armor and weapons

Users who are viewing this thread

Let's see those sources then, but bear in mind, this debate is old. I highly doubt your "not so academic" sources will add anything to the larger discussion or sway any historians.

I don't know if two-handed axes and leather armour were around in the 860s, but I do know no one has produced a valid source to argue for their inclusion so far.
 
How much scholars and sources do we need to add something??? Do i need Cambridge university validate my says before posting something!!! Osprey is probably a comics for you :cry:

All that started again cause i just supported someone who was saying there was no leather helms and armors and then you're flamed by the Academic
army.

You say yourself you don't know, but that's a really fair supposition, that's all. There was leathers amors and helms before and after 9th century so WTF!!!

You seems to prefer not knowing than supposing, you have a total lack of imagination, or maybe your too conservative for things you don't know.
 
its quite simple really...

https://www.google.at/search?q=viking+weapons&biw=1280&bih=917&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RUKMVM-cMoPxUouAgdAF&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Xt9ZdqVicTfS_M%253A%3BGwfrLxI5Kf_K7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%252Frmhttp%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fimages%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252Fvk_weapons.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bbc.co.uk%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252F%3B664%3B465

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-ZFaQDfwc/TILOkh8_hyI/AAAAAAAAAH0/fx2mvlsjISY/s1600/Museum+006.JPG


just two examples of what has been there at the time. Also some metal pieces that belonged to dane 2h axes, that havent been implemented in the DLC :sad: (not yet at least). Also a simple woodcutter used a 2h axe to cut his trees, that would have been just as useful in a battle, why not use it. But more by outlaws or irregular light troops or raiders or idk who, and not in a regular army. 
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.



 
The point is Armaury we don't have evidence to say either way. We can't say yes, we can't say no. We can certainly theorise and try it out with experimental archaeology, given that the properties of thick cattle hide would make it possibly suitable for a form of protection, in the same way we still use leather to protect our feet with shoes/boots. Until we have primary evidence, archeological finds dated to the period or written evidence from the time, we can't say yes, we can't say no. This is how academia works, you wish to prove something you provide the evidence. If you can provide details of a find of leather armours/helmets or written evidence that mentions it then that's a basis to go from but as those things have eluded archeologists and academics for decades the odds are you're not going to find any.

Ravenfly said:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-ZFaQDfwc/TILOkh8_hyI/AAAAAAAAAH0/fx2mvlsjISY/s1600/Museum+006.JPG
Whilst I am not as learned as Hrotha in the period those are not swords of the C9th-C11th period, as none of them conform to either Wheeler or Petersen's Typology, both academically accepted categorisations of 'Viking' era swords that have been found.

The axe image you linked via Google search is the Dane/Long English Axe, which as far as we know is a C10th(ish)-C11th & later weapon, also known as the Type VI, as categorised by Mortimer Wheeler in 1927. The unique design of the Dane Axe head marks it out instantly - the shape of the head is quite unique, being a brilliant marriage of a light axe head that was very strong and devastating upon impact. Out of period, however, for when this DLC is set.

Ravenfly said:
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.
I'm afraid you've just underlined why correct research is important - you can't rely on a 'google' search or others to get it right when they put up images from museum trips. When it comes to weapons of the period in Britain Logan Thompson's book, Ancient Weapons in Britain (2004), is an interesting read which looks in depth at the various finds found in Britain prior to the Roman invasion, during the Migration Period, the Viking Invasion and up to the Norman Conquest, ending with a marvellous look at the Battle of Hastings. It's worth picking up and reading as it has excellent plates and is a mine of information about finds we currently have.
 
Rapier, I'm sure you know a lot more than me about weapons and the like :smile:. Material culture is one of my weakest points, unfortunately.

(So folks, listen to him)
 
Ravenfly said:
its quite simple really...

https://www.google.at/search?q=viking+weapons&biw=1280&bih=917&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RUKMVM-cMoPxUouAgdAF&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Xt9ZdqVicTfS_M%253A%3BGwfrLxI5Kf_K7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%252Frmhttp%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fimages%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252Fvk_weapons.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bbc.co.uk%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252F%3B664%3B465

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-ZFaQDfwc/TILOkh8_hyI/AAAAAAAAAH0/fx2mvlsjISY/s1600/Museum+006.JPG


just two examples of what has been there at the time. Also some metal pieces that belonged to dane 2h axes, that havent been implemented in the DLC :sad: (not yet at least). Also a simple woodcutter used a 2h axe to cut his trees, that would have been just as useful in a battle, why not use it. But more by outlaws or irregular light troops or raiders or idk who, and not in a regular army. 
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.

WTF

The swords are hallstatt period if I am not mistaken.

Also "Lel gogle image saerch gifs me accurazte pics YOLO"

1337163288-13126000.jpg


:roll:
 
Then lets use a simple, easy to read, easy to access reference. Forget the complicated stuff. Unless you think wikipedia is too hard to read.

"Leather was far pricier during the period than today, and thus less affordable for the casual warrior. In St. Olav's saga, the kings bane Thorir Hund is said to have worn a tunic made from reindeer fur, enchanted by "Finns" (Sami), defending him from sword blows. The tunic is described as "magically" enhanced which may indicate that it may not represent a typical example of such a garment. Leather clothing does, however, occasionally turn up in archaeological finds, and would have offered some degree of protection in combat."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour#Cloth_and_leather

Just cause leather was used in different eras it doesnt mean it was common at a specific place and century. Resources change. Economics change.

Also anyone that tries to use the *google images argument* may just as well just point to Hollywood movies. They are full of stereotypes created for drama.
 
reiksmarshal said:
Regardless the armor designs suck in this game except for maybe Thor's helmet and armor.
I think the main proble is how absurdily buff and lack of details some armor are.
Isn't it possible to at least make "cultural" mail? With banners or ornamentation or anything that helps me tell one mail guy from the other mail guy? It's already lame to need the banner over head thing on.
 
It was pricier OK i don't care of the price they existed so WTF You said to me there were not here!!! :mad: Your source contradict yourself that's great; i never said tunic leather should be the armor of common soldier; its probably for upper class warrior already we agree on that. Leather furs and all that they exidted!!! I don't ask to spam the game with OK.

I think the main proble is how absurdily buff and lack of details some armor are.
Isn't it possible to at least make "cultural" mail? With banners or ornamentation or anything that helps me tell one mail guy from the other mail guy? It's already lame to need the banner over head thing on.

I totally agree with that; all the cultures and factions share the same equipment... the same hats... the same hairs... the same wifes...

I seriously don't understand that, they had some models of saxon helmets which are the same in Brytenwalda (coppergate helmet) just need a nice retexture.
 
Ravenfly said:
its quite simple really...

https://www.google.at/search?q=viking+weapons&biw=1280&bih=917&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RUKMVM-cMoPxUouAgdAF&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Xt9ZdqVicTfS_M%253A%3BGwfrLxI5Kf_K7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%252Frmhttp%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fimages%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252Fvk_weapons.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bbc.co.uk%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252F%3B664%3B465

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-ZFaQDfwc/TILOkh8_hyI/AAAAAAAAAH0/fx2mvlsjISY/s1600/Museum+006.JPG


just two examples of what has been there at the time. Also some metal pieces that belonged to dane 2h axes, that havent been implemented in the DLC :sad: (not yet at least). Also a simple woodcutter used a 2h axe to cut his trees, that would have been just as useful in a battle, why not use it. But more by outlaws or irregular light troops or raiders or idk who, and not in a regular army. 
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.

For most troops (other than nobles and their professional retainers), the main defense was the shield.  These troops were likely lightly armored in cloth, perhaps leather (although this is unknown).  Using a 2-handed axe in combat against other troops having shields and spears would be foolhardy, since you wouldn't be able to use your shield to defend yourself.  If 2-handed axes were used, they probably weren't widely used.  There is evidence from the 11th century, which is 200 years after the setting for VC, that some of the Saxon huscarls used 2-handed Dane axes.  The Huscarls were almost certainly armored in mail and were professional soldiers.  In order for them to effectively use their axes, they would have had to be on the flanks or in front of the shield wall, which would expose them to missile fire.  They would also need more space in between each other in order to effectively wield their axes.  If the front of the shieldwall consisted of mainly men with 2-handed axes, then it's not really a shieldwall anymore.  Another theory has it that the axemen were in the second rank and would use their long axes to pull down the shields of the enemy's first rank.  This seems plausible and it required the axemen to remain in a defensive posture rather than rampaging over the field, killing enemies to and fro.  I think that 2-handed axes would be more useful in raids against lightly armed villagers and monks than in a battle between two armies relying on the shieldwall and masses of men holding tight ranks. 
 
WizardOfAtlantis said:
Redleg said:
I do know what pedantry means and basing one's opinion on a single source is problematic.  I am an academic researcher and am well aware of the importance of using many primary sources to better understand a phenomenon.  It would be like relying solely on the writings of Sigmund Freud to write about the psychology of adjustment.
I think it's funny how you want to presume I base my knowledge upon one source and then couple that with your credentials so you appear even more knowledgeable. That's embarrassing behavior and has nothing to do with anything except your ad hominem attacks, a phenomenon that is shamefully too frequent on these forums since VC came out.

Instead of talking about how by the 900s dane axes were used OUTSIDE of Denmark, which obviously means they were used INSIDE Denmark before that, you instead take the route of presuming without any basis that I rely solely on Wikipedia for my knowledge.

I know what academic fields are like myself, and it's funny how science often gets set aside for personal concerns bubbling under the surface.

edit: I remember you saying you had a long day grading papers after you already replied poorly to someone today, wasn't that you? Anyway, I'm not attacking you. I only wanted to discuss the shortsightedness of historians, but I'm frankly getting tired of too many things. Go with the gods.

I apologize for the grumpy tone.  It is getting intemperate in this forum and I will do my part to keep it cool.  Pax vobiscum.
 
fysaga said:
Ravenfly said:
its quite simple really...

https://www.google.at/search?q=viking+weapons&biw=1280&bih=917&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RUKMVM-cMoPxUouAgdAF&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Xt9ZdqVicTfS_M%253A%3BGwfrLxI5Kf_K7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%252Frmhttp%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fimages%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252Fvk_weapons.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bbc.co.uk%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252F%3B664%3B465

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-ZFaQDfwc/TILOkh8_hyI/AAAAAAAAAH0/fx2mvlsjISY/s1600/Museum+006.JPG


just two examples of what has been there at the time. Also some metal pieces that belonged to dane 2h axes, that havent been implemented in the DLC :sad: (not yet at least). Also a simple woodcutter used a 2h axe to cut his trees, that would have been just as useful in a battle, why not use it. But more by outlaws or irregular light troops or raiders or idk who, and not in a regular army. 
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.

WTF

The swords are hallstatt period if I am not mistaken.

Also "Lel gogle image saerch gifs me accurazte pics YOLO"

1337163288-13126000.jpg


:roll:

if u took a look at the 2 examples i posted, u would see that these are not just some rdm pics, but archaelogical finds i deliberately chose. That reminded me of the swords and axes alrdy in the DLC, alongside others that are not in the DLC. Now that they being tgth in a picture doesnt mean they all were used tgth at the exact same time period is smth. that can be true, thats smth then that needs research and experts, but its the best place to start with archeology, because its smth real. Paintings, stories can be fake.
 
WizardOfAtlantis said:
Yeyo said:
The two handed 'Dane axes' were a 11th century innovation and therefore were not in use in 867 AD.
First words off of Wikipedia on the history of the Dane Axe:
"In the course of the 10th-11th centuries, the Dane axe gained popularity in areas outside Scandinavia where Viking influence was strong, such as England, Ireland and Normandy."

So, in order for the axes to gain popularity in the 900s (that's the 10th century), that means not only that they existed beforehand (obviously) and were used so frequently not only at home but abroad, that by the 900s they have already started being used in England, by the Vikings.

This mod could have been a perfect example of WHY by the 900s these axes were being used in England, but due to someone's historical pedantry, it isn't.

I would not use the Wikipedia as the only source of information, but the wiki doesn’t say “the Dane axes gain popularity in the 900s”. The wiki say literally the Dane axes gain in popularity in the course of the 10th-11th centuries. As I have pointed some time age, this weapon appeared in the second half of the 10th century and began to be more common in the 11th. Mark Harrison considers this is related with the increasing use of chainmail in that century.

As Rapier17 has wrote, the Dane axe correspond with the types L and M of Jan Petersen, and the type  VI of Mortimer Wheeler, that “appears in Britain from 1000AD onwards”.
http://www.gav.org.uk/Research/Viking%20Age%20Axes.pdf

This chrono-typological table is pretty clear:
http://www.vikingage.org/wiki/images/f/fb/Axe.png

I don’t want to be offensive, but we have based our research for Viking Conquest in academic books and articles. I respect all the opinions, but history is a science and the scientific methodology implies that any opinion has to be demonstrated with evidences, based in the textual sources, in the art of the period and/or in the archaeological record.

I can’t demonstrate Dane axes were NOT used in the 9th century, as I can’t demonstrate Santa Claus does not exist. It is expected that if someone affirm something he is the one who has to demonstrate it, and for the moment nobody has show me a 9th century Dane axe. I just can say there is general agreement among the military historians about this subject; there are plenty of archaeological finds of Dane axes and all are from the late 10th century onwards, and the earliest depictions of this arm are an ivory plate from Constantinople, dated in the late 10th century, the Bayeux Tapestry and some codexs also from the 11th century.

This is the same answer to anyone who thinks that “leather helmet existed at this time, and one time again its not because there is no historical sources that it does'nt existed”. As the leather is a perishable material, maybe this could be possible. But if I want to make a replica of an artifact I need something to copy. I need the remains of an old one, or at least a drawing. We can’t make a 3D model of an imaginary helmet. Therefore, even so, the speculative conviction of its existence it’s really useless.
 
Ravenfly said:
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.

I'm afraid you've just underlined why correct research is important - you can't rely on a 'google' search or others to get it right when they put up images from museum trips. When it comes to weapons of the period in Britain Logan Thompson's book, Ancient Weapons in Britain (2004), is an interesting read which looks in depth at the various finds found in Britain prior to the Roman invasion, during the Migration Period, the Viking Invasion and up to the Norman Conquest, ending with a marvellous look at the Battle of Hastings. It's worth picking up and reading as it has excellent plates and is a mine of information about finds we currently have.

well after your post, i start to doubt quite quickly the 2h dane axe was there at the time period we talk about, fair enough, but other types of 2h axes were surely used to cut wood and trees at the time (at least this one sounds logical to me) and if some of the peasants made their minds up to try their luck going on a Raid this seems like it could be a first weapon of choice, when u have no shield and no 1h weapon. Or what would a villager defend himself with, if his got nothing else but his cutting axe next to him? In a battle with regular troops that wouldnt be a good idea ofc, like redleg mentioned, because u are exposed. But against an unprepared villager or monk its terrifying enough. 
 
Ravenfly said:
fysaga said:
Ravenfly said:
its quite simple really...

https://www.google.at/search?q=viking+weapons&biw=1280&bih=917&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RUKMVM-cMoPxUouAgdAF&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Xt9ZdqVicTfS_M%253A%3BGwfrLxI5Kf_K7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%252Frmhttp%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fimages%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252Fvk_weapons.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bbc.co.uk%252Fschools%252Fprimaryhistory%252Fvikings%252Fviking_raiders%252F%3B664%3B465

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o_-ZFaQDfwc/TILOkh8_hyI/AAAAAAAAAH0/fx2mvlsjISY/s1600/Museum+006.JPG


just two examples of what has been there at the time. Also some metal pieces that belonged to dane 2h axes, that havent been implemented in the DLC :sad: (not yet at least). Also a simple woodcutter used a 2h axe to cut his trees, that would have been just as useful in a battle, why not use it. But more by outlaws or irregular light troops or raiders or idk who, and not in a regular army. 
For me thats just logical, needs no big research, these 2 types of 2h axes should have been added.

WTF

The swords are hallstatt period if I am not mistaken.

Also "Lel gogle image saerch gifs me accurazte pics YOLO"

1337163288-13126000.jpg


:roll:

if u took a look at the 2 examples i posted, u would see that these are not just some rdm pics, but archaelogical finds i deliberately chose. That reminded me of the swords and axes alrdy in the DLC, alongside others that are not in the DLC. Now that they being tgth in a picture doesnt mean they all were used tgth at the exact same time period is smth. that can be true, thats smth then that needs research and experts, but its the best place to start with archeology, because its smth real. Paintings, stories can be fake.

Still, the swords are just plain wrong and i have taken a look or else i wouldnt have replied in that way. And about 2 handed dane axes I am no expert on them, though I could see them used in the 9th century, maybe of another kind, just due to effectivenes, though thats pure speculation on my side and nothing to rely on. Two handed axes have the problem of them being difficult to use in defense, as your hands are there for any kind of strike if the opponent gets one in. The shield was vital.
 
u are right on the swords, i just looked them up. Someone put them under the name -viking weapons- into his gallery... and i took them for an example of it... a bit half hearted and simple minded. But i d really wouldnt mind seing more variety in this game.
 
Look this is one area that is painfully obvious game play trumps the historical accuracy argument.  It's not like we are going too far out of period here anyways.

Two-handed axes
Throwing Axes
Coppergate helmet
Lamellar armor
More scale armor variations

Just limit there availability so they are rare.
 
Ravenfly said:
well after rapiers post, i start to doubt quite quickly the 2h dane axe was there at the time period we talk about, fair enough, but other types of 2h axes were surely used to cut wood and trees at the time (at least this one sounds logical to me) and if some of the peasants made their minds up to try their luck going on a Raid this seems like it could be a first weapon of choice, when u have no shield and no 1h weapon. Or what would a villager defend himself with, if his got nothing else but his cutting axe next to him? In a battle with regular troops that wouldnt be a good idea ofc, like redleg mentioned, because u are exposed. But against an unprepared villager or monk its terrifying enough.

The carpenter axes, and the ones for woodcutting, were quite different than war axes. They are heavier as they were designed to cut a hard and immobile target, or they had a special shape designed for a specific task. Just one example. These are carpenter axes from the Bayeux tapestry:
http://www.warehamforge.ca/REPRODUCTIONS/ship-tools/bayeux.jpg

And these are two handed war axes from the same source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Tapisserie_agriculture.JPG

As I have commented in other thread, the “weapons of choice” did not existed in the armies of the High Middle Ages. The laws determinated that each freeman has to go to war properly armed and/or the nobles have to provide arms to their servants (sometimes these weapons were cited with some specifications).

Obviously, if the Vikings attacked an Anglo-Saxon village the locals would defend themselves with anything they have. But the Anglo-Saxon fyrd was formed by warriors with weapons, not with farming tools.
 
reiksmarshal said:
Look this is one area that is painfully obvious game play trumps the historical accuracy argument.
But two-handed axes are not necessary for good gameplay. Would you request two-handed axes for a mod based on the Roman legions? No, you wouldn't.

If you want two-handed axes, play a mod with a different setting, or convince the devs that they are historical for the 860s-870s.


 
Back
Top Bottom