| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Viking Age arms and armour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)[reply]
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
I would change it and perhaps I will, but I was hoping to hear the evidence specific to the 'Viking' period before messing around with the article. --M.J.Stanham 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the meaning of "According to Gabitron" in the introductory paragraph? What is Gabitron? Shouldn't there be a real source citation here? pdbowman 14:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdbowman (talk • contribs) The sword was primary the spear was never really used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.191.229 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is this in the first paragraph about a custom that required all Norse men to carry weapons?? That sounds somewhat preposterous, but it would be nice to know if there is a citation for it. 74.100.56.221 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such law, there is only recommendations in The Elder Edda and in the Hava mål (Like the one in the article). There is of course several laws concerning when a warrior should be armed but there is none which says that anybody must be armed at all times, not even a Jarls personal warriors need to be armed at all times. Kl. 22.45 S.Blanksvärd 2012-05-24 (sources:"Vikingarnas stridskonst" of Lars Magnar Enoksen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Blanksvärd (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nothing, as far as I am concerned, but I also think it is possible that somebody might see fit to move the Shield from the Weapons Section into the Armour Section on the grounds that the Shield was not strictly a Weapon. So, I have opted for a compromise.--M.J.Stanham 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not just vikings used Dane Axes anyway, Saxons did too as well as non-viking norsemen. Refer to viking times as 'Early middle ages' or 'The Viking Age'
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)[reply]
They have found one whole helmet, and fragments of two others. It makes sense to say there is only onw in existence in that context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.70.24 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A new section just added reads:
While Lamellar armor was almost certainly used by a small percent of Vikings, the large number of Lames found at Birka was almost certainly composed of a majority of a plates from Brigandines and Coats of plates. while a small percentage of the small plates was likely from true Lamellar. The Vikings, Scandinavians, Saxons, Goth and Germanic tribesmen are well known and associated with coats of mail armor-but do to the nomadic nature of the Goths and various Germanic tribesmen that originated in Scandinvaia, and the Vikin's sea faring and navigation skills, in addition to their longboats that could navigate rivers as well, allowed them to travel and trade much farther and wider, settling into many subgroups and introducing both the ideas and the equipment it's self back to the North and into the Viking culture. The Vikings that settled in France and became Normans adopted the use of Heavy Cavalry, the Vikings who traveled east on the rivers towards Russia and Central Asia later became the "Rus", establishing the kingdom of the Kievan Rus and fighting\living a like a mix because Vikings and steppe warriors....using Longsword Seax, and Dane Axe-with the addition of lanmellar or scale armor to supplement their Mail coats, steppe warhorses and composite bows. There was even a record of Viking warriors who raided France and destroyed the French Knights sent his the local lord to throw them back into the sea in the late 9th or 10th century however the Knights were surprised to find that, despite there only being 9 Vikings to the 20 Frankish Knights, these Vikings were well armed and armored in the image of professional soldiers (not the typical Viking raiding team with each man wearing animal skins and carring a round shield, spear and either a hand-axe or long Seax). With knee length mail coat with riveted links backed by hardened Reindeer hide and horsehair/raw cotton stuffing backing, Lamellar, made from harden composite steel, or well as coat of plates with reindeer, wolf, bear, deer, pig or cattle hide with overlapping steel plates on the inner surface.
It need to be sourced and probably rewritten somewhat. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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).[reply]
