Why did vikings historically use axes? They used one handed axes and spears as their most common weapons. they weren't poor and had armor so they could have afforded swords and battle axes aren't made for chopping wood so it wasn't like they were just using their tools to fight
why does ya mudda keep frickin me? idk but i still keep frickin ya mudda
homosexual
Not what ya mudda says when I'm frickin her
These posts show up in every non-ukraine thread to make discussion less interesting, in hopes of moving posters to threads where glowBlack folk are gathered. have a nice day homosexual.
You are the only one bringing up Ukraine in a non-Ukraine thread, shitskin
Ircc most of their bloomery iron-steel was brittle trash. Their imported and pattern welded swords were 'gucci' weapons for prestige in a bandit society.
>bandit society.
Most of them were farmers and traders, just that most noticeable outside interaction was their piracy and banditry.
Yes well done in every non-Black person society most people are farmers and traders that's how civilisation works.
Now frick off back to your Guns Germs and Steel you entry level midwit frick
>we wuz VIKANGZ
my ancestor :^)
>Now frick off back to your Guns Germs and Steel you entry level midwit frick
I have still yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the central point of Guns, Germs, and Steel isn't correct.
Is there any actual evidence to this, or is it just a Hollywood meme? There sure are a ton of viking swords in the museums.
>bandit society
It's banditry when vikings do it.
It's bringing the light unto the nations when christians do it.
It's establishing peace and democracy when ZOG does it.
>brings up piss-zoophilia out of nowhere
Yeah, it's those other guys who are weird.
>Is there any actual evidence to this, or is it just a hollywood meme?
according to some of the israelitetubers, spears and axes were more commonly found at the sites of viking battles/ that boat that sank in the thames than swords were. part of that might be the vikings would care more about recovering the swords since muh expensive than they would about recovering an ax or spear
In Norway specifically the war axe kept in vogue from the Viking era all the way up to 1800 so there is at least some truth to it. The axe (this style of "farmer's axe") is even in the coat of arms
Btw that axe was from 1729, this one is 1659. The name "farmer's axe" comes from a 1604 edict that called for every farmer to arm themselves with axes, spears, guns and crossbows. Probably because of the Swedes if I were to guess
file
You can take the blade off and have a good game of hockey
my guess would be that the weird angle makes it easier to slash/cut with like how a curved sword is easier to cut with because more edge will come into plain when slicing and the curve lets you feel the weight of the sword when you are trying to align it and gives better feedback
Vikings were raiders on ships. You need hacking tools to repair the ship and build it.
Its like the thicker sabres that came later.
Also every one already knew how to use an axe but not an sword etc. Spears were also often used for the same reason.
Why does it have such an angle?
>Why does it have such an angle?
It's pretty normal anon. Nothing to worry about unless it's painful.
>You need hacking tools to repair the ship and build it.
Yes. But shipwright's tools are specialized. An axe used for shaping the planks on a boat hull looks like picrel. It has an offset handle so you can use it without hitting your hands on the hull. It's not the same thing as a carpenter's axe, a felling axe for chopping down trees, or a war axe. They were all shaped differently. You could chop down trees with a fighting axe, it would work but be less than ideal. But without that offset handle you're not doing much shipbuilding with it.
On the Bayeux tapestry there's a picture of a carpenter working a plank with a carpenter's broad axe, notice the odd shape.
From the side the eye would be offset, like this.
Some more detailed info
https://saxonship.org/the-project/phase-2-build/ancient-tools-and-techniques/the-making-of-the-ships-axes/
A carpenter would use a similar, if not identical, axe for hewing.
T. Man who hews.
>out of nowhere
Norsemen got high on amanita muscaria mushrooms. The problem is Amanita muscaria on its own contains ibotenic acid which melts your brain. So, their solution was to feed these mushrooms to their livestock and then drink their piss to get high without melting their brains. It’s not a piss fetish you dumb coombrained degenerate it’s what they actually did.
establishing peace and democracy is based
False moral equivalence is gay.
If there is no difference between our society and Russians/Chinks/Black folk then why fight for it? Just let it be destroyed nothing will change goy
shitter than jap iron?
Far worse. Iron from that zone had 0.5-1% of phosphorous iirc. Iron sand is essentially 0% (<0.05% iirc) similar to modern 1090-1050 with variations in other alloyants (manganese, vanadium, titanium).
Vikings simply imported a lot of iron/raw materials to make good swords.
>Vikings simply imported a lot of iron/raw materials to make good swords.
They've imported the good swords too. Frankish swords were the OG at the time.
japs knew how to deal with slag, europeans didnt
That's a meme
Bloomery steel is all pretty trash.
All that mead & hallucinogenic reindeer piss really does a number on your brain
Nonono, you drink the piss of the shaman who is constantly high on mushrooms. Its much more potent than raindeer piss, those things are only high on mushrooms now and then.
Uses less metal and they are of bigger stature so can leverage it.
Axes look cooler and they generally have a higher max damage in exchange for having a lower min damage so they're a bit more RNG dependent, plus they have +2 shieldbreak
axes are the same dice as swords, but cheaper.
hand ax is a 5gp simple weapon with light and throw and 1d6
short swords are 10gp and scimitars are 25gp and both are martial weapons with light and finesse.
battle axes and long swords are 100% identical except battle axes are 10gp and long swords are 15gp
what is dumb are the great weapons
great axes are 30 gp and 1d12
great swords are 50 gp and 2d6 which is a higher average but less likely to roll high or low
mauls are only 10 gp, do a better damage type and use 2d6 even though a maul is more similar to an ax than a sword
>homosexual thinks I was talking about D&D
lmao
2gp is best I can offer you for your garbage, adventurer.
And a cool bonus feat
It was mixed infantry. Axe could pull the shield down, also it can reach enemy head from second line. Swords were used the most.
chop chop homie
Spears are the rifles of melee weapons, swords are the SMGs of melee weapons, axes are the shotguns of melee weapons
got any questions?
Yeah, can we call Halberds and Glaives the Assault Rifle of melee weapons?
Halberds are the air support of melee weapons
>Halberds are the air support of melee weapons
Halberd Chad's I kneel
To be fair brits still don't know how to deal with slags.
what is artillery
Spears are overrated as weapons tbh. All the comparisons/bouts that people make allways feature the spear wielded with two hands, which is not only incorrect historically for most of the antiquity and middle ages but also makes for an unfair comparison when faced against one handed weapons rather than the ones that would be used in a similar way. If you look at the viking era you almost inevitably see the spear used with a shield, similar to just about any other melee weapon besides the dane axe.
Used one handed, the spear is a fairly mediocre weapon for anything other than keeping enemy at bay using greater reach. With only one hand you don't have nearly as much leverage and tip control as you do with two hands. It's still very good in formation because of the initial reach advantage but in a more spread out combat or close-in fighting it is more clumsy and vulnerable than other one handed weapons.
When compared to the other two handed weapons like the dane axe, halberd, poleaxe and zweihander the spear also isn't doing anything impressive, with each weapon occupying a specific niche and plain spears having the greatest advantage in terms of cost.
This guy thinks he knows more than the last 4000 years worth of humans that were actually living that life.
>only good for formations
So basically all combat that ever happened, got it
Learn to read illiterate nignog or never post again.
What i wrote was that spears were widely used because of cost, ease of training and ability to work well in the most common type of fight rather than being the ultimate uber weapon that does it all and overshadows anything else to the point of obsolescense.
>So basically all combat that ever happened
Let's ignore all kinds of skirmishing and loose formation fighting to boot, as if you weren't historically illiterate enough already.
>than being the ultimate uber weapon that does it all and overshadows anything else to the point of obsolescense.
To Vikings the spear was culturally just that though, even if they're depicted with sword and axe
>o Vikings the spear was culturally just that though
There's no evidense to suggest that. They commonly used them for various purposes, as did all the foot armies of the era, but there's nothing to suggest that it was above and beyond any other weapon in anything but commonality.
>even if they're depicted with sword and axe
They are depicted with sword and axe in the fantasy drawings founded on media impressions done by the artists with no knowledge of history. The vikings themselves did depict them using spears, along with other weapons.
If I lived in a shithole country and had to protect my home I'd prefer a spear if the shape of the halls allowed for it. I live in the US though so I just use a gun
A sharp point on a stick is good at keeping an enemy a good distance away from you, which is what a poorly trained or untrained person can do best. The situation isn't really applicable to the historical context that much since your average homeowner doesn't expect to fend off various trained melee combatants and horse archers these days.
>you almost inevitably see the spear used with a shield
Not necessarily, a lot of the time they'd hang the shield off their left shoulder from a retaining strap and use it two handed.
Spears from this era can also be quite formidable in terms of being quite long and have been described as chopping people with them as well. The biggest ones I've seen were pretty much a short sword or spontoon in terms of length. Smaller spears were also thrown in some cases as well which would make for a good stand-off against lighter armoured foes and any poor idiot without a shield.
>Not necessarily, a lot of the time they'd hang the shield off their left shoulder from a retaining strap and use it two handed.
I got the impression that those straps weren't actually used for combat and were only for carrying the shield around. They'd be quite ineffective against any kind of opponent in melee so i could only see the tactic being used by the second row of troops hiding behind the first row holding the shields properly. Do you have any mention of any soldiers during that era using shields hung from their body in the Macedonian manner, rather than just holding them normally in battle?
The shields would also cover much more if held forward and would be much less useful sitting flush against the body without being frickhuge doors that Romans, Greeks and other soldiers from antiquity used.
Give me a sec and I'll dig up some examples
Scotland, Aberlemo stone.
c.700-850. Depicts a warrior attacking a mounted warrior.
That's pretty neat, although they seem to be covering each other with the spearman being behind the swordsman with the shield here.
This image clearly depicts the spearman with the shield strapped to the hand he's holding the spear with. The chest strap is visible because it was common with the big kite shields to use it to support them in addition to the arm straps, especially while on horseback. The scene depicts the attack on a ship too and their movements might not apply to the general battles that took place otherwise, as he might've used the spear two handed for greater reach over the ship or put away the shield to climb aboard.
The same thing happens here, as during the siege he's not engaging in melee and might use some unusual tactics that aren't applicable to the normal battlefield.
I admit that it seems that this was done reasonably often historically but i'm unsure if this was actually a meaningful tactic in an actual battlefield featuring both melee combat and ranged weapons. I wouldn't use it unless i was sure there are no ranged attackers anywhere nearby, and if i did i'd definitely use a larger kite shield to minimize the coverage loss from doing that.
Its got its good and bad points (no pun intended) in that you have much better control of a 9-10ft pointy stick and can potentially inflict more powerful strikes with it. To some extent the spear is cheap and disposable enough that if the haft gets cut through you can unshoulder the shield and pull out your 'side-arm' of an axe, knife or sword.
More likely its a good second-rank in the wall use of the weapon that way as in a whirling clash of mad shit going on everywhere, you'd want the shield readied to block blows and if they're that close, the spear's not so great either. Mostly you really want a shield because everyone's a hard boy until the arrows and other spears start getting thrown your way and you might get lucky to get hit.
Yeah, my original point was that there were definite pros and cons for spears compared to other "sidearm" weapons in most scenarios. Sure, if you use the spear with two hands you're going to be very effective against one handers but those one handed weapons evolved in the same position as the spears themselves, and that is primarily being used with a shield because otherwise you're just fricking dead, and in this niche the spear has its own very substantial limitations, primarily once your enemy bypasses the point up front you'd best have a "sidearm" ready because that sidearm wielding enemy will frick you up otherwise more often than not. This is especially true for the late antiquity/early middle ages when massed land armies became a thing of the past and you wouldn't expect very deep formations with lots of spear tips piling up front but rather a shield wall with one or two ranks which mean the spearwall is much less dense instead.
Germany. St Gallen.
c.1125-1150. Depicts a warrior attacking a ship
England, Canterbury. Stained glass window.
c.1190. Depicts a warrior attacking a castle
you could always cuck a spear and then draw a shorter 1 handed weapon like a sword or ax/other farm implement from your belt. the romans had their spears and while they usually threw them there were accounts of caeser or anthony having his men use their spears as actual spears to fight someone else's cavalry
>spears are only good two handed, but mid one handed
>therefore they aren't that good overall
??????
wouldn't that be a big advantage for spears? that you can use them with a shield OR two handed as the situation demands? do you think that dropping your shield and switching to two handed was something that was discovered later?
btw "knightly" spears were very much a thing. they were extremely common.
>dane axes
pfft
why did the danes use the dane axes if they were bad?
>spears are only good two handed, but mid one handed
More like "spears are mid one handed, which is the way they were most commonly used and they are also mid two handed if you compare them to other two handed weapons rather than one handed ones"
>btw "knightly" spears were very much a thing
yeah thay are called lances
>Spears are mid one handed
which is why basically every culture used spear and shield as meta?
I've already described the reasoning for that. They are cheap, easy to use and work well in formation but for other purposes other weapons hold the advantage.
The Romans famously used gladius against spear-wielding phalanxes because they relied more on flanking and maneuvering in smaller units to bypass the spear wall and have the upper hand close-in. In middle ages where one handed weapons were predominant the axes and swords were also very common and popular for similar reasons, with swords especially so, being just about the most prominent weapon in the high medieval iconography.
swords were prominent in iconography because they were expensive to make. Dudes look cooler with gucci ARs than poverty ponies
>swords were prominent in iconography because they were expensive to make
That's what a typical modern explanation looks like but there's not that much physical evidense to support that. They are quite prominent in burial sites, graves and written sources of the period. As is typical for modern research, as we study and learn more we reject convenient but brash unsubstantiated assumptions and discover that the iconography actually happens to be more accurate than we assumed it to be.
>They are quite prominent in burial sites, graves and written sources of the period.
cause they are gucci. we bury people in suits because they are better than what they normally wear
You'll just make up those excuses no matter the evidence at hand. There's nothing to talk about like that.
>no swords were everywhere
>that is why we see people using hundreds of year old swords because they couldn't afford new ones
>more bullshit conjecture
All kinds of swords were in use, old and new. If they were using 100 year old ones this just means there were more of them than the records show.
nah, it means they were rare because they were expensive. the bongland museum girl who gets posted here has a vid of a sword hilt where there are fittings from a much latter period on an earlier sword because it was still in use because swords were expensive
>nah, it means they were rare because they were expensive
Not really. Armor was even more expensive but we see it more and more common use following the 11th century onwards, so the expense alone is not a justification of rarity.
>Spears are overrated as weapons
>Why did vikings historically use axes?
Because they hit like a brick. Even if you caught the blow on your shield it would rattle your bones. Each hit could do real damage to the shield, breaking it apart blow by blow.
>they weren't poor and had armor
Not all the time. Most vikings were pretty poor and didn't have much more than gambesons for armor.
>battle axes aren't made for chopping wood so it wasn't like they were just using their tools to fight
But a wood chopping axe is good for chopping men. Instead of buying a battle axe they'd just sharpen up their hatchet and take that into battle. Worked just fine.
Axes were good weapons for vikings (as in slave raiders, not norsemen in general) because they could break doors quickly and the back of the axe could be used for a nonlethal strike. When they were going to war they mostly used spears and swords.
Dude they loved swords but axes must've been more economical.
This. Vikings were known for their axes but there's plenty of viking tombs with swords in them.
That's not even counting the Ulfbert swords.
I think the axes are simply more well known because they are a bit special compared to many other cultures. Pretty much everyone, Vikings included, used swords and spears, but those don't really stand out--except for the Ulfberhts--so they don't get as much attention.
If they had the money for swords that's what the used, but spears and axes are way cheaper. Spears for the reach, and axes are good for breaking enemy shields.
cheaper, easier to maintain, cleaving potential, pre-plate, easier to use.
>they weren't poor and had armor
depended on who your were and how many vikings you had been on.
They fought in a shield wall, so the basic strategy was the same as all the way back to the ancient Greeks and beyond. Overlap shields, stab at the other formation with spears. Viking age additions to the basic kit were the bearded axe, good for reaching over your wall and pulling an enemy's shield out of position, and the Frisian seax, good for reaching under the shield wall to stab at less protected legs and feet.
>they weren't poor and had armor
That's why. Axes are good against armor.
>Axes are good against armor.
lol nope. for armor you either need a beak to penetrate it or a heavy mass to crush it. the ax bit won't cleave armor
Wow if only an axe head was made of a heavy mass that can specifically be used for crushing when it doesn't cleave
>if only an axe head was made of a heavy mass that can specifically be used for crushing
Yeah, if only axes were made into entirely different class of weapons then they'd totally be effective against armor!
>Thinks edged weapons are a class.
battle axes have thing blades and are not as substantial as wood splitting axes or mauls
Obviously a warhammer or mace is a better weapon against heavy armor but an axe is better against a mailed opponent than a sword. We're not even talking about two-handed Daneaxes that could easily frick an armored opponent up in one swing.
I think you over value cutting power against armor
depending on the sword but in most cases no. Axes were good because they were fast cheap and most people could use them since it was the most basic tool.
The axes used for fighting werent like the heavy wood splitting ones or the heavy tool ones of today but more like a knife thickness with a small head.
>pic is one for sparring so no pointy parts
pic is another one from hungary 9th to 10th century.
Those had a hammer head to bash somebodies head in if they had some form of armor
so they used the part that wasn't an ax bit on armor
Even if the axe doesn't cut it's head acts like a bar mace, focusing the kinetic energy into a thin line. The weight distribution is similar to a mace so the impact was similar as well. Axes would deform armor just like a hammer but with the additional benefit of cutting through flesh when they hit an unarmored limb.
battle axes are far lighter than maces, kys axehomosexual
Can you give some historical examples with weights, please?
https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_axe.htm
770 grams for a fairly long hafted one handed axe, as much as a light sabre or a heavier smallsword.
I said "some" please. Since the goal is to compare the weights of maces with battle axes we need a statistically significant number of each one. 20 of each isn't really statistically significant but it's a start.
Yeah, frick off.
And yet we aren't necessarily talking about battle axes. We know that Vikings would use regular woodcutting axes and those are more tip heavy than Battle Axes.
Vikings would hardly ever face anyone wearing armor and even if they did they'd frick off to find an easier target to loot and pillage. You've played yourself.
Untrue, See the Siege of Paris (845) and the Battle of York (867)
The Frankish armies wouldn't be using armor either and even nobles would often lack it unless they inherited a suit themselves. The anglos were even worse, nuff said.
You'd actually have to prove that. Picrel is what soldiers under Charlemagne are described as.
https://deremilitari.org/2014/02/carolingian-arms-and-armor-in-the-ninth-century/
Carolingians actually had laws requiring noblemen to wear the armor if they had any or be stripped of both it and their position.
>Picrel is what soldiers under Charlemagne are described as.
Lol, all the drawings referring to the period i've seen have been A grade bullshit. Nothing comes close, not even the horned helmet vikings.
Still, if you can't prove that the Frankish soldiers were unarmored then we must assume they had something. At the very least, we can assume they had a Gambeson. Those were entirely cloth and thus within the reach of even peasants.
>if you can't prove that the Frankish soldiers were unarmored
I see you haven't actually read the document i've linked to.
>At the very least, we can assume they had a Gambeson
The earliest medieval depiction of a gambeson we have is from the late 10th century, the very dawn of the viking age.
>Those were entirely cloth and thus within the reach of even peasants.
Not only was cloth not cheap but gambesons would require frequent replacements after being worn in the field due to rot and wear. That's definitely out of reach of someone who isn't a professional full time soldier or a wealthy levy.
>. Royal vassals with twelve or more mansi were required to possess a brunia, and any man who owned such armor but failed to bring it on campaign would be deprived of both his armor and his benefice.
>but churches and monasteries apparently owned stocks of armor from which to equip their milites.102
>Historians and art historians who have discussed Carolingian military dress have consistently stated that scale armor was genuinely worn by Frankish troops.120
> Since some type of body armor was evidently worn, the most likely form would therefore appear to have been the cuirass.
They wore armor.
Do you get a kick of being such a disingenous homosexual as to pick out the quotes of the statements that specifically get disproven in the very paper i linked? Are you israeli or something?
No, you didn't read your own paper. All the paper says is that there's plausible doubt that the armor is what is said to be. It actually does mention that armor was common in Charlemagne's army, being downright mandatory for nobles and often issued to commoners. Quid Erat Demonstrandum.
The exact kind of armor was never a matter of discussion since this entire tangent started with
Showing that the franks had ANY armor would suffice.
tl;dr I don't have to be israeli, you're just stupid.
>Quid
So you didn't read the paper, nitpicked out some false quotes to spread your lies and now huff up your idiotic farts as you pretend your idiotic facination with moronic kiddie painitings has anything to do with history.
>It actually does mention that armor was common in Charlemagne's army
You really can't help yourself but spread lies like a slimy israeli rat, aren't you? Just one absolute bullshit after another.
>being downright mandatory for nobles
That's false. It was mandatory for nobles that owned it, which are implied to be few and not at all common.
>this entire tangent started with
(You) Showing that the franks had ANY armor would suffice.
Frankish armies wouldn't be using armor since even noblemen would rarely own any. Go choke on your own turd, dirty subhuman liar.
>YOU LIED
I did not. You can even see the reference numbers on the page. You're welcome to try to show that I am wrong but just saying I lied means nothing.
Erat Demonstrandum. "Which was to be demonstrated".
>I did not
Yes you did. You specifically took the disproven sentences out of context to further your bold and stupid lie.
>You're welcome to try to show that I am wrong
I've already did, just by fully quoting the sentences you nitpicked like the dirty fricking israeli scumbag you arte.
>Erat Demonstrandum. "Which was to be demonstrated".
its quod not quid you moronic israelite
>Ganshof’s assertion that the Capitulary of Aachen “made it obligatory for counts to have brumae and helmets in reserve in order to equip horsemen destined to be armored knights”101 is not supported by the text, which neither mentioned the use of horses nor specified that the counts should supply anything more than light arms to their followers.
>It is evident from the lists of equipment cited earlier that the common infantry and cavalry were not expected to possess body armor, but churches and monasteries apparently owned stocks of armor from which to equip their milites.102
>Although it is possible that Carolingian armor was similar to that worn in contemporary Byzantium, these parallels, Notker’s statement, and the lack of positive evidence for scale armor in Frankish written sources all suggest that Carolingian artists were probably copying from external pictorial traditions rather than life.
>Some pictorial sources portray soldiers wearing Romanic cuirass and pteryger, while others depict scale armor, but a remark of Notker’s implies that the latter was not usual Frankish military dress. Since some type of body armor was evidently worn, the most likely form would therefore appear to have been the cuirass.
This doesn't say they wore no armor, only that the armor wasn't what we think it is.
>but churches and monasteries apparently owned stocks of armor from which to equip their milites.102
Good enough.
Not good enough, since these weren't in any actual armies and didn't do anything except the defense of those monasteries. The evidense for those is spotty at best.
You're grasping at straws here and nitpicking things out of thin air in the face of overwhelming evidense to the contrary like you're 12. Grow up and GTFO, kid.
Doesn't matter. The bar is that they wore armor at all and so far all you've said is that they didn't have the armor people think they had. THAT SAME PAPER also says they did wear armor and you can view it with a quick Ctrl+F.
>Doesn't matter
Yes it does you dumb Black person.
>The bar is that they wore armor at all
You're the only one who made up this bar, which is utterly moronic.
>all you've said is that they didn't have the armor people think they had
Apparently "Frankish armies wouldn't be using armor since even noblemen would rarely own any" is not intelligible for you, you subhuman fricking b***h.
>THAT SAME PAPER also says they did wear armor
More israeli Black person lies.
>More israeli Black person lies.
> Royal vassals with twelve or more mansi were required to possess a brunia, and any man who owned such armor but failed to bring it on campaign would be deprived of both his armor and his benefice.
>To summarize, the lack of positive evidence in the form of archeological finds or unambiguous written descriptions does not allow categorical conclusions about Carolingian body armor to be drawn. Raban Maur’s discussion of the lorica is the only piece of evidence to suggest that mailcoats were worn, but the author’s work was largely based on that of Isidore. Some pictorial sources portray soldiers wearing Romanic cuirass and pteryger, while others depict scale armor, but a remark of Notker’s implies that the latter was not usual Frankish military dress. Since some type of body armor was evidently worn, the most likely form would therefore appear to have been the cuirass.
It's right there in black and white. You can't prove I'm lying by posting the larger context because the larger context supports me. You can't prove that no armor was worn because the text does not say that and it doesn't make any sense. All you can do, apparently, is to call me a israelite in hopes of discrediting me but that's a very /misc/ move and we are not on /misc/.
You're literally going in circles repeating the same lie over and over again as the subhuman scumbag you are. You're posting the same torn out quotes that i've already shown to be misquoted.
>It is evident from the lists of equipment cited earlier that the common infantry and cavalry were not expected to possess body armor
>Army commanders were encouraged to own helmets or body armor,98 but the high price of a brunia must have put it beyond the means of all but the wealthy.99 For example, Count Eccard of Macon included only one brunia in his will, although Eberhard of Friuli bequeathed no fewer than four
>The helms which Eberhard of Friuli bequeathed in 867 32 and those on which the Lex Ribuaria set a price of six solidi33 were surely also made of metal rather than leather, in view of their high value. A capitulary reference which implies that only army commanders were expected to own helmets likewise suggests that these were more than simple leather caps.34
>ou can't prove that no armor was worn
More lies about even the topic at question here. You're the one who made up the goalpost about the armor existing or whatever.
>call me a israelite in hopes of discrediting me
You've discredited yourself on your own, you being israeli is just the obvious conclusion here.
>It is evident from the lists of equipment cited earlier that the common infantry and cavalry were not expected to possess body armor
We addressed this. Armor would be issued sometumes.
>Army commanders were encouraged to own helmets or body armor,98 but the high price of a brunia must have put it beyond the means of all but the wealthy.99 For example, Count Eccard of Macon included only one brunia in his will, although Eberhard of Friuli bequeathed no fewer than four
Brunia was only a specific type of armor, not a reference to armor in general.
>The helms which Eberhard of Friuli bequeathed in 867 32 and those on which the Lex Ribuaria set a price of six solidi33 were surely also made of metal rather than leather, in view of their high value. A capitulary reference which implies that only army commanders were expected to own helmets likewise suggests that these were more than simple leather caps.34
So you're saying that this particular helmet was too expensive for a leather helmet but that there was no other kinds of armor
>. You're the one who made up the goalpost about the armor existing or whatever.
See
>We addressed this. Armor would be issued sometumes.
We addressed this. Armor was for the super rich.
>Brunia was only a specific type of armor
No it wasn't.
>So you're saying that this particular helmet was too expensive for a leather helmet
So i'm providing a direct quote stating that even helmets, which were vastly more common and cheap than body armor were only expected to be used by army commanders.
>See
(You)
It's still true. The armies wouldn't be using body armoir since even nobles would rarely afford it. That's a fact, no matter how much you lie about it.
>We addressed this. Armor was for the super rich.
Metal armor was. Gambesons were just multiple layers of cloth.
>No it wasn't
"60 Although this term evidently signified a mailcoat (hauberk) in later medieval texts,61 the fact that the will of Count Eccard of Macon referred to a “brunia cum alsbergo” implies that in the ninth century the two items were distinct.62 "
Again, from your article. https://deremilitari.org/2014/02/carolingian-arms-and-armor-in-the-ninth-century/
>Gambesons were just multiple layers of cloth.
First depiction of a gambeson in middle ages dates to the late 10th century. We've been over this. Eat shit.
>As the terms brunia andlorica were neither employed interchangeably nor contrasted, it is unclear whether they were synonymous or denoted different types of armor. However, the fact that no distinction was drawn between them in law codes and capitularies suggests that both words had the same meaning. For instance, the ban on sales of the bruniaabroad presumably applied to all armor, not merely to one particular type. Notker’s use of the word lorica also implied that it could be used as a general term for armor, since he wrote, “Coxarum exteriora, quae propter faciliorem ascensum in aliis solent lorica nudari, in eo ferrets ambiebantur bratteolis” (the outside of his hips, which on others are usually bare of armor for easier mounting, were covered by iron plates).107
Yes it was. You're again tearing shit out of context to make up bullshit conjecture. How many times are you going to do this, Black person?
>>As the terms brunia andlorica were neither employed interchangeably nor contrasted, it is unclear whether they were synonymous or denoted different types of armor. However, the fact that no distinction was drawn between them in law codes and capitularies suggests that both words had the same meaning. For instance, the ban on sales of the bruniaabroad presumably applied to all armor, not merely to one particular type. Notker’s use of the word lorica also implied that it could be used as a general term for armor, since he wrote, “Coxarum exteriora, quae propter faciliorem ascensum in aliis solent lorica nudari, in eo ferrets ambiebantur bratteolis” (the outside of his hips, which on others are usually bare of armor for easier mounting, were covered by iron plates).107
You realize that entire paragraph was about if the armor covered the hips or not, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson
"As stand-alone cloth armour, the European gambeson can be traced at least to the late tenth century, but it is likely to have been in use in various forms for longer than that. "
It's not "Started in the 10th century" It's "Earliest record is 10th century but started possibly earlier".
>You realize that entire paragraph was about if the armor covered the hips or not
Another projection. Your entire paragraph was about the aventail from the section on helmets so you take the last sentence and pretend this is the entire quote. How many times are you going to teat shit out of context for your bullshit conjecture.
>It's not "Started in the 10th century" It's "Earliest record is 10th century but started possibly earlier".
Your mom is possibly a dude that once took a particularly big shit but we're not entirely sure.
>axes are good against ar... ACK!
most of them didn't have armor aside from maybe a helmet. probably less than 10% had mail shirts.
>they weren't poor
you're right, they were extremely poor
they didnt have armor much at all and neither did most of europe in the first place during that period
anywas to answer your question, dane axes are light weight and cheap to make
the overwhelmingly majority of them used spears like everyone else however
pic rel is a depiction of vikings who were well equipped enough to defeat a king
Axes are cheap to make and they're also fairly easy when it comes to the skillset
About a kilo of wrought iron, maybe half a pound/250g of mid carbon steel and your village smithy can put that together for you well enough after half a day of getting the apprentice to grind it to a good shape on the wheel and someone else with a drawknife or DIY handle made out of a chunk of wood.
A spear or large knife is much the same in that regard
Sword making is a whole other industry
>People making iron
>People to make iron into steel
>A high level smith to beat it into shape
>A set of grinding stones and skilled grinder to shape and polish it
>A guy who makes fittings like pommels, handles and guards
>Guy who makes the sheath
>Leatherworker who makes the hangers and fittings
A lot goes into a sword and there's a variety of steel qualities you're going to be working with and making sure that they're all forge welded together properly, so it was never a one-man job, if anything labour was cheap, materials were expensive as opposed to now, labour is expensive and materials are cheap, commonly available.
>if anything labour was cheap, materials were expensive as opposed to now, labour is expensive and materials are cheap, commonly available.
labour was always expensive. the reason why iron was expensive is because it took a lot of labour to produce, labour being the underlying cause of a thing's price. up until the middle ages Scandinavian iron smelting relied mostly on bog iron, the gathering of which is labour intensive. it isn't until the middle ages that we get ironworks like Bergslagen that make iron from ore dug out of a mountain
I found a website about Icelandic iron production a while back that really brings home how expensive iron was. axes would pass down through several generations. these axes have signs of having been repaired several times (extra bits welded on). typically an Icelandic farmer would have an axe and a dagger/knife. swords were extremely expensive, as were armor. archeologists found a smith's tool box in a bog a while back, which was likely that person's entire livelihood since it's all iron tools. lost in a fricking bog
because of the brutal honor culture at the time, where any male relative of someone who has wronged you were fair game, no man would leave their house without at least their knife on hand. and woe be to those who hurt women, that could get you deemed a lawless niding
>and woe be to those who hurt women, that could get you deemed a lawless niding
Unless it was during war or clan blood-fued. In those cases raping and enslaving women was not only legal but encouraged. Typically most of these women were used as hostages or bargaining chips for diplomatic negotiations when hostiles eventually simmered (at least when it came to viking on viking warfare) so they were usually not sold as thralls.
I haven't read about such feuds but I suppose it's possible
le raping and pillaging is partly a myth invented by coping Anglos who couldn't fathom why their women preferred BWGVC (Big Well-Groomed Viking wiener)
there is no intrinsic worth in raw materials
>labour was still comparatively cheap
the value of labour power is determined by how much labour it takes to produce it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's roughly the same today as it was back then, or perhaps even lower today, especially in the global South. besides slaves (trälar) you have to somehow coax the peasantry into doing other work. if we take Sweden as an example, there isn't a central ruling class in Viking times. Sweden never had a feudal economy, and I don't think Norway did either. you have mostly independent farmers that don't produce enough of a surplus for a king to extract. central power only comes on the scene around the 1100's or so
besides the aforementioned slaves, it's absolutely wrong to think of the labour as cheap in these times. labour only becomes cheap when there's an unequal level of development, allowing the extraction of what is essentially ground rent on this cheap labour
in short: labour was expensive, iron took a lot of labour to produce, therefore iron was expensive
>Early industrial periods of the renaissance and late middle ages
that's way later
Cost in terms of value was mostly related to taking people off the ploughs and fields, so if they were not making food and tithing it back to the land owners there was a comparative value in having them making charcoal, mining coal, gathering ores etc then it would pass onto its intrinsic worth. Up until the Black Death swept though Europe, Middle East and other places, labour was still comparatively cheap in terms of finding enough spare hands to indulge in something that wasn't primarily agricultural or construction + some spares as professional warriors in a retinue.
After the Black Death, things got more complicated
There was less hands on the tools anywhere and industrial modernisation and wages caused a whole cultural re-think of how to do stuff in a lot of areas of the world giving rise to a lot more specific craftsmen, middle class traders, artisans and specialist workers. They could still offload a lot of donkey work to 'skilled labour' that had a bit of training but it was quite a dramatic shift in a lot of societies when people started getting paid for the skills as opposed to being merely serfs or freemen.
Early industrial periods of the renaissance and late middle ages are pretty interesting periods for the whole weapons, armour and labour allocations. It was also the time we started seeing 'Professional Soldiers' in the forms of Mercenary companies showing up in a lot more numbers. They didn't work the soil or toil away in the industries, all they did was wander from one war or regional shitfight to the next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfberht_swords
they did use swords
You concentrate more force against a smaller surface which is more likely to frick shields or armor up.
Yes they were fricking poor.
Swords are found more often in scandinavian graves of actual warriors, the retinues of kings and nobles, and well paid mercenaries. Same with mail armor. These items are comparatively rare compared to axe heads, spear heads and arrow heads.
Not all scandinavians were Viking. Viking were specifically the sea raider warbands that looted the coasts of Europe and attacked defenseless targets. They were bandits clad in cheap or stolen shit, fighting with little more than shock tactics and shit at actual battles.
People forget that Vikings were not a social class nor did they call themselves that (they were Danes and Norsi). It was an act of long term seasonal raiding (fara í víking) which is why it was mostly done around early autumn after the harvest and they would be back by early winter or next spring for the planting, depending on the length of the campiagn and objective. Most vikings were as previously mentioned farmers, tradesmen and fishermen. Hence their equipment was dependent on wealth and social class (a Thegn or Jarl would be able to afford a sword, a mail byrnie and full iron helmet along with axe, spear and maybe a pack horse) which is why most vikings had little in armor besides a helmet and a shield and fought with affordable weapons like a spear or axes which doubled as a tool.
>It was an act of long term seasonal raiding (fara í víking)
Vikings were also often displaced peoples driven off by the christianization and the formation of a centralized government in Norway during that period, which not only caused them to migrate and travel but also engage in more active raiding.
>besides a helmet
only a regular soldier or a wealthy guy would have a helmet too, it's typically just a shield and a spear/axe for them.
>driven off by the christianization and the formation of a centralized government in Norway
You're thinkimg of the late viking period around the time of king Knut. Raiding Christian lands such as England, France and Ireland was what ironically brought Christianity to the vikings who slowly accepted "Vite Krist".
Yeah, these guys were part of a jarl or thegns household retinue and they were more that eras version of medieval men-at-arms or Serjeants so they were full time soldiers/guards with free board and fixed salary. These guys were however few in number as the upkeep of professional soldiers is an expensive affair.
Commonly said but some more or less became full-time warriors that raided shit
>Why did vikings historically use axes?
Because it also works as useful tool, whereas spear is the actual weapon of war.
Swords are toys for aristocratic homosexuals.
a war ax is about the same as a cutlass on a pirate ship in terms of tool use
Effective, and cheap to make
The haft is wood
The majority of the head can be manufactured from the low carbon steel/iron which comprises the majority of the bloom, while using a small piece of higher carbon for the blade, forge welded onto it.
>they werent poor
Yes they were.
A lions share of people onna viking raid werent wealthy second sons of nobels, just poor dirt farmers getting some booty(gold) and booty(pussy.
Axes were used because theyre cheap, they take a small amount of metal to make, and theyre a dual purpose tool. An axe is a vital tool for repairing ships.
Spears for the same reason, theyre cheap but dnt really have a dual purpose like ax axe does.
Rich Vikings did have swords. Some also did this thing where they held an axe in the same hand that held their shield while having a sword at their side. Lose a spear, they still have at least 2 other weapons.
Jesus frick you dimwitted bad faith arguing medieval-gays are even more obnoxius than Ukr-Rus shills
>vikings discussed
>schizo paganlarpers eventually throw tantrums calling everyone israelites for not fellating vikings as much as they do
It's all so tiresome.
They were a boat people. Pragmatism trumps specializing. Spears for war, axes for killing in close, and cutting rope or doors, or trees, or getting into lock boxes, even just hammering stakes for tents. Gotta maximize utility and weight when you only have so much boat to go around.
battle axes would get fricked up by trees, they are not wood cutting axes
I'm not talking felling big trees for lumber or boats. But you can chip tinder and cut small trees for fuel just fine with many known designs. There was no truly uniform "battle axe" design.
That is speaking of man who lost the Way of The Blade. Warrior cultures never used combat blades for utility. Like Caucasian warriors (Dune Fremen were inspired by them) never used their daggers to cut meat or something, they had small utility knifes for work. There was taboo about unsheathing combat dagger without reason: "if blade is unleashed it must drink blood before it sheathed back".
And there are some practical reasons behind that, combat balde should be sharp and chopping wood instantly dulls the blade.
A 14th century battle axe would be built a fair bit more sturdy than an earlier one and would likely have little trouble chopping wood as long as you don't do it all the time. There are exceptions like that.
that blade isn't very substantial and the whole thing weighs under a kg
armor wasn't common, see the 2 morons who were arguing in this thread
>that blade isn't very substantial and the whole thing weighs under a kg
Yes, but i'd be fine chopping wood with it without fear of bending or damaging it. See the profile he shows in the beginning.
>armor wasn't common
In the early middle ages absolutely, in the high middle ages not so much. Bayeux tapestry pictures most soldiers wearing mail and the higher ranking ones also have long sleeves and mail chausses on them and into the 12th century onwards those too become more and more commonly seen on among depicted soldiers.
>t never chopped wood
I have. If you think of the battle axe not as an axe but as a sort of machete then you can agree that the sturdier ones can be used for chopping wood, even if this would dull the blade and wouldn't be very efficient.
First of all were should fix what is "battle axe" because it has so many forms.
I am talking about something like in the pic. It would be ok to cut across wood grains, doing it half strength. But it absolutely suck when you try to split logs along grain, it would edge itself dead in the log. Also while it looks kinda thought I can assure you when you try to chop through gnarl you can easily roll such blade (especially considering early medieval steel would be shit, othen just non hardened iron).
Oh absolutely. I was talking mainly about the axe like the one in the video i liknked, the one from the 14th century. It's got a fairly thicker profile compared to the earlier ones.
I wouldn't split logs with anything like that either. Not enough mass, not enough leverage and width and it would probably still damage it or break the shaft.
>why did boat builders use a boat building tool
We may never know.
Swords were almost useless against chain mail and plate mail. Plenty of sources attest to this including tests on youtube. You needed an ax or warhammer to pound through it and break the bone underneath. Swords were mostly for decorative battles or for use against unarmed peasants.
Type XV swords were designed to be used against armored opponents and were very effective at that role. To begin with, against armored opponents the preferred tactic was to bypass armor rather than try to smash through it.
>You needed an ax
Another one of those fricking morons.