It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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 down.
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.
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.
it's hard to find info on iron age finland, until they were conquered by the swedes they didn't even write stuff down.
there also needs to be more info on medieval armor and weapons, all i find is crap about replicas.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I do some metal detecting every now and then myself...
This is an amazing find...The monetary value of such treasures alone is probably staggering, not to mention the sheer historical value.