-medieval maille armor was still to go around the armor; i.e., to strike at the limbs and extremities; and since stabbing extremities in movement is much much harder and less effective than cutting at them; cutting attacks were still prioritized for this. Magnus Olafsson called his sword "Legbiter" for a reason.

Can I get contact with you ?
I have find sword in Battle, it was in drain in clay , find it on magnet fishing not shure what it could be ?

Shield walls becomming less and less popular

matt dk if this so but i seen a artical many moons back ...porporting that swords started changing with the spread of the christan belife system ...wider cross guards and rounder pommels were supposed to resemble the crucification of christ ?

In Scandinavia they used viking sword all the way up to the 1200. Newer things often came to Denmark first. In Sweden and Norway development took longer time. For example in Sweden many men still only used horses for transportation to the battlefield, where they would dismount and fight on foot.

Hi, I'm late to the party as I only just found this video.
I suspect that the change in guard size is related to the shield size and type and how the sword would be used in combination with the shield. For the post-Roman and Viking period the sword was very much a secondary weapon with the spear & shield being the principal weapon set even for a sword armed warrior. Having had experience with a wide range of replica weapons and shields from the 4th-12 centuries I've noticed some things that work together. When you look at the evidence for shield sizes from Anglo-Saxon graves, the 5-7th century shields seem to have been smaller than the 9-10th century round shields seen in art/stone-carvings etc. The early style shields tend to fall into three groups, with the middle group (roughly around 18-26" diameter) being by far the most common. There are larger shields (some as much as 36") but these are the rarest type, but are more analagous to the later types, and smaller (around 12-18") which seem to be more common than the large type, but far less common than the mid-sized ones. (These diameters might not be 100% correct, as I'm working from memory without the exact figures in front of me.) The small shields are superb for skirmishing with a spear and little armour as you can be very mobile, both on the ground and with parrying with the shield. The mid size are less mobile, but a good compromise between mobility and body coverage. The large shields tend to be less mobile due to additional weight as well as size but offer greater 'passive' defence. I found I favoured a sheild of around 24" if I was using spear and sword for armament. When fighting around a shield this size the shield is very mobile and a longer crossguard requires more care or wider attacks to avoid catching the edge of a shield so the shorter guard is ideal. If shields were becoming larger and mail more common by the 10th century the two things can combine to slow shield mobility, meaning the sword gets used for parrying more often, where a longer guard becomes helpful. By the time the strapped kite shields appear they offer greater passive defence, but are far less mobile, and in some strapping arrangements have limited ability to quickly defend certain areas of the body meaning the sword is used even more for defence, again making longer guards more desirable.
Several people have mentioned the short guard being useful when bracing the round shield in a shield wall, and whilst this is true it should be remembered that the principal weapon of the shield-wall was the spear - if you drew your sword it would generally mean things had gone very badly (your shield wall has been broken and the battle had devolved into a melee) or very well (you'd broken the enemy shield-wall and were cutting down fleeing foes.) A swordsman in a shield-wall comprised mostly of spearmen can be at a severe disadvantage, although I suspect it may have happened, particularly if in the course of the fighting your spear was lost or broken.
I know there are circumstances where swordsmen have an advantage against spear-formations, such as attcking the flanks or rear, but in my experience a good spearman with a mobile shield can often easily match two swordsmen of similar skill level. Of course if you are in a heavy press and the enemy are inside the reach of your spear the swordsman can get the upper hand quickly if you don't gain distance fast, but again, in this kind of press the shorter guard would make it easier to fight around the shield. I suspect in the earlier period the guards were not longer simply because they didn't need to be as a mobile shield is a much better defence than a sword.

It was shaped like a cross...and they had crusades... I think it was influenced by Arab swords, and by it looking like a cross.

I agree with your conclusions from the other vid.....they may well have had mail shirts but their legs weren't protected and round boss shields v round boss shields means legs are a primary target.
Ouch.

I think the migration period sword was used until the 11th century is because some people preferred the cleave over the thrust, like me, I prefer a cleaving blade over a thrusting blade

One reason for the longer cross guard may have been that sword on sword combat had become more common. As more swords became available through conquest and trade.

You’re leaving out the fact that riveted mail was the rule during the migration age, and riveted mail was for the very wealthy. It wasn’t until the medieval period that riveted mail became the common type of mail.

the chop of a more, uh, choppy blade might actually do some good blunt force damage to a mailed opponent or might even bite a bit into it.

pommell are almost NEVER straight alongside guard. they were all bent slightly sideways by at least 2 to 5 * degrees, if you were right handed, it was bent to left , if you were left handed, the pommel was bent toward the right. it made handling far more better. I found this out by looking at most swords that were found, around 900 through 1066, and drew a conclusion that people was already doing this throughout dark ages onward 1066. I handled both straight pommel Norseman sword and a slightly bent one, I much preferred bent one. i could do a bit more range of motions without pommel edges digging into my wrist or bottom of my palm.

Dueling became more common

Swords changed due to armor development.
8-9 century saw more combat with chain mail.
As plate armor developed hacking swords were no good at all.
Hence they became longer & more tepered & acute pointed tip to get in between gaps in the suit of armor.
Under the arm pits or the groin area & eyes in the helmet.
It was an counter evelotion concept down the ages.
Untill 17th century & musket guns when armor was almost useless.
The progress in armor warefare & eveloution.

Wooo Norfolk!

I dont think you see tht hilt does not mix with shield, its the sme with the se*x the bowie knife got hilt becuse it ws dulist wepon, the sex needed to be slipped overt sheild rim.