10th Century Weapons for Boys?

U

uzername

Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
2
1) Would anyone care to speculate on what kind of sword and knife a wealthy 12 year-old boy in late-10th century Wales might use in combat?

2) Also, if a short adult had only a Roman-era gladius (say for ceremonial use), what sort of strategy might he use against a 10th century Viking sword?

I don't know anything about weapons or fighting, so I would be grateful if only for some relevant terminology to Google (or search YouTube).

Thank you for your consideration.
 
I can only speak to 2, since I regularly fight with short swords against long. First, a shield would be a great thing to have to accompany said gladius. Your opponent will have several inches of reach on you, and likely better quality steel, if you're talking about a ceremonial gladius. The one advantage you're likely to have is speed, although you'd need to get in close to use your weapon to effect, which isn't the easiest thing to do, especially if you surrender the initiative. If you don't have a shield, and your opponent does seize the initiative, the best strategy I've found is to strike to the weapon hand and the legs. You don't require as much reach to hit those as you do to hit the body, and if they can't hold the sword, it won't be much good to them.

Of course, if said short adult is in a shield line with a bunch of other gladius wielders, it's a whole different story. A person wielding a sword as long as a Viking sword needs to attack from a skirmishing line wide enough that they can avoid hitting the warriors on either side. They'll be at a distinct disadvantage against a shield line, because they'll be facing generally 2-3 swords instead of only 1.
 
even a wealthy 12 YO Welsh boy would be more likely to have a spear and/or an axe similar in style to the francesca (or francisca) than a sword
if he did have a sword, a gladius would not be totally out of the question, neither would a reground sword picked up from a battlefield.
would likely have a knife similar to the Seax (or scramasax) with 4-6" blade.

1 on 1 fighting against a larger opponent with longer weapon means you have to get in close -- otherwise you're at his range and can't do more than block. hesitation on closing generally = dead. Shields of the time were not particularly durable (think plywood), so get in, stab to the groin area (femoral artery on the inside of the leg) or smash a knee, then back out and let the spearmen make a pincushion of him. Punching with the edge of the shield is a good tactic, too.
 
1066vik said:
Punching with the edge of the shield is a good tactic, too.
Click to expand...

This. Sword and board is never as effective as using it as another weapon. I just made a shield (cost about 20 bucks) with easily obtainable supplies at Lowes. Won't stop an arrow, but it will turn a sword wielded properly, and that should allow you to get in close, or else provide a distraction to allow you to stab. There are videos of good shield/buckler use on youtube that you can check out.

Also, spears are great. One of my favorite weapons.
 
Sounds like someone is writing a book... ;)

You should check out Hurstwic for their information on 10th C. weapons and tactics. It's mostly focused on Viking stuff, but there was a lot of cultural exchange in the N. Atlantic during that time period.

Tactics depend on more than just length. The balance of the weapons will also change the way they are used. I believe that Viking swords were generally around 2.5 to 3 lbs and had their center of balance about 5-6 inches out from the hilt where a gladius was a pound lighter and brought that balance back to 4 or 4.5 inches from the hilt. Would make the gladius quicker and a bit more lively feeling, but the viking sword would have some momentum behind it. It would not feel as lively, but it would definitely not be clumsy, just more committed to a particular course.

Gladius has a wicked point for stabbing, which is mostly how they were used in shield walls. Viking swords seem to have been used more for cutting and cleaving. There's a reason why Vikings named their swords things like 'leg biter.'
 
from what I've read in the past:
the infantry Gladius was a primarily stabbing weapon.
the officers had a longer version of the gladius that was also useful for slashing.
early viking swords had a fairly "round" tip -- and were hacking swords.
later viking era swords developed piercing/stabbing points.
some celts had a leaf bladed sword of similar size to the gladius but it had more of a spear point in comparison to the more angular gladius - and IIRC, most examples that have been found were made of bronze.
 
If I remember correctly, the Welsh were pretty good archers in their day. I think they were outdone by the English longbow later, but that was a few centuries down the road. probably a bow & a short sword, spear. As far as the gladius vs a longsword, I would think the smart thing would be to get in close & try to render the longer sword useless. A shield would be a smart idea too.
 
a lot of those "English" longbowmen at Agincourt in the 15th century were Welsh.
supposedly that was the start of the insult of biting one's thumb at another and calling out "pluck yew" as an insult.
(no I can't accurately document this)
Biting the thumb was supposed to be from the French practice at the time of cutting off the right thumb of captured archers so they could no longer use their bows -- and weren't worth anything for ransom.
 
can't keep it going much longer or someone may try to give me the shaft, but I get your point.
 
Lol. Love the archery puns. As one who has a lot of Welsh in their background, I enjoy reading anything on them. I must agree with the earlier comments. He would definitely have a spear, possibly a seax, and definitely a shield. The common wood used was Lindonwood which apparently similar to Poplar. Light, mildly strong and with a soft iron rim to catch a blade.
 
1066vik said:
a lot of those "English" longbowmen at Agincourt in the 15th century were Welsh.
supposedly that was the start of the insult of biting one's thumb at another and calling out "pluck yew" as an insult.
(no I can't accurately document this)
Biting the thumb was supposed to be from the French practice at the time of cutting off the right thumb of captured archers so they could no longer use their bows -- and weren't worth anything for ransom.
Click to expand...

I like it! I have a new, "Clean" insult...
 
1066vik said:
a lot of those "English" longbowmen at Agincourt in the 15th century were Welsh.
supposedly that was the start of the insult of biting one's thumb at another and calling out "pluck yew" as an insult.
(no I can't accurately document this)
Biting the thumb was supposed to be from the French practice at the time of cutting off the right thumb of captured archers so they could no longer use their bows -- and weren't worth anything for ransom.
Click to expand...

I'd always heard that the threat was to cut the first two fingers (fore and middle) of the right hand, which was/is the origin of the "two fingered salute".

Mark-Cavendish-006.jpg
 
That's what I've heard as well. The European method of archery does not involve the use of the thumb--at least to the best of my knowledge. Indo-Persian archery does, though.
 
So what's the story with shields in 10th century Britain?

Vikings are always pictured with shields, and their use seems to date at least from Roman times through the High Middle Ages.

Is there a term for warriors who fought without shields (other than "dearly departed")?

I'm thinking of the videos on the Gladiatores Website.

http://gladiatores.de/

Thanks!
 
uzername said:
So what's the story with shields in 10th century Britain?

Vikings are always pictured with shields, and their use seems to date at least from Roman times through the High Middle Ages.

Is there a term for warriors who fought without shields (other than "dearly departed")?

I'm thinking of the videos on the Gladiatores Website.

http://gladiatores.de/

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Well, if I were one of those people and was fighting without a shield you could probably call me either 'tired' or 'surprised'...

If you look at the Bayeux tapestry and pay attention to it you will see that the only groups not using or carrying a kite shield are the archers and the Danish Huscarls with their war axes that they had to wield two-handed.

All those groups that work to reconstruct sword techniques from the old manuals are working with later weapons that are longer and handle very differently from those of the Viking Age.

If I had to guess priorities for armament amongst the different groups you are asking about I'd say that a shield was right near the top along with a spear or axe and a longish knife. Helms and swords show an investment of a lot of wealth and good metal in tools that have no use except in war. Having them shows that you have status either from wealth or from having taken them in plunder after a battle or that you have gained enough favor with the local leader to have been given these tools in return for your promise of service. Not everyone would have those things or have had them passed down to them from a relative.

Still, everyone would have to know how to fight without a shield for those times when you might be attacked in the field or in a surprise raid and have nothing on hand except what you normally carry while going about your everyday business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top