D&D 5E Norse World
- Thread starter Yaarel
- Start date
Yaarel
Mind Mage
My own area is Mideast archeology. So I am fond of biblical scholars.
I am academically sensitive to what polytheism is, and what it is not. If your own focus is biblical studies, and you are immersing in Christian (?) biblical texts, I assume you take scientific precautions to avoid unconsciously projecting the Hellenistic anti-polytheistic polemics onto Non-Hellenistic, Non-Christian, non-monotheistic, and non-polytheistic cultures.
The archeological summaries that I present in this Norse World thread come from mainstream Scandinavian archeology and linguistics. Note, the mention of the Nordwest Block material cultures derives from the Dutch archeologists and linguists. The German archeologists and linguists, themselves, emphasize that the socalled ‘Germanic peoples’ are a nonhomogeneous conglomeration of diverse ethnic groups, and that linguistic speculations about Germany before year 750 are uncertain.
The statements in this thread are ordinary enough within scientific communities today.
In general, regions like Scandinavia (and Ireland) tend toward relative remoteness and stability. By contrast, *Continental* Europe is a neverending quixotic flux of ethnographic admixtures and migrations, alternate placenames, shifting territorial borders, and linguistic drifts and replacements. Anyone with even casual familiarity with German ethnography should assume the formative German peoples are responsible for ‘mixing-it-up’.
Personally, I am shocked that there are still (apparently serious) people today who come across as if believing in some kind of ‘racially pure’ monolithic ‘Germanic people’. Scientists today reject that Romantic-Era guess about a homogeneous socalled Germanic ethnicity.
I am proficient in genetics, and because of archeology, am familiar with yDNA and its evidence for reconstructing premodern ethnographies. I am also familiar with challenges of correlating specific DNA with specific material cultures. But in Scandinavia, there are fewer ‘moving parts’ than in other areas of the world. Easier to track, in comparison.
In regard to Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, and Denmark), the yDNA modal haplogroups are four: I1, R1a, R1b, and N3. I1 is ubiquitous and is a factor that makes Scandinavian ethnicity distinctive. R1a is somewhat more frequent in central regions. R1b is more prevalent in the south but scarce in the north. Conversely, N3 (one of the modalities that make Sámi ethnicity distinctive) is prevalent in the north but scarce in the south.
All four haplogroups exist in Scandinavia in the Stone Age. N3 is paleolithic, I1 is probably paleolithic. R1a is neolithic, R1b is probably neolithic.
The population of Scandinavia exists before the ‘Proto-Germanic’ language exists. None of these four brought a Germanic language with them. So where does the reconstructed so-called ‘Proto-Germanic’ language come from?
Given the archeological contexts in Scandinavia, Scandinavian archeologists conclude the Nordic language likely evolved internally within Scandinavia. In other words, Grimms Law (a set of linguistic shifts that distinguishes Proto-Germanic from earlier Proto-Indo-European) happens in Scandinavia.
Most archeologists correlate the arrival of the Proto-Indo-European language with Corded Ware material culture. In Scandinavia, this also correlates with the arrival of yDNA R1a. So, if Grimms Law happens in Scandinavia, the explanation is relatively simple.
R1a was a successful culture that integrated peacefully. They were Proto-Indo-European speakers. Also they brought the economic tradition of cattle herding, which is an advantage to the Stone Age Scandinavian hunter-gatherers. A Scandinavian interaction of R1a with the local populations forms Battle-Axe culture.
Later, Grimms Law evolves its linguistic shifts in the context of the languages of I1 and R1b. These shifts transpire a thousand-or-so years. The language consolidates as the dominant language of the Nordic Bronze Age material culture. In other words, the Nordic Bronze Age parent language and the socalled Proto-Germanic language are the same thing.
Likewise, it is easy to explain how a Nordic language spreads southward into continental Europe. The far-flung tribal confederacies of Roman-Period Germania happen to include tribes from near the border of the Nordic parent language speakers. Because of developing political consolidation in the continent, some tribes adopted the languages of other tribes. This happened. Eventually, tribes as far away as the Franks are speaking a language that is non-identical yet related to the Nordic parent language.
This is the prevailing view in Scandinavia. It also is the cleanest explanation for all of the known evidence.
In the recent past, Pan-Germanism was flagrantly aggressive, even violently. It still is in certain communities. Indeed, if I see someone who seems to imply a "racially pure" homogenous "Germanic people", my first question is, are they some kind of German supremacist?
Even linguistics itself and its nomenclature concerning "Proto-Germanic" is historically inseparable from the most egregious and unscientific expressions of Pan-Germanism.
By contrast, to say, Scandinavians and Germans are different ethnic groups, is sane.
Regarding yDNA genetic evidence. All of it is irrelevant, in the sense that none of it (N3, I1, R1a, R1b) represents ‘Germanic’ speakers during the Stone Age. Grimms Law happens later.
By the way, none of the DNA that is in Scandinavia seems to come thru Germany. N3 comes from northern Eurasia. I1 seems to come thru Poland. R1a comes from Russia via the Baltics or Poland. The specific subclade of R1b that is in Scandinavia appears to come directly from Netherlands by sea (R1b-1a-2a1a-1a). This particular R1b subclade appears to originate from northern Italy.
In any case, all of it Stone Age, and none of it is linguistically ‘Germanic’.
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
I am currently skimming over this particular paper (Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians). Its comments are normal enough and, in fact, repeat what this thread is also is saying.
To review the scientific issues, all of this concerns the Stone Age in Scandinavia.
In Scandinavia, Pitted Ware material culture flourishes roughly 3300 to 2300 BCE and Battle-Axe material culture flourishes roughly 2800 to 2300 BCE. In other words, they coexist for about 500 years.
(By the way, on the island of Gotland, the paper says Pitted Ware extends to at least 2000 BCE.)
This paper contributes data correlating Pitted Ware culture to specific matrilineal mtDNA (mitochondrion-chromosomal). But it corroborates similar findings in other papers that identify Pitted Ware culture with patrilineal yDNA I2 (y-chromosomal). Roughly speaking, the patrilineal line helps archeologists figure out where a population group is migrating, while the matrilineal line helps archeologists figure out which other populations have the most interaction.
The yDNA I2 haplogroup still exists in Scandinavia today but in low non-modal frequencies. From other papers, it is known, a few human remains from roughly 7500 to 4000 BCE are also yDNA I2 (arriving and meeting in Scandinavia from different vectors). So, Pitted Ware represents a culture of Stone Age hunter-gatherers who mostly resisted the innovations of Battle-Axe culture. They eventually could not sustain a larger population thus dwindled in relative numbers and merged into the larger population. Hence I2 descendants are still part of Scandinavia today, even if in low frequencies.
Meanwhile, the contemporary Battle-Axe culture in Scandinavia represents significant changes in demographics that occur in the Neolithic Period. This paper suggests, based on mtDNA evidence, a different genepool arrives in the Neolithic Period (or Post-Neolithic as this papers allows) that is responsible for the change in Battle-Axe culture. As I mentioned in this thread, R1a is this neolithic arrival.
(Note, the methodology of the paper has serious limitations. It must extrapolate indirectly because of the scarcity of DNA in good condition. For example, one would like to see DNA samples of Pitted Ware culture, Funnel Beaker culture, and Battle-Axe culture from the same locations where they are coexisting. But these are unavailable. Also the use of mtDNA mutations that are not-yet organized into the detailed subclades is a kind of shotgun approach depending on limited information about the mtDNA. For example, the mtDNA relates to the Baltics, but is this because their mothers are from there, meaning there is admixture with contemporary ethnic groups, or is it because 3000 years earlier, founding populations came from there, meaning there is no admixture with contemporary ethnic groups. When the mtDNA becomes better understood, such answers become clearer. When more and more complete DNA samples become available, answers become clearer. For example, Scandinavian archeologists need to confirm when and how yDNA I1 enters Scandinavia. Even so, the paper considers the limited evidence judiciously and extrapolates useful conclusions.)
So. This paper is fine.
As the Norse World thread mentions, it is Battle-Axe culture (not Pitted Ware culture) that introduces the Proto-Indo-European language, whence the Nordic Bronze Age parent language. The arrival of R1a catalyzes Battle-Axe culture, but the culture itself develops out of a blending with other haplogroups as well.
To review the scientific issues, all of this concerns the Stone Age in Scandinavia.
In Scandinavia, Pitted Ware material culture flourishes roughly 3300 to 2300 BCE and Battle-Axe material culture flourishes roughly 2800 to 2300 BCE. In other words, they coexist for about 500 years.
(By the way, on the island of Gotland, the paper says Pitted Ware extends to at least 2000 BCE.)
This paper contributes data correlating Pitted Ware culture to specific matrilineal mtDNA (mitochondrion-chromosomal). But it corroborates similar findings in other papers that identify Pitted Ware culture with patrilineal yDNA I2 (y-chromosomal). Roughly speaking, the patrilineal line helps archeologists figure out where a population group is migrating, while the matrilineal line helps archeologists figure out which other populations have the most interaction.
The yDNA I2 haplogroup still exists in Scandinavia today but in low non-modal frequencies. From other papers, it is known, a few human remains from roughly 7500 to 4000 BCE are also yDNA I2 (arriving and meeting in Scandinavia from different vectors). So, Pitted Ware represents a culture of Stone Age hunter-gatherers who mostly resisted the innovations of Battle-Axe culture. They eventually could not sustain a larger population thus dwindled in relative numbers and merged into the larger population. Hence I2 descendants are still part of Scandinavia today, even if in low frequencies.
Meanwhile, the contemporary Battle-Axe culture in Scandinavia represents significant changes in demographics that occur in the Neolithic Period. This paper suggests, based on mtDNA evidence, a different genepool arrives in the Neolithic Period (or Post-Neolithic as this papers allows) that is responsible for the change in Battle-Axe culture. As I mentioned in this thread, R1a is this neolithic arrival.
(Note, the methodology of the paper has serious limitations. It must extrapolate indirectly because of the scarcity of DNA in good condition. For example, one would like to see DNA samples of Pitted Ware culture, Funnel Beaker culture, and Battle-Axe culture from the same locations where they are coexisting. But these are unavailable. Also the use of mtDNA mutations that are not-yet organized into the detailed subclades is a kind of shotgun approach depending on limited information about the mtDNA. For example, the mtDNA relates to the Baltics, but is this because their mothers are from there, meaning there is admixture with contemporary ethnic groups, or is it because 3000 years earlier, founding populations came from there, meaning there is no admixture with contemporary ethnic groups. When the mtDNA becomes better understood, such answers become clearer. When more and more complete DNA samples become available, answers become clearer. For example, Scandinavian archeologists need to confirm when and how yDNA I1 enters Scandinavia. Even so, the paper considers the limited evidence judiciously and extrapolates useful conclusions.)
So. This paper is fine.
As the Norse World thread mentions, it is Battle-Axe culture (not Pitted Ware culture) that introduces the Proto-Indo-European language, whence the Nordic Bronze Age parent language. The arrival of R1a catalyzes Battle-Axe culture, but the culture itself develops out of a blending with other haplogroups as well.
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
A cool fact that the paper calls attention to is:
"
Scandinavia holds a unique place in this debate, for it maintained one of the last major hunter-gatherer complexes in Neolithic Europe.
"
The hunter-gatherer Pitted Ware culture coexists for centuries − despite Neolithic traditions inside Scandinavia − before it eventually merges into the more numerous Neolithic population.
Even before that, the hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia coexist despite Neolithic traditions outside Scandinavia, on the southern border.
Hunter-gather cultures went extinct across most of northern Europe by roughly 4700 BCE. Except in Scandinavia, where hunter-gather culture persists to about 2300 BCE. Even then, hunting and gathering and fishing remains vital to sustenance for Scandinavian communities even into modern times in the Industrial Era in Norway and Sweden.
In Norway, only about 3% of Norway is land that is useful for farming. Hunting and gathering in the mountains functioned as a primary way of life.
This extraordinary prolonging of vibrant hunter-gatherer cultures helps explain why Scandinavians are more animistic.
"
Scandinavia holds a unique place in this debate, for it maintained one of the last major hunter-gatherer complexes in Neolithic Europe.
"
The hunter-gatherer Pitted Ware culture coexists for centuries − despite Neolithic traditions inside Scandinavia − before it eventually merges into the more numerous Neolithic population.
Even before that, the hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia coexist despite Neolithic traditions outside Scandinavia, on the southern border.
Hunter-gather cultures went extinct across most of northern Europe by roughly 4700 BCE. Except in Scandinavia, where hunter-gather culture persists to about 2300 BCE. Even then, hunting and gathering and fishing remains vital to sustenance for Scandinavian communities even into modern times in the Industrial Era in Norway and Sweden.
In Norway, only about 3% of Norway is land that is useful for farming. Hunting and gathering in the mountains functioned as a primary way of life.
This extraordinary prolonging of vibrant hunter-gatherer cultures helps explain why Scandinavians are more animistic.
Last edited:
Aldarc
Legend
I immerse my time primarily in the Hebraic (and sometimes Greek and Aramaic) scriptures of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament/Tanakh and associated apocryphal and other West Asian/North African cultural texts. However, "scientific precautions" largely depends on the focus or approach desired in the study. It's not as if this issue regarding "scientific precautions" regarding polytheism comes up as much when doing cognitive linguistic word studies in some later sapiential texts, for example, even if those are influenced by Hellenism.
Which surprises me even more given your aversion to the idea of Norse polytheism given the wealth of evidence that supports this basic idea. This is not to say that animism was not present in Norse and Germanic beliefs, but denying the presence of polytheism or elevating Norse belief veers too closely to the archaeological and historical taboo of exceptionalism. And pushing it on "ze Germans" reeks of the same sort of pan-Germanistic thinking that you claim you seek to avoid but in a manner done in servicing of othering one group while elevating another.
Some perhaps, but your desire to depict a more monolithic Norse culture while making hard claims about their beliefs as being non-polytheistic seems antithetical for someone otherwise fluent in archaeology.
But again, genetic markers and ethnographies does not make a singular, monolithic culture. And it also ignores how those various haplogroups (and their subgroups) overlap with continental peoples. Perhaps your study would benefit from more comparative approaches with neighboring cultures. It seems that your fixed focus on Norse culture has blinded you to the similarities with their non-Scandinavian geographic neighbors?
A population exists in Scandinavia before proto-Germanic, but we encounter numerous ideological problems inherent when asserting that the population of Scandinavia exists before proto-Germanic.
Which mostly reaffirms the main ideas that we knew while playing a game of semantics regarding the word "Germanic" while not doing the same for "Nordic," which is where I would cast my own counter criticism. You apply skepticism regarding the validity of one term while following another seemingly unquestionably and uniformly. It seems as if the next wave of criticism would likely address dismantling any notions of the "Norse" label as a false historical construction as well, particularly given the available evidence.
Except you are just replacing Pan-Germanism with Pan-Scandinavism - just redrawing the lines of ahistorical pan-nationalism - which strikes me as equally fallacious: trading one false social construction for another. I do not so much think that it is sane to say that Scandinavians and Germans are different ethnic groups, but, instead, that they are composed of the intermingling of different populations throughout history, and that they nevertheless possess close cultural, genetic, linguistic, and historical ties as peoples. Northern Germany, for example, also possesses a number of the same haplogroups that Scandinavia claims. I do not think that we need to engage in strawmen appealing to horrors of Pan-Germanism or Germanic purity to acknowledge that these different populations would later create a highly overlapping set of cultures as part of Nordic Bronze Age culture, which in itself does not somehow erase the existence of that shared culture created that would later be labeled as "Proto-Germanic." We could rename that spade "Proto-Norse" and that spade would still be a spade.
Exactly, the development of a Proto-Germanic language happens concurrently with the populations of Scandinavia and Northern Germany/Netherlands to the extent that we can still regard these as "Germanic" peoples, as in those are populations that would develop in conjunction with each other in what would would be regarded as an overlapping "culture." Thus attempting to divorce the ideas of Scandinavian cultures from Germanic cultures seems like it is prematurely attempting to throw the baby out with the bath water in service of its own ahistorical political agenda. And by the point that we get to notions of Vikings and Norsemen, we are still dealing with cultures that have been highly interlinked with what we would conventionally think of as "Germanic" peoples, even if the latter have undergone Christianization.
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Wisdom is knowing when to appreciate differences and when to appreciate similarities.
Both are vital. Both are problematic.
Cool. In an other venue, I want to hear more.
My aversion is against the historical German project that tries to force Scandinavians to become Germans. They are not the same. Allow them to be different. Let Scandinavians figure out for themselves who Scandinavians are. And let Germans figure out for themselves who Germans are. Stop trying to turn Scandinavians into Germans.
The same principle applies at a different magnitude. I consider the Sámi an admirable aspect of Scandinavians. The Sámi are distinctive, but I hope the Sámi feel part of the rest of Scandinavians too. (Regarding y-haplogroups, I1 and R1a are also modal, in addition to N3. So at least in this sense they are part of the family of Scandinavia.) At the same time, I must allow Sámi to figure out for themselves who the Sámi are − including who Sámi feel affinity with.
Boundaries are healthy. It is ok to respect differences.
Given the evidence available today, it is scientifically more accurate to call the language ‘Nordic’, a language that was once widely spoken in Scandinavia. At least in the 000s (zero hundreds, first century CE), there is a population in Skáney in Sweden who appear to be speaking a language that seems to resemble what linguists reconstructed as Proto-Germanic. But now it has an identifiable place, and a name. Presumably, at least the southern coastlands of Scandinavia are also speaking this language or something like it.
Nordic has continuity with later Proto-Norse, then Norse, then Scandinavian languages today.
Today Germany includes different regions that derive from different ethnic influences. In the extreme north of Germany, there probably is a population who speak something like Nordic during the 000s. But what the languages are elsewhere is less evident. At least by the 400s, there are tribes in Germany who never spoke Nordic but who adopted a language that has some continuity with the earlier Nordic. But there were also differences. These later tribes never became ‘Nordic’. They borrowed a language but also reinvented it, transforming it in new linguistic environments, and making it a vehicle to express a distinctive ethnic identity.
Compare today England. The English language features some continuity with the Nordic language. But there was never a time when the population in England was speaking Nordic.
Around the 400s, there were influential communities in England that came from the Danish Peninsula and neighboring areas. But the rest of England were speakers of Celtic languages. Eventually, significant numbers adopted this language, but they never became Danish. The English reinvented the language. Made it their own. Today England is a unique (and kinda awesome) ethnic group.
Similarities and differences.
Until the Viking Period, communities in Norway seem less ‘interlinking’. On the other hand, communities in Germany seem more ‘interlinking’.
Today for convenience, archeologists talk about ‘Norwegian vikings’, ‘Swedish vikings’, and ‘Danish vikings’. It seems to me useful to also talk about ‘German vikings’. Was everyone in Germany a viking? Of course, not. But are there parts of Germany participating in Viking Period culture? Yes.
The important Viking Period archeological site, Heiðabýr (German Haithabu, English Hedeby), is in today Germany. Archeologically, it has vibrant continuity with other parts of Germany. For example, the material culture includes clothing styles found elsewhere in Germany, but not in Norway.
To allow ‘Norwegian vikings’ to differ from ‘German vikings’, is more accurate and more respectful. Of course, regions in Norway can also preserve significant differences from each other.
This methodology of respecting differences, has useful implications for other Norse topics, such as the tradition of Óðinn. In Norway, placenames suggest which nature spirits are significant. Óðinn is unimportant in Norway. Hypothetically, there might be parts of Norway where even the name ‘Óðinn’ is unknown. By contrast, in Germany, placenames suggest Óðinn is important in Germany.
It helps to reconstruct precisely the spirituality of the community in Heiðabýr. Do they understand Óðinn to be more like a shamanic nature spirit or more like a Roman god? The evidence in Heiðabýr might answer the question, as long as we are talking about Heiðabýr.
The archeological and textual evidence demonstrates, there are places in Norway that are strictly animistic, even nonpolytheistic. At the same time, there are places in Germany that are strictly polytheistic, even nonanimistic. When discussing thresholds, it is possible to seek descriptions that are precise and accurate.
Compare Native nations in the Americas. It would be absurd to assume that the Inuit and the Aztecs are the same ethnic group. Despite most of Native populations descending from the same ancestors, they evolve diversely. Even within the same area, different tribes can have surprisingly different spiritualities. Even in the same tribe, different family spiritual traditions can vary significantly. As far as I am aware, all Natives in the US and Canada are animistic. But some tribes in the Eastern Woodlands region had developed spiritual traditions that are simultaneously animistic and monotheistic, perceiving a transcendent Great Spirit as originator of all immanent nature spirits. Elsewhere, such as in the Southwest, some tribes developed spiritual traditions that are simultaneously animistic and polytheistic, perceiving a creator who became the sun in the sky, who hierarchically requires obedience and service. By contrast, consider the Thunderbird among Northwest Coast tribes, who despite the perception of great power and the custom of elaborate ceremony is always a nature spirit, never a ‘thunder god’. Notice also various regions where tribes are both agricultural and strictly pure animistic.
This pervasive animism that evolves a network of overlapping local spiritualities, resembles Scandinavia.
It is important to respect differences.
My Dad just visited me. Heh, under the stress of preparing for a stay in Norway, he and his fiance had a fight. My Dad said about it. ‘In this relationship, I try hard to look for common ground. But there are limits!’
Both are vital. Both are problematic.
Cool. In an other venue, I want to hear more.
My aversion is against the historical German project that tries to force Scandinavians to become Germans. They are not the same. Allow them to be different. Let Scandinavians figure out for themselves who Scandinavians are. And let Germans figure out for themselves who Germans are. Stop trying to turn Scandinavians into Germans.
The same principle applies at a different magnitude. I consider the Sámi an admirable aspect of Scandinavians. The Sámi are distinctive, but I hope the Sámi feel part of the rest of Scandinavians too. (Regarding y-haplogroups, I1 and R1a are also modal, in addition to N3. So at least in this sense they are part of the family of Scandinavia.) At the same time, I must allow Sámi to figure out for themselves who the Sámi are − including who Sámi feel affinity with.
Boundaries are healthy. It is ok to respect differences.
Given the evidence available today, it is scientifically more accurate to call the language ‘Nordic’, a language that was once widely spoken in Scandinavia. At least in the 000s (zero hundreds, first century CE), there is a population in Skáney in Sweden who appear to be speaking a language that seems to resemble what linguists reconstructed as Proto-Germanic. But now it has an identifiable place, and a name. Presumably, at least the southern coastlands of Scandinavia are also speaking this language or something like it.
Nordic has continuity with later Proto-Norse, then Norse, then Scandinavian languages today.
Today Germany includes different regions that derive from different ethnic influences. In the extreme north of Germany, there probably is a population who speak something like Nordic during the 000s. But what the languages are elsewhere is less evident. At least by the 400s, there are tribes in Germany who never spoke Nordic but who adopted a language that has some continuity with the earlier Nordic. But there were also differences. These later tribes never became ‘Nordic’. They borrowed a language but also reinvented it, transforming it in new linguistic environments, and making it a vehicle to express a distinctive ethnic identity.
Compare today England. The English language features some continuity with the Nordic language. But there was never a time when the population in England was speaking Nordic.
Around the 400s, there were influential communities in England that came from the Danish Peninsula and neighboring areas. But the rest of England were speakers of Celtic languages. Eventually, significant numbers adopted this language, but they never became Danish. The English reinvented the language. Made it their own. Today England is a unique (and kinda awesome) ethnic group.
Similarities and differences.
Until the Viking Period, communities in Norway seem less ‘interlinking’. On the other hand, communities in Germany seem more ‘interlinking’.
Today for convenience, archeologists talk about ‘Norwegian vikings’, ‘Swedish vikings’, and ‘Danish vikings’. It seems to me useful to also talk about ‘German vikings’. Was everyone in Germany a viking? Of course, not. But are there parts of Germany participating in Viking Period culture? Yes.
The important Viking Period archeological site, Heiðabýr (German Haithabu, English Hedeby), is in today Germany. Archeologically, it has vibrant continuity with other parts of Germany. For example, the material culture includes clothing styles found elsewhere in Germany, but not in Norway.
To allow ‘Norwegian vikings’ to differ from ‘German vikings’, is more accurate and more respectful. Of course, regions in Norway can also preserve significant differences from each other.
This methodology of respecting differences, has useful implications for other Norse topics, such as the tradition of Óðinn. In Norway, placenames suggest which nature spirits are significant. Óðinn is unimportant in Norway. Hypothetically, there might be parts of Norway where even the name ‘Óðinn’ is unknown. By contrast, in Germany, placenames suggest Óðinn is important in Germany.
It helps to reconstruct precisely the spirituality of the community in Heiðabýr. Do they understand Óðinn to be more like a shamanic nature spirit or more like a Roman god? The evidence in Heiðabýr might answer the question, as long as we are talking about Heiðabýr.
The archeological and textual evidence demonstrates, there are places in Norway that are strictly animistic, even nonpolytheistic. At the same time, there are places in Germany that are strictly polytheistic, even nonanimistic. When discussing thresholds, it is possible to seek descriptions that are precise and accurate.
Compare Native nations in the Americas. It would be absurd to assume that the Inuit and the Aztecs are the same ethnic group. Despite most of Native populations descending from the same ancestors, they evolve diversely. Even within the same area, different tribes can have surprisingly different spiritualities. Even in the same tribe, different family spiritual traditions can vary significantly. As far as I am aware, all Natives in the US and Canada are animistic. But some tribes in the Eastern Woodlands region had developed spiritual traditions that are simultaneously animistic and monotheistic, perceiving a transcendent Great Spirit as originator of all immanent nature spirits. Elsewhere, such as in the Southwest, some tribes developed spiritual traditions that are simultaneously animistic and polytheistic, perceiving a creator who became the sun in the sky, who hierarchically requires obedience and service. By contrast, consider the Thunderbird among Northwest Coast tribes, who despite the perception of great power and the custom of elaborate ceremony is always a nature spirit, never a ‘thunder god’. Notice also various regions where tribes are both agricultural and strictly pure animistic.
This pervasive animism that evolves a network of overlapping local spiritualities, resembles Scandinavia.
It is important to respect differences.
My Dad just visited me. Heh, under the stress of preparing for a stay in Norway, he and his fiance had a fight. My Dad said about it. ‘In this relationship, I try hard to look for common ground. But there are limits!’
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Snorri characterizes the Norse spiritual heritage before the arrival of Christianity.
Animism is the worldview that natural objects possess desire and intention. Such natural objects can extend to any significant phenomenon, and can include stones, plants, animals, humans, the sun and the moon, even the entire earth and sky.
The desire and intention is usually understood as an aspect of a lifeforce-soul, sometimes a mind-spirit conveying thoughts and feelings, even an aspect of pure consciousness. While animism employs terms such as nature spirits, it helps to keep in mind, these are physical objects ‘who’ possess a conscious spirit. The Old Norse term for a ‘nature spirit’ is a vættr (variant vetr). In the Norse view, there are seven ‘families’ of nature spirits, and humanity is one of those seven. Just like the body of a human has a lifeforce, the body of the earth has a lifeforce too.
For example, in the prologue of the Edda, Snorri describes what nature spirits are. He focuses on the earth spirit (jǫrð) and the sky spirit (himinn).
With regard to the spirit of the earth, earth is literally a lifeform. It is a ‘living being’ (kvikendi). The bird, the mammal, and the earth are given as three examples of different types of species of life. ‘They have the same aspect in some traits, and however are unlike ·in· type’. (hǫfðu saman eðli í sumum hlutum ok þó ólík at hætti.)
‘After these ·clues·, they discerned so, that the earth was alive, and had a life of some type’. (Af þessu skilðu þeir svá, at jörðunni væri kvik ok hefði líf með nökkurum hætti.)
The earth is a living organism. Its cliffs (and bedrock) are a type of bones. The rocks are akin to teeth. Its soil a type of skin and flesh. The equilibrium of water that flows underneath the surface of the earth is the life-bringing blood under the surface of its skin. Where the mammal type of life grows seasonal fur and the bird type of life grows feathers, this earth type of life grows trees and plants from its skin.
The Norse relate to the earth as a living being, in the same way that they relate to other living beings.
The lifespan of the earth is extraordinarily old, even preexisting humanity itself. And the earth ‘feeds all living beings’. The Norse value this lifeform called earth.
With regard to the spirit of the sky, it is ‘of the air’ (loftsins). The Norse term himinn, meaning ‘sky’, especially refers to the cloud level in the sky, understood as the cause and source of weather patterns. The sky covers the land from horizon to horizon. This particular sky spirit interacts with sun and moon above and the winds and weather below, yet is distinct from these smaller objects.
The sun and the moon are themselves living beings, and behave according to their own traits. But the sky ‘advises’ them (ráða), where and when to move. Thus the Norse discern the lifeforce of the sky indirectly, by means of how it coordinates the actions of the other objects of the sky.
The sun orbits the earth each day, evenly. But the moon has a complex ‘uneven’ orbit. Only the phase of the full moon rises and sets during the night. In lunar phases before and after the full moon, part of the journey of the moon occurs during the day, thus its path thru the night is shorter. The new moon happens unseen during the day.
This complex system of solar and lunar cycles forms an astronomical calendar. This calendar organizes the cyclical seasons. The sun is high in the sky in summer and low near the horizon in winter. Meanwhile, a full moon cycles twelve times per solar year. (A thirteenth full moon can periodically complete the solar year in a kind of leap year.) This organization of the astronomical calendar determines the seasonal weather patterns. Thus in the sense of life-giving summer and calm sea opposite life-killing winter and storming sea, the advising of the sky spirit impacts everything in the sky and on the earth.
The Norse perceive this sky spirit as a kind of jarl elected by the other nature spirits, to coordinate their activities. These skyey nature spirits comprise a kind of ‘government’ (ríki). The sky itself serves as their ‘administrator’ (stjórnari), who somehow in some unseen way, regulates the other nature spirits. The Norse observe the sky itself − as distinct from the various other objects in the sky − when the seasons change.
These two nature spirits are vast in size, earth and sky. These two objects are species of living organisms, with desire and intent.
Snorri speaks abstractly, yet describes two specific nature spirits, namely the earthy Jǫtunn spirit called Jǫrð and the skyey Æsir spirit called Óðinn. This specific interaction of earth and sky produces the thunder spirit in its due season. The thunder spirit is prominent in Noregr culture, where the founders of the Ísland communities mainly come from. The thunder spirit is the sheet lightning illuminating clouds, the rumbling, the lightning hammer that transverses sky and earth, the thunder that quakes the earth, all traits of a type of living organism.
Óðinn is the name that the Norse give to the natural phenomenon of changing seasons. It is a ‘fury’, whose advisings keep the seasons cycling, relentlessly. As the astronomical calendar, this spirit of the sky associates two other Æsir sky spirits. One offspring is the hours of enlightening daylight that dies and resurrects at the winter solstice, Baldr. An other is the hours of blinding nightdark that oppositely increases and decreases, Hodr. Probably the good ‘even’ eye and the missing ‘uneven’ eye somehow correspond to the sun and the moon, respectively, as it watches their divergent travels. Óðinn is an ambivalent nature spirit − responsible for making an orderly cosmos yet also collaborating with conflictive forces. Sometimes it is life-giving warmth, sometimes cruel blizard. Sometimes protection (Þórr), sometimes subversion (Loki). The Norse feel this sky will one day cease to exist. But in the meantime, the Norse appreciate the seasonal regularity.
Animism is the worldview that natural objects possess desire and intention. Such natural objects can extend to any significant phenomenon, and can include stones, plants, animals, humans, the sun and the moon, even the entire earth and sky.
The desire and intention is usually understood as an aspect of a lifeforce-soul, sometimes a mind-spirit conveying thoughts and feelings, even an aspect of pure consciousness. While animism employs terms such as nature spirits, it helps to keep in mind, these are physical objects ‘who’ possess a conscious spirit. The Old Norse term for a ‘nature spirit’ is a vættr (variant vetr). In the Norse view, there are seven ‘families’ of nature spirits, and humanity is one of those seven. Just like the body of a human has a lifeforce, the body of the earth has a lifeforce too.
For example, in the prologue of the Edda, Snorri describes what nature spirits are. He focuses on the earth spirit (jǫrð) and the sky spirit (himinn).
With regard to the spirit of the earth, earth is literally a lifeform. It is a ‘living being’ (kvikendi). The bird, the mammal, and the earth are given as three examples of different types of species of life. ‘They have the same aspect in some traits, and however are unlike ·in· type’. (hǫfðu saman eðli í sumum hlutum ok þó ólík at hætti.)
‘After these ·clues·, they discerned so, that the earth was alive, and had a life of some type’. (Af þessu skilðu þeir svá, at jörðunni væri kvik ok hefði líf með nökkurum hætti.)
The earth is a living organism. Its cliffs (and bedrock) are a type of bones. The rocks are akin to teeth. Its soil a type of skin and flesh. The equilibrium of water that flows underneath the surface of the earth is the life-bringing blood under the surface of its skin. Where the mammal type of life grows seasonal fur and the bird type of life grows feathers, this earth type of life grows trees and plants from its skin.
The Norse relate to the earth as a living being, in the same way that they relate to other living beings.
The lifespan of the earth is extraordinarily old, even preexisting humanity itself. And the earth ‘feeds all living beings’. The Norse value this lifeform called earth.
With regard to the spirit of the sky, it is ‘of the air’ (loftsins). The Norse term himinn, meaning ‘sky’, especially refers to the cloud level in the sky, understood as the cause and source of weather patterns. The sky covers the land from horizon to horizon. This particular sky spirit interacts with sun and moon above and the winds and weather below, yet is distinct from these smaller objects.
The sun and the moon are themselves living beings, and behave according to their own traits. But the sky ‘advises’ them (ráða), where and when to move. Thus the Norse discern the lifeforce of the sky indirectly, by means of how it coordinates the actions of the other objects of the sky.
The sun orbits the earth each day, evenly. But the moon has a complex ‘uneven’ orbit. Only the phase of the full moon rises and sets during the night. In lunar phases before and after the full moon, part of the journey of the moon occurs during the day, thus its path thru the night is shorter. The new moon happens unseen during the day.
This complex system of solar and lunar cycles forms an astronomical calendar. This calendar organizes the cyclical seasons. The sun is high in the sky in summer and low near the horizon in winter. Meanwhile, a full moon cycles twelve times per solar year. (A thirteenth full moon can periodically complete the solar year in a kind of leap year.) This organization of the astronomical calendar determines the seasonal weather patterns. Thus in the sense of life-giving summer and calm sea opposite life-killing winter and storming sea, the advising of the sky spirit impacts everything in the sky and on the earth.
The Norse perceive this sky spirit as a kind of jarl elected by the other nature spirits, to coordinate their activities. These skyey nature spirits comprise a kind of ‘government’ (ríki). The sky itself serves as their ‘administrator’ (stjórnari), who somehow in some unseen way, regulates the other nature spirits. The Norse observe the sky itself − as distinct from the various other objects in the sky − when the seasons change.
These two nature spirits are vast in size, earth and sky. These two objects are species of living organisms, with desire and intent.
Snorri speaks abstractly, yet describes two specific nature spirits, namely the earthy Jǫtunn spirit called Jǫrð and the skyey Æsir spirit called Óðinn. This specific interaction of earth and sky produces the thunder spirit in its due season. The thunder spirit is prominent in Noregr culture, where the founders of the Ísland communities mainly come from. The thunder spirit is the sheet lightning illuminating clouds, the rumbling, the lightning hammer that transverses sky and earth, the thunder that quakes the earth, all traits of a type of living organism.
Óðinn is the name that the Norse give to the natural phenomenon of changing seasons. It is a ‘fury’, whose advisings keep the seasons cycling, relentlessly. As the astronomical calendar, this spirit of the sky associates two other Æsir sky spirits. One offspring is the hours of enlightening daylight that dies and resurrects at the winter solstice, Baldr. An other is the hours of blinding nightdark that oppositely increases and decreases, Hodr. Probably the good ‘even’ eye and the missing ‘uneven’ eye somehow correspond to the sun and the moon, respectively, as it watches their divergent travels. Óðinn is an ambivalent nature spirit − responsible for making an orderly cosmos yet also collaborating with conflictive forces. Sometimes it is life-giving warmth, sometimes cruel blizard. Sometimes protection (Þórr), sometimes subversion (Loki). The Norse feel this sky will one day cease to exist. But in the meantime, the Norse appreciate the seasonal regularity.
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Yeah, I like having different regions that feel more specialized and distinct from each other. There are so many ways to be human and awesome.
Regarding Norse culture, it helps to relate the Norse ideological structures in light of Scandinavian archeology.
Also the Norse material culture is important for D&D, heh, so players can hit things in distinctive ways.
Yaarel
Mind Mage
The Viking Period sword-and-shield combat style is more like two-weapon fighting. The viking shield is very light. The combatant wields it actively, rather than passively holding it against the body. The offhand grabs its handle, like a buckler, and it is never strapped to the forearm. The combatant aims the shield boss to punch weapons out of the way (parry) and to attack the opponent.
The viking roundshield is roughly 90 cm in diameter − and light. It is made from cut planks of pine wood that are glued together. This wood is very thin, overall about 6 millimeters thick − about 7 millimeters thick around the boss and tapering slightly to about 5 millimeters around the rim. Millimeters! It is probably more useful to consider viking roundshields as a kind of leather shield, rather than wood shield. It uses the wood to hold its shape. The shield maker glues boiled leather across the front and back, and then wraps a strip of boiled leather around the rim of the shield to reinforce it. The shield maker then sews these pieces together around the rim, thru perforations in the wood. The leather can be of cattle, sheep, goat, or pig. The boiled leather shrinks tight and hardens while drying, and also helps to hold the shield together. The result is shield that is solid, tough, light, and highly maneuverable. It deflects oncoming arrows, and so on.
One archeologist, involved in scientifically rigorous combat experiments, noted that failure to wield the viking shield actively tended to result in its wielder becoming ‘dead’. Also the shield incurred damage more quickly when held passively.
Among the remains of viking shields today, usually only the metal bosses survive, and these indicate damage patterns from active wielding.
The viking shield synergizes with the overall combat style that relies on agility. The viking shield requires skill to use properly. The wielder also wields it for offhand attacks.
Here are some archeological remains of viking shields. Normally, the shields are painted bold colors, but here the paints have decayed over the centuries.
Today, some replicas trim the edge of the shield with metal to reinforce the wood, but this is modern, apparently a misunderstanding of the metal ring that some museums attached to the shield remains as a mount for display.
Here are similar shields from around the same time in the Baltics, where some leather covering has survived.
D&D 5e lacks a basic parry action. (The fighter and monk classes have special mechanics to do something like it.) Should a parry mechanism become available in the future, the viking shield is suitable. In current rules, any parrying subsumes into the abstraction of the AC +2 shield proficiency bonus.
One way to represent the viking shield is as an item that can benefit from both shield proficiency and from weapon proficiency. Where 5e makes the whip a martial melee weapon that deals 1d4 damage, this seems comparable to the level of skill necessary to make an effective attack with a viking shield. It exhibits the ‘light’ description for use in the offhand.
Also consider fighter class fighting styles, maneuvers, and feats that synergize with a viking shield for D&D combat, both as an offhand weapon and as a shield. It might be worthwhile to develop new ones here in this thread.
Any fighter character optimizers, please comment on the viking shield stats, to help ensure that it is a good choice and balanced compared to other good choices.
Martial Melee Weapon
viking shield (1d4 bludgeoning; light, special − shield proficiency grants AC +2)
The viking roundshield is roughly 90 cm in diameter − and light. It is made from cut planks of pine wood that are glued together. This wood is very thin, overall about 6 millimeters thick − about 7 millimeters thick around the boss and tapering slightly to about 5 millimeters around the rim. Millimeters! It is probably more useful to consider viking roundshields as a kind of leather shield, rather than wood shield. It uses the wood to hold its shape. The shield maker glues boiled leather across the front and back, and then wraps a strip of boiled leather around the rim of the shield to reinforce it. The shield maker then sews these pieces together around the rim, thru perforations in the wood. The leather can be of cattle, sheep, goat, or pig. The boiled leather shrinks tight and hardens while drying, and also helps to hold the shield together. The result is shield that is solid, tough, light, and highly maneuverable. It deflects oncoming arrows, and so on.
One archeologist, involved in scientifically rigorous combat experiments, noted that failure to wield the viking shield actively tended to result in its wielder becoming ‘dead’. Also the shield incurred damage more quickly when held passively.
Among the remains of viking shields today, usually only the metal bosses survive, and these indicate damage patterns from active wielding.
The viking shield synergizes with the overall combat style that relies on agility. The viking shield requires skill to use properly. The wielder also wields it for offhand attacks.
Here are some archeological remains of viking shields. Normally, the shields are painted bold colors, but here the paints have decayed over the centuries.
Today, some replicas trim the edge of the shield with metal to reinforce the wood, but this is modern, apparently a misunderstanding of the metal ring that some museums attached to the shield remains as a mount for display.
Here are similar shields from around the same time in the Baltics, where some leather covering has survived.
D&D 5e lacks a basic parry action. (The fighter and monk classes have special mechanics to do something like it.) Should a parry mechanism become available in the future, the viking shield is suitable. In current rules, any parrying subsumes into the abstraction of the AC +2 shield proficiency bonus.
One way to represent the viking shield is as an item that can benefit from both shield proficiency and from weapon proficiency. Where 5e makes the whip a martial melee weapon that deals 1d4 damage, this seems comparable to the level of skill necessary to make an effective attack with a viking shield. It exhibits the ‘light’ description for use in the offhand.
Also consider fighter class fighting styles, maneuvers, and feats that synergize with a viking shield for D&D combat, both as an offhand weapon and as a shield. It might be worthwhile to develop new ones here in this thread.
Any fighter character optimizers, please comment on the viking shield stats, to help ensure that it is a good choice and balanced compared to other good choices.
Martial Melee Weapon
viking shield (1d4 bludgeoning; light, special − shield proficiency grants AC +2)
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Scandinavian archeologists lack consensus about how to periodize the Viking Period. A main difficulty is, the time is defined by things that happen in other lands. But when archeologists look in the lands of Scandinavia itself, there is little difference before or after. Some consider the Viking Period to be part of the Iron Age, some consider it to be part of the Medieval Period, and some consider it to be a separate transition period between Iron and Medieval. The Viking Period is a gradual transitional phase that evidences features of both the Iron Age and the Medieval Period, simultaneously. Here the periods divide by centuries.
500s BCE Nordic Iron Age (Nordic Parent Language, Pre-Roman, Early Iron)
000s CE Early Proto-Norse Period (Roman Period, Early Iron)
400s CE Late Proto-Norse Period (Elder Fuþark Runes, Migration Period, Middle Iron)
500s Pre-Viking Period (Late Proto-Norse, Transition Runes, Vendel, Merovingian, Early Medieval, Middle Iron)
800s Early Viking Period (Old Norse, Younger Fuþãrk Runes, Twig/Branch, Carolingian, Early Medieval, Late Iron)
900s Middle Viking Period (Old Norse, Norwegian Younger Runes, Early Medieval, Late Iron)
1000s Late Viking Period (Old Norse, Fuþork Runes, High Medieval, Late Iron)
1100s Post-Viking Period (Old Norwegian/Swedish/Danish/Icelandic, Eddas, Sagas, High Medieval)
1300s Late Medieval Period (Middle Norw/Swed/Dan/Icel, Late Sagas, Black Death, Kaimar Union, Decline of Runes)
1500s Early Modern Period (Modern Norw/Swed/Dan/Icel, Renaissance, Protestant Reformation)
500s BCE Nordic Iron Age (Nordic Parent Language, Pre-Roman, Early Iron)
000s CE Early Proto-Norse Period (Roman Period, Early Iron)
400s CE Late Proto-Norse Period (Elder Fuþark Runes, Migration Period, Middle Iron)
500s Pre-Viking Period (Late Proto-Norse, Transition Runes, Vendel, Merovingian, Early Medieval, Middle Iron)
800s Early Viking Period (Old Norse, Younger Fuþãrk Runes, Twig/Branch, Carolingian, Early Medieval, Late Iron)
900s Middle Viking Period (Old Norse, Norwegian Younger Runes, Early Medieval, Late Iron)
1000s Late Viking Period (Old Norse, Fuþork Runes, High Medieval, Late Iron)
1100s Post-Viking Period (Old Norwegian/Swedish/Danish/Icelandic, Eddas, Sagas, High Medieval)
1300s Late Medieval Period (Middle Norw/Swed/Dan/Icel, Late Sagas, Black Death, Kaimar Union, Decline of Runes)
1500s Early Modern Period (Modern Norw/Swed/Dan/Icel, Renaissance, Protestant Reformation)
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
One feature that distinguishes the arrival of the Early Viking Period is the widespread use of high quality steel. The Norse are typically proficient with metalworking. Most make their own tools from steel bars. It is also common to recycle steel from earlier items. Talented metalworkers are in demand and enjoy high social status. Those who can produce consistently good steel from raw iron ore can amass wealth.
Analogous to the high quality fabrics and clothing, the Norse excel in craftsmanship, including metalwork, woodwork, and other high-skill labors. Esthetic values prefer goods that are effective, look good, and last across generations. Heh, Nordic lands have long winters. Finding something useful to do helps to pass the time.
Nordic lands are rich in iron deposits. During the Viking Period, mining for iron is known. But most iron comes from wetland peat bogs, where anaerobic microorganisms concentrate the iron molecules that wash down from the mountain rivers, to form iron ‘bog ore’.
A stone protector insulates the bellows from the heat of the furnace.
Examples of a ‘bloom’ of steel from a furnace.
Furnaces of various sizes are known. Archeologists are still puzzling out the metallurgy of the Viking Period. Yet the following is clear enough, and modern experiments can repeat the processes. The results produce high quality steel that compares somewhat to archeological remains. The experiments suggest metalworkers have control over the amount of carbon in the steel.
To make steel, the metalworker builds a furnace out of clay, sand, and fiber-rich dung. The mixture is highly effective for the furnace walls and insulates well. The smelter supplies iron ore and coal thru the top of the furnace. Bellows blow air periodically into the lower half of the furnace to intensify the heat of the fire. The slag liquefies away from the iron, flows to the bottom of the furnace, cools along the walls, forming a bowl. The steel ‘bloom’ collects in this bowl. The bloom is molten but nonliquid, and ideally welds together to resemble a fiery sponge. Normally, the bottom of the clay furnace is broken open to extricate the bloom.
The metalworker hammers and folds the bloom to manually squeeze out any inclusions and consolidate the steel mass. Ideally, even specs barely visible to eye must be removed.
Afterward, the bloom can ‘quench’ (in water, oil, or other liquid) to rapidly cool to make it harder it, but then ‘temper’ in moderate heat to soften the hard but brittle textures to make it tougher.
The process of making steel is complex, and the same methods that can improve the quality of the steel can also harm it.
Metalwork is typically outdoors and low to the ground. Metalworkers squat and kneel while working. Normally a larger stone bolder with a suitably smooth work area serves as the anvil. But a small iron anvil on an upright stout log is also known. A wooden box carries the iron tools, including hammer, tongs, file, and so on. Thus the equipment for metallurgy is easily portable. For example, the vikings in Canada needed new iron nails to repair their ship. So they found iron ore locally in a bog there, built a clay furnace to smelt it, and forged the nails into shape on a large stone.
Here is the stone anvil of a famous metalworker in Iceland, who pulled it out from ocean floor.
Norse steel is medium-carbon steel, with the percentage of carbon ranging from about 0.4% to 0.7%. There is also Norse iron that is low-carbon about 0.2% to 0.4%. Lower carbon tends to be softer but tougher (but impurities and inclusions can make it brittle). Higher carbon tends to be hard but brittle.
The minute presence of carbon, the high heat while the bloom forms, the quenching, and possibly other processes, imbue molecular structures in the iron (pearlite, martensite, cementite) that can make steel dramatically harder.
The Norse metalworker employs pattern welding, welding together sheets of alternating higher and lower carbon, then folding and twisting the layers. The final steel is high quality, both hard and tough, and forms esthetic patterns of light and dark.
For an item such as the sword, the body of the blade predominates the lower carbon for toughness, while the sharp edges welded on separately on each side, predominate the higher carbon for hardness. Note the separate patterns in the blade along the central fuller and along each edge.
The Norse of the Viking Period made good steel.
Last edited:
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Indeed. I've been fascinated with pattern welded swords since I read Bernard Cornwell's The Last Kingdom 13 years ago. Just the way he described the twisted and straight bars of iron begin combined into a single blade was amazing. Seeing it done is nothing short of art IMHO.
I was also under the impression that the Norse also had access to Crucible steel from the east via the Volga trade route from the 9th century to the early 11th century. But I am only regurgitating what I say on some documentary.
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Yeah, in addition to the high quality Norse steel of the Viking Period, there is also ... crazy good steel.
I actually tried to post about this crazy good steel earlier, but the post ended up asking more questions than providing useful information. Currently, archeologists dispute the origins and techniques for this exceptional steel. Some assume it is steel made by the ‘crucible’ technique, but possibly it isnt. The evidence is spotty, surprisingly conflictive, and involves far-flung locations. At this time, conflictive hypotheses are all plausible.
Here are facts that I am aware of so far.
During the Viking Period, crazy good steel becomes known in Nordic countries, mostly Norway. This advanced steel is created by some archeologically unconfirmed technique. It is comparable to the modern steel that only becomes common centuries later, during the industrial revolution in the 1800s.
As far as is known, this crazy good steel only corresponds to sword blades that exhibit a distinctive logo, inscribed and inlaid with iron across the fuller of the blade, outward from near the hilt. This logo must be exactly:
+VLFBERH+T
The second cross must be before the final T. The name Ulfberht is Frankish, and the letters are in the Latin alphabet. Only this logo has the exceptional steel.
For example, there are also blades with a similar logo, +VLFBERHT+ , and these are also high quality steel blades, but not the crazy good steel. There are also many blades with various garbled versions of this logo (for example, +VI┐ IFR I + ┴ ), whose steel is terrible. So, including the mimics, the ulfberht-related blades are both the best blades and the worst blades possible.
The crazy good steel is possible because some technique allows high temperatures that make the iron ‘hypereutectoid’ integrating more than 0.8% carbon. At this minute amount, the carbon allows the iron to form very hard microscopic structures. Later quenching can make these structures even several times harder. Genuine ulfberht blades have over 1.0% carbon, tending to range from 1.2% to 1.6%. The carbon percentage tends to be variegated, often with sharp edges higher and body lower, thus the percentages represent an average from several locations on the blade.
Surviving today, there are roughly 170 blades with some kind of ulfberht inscription, depending on where the threshold for ‘ulfberht-like’ is that one wishes to include.
Of these 170 or so ulfberht-related blades, about 50 have the relevant +VLFBERH+T logo. But only 14 of these have undergone metallurgical analysis.
Of these 14 +VLFBERH+T blades, only 9 are the crazy good steel.
Crazy good steel is rare.
Of these 9 crazy good steel blades, 4 of them are in today Norway. Some are a local type.
Here is an image of a Norwegian style sword (Petersen hilt type H) with one of the ulfberht inscriptions.
The remaining Non-Norwegian 5 of the 9 locate as follows.
• 1 comes from the southern coast of Finland, along the Swedish viking river routes.
• 1 is from a ‘private collection’, meaning, grave-robbers have destroyed the vital scientific data.
• 2 come from the German area of the Danish Peninsula.
• 1 comes from the Frankish borders of the Rhine River, near the western border of today Germany.
It is possible that all 14 blades had their steel created using the same technique, but if so, only 9 of these were successful. But even among these 9, one was hard but too brittle and broke, and one was damaged by later forging at temperatures that were too high. The crazy good steel must be forged at lower-than-traditional temperature, or else it looses the carbon that makes it special.
So out of these rarefied 9 swords with crazy good steel, we have the following facts.
All of them that archeologists are currently aware of carry the +VLFBERH+T logo.
The name Ulfberht is a Frankish name, in the Frankish dialect relating to Old High German. The inscription is in Latin. Probably, a Frankish man named Ulfberht originated the tradition of producing this special steel sword.
At least the +VLFBERH+T sword that was found in Frankish territory of the Rhine River, was probably created locally. The hilt includes parts that are made out of a lead-tin alloy, and this lead comes from a nearby local source, as evidenced by the distinctive isotopes of this lead. The hilt type is a local Frankish design.
Even more significantly, the special steel of the blade itself has high levels of the trace mineral manganese, which is common in Europe. In other words, this advanced steel probably comes from Europe, not Asia.
The +VLFBERH+T swords and the mimics come from the 800s to the 1000s. Therefore, people have been creating ulfberht swords for over 200 years. Even if the originator was named Ulfberht, there are many people across the centuries who are using his logo.
Different kinds of sword types (Petersen hilt type H, X, etcetera) are made out of this advanced steel.
It seems, at least one of these metalworkers that learned the ulfberht technique, migrated to Norway and produced swords there out of this advanced steel.
Note, it is uncertain if the persons who are making the ulfberht blades are the same persons who are creating the advanced steel.
Before the ulfberht swords, the only known archeological source for advanced steel is ‘wootz’. Only English calls this steel wootz, apparently deriving from ‘ukku’. It only comes from India.
Around the 500s, southern India invented crucible steel, which English calls wootz steel. The ‘crucible’ is a clay container that is sealed air-tight. Inside this crucible, they add high quality iron ore (magnetite), plus coal, plus a certain local species of leaves. For some reason, these leaves are essential for the successful outcome of the steel bloom. The entire crucible heats in a furnace for several hours and cools slowly. Despite the fact this heat cannot melt iron, it is hot enough to melt the steel iron-carbon alloy. In other words, the outer surface of the iron that comes into contact with the carbon smoke, turns into steel and melts away, thus eventually all of the iron dissolves into steel. India is the absolute master of the metallurgical technology for producing steel. This secret Indian technique was carefully guarded.
Southern India exported bars of this crucible steel, namely wootz, across Asia, to Persia, to Bagdad, to China, and elsewhere. It reaches Persia by the sea traderoutes. Also Persia resells it across its own traderoutes. In Syria, metalworkers import wootz ultimately from India in order to create their distinctive damascus steel blades. These blades have an esthetic ‘watery’ pattern. Somewhat resembling pattern-welding, the damascus pattern looks like a water surface of light and dark. The technique to make damascus steel has been lost. But apparently the wootz itself lacks this watery pattern, and it is the process of forging the steel blade that somehow creates this watery pattern. There are metalworkers today who claim to have rediscovered how to reproduce damascus steel, but there is no scientific verification of these claims, as far as I am aware.
Hypothetically, the Swedish vikings transported this Indian wootz from Persia via the river routes, thru the Volga River in today Russia. This correlates with the existence of an ulfberht sword in Finland, as well the ulfberht-like swords in Finland, Estonia, and Russia. However, none of the advanced steel has been found in Sweden, which is explainable but still frustrating if the Swedish vikings are supposed to be the ones who are transporting this wootz steel.
According to this hypothesis, ulfberht swords are made out of the same wootz that damascus swords are made out. But the ulfberht swords lack the watery pattern because they are made according to a different forging process after the wootz arrives.
There is a related hypothesis. The crucible steel for the ulfberht swords is thought to be made in or near Bagdad, not in India. There is textual evidence that alchemists in the Bagdad caliphate (Serkland) developed their own version of crucible steel. In this non-Indian technique, they mixed ‘hard iron’ and ‘soft iron’ in a crucible with coal. Today metallurgists guess that this ‘hard iron’ might be cast iron. Cast iron is something like crucible steel that was left too long in the furnace and got too much carbon, over 2.0%, thus became useless for making steel blades. Cast iron is harder than low-carbon iron, but is very brittle, and cannot be additionally hardened by quenching. With this hypothesis, the ulfberht blades are made out of this ‘Serkland’ version of crucible steel that ameliorates the cast iron with low-carbon iron in a crucible. If so, the Swedish vikings are transporting this Bagdad steel.
These two hypotheses that involve the viking river traderoutes still enjoy currency among archeologists.
But recent evidence suggests the advanced steel of the ulfberht blades comes from Europe − not Asia, neither India nor Bagdad. Namely the presence of manganese in the special steel of at least one of the blades.
Here are my guesses on the topic of ulfberht.
• In the 700s, a Frankish man named Ulfberht, or his descendant, discovered some kind of technique to make advanced steel.
• Probably Ulfberht lives in Frankish territory, but possibly he immigrated northward to the German area of the Danish Peninsula.
• Maybe he somehow learned his steel-making technique abroad, or else he independently discovered it.
• His technique may or may not use a ‘crucible’. Perhaps a variant furnace achieves similar results.
• His technique is patchy − sharp edges tend to be super hard steel but the body is often more normalish good steel.
• He used this advanced steel to make sword blades. He made both the high-carbon steel and its blades.
• He made lots of money selling his famous ulfberht swords.
• Ulfberht and his family − and eventually his descendants and their friends − learned this technique.
• He people in diverse locations are making ulfberht swords in local styles.
• These ulfberht metalworkers migrated to other locations to make swords and money there.
• At least one ulfberht sword seems to be made in Frankish territory with a Frankish hilt type − near the place of origin?
• Several ulfberht swords seem to be made in Norway with a Norwegian hilt type and corresponding blade type.
• One ulfberht metalworker immigrated to Norway.
• Norwegian vikings are more likely to bury with swords, but also seem to have access to genuine ulfberht swords.
• In Norway, the remarkable ulfbehrt swords comprise less than 1% of the over 2000 swords that survive.
Last edited:
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Very interesting.
Do you think it's also possible that some of those blades were re-hilted in the style of those who carried them, possible further muddying the waters of they're origin?
Do you think it's also possible that some of those blades were re-hilted in the style of those who carried them, possible further muddying the waters of they're origin?
Yaarel
Mind Mage
In the case of particular ulfberht swords, they seem to be made locally.
The ulfberht steel exists for various types of blades. These blade types are what one expects corresponding to the hilt types. It seems the blades, the guard and the pommel, are all being created around the same time in the same place.
That said, mixing and matching blades, guards, and pommels, is common. But the seriation of sword types is fairly well understood, so odd combinations tend to be obvious.
Archeologists mention a desideratum to reexamine all known medieval blades that exist today! To confirm if there are any blades that are high carbon but without the +VLFBERH+T logo.
An other issue is, the clay furnaces (as well as any hypothetical crucibles) tend to be broken open and destroyed to extract the steel bloom. So there is lots of evidence of slag, but scarce evidence for what the furnaces themselves look like. If there are unusual firing methods, such as crucibles, they are difficult to detect. But maybe an analysis of the slag can reveal the presence of a process that produces high-carbon steel blooms. At that point, it would help to pinpoint where and what the technique is.
Sigh. More questions. More questions.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Crazy good steel is awesome, but I'd still rather have pattern-welded. They're just so darned pretty.
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Spears.
Norse warriors prefer the sword for one-on-one combat.
However, for mass combat, Norse warriors prefer the spear. The spear attacks beyond a shield formation. The spear keeps an opponent away at a distance. At range, the spear can spy and hit a distant opponent.
Viking Period spears comprise a shaft of ash wood, and spearhead of steel. The shaft of a spear ranges between 2 and 3 meters.
All kinds of spears are in use. Around 3 meters and up to 3.5 meters, the spear performs as a polearm, like a pike. With a light thin shaft around 2 meters and down to 1.5 meters, and a smallish spearhead, the spear performs as a dedicated throwing spear, a javelin. With a heavy stout shaft around 2 meters, and sturdy spearhead, the spear performs as a dedicated lance for horseback.
The spearhead is steel and comprises the blade and the socket. Occasionally the socket engraves with decorations. The total length of spearheads corresponds to the function of the spear, whether all-purpose spear, or lance, polearm, or javelin, and can range between 20 and 80 centimeters.
Especially if reminiscent of earlier Pre-Viking Period Frankish spears, a spearhead might occasionally feature ‘wings’ on the socket below the blade. These wings derive from hunting spears, where their function is defensive to prevent a speared dangerous prey, such as bear and boar, from approaching any closer. However, these wings are less useful in human combat, and during the Viking Period fall out of use. But occasionally a later spearhead might feature smaller vestiges of wings, perhaps for symbolic reasons, or possibly to hook an opponents weapon or shield.
The wings might retain use when wielding a lance from a charging horse, to prevent the lance from thrusting so deep as to become irretrievable, or to knock an opponent off from an other horse. Below is a Viking Period figurine depicting two warriors. One is on horseback with an early winged lance fastened to the horse saddle. (Her long hair is knotted in the back.) The other carries a shield. (Her long hair is tucked in a hood.)
The spear and javelin are common. The lance for horseback combat is less common, because mountainous terrain discourages horseback combat. The polearms below are uncommon and rare, but can happen. Polearms require the use of both hands, while Norse warriors strongly prefer to use the offhand for a roundshield.
Some spearheads are barbed like a harpoon, namely the fleinn.
D&D weapons represent the Viking Period spear types well enough. All feats relating to spears and polearms are appropriate. But there is still a need for certain spearfighting mechanics: conducive to the spear-and-shield fighting style and preventing an opponent from entering an adjacent square.
Atgeir is a rare Norse term whose referent is disputed. On balance, the textual evidence suggests, it is primarily a thrusting weapon with a long shaft, probably resembles a pike, but it can slash too, thus likely corresponds to the archeologically known, very long, very thin blade, at the end of a 3 meter or longer shaft. An other term for something like a pike is broddspjót, referring to a long thin blade forming a four-edge point, whose cross-section is diamond-shape, at the end of a extra-long shaft.
There is also textual evidence in the sagas of polearms that primarily deal slashing damage, namely the hǫggspjót and bryntrǫll. But the identity of these blades remains archeologically uncertain. Possibly, they are simply one of the known spearheads that feature a large wide blade. Or possibly, the terms refer to foreign imports of a continental halbert or glaive. Tentatively, treat the hǫggspjót as a wide-blade spearhead that is equivalent to a two-edge glaive.
There are also several other obscure Norse terms relating to spears that possibly refer to specific spear types or to Non-Norse polearm types.
Archeologists sometimes refer to a sling-like ‘spear-thrower’. But they use a (Non-Norse) modern Norwegian term ‘snor-spyd’ to refer to it. Presumably, the device is unknown in Norse texts thus uncertain or rare. If of interest for D&D, its costs a bonus action to double the range of any spear or javelin throw. For what it is worth, the Norse term for a ‘sling’ is slønga, to sling stones, heh, mainly for use by shepherds to punish sheep who stray too far away.
The following table lists Norse weapons. By far, the most frequent Viking Period weapon is the standard spear, the spjót. Other types of spears are also known. The table omits any weapons from foreign lands, but certain Norse individuals are occasionally known to use them, and on rare occasions they appear in viking burials.
NORSE WEAPONRY
Simple weapons
spjót (spear) 1d6 piercing, 1d8 versatile, thrown (20/60)
gaflak (javelin) 1d6 piercing, thrown (30/120)
Martial weapons
atgeir (pike) 1d10 piercing, heavy, reach, two-handed
hǫggspjót (double-edge glaive) 1d10 slashing, heavy, reach, two-handed
burtstǫng (lance) 1d12 piercing, reach, special − disadvantage v target within 5 feet
Norse warriors prefer the sword for one-on-one combat.
However, for mass combat, Norse warriors prefer the spear. The spear attacks beyond a shield formation. The spear keeps an opponent away at a distance. At range, the spear can spy and hit a distant opponent.
Viking Period spears comprise a shaft of ash wood, and spearhead of steel. The shaft of a spear ranges between 2 and 3 meters.
All kinds of spears are in use. Around 3 meters and up to 3.5 meters, the spear performs as a polearm, like a pike. With a light thin shaft around 2 meters and down to 1.5 meters, and a smallish spearhead, the spear performs as a dedicated throwing spear, a javelin. With a heavy stout shaft around 2 meters, and sturdy spearhead, the spear performs as a dedicated lance for horseback.
The spearhead is steel and comprises the blade and the socket. Occasionally the socket engraves with decorations. The total length of spearheads corresponds to the function of the spear, whether all-purpose spear, or lance, polearm, or javelin, and can range between 20 and 80 centimeters.
Especially if reminiscent of earlier Pre-Viking Period Frankish spears, a spearhead might occasionally feature ‘wings’ on the socket below the blade. These wings derive from hunting spears, where their function is defensive to prevent a speared dangerous prey, such as bear and boar, from approaching any closer. However, these wings are less useful in human combat, and during the Viking Period fall out of use. But occasionally a later spearhead might feature smaller vestiges of wings, perhaps for symbolic reasons, or possibly to hook an opponents weapon or shield.
The wings might retain use when wielding a lance from a charging horse, to prevent the lance from thrusting so deep as to become irretrievable, or to knock an opponent off from an other horse. Below is a Viking Period figurine depicting two warriors. One is on horseback with an early winged lance fastened to the horse saddle. (Her long hair is knotted in the back.) The other carries a shield. (Her long hair is tucked in a hood.)
The spear and javelin are common. The lance for horseback combat is less common, because mountainous terrain discourages horseback combat. The polearms below are uncommon and rare, but can happen. Polearms require the use of both hands, while Norse warriors strongly prefer to use the offhand for a roundshield.
Some spearheads are barbed like a harpoon, namely the fleinn.
D&D weapons represent the Viking Period spear types well enough. All feats relating to spears and polearms are appropriate. But there is still a need for certain spearfighting mechanics: conducive to the spear-and-shield fighting style and preventing an opponent from entering an adjacent square.
Atgeir is a rare Norse term whose referent is disputed. On balance, the textual evidence suggests, it is primarily a thrusting weapon with a long shaft, probably resembles a pike, but it can slash too, thus likely corresponds to the archeologically known, very long, very thin blade, at the end of a 3 meter or longer shaft. An other term for something like a pike is broddspjót, referring to a long thin blade forming a four-edge point, whose cross-section is diamond-shape, at the end of a extra-long shaft.
There is also textual evidence in the sagas of polearms that primarily deal slashing damage, namely the hǫggspjót and bryntrǫll. But the identity of these blades remains archeologically uncertain. Possibly, they are simply one of the known spearheads that feature a large wide blade. Or possibly, the terms refer to foreign imports of a continental halbert or glaive. Tentatively, treat the hǫggspjót as a wide-blade spearhead that is equivalent to a two-edge glaive.
There are also several other obscure Norse terms relating to spears that possibly refer to specific spear types or to Non-Norse polearm types.
Archeologists sometimes refer to a sling-like ‘spear-thrower’. But they use a (Non-Norse) modern Norwegian term ‘snor-spyd’ to refer to it. Presumably, the device is unknown in Norse texts thus uncertain or rare. If of interest for D&D, its costs a bonus action to double the range of any spear or javelin throw. For what it is worth, the Norse term for a ‘sling’ is slønga, to sling stones, heh, mainly for use by shepherds to punish sheep who stray too far away.
The following table lists Norse weapons. By far, the most frequent Viking Period weapon is the standard spear, the spjót. Other types of spears are also known. The table omits any weapons from foreign lands, but certain Norse individuals are occasionally known to use them, and on rare occasions they appear in viking burials.
NORSE WEAPONRY
Simple weapons
spjót (spear) 1d6 piercing, 1d8 versatile, thrown (20/60)
gaflak (javelin) 1d6 piercing, thrown (30/120)
Martial weapons
atgeir (pike) 1d10 piercing, heavy, reach, two-handed
hǫggspjót (double-edge glaive) 1d10 slashing, heavy, reach, two-handed
burtstǫng (lance) 1d12 piercing, reach, special − disadvantage v target within 5 feet
Last edited:
Yaarel
Mind Mage
During the Viking Period, Norse men have both a right and an obligation to carry weapons. The men of a clan serve as the clan militia to defend fellow clan members.
The aboriginal Norse government is the local parliament, the Þing. It is a democracy, where all adults arrive to vote. The main responsibility of the elected leader, the jarl, is to coordinate the clan militias to function as a collective army for the common defense of the locality.
The jarl was necessarily elected because each clan needed to be able to trust him or her with the lives of their fellow clan members. The jarl must also resolve conflicts between clans before combat between clans becomes mass violence, and must be trusted to be impartial.
During the Viking Period, the increasing expansionism, conquest, violence, as well as continental European imperialistic influences strained the sacred democratic traditions. Different Þing made different arrangements. Some Þing replaced the jarl with a konungr. Etymologically, konungr is the origin of the term ‘king’. But in this Viking Period context, the konungr is essentially a jarl who is elected from the family of the previous jarl. This transition of leadership helped stabilize succession during an era of military emergencies. Even so, democratic processes still remained in play, and there were Þing whose clans impeached the konungr.
In the process of the unification of Noregr (roughly today Norway), various local Þing allied with each other to create a regional Þing. This federal Þing included representatives (usually the law sayer) from each local Þing. The prevailing regional Þing elected a konungr as its executive and military leader. This konungr led the armies of multiple Þing. Yet the local Þing remained intact, each one making its own arrangements with the federal konungr, according to the desires of the local voters. Thus the extent of ‘unification’ remains complex and debatable.
In the Post-Viking Period, 1100s-1200s, the power of the konungr gradually becomes more autocratic, such as having the military power to force the appointment or the replacement of a local jarl or a local konungr. By the Late Medieval Period, 1300s-1400s, the konungr is effectively a ‘king’.
Note, sometimes women who were effective militarily leaders also served as a jarl or konungr, with the feminine title dróttning (‘master’). In Ísland, the jarl is called a goði, and the female jarl a gyðja.
The Viking Period is still mainly democratic and local.
Certain Þing voted to pass laws that require all men to have and maintain weapons, including an annual inspection where the men of each clan must bring their weapons to ensure satisfactory military readiness. Failure to pass inspection incurred financial penalties, fines.
Note, even tho both men and women trained in combat from childhood, serving in the clan militia tends to be a requirement for males and an option for females. There were men who, for various reasons, failed to fulfill their military responsibilities, but the ergi, one who failed to ‘man up’ for the clan militia, suffered dishonor and shame.
In the Post-Viking Period, documents from certain Þing survive that itemize the local legal obligations relating to clan militias. Two Þing in particular required every man to have one shield and one spear, plus a choice of either an ax or a sword. The spear is mainly for mass combat, while the sword or ax is mainly for one-on-one combat. Additionally every twosome of warrior buddies, must have at least one longbow. In other words, about half of an army can also function as the artillery. All weapons must be in working order and pass inspection each year. These laws generally describe the Viking Period culture, relating to the weapons and the obligation of Norse men to have them, whether or not a particular Þing legally or socially enforced it.
A good sword is extremely difficult to make − and extremely expensive. Yet the sword is such a status symbol, Norse men make extreme efforts to acquire one. Virtually all fulltime warriors have a sword. Even warriors who prefer to fight with a different weapon are still likely to own a sword because of its status, and wear it in social contexts. Even men who rarely fight might have a sword. In a fight for ones honor, even one without a sword is likely to borrow one from a friend. The Viking Period culture cherishes swords and are knowledgeable and discerning regarding the sword quality and design.
In result, roughly equal numbers of Norse warriors fight with a sword, ax, or spear, as Viking Period burials evidence.
• shield
• spear
• sword
• ax
• longbow
The aboriginal Norse government is the local parliament, the Þing. It is a democracy, where all adults arrive to vote. The main responsibility of the elected leader, the jarl, is to coordinate the clan militias to function as a collective army for the common defense of the locality.
The jarl was necessarily elected because each clan needed to be able to trust him or her with the lives of their fellow clan members. The jarl must also resolve conflicts between clans before combat between clans becomes mass violence, and must be trusted to be impartial.
During the Viking Period, the increasing expansionism, conquest, violence, as well as continental European imperialistic influences strained the sacred democratic traditions. Different Þing made different arrangements. Some Þing replaced the jarl with a konungr. Etymologically, konungr is the origin of the term ‘king’. But in this Viking Period context, the konungr is essentially a jarl who is elected from the family of the previous jarl. This transition of leadership helped stabilize succession during an era of military emergencies. Even so, democratic processes still remained in play, and there were Þing whose clans impeached the konungr.
In the process of the unification of Noregr (roughly today Norway), various local Þing allied with each other to create a regional Þing. This federal Þing included representatives (usually the law sayer) from each local Þing. The prevailing regional Þing elected a konungr as its executive and military leader. This konungr led the armies of multiple Þing. Yet the local Þing remained intact, each one making its own arrangements with the federal konungr, according to the desires of the local voters. Thus the extent of ‘unification’ remains complex and debatable.
In the Post-Viking Period, 1100s-1200s, the power of the konungr gradually becomes more autocratic, such as having the military power to force the appointment or the replacement of a local jarl or a local konungr. By the Late Medieval Period, 1300s-1400s, the konungr is effectively a ‘king’.
Note, sometimes women who were effective militarily leaders also served as a jarl or konungr, with the feminine title dróttning (‘master’). In Ísland, the jarl is called a goði, and the female jarl a gyðja.
The Viking Period is still mainly democratic and local.
Certain Þing voted to pass laws that require all men to have and maintain weapons, including an annual inspection where the men of each clan must bring their weapons to ensure satisfactory military readiness. Failure to pass inspection incurred financial penalties, fines.
Note, even tho both men and women trained in combat from childhood, serving in the clan militia tends to be a requirement for males and an option for females. There were men who, for various reasons, failed to fulfill their military responsibilities, but the ergi, one who failed to ‘man up’ for the clan militia, suffered dishonor and shame.
In the Post-Viking Period, documents from certain Þing survive that itemize the local legal obligations relating to clan militias. Two Þing in particular required every man to have one shield and one spear, plus a choice of either an ax or a sword. The spear is mainly for mass combat, while the sword or ax is mainly for one-on-one combat. Additionally every twosome of warrior buddies, must have at least one longbow. In other words, about half of an army can also function as the artillery. All weapons must be in working order and pass inspection each year. These laws generally describe the Viking Period culture, relating to the weapons and the obligation of Norse men to have them, whether or not a particular Þing legally or socially enforced it.
A good sword is extremely difficult to make − and extremely expensive. Yet the sword is such a status symbol, Norse men make extreme efforts to acquire one. Virtually all fulltime warriors have a sword. Even warriors who prefer to fight with a different weapon are still likely to own a sword because of its status, and wear it in social contexts. Even men who rarely fight might have a sword. In a fight for ones honor, even one without a sword is likely to borrow one from a friend. The Viking Period culture cherishes swords and are knowledgeable and discerning regarding the sword quality and design.
In result, roughly equal numbers of Norse warriors fight with a sword, ax, or spear, as Viking Period burials evidence.
• shield
• spear
• sword
• ax
• longbow
Last edited:
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
Similar Threads
