Viking Art of War
Dr. Sheila J
I have recently been mulling over something in my already -cluttered
mind, but was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this or whether
they knew of any work that had been done on it.
I have always found the fighting tactics of the 'vikings' to have been
rather fantastic. By 'viking' I mean the traditional norsemen, but,
(with my Danish heritage bias) specifically, the early Danes.
Dying in battle was the only way to go if you were a viking. Dreams of
Valhalla were forefront in their minds. Did this make them better
warriors? Wanting a glorious death, did this make them superior on the
battlefield?
Thoughts?
Prof. Marvel
Excellent!
Prof Marvel
Prof. Marvel
This is not my field, but I would think it would make them great land
and sea pirates but not very good at fighting armies where discipline
and tactics come into play. The "Berzerker" is a primitive soldier.
Roman legions met and defeated these kinds of fighting men time and again.
Prof Marvel
Soren Larsen
news:3fe08cee$0$62198$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
There is no doubt that the Romans had better infrastructure,
supplies, intelligence, reserves, commandstructure, and overall
knowhow on how to fight a pitched battle and this is probably
less than half of the Roman advantages compared to an early
germanic foe.
But otoh does the evidence suggest that the germanic warrior
as an individual on _average_ was a better fighter than his
legionary counterpart.
It would seem that every major germanic victory or result
against the Romans until Adrianople occurred under circumstances
where the Romans was prevented from deploying their forces
to fight a pitched battle.
Under such messy circumstances the germanics would
have a real chance of annihilating even superior roman forces,
something that otherwise didn't happen until Adrianople
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
news:ff801b.031217...@posting.google.com
You need to define 'vikings'
Are you thinking of a bunch of raiders that would kick the door in
to a monastary, heroically defeat the local nuns, loot the place
and scurry off at the first sign of real troops approaching.
or
Are you thinking of the 'great army' types that basically was
mercenaries willing to either take on the local rulers or work
for them.
or
The armies that took England for Swein Haraldson and Canute.
Soren Larsen
Paul J Gans
Well, we know from modern events that lack of fear of death
(or even welcoming it) can cause people to fight when more
"sensible" folks would not. But there is always the
Indiana Jones effect. Being willing to die or wanting to
die valorously does not in any way guarantee victory.
I think what made them good warriors was experience and
training. When coming up against villagers or the local
"militia" they had no trouble winning. Against better
trained troops they did not always win.
---- Paul J. Gans
Julian Richards
wrote:
>There is no doubt that the Romans had better infrastructure,
> supplies, intelligence, reserves, commandstructure, and overall
>knowhow on how to fight a pitched battle and this is probably
>less than half of the Roman advantages compared to an early
>germanic foe.
>
>But otoh does the evidence suggest that the germanic warrior
>as an individual on _average_ was a better fighter than his
>legionary counterpart.
>
>It would seem that every major germanic victory or result
>against the Romans until Adrianople occurred under circumstances
>where the Romans was prevented from deploying their forces
>to fight a pitched battle.
>
>Under such messy circumstances the germanics would
>have a real chance of annihilating even superior roman forces,
>something that otherwise didn't happen until Adrianople
For one on one, the Germanic warriors were probably physically bigger
then their Roman counterparts.
I think that the lack of the fear of death was possibly a
disadvantage. Its the adrenalin that makes the brain run faster and
body work harder. That's what its there for. If that were not true
that evolution has been making a mess for several million years.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Prof. Marvel
In modern warfare the effectiveness of an army is not measured by the
individual soldier. A Roman legion might be comprised of soldiers less
brave, less strong than those in the opposing army and yet obliterate it
with ease. And the typical Roman legionnaire was in all likelihood
smaller than the typical barbarian. It's not hard to imagine Germanic
warriors all as huge as Hardrada looking at these smaller men and
laughing at how puny they were.
But at close quarters the nasty Roman short sword caused uniform, almost
mechanized destruction while the great German warriors often went down
swinging their axes at air.
Prof Marvel
Soren Larsen
news:1ai1uv81ft9e7fjj2...@4ax.com
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:31:37 +0100, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> There is no doubt that the Romans had better infrastructure,
>> supplies, intelligence, reserves, commandstructure, and overall
>> knowhow on how to fight a pitched battle and this is probably
>> less than half of the Roman advantages compared to an early
>> germanic foe.
>>
>> But otoh does the evidence suggest that the germanic warrior
>> as an individual on _average_ was a better fighter than his
>> legionary counterpart.
>>
>> It would seem that every major germanic victory or result
>> against the Romans until Adrianople occurred under circumstances
>> where the Romans was prevented from deploying their forces
>> to fight a pitched battle.
>>
>> Under such messy circumstances the germanics would
>> have a real chance of annihilating even superior roman forces,
>> something that otherwise didn't happen until Adrianople
>
> For one on one, the Germanic warriors were probably physically bigger
> then their Roman counterparts.
There might have been a minor average size difference between
the roman and germanic populations in favor of the germanics,
but I'm not quite certain about this (Üwe had some interesting
stats the other day)
But there might have been an actual size difference between the
segments of the two societies that was recruited for warfare.
The roman citizens army was a thing of the past when they
encountered the germanics, and soldiering had become
just another somewhat despiced career for the lower
strata of society - not the the group you would expect to
have had the best nourishment growing up.
The germanics otoh recruited among the sons of
the upper strata of freemen in an agricultural society .
Just about the last group you would expect to starve in
childhood even if the harvest had been bad.
You could say that this difference in who the two
societies could recuit for warfare was down to the
germanic elites warrior ethos.
>
> I think that the lack of the fear of death was possibly a
> disadvantage. Its the adrenalin that makes the brain run faster and
> body work harder. That's what its there for. If that were not true
> that evolution has been making a mess for several million years.
It was not lack of fear:
Volsung Saga:
Fafnir:
"You will ride there, where you will find so much gold that it will
plentiful for the rest of your days. And that same gold will be your
death, as it will be the death of all who possess it"
Sigurd Fafnirsbane:
"I would ride home, even though it would mean loosing this great
treasure, if I knew that I would never die. But every man wants
to be wealthy until that one day. And you Fafnir, lie in your death
throes until Hel has you"
It was more the realistic acceptance of the warriors lot.
"I'll feed my last eagle
when it dines on my blood"
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Dr. Sheila J
My apologies Soren. Have you ever read 'The Viking Art of War' by
Griffith? I would use his interpretation. I can reprint here, if
necessary. It's somewhat lengthy and I have been asked to keep brief.
Cheers,
Sheila
(P.S. You are Danish, are you not?)
Soren Larsen
> Soren Larsen wrote:
>
>> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:3fe08cee$0$62198$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
>>
>>>
Indeed.
The value of a well trained unit is larger than the sum of the
individuals.
> And the typical Roman legionnaire was in all likelihood
> smaller than the typical barbarian. It's not hard to imagine Germanic
> warriors all as huge as Hardrada looking at these smaller men and
> laughing at how puny they were.
Since Hardrada had been Captain of the Varengian guard I'm
sure he could appreciate "roman" military values, but I get your point.
>
> But at close quarters the nasty Roman short sword caused uniform,
> almost mechanized destruction while the great German warriors often
> went down swinging their axes at air.
Absolutely but the question was wether the germanic warrior ethos
was a bonus to their fighting ability, and I believe it definitely was.
A Roman legionaire was no walkover even out of his formation.
He was a professional soldier and would take out any farm boy
one on one, if the farm boy was part of an ad hoc militia..
But the germanic farm boys lived in a militarised society and
was raised to be warriors. The effect showed it self at a.m.o places
Clades Lolliana - 2 legions wiped out by a Sugambri warparty.
Clades Variani - 3 legions sent to kingdom come by Arminius and
the Cheruski.
Abrittus - Emperor Decius, his son and an entire imperial campaign
taken out by the Goths.
All battles where the germanics by luck or strategem managed
to get the Romans into a situation where they couldn't deploy their
formations.
BTW
Forget those axes, the early germanics was all spears and swords.
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
It is just a question of understanding each other.
'Viking' has at lot of different meanings and connotations.
>
> My apologies Soren. Have you ever read 'The Viking Art of War' by
> Griffith? I would use his interpretation. I can reprint here, if
> necessary. It's somewhat lengthy and I have been asked to keep brief.
I'm not the right person to ask advice on how to post.
But I would be interested in that interpretation.
>
> Cheers,
> Sheila
>
> (P.S. You are Danish, are you not?)
Yup
Soren Larsen
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
>Sheila
You are doing just fine. Best thing that's happened to
this newsgroup for a while. I think all the regulars applaud
you.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Indeed.
>Soren Larsen
Ah yes, but carrying a hand-ax was the sign of a free man,
wasn't it? Not in battle (though they might be wearing one
there) but in everyday life. It was less of a problem than
a sword and just as useful...
The Franks kept the tradition going for a long time.
Or am I off the mark here?
---- Paul J. Gans
Uwe Müller
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:brr0ne$i0j$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> Soren Larsen <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
> >"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:3fe0cf84$0$30479$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net
> >> Soren Larsen wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >>> news:3fe08cee$0$62198$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
> >>>
>
> snip >
> >BTW
> >Forget those axes, the early germanics was all spears and swords.
>
> >Soren Larsen
>
> Ah yes, but carrying a hand-ax was the sign of a free man,
> wasn't it? Not in battle (though they might be wearing one
> there) but in everyday life. It was less of a problem than
> a sword and just as useful...
>
> The Franks kept the tradition going for a long time.
> Or am I off the mark here?
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Hi Paul,
The Frankish axe, the franziska, was for throwing. It was unususal for
germanic people, so it got named for the Franks.
If you look at the places were lots of weapons were sacrificed (and
excavated later on) you will find mainly spears and swords, maybe Soren can
supply some English Language references.
I have not heard about the axe, or the hand-ax, being the sign of the free
man before. Could You tell me some more about that?
Even in Frankish graves there are only a few of these weapons, compared to
the number of spear points or swords. There are Neolithic societies named
after the frequent deposition of axes in graves. There are early bronze age
societies, for which the axe was a potent symbol presented in gold or amber.
There are late bronze age societies, that carried the axe as a regular
weapon, but not everybody had one and it was not a sine qua non for high
status burials.
There are some speculations on axes as part of butchering equipment in early
medieval high status graves, which in turn is thought to indicate religious
functions at communal sacrifices (could of course have been someone who
really liked barbecues). The axe, not the hand-axe, was the symbol of one of
the most important gods in norse mythology. It was important throughout the
world of IE or PIE speaking peoples.
have fun
Uwe Müller
Renia
Quite so.
Renia
Bernardz
soh...@tiscali.dk says...
Its all irrelevant as towards the end of the Roman era, most of the
Roman soldiers were Germans.
>
> >
> > I think that the lack of the fear of death was possibly a
> > disadvantage. Its the adrenalin that makes the brain run faster and
> > body work harder. That's what its there for. If that were not true
> > that evolution has been making a mess for several million years.
>
> It was not lack of fear:
>
> Volsung Saga:
>
> Fafnir:
>
> "You will ride there, where you will find so much gold that it will
> plentiful for the rest of your days. And that same gold will be your
> death, as it will be the death of all who possess it"
>
> Sigurd Fafnirsbane:
>
> "I would ride home, even though it would mean loosing this great
> treasure, if I knew that I would never die. But every man wants
> to be wealthy until that one day. And you Fafnir, lie in your death
> throes until Hel has you"
>
> It was more the realistic acceptance of the warriors lot.
>
> "I'll feed my last eagle
> when it dines on my blood"
>
> Cheers
> Soren Larsen
>
>
>
--
Wealth must be produced before it can be distributed.
20th saying of Bernard
Njygaard
wrote:
...
I know Norway had a law requiring every free man to own an axe for a
very long time, as part of the national defence. Might be a "chicken
and egg" case :)
I've seen some examples of fighting axes - slight curve to the handle
and head, and a long cutting edge. Same carving power as a sword, but
a lot more punch. What I'm not sure of is how old this design, and the
law, is. I'd think at least early renaissance.
...
Njygaard
Weell... There seems to have been a lot of local cults. The "viking"
raiders and the nobility who financed them may have have subscribed to
a specialized warrior cult connected to gods like Odin (Woden), Thor
and Ty (Tiwaz), where gold, death and glory was the purpose and reward
of life. But it's just not a very practical philosophy for everyday
life. So a craftsman would probably direct his attention to some genii
locii, a farmer would concentrate on the fertility gods, a fisherman
would set his trust in Njord, a mountain hunter turns to Skade and so
on and so forth.
Something similar to the greek "paideia", where the goal is general
excellence at fulfilling your role in society should give a more
realistic model of the norse attitude to life. Combine it with a
standard "honour economy" (think Homer), and you might begin to piece
togheter how they acted in war.
A nobleman was expected to know all the "sports", ranging from
wrestling and weapon handling to poetry. His goal was to win honour,
land and gold for his clan. He didn't do that by getting killed, or
getting all his men killed. As good an explanation as any for the
guerilla tactics of the sea raiders and the Germanii. Also, a
philosophy which allow you to accept death as just another part of
life would be useful for keeping from panicking in the face of the
gruesome realities of battle.
However, I doubt the bulk of a fighting force would be composed of men
with this ideal broad education and fierce dedication to the task at
hand. The main loyalty of the common man would be to the land his
family occupied and the ancestral cult tied to it. It's not unlikely
that they would defend it with unusual zeal, or even fanatical
devotion. But on an offensive, I'd think other influences on morale
would make ideology a minor factor.
...
Soren Larsen
news:brrs2e$ssc$2...@news.eusc.inter.net
I can _highly_ recommend:
The Spoils of Victory: The North in the Shadow of the Roman Empire
available at Oxbow:
http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/38093//Location/DBBC
For 35 dollars or 19 pounds.
Their blurb
"The Roman Iron Age of northern Continental Europe was a violent place,
not least for its clashes with Roman aggressors in the frontier forests
of Germany. This sumptuous volume, from an exhibition held at the
National Museum of Denmark during 2003, looks at some of the spectacular
finds that have been found in graves or as sacrificial hoards, which are
testament to both military and cultural contact between Romans and
Germani. Twenty-five papers, all translated into English, investigate
groups of finds, many of which have survived due to the bogs of Denmark,
accompanied by colour photographs and reconstruction drawings where
appropriate. Among the many subjects discussed are: the extreme warlike
nature of the Iron Age Scandinavians, the reasons for weapon-offering,
Roman sources for Germania and their treatment of the `barbarian', the
Roman army, Germanic runes, weapon graves in Denmark, fortifications,
war booty sacrifices, warrior art, the ships from Nydam Bog, coins, the
army surgeon, and the great preservative qualities of the Danish bog.
The book concludes with an illustrated catalogue of both Germanic and
Roman artefacts. The book is also available in German entitled Sieg und
Triumpf. 452p, many col and b/w illus, figs (Nationalmuseet, Denmark,
2003)"
The book is also available in german and danish.
>
> I have not heard about the axe, or the hand-ax, being the sign of the
> free man before. Could You tell me some more about that?
The axe was adopted as a weapon by the large tribal confederations
of the later Roman period - most notably by the Franks and later the
Norse
was of course also noted for their use of both single and double
handed axes .
That they were used even by the magnates as insignia is evident
by finds like the the Mammen axe:
http://www.vikingart.com/Images/VArt/Axe.jpg
Even into the modern period would many Norwegian farmers
mount their walking sticks with small silver axeheads as sign
of their authority as free men.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
news:388528a9dde950ea...@news.teranews.com
What do you mean by this?
The state of affairs in the 4th and 5th century hardly had any influence
on the affairs of the 1st - 3rd.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Paul J Gans
>> snip >
>Hi Paul,
>have fun
>Uwe M?ller
Thanks for the better information. What I read somewhere (who
can remember the sources for all the bits of information one
accumulates) is that carrying the ax was restricted to free
men. I no longer recall if it was the francisca that was
referred to or not. Nor do I know what the source might be
for the author whose book I read since by the 8th century
this seems to have already vanished as a custom.
I'll try to dig the reference up. Like most of my books the
right one is likely at the bottom of a pile somewhere and will
turn up when I go to find something else... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>...
Thanks. You've tied a number of strands together for me.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Uwe M?ller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i en meddelelse
>I can _highly_ recommend:
>Their blurb
>http://www.vikingart.com/Images/VArt/Axe.jpg
That's interesting. As I was writing my first response
to this I was thinking about the Anglo-Saxon custom of
having the nobles and the huscarls fight with axes.
These are rather fearsome things, even as depicted in
the Bayeux Tapestry.
Of course you've now solved that for me. The huscarls
were established by, I believe, Cnut, and it is quite
possible that the use of the ax came to them from
Norway.
---- Paul J. Gans
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
soh...@tiscali.dk (Soren Larsen) wrote:
> not the the group you would expect to
> have had the best nourishment growing up.
I believe there was a minimum height requirement for the Roman army.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Gans) wrote:
> The Franks kept the tradition going for a long time.
> Or am I off the mark here?
Well not exactly correct. The Francesca was a throwing axe. By the
way Byzantine archers were issued with hand axes as secondary weapons.
I am assuming by hand axe you mean the one handed version lot the long
double-handed war axe.
Soren Larsen
news:brsv60$fgf$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk
> soh...@tiscali.dk (Soren Larsen) wrote:
>
>> not the the group you would expect to
>> have had the best nourishment growing up.
>
> I believe there was a minimum height requirement for the Roman army.
I believe there was prices fixed by law ;-)
Cheers
Soren larsen
David J. Starr
Axes require less smith craft than swords. An ax is effective even if
it doesn't hold much of an edge, plain wrought iron will do. A good
sword, 34" long, light enough to wield single handed, enough carbon on
the steel so it doesn't bend when striking a target, hard enough to hold
an edge, not so hard as to be brittle, is a much harder thing to make.
And consequently expensive.
I always assumed the ax was the weapon of the common man who could not
afford a decent sword. Ax blows are powerful. I've seen a modern two
handed ax punch through 20 gauge sheet steel. However to gain this
power, a two handed grasp is required, which doesn't allow a free hand
for a shield. Single handed, 1.5 pounds is about the heaviest
ax/hachet/tomahawk that a man in good condition can handle. These
things can be right dangerous. Moving up, two handed, a 3 pound ax is
standard today. These will go through damn near anything, but they take
up both hands to swing. Never tried it myself, but I assume a good
sword is faster than a two handed ax.
David J. Starr
John Wilkins
Incidentally, there is a nice article in this month's National
Geographic about Samurai, which has some info on katanas and their
manufacture. Apparently there are modern Japanese swordsmiths who are
the equal of anything made in the 16thC.
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Michael Kuettner
I'll cite from "Matthias Weis : Ein Gräberfed der späten
Merowingerzeit be Stetten an der Donau" :
(abbreviated) :
grave : weapons:
25 knife, parts of Sax
28 knife
29 Sax, knife
30 knife
37 Spatha, 2 knives
42 knife
56 knife
61 fragments of a knife-blade
68 knife
70 knife
81 knife
83 knife, part of a Sax, lance-point
91 parts of a Spatha-scabbard
94 knife
107 Sax, knife
115 knife
122 knife
125 Sax with furnishings, knife
126 arrow-head, knife
127 Sax with furnishings and scabbard, 2 arrows,
knife
129 knife
149 Spatha, 2 arrowheads, knife, tip of a lance (?)
154 Sax, arrowhead, 2 knives
174 Sax with scabbard adornishings, spurs, knife,
switchblade(?)
177 Spatha with furnishings, Sax with furnishings,
2 arrows, 2 knives
179 Spatha, parts of a shield, knife
181 arrow head, childrens Sax,
183 knife
198 Spatha, Sax with scabard adornishments, lance,
shield, 2 knives
200 Sax, 2 arrows, knife
204A/B 2 arrow heads, knife, tip of lance, shield, 2
knives
etc.
That's from page 18.
I've just cited the weapons found (most of the knives aren't weapons).
I've left out pearls and other non-weapons ;-)
Plenty of Sax and Spatha; no axes.
"Renate Wörner : Das alamannische Ortsgräberfeld von Oberndorf-
Beffendorf, Kreis Rottweil" also reports of Saxes, Spathas and Scramasaxes.
No axes.
Back to Weis :
For all those interested into some further data about Saxe :
Grave # length of blade(cm) length of grip(cm) date (acc. to
Hübener)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
182 21.5 11.0
558
135 26.0 19.0
580
11 28.0 22.0
590
125 34.0 19.0
620
154 35.0 10.0 (left)
625
200 36.0 20.5
630
177 40.5 23.5
650
(*) 42.0 17.0
660
127 42.0 18.0
660
39 42.0 25.5
660
7 44.0 22.0
670
208 44.5 14.5
673
99 52.0 17.0
710
(*) 53.0 10.0
715
29 53.0 11.0
715
198 53.0 16.5
715
107 61.0 19 (ca)
755
174 65.0 10 (ca)
775
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
(*) means the item was found without context.
(page 35).
And there's a nice little table about combinations of weapons in the graves
of adults (again Weis, page 41);
Grave # Age Spatha Sax Shield Lance(spear) Arrow
.
Again, no axes.
I'll look for more details; but at least in this graveyard there are no
axes
to be found from roughly 550 to 800.
Ditto in the other book.
But as I've said, I'll see whether I can find an axe.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Julian Richards
wrote:
>That's interesting. As I was writing my first response
>to this I was thinking about the Anglo-Saxon custom of
>having the nobles and the huscarls fight with axes.
>These are rather fearsome things, even as depicted in
>the Bayeux Tapestry.
>
>Of course you've now solved that for me. The huscarls
>were established by, I believe, Cnut, and it is quite
>possible that the use of the ax came to them from
>Norway.
The Normans were of Viking descent and yet they seemed unacquainted
with the axes when they came up against the Saxons.
Tron Furu
"Dr. Sheila J" <wols...@shaw.ca> skrev i melding
news:ff801b.031217...@posting.google.com...
> I'm not very good at this, am I?
>
> My apologies Soren. Have you ever read 'The Viking Art of War' by
> Griffith? I would use his interpretation. I can reprint here, if
> necessary. It's somewhat lengthy and I have been asked to keep brief.
>
Sorry to jump in ... :
Being interested both in the art of war (strategy theory) and vikings, of
course I had to buy "The Viking Art of War", but I found it infuriatingly
..... nnghh, don't know. I may be biased against the author because I (think
I) sense some underlying attitude of ... "what's the big deal?"; so I may
have read it somewhat critically.
My main point is that PG seems to contradict himself a bit too often, and
AFAICS he is "projecting" quite a lot: some of his conclusions sound too
much like pub science ("...everybody knows .... highly unlikely .... would
you do that?!!!!").
PG has certainly covered more source material than I ever will, but I do not
think that he does it justice. For instance, he quotes some of the more
fanciful romance sagas, and gives due warning that they are not to be taken
as historical gospel. Then, however, he goes on to Sturlasons
"Heimskringla", and says that this applies even more to this book. It's not
that I have a "scientific" basis for saying this, but I would trust Snorre,
not as "pure history", of course, but certainly more than the writer of a
saga that dresses his hero in a fire and arrow proof shirt, and arms him
with returning arrows (there's a weaponry problem for you) etc.
PG reaches some conclusions which to my mind are rather astonishing, given
the facts he marshalls to support them. He acknowledges that the Norse
routinely voyaged all European waters, and reached America, Africa and the
Middle East, in something like very big rowing boats, but seems to think
they weren't really that terrific sailors. The Norse displayed an
extraordinary vigour in terrorizing extended areas of Europe for quite a
handfull of generations, but yet they weren't really all that terrific
fighters; The Berserks may have had a bad reputation, but that was mostly
PR, "it is safest to imagine that" they were no different from Bearskin Hat
Guards of today (There was an earlier discussion of norse warfare some
months ago, BTW, and somebody brought up germanic warrior societies as a
model for the berserks; now would be a good time to repost that) ..... etc.
etc...
But some of the valid points PG makes point to the circumstance that the
Vikings were a contradictory lot. First of all , it is probably difficult to
make a statement that would hold true for most, not to mention all, of thise
who were at some point in time called vikings. "The" vikings are of course a
very diverse group, if a group at all. They did ravage Europe, but waged
just as much, if not more war at home than abroad (being a Scandinavian king
seems to have been one of the more hazardous occupations one could have).
They were portrayed as cooly calculating (in trade, and in plundering
actions), but also as insanely bloodthirsty, etc.
But going back to your original post ("Dying in battle was the only way to
go if you were a viking. Dreams of
Valhalla were forefront in their minds. Did this make them better warriors?
Wanting a glorious death, did this make them superior on the battlefield?"),
let me quote another author, german Rudolf Pörtner, in his Die Wikinger: He
refers to Delbrück, who, in his History of War says that the germanic
peoples sort of "enjoyed to fight" ("Kampffreude") to such a degree that
they at any time were ready to fight "for something or the other". Pörtner
goes on to say that "they loved war for the sake of war, and the non plus
ultra of warfare was the single combat ("Mann gegen Mann"), the desire "to
to smite with their own hands, in the vanguard, where all could see."
This germanic war frenzy /.../ did not produce any Caesar, nor any Hannibal.
The Skald loves to sing of a momentous attack that wreaks havoc on the enemy
rows like a mower in a meadow. Apart from Hell and eternal damnation, the
Franks, Anglo-Saxons, the Scots and the Irish seem to have dreaded these
devastating attacks like nothing else ..."
Awfully romantic, of course, but the tantalizing part is that this opinion
seems to be based on passages from some chronicle or other (Pörtner cleverly
does not mention which ones). There are several questions here. One question
is whether it at all is true or not that they had this "battle frenzy". If
they had, another question is of course whether this made them good
soldiers, or just good at dying. The outcome of Stamford Bridge, where many
were hacked to death without resisting, having spent all their strength,
seems to indicate the opposite. Moving to the field of pure speculation,
_IF_ one could induce "frenzy" at will, it would a) be handy to do that at
in the first five minutes of a battle, as a sort of "psychological warfare";
few people like to stand up to a raving psychotic, who seems to believe that
killing you would solve his problems, and who is, furthermore, heavily
armed. And b) it would make sense of the belief in the "war magic" of
"binding and losening fetters" on a man, one of the powers which Odin was
said to have. They must have been aware of the danger of going into battle
with the opposite of battle frenzy, too.
Njygaard has made some very good points towards a sensible view of this. I
would not, however, exclude the possibility of some form of "culturally
based 'schizophrenia' ", where normal (for the period ...) people would tip
over into something "senseless", sort of like MDouglas in "Falling Down", if
you forgive the example. Or maybe they were just a little bit
"fandenivoldsk", when the situation was against them ...
BTW, you said that you " have always found the fighting tactics of the
'vikings' to have been
rather fantastic". Such a definite article is full of promises; Would you
care to say more about fighting tactics? I was raised with the firm belief
in the svinefylking, but I glean from PG that this was probably to difficult
for Scandinavians.
TF
Julian Richards
wrote:
>In article <brqjr2$6f6ce$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>soh...@tiscali.dk (Soren Larsen) wrote:
>
>> not the the group you would expect to
>> have had the best nourishment growing up.
>
> I believe there was a minimum height requirement for the Roman army.
I can't imagine that the minimum would have been that high. I know
that the UK police have a minimum height but it is not too great to
encourage Chinese candidates to apply.
Tron Furu
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> skrev i melding
news:brqlb4$6a1jg$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> But the germanic farm boys lived in a militarised society and
> was raised to be warriors. The effect showed it self at a.m.o places
CAn we bandy some words? What is a "militarized society"? When does a
country or a nation have a military? Is a culture attuned to frequent and
severe conflicts militarized? To my mind there is a difference between being
militarized like e.g. 18. century Prussia (or ancient Sparta, or Rome),
where things are run by the army, although they may not go to war that
often, and secondly, being warlike and aggressive, like, say, a lot of the
european colonization efforts by private citizens, and, thirdly, just living
in an environment where Frnacis Fukuyama could never have written "Trust",
like ... well, I've never been there, but I have heard that Karachi in
Pakistan is a good place to have many and important friends. A very good
place. The military doesn't run everything, nor do they go to war a lot, but
still there seems to be a lot of violence.
I always pictured Scandinavia as a rather civilian society?
TF
Tron Furu
"Njygaard" <Nando...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:0tl3uvs3jdq6ps0lt...@4ax.com...
> ...
>
> I know Norway had a law requiring every free man to own an axe for a
> very long time, as part of the national defence. Might be a "chicken
> and egg" case :)
>
> I've seen some examples of fighting axes - slight curve to the handle
> and head, and a long cutting edge. Same carving power as a sword, but
> a lot more punch. What I'm not sure of is how old this design, and the
> law, is. I'd think at least early renaissance.
Didn't the early leidang laws require every man to have spear and axe?
AFAIK the (pre-renaissance) Frostatingslov has some specifications for this.
TF
Tron Furu
"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:h4j4uvgdqhl1kfd07...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:51:52 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That's interesting. As I was writing my first response
> >to this I was thinking about the Anglo-Saxon custom of
> >having the nobles and the huscarls fight with axes.
> >These are rather fearsome things, even as depicted in
> >the Bayeux Tapestry.
> >
> >Of course you've now solved that for me. The huscarls
> >were established by, I believe, Cnut, and it is quite
> >possible that the use of the ax came to them from
> >Norway.
>
> The Normans were of Viking descent and yet they seemed unacquainted
> with the axes when they came up against the Saxons.
If Paddy Griffith is to be believed, that is because the heavy two-hand
battle axe of the Huscarls began to predominate around AD 1000, while the
axes known to our expat french cousins was the light one-handed fighting
axe.
TF
Tron Furu
"David J. Starr" <dst...@theworld.com> skrev i melding
news:3FE22F94...@theworld.com...
> I always assumed the ax was the weapon of the common man who could not
> afford a decent sword. Ax blows are powerful. I've seen a modern two
> handed ax punch through 20 gauge sheet steel. However to gain this
> power, a two handed grasp is required, which doesn't allow a free hand
> for a shield. Single handed, 1.5 pounds is about the heaviest
> ax/hachet/tomahawk that a man in good condition can handle. These
> things can be right dangerous. Moving up, two handed, a 3 pound ax is
> standard today. These will go through damn near anything, but they take
> up both hands to swing. Never tried it myself, but I assume a good
> sword is faster than a two handed ax.
>
I think we know too little of how the axe was used in combat. One thing is
certain: you can't use it like you would for chopping; just like a cook
doesn't move like a fencer.*
Anyone familiar with ordinary fencing will know that it is .... for lack of
a better word, pointless to thrust a sword _all the way_ through someone's
body. Once the point has penetrated, pushing the rest of the blade through
the hole doesn't make your opponent any deader, it just slows down your
retrieving the weapon and getting on with meleeing. So why assume that the
primary aim is to drive your axe as far into your opponent as possible? That
will only get your axe stuck. No weapon user will survive for long if the
weapon leaves him wide open for a counter, and that whether you hit your
mark or miss it, as in a melee situation. So by transcendental logic (where
we see the effect, we must assume the cause: since some vikings survived
battle...) the axe-wielding vikings can't have been so stupid as to fight
like that.
And why assume that the oxkiller blow was the only technique available? I
happen to be somewhat familiar with the use of the japanese halberd, the
naginata, in a pre-Tokugawa (i.e. battlefield techniques) school. Even a
pole weapon as long as the halberd has wide range of quite versatile
applications, and can be used with considerable, often surprising,
swiftness.
It also requires a light touch, more than a brute strength blow. Many
specimens of battle axes show an angle in the handle that would give the axe
edge a curvature that would allow for tangential slashes more than direct
blows; and I suspect - but do not know - that the elongated ends of the
broad axe could be use for some vicious stabbing as well. The handle can be
used for blocking movements, and the butt end is a weapon in its own right.
This versatility of parts would negate any speed advantage that the sword
_might_ have; personally, I don't think it has that much.
As for swinging an axe that weighs more than 1.5 pounds, the weight factor
is meaningless without knowing the heft. And I suspect that if you for a
living row a 20 meter wooden boat from, say, Copenhagen to Paris, London,
Hamburg, Cordoba, Dublin and back, a 2 pound axe will bring tears of relief
to your eyes.
TF
* Unless he's making a record shish kebab.
Sheila J
believe......
Sheila J
>
> But some of the valid points PG makes point to the circumstance that the
> Vikings were a contradictory lot. First of all , it is probably difficult to
> make a statement that would hold true for most, not to mention all, of thise
> who were at some point in time called vikings. "The" vikings are of course a
> very diverse group, if a group at all. They did ravage Europe, but waged
> just as much, if not more war at home than abroad (being a Scandinavian king
> seems to have been one of the more hazardous occupations one could have).
> They were portrayed as cooly calculating (in trade, and in plundering
> actions), but also as insanely bloodthirsty, etc.
That was going to be my point...I'm not sure that anyone truly
understands the group enough to come up with a definitive defination!
> Awfully romantic, of course,
Oh, but what is wrong with romantized war figures? The reason I went
into military history, actually. I so desperately wanted to believe
that there were men out there like that!!!!! :D
There are several questions here. One question
> is whether it at all is true or not that they had this "battle frenzy".
I think their religion had a strong role to play here. If your very
core beliefs tell you that, if you are a man, the only way you are going
off to the 'afterworld - in this case, Valhalla: (playing with Thor and
the boys and hacking each other to death every afternoon/coming back to
life every evening and then playing with blond-haired serving wenches
all night)- and that to die in your bed is the worst thing a man could
do - would that NOT have a rather overwhelming effect on your psyche?
I remember my grandfather often quoting this:
'Cattle die....Kinsmen die, Yourself will soon die, But fair fame will
never fade, For the man who wins it"
Cattle die.....Kinsmen die, Yourself will soon die, One thing I know
that never dies, The good name of the dead'
I believe it was from Havamál (but Soren or Inger might correct me here)
and used, within the context, of the Jomsviking society. My point,
however, is that this culture was so ingrained in their very cores, that
to die any other way, except in battle, was to feel ashamed your entire
life. Then, if we can accept that statement, can we not take it one
step further and suggest that they would be consumed with thoughts of
dying on the battle field? And then, one step further, and argue that
they would actually be seeking a battle death? (at some point...not
necessarily when they were some 21 year old kid in love with life!)
Think of all the pressure that would be on them for this? Their lovers,
their parents, their children....
The way that I look at it is to actually use my own beliefs as a basis.
I am a die- hard fatalist. I am also a strong believer in God and the
notion of heaven. I have been to several war zones and was infamous
(and always in trouble) for refusing to wear my flak jacket and helmet.
My thought on this was always quite simple. If God wants me, he can take
me in my sleep just as easy as have a stray Croatian bullet enter my
head. So why be uncomfortable in 100 degree heat? I think the Vikings
would have seen it the same way. Their faith was so strong that if a
valkyrie was to come looking for them, there was nothing they could do.
As a result, why not just 'kick the proverbial butt' when you are out on
the battle field? And not fear death at all - because that is what you
ultimately want.
I also believe the implications of this are huge in the understanding of
strategy.
But, all that said, I also saw Lord of the Rings 3 last night (which
didn't end until 0400h this morning) and perhaps I'm just delusional!
(And expect to have that suggested, given this group! :D )
>
> BTW, you said that you " have always found the fighting tactics of the
> 'vikings' to have been
> rather fantastic". Such a definite article is full of promises;
Yes....and once I have some sleep and finish baking the 135 cookies I
need for my kids' classes tomorrow morning, I shall promise to tackle!
Would you
> care to say more about fighting tactics? I was raised with the firm belief
> in the svinefylking, but I glean from PG that this was probably to difficult
> for Scandinavians.
I'm Danish by birth and heritage, and I am tracking so far. Care to
elaborate?
Cheers,
Sheila
Sheila J
Well put, and I can appreciate your comments....except this one....
>
> However, I doubt the bulk of a fighting force would be composed of men
> with this ideal broad education and fierce dedication to the task at
> hand. The main loyalty of the common man would be to the land his
> family occupied and the ancestral cult tied to it.
By this, you are suggesting that their religion was fractured by class
and I can't help but disagree.
What would you base this on?
Cheers,
Sheila
Sheila J
you ever so much friends!
Paul J Gans
>In article <brr0ne$i0j$2...@reader2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J
>Gans) wrote:
>> The Franks kept the tradition going for a long time.
>> Or am I off the mark here?
> Well not exactly correct. The Francesca was a throwing axe. By the
>way Byzantine archers were issued with hand axes as secondary weapons.
>I am assuming by hand axe you mean the one handed version lot the long
>double-handed war axe.
The one I am told was worn by the Franks was a one-handed
version.
The use of an ax as a weapon in warfare is another story.
I doubt anyone would tote a two-hander around while socializing
in town... It tends to distract people and makes the maidens
think that there's yet another guy with size fears. ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Uwe Müller
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:brthft$7ehmk$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:brso20$4d6$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> > "Uwe M?ller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
> >
> > >"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > >news:brr0ne$i0j$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> > >> Soren Larsen <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
> > >> >"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > >> >news:3fe0cf84$0$30479$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net
> > >> >> Soren Larsen wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > >> >>> news:3fe08cee$0$62198$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
> > >> >>>
> snip, on axes>
> I'll look for more details; but at least in this graveyard there are no
> axes
> to be found from roughly 550 to 800.
> Ditto in the other book.
> But as I've said, I'll see whether I can find an axe.
"Axes ('Kampfbeile') are typical for the older Merowingian age, they seem to
have been substituted by saxes ('Breitsaxe') in the younger Merivingian age.
Most axes seem to have been used for close quarter fighting, while the
franziska, a throwing axe, was used at a distance of about 12 m." H.Ament,
Franken. in Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 9, 1995, 398
The axe as a standard weapon was first describe by Prokop around 500, the
term franzisca was first used by Isidor of Sevilla. At the start of the
fight they were thrown to smash the shields of their oponents and kill or
maim. The F. were between 13 and 18 cm of length, their weight was usually
between 400 and 800 g. There are about 800 franziskas known to
archaeologists, but only 15-20 % are from undisturbed archaeological
contexts.
The F. was used roughly between around 500 and slightly later than the
middle of the 6th c., giving it a life of something like 2 generations.
There were other axes forms in use by Franks at the time, but only about 150
of those are known. according to W.Huebener, Franziska. in: Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde 9, 1995, 470-476
J.Petersen describes at least 3000 axes from viking age Norway as weapons,
while he sees only 70 axes as tools. The BT shows the same type of axes as
tools and as weapons. according to H.Steuer, Axt. E. Voelkerwanderungszeit
bis Wikingerzeit. in: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 1, 1973,
549-559
Especially the last paragraph indicates some special importance for the axe
in Norway, it seems to have been included in burials as a fairly common
tool/weapon. Since grave rites changed with christianity, this does not
imply that axes were unknown or even scarce outside Norway, only that they
were not included in burials.
AFAIR christianity came late to Norway, so the popularity of the axe as a
grave good might well have had a religious background.
So the main reason for the lack of axes, especially franziscae, in Your
graveyards would be, that they are to late for the period of use as a weapon
and the lack of grave goods in general, especially tools, in christianized
contexts.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
William Black
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g67lwz.qhxyybemi06pN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Incidentally, there is a nice article in this month's National
> Geographic about Samurai, which has some info on katanas and their
> manufacture. Apparently there are modern Japanese swordsmiths who are
> the equal of anything made in the 16thC.
I'm not surprised.
There are no lost arts, despite certain people who insist that there must
be.
However there are many 'people intensive' processes and people won't pay for
them these days.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Njygaard
Good question. First I'd like to moderate that a little - I doubt
there were specific rules about who could worship what. Native
religions are very flexible by nature, and hard to fracture :) Norse
society was a class society, but not without mobility. One can notice
the strong class divisions in late myths like the one where the god
Heimdall fathers the three classes - nobility, freemen and thralls.
The religion contains an element of communion. Parties are thrown for
gods in order to gain their favour. Roughly spoken, it seems one
thought the gods would favour those who could cater best for them :)
Another tripartite class myth explains how the god Odin travels the
earth in disguise, visits each class in turn, and is offered bread;
the thralls offer poor fare, the freemen better, but the noblemen have
the good stuff.
In a polytheistic religion, one will always be faced with the choice
of which gods to dedicate the rituals to. With a myriad of gods and
lesser spirits, the task of appeasing the more important gods seems to
have been a community effort, with the expenses of rituals and holy
places kept partly by the upper class, partly by "chipping in". Most
records seem to indicate temples were dedicated to a trio of gods,
often the ones considered to be related in some way to the clan who
paid for the maintenance of the temple. The sacrifices to "lesser"
gods, such as ancestral and nature spirits, were on a more personal or
family scale, and so ingrained in the culture that it has lasted until
modern times, while the public cult declined with christianity.
The icelandic sagas mention a third type of worship. Some people would
make an oath to a god, dedicating themselves to this god in
particular. Any fracture, understood as a difference in the practice
of whorship, within the religion seems to have followed personal
choice, economy and "utility" rather than abstract class.
That said, I find it hard to imagine a schism within a religion with
no central authority and no dogma. There were vendettas between clans
which claimed descent from different gods in order to gain legitimacy
as royal, but all individuals seems to have shared much the same
paradigm (accounting for local oddities and poor communications), even
though they directed their prayers to different powers within the same
pantheon.
...
Bryn Fraser
<uwemu...@snafu.de> writes
Unlike most weapons, the axe is also a tool. There is much less chance
of an axe being left lying, than say, a shield or a bent sword. As wood
was a major resource during the period under discussion.
Pragmatism would influence people away from removing it from circulation
by investing it with too much religious significant except perhaps in
the case of a very personal connection with an individual.
>
>
--
Bryn Fraser
Awe is the best of man: howe'er the world's
Mizprizing of the feeling would prevent us,
Deeply we feel, once gripped, the weird Portentous.
(GOETHE, Faust, Second Part, Act I, Sc. V.)
Paul J Gans
[snip]
>Incidentally, there is a nice article in this month's National
>Geographic about Samurai, which has some info on katanas and their
>manufacture. Apparently there are modern Japanese swordsmiths who are
>the equal of anything made in the 16thC.
I'd think so. We know a heck of a lot more about how
to forge and treat steel now than was known in the
16thC.
I also know that there are those who feel that the
medievals in general and the Japanese in particular
had secret knowlege that enabled them to turn out
supernatural weapons that we cannot equal today.
But that's not so.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
[big snip]
>"Renate W?rner : Das alamannische Ortsgr?berfeld von Oberndorf-
>Beffendorf, Kreis Rottweil" also reports of Saxes, Spathas and Scramasaxes.
>No axes.
>Back to Weis :
>For all those interested into some further data about Saxe :
>Grave # length of blade(cm) length of grip(cm) date (acc. to
>H?bener)
>(page 35).
>Cheers,
>Michael Kuettner
Thanks Michael. I apreciate it.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Njygaard wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:27:50 +0100, "Uwe M?ller" <uwemu...@snafu.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
The Anglo-Saxons used axes from behind a shield wall. Men
were, as I understand it, paired. One carried an oversized
shield to protect both. The other wielded the ax.
When it worked it was a devastating combination.
----- Paul J. Gans
erilar
<Nando...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One can notice
> the strong class divisions in late myths like the one where the god
> Heimdall fathers the three classes - nobility, freemen and thralls.
Note: there was no "noble class" in Iceland.
> The icelandic sagas mention a third type of worship. Some people would
> make an oath to a god, dedicating themselves to this god in
> particular. Any fracture, understood as a difference in the practice
> of whorship, within the religion seems to have followed personal
> choice, economy and "utility" rather than abstract class.
Possibly related to the high percentage of "freemen" in Iceland?
>
> That said, I find it hard to imagine a schism within a religion with
> no central authority and no dogma.
This strikes me as eminently reasonable.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
perspicuitas enim argumentatione elevatur--Cicero
(The clearest subjects are often obscured by lengthened reasoning)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Paul J Gans
>> But some of the valid points PG makes point to the circumstance that the
>> Vikings were a contradictory lot. First of all , it is probably difficult to
>> make a statement that would hold true for most, not to mention all, of thise
>> who were at some point in time called vikings. "The" vikings are of course a
>> very diverse group, if a group at all. They did ravage Europe, but waged
>> just as much, if not more war at home than abroad (being a Scandinavian king
>> seems to have been one of the more hazardous occupations one could have).
>> They were portrayed as cooly calculating (in trade, and in plundering
>> actions), but also as insanely bloodthirsty, etc.
>That was going to be my point...I'm not sure that anyone truly
>understands the group enough to come up with a definitive defination!
Part of the confusion comes from the undoubted fact that the
losers do, indeed, get to write history. A lot that we think
we know about Viking depredations in the West stems from clerics
who were, to say the least, not pleased with Vikings.
Some of what is written about the Vikings has "enhanced" their
cruelty, their lack of mercy, and their devastating treatment
of those who opposed them.
We tend to judge them through those lenses. And it confuses
our view. I think that to equalize things we need to read
up on how the west treated populations with which they had
no sympathy or common religion.
In the intramural warfare of the west, one was often fighting
against one's second cousin twice removed. One did not torture
him even if he richly deserved it. After the battle frenzy
dies (and most warriors, I suspect, have had it) it is not
uncommon to want to hear your enemy scream a bit.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Kuettner
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:brugjr$kcq$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
550 is still pretty early to me; and if it's as Paul stated that the axe
was
a sign of a free man, it surely would have gone to the grave with him.
> The axe as a standard weapon was first describe by Prokop around 500, the
> term franzisca was first used by Isidor of Sevilla. At the start of the
> fight they were thrown to smash the shields of their oponents and kill or
> maim. The F. were between 13 and 18 cm of length, their weight was
usually
> between 400 and 800 g. There are about 800 franziskas known to
> archaeologists, but only 15-20 % are from undisturbed archaeological
> contexts.
>
Opposed to how many saxes, scramasaxes and spathas ?
> The F. was used roughly between around 500 and slightly later than the
> middle of the 6th c., giving it a life of something like 2 generations.
> There were other axes forms in use by Franks at the time, but only about
150
> of those are known. according to W.Huebener, Franziska. in: Reallexikon
der
> germanischen Altertumskunde 9, 1995, 470-476
>
> J.Petersen describes at least 3000 axes from viking age Norway as
weapons,
> while he sees only 70 axes as tools. The BT shows the same type of axes
as
> tools and as weapons. according to H.Steuer, Axt. E.
Voelkerwanderungszeit
> bis Wikingerzeit. in: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 1,
1973,
> 549-559
>
Yep; Norway.
But Norwegians aren't very Frankish.
> Especially the last paragraph indicates some special importance for the
axe
> in Norway, it seems to have been included in burials as a fairly common
> tool/weapon. Since grave rites changed with christianity, this does not
> imply that axes were unknown or even scarce outside Norway, only that
they
> were not included in burials.
>
> AFAIR christianity came late to Norway, so the popularity of the axe as a
> grave good might well have had a religious background.
>
Agree fully.
But the problem is the axe as a _symbol_, not a weapon for the _Franks_.
> So the main reason for the lack of axes, especially franziscae, in Your
> graveyards would be, that they are to late for the period of use as a
weapon
> and the lack of grave goods in general, especially tools, in
christianized
> contexts.
>
I've written that I've omitted things like pearls, beads, etc.
If you're interested, I'll scan some descriptions and post them here.
Shortly said - no lack of grave goods.
And as you've cited above, the axe was used as a weapon from ca. 500 to
the middle of the 6th century; from whence there _are_ graves in this
burial site (I've given the datings of the saxes).
To summarize : I've no problems with the axe used as a weapon and
falling out of use; the problem is it's being a _symbol_ of a free man
among
the Franks. If that would be the case some axes should have shown up there
in at least some of the graves.
OTOH, thinking of the Franks as a homogenous people instead of a tribal
confederation would be wrong (for the early times).
So it's possible that Paul was right that the axe was a symbol among
_some_ Franks (esp. the more Northern ones).
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Tron Furu
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:brui27$37b$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g67lwz.qhxyybemi06pN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>
> > Incidentally, there is a nice article in this month's National
> > Geographic about Samurai, which has some info on katanas and their
> > manufacture. Apparently there are modern Japanese swordsmiths who are
> > the equal of anything made in the 16thC.
>
> I'm not surprised.
>
> There are no lost arts, despite certain people who insist that there
must
> be.
Wrong group, of course, but weren't smiths in the bronze age able to temper
bronze to a hardness that permitted bronze to be honed sharp enough to use
as razors? And was this not ... thoroughly mislaid for a long time?
TF
Tron Furu
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> skrev i melding
news:brve56$3be$2...@reader2.panix.com...
I use the same reference filing system you seem to use .... but if memory
serves right, I (must) have read an article about Japanese blades from the
Koto era achieving a hardness close to glass, which has only lately been
copied with modern technology, by some process which requires an oxygen free
atmosphere (sorry to be vague on details of chemistry ... just won't stick).
In the modern version this was achieved by producing steel in a chamber
filled with some inert (?) gas (I seem to recall that it contained sulphur,
but for all I know that would be bad for the steel). The hypothesis is that
the clay layer used in the traditional process was the factor that produced
the similar effect.
The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not maintained in the
centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese "forgot".
TF
Paul J Gans
>"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:1g67lwz.qhxyybemi06pN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>> Incidentally, there is a nice article in this month's National
>> Geographic about Samurai, which has some info on katanas and their
>> manufacture. Apparently there are modern Japanese swordsmiths who are
>> the equal of anything made in the 16thC.
>I'm not surprised.
>There are no lost arts, despite certain people who insist that there must
>be.
>However there are many 'people intensive' processes and people won't pay for
>them these days.
There was one. The Romans developed a cement that would harden
under water. That allowed them to build massive harbor works
in places where there was no natural harbor.
The secret was in fact lost. Indeed, it was not until early
modern times that folks realized that the Romans had that
capacity.
It was, of course, duplicated, but after the Middle Ages. The
secret was that a major ingredient was pumice. There being
few active volcanos in France, Germany, or England, nobody
came up with the magic ingredient.
But that's about the only one, and it is an admitted aberrition.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Sometimes it isn't a question of forgetting. For instance
the medievals did not build Roman roads simply because it
was too darned expensive. The same is true of many other
Roman engineering marvels.
But for example, medieval steel was much better than Roman
steel. Shows what a thousand years of development can do.
---- Paul J. Gans
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Tron Furu) wrote:
> The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not maintained
> in the centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese "forgot".
You can see a similar decline in quality in European swords. Once a
sword becomes largely ceremonial there is much less incentive to
maintain quality over appearance.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
William Black
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bs0oj0$7ul$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <1nIEb.7291$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>, tron...@frisurf.no
> (Tron Furu) wrote:
>
> > The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not maintained
> > in the centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese "forgot".
>
> You can see a similar decline in quality in European swords. Once a
> sword becomes largely ceremonial there is much less incentive to
> maintain quality over appearance.
Now you're going to tell us all about a historical sword that is better
quality and better made than the very late (1902?) pattern British cavalry
sabre.
Julian Richards
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bs0oj0$7ul$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
>> In article <1nIEb.7291$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>, tron...@frisurf.no
>> (Tron Furu) wrote:
>>
>> > The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not maintained
>> > in the centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese "forgot".
>>
>> You can see a similar decline in quality in European swords. Once a
>> sword becomes largely ceremonial there is much less incentive to
>> maintain quality over appearance.
>
>Now you're going to tell us all about a historical sword that is better
>quality and better made than the very late (1902?) pattern British cavalry
>sabre.
I believe that there were severe quality problems in US Civil War
sword manufacture mostly due to the increased production.
--
Julian Richards
julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com
"My son has asked for a pair of Nike trainers.
He's ten years old, he should make his own"
"I bought a CD of whale music. Imagine my
disappointment when I got home to discover
that it was actual a cover version by a tribute
band of dolphins"
Uwe Müller
"Bryn Fraser" <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:WV3N6kG$hu4$Ew...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <brugjr$kcq$1...@news.eusc.inter.net>, Uwe Müller
> <uwemu...@snafu.de> writes
> >Hi Michael,
> >
> >"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:brthft$7ehmk$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> news:brso20$4d6$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> > "Uwe M?ller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> > >news:brr0ne$i0j$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> > >> Soren Larsen <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
> >> > >> >"Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> > >> >news:3fe0cf84$0$30479$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net
> >> > >> >> Soren Larsen wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> > >> >>> news:3fe08cee$0$62198$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
> >> > >> >>>
> >
> snip >
> >
> >So the main reason for the lack of axes, especially franziscae, in Your
> >graveyards would be, that they are to late for the period of use as a
weapon
> >and the lack of grave goods in general, especially tools, in
christianized
> >contexts.
> >
> >have fun
> >
> >Uwe Mueller
>
> Unlike most weapons, the axe is also a tool. There is much less chance
> of an axe being left lying, than say, a shield or a bent sword. As wood
> was a major resource during the period under discussion.
Yes and no. Since iron ore was a local commodity to be had easily, they did
not need to preserve a rare metall.
Research on bronze age weapons has shown, that there are times, when people
would get a shining new sword (or spear point or whatever) as grave good,
probably specially made for ther funeral, and times, where they had to rely
on old and used ones. But even though they had to import copper and tin,
metal weapons, with some peoples metal axes, were put into the graves.
Graves with tools otoh are rare through all ages, probably because their
practicall use was greater than their symbolic value.
>
> Pragmatism would influence people away from removing it from circulation
> by investing it with too much religious significant except perhaps in
> the case of a very personal connection with an individual.
Pragmatism made people cast axes that were smaller for ceremonial use only,
compare the early iron age. And pragmatism would also keep valuable tools
from ending in a grave.
The burial was a show conducted and planned for the good of the relatives,
the prize of an axe would have been but a small part of the total
expenditures. So, given the great number of viking axes in Norway, a special
importance could well have been attached to them.
But the state of research gives no conclusive evidence either way.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> >news:1g67lwz.qhxyybemi06pN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>
> >> Incidentally, there is a nice article in this month's National
> >> Geographic about Samurai, which has some info on katanas and their
> >> manufacture. Apparently there are modern Japanese swordsmiths who are
> >> the equal of anything made in the 16thC.
>
> >I'm not surprised.
>
> >There are no lost arts, despite certain people who insist that there
must
> >be.
There was a feature on a german (?) smith on TV, who makes knives by folding
an twisting different quality iron and steel bands, damascening, one of the
arts supposedly lost. He produces about half a dozen knives every year, and
he test them for quality by cutting glass before putting an edge on them.
They are sold for about 2-3.000 Euros a piece, depending on the extras. He
could earn more money by making 'traditional' hangings for flower pots, or
garden fences.
He said, it wasn't the techniques, that got lost, but the demand for quality
on the side of the consumer.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
> Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >> But some of the valid points PG makes point to the circumstance that
the
> >> Vikings were a contradictory lot. First of all , it is probably
difficult to
> >> make a statement that would hold true for most, not to mention all, of
thise
> >> who were at some point in time called vikings. "The" vikings are of
course a
> >> very diverse group, if a group at all. They did ravage Europe, but
waged
> >> just as much, if not more war at home than abroad (being a Scandinavian
king
> >> seems to have been one of the more hazardous occupations one could
have).
> >> They were portrayed as cooly calculating (in trade, and in plundering
> >> actions), but also as insanely bloodthirsty, etc.
>
> >That was going to be my point...I'm not sure that anyone truly
> >understands the group enough to come up with a definitive defination!
>
> Part of the confusion comes from the undoubted fact that the
> losers do, indeed, get to write history. A lot that we think
> we know about Viking depredations in the West stems from clerics
> who were, to say the least, not pleased with Vikings.
> snip >
A second contribution to that picture are of course at least some of the
sagas, where the warring viking is a standard topic.
What is usually forgotten is that they worked a trade system that connected
Eastern Europe and the Middle East to Central and North Europe, that they
excelled in shipbuilding and navigation, and the working of non-ferrous
metals, iron and steel. That they had monumental building programms for
military purposes and tombs, had their own style of writing, ....
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'normal viking' had lived a life without much
more fighting than a 'pub brawl', where the 'conquering of the seas' ment
fishing for cod and the glorious traders business consisted of shipping
dried fish, cheese, wood and goats up and down the coast.
But when winter came, and shipping and agriculture ceased, you should have
heard the stories they could tell.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Uwe Müller
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:brvjaf$565qv$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
He has written a couple of dozen books on that question. If I remember
correct, the YMA starts around 500, maybe as late as 520.
> 550 is still pretty early to me; and if it's as Paul stated that the axe
> was
> a sign of a free man, it surely would have gone to the grave with him.
There is always a certain bias on what is included among the grave goods,
but I'd expect more of those axes, too.
>
> > The axe as a standard weapon was first describe by Prokop around 500,
the
> > term franzisca was first used by Isidor of Sevilla. At the start of the
> > fight they were thrown to smash the shields of their oponents and kill
or
> > maim. The F. were between 13 and 18 cm of length, their weight was
> usually
> > between 400 and 800 g. There are about 800 franziskas known to
> > archaeologists, but only 15-20 % are from undisturbed archaeological
> > contexts.
> >
> Opposed to how many saxes, scramasaxes and spathas ?
That's a good one. The Reallexikon germ. Altertumskunde has only reached the
letter 'Q'. The Lexikon des Mittelalters does not give any figures. The
exhibition Die Franken-Les Francs states, that warriors graves from the
4th/5th c. are abundant in the former Germania II and Belgica II, even
though 80 % showed only an axe [organic weapons like clubs and wodden spears
are usually gone wiithout traces, UM] and only 10 % had more weapons,
usually a sword among them. H.W. Böhme, Söldner und Siedler im Späantiken
Nordgallien. in: Ausstellungskatalog Die Franken, 1997² , 91-101, cit. p. 95
There are only 3 spathae known from the 4th c. , from the middle of the 5th
c. on they become common among the richer furnished male graves.
Sorry no exact figures given.
>
> > The F. was used roughly between around 500 and slightly later than the
> > middle of the 6th c., giving it a life of something like 2 generations.
> > There were other axes forms in use by Franks at the time, but only about
> 150
> > of those are known. according to W.Huebener, Franziska. in: Reallexikon
> der
> > germanischen Altertumskunde 9, 1995, 470-476
> >
> > J.Petersen describes at least 3000 axes from viking age Norway as
> weapons,
> > while he sees only 70 axes as tools. The BT shows the same type of axes
> as
> > tools and as weapons. according to H.Steuer, Axt. E.
> Voelkerwanderungszeit
> > bis Wikingerzeit. in: Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 1,
> 1973,
> > 549-559
> >
> Yep; Norway.
> But Norwegians aren't very Frankish.
Depends on from where you look, AFAIR all 'Europeans' are called 'Franks' in
early muslimic sources : )
> snip >
> To summarize : I've no problems with the axe used as a weapon and
> falling out of use; the problem is it's being a _symbol_ of a free man
> among
> the Franks. If that would be the case some axes should have shown up there
> in at least some of the graves.
Mabe they didn't trust Austrians with real weapons?
>
> OTOH, thinking of the Franks as a homogenous people instead of a tribal
> confederation would be wrong (for the early times).
> So it's possible that Paul was right that the axe was a symbol among
> _some_ Franks (esp. the more Northern ones).
Compare the note above on 80% of the 4th/5th century weapon graves having
just an axe.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Julian Richards
wrote:
>There was a feature on a german (?) smith on TV, who makes knives by folding
>an twisting different quality iron and steel bands, damascening, one of the
>arts supposedly lost. He produces about half a dozen knives every year, and
>he test them for quality by cutting glass before putting an edge on them.
>
>They are sold for about 2-3.000 Euros a piece, depending on the extras. He
>could earn more money by making 'traditional' hangings for flower pots, or
>garden fences.
>
>He said, it wasn't the techniques, that got lost, but the demand for quality
>on the side of the consumer.
The was a "Meet The Ancestors" special linked to an episode where a
Saxon warrior grave found on a US airbase in the UK. The special had
an expert blacksmith recreate the sword. The herringbone pattern shown
by the X-ray does not show up in the finished sword, but a marbled
pattern instead. Only by making one was it possible to know this as it
was assumed that the herringbone pattern would show instead.
Martin Reboul
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bs11j1$sd5$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bs0oj0$7ul$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> > In article <1nIEb.7291$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>,
tron...@frisurf.no
> > (Tron Furu) wrote:
> >
> > > The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not
maintained
> > > in the centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese
"forgot".
> >
> > You can see a similar decline in quality in European swords.
Once a
> > sword becomes largely ceremonial there is much less incentive
to
> > maintain quality over appearance.
>
> Now you're going to tell us all about a historical sword that is
better
> quality and better made than the very late (1902?) pattern
British cavalry
> sabre.
As a matter of interest, what would be the qualities of an *ideal
sword* (discounting magical powers of course)?
I'd assume lightness, balance, resilience and strength... a hard,
sharp cutting edge with an unshatterable core. Something that
wouldn't bend easily, but wouldn't break or stay bent - a spring
with rigidity? No brittleness allowed!
I suppose it has to be a compromise.
Metallurgically, the Samurai sword appears to have evolved
(empirically) over centuries to achieve that, by very careful
attention to tempering and construction, though what kind of iron
or steel was used for raw material, I'm unsure?
Would part of an old car leaf spring make a good potential sword I
wonder?
I know the best early/pre medieval swords were ideally made from
several bars of iron from different sources, twisted and hammer
welded together (hence the patterning). I also read somewhere that
the 'finest' swords had been made by a Dark Age (sorry!) method
that had been lost, and 10th, 11th and 12th century swords were of
far poorer quality. Is this true, or is it that familiar medieval
respect for a mythical 'Golden Age' - I don't know?
I always did find iron chemistry and metallurgy tough going.....
Cheers
Martin
William Black
"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u1a8uvc79dvvokiuk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:36:14 -0000, "William Black"
> <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:bs0oj0$7ul$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> >> In article <1nIEb.7291$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>, tron...@frisurf.no
> >> (Tron Furu) wrote:
> >>
> >> > The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not maintained
> >> > in the centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese "forgot".
> >>
> >> You can see a similar decline in quality in European swords. Once a
> >> sword becomes largely ceremonial there is much less incentive to
> >> maintain quality over appearance.
> >
> >Now you're going to tell us all about a historical sword that is better
> >quality and better made than the very late (1902?) pattern British
cavalry
> >sabre.
>
> I believe that there were severe quality problems in US Civil War
> sword manufacture mostly due to the increased production.
I'm sure there were. There were also well known quality problems with
British cavalry swords during the Indian Mutiny.
However these were manufacturing process problems and soon sorted out.
I imagine there were an awful lot of swords made during the ACW.
However, I beg leave to doubt that the technology for the manufacture of
swords declined in any meaningful way.
I should add that the modern rapiers I own are far superior in metal quality
to any historical prototype, and the reproductions of medieval swords in
manufacture at the moment for re-enactors are far superior in quality to
anything any medieval foot soldier ever carried, unless he had happened on
the dead body of a rich man.
William Black
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> wrote in message
news:bs1j6t$ja8$2...@news.eusc.inter.net...
And you can buy a pattern welded knife for Ł40 if you know who to ask...
William Black
"Martin Reboul" <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bs1tvi$pvj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bs11j1$sd5$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> better
> > quality and better made than the very late (1902?) pattern
> British cavalry
> > sabre.
>
> As a matter of interest, what would be the qualities of an *ideal
> sword* (discounting magical powers of course)?
No such animal I'm afraid.
Swords, like most weapons, come in a variety of types depending on purpose.
However the late pattern sabre/Patton spike type of sword was probably the
ideal cavalry sword, the mid to late fifteenth century triangular bladed
sword (Oakeshott type XV) was probably the ideal infantry weapon against
people if you faced both armoured and unarmoured, the smallsword may well
have been the ideal duelling weapon.
However in a battle a sword is always a secondary weapon. Nobody, with one
single troop type as an exception, ever used a sword and nothing else in a
battle.
Soren Larsen
news:brthft$7ehmk$1...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de
>>>> Soren Larsen <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>>>>> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>>> news:3fe0cf84$0$30479$a04e...@nnrp.fuse.net
>>>>>> Soren Larsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Prof. Marvel" <ricl...@lycos.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>>>>> news:3fe08cee$0$62198$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> BTW
>>>>> Forget those axes, the early germanics was all spears and swords.
>>>>
>>>>> Soren Larsen
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, but carrying a hand-ax was the sign of a free man,
>>>> wasn't it? Not in battle (though they might be wearing one
>>>> there) but in everyday life. It was less of a problem than
>>>> a sword and just as useful...
>>>>
>>>> The Franks kept the tradition going for a long time.
>>>> Or am I off the mark here?
>>>>
>>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>
>>> The Frankish axe, the franziska, was for throwing. It was unususal
>>> for germanic people, so it got named for the Franks.
>>
>>> If you look at the places were lots of weapons were sacrificed (and
>>> excavated later on) you will find mainly spears and swords, maybe
>>> Soren can supply some English Language references.
>>
>>> I have not heard about the axe, or the hand-ax, being the sign of
>>> the free man before. Could You tell me some more about that?
>>
>>> compared to the number of spear points or swords. There are
>>> Neolithic societies named after the frequent deposition of axes in
>>> graves. There are early bronze age societies, for which the axe was
>>> a potent symbol presented in gold or amber. There are late bronze
>>> age societies, that carried the axe as a regular weapon, but not
>>> everybody had one and it was not a sine qua non for high status
>>> burials.
>>
>>> There are some speculations on axes as part of butchering equipment
>>> in early medieval high status graves, which in turn is thought to
>>> indicate religious functions at communal sacrifices (could of
>>> course have been someone who really liked barbecues). The axe, not
>>> the hand-axe, was the symbol of one of the most important gods in
>>> norse mythology. It was important throughout the world of IE or PIE
>>> speaking peoples.
>>
>>> have fun
>>
>>> Uwe M?ller
>>
>> Thanks for the better information. What I read somewhere (who
>> can remember the sources for all the bits of information one
>> accumulates) is that carrying the ax was restricted to free
>> men. I no longer recall if it was the francisca that was
>> referred to or not. Nor do I know what the source might be
>> for the author whose book I read since by the 8th century
>> this seems to have already vanished as a custom.
>>
>> I'll try to dig the reference up. Like most of my books the
>> right one is likely at the bottom of a pile somewhere and will
>> turn up when I go to find something else... ;-)
>>
> I also can find no axes in burials.
> I'll cite from "Matthias Weis : Ein Gräberfed der späten
> Merowingerzeit be Stetten an der Donau" :
> (abbreviated) :
> Beffendorf, Kreis Rottweil" also reports of Saxes, Spathas and
> Scramasaxes. No axes.
>
> Back to Weis :
> For all those interested into some further data about Saxe :
>
> Grave # length of blade(cm) length of grip(cm) date
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> no axes
> to be found from roughly 550 to 800.
> Ditto in the other book.
> But as I've said, I'll see whether I can find an axe.
>
>
> Michael Kuettner
Heinrich Härke has a table in his paper; Early Anglo-Saxon
military organisation: an archaeological perspective, on a sample
of 534 undisurbed weapon burials from 47 early Saxon (England)
cemetaries.
Spear combinations.
Spear 237 44,4%
2 spears 6 1,1%
3 spears 2 0,4%
Shield combinations.
Shield 36 6,7%
shield + spear 139 26%
shield + 2 spears 14 2,6%
Sword combinations.
sword 9 1,7%
sword + spear 10 1.9%
sword + shield 11 2,1%
sword + shield + spear 24 4.5%
sword + shield + 2 spears 4 0.7%
sword + axe + spear 1 0,2%
sword + axe + shield + spear 1 0,2%
sword + seax + shield + spear 1 0,2%
sword + seax + shield + 2 spears 1 0.2%
Seax combinations
seax 6 1,1%
seax + spear 9 1,7%
seax + shield + spear 4 0,7%
seax + shield + 2 spears 1 0,2%
Axe combinations
axe 8 1,5%
axe + spear 2 0,4%
axe + shiel + spear 1 0,2%
Arrow combinations
arrow 4 0,7%
arrow + spear 2 0,2%
BUT
"One of the consequences of the symbolic function is that weapon
combinations found in graves do not always make much military sense
(Table 1). Most 'combinations' are composed of a single spear, not
infrequently supplemented by a shield; only 12% of weapon burials
contained a sword. Combinations of- several spears (with or without a
shield, sword, or seax) do not give the impression of having been
selected on practical grounds, either: there are no recurring sets of
spearhead types or sizes in the sample. And a considerable proportion
of weapon deposits do not make any practical sense at all: they are made
up of a single throwing spear (judging by tlle small size of the iron
point), a single axe (in most cases a light francisca), an unaccompanied
seax (usually a small narrow seax), or even a shield on its own. The
clear age correlations of most weapon types highlight the non-military
factors behind tlleir selection for the burial rite. While arrows have
been found almost exclusively with children (perhaps as toy spears?),
axes and seaxes are limited to adluts, preferentially older adults, even
though the small size and light weight of these Anglo-Saxon weapons
might suggest. them as ideal weapons for juveniles. Sword and shield
have virtually identical age correlations (from age 12 onwards, but
mostly adult), and it seems that this factor in conjunction with
regional wealth -rather than regional differences in military
organisation -is behind their differential distribution in England. The
regional frequencies of sword combinations and shield combinations seem
to be linked: in rich areas such as Kent where sword combina-tions are
frequent, the proportion of shield combinations is low; in poorer areas
such as the Anglian regions where sword combinations are rare or absent,
the proportion of shield combinations is correspondingly higher.] This
does not make much military sense, but in view of the identical age
correlations of the two weapon types, it does make ritual sense.
The change over time in the frequencies of weapon combinations reveals
an overall process of simplification and standardisation: types of
weapon combinations become fewer, and less varied, over the Early Saxon
period (Fig. I). During the decline of the weapon burial rite in the
seventh century, the seax takes over some of the symbolic functions of
the axe (mature adult status) and the sword (elite status) in the burial
rite. Again, this is better explained in ritual than in military terms."
Cheers
Soren larsen
Martin Reboul
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:brr0jd$i0j$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> Dr. Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >I'm not very good at this, am I?
>
> >My apologies Soren. Have you ever read 'The Viking Art of War'
by
> >Griffith? I would use his interpretation. I can reprint here,
if
> >necessary. It's somewhat lengthy and I have been asked to keep
brief.
>
> >Cheers,
> >Sheila
>
> >(P.S. You are Danish, are you not?)
>
> You are doing just fine. Best thing that's happened to
> this newsgroup for a while. I think all the regulars applaud
> you.
Well, I certainly do, I agree with Paul absolutely. Don't ever be
intimidated by foolish, impotent bullies such as Hines Sheila,
you are most welcome! As for that arrogant chump 'Marvel',
you write a damn site better than him, and (more importantly)
about interesting things.
Cheers
Martin
Julian Richards
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>As a matter of interest, what would be the qualities of an *ideal
>sword* (discounting magical powers of course)?
>
>I'd assume lightness, balance, resilience and strength... a hard,
>sharp cutting edge with an unshatterable core. Something that
>wouldn't bend easily, but wouldn't break or stay bent - a spring
>with rigidity? No brittleness allowed!
>I suppose it has to be a compromise.
>
>Metallurgically, the Samurai sword appears to have evolved
>(empirically) over centuries to achieve that, by very careful
>attention to tempering and construction, though what kind of iron
>or steel was used for raw material, I'm unsure?
I'm not sure about the evolution of the Japanese sword. Very quickly
they developped a type and out of tradition as much as anything, they
stayed with it. the Europeans played with everything trying to get the
perfect blade or a least, one whose novelty would give them an edge
(or two)
>Would part of an old car leaf spring make a good potential sword I
>wonder?
New US officers to post war Japan were sold "katanas" by the old hands
who claimed that they were from Japanese officers. This created quite
a shortage of jeep leaf springs.
>I know the best early/pre medieval swords were ideally made from
>several bars of iron from different sources, twisted and hammer
>welded together (hence the patterning). I also read somewhere that
>the 'finest' swords had been made by a Dark Age (sorry!) method
>that had been lost, and 10th, 11th and 12th century swords were of
>far poorer quality. Is this true, or is it that familiar medieval
>respect for a mythical 'Golden Age' - I don't know?
I doubt it. It think that it is more to do with the mythology of the
sword.
>I always did find iron chemistry and metallurgy tough going.....
I've mentioned the "Meet The Ancestors" special on Saxon swords. I may
have it on video somewhere. It takes a fully equipped modern
blacksmith two days to make it even when starting with prepared
materials.
Michael Kuettner
So he seems to take Chlodovechus (482-511) as the starting point ?
> > 550 is still pretty early to me; and if it's as Paul stated that the
axe
> > was
> > a sign of a free man, it surely would have gone to the grave with him.
>
> There is always a certain bias on what is included among the grave goods,
> but I'd expect more of those axes, too.
>
Exactly.
Paul, do you remember some more of the context where you've heard this ?
> >
> > > The axe as a standard weapon was first describe by Prokop around 500,
> the
> > > term franzisca was first used by Isidor of Sevilla. At the start of
the
> > > fight they were thrown to smash the shields of their oponents and
kill
> or
> > > maim. The F. were between 13 and 18 cm of length, their weight was
> > usually
> > > between 400 and 800 g. There are about 800 franziskas known to
> > > archaeologists, but only 15-20 % are from undisturbed archaeological
> > > contexts.
> > >
> > Opposed to how many saxes, scramasaxes and spathas ?
>
> That's a good one. The Reallexikon germ. Altertumskunde has only reached
the
> letter 'Q'. The Lexikon des Mittelalters does not give any figures. The
> exhibition Die Franken-Les Francs states, that warriors graves from the
> 4th/5th c. are abundant in the former Germania II and Belgica II, even
Hold it here !
What's meant by "Germania II" and "Belgica II" ?
> though 80 % showed only an axe [organic weapons like clubs and wodden
spears
> are usually gone wiithout traces, UM] and only 10 % had more weapons,
> usually a sword among them. H.W. Böhme, Söldner und Siedler im Späantiken
> Nordgallien. in: Ausstellungskatalog Die Franken, 1997² , 91-101, cit. p.
95
>
Ahh - Northern Gallia !
That seems to be the problem :
Almost any post about the Frankia in this forum only covers the (later)
froggy part of it - France.
But at least this keeps our "friends" from de.sci.g out of here ;-)
> There are only 3 spathae known from the 4th c. , from the middle of the
5th
> c. on they become common among the richer furnished male graves.
>
> Sorry no exact figures given.
>
And that's the problem ...
Remember when I tried to trace the term "mulina" ?
I seem to be leading edge by following it back to the Arnulfingers; still
haven't
found an older use.
Only by Americans ...
"Auch Ich bin ein Frankfurter" ?
;-)
> > snip >
>
> > To summarize : I've no problems with the axe used as a weapon and
> > falling out of use; the problem is it's being a _symbol_ of a free man
> > among
> > the Franks. If that would be the case some axes should have shown up
there
> > in at least some of the graves.
>
> Mabe they didn't trust Austrians with real weapons?
>
Should I just cite PISA ?
Austria always among the top ten in Europe, while Germany is
bwahahahahaha ;-)
> >
> > OTOH, thinking of the Franks as a homogenous people instead of a tribal
> > confederation would be wrong (for the early times).
> > So it's possible that Paul was right that the axe was a symbol among
> > _some_ Franks (esp. the more Northern ones).
>
> Compare the note above on 80% of the 4th/5th century weapon graves having
> just an axe.
>
Again, where ?
Cheers,
Michael
Julian Richards
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm sure there were. There were also well known quality problems with
>British cavalry swords during the Indian Mutiny.
>
>However these were manufacturing process problems and soon sorted out.
The problem was much to do with the use of blacksmiths who had no
previous experience with swords.
>
>I imagine there were an awful lot of swords made during the ACW.
>
>However, I beg leave to doubt that the technology for the manufacture of
>swords declined in any meaningful way.
>
>I should add that the modern rapiers I own are far superior in metal quality
>to any historical prototype, and the reproductions of medieval swords in
>manufacture at the moment for re-enactors are far superior in quality to
>anything any medieval foot soldier ever carried, unless he had happened on
>the dead body of a rich man.
I agree. The main advantage is with consistency of materials. A modern
sword is made with the certainty of material quality. Some old swords
were of great quality some of not. The bad ones broke and were lost.
By natural selection, what remained were very good swords. A good
Viking sword was worth 10 slaves (or whatever the equivalent in Euros)
Sheila J
> I've mentioned the "Meet The Ancestors" special on Saxon swords. I may
> have it on video somewhere. It takes a fully equipped modern
> blacksmith two days to make it even when starting with prepared
> materials.
>
Actually I quite enjoy that series. That, and the Two men in the trench
series....
Sheila
Julian Richards
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And you can buy a pattern welded knife for £40 if you know who to ask...
But it wouldn't be hand crafted.
Paul J Gans
>In article <1nIEb.7291$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no>, tron...@frisurf.no
>(Tron Furu) wrote:
>> The quality of swords produced in the Koto era was not maintained
>> in the centuries to come, so seemingly even the Japanese "forgot".
> You can see a similar decline in quality in European swords. Once a
>sword becomes largely ceremonial there is much less incentive to
>maintain quality over appearance.
Of course. If you are only going to LOOK at it, it had
better look good... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>have fun
>Uwe Mueller
I find that quite believeable.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> snip >
>have fun
>Uwe Mueller
I think this is right. When we attempt to reconstruct the
past, we need a believable matrix against which to interpret
what we find in both archeology and manuscripts.
---- Paul J. Gans
Uwe Müller
What for? He's an archaeologist, he took a certain style of belt fittings
'mehrteilige Guertelgarnituren', I believe, among other things frequent in
graves.
The former provinces Germania Secunda and Belgica Secunda, You do remember
zhat the franks first were paid for military services and were than settled
on Roman territory. You can follow the development very nicely comparing
grave rites and grave goods.
>
> > though 80 % showed only an axe [organic weapons like clubs and wodden
> spears
> > are usually gone wiithout traces, UM] and only 10 % had more weapons,
> > usually a sword among them. H.W. Böhme, Söldner und Siedler im
Späantiken
> > Nordgallien. in: Ausstellungskatalog Die Franken, 1997² , 91-101, cit.
p.
> 95
> >
> Ahh - Northern Gallia !
> That seems to be the problem :
> Almost any post about the Frankia in this forum only covers the (later)
> froggy part of it - France.
> But at least this keeps our "friends" from de.sci.g out of here ;-)
>
> > There are only 3 spathae known from the 4th c. , from the middle of the
> 5th
> > c. on they become common among the richer furnished male graves.
> >
> > Sorry no exact figures given.
> >
> And that's the problem ...
> Remember when I tried to trace the term "mulina" ?
> I seem to be leading edge by following it back to the Arnulfingers; still
> haven't
> found an older use.
Well, following the discovery of the Carolingian watermills in Grosshoebing,
a number of similar finds has whetted the interest in mills. You'll just
have to wait a little.
And given the number of Reihengraeberfelder that are excavated every year,
it would indeed be hard to say how many there are.
> snip >
> > > Yep; Norway.
> > > But Norwegians aren't very Frankish.
> >
> > Depends on from where you look, AFAIR all 'Europeans' are called
'Franks'
> in
> > early muslimic sources : )
> >
> Only by Americans ...
> "Auch Ich bin ein Frankfurter" ?
> ;-)
I was led to believe the term used was 'hamburger'.
>
> > > snip >
> >
> > > To summarize : I've no problems with the axe used as a weapon and
> > > falling out of use; the problem is it's being a _symbol_ of a free man
> > > among
> > > the Franks. If that would be the case some axes should have shown up
> there
> > > in at least some of the graves.
> >
> > Mabe they didn't trust Austrians with real weapons?
> >
> Should I just cite PISA ?
> Austria always among the top ten in Europe, while Germany is
> bwahahahahaha ;-)
They did not let us use the axe for writing, it was unfair.
>
> > >
> > > OTOH, thinking of the Franks as a homogenous people instead of a
tribal
> > > confederation would be wrong (for the early times).
> > > So it's possible that Paul was right that the axe was a symbol among
> > > _some_ Franks (esp. the more Northern ones).
> >
> > Compare the note above on 80% of the 4th/5th century weapon graves
having
> > just an axe.
> >
> Again, where ?
In the area where the Franks settled at the times. What You called Norther
Gallia, the Romans knew as Germania and Belgica secunda. Remember, that
romanization had had quite an impact west of that area and wasn't going to
disappear for some time to come. Roman burial rites excluded weapons and
most tools, so do the Christian ones. We simply don't know about the axe
among the Franks, that were buried according to one of those rites.
The lack of axes in Austria, except a few mentioned by Ament as just about
reaching the Danube, could point to the lack of genuine Franks in Austria.
The garrisson troops would have been from Thuringia with only the top brass
coming from Frankia itself. The axes as a weapon of importance could have
been supplanted by weapons of cavalry, the long sword and the spear.
Just guessing there, of course.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Tron Furu
> >I wouldn't be surprised if the 'normal viking' had lived a life without
much
> >more fighting than a 'pub brawl', where the 'conquering of the seas' ment
> >fishing for cod and the glorious traders business consisted of shipping
> >dried fish, cheese, wood and goats up and down the coast.
>
> >But when winter came, and shipping and agriculture ceased, you should
have
> >heard the stories they could tell.
>
> >have fun
>
> >Uwe Mueller
>
> I think this is right. When we attempt to reconstruct the
> past, we need a believable matrix against which to interpret
> what we find in both archeology and manuscripts.
Hello, and God Jul, btw (and a happy new year, too).
3 days of senseless feasting are over ... barely able to reach the keyboard
.... late answer ...
Permit me to take your statement as a starting point for some remarks.
Specifically, I would like to consider the word "believable". (It's not
about your comment per se.)
In one of AC Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short stories (Could it be "The
Adventure of the Creeping Man"...?) a young woman presents SH with a case
where a man is seen roving his large house in the middle of the night,
crouched against the moon, howling. SH turns to trusty Watson and asks his
opinion as to what might be the explanation. Watson replied "Lumbago".
Which it isn't, but is what Watson was capable of imagining, being a sort of
_common sense specialist_.
So. What I would like to propose today is that "There is too much Watsonism
in explanatory science; there seems to be a particular bent for this in
works of anglo-saxon origins". I don't know if this is for fear of David
Hume - still - and his rather militant propagation of Lockian empiricism, or
just for being known as not commonsensical enough in general. Some german
writer said of Shakespeare that people thought that in his plays he was so
good at bringing e.g. the Romans back to life; which, the aforementioned
german writer said, was balderdash. All his characters were english, but as
such they were true to life, vivid, lifelike (this was either Goethe,
Schopi, or Nietzsche, if any worry about provenance).
During my days of studying philosophy, I realized that when someone was
talking of some state of affairs or other being, or not being "plausible",
it always masked a weak argument, and in some cases outright prejudice.
This is what I would hold against P Griffith ("Viking Art of War"). As I see
it, he is not sufficiently aware of the degree that all our assumptions are
laden with extrapolations from contemporary experience, both factual,
aesthetic and ethical. The best thinkers are those who strive for a maximum
of consciousness about this; although "purging" it is impossible, since that
would imply exact knowledge of the borderline between "our" and "their"
world (and I'm not suggesting any such privileged position of outside
spectator for myself. OK, I might, but I'm not _claiming_ it ...).
Of course it is hard for us to keep from interpreting to soon - we probably
can't _not interpret_ - and to not interpret at all would defy the purpose
of investigation. So we need some background theory. I would still take
issue with words like "believable" .... if that means we have to believe the
interpreting theory before we apply it to the facts .... if a neat
interpretation where every piece fits is held to be believable for that
reason only ..... etc.
Ok, this was supposed to be deep, but ... turned into a pile of
commonplaces.
T
Tron Furu
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i melding
news:bs1j6t$ja8$3...@news.eusc.inter.net...
>
> What is usually forgotten is that they worked a trade system that
connected
> Eastern Europe and the Middle East to Central and North Europe, that they
> excelled in shipbuilding and navigation, and the working of non-ferrous
> metals, iron and steel. That they had monumental building programms for
> military purposes and tombs, had their own style of writing, ....
That is all very nice in a well rounded appraisal of their coming and going
etc., but the direct link to the topic "Viking Art of War" has yet to catch
my eye.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the 'normal viking' had lived a life without
much
> more fighting than a 'pub brawl', where the 'conquering of the seas' ment
> fishing for cod and the glorious traders business consisted of shipping
> dried fish, cheese, wood and goats up and down the coast.
>
> But when winter came, and shipping and agriculture ceased, you should have
> heard the stories they could tell.
Here you are equating "normal viking" with "average scandinavian
agriculturalist" ....?
Are you by any chance watsonizing (pls see reply to PJGs reply to you)?
Herzliche Grüsse zur Feier!
TF
Uwe Müller
"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3tLHb.8916$Y06.1...@news4.e.nsc.no...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i melding
> news:bs1j6t$ja8$3...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >
> > What is usually forgotten is that they worked a trade system that
> connected
> > Eastern Europe and the Middle East to Central and North Europe, that
they
> > excelled in shipbuilding and navigation, and the working of non-ferrous
> > metals, iron and steel. That they had monumental building programms for
> > military purposes and tombs, had their own style of writing, ....
>
> That is all very nice in a well rounded appraisal of their coming and
going
> etc., but the direct link to the topic "Viking Art of War" has yet to
catch
> my eye.
I commented on something posted before, which seems to be missing in Your
quote. Would You like me to repost it to You?
The connection to the art of warfare is not so obvious. I'm commenting on
the quality of the people described in the picture Paul mentioned. They were
not some axe carrying hill trolls just smashing everything in sight.
>
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if the 'normal viking' had lived a life without
> much
> > more fighting than a 'pub brawl', where the 'conquering of the seas'
ment
> > fishing for cod and the glorious traders business consisted of shipping
> > dried fish, cheese, wood and goats up and down the coast.
> >
> > But when winter came, and shipping and agriculture ceased, you should
have
> > heard the stories they could tell.
>
> Here you are equating "normal viking" with "average scandinavian
> agriculturalist" ....?
Or fishermen, yes, roughly 98% of the population.
> Are you by any chance watsonizing (pls see reply to PJGs reply to you)?
I was trying to add the picture that archaeology would paint of people in
that area and time. If I forgot the hunters, I'm sorry.
>
> Herzliche Grüsse zur Feier!
vielen Dank und einen guten Rutsch ins Neue Jahr
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Michael Kuettner
>
> "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:bs2ms7$8u00i$3...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
<big snip>
> > > > How does he define the "Older Merovingian Age" ?
> > >
> > > He has written a couple of dozen books on that question. If I
remember
> > > correct, the YMA starts around 500, maybe as late as 520.
> > >
> > Ah - thanks.
> > So he seems to take Chlodovechus (482-511) as the starting point ?
>
> What for? He's an archaeologist, he took a certain style of belt fittings
> 'mehrteilige Guertelgarnituren', I believe, among other things frequent
in
> graves.
>
Could you expand a little on that ?
Best in a new thread ("Merovingians in Archaeological classifications",
eg.)
I'd be interested _how and why_ he decided that Old suddenly became
Middle or New, eg.
Or _what_ specific_ items he used for his nomenclatura.
Just a few words. Thanks !
<snip>
> > > > Opposed to how many saxes, scramasaxes and spathas ?
> > >
> > > That's a good one. The Reallexikon germ. Altertumskunde has only
reached
> > the
> > > letter 'Q'. The Lexikon des Mittelalters does not give any figures.
The
> > > exhibition Die Franken-Les Francs states, that warriors graves from
the
> > > 4th/5th c. are abundant in the former Germania II and Belgica II,
even
> >
> > Hold it here !
> > What's meant by "Germania II" and "Belgica II" ?
>
> The former provinces Germania Secunda and Belgica Secunda,
Ah, thanks.
I mistook them for the _legions_ and was confused (ie. the second
legion in Germania was named Germania II, too).
> You do remember
> zhat the franks first were paid for military services and were than
settled
> on Roman territory. You can follow the development very nicely comparing
> grave rites and grave goods.
>
Of course.
<snip>
> > And that's the problem ...
> > Remember when I tried to trace the term "mulina" ?
> > I seem to be leading edge by following it back to the Arnulfingers;
still
> > haven't
> > found an older use.
>
> Well, following the discovery of the Carolingian watermills in
Grosshoebing,
> a number of similar finds has whetted the interest in mills. You'll just
> have to wait a little.
>
Not the mill itself; the name for it.
Apart from that : I bet that the spread of the watermills happened from the
Western
part of the Frankia to the Eastern part.
> And given the number of Reihengraeberfelder that are excavated every
year,
> it would indeed be hard to say how many there are.
>
Indeed.
<snip>
> > > Depends on from where you look, AFAIR all 'Europeans' are called
> 'Franks'
> > in
> > > early muslimic sources : )
> > >
> > Only by Americans ...
> > "Auch Ich bin ein Frankfurter" ?
> > ;-)
>
> I was led to believe the term used was 'hamburger'.
>
Just let us be glad that he didn't give his speech in Paris ....
;-)
<snip>
> > > Mabe they didn't trust Austrians with real weapons?
> > >
> > Should I just cite PISA ?
> > Austria always among the top ten in Europe, while Germany is
> > bwahahahahaha ;-)
>
> They did not let us use the axe for writing, it was unfair.
>
Stop building a strawman; you just couldn't figure out how
to dip the axe into an inkwell ....
> > > > OTOH, thinking of the Franks as a homogenous people instead of a
> tribal
> > > > confederation would be wrong (for the early times).
> > > > So it's possible that Paul was right that the axe was a symbol
among
> > > > _some_ Franks (esp. the more Northern ones).
> > >
> > > Compare the note above on 80% of the 4th/5th century weapon graves
> having
> > > just an axe.
> > >
> > Again, where ?
>
> In the area where the Franks settled at the times.
Uwe, those areas (esp. Belgica Secunda - along the Kohlenwald)
were the settlements of the Salian Franks.
Letting besides the issue of the name - they were different to
the other Franks - the Merovingians traced their line back to a
_maritime_ god, eg.
> What You called Norther
> Gallia, the Romans knew as Germania and Belgica secunda. Remember, that
> romanization had had quite an impact west of that area and wasn't going
to
> disappear for some time to come. Roman burial rites excluded weapons and
> most tools, so do the Christian ones. We simply don't know about the axe
> among the Franks, that were buried according to one of those rites.
>
Exactly.
That's why I've asked.
> The lack of axes in Austria, except a few mentioned by Ament as just
about
> reaching the Danube, could point to the lack of genuine Franks in
Austria.
Or genuine _Salian_ Franks as opposed to the _Rhine_ Franks.
As I've said, trying to treat them as a homogenous tribe has its problems.
> The garrisson troops would have been from Thuringia with only the top
brass
> coming from Frankia itself. The axes as a weapon of importance could have
> been supplanted by weapons of cavalry, the long sword and the spear.
>
> Just guessing there, of course.
>
Aren't we all ?
It's like a thousand-pats-puzzle and we've only got 40 of the pieces ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Uwe Müller
"Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:btkk74$89tin$3...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:bs463l$auq$1...@news.eusc.inter.net...
> >
> > "Michael Kuettner" <mik...@eunet.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:bs2ms7$8u00i$3...@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> snip, see other thread >
> > Well, following the discovery of the Carolingian watermills in
> Grosshoebing,
> > a number of similar finds has whetted the interest in mills. You'll just
> > have to wait a little.
> >
> Not the mill itself; the name for it.
If there are newly discovered mills in reality, you will get people looking
for them in the written sources as well. If Grosshoebing has a real
watermill Kleinhoebing will not rest till they can proove, that a) it was
Kleinhoebingians that build it, and b) that Kleinhoebing had mills long
before that.
> Apart from that : I bet that the spread of the watermills happened from
the
> Western
> part of the Frankia to the Eastern part.
That is the traditional point of view: ex oriente lux. But there were strong
connections via the east to Byzanz and even further.
> ;-)
> <snip>
> > > > Mabe they didn't trust Austrians with real weapons?
> > > >
> > > Should I just cite PISA ?
> > > Austria always among the top ten in Europe, while Germany is
> > > bwahahahahaha ;-)
> >
> > They did not let us use the axe for writing, it was unfair.
> >
> Stop building a strawman; you just couldn't figure out how
> to dip the axe into an inkwell ....
We thought, you had to dip the head in the inkwell. Writing is supposed to
have some connection with the brain.
So a statement written with an axe is like handwriting, compared with the
guillotine, not as neat, but ...
I always got sarcastic comments for my handwriting :-)
>
> > > > > OTOH, thinking of the Franks as a homogenous people instead of a
> > tribal
> > > > > confederation would be wrong (for the early times).
> > > > > So it's possible that Paul was right that the axe was a symbol
> among
> > > > > _some_ Franks (esp. the more Northern ones).
> > > >
> > > > Compare the note above on 80% of the 4th/5th century weapon graves
> > having
> > > > just an axe.
> > > >
> > > Again, where ?
In the areas settled by a newly arrived people desribed as franks in the
sources.
> >
> > In the area where the Franks settled at the times.
> Uwe, those areas (esp. Belgica Secunda - along the Kohlenwald)
> were the settlements of the Salian Franks.
> Letting besides the issue of the name - they were different to
> the other Franks - the Merovingians traced their line back to a
> _maritime_ god, eg.
How do you tell the Franks apart in late antiquity? They can be identified
as those people mentioned in the sources, because they used germanic burial
rites in an area predominantly using roman rites.
You can see this starting off with male graves only, and female graves
appearing a bit later. At this time the first indications for germanic
settlements also appear. Nothing of this sort can be shown for the germanic
areas.
>
> > What You called Norther
> > Gallia, the Romans knew as Germania and Belgica secunda. Remember, that
> > romanization had had quite an impact west of that area and wasn't going
> to
> > disappear for some time to come. Roman burial rites excluded weapons and
> > most tools, so do the Christian ones. We simply don't know about the axe
> > among the Franks, that were buried according to one of those rites.
> >
> Exactly.
> That's why I've asked.
But that was a later development, the early graves were according to
germanic burial rites, that is how you can tell them apart. If you have a
roman rites grave with some germanic dress accesories, you simply don't know
if the person buried was one or the other.
But you can say that the community doing the burying was roman, a germanic
community would have used germanic rites.
>
> > The lack of axes in Austria, except a few mentioned by Ament as just
> about
> > reaching the Danube, could point to the lack of genuine Franks in
> Austria.
> Or genuine _Salian_ Franks as opposed to the _Rhine_ Franks.
> As I've said, trying to treat them as a homogenous tribe has its problems.
Problems of time?
There is no artefact or artefact ensemble that I can call salian frankish or
rhine frankish. As an archaeologist I'm simply not bothered by these terms.
btw. Do You know where the river Saale is that provided the name?
>
> > The garrisson troops would have been from Thuringia with only the top
> brass
> > coming from Frankia itself. The axes as a weapon of importance could
have
> > been supplanted by weapons of cavalry, the long sword and the spear.
> >
> > Just guessing there, of course.
> >
> Aren't we all ?
> It's like a thousand-pats-puzzle and we've only got 40 of the pieces ...
I like Your optimistic style.
We've got the 40 pieces allright, but they are from an unknown number of
different puzzles, all of them ten thousand pieces big and more.
Luebeck was one of the few places were more than one 10th of 1 percent of
the area was excavated. As to artefacts made or used there, say half the
population had a knife, have it replaced every ten years, that would mean at
least 800.000 knifes were used. Maybe something like 2-300 knifes have been
found.
have fun
Uwe Mueller