sorry but read the article again, it doesn't say anything about the person being a crusader, it says the sword was a style of sword manufactured in
the crusader-era, ie:10 century to 12th century. along with a "viking-era" sword, from about 8th-10th century. i think you need to read it
again, you might have overlooked the use of the term viking and crusades was purely used to place the era via the weapons.
I suppose you must not have read my post very closely, or else you would not have repeated what I had already said as if you were somehow educating my
"error". The "viking era" sword is indeed a viking sword. I am very familiar with them. Many of the blades were imported from farther south in
Europe, but the hilts are unmistakable.
no where does it talk about him being a crusader. i doubt he was a mercenary, most likely he was a high ranking elite, that is why you see the
weapons, in in finnish culture two edged weapons indicated prestige, since both fire relates to both metal working and death. so the guy might have
been very important to the community.
As I said, I do not believe this individual was a crusader, for the reasons I specified. However, to correct a minor error on your part, the article
say that he "may have been an early crusader", in the very first paragraph:
Archaeology hobbyists were stunned when they unearthed a remarkable historical find from a field in Janakkala, southern Finland. The ancient grave
site appeared to be that of an early crusader buried with two swords from different eras.
he was most likely a leader of the community. weapons were a sign of power to the people in the area, it's not a viking sword it was a sword made in
the 8th-10th century or the "viking-era". more than likely it was locally made.
if he lived up to around 1250 he did fight against crusaders, namely the swedish second crusade.
It IS in fact a viking sword. Again, the hilts are unmistakeable, although many of the blades were imported from further south in Europe, particularly
from what is now France. Whether or not the sword was locally made is open for debate, but whether it was a viking sword or not is not. The vikings
ranged far, and had colonies all over the place, so it could have been locally made...
... by a viking smith.
the first one was in 1096, 30 years after the end of the viking era, so not really, by the time the crusade begin it was just starting to wind
You contradict yourself. Either it was "just starting to wind down", or it already "had ended 30 years ago", but not both.
well given this isn't a crusader and more than likely an enemy of one, i'd say he learned from his brothers or father, and the sword weighed 2.5
pounds it was not as heavy as people think. of course this may well be a burial sword, it's were the myth that swords that size were heavy, because
when they found the graves, it was thought people used those honking heavy things. they weighed like 25 pounds, who could swing a 25 pound sword for
hours? the heaviest sword was at most 7-8 pounds. oh and no, these swords were used on foot, they needed the reach to kill men on horse back,
why in the world would people on horseback need a 4 foot two hand sword? a long sword is a heck of a lot more useful and you can use a shield. no,
the huge swords were used by people on foot for reach.
Red again. I did not say the sword was heavy, I said greatswords were developed for use from horseback, and the horses had to carry a lot more weight
because of the armor involved. There is no doubt they were also used from the ground, as I noted in my post, but they were developed for fighting from
horseback. Mine weighs around 3 1/2 pounds. I am well acquainted with their weight, heft, and use. I have already noted "why in the world" men
fighting from horseback would need a sword with reach. They are on horseback. Maybe you would have had to have ridden a horse at some point to grasp
that. If I am on the ground, I don't need the reach as badly - I just take the guy off off the horse's back, one way or the other.
Then reach doesn't matter.
by the way, they were not using full plate in the 12th century, and it's again a misunderstanding that armor weighted a lot. they would not need
huge horses back then, they used ring mail or chainmail. plate didn't become used till the 16th century and only the jousting armor weighed enough to
justify huge horses, most of the war armor was 30-40 pounds at most.
First, I did not mention the variety of armor, whether plate or not. "Chainmail" is a misnomer - it is simply "mail", or "ring armor".
Judging by your weight estimates, I would hazard the guess that you have never worn it - either plate or
mail. That crap is heavier than you
seem to think. Modern aluminum show piece mail would have been of little use on those ancient battlefields, but it would feel a lot better to wear
around at a modern ren-faire.
The horses were bred for precisely the reasons I stated.
it's hard to find info on iron age finland, until they were conquered by the swedes they didn't even write stuff down.
Start by getting a copy of The Kalevala and reading it. Emil Petaja has a fictionalized version of it (written from a sci-fi perspective) called
"Sagas of Lost Earths", but a lot of liberties have been taken to make it fit the sci-fi mold.
there also needs to be more info on medieval armor and weapons, all i find is crap about replicas.
It takes a lot of digging. I can probably dig up a couple of the ancient manuals of arms on greatswords and e-mail pdf's to you if you are really
interested in how things work. I'm fairly well versed in arms and armor from the bronze age up to the modern day, although not so well versed in