Talk:Viking sword

Classical knightly sword

I linked classical knightly sword to a disambig (Great sword). Normally this is bad style, but pretty much all the articles listed in that disambig could be considered "classical knightly swords" so this is my way of linking to all of them at once. --DFRussia 04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

After some browsing, I decided that the Arming sword is the proper link for "classical knightly sword" since in its description it is depicted as such, and quotes the Viking sword as its parent --DFRussia 04:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not primary weapon

This article says "primary weapon of the Vikings", despite swords being relatively rare. 173.176.60.119 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just adding to what the above person mentioned: "Swords were prestige items and could only have been afforded by the elite" (Somerville, 170) Citation: McDonald, R. Andrew, and Angus A. Somerville. The Viking age: a reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.185.183 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Viking Age Sword

Shouldn't the title of this article it be 'Viking Age Sword'? Radj397 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Spatha

"The Viking sword is a form of spatha"

Didn't the Viking Age came some time after the fall of Rome! It is a development of the spatha not a form of it. Radj397 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Overdoing "Citation Needed" Just a Bit?

Seriously, did someone with a grudge go through this article or something? Is "citation needed" really required after almost every line? Especially egregious is the use of the "citation needed" tag after the sentence describing how fullers make the swords lighter without sacrificing the strength of the blade. That is the exact definition and purpose of a fuller; there is absolutely no need for a CN tag. That would be like placing a "citation needed" after a line saying "wings allow bird to fly." It's not original research, it's a simple fact. I am removing the over-used, conspicuously aggressive tags.

RyokoMocha (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There are alot of highly opinionated claims on this page. IE, "no sword could match an Ulfberht." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.156.109 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Put the "citation needed" tags back. This article is so full of errors, made-up misinformation, and out-dated information it isn't even funny. The author does not even provide a citation within the article which states where he came up with the idea that so-called "viking swords" were the most preferred weapon of the vikings. Also fails to prove that they were even common weapons. The "spatha" comment is flat-out WRONG. I am not sure if this person's research consists of watching bad National Geographic specials on the era or what, but this article is far from factual, much less academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.85.43 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ulfberht section

Just added a 'synthesis' tag to the Ulfberht section - it sounds like a book report on the NOVA TV special on the topic. Haven't found citations to this show, which would be good. Also the section could use some cleaning up - stuff like 'No other medieval sword could match up to an Ulfberht' needs to shown with a citation. Kind of sounds a little rah-rah to me, but they're interesting swords, and with a little cleanup the article could be more scholarly. Vortmonkey (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: fullers

I would just like to mention that the majority of swords of this type had fullers forged in, not ground out. With fullers forged *into* a blade, the purpose of the fuller is not to lighten the blade, but to strengthen it, and also broaden it. No lightening occurs as no material is removed. That said, the modern method of fullering (except for those bladesmiths who forge all the way) is to grind out the fuller length, which does indeed lighten the blade *and* strengthen it (just so you know I'm not disputing the claim entirely). 41.174.40.222 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, that is correct. Steel was a rare commodity in the ancient world, so the smith would try to waste as little as possible. You start with steel that is nearly the desired weight, and then mold it into shape with various hammers, swages and fullers. The fullers do not typically widen the blade, because the fullers (tools) are usually only a few inches long, but they do displace material, increasing the thickness of the blade surrounding the grooves, thereby increasing its strength (resistance to bending.) Hammers can be used after fullering to widen the blade, or swages used to shape the ridges around the fullers. (I'm working on expanding the fuller article right now.) Due to steel's availability and low-cost today, it is not uncommon for modern fullers to be ground into the blade, stamped by a machine, or cut with a milling machine. Zaereth (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That still lightens the blade relative to the overall size, i.e. a blade of the same dimensions wihtout fullers would weigh more. That's how I always supposed it was meant; it wasn't "the blade" until it was done being made, so the only way you would "lighten a blade" the way you mean it is to take an existing sword without fullers, and grind themout, ending up with a sword of the same dimensions but less weight. Generally the swordsmith plans on making fullers from the start, so if he grinds them out then the blade is actually OVERWEIGHT before he puts the fullers into it. It's like saying a skelotonized knife handle is "lightened" by the open areas; that doesn't imply that someone took a solid handled knife and removed a bunch of material to make a lighter knife, it means that it is significantly lighter than it would be if it hadn't been built that way.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Should this article be expanded, or a new one created?

I'm leaning toward expanding this article. I have enough sources, but the problem is that, when referring to Viking swords, this actually covers an entire variety of swords, and not just one style. The particular swords photographed in this article are known in the archeological world as "Merovingian" or "Carolingian" pattern-welded blades. (More commonly the former.) For a period of about a thousand years, this particular style of sword was very common in northern Europe --not just in Scandinavia, but as far as France to Hungary and Britian to Germany. This style mysteriously disappeared after about 1000 years of popularity, the reasons for which are only speculation. (Perhaps better steel or forging techniques developed, or perhaps the smiths were suddenly killed by war, famine or disease.)

It is likely that the swords were created in one location, by one particular family or clan, whom they managed to keep their forging methods a secret. (The forging methods were extremely complicated, and rival the Japanese swords in their complexity.) The manufactuers of the Merovingian blades are unknown, but there are too many similartities in them to be constructed by different bladesmithing schools. The term "Merovingian" is often used by scholars because, not only were many swords found in France, but the appearance and disappearance coincides with the rise and fall of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties. Still it is unknown whether the swords originated in France, Scandinavia, or somewhere else. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. The whole article should be deleted. There is a mostly correct article about the Ulfberht sword anyway. As to the origin, Western European crucible steel (possibly Frankish).92.252.44.221 (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Over-reliance on NOVA's "Secrets of the Viking Sword"

This article seems to rely too heavily on NOVA's "documentary" about the Viking sword.
I would argue that the film is not a Reliable Source. Not that I have much respect for most documentaries, in general. They are just concerned with viewing figures, and don't really care about accuracy.

Furthermore, many of the claims made by "Secrets of the Viking Sword", are not particularly based on good evidence or reason:

• The notion that other period steels were so utterly inferior to the steel in Ulfberht blades.
• The notion that the steel in Ulfberht blades is comparable to modern steels.
• The notion that the Vikings made the Ulfberht blades, rather than them being Frankish in origin and exported to the Vikings (among others), just like pretty much all sword blades of the Viking Age and Migration Age.
• The notion that Vikings would use latin letters that early.
• The notion that the cross necessarily signified Christianity (the cross, while being the main and universal symbol of Christianity today, was not really a major one at the time. See Christian symbolism ...and crosses have been used by all other religions and cultures, including the Franks and the Norse)
• The conclusion of which ones were the real ones, and which are fake ...despite the fact that there are studies that contradict the conclusion, showing that the supposed fakes pre-date the supposed real ones

...and some more. Like how the Ulfberht letters were put in, in a clearly inaccurate manner.

The Documentary seems to take certain claims made by Alan Williams, which are debatable, at best and taking what he says (and interpreting some details that he may not have, into it) and presenting this speculations as fact, even where Williams only claims possibilities (and the average viewer of a documentary tends to take even what is presented as speculation, as gospel truth)

Also: Please note that while many experts on the subject were consulted early on, most quickly backed out:
"/.../I resigned in the end when they suggested conditions that were nowhere near what I considered appropriate."

"The Ulfberth sword replica was custom made by Richard Furrer who was equally frustrated with the production company."

"So I was quite happy, that I resigned, despite all the time and work I had invested. Apparently, this is a low-budget production that tried to take advantage of enthusiasts. We yet have to see a show on Viking combat that is up to latest research and meets scientific standards.
This is not the one."

"In addition to apparently not having had the budget required, the problem with this documentary was that from the start it was designed to center around an alleged super weapon. They used a Gladius article by Alan Williams as their starting point. Williams' metallurgical examinations are alright, my friend Ingo told me. Ingo is an archeologist, smith and swordsman himself. He said that, while the data is okay, the conclusions are debatable at best. This opinion was shared by other experts like Jorrit Köchel, swordsmith Steffan Roth and Viking sword expert Dr Alfred Geibig, who I consulted after I had been approached by the film company.
But their opinions mattered little to the film producers." - Roland Warzecha

"I was mostly uninvolved. I was contacted by the production company on several occasions. I was asked to review video footage of Viking fighting moves. I expressed my opinions and my reservations, but based on the footage I saw when the documentary was aired, my advice was ignored. I was extremely surprised to see my name in the credits." - William R. Short (This and the Roland Warzecha quotes being from this forum thread ...which contains many criticisms of the documentary and its conclusions)

"I was a little bit involved in the preparations for the of this program in its earlier stages." - Peter Johnsson

"We (The Chicago Swordplay Guild) and Roland Warzecha of Hammaborg were both involved with this project in the early stages to do the weapon testing. Unfortunately, the production time was during WMAW, the "tests" they wanted us to perform very nebulous and the budget to get realistic Viking armour and shields to try the weapon against so minimal that we had to decline to do the actual cutting." - Greg Mele (this and the Peter Johnsson quote being from this forum thread ...which contains many criticisms of the documentary and its conclusions)

While Richard Furrer was in the documentary, and has some credentials (and his bits were not as bad as the rest), even he wasn't too pleased with it ...and while John Clements is in it, he is a self-proclaimed "expert", and is generally considered to be highly unscholarly. Not that there were any problems with his bits, though. Not in this case (in fact I liked his performance, though it feels annoying that katanas have to be mentioned, in any mention of swords). I'm just pointing out that he isn't really a Reliable Source (not that people who make documentaries care about their sources being reliable...).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The documentary makes a lot of claims, but it doesn't exactly cite its sources ...and the claims cannot really be verified by primary sources. Well there are some material by Alan Williams, as mentioned above, but those speak more of possibilities, than any statement of fact, and they are statements made by only one person. Statements that are contested. Hence the documentary is not a Reliable Source.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The material by Williams has the advantage of being by a significant expert in Archaeometallurgy and being published in reputable places. It would easily qualify as reputably sourced under WP guidelines. If these claims are to be made in the article, rebuilding it around Williams work, stating it as a theory rather than a fact, would be the way to go. 80.176.147.107 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Williams is a renowned expert in the field, but also that the use of one Nova special does not an article make. As a reference for various points, perhaps, but not to the extent that its used here. Better would be Williams' books on the subject. Perhaps add to that the works of people like Tylecote and Gilmore, Julia Turn, Cyril Smith, Buchwald, etc., then we'd have the makings of an article. We have to be careful, however, with literary journalism like Nova, because they toss in a lot of manufactured hype and emotion. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would you use a television program as your source, ever, when there is readily available expert literature on your topic? If you are lucky, your television program is going to agree with the literature because its makers bothered to consult the literature. There isn't going to be anything of value beyond what they took from the literature. People are "renowned experts" because they publish such literature, so, let's consult their works rather than random interviews they gave on television. It's simply not going to add anything relevant. --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow this part

"Although popularly called "Viking sword", this type of sword was produced in the Frankish Empire during the Carolingian era. The association of the name "Viking" with these swords is due to the disappearance of grave goods in Christian Francia in the 8th century, due to which the bulk of sword blades of Frankish manufacture of this period were found in pagan burials of Viking Age Scandinavia, imported by trade, ransom payment or looting, while continental European finds are mostly limited to stray finds in riverbeds." So after pondering over this for a few minutes I tentatively conclude it's saying that these swords were actually built in the Frankish Empire, but around that time they stopped(?) placing grace goods in graves, so little evidence of this is seen, whereas they also sold/transferred lots of these swords to Vikings, who presumably still placed grave goods, which has created a mis-perception of these swords as "Viking swords"? Is that about right? At first "the disappearance of grave goods" suggests to the reader that someone robbed a bunch of graves or something. Maybe I'm just dense, but I had trouble deciding what was being said here, although it seems clearer now after I've read it several times over.

Idumea47b (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

For a period of about 1000 years, this particular style of sword was the dominant style used in nearly all of northern Europe. They are often called Viking swords, mostly because their popularity coincides to some degree with the Viking age. They are also called Merovingian swords or Carolingian swords, not because they were made in France, but because their popularity exactly coincided with the rise of the Merovingian dynasty and declined at the fall of the Carolingian dynasty, almost exactly. Thus, these names are more of a convenience for historians, tying the swords to a particular time period rather than a location, although this has caused much confusion amongst non-archaeologists. Another common name is Migration period sword.

No one really knows who made them. During this time, Sweden was a large producer of iron, exporting it across Europe. So was Austria. The swords may have been produced in Sweden, Austria, France, or anywhere else for that matter, or they may have been copied by blacksmiths from around the continent.

Some theorize that they were all made by the same peoples, though. This is due to the fact that the art of it tends to be too similar between locations. Art varies between every group and individual, and the similarities suggest that one group of artists was involved rather than a spreading technology. (Keep in mind that sword-making technology was usually a highly guarded secret.) They were sold and traded all over northern Europe. Their real technological advancement was that they were the only pattern-welded blades from Europe; a new advancement that the Asians had independently developed 1000 years prior. For example, here is a passage from a letter from King Thrasamond of the Vandals, to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, giving thanks for a gift of such swords (note the rather accurate descriptions of the pattern welding):

Through your brotherly affection swords that will cut even through armor have been forwarded to us, together with pitch-black drums and foreign pageboys of noble birth and fair complexion. These swords are richer for their iron than for the value of the gold [which embellishes them]: for there flashes out from them such a polished brilliance that they reflect with the utmost fidelity the faces of those who look at them. Their sides approach the edges with such uniformity that you would think that they were not fashioned by files, but cast from fiery furnaces; their centers, hollowed out with beautiful grooves, seem to undulate with worm-like markings; for shadows of such variety you would think the metal was interwoven rather than shining [superficially] with different colors. The metal your whetstone so carefully shapes, this your splendid dust (granted to your country by the bounty of nature) so thoroughly polishes that it makes the gleam of the iron a very mirror of men. A particular opinion has arisen regarding them: that they are swords made by Vulcan - he who apparently perfected the art of the smith with such elegance that whatever was fashioned by his hand was thought to be, not the work of mortals, but divine. Accordingly, in returning to you our kindest regards through your so-and-so ambassador, we declare that we have received your weapons with pleasure, which they have conveyed to us as earnests of a good peace. In consideration of your munificence we are sending you a gift in return; may it be as acceptable to you as yours was pleasing to us. May these auspicious gifts vouchsafe us friendship, so that in making these heartfelt interchanges between us we may unite our nations and in reciprocal concern bind ourselves together for our mutual advantage.

The pattern welding was a huge leap in advancement, which likely spawned their popularity. No one knows why they suddenly dropped out of use. Perhaps the makers were killed by war, famine or disease, or maybe better methods of steel making came along. As for the grave robbing, I don't really know where that comes from. The Vikings were known to perform cremation rather than burial, often on a boat that was pushed out to sea. It may have been more prominent in Norse or Swedish deaths, however, I don't know. (Burial was more of a southern European/Christian tradition.) The sentence does indeed contain two different meanings, depending on how you look at it, so someone may need to go back to the source to confirm what it is really supposed to say. Zaereth (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)