Reproduction transitional Viking sword. HRC180.
Ethiopian Crusader style sword with fuller;
37.75 inches overall length. HRC26.
My next task was to select the proper backing for the mail. I decided on some gambeson padding material. This is modern material, and therefore not exactly accurate, but it is close enough to give a good comparison.
Now, let me say a few words about your author. At the time of the cutting, I was two months short of 70. I have been playing with swords, and cutting with them, for well over 50 years. Even now, I can still cut pretty well. Some of you whippersnappers can cut better than I can. But frankly, none of us can hold a candle to what a 25-year-old Viking warrior could do. He spent most of his life in hard physical labor—working a farm, fishing, chopping wood, and learning to fight. So keep this in mind when you read the results of the test cuts. Also remember that I am cutting a shoulder roast on a stump. From this you may extrapolate what would happen in a real fight, though my results are not a one-to-one correlation for a historical fight.
Having all my gear ready, I journeyed forth to do battle with the vicious shoulder roast of infamous renown. The first cut was made with the replica sword. I struck with the top five-six inches of the blade. The sword cut through the mail, and deeply dented the padding. When the padding was lifted up, the flesh was split for a distance of about three inches and about one-half inch deep. The next blow was with the old sword. I tried to maintain the same force in both blows. This cut was somewhat more effective. Again the mail was cut, the padding dented, but this time the cut in the flesh was somewhat longer and deeper, about 4 inches long and three-quarters of an inch deep. I then made a control cut with each sword. This time I struck on the optimal striking point of each sword. Both were just about what I had expected. The mail was cut, the padding dented, and the flesh sustained a longer cut on each, but with slightly less depth. The cuts were about 4 inches in length, with a depth of about one quarter inch.
It was now time to try a sword with a much more narrow point. For cutting with the tip, I used a well loved Windlass blade that I have been doing demos with for several years. This was as I had thought also. The sword did cut a few links of mail, did dent the padding, but the actual split in the meat was very small, and not very deep. It did appear that there would have been some "bruising" had this been live flesh, but the cutting was not as effective as the other two swords.
Next was the penetration tests of all three swords.
This test is a little more difficult to achieve. I did not have the means to keep the roast at a proper height so that I could strike it. I tried to enlist some help from some friends, and have them hold it up for me. Strangely enough, I picked the wrong day for the tests, as they all had things to do. Oh well, the path to truth is often difficult and filled with thorns and wayward friends.
I solved the problem by simply stabbing the roast as it lay innocently on the stump. After all, this was a comparison test, and not intended to strictly mimic combat. And, anyway, I'm sure plenty of guys got stuck while lying on the ground in real combat, too.
I used my old sharp-pointed testing sword for the first blow. It split the links, punched through the padding and, not meeting any bone, penetrated the whole roast and stuck into the stump. The replica sword cut the mail and padding as well, and cut deep into the roast, but did not fully penetrate. I would estimate that the blade entered into a depth of about 4 inches. The old sword with the well rounded point was next. Frankly, I took a break. After all, killing a pork roast is not as easy as it was when I was a young man of 65. So, after manfully chugalugging a glass of ice tea, with renewed vigor I attacked once again. This time, despite being refreshed, the sword did not hit square on the mail, and skated off to the side. Alas, the shoulder roast regarded my efforts with cool disdain, again. The next time my aim was accurate, and I cut the mail, the padding, and into the roast. But not as deeply as my previous attempts. The wound was slightly wider, since the blade was wider, but the depth was only about three inches.
In summary, the series of tests that I conducted were many and varied. I used up so many pork shoulders that I'm sure I caused a spike in pork futures. I also tore up a lot of mail in the process. What I found was highly interesting, and wasn't quite what I'd expected.
The cutting done with the top few inches of the sword was the most impressive. It sheared through the mail with ease when the blow was solid. The cut with the optimal striking point was only marginally more effective. On many cuts I couldn't tell the difference. It was at once obvious that fighting at a slightly longer range did not diminish the severity of the blow enough to negate the advantage of distance.
Thrusting with the rounded point was also an eye-opener. On flesh, it was just as penetrating as a sharp narrow point. The fact that the rounded point was sharpened all along the curve easily explains this. In short, a rounded point is not a detriment at all to the cutting sword. It allows greater reach, while not reducing the usability of the point at all.
As for mail: original mail has such incredible variety of ring and diameter sizes that it simply is not possible to make a categorical statement. What I found with my mail was pretty much the same result as on flesh: the rounded point cut mail about as well as a blow with the optimal striking point. It was also able to penetrate mail, but swords with very narrow sharp points penetrated better.
One thing this rounded point will do, is allow the sword to be used as if it were a longer blade.
But the sword was not the only weapon available to the Vikings and their foes. The next chapter will explore in more depth what the swordsman had to face.
Suggestions for further reading from the editors:
Davidson, H.R Ellis, Scandinavian Mythology. The Hamlyn Publishing Group, Limited, Middlesex, 1969.
Davidson, H.R. Ellis, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Archeology and Literature. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1962, 1994.
Hollander, Lee M., translator, The Sagas of Kormak and The Sworn Brothers. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1949.
Johnston, George, translator, The Saga of Gisli the Outlaw. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1963.
Johnston, George, translator, Thrad of Gotu: Two Icelandic Sagas from the Flat Island Book. The Porcupine's Quill, Inc., Ontario, 1994.
Jones, Gwyn, translator, Eirik the Red and Other Icelandic Sagas. Oxford University Press, New York, 1961.
Palsson, Hermann and Paul Edwards, translators, Egil's Saga. Penguin Books, New York, 1976.
Peirce, Ian G., Swords of the Viking Age. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2002.
[1] Cross-sectional —Whit Williams
6: The Fighting Milieu in the Viking and Early Middle Ages
Although this book is mainly about swords, it is impossible to write about swords without dealing with the other weapons in use at the time. Just as you have to look at the armor that was used, you also have to look at the weapons the sword would be facing. Battles, duels, and chance encounters were not based on everyone being equally armed and armored; rather it was what each individual preferred, or just happened to have with him. Rarely did anyone have only one weapon. When working in the fields or on the farm a man might have only an axe with him, but when he felt that there was the possibility of trouble, or when going into battle, he made sure he was well armed. We are talking life, death and honor. You carried the best you could afford and the things with which you were the most comfortable and familiar.
PRECONCEPTIONS
To discuss and understand the use of the sword and combat in the Viking period (from circa 793 AD to 1066 AD), three things must be abandoned. One is all thoughts of modern fencing. Another is all forms of swordplay as depicted in movies and books, and the third is the modern concept of "fair play."
Modern fencing is a sport that was originally developed to teach the use of the rapier and small sword. Although schools of fence (from "offence" and "defense") had been around since at least the 1300
s, these had dealt with many types of weapons and many combinations of weapons. In the early 16th century with the introduction throughout Europe of the rapier, greater and greater emphasis was being placed on dueling between gentlemen, the rapier being just about useless for war. As dueling continued to gain in popularity it became quite necessary for gentlemen to learn to use the rapier and, later on, the small sword. Fencing was not only a skill for self-preservation, but became a social requirement, as much as the ability to dance. With the advent of the gun beginning to replace the sword in the 18th century, skill with a sword was no longer necessary, but it remains to the present day as a sport.
Two variations of the rapier developed: the foil and the epee. Both of these "weapons" are extremely light in weight and have nothing to do with the Viking or medieval sword. The third aspect of fencing is the saber. Another weapon that is extremely light, and is based on saber play as if you were on a horse! In other words, leg cuts are not allowed. Fencing is a sport, with its origins in dueling with two types of swords. But it is a sport and has nothing to do with fighting.
Movies, and most of the books where swordplay is an important part, have obviously been written from the standpoint that all swordplay is ultimately fencing. This gives us such wonderfully wacky scenes as a twelfth-century Robin Hood fighting up and down stairs with the Sheriff of Nottingham and using all of the approved moves of the nineteeth-century fencing saber. Or men armed with sword and shield fighting with right foot forward, shield in the left hand, and doing all of their parrying with the sword blade. About the only thing I have seen that is sillier is long, thin rapiers being used as if they were cutting swords!
Abandoning all thoughts of fair play when it comes to fighting with swords is one thing that is sure to cause a stir. All of the knightly virtues, all of the tales of chivalry are bound up in the concept of fair play. If there is one national characteristic that Americans have, it is the concept of fair play and pulling for the underdog. This is true in our movies, books, sporting events, and all of our fables. It just isn't true in real life. If it were true, then one heroic cop would call out the bank robber and the two would meet in the street in the classic shootout. (Of course the cop would give the bad guy a chance to go for his gun first.) But that isn't what happens. Instead they call out the SWAT team, and ten to twelve heavily armed officers try to capture the felon, or if necessary kill him, with as little a risk to themselves as possible. Is this fair? Certainly not, but it does get the job done.
I bring up the "fairness" issue so that you will not be shocked as you read many of the incidents from various sagas. Sometimes the good guys outnumber the bad guys, and sometimes it's vice versa.
It is also important, gentle reader, that you understand that this was not a sport, nor a game, but a deadly serious affair, in which people died. It was as real then as a murder is today.
For instance, there was a fight in Njal's Saga involving an ambush. Sigmund and Skjold set out to kill Thord when he was on his way from the Allthing (a popular time for ambushes, either going to or from that meeting). Sigmund rode up to him and said, "Get ready, for it's now time for you to die." "Certainly not," said Thord. "Come and fight in single combat." "Certainly not," said Sigmund. "We shall make full use of our advantage in numbers." They attacked, and Thord managed to shatter both their spears. They fought on and Skjold hacked off Thord's arm. Thord still continued to fight for a short time until Sigmund ran him through and he fell dead. (Such a nice group of people.)
It is not possible to say for certain how the weapons were used in the past. It will always be a matter of speculation until such time as someone invents a time machine. Then we can go back and watch, but until then we have to rely on our ability to study, interpret and experiment. Given this, I think it is possible to come up with some pretty good ideas of the actual use of the sword and axe during this period.
As mentioned before, some of the richest written sources for studying the use of weapons are the Viking sagas. Some of them are believed to be fictional romances designed to entertain, some are believed to be relatively accurate accounts of real people. One thing that is absent from most of them is the hyperbole of many of the medieval romances. Instead the sagas are told in a laconic, matter-of-fact style. Sometimes detail is lacking, but this is understandable. The stories were being told to people who were familiar with what was involved, and did not need the detail.
Let me clarify this. If a group of boxers and boxing enthusiasts are talking about a fight, they will not go into details. "Thompson was using his left really well, kept sticking it in Hammond's face and really stinging him. But in the ninth Hammond caught him with an uppercut to the chest that bounced him off the ropes and back into an overhand right that put him away. But hell, he was out when he hit the ropes."
What they do not give is the detail of the blows. One is dancing and throwing left jabs on a steady basis. They do not mention that the uppercut consisted of slipping the feet into position, dropping the shoulder, and driving in and up with both hip and shoulder. In short, these people already know how it's done.
For instance, in Njal's Saga, a number of weapons are mentioned when Skarp-Hedin and his two brothers set out to avenge themselves on the writers of some lampooning verses made and sung in public, Sigmund and Skjold (the ambushers of Thord). But specifics about the weapons are left out, and while this fight is fairly detailed, even the killing blow placement is left out. Skarp-Hedin told Sigmund to gather up his weapons and waited while Sigmund armed himself. Skjold turned to face Grim and Helgi. Grim sliced off Skjold's foot at the ankle and then Helgi killed Skjold with a sword thrust. Skarp-Hedin and Sigmund fought one-on-one. Sigmund was wearing a helmet and shield, with a sword in his belt and a spear in his hand. He thrust at Skarp-Hedin with the spear. Skarp-Hedin blocked the blow with his shield then severed the spear shaft with his axe and cut directly at Sigmund. The blow struck Sigmund's shield and split it down past the handle. Sigmund drew his sword and hacked at Skarp-Hedin. The sword pierced the shield and stuck there. Skarp-Hedin twisted the shield sharply so that Sigmund let go of the sword. Skarp-Hedin struck him again; this time the axe caught Sigmund on the shoulder and cut into the shoulder blade. Skarp-Hedin jerked the axe toward himself and Sigmund fell forward to both knees, but he jumped to his feet again. Skarp-Hedin hacked once at his helmet and killed him with the next blow.
But before I analyze the use of these offensive weapons, let's take a look at the armor and defenses that were generally available at this time.
MAIL
The most important and prevalent body protection was mail. Mail was very expensive. It is very difficult to translate modern dollars into Viking or medieval purchasing power, but let us say that only the very wealthy could afford it: chieftains, kings, jarls, or very successful pirates. As time passed, mail became more and more available, but it was well into the Middle Ages before mail became common for the average soldier.
Drawing of international pattern of mail.
Mail is composed of wire formed into circles, and then linked together. The most common pattern, known as the "international pattern," is used all over the world. This pattern consists of one link being joined to four others, two above and two below. This pattern lies flat and is very flexible. Each individual link is flattened on one end with a hole punched in the end. Once linked, they are then riveted together. This is known as riveted mail. Some mail, which was rare in Europe, did not have the ends riveted, but was merely butted together. Curiously enough, this is known as "butted" mail. In slightly later periods the mail was composed of a ring stamped out of sheet metal, and then joined with a riveted ring. This was still known as riveted mail.
Butted mail. Inset shows detail.HRC356.
Riveted mail. HRC355.
Shirt length varied a great deal. Some were thigh length with long sleeves, called a hauberk, others were waist length, with long or short sleeves, called a habergeon in the Middle Ages, or a byrnie by the Vikings. Later, du
ring the early medieval period, the legs were also protected with pants of mail or flat sections of mail that were tied around the legs.
Antique mail shirt. HRC356.
One big drawback to mail is that it is almost too flexible! If you were wearing a fairly heavy shirt and bent over, then your shirt and all its weight dropped out in front of you. This is really only annoying, but was solved by simply running leather strips through the rings and tying them so that the mail fit the body more closely, and did not shift.
The weight of the shirt obviously varied depending on the size of the rings and how tightly woven they were. There are some full shirts that weighed only about 20–25 pounds, and some that will go as high as 50. There is a shirt in the museum in Gotland, in excavated condition, that had to weigh close to 60 pounds when new. It has very thick rings, and is very close woven.
The amount of protection also depended on the size of the rings. If I had to guess at an average, I would say that the most common size was a ring thickness close to 16 gauge, and a ring diameter of about one quarter of an inch. But remember, this is only an average, and refers mainly to mail of European origin. I have a pair of mail pants with rings much smaller, of about one eighth of an inch. (And each one is fully riveted. A most remarkable pair of pants. They wear like iron also.)
Antique riveted mail pants, circa 17th–18th century. HRC405.
Photo by Kenneth Jay Linsner.
Mail is very effective against a slice or drawcut. It is very effective against a strong cut, and also resistant to a stab. But it can be cut, and it can be pierced, though neither of these is easy to do. The blow has to land squarely, with a great deal of force.
Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword Page 9