Talk:Viking Age arms and armour

message: I have blocked some copyrighted images as no proof of permission for the world wide usage has been given. I have requested additional information of the uploader, and as soon as that is available, the images will be made visible or deleted depending on the outcome of this query. KimvdLinde 22:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrigted images 

message: What is the evidence that only Vikings made use of the Axe for warfare during the 'Medieval' period? This is just untrue, as far as I know. Nor is it the case that a 90 lb Bow has an 'effective' range of 250 metres; this is closer to it's maximum range.
The Spear would not have been secondary to the Sword, but quite the opposite.
Are you sure the 'Heavier' type of Spear was for 'Throwing' and the 'Lighter' for Thrusting? It seems to me the reverse is true... --M.J.Stanham 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC
:Well, I would suggest, change it. KimvdLinde 20:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be able to do some on this in he future, but this page was in the first place made by other before me. From what I know, the sward was definately second to axe and spear, and only a few people would have one in the first place. Axe and spear are just cheaper. I might have to probe some of my friends about this. Maybe there are some good online sources for this information? Kim van der Linde at venus 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Thanks to Frip100 for reverting the bizzare edits made to his page, presumably made by somebody with too much time on his hands... --M.J.Stanham 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In my opinion, Shields should not really be classified as Armour; they are primarily defensive objects, but that is not quite the same thing. I think it might be wise for us to reclassify the divisions as "Arms and Armour", rather than "Weapons and Armour", which would allow us to move the Shield its current designation. If anybody has any objections feel free to voice them, I am open to alternatives. --M.J.Stanham 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would have been wrong with classifying them as defensive weapons? Not that I have any problem with "arms". -- Ian Dalziel 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield 

message: I have removed the following line from the Axe text, because it is unverified, unnecessary and, in my opinion, quite untrue:
"Vikings and Lithuanians were the only warriors during medieval times to use a battle axe."
For me, the problems lie in defining 'Medieval Times', which is not under discussion here, 'Battle Axe', which remains undefined, and 'Viking', which must be being used in its very broadest sense to make this sentence anywhere near viable.--M.J.Stanham 21:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axe 

message: What about that Oland Plate with the picture of the berserker on it?  The berserker's helmet had horns.
     How many helmets are there really? The article states both one and later on three. Can somebody with knowledge edit this or sort it out? Carl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.88.106.230 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helmet 

message: In this article, the heading "Knives" only discusses the Seax. Shouldn't the heading be changed to "Seax", if the section only describes that specific knife? NikWalters (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The regular (non-seax) knife type added. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knives 

message: One of the final armor subsections is titled "Lamellar", which is described here as "small iron plates sewed to a stout fabric or leather cats shirt".  The linked article, Lamellar, indicates that lamellar armour consisted of rows of plates sewn or riveted to each other, not to a foundation garment or backing material.  The article is in fact describing scale armour, not lamellar. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamellar? 

message: Yet we know for sure Vikings didn't wear horns on their helmets. Interesting. 184.96.202.120 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of contemporary pictorial evidence though, shoeing straight forward conical helmets with nasals, and no horns. I suggest you read the actual article that is the source. It's light reading: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is only one known example of a complete Viking helmet in existence." 

message: There has been a number of edits the last few days, adding good content. One of them by Spartanmadrigal added a large general introduction, again with good content. It is however insufficiently sourced and rather long. I think several of the sentences (particularly those on the shield) could well be moved down into the text dealing with the specific arms. Some of it is also irrelevant to this article (Viking ship construction) and could be cut down so that only the bits relevant to Viking arms and armour remains. Thoughts? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --M.J.Stanham (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: The current first picture of the article is from the Bayeux Tapestry and does not show typical Viking gear, it doesn't even really show Vikings. Ideally, we should have something like the Lidisfarne Stone (see here), but I can't find any pictures of it on Commons. Anyone sitting on a free picture? Any locals who could head over and take a shot? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: As the most recent editor has pointed out, this entire section is uncited and written in a manner unbecoming of an encyclopedia article. 24.62.154.194 (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right. The basic points (Vikings fighting as irregular infantry, relying on boats to give them to reach lightly defended targets) are good though. The section should be edited down to these points, and decent sources found. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting vikings 

message: The title of this article is "Viking Age arms and armour", yet it seems to be written as if it were "Viking arms and armour".
This is a problem.
I've cleaned up some of what was written about Viking Age swords, which was partially about making it clear that they are not Viking swords, but Viking Age swords.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not living up to the title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Viking Age arms and armour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090325213700/http://www.ukm.uio.no:80/utstilling/faste/forhistorie/index_eng.html to http://www.ukm.uio.no/utstilling/faste/forhistorie/index_eng.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, there are numerous references for use of stones as projectile weapons - include a section? T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone 

message: I'm really curious if the line in this article, "not just the men, but the women and children too" is a stealth joke about Attack of the Clones.
--Millernumber1 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: "Weapons adorned as such served large religious and social functions." - this sentence seems ambiguous. most likely a typo, supposed to say instead that those gold adorned weapons (are thought today to have) served LARGELY ceremonial functions. but this is speculation until someone with access to the offline source checks, please do so and correct the typo if it is one indeed. other possible meanings could be that the ornamented weapons were used for LARGE CEREMONIES - which is completely silly given that no hint to what is a large vs a small ceremony, and this version also leaves unclarified whether such ceremonial use is supposed to take place at the expense of regular use as a weapon or as a secondary function. 
anyway the cited sentence seems clumsily worded and unclear in its meaning, so please if you are a kind of parent-editor to his article/topic take care of it and clarify.
or else - given i dont forget or just give up caring for it - im gonna clean it up for you some day in the future . aiming for the first hypothesis eg. typo, and correcting it according to that.
89.134.199.32 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreign origins of viking arms and armour - section