Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (15 page)

With this information in mind, it is easy to conjecture about the use of the Viking sword. Relatively close-in fighting, strong, heavy blows with no attempts to use the point would be the norm. There would be a little "science" and tactics, but mainly the fight would be one of an exchange of heavy blows.

A little experimentation can really change your mind about some things. A careful reading of the Norse sagas will show that mail was popular, but not near as prevalent as it became in the later Middle Ages. Most duels and skirmishes were fought without mail coats. For example, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, Harold Godwinson defeated the King of Norway, Harald Hardrade. The well armed and armored Saxon army caught the Northmen by surprise, and it was recorded that none of them had mail shirts and only a few had helmets. Before the armor could be retrieved, the battle was lost.

You can see from this that mail was an important item of defense. But this occurred in 1066 AD, in what is considered the
final
onslaught of the Vikings. But mail had been accumulating over hundreds of years, and the price was going down. Early on, it was only the wealthiest of chieftains and warriors who could afford a mail shirt. Even then many chose not to wear it, regardless of their wealth. Egil Skallagrimson and his brother Thorolf chose not to wear mail in the battle between Hring and Adils (about 940 AD). Many felt that it simply slowed them down, and on shipboard mail could be a real nuisance if you suddenly had to swim for another ship.

I have been using pork shoulder roasts for testing mail for quite some time. Pigs are similar to man in many ways, though the skin is much tougher and more resistant. But for this sort of testing it really doesn't matter. In the past I had been concerned with the cutting power of various swords, and how well they would cut through a mail shirt, and the best type of backing for the mail. But this time it was different. What I was interested in was testing those myths about Viking swords, seeing what was the difference in cutting ability between the optimal striking point and the first few inches of the point. How did it work in bare meat, and how well did it cut when the flesh was protected by mail? Also of equal importance was the thrust: How well did the sword penetrate, and how was the penetration when mail was used? I certainly didn't expect a rounded point to penetrate mail or flesh with the ease of a narrow point, but was the difference great or minor? This I aimed to find out.

Original Viking swords are rare and rather expensive. But blades quite similar are available. Having been lucky enough to have examined several up close, it was rather easy to get some blades that would correspond to old ones. The most important factor was that the blades had to have a rounded point, but also that the distal
^[1]
taper be very flat within a couple of inches of the point. This would correspond to the majority of Viking swords examined.

One variable over which there is no control is mail. Mail came in all shapes and sizes, some thick, some thin. Made individually, each shirt would be slightly different. So I settled on what was available to me.

From Museum Replicas, Ltd., I got a mail shirt. I can't say I borrowed it, as they knew well enough that it was going to be destroyed. So they gave it to me with a cheerful "hack away." It took me several days for the local supermarket to come up with a suitable roast, one that weighed in at twelve pounds with a good thick bone, like a man's thigh. Then it was necessary to select the proper sword. I selected a replica blade that I had lying around. I had Eddie Floyd, who has been at a lot of Blade Shows with me, to thin the blade and round the point to the proper shape and dimensions. I also selected an old sword that was in excellent condition. This was a sword with a rather mysterious past. The blade, straight, with no taper, but an excellent distal taper, appears to have been made in the late 18th century. But the guard and pommel appeared older. The grip had rotted away. The blade is in excellent condition. The original pommel (which was on it when I got the sword in 1968) had been lost in a move. I had replaced it and then added a grip. This gave me two swords, both with Viking-like blade geometry.

Reproduction transitional Viking sword. HRC180.
Ethiopian Crusader style sword with fuller;
37.75 inches overall length. HRC26.

My next task was to select the proper backing for the mail. I decided on some gambeson padding material. This is modern material, and therefore not exactly accurate, but it is close enough to give a good comparison.

Now, let me say a few words about your author. At the time of the cutting, I was two months short of 70. I have been playing with swords, and cutting with them, for well over 50 years. Even now, I can still cut pretty well. Some of you whippersnappers can cut better than I can. But frankly, none of us can hold a candle to what a 25-year-old Viking warrior could do. He spent most of his life in hard physical labor—working a farm, fishing, chopping wood, and learning to fight. So keep this in mind when you read the results of the test cuts. Also remember that I am cutting a shoulder roast on a stump. From this you may extrapolate what would happen in a real fight, though my results are not a one-to-one correlation for a historical fight.

Having all my gear ready, I journeyed forth to do battle with the vicious shoulder roast of infamous renown. The first cut was made with the replica sword. I struck with the top five-six inches of the blade. The sword cut through the mail, and deeply dented the padding. When the padding was lifted up, the flesh was split for a distance of about three inches and about one-half inch deep. The next blow was with the old sword. I tried to maintain the same force in both blows. This cut was somewhat more effective. Again the mail was cut, the padding dented, but this time the cut in the flesh was somewhat longer and deeper, about 4 inches long and three-quarters of an inch deep. I then made a control cut with each sword. This time I struck on the optimal striking point of each sword. Both were just about what I had expected. The mail was cut, the padding dented, and the flesh sustained a longer cut on each, but with slightly less depth. The cuts were about 4 inches in length, with a depth of about one quarter inch.

It was now time to try a sword with a much more narrow point. For cutting with the tip, I used a well loved Windlass blade that I have been doing demos with for several years. This was as I had thought also. The sword did cut a few links of mail, did dent the padding, but the actual split in the meat was very small, and not very deep. It did appear that there would have been some "bruising" had this been live flesh, but the cutting was not as effective as the other two swords.

Next was the penetration tests of all three swords.

This test is a little more difficult to achieve. I did not have the means to keep the roast at a proper height so that I could strike it. I tried to enlist some help from some friends, and have them hold it up for me. Strangely enough, I picked the wrong day for the tests, as they all had things to do. Oh well, the path to truth is often difficult and filled with thorns and wayward friends.

I solved the problem by simply stabbing the roast as it lay innocently on the stump. After all, this was a comparison test, and not intended to strictly mimic combat. And, anyway, I'm sure plenty of guys got stuck while lying on the ground in real combat, too.

I used my old sharp-pointed testing sword for the first blow. It split the links, punched through the padding and, not meeting any bone, penetrated the whole roast and stuck into the stump. The replica sword cut the mail and padding as well, and cut deep into the roast, but did not fully penetrate. I would estimate that the blade entered into a depth of about 4 inches. The old sword with the well rounded point was next. Frankly, I took a break. After all, killing a pork roast is not as easy as it was when I was a young man of 65. So, after manfully chugalugging a glass of ice tea, with renewed vigor I attacked once again. This time, despite being refreshed, the sword did not hit square on the mail, and skated off to the side. Alas, the shoulder roast regarded my efforts with cool disdain, again. The next time my aim was accurate, and I cut the mail, the padding, and into the roast. But not as deeply as my previous attempts. The wound was slightly wider, since the blade was wider, but the depth was only about three inches.

In summary, the series of tests that I conducted were many and varied. I used up so many pork shoulders that I'm sure I caused a spike in pork futures. I also tore up a lot of mail in the process. What I found was highly interesting, and wasn't quite what I'd expected.

The cutting done with the top few inches of the sword was the most impressive. It sheared through the mail with ease when the blow was solid. The cut with the optimal striking point was only marginally more effective. On many cuts I couldn't tell the difference. It was at once obvious that fighting at a slightly longer range did not diminish the severity of the blow enough to negate the advantage of distance.

Thrusting with the rounded point was also an eye-opener. On flesh, it was just as penetrating as a sharp narrow point. The fact that the rounded point was sharpened all along the curve easily explains this. In short,
a rounded point is not a detriment at all to the cutting sword.
It allows greater reach, while not reducing the usability of the point at all.

As for mail: original mail has such incredible variety of ring and diameter sizes that it simply is not possible to make a categorical statement. What I found with my mail was pretty much the same result as on flesh: the rounded point cut mail about as well as a blow with the optimal striking point. It was also able to penetrate mail, but swords with very narrow sharp points penetrated better.

One thing this rounded point will do, is allow the sword to be used as if it were a longer blade.

But the sword was not the only weapon available to the Vikings and their foes. The next chapter will explore in more depth what the swordsman had to face.

Davidson, H.R Ellis,
Scandinavian Mythology
. The Hamlyn Publishing Group, Limited, Middlesex, 1969.

Davidson, H.R. Ellis,
The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England: Its Archeology and Literature
. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 1962, 1994.

Hollander, Lee M., translator,
The Sagas of Kormak and The Sworn Brothers
. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1949.

Johnston, George, translator,
The Saga of Gisli the Outlaw
. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1963.

Johnston, George, translator,
Thrad of Gotu: Two Icelandic Sagas from the Flat Island Book
. The Porcupine's Quill, Inc., Ontario, 1994.

Jones
,
Gwyn, translator,
Eirik the Red and Other Icelandic Sagas.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1961.

Palsson, Hermann and Paul Edwards, translators,
Egil's Saga
. Penguin Books, New York, 1976.

Peirce, Ian G.,
Swords of the Viking Age
. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2002.

[1] Cross-sectional —Whit Williams

Although this book is mainly about swords, it is impossible to write about swords without dealing with the other weapons in use at the time. Just as you have to look at the armor that was used, you also have to look at the weapons the sword would be facing. Battles, duels, and chance encounters were not based on everyone being equally armed and armored; rather it was what each individual preferred, or just happened to have with him. Rarely did anyone have only one weapon. When working in the fields or on the farm a man might have only an axe with him, but when he felt that there was the possibility of trouble, or when going into battle, he made sure he was well armed. We are talking life, death and honor. You carried the best you could afford and the things with which you were the most comfortable and familiar.