Mord's Conclusions: Viking Armour

[Dan Howard]

Lamellar plates were found at Birka, but not in the graves that have been excavated. These plates, of varying shapes, were found in the hill that once acted as a base for fortress--called "The Borg." The date of the plates is probably 10th Century; there is an article about them in the 2005 (?) edition of the "Acta Archaeologica." .

Another question about Birka. It has been demonstrated that the Birka lamellar is of Asian origin but is there anything to suggest who wore it - foreigner or Scandinavian?

[Mord]

Lamellar plates were found at Birka, but not in the graves that have been excavated. These plates, of varying shapes, were found in the hill that once acted as a base for fortress--called "The Borg." The date of the plates is probably 10th Century; there is an article about them in the 2005 (?) edition of the "Acta Archaeologica." .

Another question about Birka. It has been demonstrated that the Birka lamellar is of Asian origin but is there anything to suggest who wore it - foreigner or Scandinavian?

Dan,

First, I got the citation wrong. The article on the lammellar is in Fornvannen.

Second, I have heard some speculation about the lammellar belonging to foriegn soldiers--the Khazars, I think, come to mind. However, considering that the plates were not found in a grave, but in a hillside of a presumably burnt fortress, I think the better conclusion is that we can not determine who used this armour.

Mord.

[Robert P. Norwalt]

Craig Johnson's blade hardness research on this topic.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html

[Mord]

Alan Williams published a hardness test of 44 viking swords in the 2009 edition of Gladius. The article should be available on the web in June of this year.

Mord.

[olaf haraldson]

Here's a link to the article: http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/218/222

[olaf haraldson]

There was also a response to the article in 2011, and a response to the response in the same issue.
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/242/248
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.p ... ew/243/249

[olaf haraldson]

Also... thank you Sir Mord!

[ManOWar]

Mord has very kindly been through all the current eveidence for armour/protection in the "viking" area and period - the answer to your question is A SHIELD and their friends/comrades in arms (as far as we currently know based upon the evidence available)

Actually, Phil, I'm going to disagree. We have anecdotal, semi-reliable information from various literary and art pieces from the era that leather and cloth were used as armor. Now, without surviving relics of these sorts, we don't have any *firm* evidence that leather and textiles were used as armor in this place and period of history.

However, I feel Mord's excellent summary of the likely distribution of metal armor strengthens these bits of evidence and lends more credulity to them.

If metal armor was worn only by the wealthiest elite, then most people did not have metal armor. Most people, in fact, probably had no dedicated armor to wear (although they might wear their toughest jacket, say). However - we're left wondering about the folks who were still well off, but not in the upper class tier which allowed them to purchase metal armor. People like the fictional Icelandic character Mord mentioned elsewhere, his persona who had gathered enough money for a sword, but not for mail.

My hypothesis is that some of these folks who lacked the resources for mail had enough resources to invest in some cheaper form of protection: leather or cloth armor. If one warrior in a hundred had mail, the other 99 were undoubtedly wearing the best that they could afford, whatever that might be.

Put another way: if you were about to go into a knife fight, would you prefer to wear a t-shirt, or a biker's leather jacket?

We know that even unhardened 8oz leather or thick cloth can help turn a blade (from modern tests - try it yourself, if you're curious). We know that these people used leather and cloth at least fairly extensively. And we know that leather and cloth fragments have only survived to us under a very few, very specific circumstances.

I'm certainly not willing to argue that this is conclusive fact. But I think logic would dictate that Mord's research lends much stronger credence to the idea that not only were leather and/or cloth armor in use, but that they likely saw greater use in the "Viking" period than mail did!

To Mord thank you for all your research and sharing it here at this forum! Also thanks to all the others that have added their research and thoughts as well. I found this very fascinating and all this got me thinking especially the armor debate / speculation, or at least total speculation on my part, what about padded types of armor, or furs? I think the word berserker comes from the viking word,"Barsark" (sp) for the bear shirts that they supposedly wore. Could this be what the rank and file common soldier wore instead of any metal armors or more refined leather armors? It seems that most of these guys at least early on were just free men farmers etc that went raiding to supplement their incomes and so many wouldn't really be all decked out like a professional army. I think they'd be kind of like peasant militia in other countries and would bring whatever they had. I'm sure the Jarl's head men would be better outfitted etc, because they were for all intents full time warriors and not the farmers like the regulars.

[Tostig]

Hi,

Pardon my intrusion if I am way off base commenting. I question whether farmers would have bear shirts, or more to my point, if bear shirts would have at all been common. Bear, from what I understand, is hard to take with modern weapons, so with medieval arms it would have been a significant acheivement. Few, and perhaps only the bravest/nuttiest would have taken bear thus earning the moniker berserker.

[ManOWar]

Hi,

Pardon my intrusion if I am way off base commenting. I question whether farmers would have bear shirts, or more to my point, if bear shirts would have at all been common. Bear, from what I understand, is hard to take with modern weapons, so with medieval arms it would have been a significant acheivement. Few, and perhaps only the bravest/nuttiest would have taken bear thus earning the moniker berserker.

Hi Tostig, I think you make a great point that certainly I guess bear skins wouldn't be common. Possibly other furs then?

[Marshal]

Bears do die of natural causes.

Also, there are such things as traps.

I should think they could be bred as well.

[Tostig]

Marshal,

Brown bears, those in Eurasia, grow to be several hundred pounds and need a couple hundred square miles each. They were caught and transported to Rome in ancient times for sure though.

That said I think you would have to very lucky to find a bear that has just died of natural causes in order to get a skin in goid condition.

Trapping could get you a bear. I don't think you would get many without a lot of work.

Not sure about breeding. Do you have any evidence for trapping or breeding in the time period?

Personally I like the anachronistic image of a solo hunter taking a bear at great peril and wearing the hide, protecting himself with the spirit of the animal. I think you have to be fucking nuts to try that, or berserk

[Marshal]

Bear-baiting and dancing bears were a thing, weren't they?

http://www.larsdatter.com/trained-bears.htm

The participants had to come from somewhere.

[Tostig]

Okay, but does that suggest bear skin was common enough that it wasn't too special? If so, then the term berserker being derived from the idea of the raider wearing a bear shirt is undermined. At least for the merit of having acquired it from the bear and the implication of fearlessness.

Is the reason for bear shirt something else then? Light armour, intimidating looking, pride? I'm looking for the significant connection between the term and the bear shirt, although less interested if it doesn't distiguish the glory of the wearer. Just sayin'. If it isn't there it isn't there.

I know in modern times bear is harder to take. That may not translate to anything significant for our historical counter parts. I'd be interested to hear others conjecture, but at this point its starting to feel like a thread jacking.

[Haldan]

I seem to recall that one of the sagas mentions Norsemen keeping bears as house pets...

[Marshal]

Okay, but does that suggest bear skin was common enough that it wasn't too special? If so, then the term berserker being derived from the idea of the raider wearing a bear shirt is undermined. At least for the merit of having acquired it from the bear and the implication of fearlessness.

Is the reason for bear shirt something else then? Light armour, intimidating looking, pride? I'm looking for the significant connection between the term and the bear shirt, although less interested if it doesn't distiguish the glory of the wearer. Just sayin'. If it isn't there it isn't there.

For the record, I myself lean toward the view that the word derived from 'BARE sark', eg without armor, rather than from any relation to bear pelts.

[Cap'n Atli]

I seem to recall that one of the sagas mentions Norsemen keeping bears as house pets...

"Authen and the Bear" is one, in which the protagonist brings a bear from Greenland to Denmark via Norway (which were at war at the time) to present to the Danish king. A delightful tale; but it leaves out the logistics of what must have been the challenge of keeping a polar bear as a captive or pet! Somehow, I think that I would have trouble having a bear as a "crewmate" on the ship.

Oh yes, Authen also goes on a pilgrimage to Rome. He must have been a real stay-at-home!

(Exact spelling of Authen's name involves an eth; but it's been about 40 years, so variations in the accuracy of my spelling may have occured.)

[RandallMoffett]

"Somehow, I think that I would have trouble having a bear as a "crewmate" on the ship."

Depends on how well fed it is while moving I suspect... hey has any seen Sven today? Last I saw him he was going to feed the bear....

RPM

[Marshal]

You just need a crewman named Pi, is all.

[Hrolfr]

Hi,

Pardon my intrusion if I am way off base commenting. I question whether farmers would have bear shirts, or more to my point, if bear shirts would have at all been common. Bear, from what I understand, is hard to take with modern weapons, so with medieval arms it would have been a significant acheivement. Few, and perhaps only the bravest/nuttiest would have taken bear thus earning the moniker berserker.

Tostig, is it bear or is it bare? The simple loss of a consanant at the end of a word changes the meaning, totally.

From the Learn Old Norse with Uncle Hrólfr thread on Sir Dirk's forum something I wrote-

The words munrr and munr would be a good case, as the statement "Minn munrr út keppa minn munr" (My mouth out races my mind) has far different meaning than "Minn munr út keppa min munrr" (My mind out races my mouth).

Some (including myself) believe that baersarkers believed they were 'touched' (and some of them truely were, and not in a good way, either ) by the gods, and were wound proof while in their frenzy.

The double r on the end of munrr has the "Scottish" trill (per E.V. Gordon)

[Marshal]

I was under the impression that the terminal 'r' is rolled in all instances, unless assimilated.

[Hrolfr]

I was under the impression that the terminal 'r' is rolled in all instances, unless assimilated.

From his Introduction to Old Norse

"r was always a strong point trill, as in Scottish. The final r in a word like dagr was not syllabic; the whole word is a monosyllable. Following a voiceless consonant, as in drykkr, the r is voiceless. At the beginning of a word , a voiceless r was spelled hr, as in hringr." pg 268

I was not complete enough, Marshall

[Kristoffer]

Well bear is "Björn" in modern Swedish and is commonly spelled something like "beorn" or the likes "back in the days" (this is where tolkien got that character name from). I dont associate "Bärsärk" with bears as a modern scandinavian, but rather Bär, as in to carry/ to wear and Särk as a night shirt or tunic like garment. As someone who wears nothing but his unmentionables to battle.

This is just my modern interpretation of the word without researching it.

Also, we have bear and moose trap pits here preserved since the stone age and they also hunted bears by waking them from their winter sleep, getting them to go up on their hind legs and attack and while doing so, being impaled on a pole. Bears were not uncommonly hunted and killed.