Hand-and-a-half Norse (Viking) Sword ~ Discuss!

[Grant Hall]

Hey just wondering what anybody knows about this sword (found in Grobina Latvia)?

Viking Bastard Sword: Grobina Latvia

Discuss!

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yes, I recall seeing that. Unfortunately the photo allows us no establishment of scale, it provides nothing else as a metric beside the artifact. So it seems inconclusive, yet possible. It would not surprise me if somebody somewhere had seldomly wielded an early version of longsword in the Norse cultures.

[Mike Cartier]

Yes, I recall seeing that. Unfortunately the photo allows us no establishment of scale, it provides nothing else as a metric beside the artifact. So it seems inconclusive, yet possible. It would not surprise me if somebody somewhere had seldomly wielded an early version of longsword in the Norse cultures.

thats interesting, reminds me of the conversation i had with kevin Cashen at the IG2007. We discussed how the dating of the longsword had to be somewhat general in idea as there had to be attempts before the actual wide spread use of the longsword , which we use in dating, to lengthen the handles to allow for 2 handed use. Scandinavian swords seem to scream out for a longer handle to me, some of them seem to only need a longer handle to get into longsword territory.

All very interesting but highly speculative of course...

[Grant Hall]

Hey guys thanks for the replies.

What I did to get a "guesstimate" at the length of the handle was blow the photo up so the blade's width was 5cm then measured the grip, I then did the same with a blade width of 7cm. The results were as follows:

Blade Width: 5cm
Grip Length: 17cm
Hilt Length: 24cm

Blade Width: 7cm
Grip Length: 27cm
Hilt Length: 37cm

NOTE: All measurements are rough, and based off of my understanding of average width of Viking Age swords.

By adding a 90cm blade we get lengths ranging from 114cm to 127cm (Just under 4 foot to just over 4 foot).

NOTE: It is my understanding that this picture was published in a magazine because of it overly large handle, if anyone can dig up some actual measurements that would be great.

Cheers!

[Axel Pettersson]

Im just reading through J Ambergers "secret history of the sword",

he quotes Hemmin saying that some old scramasaxes had a tang of 15-25 centimeters, indicating a two handed use.

[Grant Hall]

Wow, what length blades would those things have packed?

I've often wondered why people are so quick to say that all two-handed swords are later-medieval developments. One day someone is going to open up a Dark Age grave and find a greatsword.

Oh well, keep em coming, I love discussing the possiblities of early medieval two-handers!

Cheers!

[Jeffrey Hull]

GH: Fine estimating work, that makes at least a facile case. If only we could get actual measures to confirm one way or another.

Yes, it would be interesting if someday there is discovered an intact doubtless Viking longsword.

[CalebChow]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Vikings had longswords--the idea of using 2 hands on a sword (meaning, without shield or something in the offhand) probably existed in people's minds ever since swords were first invented.
Whether or not they were used much is another story.

Countless epic warrior-heroes are often depicted to wield ridiculously heavy swords, which *might* indicate 2hand usage. One example is Gilgamesh (historically, a king who lived around 3000 BCE) , whose sword weighed one "talent" which is something between 50 and a 100 pounds, depending on location and time period.

Ancient China used longswords as well, as said in this documentary with Scott Rodell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUiDGat-6rM

Based on the look of that sword in the picture, I'd imagine that it belonged to a pretty high-status individual. I read somewhere that swords were primarily for those in higher ranks in Viking/Norse societies, so who knows? Maybe it's only the champion or king that used the longsword.
[/i]

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Vikings had longswords--the idea of using 2 hands on a sword (meaning, without shield or something in the offhand) probably existed in people's minds ever since swords were first invented.
Whether or not they were used much is another story.

Countless epic warrior-heroes are often depicted to wield ridiculously heavy swords, which *might* indicate 2hand usage. One example is Gilgamesh (historically, a king who lived around 3000 BCE) , whose sword weighed one "talent" which is something between 50 and a 100 pounds, depending on location and time period.

When looking at materials from around Gilgamesh, remember their metallurgical understandings were somewhat limited. They also used bronze which would throw accurate comparison of weights to the wind.

Egyptian Khopeshes of a similar time frame were made my casting the bronze in sand carvings. This similar process could yeild a heavier sword of smaller size.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

[CalebChow]

When looking at materials from around Gilgamesh, remember their metallurgical understandings were somewhat limited. They also used bronze which would throw accurate comparison of weights to the wind.

Egyptian Khopeshes of a similar time frame were made my casting the bronze in sand carvings. This similar process could yeild a heavier sword of smaller size.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

True that--3000BCE is like, Early Bronze 1 period archaeologically. The sword that weighed a talent was from taken a story anyway--I just put that in to indicate the idea that the "superheroes" of the past may have been regarded as using swords with 2hands.

And, I didn't know that about the Egyptian Kopeshes! That's pretty neat.

[Axel Pettersson]

Based on the look of that sword in the picture, I'd imagine that it belonged to a pretty high-status individual. I read somewhere that swords were primarily for those in higher ranks in Viking/Norse societies, so who knows? Maybe it's only the champion or king that used the longsword.
[/i]

or it could be ceremonial like those immense zweihanders, or a cult symbol or Viking "bling", or, or..

An amateurs guess is that someone surely could have made a two handed sword , and somebody surely could learn how to use them (they used two handed axes so why not). When fighting in a shield wall a two handed sword is of more limited use than the shield + sword/axe/spear combo though, and perhaps a Daneaxe or a long spear does a better job standing behind the shield wall than a longsword would do = there wasn't much need for a longsword and so they were rare.

When armour made shield less used and the shield wall tactic became less common, the more opportunity and thus need for a two handed sword.

Comments?

[Grant Hall]

I don't know about comments but I do have questions, like has anyone here actually tried cross training longswords versus sword and shield? If so how practicle/impracticle is it?

I would think a warrior could fight with a longsword much the same as a Huskarl fought with a dane axe (that is without a shield and somewhat spreadout from his comrades).

I also imagine that someone rich enough to own a twohanded "Norse-Longsword" would most likely be fitted out with Mail (possibly doubled?) with steel greaves (and possibly vambraces/gauntlets) with a well crafted helm (with coif and Ventail). Thus when compared to a 'poorer' warrior wearing leather and carrying a shield (with or without a helm) we can see that the advantage given-up by the loss of the shield is quite made up by the superior armor and arguable longer reach of the two-handed sword, not to mention the added force behind the two-handed cuts.

All in all I am very intrigued and would love to hear of anyone's experiences cross traingin longswords against sword and shield. That being said I'm going to scoot over to the videos section and see if they have any footage.

Cheers!

PS: I guess I had questions AND comments

[Benjamin Smith]

I've cross trained a little a long time ago, I and my sparring partners were much less skilled then. It seemed to me that neither had a great advantage. They are very different and you can't fight them the same way as you would fight similar weapons. I imagine that a skilled warrior with a long sword would do just fine. The longsword like the sword and shield could probably both fight pretty well in compact formations, though we've never had the large numbers of people required to do it.

[Grant Hall]

Thanks for the response, however something has come to my mind, even though this hilt seems to be longer it does not necessarily imply a longer blade, so another question would be if the blade was only 60 to 80cm would the warrior then lose any apparent advantage that a Longsword would hae over a Sword and Shield combo?

Cheers!

[Benjamin Smith]

I'm no expert on Viking swords, but I would be very surprised if the blade of this weapon was less than 70 cm. My understanding is that most Viking blades are between 70 and 90 cm. Two hand weapons of a particular culture tend to be longer than single hand weapons of the same culture, and tend to function better at greater lengths, so I would be inclined to think that the blade on the original was at least 80 cm long, and I could easily believe it could have been longer. Many early war swords had 90+ cm blades without using substantially different technology from the late Viking era.

In a practical sense, yes, I think that a longer blade would have been advantageous to the fellow who owned this weapon.