Kobra compared to ancient swords for self defence

I am sorry but I can't help myself for making up some thoughts about the actors of this talk that we have had here.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in England there has been a very hierarchical social system based on social class. And Tom you are English with an education from Oxford... I on the other hand am Norwegian, and in Norway we have no social classes. In fact, the terminology social class is something Norwegians only hear about in school when we learn about other countries and political ideologies.

So both Tom and me have minds coloured by our backgrounds when we read history.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that I could never truly interpret a historical society like the English one which was based on social classes. While Tom Holt with his English background would interpret history in Scandinavia too much in favour of social class hierarchy. Perhaps you need to be Scandinavian to understand excactly what was going on here in the old days, simply because many things here still are the same today as they were back then. Our lack of social class thinking is a direct result of our past agricultural society, which descends in a direct line from The Viking Age...

Well, just a thought.

Greetings
 
To Eikervaering for starting the thread, and to all others who have been participating. I was formerly a history major myself, and miss this type of discourse. Many times I enjoyed such discussions with my friend Piotr, who was from Estonia. Sadly, few Americans I encounter seem to have much interest in such matters.

Patrick
 
Originally posted by Eikerværing
This is nice beoram. Let us talk.

I can't make sense out of the information you have about swords being rich men's priviliege in the north. In Norway all free men were obliged to have weaponry, and most men were free common farmers, so logically they all had at least axe or sword, depending on their preference. Over 2000 swords have been found in the Viking graves of Norway alone, so it sounds very common. And besides all I ever heard about in my history lessons was that everybody had a sword and everybody needed to learn how to use it. Iron was easy to obtain in Norway you know, we had much naturally occuring iron.
Click to expand...

I think we're probably largely working with different notions of 'common'. My point is simply that it was not the case that every man would own a sword, though more and more people would own swords in later times as swords became less expensive to produce. Yes many swords have been found in graves in Norway and through Scandinavia, England and 'Germania', but many male graves also contain no swords (and many of these contain spear-heads...)

And one must also realise that even in Norway and Iceland (though to a lesser extent) there were slaves, who of course would not have had swords.

I have made an error. The people of Wales are not different from the Irish. I checked it in a new source. And I read that the genetical studies of the Y-chromosome shows that the men of Wales and Ireland are identical (nothing mentioned about the Scots though). The intensity of this special Y-chromosome was highest on the west coast of Ireland (98%) and lower in the east of Ireland (reflecting foreign influence). This special Y-chromosome is only found elsewhere in a substantial frequency the Basque population.

However the female X-chromosome of Wales and Ireland does not seem to be unique in Great Britain, in contrast to the very special Welsh-Irish Y-chromosome. The reason for no female specialty in Wales and Ireland is that in the old days the men posessed farms by inheritance while women had to move to a different farm when they got married. So the women were more responsible than men for mixing the genetics of Europe.
Click to expand...


So genetically Ireland and Wales are close, correct?

some interesting sites if you don't know them already:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/genetics_results_01.shtml

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~sczsteve/survey.htm

Could it be Celts living in Wales and Ireland since they speak Celtic languages? Personally I don't think so. I checked with this site http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/mlcr/mlcr01.htm
and several other sites too and I can only find old Greek and Roman historical descriptions of the Celts as tall, white skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed. This is clearly not what is reflected in Wales and the western fringe of Ireland where there is so much dark people.
Click to expand...

But it would seem odd that the only people who still speak Celtic languages in general tend to conform to the 'Welsh-type' (Welsh, Irish, Scots [to a lesser extent], Bretons).

Perhaps the Greeks and Romans (who, in ancient times, were still probably largely dusky, dark-haired people) would find the 'Welsh-type' comparatively lighter-skinned and haired.

So the conclusion must be that the male blood line in Ireland and Wales (maybe also Scotland) is largely a remnant of a population that was once widely distributed in entire Europe, since it is also found in the Basque people of the Pyrenees. This completly matches the theory of that there was a dark Mediterranean race widely distributed in Europe a long time ago. And this race survived only in the fringes of Europe (British Isles and inaccessible mountains of the Basques) where the later migrants didn't venture.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps we're using words differently? Perhaps when you say 'Celtic' you mean the same thing as I mean (roughly) by 'Indo-European' (or 'Indo-Germanisch', to use the German word)? And by 'Mediterranean' what I would call 'indigeneous european'?

Since you are a linguistic you must be right about Celtic not being a Germanic language. I know that they are separate groups but I assumed that they had the same recent origin since the Celtic race was the same as the Nordic race by appearance (refering to those ancient historical writings).
Click to expand...


But Latin and Greek and Sanskrit and Hindi, &c. have the same linguistic origin (and ultimately, a large number of speakers of these languages have 'Indo-Germanic' heritage).

I have to correct you on one thing, you probably wrote things in a bit of a hurry. You say that Basque is the only surviving European language. Well, you also have Finnish-Ugric among Finns, Sami people and Hungarians. They all speak separate languages but their language group is not Indo-European.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Finno-Ugaric is not indigeneous to Europe either, that's why I failed to mention it. Basque has not been demonstrated to have a relation to any other language and presumably is the sole surviving linguistic remnant of the 'indigeneous Mediterranean' inhabitants of Europe - who preceded the 'Indo-Europeans'.

Well... conclusion is that people of the Celtic speaking areas of Great Britain are a mix of Mediterranean and Celtic, and perhaps some Anglo Saxon or Viking?
Click to expand...

My guess is that the Celtic-speaking people of the British Isles are a mix of 'indigeneous European/Mediterranean' and Celtic [here I mean Indo-Europeans who spoke a Celtic language], with some Anglo-Saxon of course, and also Danish and Norwegian in Ireland and Scotland.

But I imagine this situation to be largely representative of Europe at large - i.e. a 'racial mix' between 'Indo-Europeans' and 'indigeneous Mediterranean types', though the proportions may be different in different areas of course. I imagine there's also some adaptation at work in the difference in physical types between, say, the people of Norway and the people of southern Italy. The climate of Norway is much harsher than that of southern Italy, so physically less hardy people would have a greater survival rate in the more temperate climate of the Mediterranean areas of Europe. And the Mediterranean area of Europe also has continually received more influx of 'duskier' people from North Africa, the Near East, western asia, &c.

cheers for the interesting discussion,
--Ben
 
..in history anyhow. Thanks fer the cool linx, Beoram.

Tom and Eikervaering:
It is interesting to hear these discussions from the English and Norwegian perspective. Sound like Tom's coursework was similar to mine here in the States.

Here's a question for Tom: Here in the US, we are taught certain things about the Revolutionary war, and I'm betting that the UK version of the history is slightly different, as it was written in a country that opposed the colonies. Is there a British source that you could recommend that deals with this conflict from the British side? I would love to do soem comparisons. After all, I'm betting we're only getting a part of the story, with a certain nationalistic bias.

Thanks in advance,

Keith
 
This has such enlightening and interesting thread! Who, other than frequent HI forumites, can cver imagine the great contents hanging under the title of "Kobra compared to ancient swords for self defence?"
 
Yeah, I guess each thread is like a wrapped gift..you don't know what cool stuff is inside until you open it up. Because of this, I open and read each new HI thread i see.

That is what make this a great forum, i guess. Oh, and HI-Quality folk helps as well.

Keith
 
Eikervaering, earlier you mentioned that iron was plentiful in Norway but what you mey not know is how special the iron from Norway and Sweden is. One of the major factors in ductility and malleability of iron is the presence of sulpher and phosphorus, both of which are present in nearly all iron ores. Either element is detrimental and iron makers do their best to remove them by flux, puddling, blast, etc.

Norway and Swedish iron is nearly free of phosphorus and sulpher. It is highly desireable for making steel and in days past was the preferred iron for making "wrought iron" which was consistant, dependable and more workable than any other. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume the very qualities that make Norway iron so prized contributed to the abundance of swords among the Norwegians. More than this I cannot say, but one might postulate a market in iron being part of the incredibly far-flung Viking trade empire, up the Volga and down to Spain.

One conclusion could reasonably be that swords did not denote nobility or exceptional wealth in Norway as they would for other lands, or that the status would be diluted. Hence the perception that class didn't matter as much, since most men could obtain weapons.

best wishes

Stephen
 
Originally posted by beoram


I think we're probably largely working with different notions of 'common'. My point is simply that it was not the case that every man would own a sword, though more and more people would own swords in later times as swords became less expensive to produce. Yes many swords have been found in graves in Norway and through Scandinavia, England and 'Germania', but many male graves also contain no swords (and many of these contain spear-heads...)

And one must also realise that even in Norway and Iceland (though to a lesser extent) there were slaves, who of course would not have had swords.



Thralls (slaves) did not have weapons, but the great bulk of the population were free farmers. And they had weapons. I am quite sure having read somewhere that all men were obliged by law to posess either axe or sword. The law specifically mentioned "axe OR sword". Perhaps the less well financed would own a Viking battle axe instead? And the proportion of swords increased over the years? My point was just to show that a common man was well armed and that is why he had political power too as a common man. And hence the noble elite not ruling in the same extent as in continental Europe.

In Norway and Sweden there are many burial sites but in Denmark very few. The only survey done on what weapons men had with them in their graves was done in Denmark, but due to the scarce Danish material one must be careful in drawing conclusions from it.
Usually each grave had one or two weapons, the axe more common than the sword and the spear the least common. So ok, in Denmark maybe the sword was not the most common thing. But this says nothing about Norway and Sweden.

All info found here: http://www.arild-hauge.com/



So genetically Ireland and Wales are close, correct?

some interesting sites if you don't know them already:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/genetics_results_01.shtml

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~sczsteve/survey.htm



Yep. Correct. The male Y-chromosome, the very thing that gives you testosterone.

Thanks for the links, here are mine:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1256000/1256894.stm
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm
http://john.hynes.net/y.html



But it would seem odd that the only people who still speak Celtic languages in general tend to conform to the 'Welsh-type' (Welsh, Irish, Scots [to a lesser extent], Bretons).

Perhaps the Greeks and Romans (who, in ancient times, were still probably largely dusky, dark-haired people) would find the 'Welsh-type' comparatively lighter-skinned and haired.



No, not if you look at the genetical history and compare with the Basques. And remember that those British Mediterraneans are populations that are mixed with something and that something was a dominating invader (Celts) with a different language.
More support for the theory of Mediterranean racial basis in "Celtic" Britain here: http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/aryanmyth.html
This guy talks about a linguistical evidence. Must be something for you.

The Greeks and Romans were Mediterraneans in those days. And when the historians wrote "blue eyes, yellowish hair and snow white arms" they could not have been mistaking.


I think perhaps we're using words differently? Perhaps when you say 'Celtic' you mean the same thing as I mean (roughly) by 'Indo-European' (or 'Indo-Germanisch', to use the German word)? And by 'Mediterranean' what I would call 'indigeneous european'?



No, I term Celtic as one independent branch of the Indo-European linguistic family.

Mediterranean is for me the population that inhabited Europe (except for Scandinavia), Northern Africa and part of the Middle East before the Celts came yes. If they were "indigeneous" is another debate.



But Latin and Greek and Sanskrit and Hindi, &c. have the same linguistic origin (and ultimately, a large number of speakers of these languages have 'Indo-Germanic' heritage).



They belong to Indo-European, but not Germanic. Germanic is a different Indo-European linguistic branch. Well, as I once learned it.



Yes, but Finno-Ugaric is not indigeneous to Europe either, that's why I failed to mention it. Basque has not been demonstrated to have a relation to any other language and presumably is the sole surviving linguistic remnant of the 'indigeneous Mediterranean' inhabitants of Europe - who preceded the 'Indo-Europeans'.



Ok I see. But yet another debate there. First of all nothing is indigeneous to Europe. But they both predate the Indo-Europeans in Europe I believe? And are thereby both should be worth mentioning as survivors. Well, I am on assumptioning ground now...



But I imagine this situation to be largely representative of Europe at large - i.e. a 'racial mix' between 'Indo-Europeans' and 'indigeneous Mediterranean types', though the proportions may be different in different areas of course. I imagine there's also some adaptation at work in the difference in physical types between, say, the people of Norway and the people of southern Italy. The climate of Norway is much harsher than that of southern Italy, so physically less hardy people would have a greater survival rate in the more temperate climate of the Mediterranean areas of Europe. And the Mediterranean area of Europe also has continually received more influx of 'duskier' people from North Africa, the Near East, western asia, &c.

cheers for the interesting discussion,
--Ben

Yes, there is a racial mixing gradient west-east. 98% Mediterranean male line on the very western fringe of Ireland and 1,8% somewhere in Turkey (except Scandinavia which should be untouched). The gradient is probably a steady decline towards the east but with rather local and/or regional variations in the steadiness.

The adaptions between north and south of Europe are an interesting debate as well. Probably it would not only comprise physical differences but also inheritable mental differences. I have my speculations of course, but this is still an unplowed land of science.

Greetings again, we are having fun
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Stephen Hamilton
Eikervaering, earlier you mentioned that iron was plentiful in Norway but what you mey not know is how special the iron from Norway and Sweden is.

It wouldn't be a stretch to assume the very qualities that make Norway iron so prized contributed to the abundance of swords among the Norwegians.

One conclusion could reasonably be that swords did not denote nobility or exceptional wealth in Norway as they would for other lands, or that the status would be diluted. Hence the perception that class didn't matter as much, since most men could obtain weapons.

best wishes

Stephen
Click to expand...

I did not know that the iron in Norway and Sweden was so special. Thanks!

Yes, you confirm all the things I have read previously in my life. Swords were more abundant in Norway. I think I read that iron items (weapons and blacksmith tools) in graves was more common in Norway than in Sweden too. All the blacksmith tools in Norwegian graves should be a strong evidence for an iron industry here.

Your conclusion about wealth, nobility and swords is the essence of what I am trying to say. The fact that most men had weapons spread out the political power to numerous actors, and not solely to people in high positions. This in fact made the Norse society more democratic than today's democracy where power is more concentrated on fewer hands. Here in Norway people were quite equal and did not like to subdue themselves. And this mindset we still carry with us today in Norway. People here hate to subdue themselves and that is why we voted NO to membership in The European Union (2 times). Politics of this world today can actually be a directly transending tradition from older times.

Greetings and thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top