Talk:Viking sword

message: I linked classical knightly sword to a disambig (Great sword). Normally this is bad style, but pretty much all the articles listed in that disambig could be considered "classical knightly swords" so this is my way of linking to all of them at once. --DFRussia 04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After some browsing, I decided that the Arming sword is the proper link for "classical knightly sword" since in its description it is depicted as such, and quotes the Viking sword as its parent --DFRussia 04:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical knightly sword 

message: This article says "primary weapon of the Vikings", despite swords being relatively rare. 173.176.60.119 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not primary weapon 

message: Shouldn't the title of this article it be 'Viking Age Sword'?   Radj397 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viking Age Sword 

message: "The Viking sword is a form of spatha"
Didn't the Viking Age came some time after the fall of Rome! It is a development of the spatha not a form of it.   Radj397 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spatha 

message: Seriously, did someone with a grudge go through this article or something?  Is "citation needed" really required after almost every line?  Especially egregious is the use of the "citation needed" tag after the sentence describing how fullers make the swords lighter without sacrificing the strength of the blade.  That is the exact definition and purpose of a fuller; there is absolutely no need for a CN tag.  That would be like placing a "citation needed" after a line saying "wings allow bird to fly."  It's not original research, it's a simple fact.  I am removing the over-used, conspicuously aggressive tags.  
RyokoMocha (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are alot of highly opinionated claims on this page. IE, "no sword could match an Ulfberht."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.156.109 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overdoing "Citation Needed" Just a Bit?  

message: Just added a 'synthesis' tag to the Ulfberht section - it sounds like a book report on the NOVA TV special on the topic.  Haven't found citations to this show, which would be good.  Also the section could use some cleaning up - stuff like 'No other medieval sword could match up to an Ulfberht' needs to shown with a citation.  Kind of sounds a little rah-rah to me, but they're interesting swords, and with a little cleanup the article could be more scholarly.
Vortmonkey (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulfberht section 

message: I would just like to mention that the majority of swords of this type had fullers forged in, not ground out. With fullers forged *into* a blade, the purpose of the fuller is not to lighten the blade, but to strengthen it, and also broaden it. No lightening occurs as no material is removed. That said, the modern method of fullering (except for those bladesmiths who forge all the way) is to grind out the fuller length, which does indeed lighten the blade *and* strengthen it (just so you know I'm not disputing the claim entirely). 41.174.40.222 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, that is correct. Steel was a rare commodity in the ancient world, so the smith would try to waste as little as possible. You start with steel that is nearly the desired weight, and then mold it into shape with various hammers, swages and fullers. The fullers do not typically widen the blade, because the fullers (tools) are usually only a few inches long, but they do displace material, increasing the thickness of the blade surrounding the grooves, thereby increasing its strength (resistance to bending.) Hammers can be used after fullering to widen the blade, or swages used to shape the ridges around the fullers. (I'm working on expanding the fuller article right now.) Due to steel's availability and low-cost today, it is not uncommon for modern fullers to be ground into the blade, stamped by a machine, or cut with a milling machine. Zaereth (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: fullers 

message: I'm leaning toward expanding this article. I have enough sources, but the problem is that, when referring to Viking swords, this actually covers an entire variety of swords, and not just one style. The particular swords photographed in this article are known in the archeological world as "Merovingian" or "Carolingian" pattern-welded blades. (More commonly the former.) For a period of about a thousand years, this particular style of sword was very common in northern Europe --not just in Scandinavia, but as far as France to Hungary and Britian to Germany. This style mysteriously disappeared after about 1000 years of popularity, the reasons for which are only speculation. (Perhaps better steel or forging techniques developed, or perhaps the smiths were suddenly killed by war, famine or disease.)
It is likely that the swords were created in one location, by one particular family or clan, whom they managed to keep their forging methods a secret. (The forging methods were extremely complicated, and rival the Japanese swords in their complexity.) The manufactuers of the Merovingian blades are unknown, but there are too many similartities in them to be constructed by different bladesmithing schools. The term "Merovingian" is often used by scholars because, not only were many swords found in France, but the appearance and disappearance coincides with the rise and fall of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties. Still it is unknown whether the swords originated in France, Scandinavia, or somewhere else. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be expanded, or a new one created? 

message: This article seems to rely too heavily on NOVA's "documentary" about the Viking sword.
I would argue that the film is not a Reliable Source. Not that I have much respect for most documentaries, in general. They are just concerned with viewing figures, and don't really care about accuracy.
Furthermore, many of the claims made by "Secrets of the Viking Sword", are not particularly based on good evidence or reason:
* The notion that other period steels were so utterly inferior to the steel in Ulfberht blades.
* The notion that the steel in Ulfberht blades is comparable to modern steels.
* The notion that the Vikings made the Ulfberht blades, rather than them being Frankish in origin and exported to the Vikings (among others), just like pretty much all sword blades of the Viking Age and Migration Age.
* The notion that Vikings would use latin letters that early.
* The notion that the cross necessarily signified Christianity (the cross, while being the main and universal symbol of Christianity today, was not really a major one at the time. See Christian symbolism ...and crosses have been used by all other religions and cultures, including the Franks and the Norse)
* The conclusion of which ones were the real ones, and which are fake ...despite the fact that there are studies that contradict the conclusion, showing that the supposed fakes pre-date the supposed real ones
...and some more. Like how the Ulfberht letters were put in, in a clearly inaccurate manner.
The Documentary seems to take certain claims made by Alan Williams, which are debatable, at best and taking what he says (and interpreting some details that he may not have, into it) and presenting this speculations as fact, even where Williams only claims possibilities (and the average viewer of a documentary tends to take even what is presented as speculation, as gospel truth)
Also: Please note that while many experts on the subject were consulted early on, most quickly backed out:
"/.../I resigned in the end when they suggested conditions that were nowhere near what I considered appropriate."
"The Ulfberth sword replica was custom made by Richard Furrer who was equally frustrated with the production company."
"So I was quite happy, that I resigned, despite all the time and work I had invested. Apparently, this is a low-budget production that tried to take advantage of enthusiasts. We yet have to see a show on Viking combat that is up to latest research and meets scientific standards.
This is not the one."
"In addition to apparently not having had the budget required, the problem with this documentary was that from the start it was designed to center around an alleged super weapon. They used a Gladius article by Alan Williams as their starting point. Williams' metallurgical examinations are alright, my friend Ingo told me. Ingo is an archeologist, smith and swordsman himself. He said that, while the data is okay, the conclusions are debatable at best. This opinion was shared by other experts like Jorrit Köchel, swordsmith Steffan Roth and Viking sword expert Dr Alfred Geibig, who I consulted after I had been approached by the film company.
But their opinions mattered little to the film producers." - Roland Warzecha
"I was mostly uninvolved. I was contacted by the production company on several occasions. I was asked to review video footage of Viking fighting moves. I expressed my opinions and my reservations, but based on the footage I saw when the documentary was aired, my advice was ignored. I was extremely surprised to see my name in the credits." - William R. Short (This and the Roland Warzecha quotes being from this forum thread ...which contains many criticisms of the documentary and its conclusions)
"I was a little bit involved in the preparations for the of this program in its earlier stages." - Peter Johnsson
"We (The Chicago Swordplay Guild) and Roland Warzecha of Hammaborg were both involved with this project in the early stages to do the weapon testing. Unfortunately, the production time was during WMAW, the "tests" they wanted us to perform very nebulous and the budget to get realistic Viking armour and shields to try the weapon against so minimal that we had to decline to do the actual cutting." - Greg Mele (this and the Peter Johnsson quote being from this forum thread ...which contains many criticisms of the documentary and its conclusions)
While Richard Furrer was in the documentary, and has some credentials (and his bits were not as bad as the rest), even he wasn't too pleased with it ...and while John Clements is in it, he is a self-proclaimed "expert", and is generally considered to be highly unscholarly. Not that there were any problems with his bits, though. Not in this case (in fact I liked his performance, though it feels annoying that katanas have to be mentioned, in any mention of swords). I'm just pointing out that he isn't really a Reliable Source (not that people who make documentaries care about their sources being reliable...).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The material by Williams has the advantage of being by a significant expert in Archaeometallurgy and being published in reputable places.  It would easily qualify as reputably sourced under WP guidelines.  If these claims are to be made in the article, rebuilding it around Williams work, stating it as a theory rather than a fact, would be the way to go. 80.176.147.107 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Williams is a renowned expert in the field, but also that the use of one Nova special does not an article make. As a reference for various points, perhaps, but not to the extent that its used here. Better would be Williams' books on the subject. Perhaps add to that the works of people like Tylecote and Gilmore, Julia Turn, Cyril Smith, Buchwald, etc., then we'd have the makings of an article. We have to be careful, however, with literary journalism like Nova, because they toss in a lot of manufactured hype and emotion. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-reliance on NOVA's "Secrets of the Viking Sword"