Viking swords and durability

[Saxit]

I need some help to find historical facts about viking swords. Some in my RPG group claim that viking swords were hardly more than sharpened steel bars and that it happened in combat that they had to stop to fight to bend a sword straight again.
I need to know if this claim is true or not. (Im pretty sure I read somewhere, if it was swordforum.com or thehaca I dont know, that viking swords was generally of pretty high quality.)
Anyways, any help would be appreciated and please include links for sources if you have any.
/Saxit

 

[Vaxalon]

The term "Scramasax" is a Saxon term that refers to the kind of weapon you're talking about. It was a bar of metal, clipped at an angle to make a point and ground down on one side to make an edge. It's a lousy sword and they didn't tend to last through a battle.

That wasn't the only way to make a sword, though. The Saxons knew how to make middling-grade steel, and they made swords out of it when they could.

The Saxons were related to the Norse, being of similar cultural stock.

 

[Turlogh]

From what I heard Viking swords were pattern wielded (high carbon steel and a lesser steel mixed) to give the blade a fairly high strength blade.

 

[DM with a vengence]

There were two types of viking swords

The ordinary filed bar kind which your friend describes, and the pattern welded blade, which was made from iron bars wrapped and welded together, then filed and etched with acid.

The latter were very good blades (a 7th century viking blade was discovered on an 17th century german hilt), but the former tended to bend in battle like your friend described.

In D&D terms, ordinary viking sword is a longsword with -1 on attack rolls, and a pattern welded sword is a masterwork longsword.

My sources are from a book called The Dark Age Warrior, by Erdwin Oakeshott (sp)

 

[RogueJK]

A Dark Age Warrior is by R. Ewart Oakeshott.

 

[tribeof1]

Well, I just re-read Beowulf for a class, and it repeatedly refers to the "patterned" type of sword. As far ranging as the Vikings were as well, it wasn't uncommon for them to 'appropriate' blades from elsewhere when the quality was superior to those they made at home.

Anyway, as far as the pattern-welded blades goes, IIRC, the technique is similar to that used in making Damascus steel (about as good as it got). The katana is also made by folding the steel, giving them quite a strong and keen edge even though the metal used was weaker and less rigid than that used by Westerners.

tribe

 

[AGGEMAM]

The Viking Age was from the 8th to 13th century, at least, that is what we are thought in school here in the original Viking country of Denmark.

The blades you are describing are not from the Viking age but from the late iron age.

True Viking blades were folded over and over much like Japanese blades were, though hardly as sturdy.

One must remember where the iron for these blades came. At the time there were no iron mines in northern Europe. The iron came from bog material (myremalm) that was burned of in an oven (højovn), the remaining slag was then heated and purified.

 

[A'koss]

The Vikings were on the "bleeding" edge of sword forging in Europe. They started making pattern-welded blades as early as 300 AD and high quality pattern-welded blades in 500 AD. This continued right through to about the late 900s (with some unbelievably cunning stuff - twisted core, hard edged, soft bodied stuff) when eventually high quality steel could be made no longer requiring forge folding to pound out impurities. That is, after all, why everyone from the Celts to the Japanese made pattern-welded blades. You pound out the impurities (slag) and break up deposits of carbon and distribute them evenly throughout the blade so as to eliminate any weakspots. Of course you could just as easily introduce new problems with pattern-welding with weld gaps, etc... There is a lot more to that that, but that should suffice for now.

Now as to the hardness and durability of a sword you first have to determine what you are hitting with it. Are you going after armored opponents? Then you want a "tougher", rather than "harder" blade with a crossection designed to penetrate armor (flat diamond for instance).

The Japanese made very hard, but unfortunately very (relatively speaking) brittle blades. No post quench stress relief and poor steel didn't help, but they had marvellous workarounds and made the best of it that they could... Very good for low to no armored opponents. Very poor against mail and better armor. A lot of that is in the blade profile and how it is weilded too - slicing cuts (katanas) are excellent for flesh, poor for armor (what is was *designed* for). A shearing cut is what you want for armor penetration and Euro blades are better for that. It's all a matter of trade-offs.

Viking blades were made "tough", that is, much less likely to break or chip but didn't keep an edge as well. But you would want this kind of blade if you were going after a guy in mail armor.

Some links to explore:

http://members.ttlc.net/~tyrell/Viking4.htm
http://www.accucom.net/medsword/serpent2.html
http://www.vikingsword.com/virtmus.html#anchor328425
http://swordforum.com/swords/historical/makingofmedswds.html

Hope this helps.

A'koss "sword nut"

 

[Henrix]

The tale about swords bending in combat have been told about several different nationalities, the Vikings, the Scots, etc.
It seems to originate with Polybius, who tells it about the Celts.
It does not seem to have been true in any of the cases.

Throughout Europe during the ancient times, germanic and celtic areas, swords were often sacrificed by bending them and throwing them ina bog or lake. Something which might explain part of it.
The Celts sometimes used swordshaped iron bars as money, and early prehistorians sometimes thought these were very poor swords (which they, of course, were not.)

The myth about the bending sword, at least originally in Polybius*, could of course also have been a way to depreciate the enemy.

 

[Saxit]

Thank you everyone, this helps.
/Saxit