PDA

View Full Version : Pre Viking era sword found in Sweeden



NEPAKevin
10-07-2018, 12:05 AM
An eight-year-old found a pre-Viking-era sword while swimming in a lake in Sweden during the summer.


(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45753455)

31075

Drang
10-07-2018, 03:29 AM
If she's only 8, does she still qualify as a watery bint with a sword...?





(NOTE: "Bint": Arabic for "girl" or "daughter". Get your mind out of the gutter.)

Wondering Beard
10-07-2018, 04:01 AM
If she's only 8, does she still qualify as a watery bint with a sword...?





(NOTE: "Bint": Arabic for "girl" or "daughter". Get your mind out of the gutter.)

That depends. Was there a guy named Arthur around?

serialsolver
10-07-2018, 11:16 AM
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wondering Beard
10-07-2018, 12:04 PM
https://i.imgur.com/KwtZ4nV.jpg


Nevertheless, that sword is a pretty cool find. I'd be curious about the quality of the steel

Jay Cunningham
10-07-2018, 01:36 PM
That’ll buff right out.

Drang
10-07-2018, 07:28 PM
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”

I dunno. Lately...

31129

Tabasco
10-07-2018, 09:08 PM
https://i.imgur.com/KwtZ4nV.jpg


Nevertheless, that sword is a pretty cool find. I'd be curious about the quality of the steel

Unless you had crucible steel, which only arrived in Europe for a short time (900 to 1100 AD) via the Volga trade, quality was variable. Pattern welding, where rods of different steel were heated and forged together could yield good steel by spreading out the impurities but it was a crap shoot from what I've read. Roman historians from the days before 500 AD mentioned battles where the Germanic tribes hat to straighten out their inferior steel swords with their foot after hitting a Roman shield during combat. That type of sword (Viking or whatever) was inspired bu the Roman spatha which supplanted the gladius around the 3'rd century AD. The spatha was a longer thinner sword than the gladius better for cavalry. Been reading about this stuff....

Trooper224
10-08-2018, 12:43 AM
Unless you had crucible steel, which only arrived in Europe for a short time (900 to 1100 AD) via the Volga trade, quality was variable. Pattern welding, where rods of different steel were heated and forged together could yield good steel by spreading out the impurities but it was a crap shoot from what I've read. Roman historians from the days before 500 AD mentioned battles where the Germanic tribes hat to straighten out their inferior steel swords with their foot after hitting a Roman shield during combat. That type of sword (Viking or whatever) was inspired bu the Roman spatha which supplanted the gladius around the 3'rd century AD. The spatha was a longer thinner sword than the gladius better for cavalry. Been reading about this stuff....

One thing to remember about Roman accounts on anything is they viewed everyone and everything as inferior to themselves. Many of the "barbarian" cultures conquered by Rome were, in fact, more advanced. This includes the various Celtic cultures, who were widely acknowledged as master metal workers. However, pattern welding did develop from laminated blades that could indeed prove faulty due to forging flaws. Pattern welding was simply a means to hold the various layers of iron and steel together. Pattern Welding itself is nothing more than a way to make something usable out of crappy materials.

The theory that longer European swords developed from the Roman Spatha is a fairly recent argument that happens to be rather tenuous.There's really no logical basis for it. Longer single-handed swords were in use as early as the bronze age and many of the Celtic and Germanic tribes were using them before Rome adopted the Spatha.

The recovered artifact looks to date from the 7th-9th centuries, given what can be seen of the hilt design.

Tabasco
10-08-2018, 11:34 AM
The theory that longer European swords developed from the Roman Spatha is a fairly recent argument that happens to be rather tenuous.There's really no logical basis for it. Longer single-handed swords were in use as early as the bronze age and many of the Celtic and Germanic tribes were using them before Rome adopted the Spatha.

The recovered artifact looks to date from the 7th-9th centuries, given what can be seen of the hilt design.

Perhaps rather than Roman influence it was parallel evolution? As steel making and working became more advanced, swords could be made longer and stronger which is an advantage in most combat scenarios of that day.

I thought it looked like a latter style sword as well. I wonder where they got the 500AD date?

After reading up on the sword history stuff, I re-watched "The Last Kingdom" on Netflix and paid attention the the weapons. Seems like they did a pretty good job of sourcing modern recreations of the weapons of the day. The tactics were interesting as well. I always wondered why axes of the day had such long handles (to get behind shield walls and slash). Was never really interested in Dark Ages/Medieval history, but now I kind of am.

What's up with finding swords in lakes and rivers? Was it some religious practice of the day to throw your prized sword into a lake or something? Maybe people of that day were less careful, as they drank alcoholic beverages rather then water, as water in those days was suspect?

ACP230
10-08-2018, 03:15 PM
Reaction to the first sword control efforts?

"To my sorrow, my sword collection, in the entirety of itself, was lost on the lake
in a trading scow accident of epic proportion." :D

Wondering Beard
10-08-2018, 04:37 PM
Perhaps rather than Roman influence it was parallel evolution? As steel making and working became more advanced, swords could be made longer and stronger which is an advantage in most combat scenarios of that day.

Actually the Gauls were making two handed long swords by at least 100BC already. The Celts overall were just better metal smiths than anyone else in Europe/mediterranean at the time.

Roman Phalanx like tactics (I know legion tactics were an improvement on the phalanx but where shield met shield, it wasn't much different) heavily influenced the adoption of the gladius I believe.


What's up with finding swords in lakes and rivers? Was it some religious practice of the day to throw your prized sword into a lake or something? Maybe people of that day were less careful, as they drank alcoholic beverages rather then water, as water in those days was suspect?

Last theory I read was that lots of battles took place by rivers (good to anchor your flanks, good to have running water near camp) thus lots of people died by or in rivers, thus lots of swords in rivers.

Trooper224
10-08-2018, 04:56 PM
Perhaps rather than Roman influence it was parallel evolution? As steel making and working became more advanced, swords could be made longer and stronger which is an advantage in most combat scenarios of that day.

As I said, longer bladed swords were in evidence as far back as classical, bronze age age Greece, so it really isn't a case of improved metallurgy making things possible. The quality of materials certainly improved, which in turn improved performance. However, it wasn't as if everyone was using short, stabbie pokey swords until the Roman Cavalry showed up. This theory of the longer sword being viewed as technological improvement is also largely debunked by the fact that shorter, single-handed swords were in widespread use from the bronze age right up to the 18th century when swords were largely dropped as an item of mass issuance in favor of the bayonet. The problem with these theories is that they're developed by looking at the sword in a vacuum. The sword was never really seen as a stand alone weapon, but rather as part of a system, much like handguns, rifles and other small arms are viewed today in a military context. There were specific swords designed to do specific things throughout history. While a progression can be seen in the development and use of materials, there really isn't a linear timeline when it comes to sword design. If any group can be credited with the genesis of longer single-handed swords it *might* be the Germanic tribes the romans faced in northern Europe, and that's a big maybe.


I thought it looked like a latter style sword as well. I wonder where they got the 500AD date?

Simple, the people looking at it probably don't know shite about swords, so they're just spit balling. Hoplology, the study of ancient weapons, is one of the most neglected fields in archeology. The PC culture has infected archeology just like the rest of academia and the study of arms is very much discouraged. Consequently, you get people who obsess for years over pottery shards and cloth fragments from a find, yet find a sword in the same dig and simply throw it on a shelf with a note, "one sword". Try examining the arms and armor collection of a major metropolitan museum and telling them half the stuff are Victorian era fakes and see what kind of reception you get.


After reading up on the sword history stuff, I re-watched "The Last Kingdom" on Netflix and paid attention the the weapons. Seems like they did a pretty good job of sourcing modern recreations of the weapons of the day. The tactics were interesting as well. I always wondered why axes of the day had such long handles (to get behind shield walls and slash). Was never really interested in Dark Ages/Medieval history, but now I kind of am.


That series is an abortion overall, like most film interpretations of the medieval period are. Axe shafts varied up and down the spectrum. A longer axe haft is really about velocity. Like most hand weapons, it's really just a lever with a sharp metal bit on the end, but a lot of velocity gets generated out on the end with the metal bit compared to the amount of effort expended on the user end.


What's up with finding swords in lakes and rivers? Was it some religious practice of the day to throw your prized sword into a lake or something? Maybe people of that day were less careful, as they drank alcoholic beverages rather then water, as water in those days was suspect?

The reasons for that are quite varied and really can't be pinned down to a single source. it's true that earlier tribal cultures deposited weapons as votive offerings in bodies of water. Many are found with blades that are bent, or have been broken by fire, in an obvious sacrificial and ceremonial process. We also need to remember that something like crossing a river was a much bigger deal then, than it is now. It wasn't uncommon for things and people to get lost in the process. Rivers were also the main arteries of trade for thousands of years. One of the major finds relating to medieval swords occurred on the sight of the battle of Castillon, considered the final battle of the Hundred Years War. Dozens of swords, stored in barrels, were found in the wreck of a sunken barge. The most likely theory is these were part of the spoils of the campaign and were being sent down river for sale, or were going up river to equip the troops during the battle. This also illustrates how common place swords were by the high medieval period. Once the blast furnace was perfected in the 13th century steel production became far easier and swords became much more plentiful. By that time anyone who wanted one could get one and they weren't considered rare.

Erik
10-08-2018, 05:49 PM
Try examining the arms and armor collection of a major metropolitan museum and telling them half the stuff are Victorian era fakes and see what kind of reception you get.

The arms and armor exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is one of my favorite things in the world. Please don't tell me it's bunk.

Trooper224
10-08-2018, 06:43 PM
The arms and armor exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC is one of my favorite things in the world. Please don't tell me it's bunk.

The Met has what is arguably the best collection in North America and most of it is legit.

The problem comes from the big explosion of interest in all things medieval, that occurred during the Victorian era. Thanks to the literary works of Scott and Tennyson the middle ages became the "thing" and every well to do gentleman needed an arms and armor collection in his study. Scott's The Talisman is almost solely responsible for the bullshit popular view of the crusades, their causes, effects and people involved, that persists into modern times.


Most of the A&A collections in museums today were originally compiled by Victorian collectors and later donated upon their death. Victorian collectors weren't too knowledgeable, or selective in what they acquired. They really just wanted a room full of shiny stuff and less than scrupulous suppliers were happy to oblige. One well known and notorious faker, Louis Marcy, was quite prolific. So much so that any piece having even remote association with him is automatically suspect. The sword of Edward III, King of England, was long thought to be a fake ever since it appeared in 1859 in his shop. It was only proven to be authentic through scientific analysis made possible by modern methods. Consequently, it was quite common to see swords put together from bits and pieces from different eras, some fake, some original. I've seen swords that look good but the only thing authentic is the guard or pommel. Or, all the components are antique but they're from different periods and just cobbled together.


Armor isn't any different. It's very rare to find a harness that's homogenous, most of them are composites and that includes some of the Mets examples. That doesn't necessarily mean they're fake, that just means all the pieces didn't begin their lives together. Once again, back in the day a collector wanted a suit of armor for his foyer, so a supplier was happy to oblige. I have one missing a helmet? No problem. Stick this helmet on there and bingo! Never mind the helmet is a century older than the rest of the harness. Or pieces could be made up in an attempt to replace missing bits. Most of the time these can be recognized by the difference in quality of decoration, or variances of the same. However, a casual glance might not detect anything and some of the Victorian artisans could be quite good in their own right. The Nelson Art Gallery in Kansas City once had four suites of armor and a complete panoply for horse and rider in its main lobby. Every suite was at least a composite and half faked up, with the panoply being a complete Victorian repro made by one particular well known and skilled smith of the period.

Tabasco
10-08-2018, 07:36 PM
Simple, the people looking at it probably don't know shite about swords, so they're just spit balling. Hoplology, the study of ancient weapons, is one of the most neglected fields in archeology. The PC culture has infected archeology just like the rest of academia and the study of arms is very much discouraged. Consequently, you get people who obsess for years over pottery shards and cloth fragments from a find, yet find a sword in the same dig and simply throw it on a shelf with a note, "one sword". Try examining the arms and armor collection of a major metropolitan museum and telling them half the stuff are Victorian era fakes and see what kind of reception you get.


Thank you for your detailed response, fascinating....

So, I've read recently about debunking common theories on medieval torture devices like the "Pear of Anguish" or "Iron Maiden". I always believed they were real torture devices (a friend has a nice glossy coffee table book on medieval torture devices) that were used as their design might suggest. The new theory is that medieval people weren't as bad as we thought, but I have a hard time accepting this as my view on human nature is that it is basically unchanging, psychopaths have existed from the beginning of man, and life was cheap back then unless you had status. Is this more PC crap or is it legit?

Trooper224
10-09-2018, 12:52 AM
Thank you for your detailed response, fascinating....

So, I've read recently about debunking common theories on medieval torture devices like the "Pear of Anguish" or "Iron Maiden". I always believed they were real torture devices (a friend has a nice glossy coffee table book on medieval torture devices) that were used as their design might suggest. The new theory is that medieval people weren't as bad as we thought, but I have a hard time accepting this as my view on human nature is that it is basically unchanging, psychopaths have existed from the beginning of man, and life was cheap back then unless you had status. Is this more PC crap or is it legit?


No trouble at all. It's kinda ma thang.

Regarding violent behavior: the truth is somewhere in the middle. They did use torture devices and it was a common method of punishment, but the classic devices like the Iron Maiden are Victorian fabrications. humans are predators and have always been violent. Example: the current revisionist history movement tries to paint the nordic peoples (Vikings for lack of a better term) as traders and explorers while really trying to ignore, or downplay their violent raiding and invading activities. At one time three quarters of England was under Danish control. That wasn't due to free trade. Likewise, the phrase, "God save us from the wrath of the Northmen." didn't come about because Vikings sailed up the Thames to trade beads.

Overall however, the point that medievals weren't as violent as Hollywood would have you believe is apt. People were far from the filthy barbarians living in the mud that shows like The Last Kingdom and Braveheart portray. Yes, they lived in societies where things like torture and public executions were utilized, but they also lived in societies with highly developed rules and conventions.

Joe in PNG
10-09-2018, 01:02 AM
Yes, they lived in societies where things like torture and public executions were utilized, but they also lived in societies with highly developed rules and conventions.

Of course, if you broke said rules and conventions, you were probably going to get torture and public execution. Hard times, and hard times tend to make for hard people.

After all, the theft of something like a cow or pig could make the difference between life or death for a family. Which meant that pretty much everyone had an interest in making sure that crime was painful.

Trooper224
10-09-2018, 02:32 AM
Of course, if you broke said rules and conventions, you were probably going to get torture and public execution. Hard times, and hard times tend to make for hard people.

After all, the theft of something like a cow or pig could make the difference between life or death for a family. Which meant that pretty much everyone had an interest in making sure that crime was painful.

That's somewhat of an oversimplification. The were all kinds of punishments of varying degrees that didn't result in people going all Game of Thrones.

Wondering Beard
10-09-2018, 03:58 AM
That's somewhat of an oversimplification. The were all kinds of punishments of varying degrees that didn't result in people going all Game of Thrones.

The thing that people forget is that the rule of law isn't a recent invention. Even, in backwater villages somewhere in the Baltics in medieval times there were laws and rules of conduct. We, modern folk, wouldn't like them one bit but it wasn't chaos and anarchy; people had to survive hard times in harsh lands as communities and thus they had laws.

Joe in PNG
10-09-2018, 03:58 PM
That's somewhat of an oversimplification. The were all kinds of punishments of varying degrees that didn't result in people going all Game of Thrones.

Oh, the really nasty stuff was reserved for really nasty crimes. Hanging or beheading would be a more typical capital punishment. They just had a broader spread of crimes that were considered capital crimes.