11.4 The Transition to All-Steel Swords
11.4.1 Viking Swords
|What are Viking Swords?|
|The first thing to note is that there
is no such thing as a "Viking sword". In fact, I'm strongly tempted
to proclaim that there is also no such thing as a Viking. There is, however, a
kind of consensus that people who lived in Scandinavia between 800 - 1050,
roughly in areas now known as Denmark, Sveden and Norway, are called
Vikings. The origin of that name is not clear. One
interpretation is that the Old Norse word "vikingr" signifies
"one who came from the "vik"=fjord creek, inlet, small
bay". Since the guys who came from there typically murdered, plundered,
raped and took slaves, the word "Viking" became a synonym for
"freebooter, sea-rover, pirate". But that is far from certain, and
the meaning of "Viking" is much debated among present-day scholars.
Whatever and whoever the Vikings were, they were given far more to wielding a sword than a pen. They certainly had swords, used them, and quite a few were buried with them. That's why we do have swords that once belonged to a Viking, and you can call such a sword a "Viking's sword", of course. However, the term "Viking sword" denotes something quite different;spelling details do count here. It is perceived as addressing a particular kind of sword, a special class, related to and made by Vikings. While we do have a lot of Viking's swords, they are not necessarily Viking swords. Nice little (s)word play here. Indeed, historians held and hold the view that most swords of the Viking era were produced in a region along the Southern part of the river Rhine in the heart of the Fankish / Ottonian / German empire, and that the Vikings, like everybody else, purchased or stole these swords.
We do not know much about Viking's swords from the Vikings themselves. They didn't write much since most of them were illiterate. In this they weren't much different from everybody else at this time. The big difference is that before about 1000 AD they weren't Christians and thus did no have abbeys and monasteries, full of monks and such that could and would write a lot.
A Viking intellectual who felt inclined to write something typically restricted himself to one or two sentences expressed in runes. Runes are a rather primitive script, more or less just a vague remembrance of the glory of Latin writings. All the tall tales from Northern Europe relating to Vikings are from later times.
| In contrast, we know quite a bit
about the Frankish
empire (and its successors) from extensive contemporary writings that
survived until today. That is not to say that these writings are fully
reliable. There might be quite a bit of mythology involved, take the
saga as example. Not to mention that the religious people forged documents
as a matter of course 2). With
careful interpretation we do get first-hand information, though. What we do not
have are many Frankish swords.
Nevertheless, in serious history the general view emerged that superior iron and steel weapons, in particular swords, were a monopoly of the Frankish empire, exported all over Europe and parts of Asia.
|Swords made elsewhere could not measure up to the
Frankish swords. That is particularly true for the famed "+VLFBERH+T"
This view has been (partially) contested more recently; I'll get to that. Meanwhile I'll give you two special modules about the Vikings and Franks plus more background to Viking's swords.
|As ever so often, the badies are better remembered than the goodies. As times passes on, they might even get a bit glorified, witness "pirates" in general and Attila the Hun in particular. To quote the present (2014) Queen of Denmark, Margrethe II: "Up to this very day, the interest in the fascinating and glamourous Vikings has never abated". Well - yes. Just like dinosaurs. You like 'em much better as soon as they are definitely extinct.|
|The Vikings are often portrayed as ruthless
robbers and conquerors, only bend on murder, rape, robbery and destruction.
Alternatively, they are described as mostly peaceful and innovative farmers and
traders, given to long and profitable business travels. Just their young ones
got muddled up in some deplorable excesses now an then; sowing some wild oats
and so on. The truth is probably not quite in the middle in this case. The more
advanced and literate contemporary cultures have nothing good whatsoever to say
about them. Of course those writers were biased. You tend to overlook the
amiable properties of the guys who burnt down your town, raped your women, and
took all able bodied and not yet killed people away as slaves.
While it is true that Vikings were also large-scale traders, one of their most profitable trade goods were slaves. Slaves did no leave behind much written material for obvious reasons but we can be fairly sure that they weren't all that fascinated by their glamorous tormentors who didn't smell so good - imagine 80 men spending 2 weeks in a small boat without a rest room 1). Or, maybe, it's better you don't.
The map below gives an idea about Viking home lands and settlements, their way around Europe along rivers and sea shores, and their dash across the open sea to Iceland, Greenland and America. The special module gives some more details about the Vikings.
|Here we are not so much interested in the Viking culture, to use that word loosely, but in their swords. Below are pictures of typical "Viking swords":|
|There is no shortage of Viking's swords and pictures thereof. It is a safe bet that any (historically inclined) museum in Northern Europe has some Viking's swords. Here are examples from the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen:|
|A lot more pictures can be found in the the following links:|
|The blade of typical Viking swords
was broad, double edged with both edges being sharp, and tapered in both ways:
These swords were optimized weapons despite their fancy hilts. "Many modern replica blades are not made with any distal taper, resulting in a blade that, when wielded, will feel unresponsive and heavy" asserts Wikipedia, and I tend to believe that. Details of the sword geometry do count.
Interestingly, museums in locations far outside the Viking sphere of influence also have "Viking swords". Here is an example.Why is that? Because, as mentioned before, there is no such thing as Viking swords but just Viking era swords or Viking's swords. Vikings simply used the same kind of sword as everybody else in Northern Europe (and beyond), and they did not invent it. While Vikings smelted iron and Viking smiths made lots of iron things including quite likely swords, only Frankish smiths made the top-of-the-line swords.
All the fancy swords possessed by Viking chieftains are likely of Frankish origin. The not so fancy ones that were made locally emulated the Frankish type. That is not only true for swords but for many things: The Vikings liked the Frankish stuff and copied it to a large extent (if they didn't rob it).
|How do I know this? Do I have any proofs for
these claims as far as they concern swords?
The answer is: No, I do not have direct and irrefutable proof for the sword bit. For the rest, yes, it is easy to prove - but we are not interested in copied jewelry, for example.
I could provide references to any number of learned papers that, based on circumstantial evidence, come to the conclusion that Viking's swords were of Frankish origin - but nobody so far could provide straight-forward simple facts for that. Unfortunately for us, the Franks or Carolingians ceased to deposit grave goods at the beginning of the eighth century west of the Rhine, and at the end of that century everywhere. That means we have almost no finds from the core region where the superior swords were supposedly made after 800. We have indirect evidence, however, and in what follows I will give you now some ideas about that. More details can be found in the module about the Frankish Empire.
|As a first piece of minor evidence, look at the hilts shown in the "Stuttgarter psalter"" from 825 AD. The people in these pictures are definitely not Vikings. Now look at their swords:|
|Those hilts would be addressed as "Viking", and the general shape of the blades (look at the large picture) also fits the picture.|
|Among the many swords exhibited in Rothenburg / Germany are a few that look a lot like the ones shown in the Psalter. They are labelled "Viking swords" but who knows where they came from - the Vikings never made it to Rothenburg in South Germany3). Here is one:|
|More evidence for the Frankish origin of Viking's swords can be found here.|
|The message is: beware of
"Viking sword" labels. Serious literature typically does not discuss Viking swords but Viking era swords, i.e. swords made and used in Europe
between about 800 - 1050. They are classified by their hilts and the general
shape of their blades but not by the
metallurgy or the forging technology of the blade.
So far I have only looked at the hilts of Viking's swords. We do like good-looking hilts on interesting blades, of course, just as we like good-looking frames around interesting pictures. We do not really care for hilts, however, we care for the blades to the extent that they tell us something about the progress of iron and steel technology. The big question thus is:
|Viking Sword Classification|
|Before I tackle this issue, I need to
address the issue of sword classifying
systems. A lot of swords aficionados are very keen on classification
systems and while there are good reasons for that, these systems are not really
of much interest to us here.
We have already encountered the system of Behmer in the context of migration period swords, and found it very useful for putting hilts into an approximate temporal and spatial context (when and where).
|Behmer's system covers swords from about 300 -
800. For the Viking era and early middle age, you turn to the systems of:
|Geibig gives the relation between blade and
pommel types, all kinds of numbers for properties, and a lot more. So if you
find some old sword from the time horizon in question, you can compare it to
Geibig's systematic and identify blade and pommel type. That will tell you a
lot about your sword: At what approximate time was it used in which general
region? Is it a run-of-the mill sword, with many closely related brethren in
museums and collections, or a rare breed?
What you do not learn is anything about its metallurgy and how it was made. But that is what we are interested in and that is the reason why I don't go deeper into the various systems.
|Now let's turn to the actual topic - in the next sub-chapter.|
|1)||Ahmad ibn Fadlan was a
10th-century Arab traveler who made it to the king of the Wolga Bulgars and
thus also Wolga Vikings. He writes:
"They are the filthiest of all Allahs creatures: they do not purify themselves after excreting or urinating or wash themselves when in a state of ritual impurity after coitus and do not even wash their hands after food".
|2)||"Taken as a whole, medieval monks and clerics were probably the most prolific forgers of all time. For centuries they controlled access to official documents, placing them in a perfect position to alter or forge those documents, should they so desire. And judging by the volume of their output, they evidently did so desire. What's more, their superiors could be counted on to overlook, or even approve, any textual inventions that benefitted the Church" says the "museum of hoaxes" and every scientist involved in (church) history agrees.|
|3)||Alfred Geibig meanwhile told me that this sword comes from the "Baumann collection". It goes back to the late 10th century and originated most likely in the Kazan-Wolga region (Russia). It is not quite as old as the Stuttgart psalter but dates to 900+.|
© H. Föll (Iron, Steel and Swords script)