Celtic sword: Bamborough

[urbanspaceman]

Hey Jim, I think you have the answer there.
There may very-well have been the odd smiths in Britain producing decent blades.
Actually, there must have been, but not enough to supply entire armies.
Consequently, the commanders and the barons will have grabbed the cream of the crop and the munitions grades will have had to accept what they were given.
One thing I have realised - I am learning, just slowly - is that the sword was a secondary weapon with axes, lances, spears, (plus scythes Peter!) doing most of the work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but local barons et al. who supplied the king with militia when needed would not have spent money on quality swords for rank and file when inexpensive alternatives were always to hand.
As we know, a Crown financed standing army did not exist over here until Charles and James 2nd established one in the 1680s.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Keith! Yup, the truth is, despite what we'd like to think, the sword was basically a weapon that most of the rank & file would loved to have had, but most emphatically did not have access to. The ruling figures and their retinue did not purchase, issue or in any way supply anything for the forces they commanded...they were primarily 'cannon fodder'.
The plebian masses were from simple walks of life, farmers etc. which was why most of their 'weaponry' was primarily tools and agricultural implements.

In many cases of course, there were mercenary forces hired who of course supplied their own arms, but even in such forces, there was a great deal of emphasis on pole arms, lances, pikes, axes and swords typically were used in degree along with these.
A good example of mercenary forces (landsknechts, who were actually German, not all Swiss as commonly thought)....has to do with the famed Passau in Germany. This was actually a city where mercenary forces converged to be available as required, thus a center for armorers, who supplied not only armor but all types of weapons to these warriors.

War was the stock and trade of the mercenary, so they furnished their own kit......while those of station, rank and means also were the ones who indeed acquired swords, but they were by no means held and used by the majority of those from the regions from which the embattled army came.

The idea of 'militia' is an interesting one, and it seems in Europe there were the 'town guards' which was sort of in this line. I think of Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" depicting one of these types of units, and though mostly reflecting guns, the general notion was that the men of these units indeed supplied themselves with all manner of obsolete and heirloom arms.
That concept was quite typical through centuries prior to the development of standing armies of nations rather than city states and principalities.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Jim, and it is great to see a discussion on these weapons... In fact I was thinking of another way of splitting the use of arms insomuch as of all the weapons used the only one which was for killing the enemy was in fact the sword...since all the others were originally for hunting. Thus it may be understood how The Sword achieved such a high status and was highly decorated with gold silver and precious stones plus of course it often went along with the owners into the afterlife and thus found in burial mounds shown being held close to the bodies of entombed kings and knights etc...

The Sutton Hoo sword video by Sue Brunning discusses this amazing find at post 5 above.


Regards, Peter Hudson.


-

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Hello Jim, and it is great to see a discussion on these weapons... In fact I was thinking of another way of splitting the use of arms insomuch as of all the weapons used the only one which was for killing the enemy was in fact the sword...since all the others were originally for hunting. Thus it may be understood how The Sword achieved such a high status and was highly decorated with gold silver and precious stones plus of course it often went along with the owners into the afterlife and thus found in burial mounds shown being held close to the bodies of entombed kings and knights etc...

The Sutton Hoo sword video by Sue Brunning discusses this amazing find at post 5 above.


Regards, Peter Hudson.


-

Well put Peter, the sword has always been held in the highest esteem and honor, as it was indeed for a singular purpose, to defend and to kill as required. It was the literal symbol of honor, which remains in place into present time whether metaphorically or in actual wear traditionally, as you well know with the saber worn by officers as you did.

The sword was in early times, the man himself, as said by H.R. Ellis-Davidson, ("The Sword in Anglo Saxon England", 1962, p.1)...
"..who can separate a man and his sword? one is worth nothing without the other".

Chivalry was however 'feudal' and only those of nobility and high station could afford them, and by the same token, knew how to properly use them.

In a passim note unfortunately not referenced, it is said, "...the Englishman has always had his prejudices, and one of his fixed beliefs was that foreigners, however despicable they might be, in other ways had occult secrets about the manufacture of arms and armor which were beyond the grasp of his own countrymen. The logical effect of this notion was that England had become virtually dependent upon Spain, France, Italy and Germany for most kinds of armor and swords".


When Henry VIII boldly brought in the German armorers to produce their wares in England, it was hoped that English workers would be taught the 'secrets' .......with similar goals with the advent of the Hounslow sword production center in the early 17th c.

[Peter Hudson]

Thanks Jim, It is not often that I pay much attention to lists of so called well known facts about such and such a sword however, I liked this set of details...fromhttps://primaryfacts.com/8775/anglo-saxon-swords/

I QUOTE"Facts About Anglo-Saxon Swords
1. Because swords were such prestigious weapons, historians believe that swords were passed down from generation to generation as family heirlooms.
2.When archaeologists have found the remains of swords in Anglo-Saxon burials, they have often been located very close to the body, sometimes cradled in the dead warrior’s arms. This is believed to show how important swords were to their owners.
3.The Anglo-Saxon swords recovered from archaeological digs seem to show lots of signs of wear. Many of the pommels are worn on one side, and this indicates that when the weapons were worn high up on the chest in scabbards attached to shoulder-slung leather baldrics, the warriors tended to rest their hands on the pommels.
4.Many of the Anglo-Saxon swords also show mismatched decorations, as if the sword has been owned by numerous warriors during its lifetime, all of whom have made their own changes and modifications.
5.Some swords have been found with interlock ring decorations attached to the pommels. Some historians believe that these signify the oaths sworn by the sword’s owner.
6.Little effort appears to have been made by Anglo-Saxon warriors to hide their swords’ signs of wear and tear. This might indicate that the Anglo-Saxon’s celebrated experience. A well-used weapon was likely to be wielded by a battle-tested warrior.
7.Runic characters and inscriptions have been found on the pommels of Anglo-Saxon swords.
8.Made from iron, Anglo-Saxon swords were approximately 5 cm to 6.5 cm in width, and 85 cm to 100 cm in length. Although most of the designs were fairly similar, a few historians believe that there were two distinct types of Anglo-Saxon swords. The mece, longer slimmer swords for thrusting at enemies, and the sweord, thicker and heavier for hacking and slashing.
9.The blades were straight and double-edged, often with a fuller (a shallow groove) running down the center to make the weapon lighter.
10.The hilts of Anglo-Saxon swords were made from wood or horn, and they were often decorated with copper, silver or gold.
11.Anglo-Saxon swords typically had short guards and richly-decorated pommels.
12.Anglo-Saxon warriors sometimes named their swords. These were sometimes inscribed on the hilt or the sword’s blade. The names of the owner and maker were often added too.
13.Anglo-Saxon swords were manufactured using a technique called pattern-welding. Rods of iron, twisted together and then forged, formed the sword’s core. Cutting edges were then attached. This method produced blades with intricate herringbone or snakeskin markings".UNQUOTE.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Sutton Hoo was an amazing find producing a beautiful sword and some interesting associated artefacts... The Staffordshire Hoard yeilded over 90 swords and several kilos of gold decorated items...
Please see https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yh...be&action=view

Here is another description... The Staffordshire Hoard is the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold and silver metalwork yet found. It consists of almost 4,600 items and metal fragments, amounting to a total of 5.1 kg (11 lb) of gold, 1.4 kg (3 lb) of silver and some 3,500 pieces of garnet cloisonné jewellery. It is described by the historian Cat Jarman as "possibly the finest collection of early medieval artefacts ever discovered"... Wikipedia

Peter Hudson.

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

3.The Anglo-Saxon swords recovered from archaeological digs seem to show lots of signs of wear. Many of the pommels are worn on one side, and this indicates that when the weapons were worn high up on the chest in scabbards attached to shoulder-slung leather baldrics, the warriors tended to rest their hands on the pommels.

It should be noted that there is an alternate explanation for the wear patterns on the pommels, as argued by Roland Warzecha in this video.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you... an exemplary demonstration in every respect.
As always, the best information comes from the man at the front.
Begging your pardon Sue.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by werecow

It should be noted that there is an alternate explanation for the wear patterns on the pommels, as argued by Roland Warzecha in this video.

Dear Werecow, What an excellent post! I was most impressed with the observation of the weapon having two sides to it...and that the wear was more on one side than the other through training / using the sword against an opponent. I suspect that wear on one side is however, also made by the hand resting on one side of the hilt and that the high mount was responsible for that. The fact that these swords were shown to have pommels that in later designs were made giving a better grip and became seated about a centimeter over to one side ...a fact I had totally missed and which becomes important in how any wear in the pommel developed.

One other aspect worried me since your video shows two exponents with anglo saxon swords training and by giving point in their duel... My thought was that with such good broadswords would the style not be more of a chopping slashing action...in which case the grip would have been more of a full grip in both fighters...not a grip enabling the giving point technique...


I was concerned that the presentation observed that the sword was like most other weapons in that it was a tool...whereas I lean more to the other associated weapons having first been tools but that the sword was the only item that was actually made for killing the enemy with...Having said that I have to say that both reasons ...given by your presenter and mine...Sue Brunning, hold good and if I was awarding points they would be 50/50... Thus I think this is an excellent discussion underpinned in both cases by superb videos and thank you for posting ...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Please see this excellent reference https://www.thegns.org/blog/sword-guide

[werecow]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Dear Werecow, What an excellent post! I was most impressed with the observation of the weapon having two sides to it...and that the wear was more on one side than the other through training / using the sword against an opponent. I suspect that wear on one side is however, also made by the hand resting on one side of the hilt and that the high mount was responsible for that. The fact that these swords were shown to have pommels that in later designs were made giving a better grip and became seated about a centimeter over to one side ...a fact I had totally missed and which becomes important in how any wear in the pommel developed.

One other aspect worried me since your video shows two exponents with anglo saxon swords training and by giving point in their duel... My thought was that with such good broadswords would the style not be more of a chopping slashing action...in which case the grip would have been more of a full grip in both fighters...not a grip enabling the giving point technique...

I guess the answer there is we don't really know how it was used, as there are no surviving treatises from that era.

I do think Roland Warzecha makes a good case for the way he grips the sword using both the physics of the sword (and user) itself, the wear patterns, and the geometry of the grip (noting the way it is shaped to fit the palm of the hand and also the way most of the antique examples have a slight twist and an asymmetry to them).
He has a lot of hands on experience sparring with these swords, which I think does count for something, although of course the way one uses these in modern sparring is by necessity informed guesswork.
I also can't personally confirm what he's saying, since I personally do not have any sparring experience. It would be interesting to know if these swords would allow for effective tip cuts for example. My guess is you can cut very high up with them including with that broad tip, which would make this extended grip he's suggesting more sensible, but that is just guess work on my part.

IMO it would be rather peculiar if the people of this era did not make use of the full reach and most efficient physics and control that the geometry of the grips and pommels on their swords would grant them. But then, we do know of other swords where a hammer fist was the norm (e.g. the tulwar) or where their appearance is deceiving (e.g. Khyber knives not being used for thrusting), so in the absence of more convincing evidence it is hard to say.

In any case, it's interesting. He has multiple other videos on his channel where he makes his case, and he also has a number of sparring videos on there, and looks at several antique examples. It's a channel worth checking out.

(And of course, there is no reason why the wear patterns on the grips could not be due to both the way the sword was wielded and also the way it was worn.)