About the Vikings and their weapons ...

198
On the bloody sword -
Flower of gold.
The best of rulers
Honors his chosen ones.
Warrior can not be displeased
So gorgeous decoration.
Militant ruler
Multiplies its glory
His generosity.
(The Saga of Egil. Translation by Johannes V. Jensen)


To begin with, the topic of the Vikings is again politicized for some reason. “In the West, they don’t want to admit that they were pirates and brigands” - something like that I recently had to read in HE. and it says only that the person is not well aware of what he writes or that he has been thoroughly brainwashed, which, by the way, is not only done in Ukraine. Because otherwise he would have known that not only in English, but also in Russian, there is a book by Astrel publishing house (this is one of the most popular and accessible publications) “Vikings”, authored by the famous English scientist Yen Heath, who was published in the Russian Federation in 2004 year. The translation is good, that is, it is written in a completely accessible, by no means “scientific” language. and right there on page 4 it is explicitly written that in Scandinavian written sources the word “viking” means “piracy” or “foray”, and the one who participates in it is “viking”. The etymology of this word is considered in detail, starting from the meaning of “a pirate hiding in a narrow sea bay” to “vik” - the geographical name of a region in Norway, which the author considers unlikely. And the book itself begins with a description of the Viking raid on the monastery in Lindisfarne, accompanied by robbery and bloodshed. The Frankish, Saxon, Slavic, Byzantine, Spanish (Muslim), Greek and Irish names are given - so there’s simply nowhere else. It is indicated that the growth of trade in Europe has created favorable conditions for piracy, plus the success of the northerners in shipbuilding. So the fact that Vikings are pirates is said in this book several times, and no one in it covers up this circumstance. As, actually, and in other editions, both translated into Russian, and not translated!




The image of events that took place in the IX century, the Byzantine artist of the XII century. The miniature shows imperial bodyguards-varangs ("Varangian Guard"). You can clearly see, and 18 axes, 7 copies and 4 flags can be counted. A miniature from the 16th century Chronicles of John Skilits, stored in the National Library in Madrid.

About the most stories vikings we will talk some other time. And now, since we are on a military site, it makes sense to consider the Viking weapons, thanks to which (and various other circumstances - who can argue?) They managed to keep Europe at bay for almost three centuries.

About the Vikings and their weapons ...

Feral head with the Ozeberg ship. Museum in Oslo. Norway.

Let's start with the fact that Viking attacks on England and France at that time represented nothing more than opposition from infantry arriving to the battlefield on ships, and heavy weapons riders who also tried to arrive at the enemy’s attack site as soon as possible to punish arrogant "northerners." Many of the armor of the troops of the Frankish Carolingian dynasty (named after Charlemagne) were a continuation of the same Roman tradition, only the shields acquired the form of a “drop drop”, which became traditional for the era of the so-called early Middle Ages. In many ways, this was due to the interest of Charles himself in Latin culture, it was not without reason that his time was even called the Carolingian Renaissance. On the other hand, the weapons of ordinary soldiers remained traditionally Germanic and consisted of short swords, axes, short spears, and armor-clad armor often replaced a shirt of two layers of leather and a filler between them, quilted with the help of rivets with bulging hats.


The famous weather vane from Soderal. Such weather-vane adorned the noses of the Vikings and were signs of special significance.

Most likely, such "shells" well held lateral blows, although they did not protect against injection. But the farther from the VIII century, the more and more the sword was drawn and rounded off at the end so that it became possible for them to only chop. Already at that time, parts of the relics began to be placed in the heads of the swords, from which the custom began to be applied to the sword’s handle with the lips, and not at all because by its shape it resembled a cross. So leather armor was most likely spread no less widely than metal, especially among warriors who did not have solid wealth. And again, probably, in some internecine battles, where the whole matter decided the number of the combatants, such protection would be sufficient.


"A Thracian woman kills a Wit." A miniature from the 16th century Chronicles of John Skilits, stored in the National Library in Madrid. (Apparently, the attitude towards the Vikings in Byzantium was not always good. I dismissed my arms, here it is, and ...)

But here at the end of the 8th century the Norman raids from the North began and European countries entered the three-century “Viking Age”. And it was they who became the factor that most strongly influenced the development of military art among the Franks. It cannot be said that Europe faced the predatory attacks of the “northern people” for the first time, but numerous Viking campaigns and the seizure of new lands by them now acquired the character of a truly massive expansion, comparable only to the invasion of the barbarians on the lands of the Roman Empire. At first, the raids were unorganized, and the number of the attackers themselves was small. However, with such forces the Vikings managed to capture Ireland, England, plunder many cities and monasteries of Europe, and take Paris in the 845 year. In the 10th century, the Danish kings launched a massive offensive on the continent, while the heavy arm of the sea thieves experienced the northern lands of faraway Russia, and even the imperial Constantinople!

A feverish gathering of so-called “Danish money” begins throughout Europe in order to at least somehow buy off the invaders or to return the lands and cities that they had seized. But it was also required to fight with the Vikings, so the cavalry, which could be easily transferred from one area to another, turned out to be extremely necessary. This was the main advantage of the Franks in battle with the Vikings, since the equipment of the Viking warrior was not very much different from the equipment of the horsemen-francs.


A completely fantastic depiction of the victory of the Franks, led by King Louis III and his brother Carloman over the Vikings in 879. From the “Big Chronicles of France”, illustrated by Jean Fouquet. (National Library of France. Paris)

First of all, it was a round wooden shield, the material for which was usually served as linden planks (from which, by the way, comes its name, like “Linden of War”), in the middle of which a metal domed umbron was strengthened. The diameter of the shield was approximately one yard (about 91 cm). The Scandinavian sagas often talk about painted shields, and it is interesting that each color occupied either a quarter or half of its entire surface. They assembled it, gluing these boards together crosswise, in the middle they reinforced a metal umbon, inside of which there was a shield handle, after which the shield was covered with leather and also its skin or metal strengthened its edge. The most popular color of the shield was red, but it is known that there were yellow, black and white shields, while colors such as blue or green were chosen infrequently for coloring. All 64 shields found on the famous Gokstad ship were painted yellow and black. There are reports of shields depicting mythological characters and whole scenes, with multicolored stripes and even ... with Christian crosses.


One of the 375 runic stones of the 5th-10th centuries. from the island of Gotland in Sweden. This stone below shows a fully equipped ship, then a battle scene and warriors marching to Valhalla!

The Vikings were very fond of poetry, and metaphorical poetry, in which quite ordinary words were replaced by various flowery names associated with them. So there were shields with the name "Victory Board", "Network of spears" (the spear was called "Shield Fish"), "Tree of Protection" (direct indication of its functional purpose!), "Sun of War", "Hild Wall" (" Wall of Valkyries ")," Country of Arrows ", etc.

Then came a helmet with a noseband and a chain mail with rather short, not reaching the elbow wide sleeves. But the helmets of the Vikings did not receive such lush names, although it is known that King Adils' helmet had the name “Battle Boar”. Helmets had either a conical or hemispherical shape, some of them were supplied with half masks that protected the nose and eyes, well, and a simple noseband in the form of a rectangular metal plate that descended on the nose had almost every helmet. Some helmets had a decoration in the form of curved eyebrows decorated with silver or copper. In this case, the surface of the helmet was in the habit of painting, in order to protect it from corrosion and ... "to distinguish its own from others." For the same purpose, a special “battle sign” was painted on it.


The so-called “Wendel era” helmet (550 - 793) from a shipboard burial in Wendel, Upland, Sweden. Exhibited at the Museum of History in Stockholm.

The chain mail was called “shirt of rings”, but like the shield, it could have been given various poetic names, for example, “Blue Shirt”, “Battle Cloth”, “Arrow Net” or “Cloak for the Fight”. The rings on the viking chainmail that has reached our time are made flattened and are overlapped with each other, like rings for key chains. This technology dramatically accelerated their production, so that mail among the "northern people" was not something unusual or too expensive type of armor. She was looked at as a “uniform” for a warrior, that's all. The early chain mail had short sleeves, and they reached the hips. Longer chain mails were inconvenient because the Vikings had to row them. But already in the XI century, their length, judging by some specimens, has increased markedly. For example, Harald Hardrada’s mail reached the middle of the calf and was so strong that “no weapon it could not break. " However, it is also known that the Vikings often dumped their chain mail because of their gravity. For example, this is exactly what they did before the battle at Stamford Bridge in 1066.


Viking helmet from the University of Oslo Archeological Museum.

The English historian Christopher Gravette, who analyzed many ancient Norse sagas, proved that because the Vikings had armor and shields, most of the injuries were on their feet. That is, by the laws of war (if only war has any laws!), Sword strikes on the legs were completely tolerated. That is why, probably, one of its most popular names (well, apart from such magnificent names as “Long and Sharp”, “Flame of Odin”, “Golden Handle”, and even ... “Damage to the battle cloth”!) Was “Nogokus” "- the nickname is very eloquent and much explaining! At the same time, the best blades delivered to Scandinavia from France, and already there, on the spot, local craftsmen attached to them handles made of walrus bone, horns and metal, the latter usually encrusted with gold or silver or copper wire. The blades were usually encrusted too, and could have letters and patterns laid out on them. Their length was approximately 80-90, see, and are known as double-edged, single-edged blades, similar to huge kitchen knives. The latter were the most common among the Norwegians, whereas in Denmark there were no swords of this type found by archaeologists. However, in both cases, they were equipped with longitudinal grooves from the tip to the handle to reduce the weight. Viking swords have been very short and literally pinched the fighter's hand between the top and the crosshair so that it does not move anywhere in battle. The sheath of the sword is always wooden and covered with leather. From the inside, they were also plastered with leather, waxed with a cloth or sheepskin, and oiled to protect the blade from rust. Usually, the Vikings ’belt mount on the belt is depicted vertical, but it’s worth noting that the rower’s horizontal position of the sword on the belt is more suitable, in all respects more comfortable for him, especially if he is on board the ship.


Viking sword with the inscription: "Ulfbert." National Museum in Nuremberg.

The sword was required by the Viking not only in battle: he had to die with the sword in his hand, only then could one expect that you would get to Valhalla, where gilded wards, like the gods, according to the Vikings, were feasting on valiant warriors.


Another similar blade with the same inscription from the first half of the 9th century from the National Museum in Nuremberg.

In addition, they had several types of axes, spears (skillful spear throwers were highly respected by the Vikings), and, of course, bows and arrows, from which even kings, who were proud of this skill, accurately shot! Interestingly, for some reason, axes were given either female names associated with the names of gods and goddesses (for example, King Olaf had an ax called Hel on the name of the goddess of death), or ... names of trolls! But in general, it was enough to put a Viking on a horse so that he would not yield to the same Frankish riders. That is, the chain mail, helmet and round shield at that time were ample means of protection for both the infantryman and the rider. Moreover, such a weapon system has spread throughout Europe almost everywhere by the beginning of the XI century, and the mail has almost supplanted metal-scale armor. Why did it happen? But only because the Hungarians, the last of the Asian nomads who had come to Europe before that, by that time had already settled in the plains of Pannonia and now began to defend it themselves from outside invasions. At the same time, the threat from horse-drawn archery from the bow abruptly weakened, and the chain mail immediately pressed the lamellar shells - more reliable, but much heavier and not too comfortable to wear. But the crosshairs of the swords by this time began to bend more and more to the sides, giving them a crescent-shaped side, so that the riders could be more comfortable to hold them in their hands, or lengthen the handle itself, and such changes occurred at that time everywhere among the most different peoples! As a result, since about 900, the swords of European warriors have become much more comfortable compared to old swords, but most importantly, their number among riders in heavy weapons has increased significantly.


Sword of Mammen (Jutland, Denmark). National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

At the same time, in order to possess such a sword, a lot of art was required. After all, they fought in a completely different way than it is shown in our movies. That is, they simply did not fence, but inflicted blows rarely, but with all their might, giving the value of the power of each strike, and not their number. They also tried not to strike with the sword about the sword, so as not to spoil it, but dodged the blows, or took them on a shield (substituting it at an angle) or on Umbon. At the same time, slipping from the shield, the sword could well have injured the enemy in the leg (and this, not to mention the specially aimed blows to the feet!), And maybe this was one of the reasons why the Normans so often called your swords "Nogokus"!


Stuttgart Psalter. 820-830 Stuttgart Regional Württemberg Library. Miniature depicting two Vikings.

Preferring to fight hand-to-hand enemies, the Vikings, however, skillfully used bows and arrows as well, fighting with them both at sea and on land! For example, the Norwegians considered “famous arrows”, and the word “bow” in Sweden sometimes meant the warrior himself. The length of the bow, bent in the shape of the letter “D”, which was found in Ireland, is 73 inches (or 185 cm). Until 40, arrows were carried around the waist in a cylindrical quiver. The tips of the arrows were made very skillfully and could be faceted and with grooves. As noted here, in the course of the Vikings there were also axes of several types, as well as the so-called “winged spears” with a crossbar (it did not allow the tip to enter the body too deeply!) And a long faceted tip of leaf-like or triangular shape.


Viking sword handle. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.

As for how the Vikings acted in battle and what methods they used, we know that the favorite technique of the Vikings was the “wall of shields” - a massive phalanx of soldiers built in several (five or more) rows, in which the most well-armed stood in front, and those who had worse weapons - from behind. There is a lot of controversy about how such a wall was built from shields. Modern literature casts doubt on the assumption that the shields overlapped each other, since this obstructed the freedom of movement in battle. However, the tombstone of the 10th century in Gosforth from Cumbria contains a relief depicting overlapping shields for most of their width, which narrowed the front line to 18 inches (45,7 cm) for each person, that is, almost half a meter. It also depicts a wall of shields and tapestry from Oseberg IX century. Modern cinematographers and stage setters using weapons reproductions and Viking constructions have noticed that in close combat the soldiers needed a lot of space to swing with a sword or ax, so tightly closed shields are nonsense! Therefore, the hypothesis is supported that, perhaps, they were closed only in the starting position to reflect the very first blow, and then they opened up by themselves and the fight turned into a general fight.


Replica of an ax. According to Petersen's typology Type L or Type M, made on the model from the Tower in London.

The Vikings didn’t shy away from peculiar heraldry: in particular, they had combat banners with images of dragons and monsters. The Christian king Olaf could have had a standard with the image of a cross, but for some reason preferred the image of a serpent on it. But most of the Viking flags carried the image of a crow. However, the latter is understandable, since the crows were considered the birds of Odin himself - the main god of Scandinavian mythology, the ruler of all other gods and the god of war, and was most directly associated with battlefields, over which, as we know, the crows always circled.


Viking ax. Docklands Museum, London.


The most famous Viking hatchet, inlaid with silver and gold, from Mammen (Jutland, Denmark). Third quarter of the tenth century. Stored in the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.

The basis of the Viking battle system was the same "pig" as that of the Byzantine horsemen - a wedge-shaped structure with a narrowed front. It was believed that he was invented by none other than Odin himself, which speaks of the significance for them of this tactical device. At the same time, two warriors stood in the first row, three in the second, five in the third, which gave them the opportunity to fight very harmoniously, both all together and separately. The wall of the shields of the Vikings could also build not only frontally, but also in the form of a ring. This was done, for example, by Harald Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where his soldiers had to cross their swords with the warriors of King Harold Godwinson of England: “a long and rather thin line with wings bending backwards to form an adversary.” The commanders were protected by a separate wall of shields, the soldiers of which rejected the projectiles flying at them. Only the Vikings, like all other infantrymen, were inconvenient to fight the cavalry, although even when they retreated, they knew how to save and quickly restore their structures, and win time.


Luka Viking saddles from the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen.

The first defeat to the Vikings, the cavalry of the Franks (the best at that time in Western Europe), was inflicted in the Battle of Soucort in 881, where they lost 8 - 9 thousand people. The defeat was unexpected for them. Although the Franks could lose this battle. The fact is that they made a serious tactical mistake by splitting their ranks in pursuit of prey, which gave the Vikings an advantage in a counterattack. But the second onslaught of the Franks again threw the Hiking Vikings back, although, despite the losses, they did not lose their line. The Franks also could not break through the wall of shields, bristling with long spears. But they could do nothing when the Franks began to throw spears and darts. Then the advantage of the cavalry over the infantry Franks proved to the Vikings more than once. So the Vikings knew the power of the cavalry and had their own riders. But they still lacked large equestrian units, because it was difficult for them to transport horses on their ships!
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    16 January 2017 06: 59
    As soon as I read about the link to the English historian, I quit! Shpakovsky do you have your own opinion? Constantly referring to the arrogant historians! I understand that they give a little money for it, but isn’t it yourself disgusting?
    1. +20
      16 January 2017 07: 24
      You are a funny person, however, where does your personal opinion?
      The link is given as a refutation of a single post about the Western opinion of the Vikings.
      And the whole subsequent article is a very extensive compilation on a topic compiled from various sources. Actually, here is the opinion of the author.
      But as the Chukchi writer says, the Chukchi is not a reader, why do you have your own opinion.
      For me, the article is somewhat disheveled, the attempt to fit the immensity into one article did not quite succeed. But as a general illustration of the issue and an occasion to review it laughing
      1. +9
        17 January 2017 13: 40
        Quote: rasteer
        For me, the article is somewhat disheveled, the attempt to fit the immensity into one article did not quite succeed.

        So I got the impression that the author started about one thing, got carried away, switched to another, came back ... There is no thought, concept, which the author would adhere to. In general, I liked the article, although I did not find any revelations in it. Lyapov, as if, is not there either. Normal article.
        The only thing I would like to note is "Modern filmmakers and directors of historical scenes, using reproductions of weapons and the construction of the Vikings, noticed that in a close fight, the soldiers needed a lot of space to swing a sword or ax, so tightly closed shields are nonsense! Therefore, the hypothesis is supported that, perhaps, they were closed only in the initial position in order to reflect the very first blow, and then they opened by themselves and the battle turned into a general fight. "
        Without pretending to be a historical discovery, I will say that a dense formation, half-turned shoulder to shoulder, when the shield was layered on the shield, was used more for attack than for defense. Such a formation, consisting of five, six, or even ten or twelve rows, in which the fighter standing in the front row with his back rests on the shield of the fighter in the next row, and each row pushes those in front, thereby multiplying the total force of pressure on the enemy formation, is most effective when attacking shortly in order to break through the enemy formation, forcing the enemy to back away, retreat backwards. The disintegration of the formation in battle is a sure defeat, because the opportunity to act as a single fist is lost, the opportunity to cover each other is lost, everyone begins to act on their own. When the enemy's formation sagged, broke through and disintegrated as a result of a dense attack, when the most stubborn fighters, who did not want to retreat, were trampled into the ground, and the rest already began to "give on sneakers" - only then and not earlier than a dense formation of attackers (exclusively at the signal of the commander !) could disintegrate in order to pursue and destroy the retreating enemy. Here - yes, here you also need a place for swing and you need to run quickly, both fleeing and catching up. And the showdown itself was more like "who will push whom" than "who will interrupt and cut whom". So one can forget about the opinion of "modern filmmakers and stage directors". They want showiness in these scenes, not efficiency.
        A real medieval infantry battle looked outrageously prosaic. Two troops went out into the clearing, converged and puffed. On the line of contact, someone is trying to beat someone, but without much success or even hope of such success. In the middle - shield to shield, body to body. The back rows are pressing hard on the front. And then one side begins to slowly hand over. Half a step back, one step ... The second one starts to press, and at some point on "one or two, they took" the first line breaks up, the back rows run, the front ones fall under the enemy's feet. The winners in an organized manner finish off the remnants of those who do not want to run (they are crushed by the total mass of a dense formation), after which a horn signal sounds (or a horn, or a cymbal, or a drum), the formation of the winners crumbles and then only the pursuit and extermination of the running enemy, who you can't let it stop and recover. Some commanders also released cavalry for this business, specially reserved.
        This is how it is.
        1. +2
          17 January 2017 14: 16
          Quote: Luga
          The real medieval battle of the infantry looked outrageously prosaic. Two troops entered the clearing, came together and puffed.

          As far as I remember, this concept of pushing each other with shields has not been confirmed either by historians or reenactors.
          1. +6
            17 January 2017 18: 21
            Quote: brn521
            As far as I remember, this concept of pushing each other with shields has not been confirmed either by historians or reenactors.


            The concept for many is controversial, of course. Perhaps I am her supporter precisely because I am neither a professional historian, nor a reenactor, although both of them are in my circle of contacts. The fact is that even in my circle of contacts people are involved in football hooliganism and participated in real street battles, when the number of participants on each side is up to three hundred people. And from communicating with them, I realized that the one who fights in the ranks has a huge advantage over a disparate crowd, despite the fact that the formation largely connects movements. Breaking down the enemy’s system is the main and most difficult task in battle, the rest is a matter of technology. This applies, of course, to fights in which at least 30 people participate on each side.
            The hooligans differ from historians and reenactors (which are also historians) in that it is important for them to win in battle, as this is their only opportunity not to raid heavy lule from opponents. Therefore, tactics - building, advancing to the battlefield, managing the battle (yes, even that!), Are not a historical convention for them, but a rough reality, because the price of defeat is numerous tremors, broken teeth, broken ribs, etc. Thus, the hooligans have such an experience that historians and reenactors are deprived of, the group fights of which, nevertheless, are more reminiscent of the show. Can this experience be used to reconstruct historical events? I think it is applicable completely.
            1. +3
              17 January 2017 19: 44
              I agree with you in many respects, but personal experience of participating in both reenactment congresses and Russian martial arts festivals in particular (wall to wall) says that using tight construction is far from an axiom, if only because the opponent didn’t always put a wall, but actively maneuvering, and even if it was set it could be a spearmen’s system, and not pushing such a system in an unfortunate way, here you need to open the system in order to cut the poles and break through the line of tips, where the spearman is defenseless. In addition, a dense structure is little maneuverable and its flanks are always at risk.
              Here is the "pig" described by Vyacheslav most likely always built in a dense formation, since its task was to break through the enemy system.
              There is another effective construction that has been tested by time and real practice and is quite suitable for the Vikings, this is the formation of riot police.
            2. +2
              18 January 2017 12: 14
              Quote: Luga
              The concept for many is controversial, of course.

              It is about pushing with shields, and not about the need to build as such. How many people will it take to "push through" a spear against the ground with a shield? And here, for example, is the only known use of a two-handed sword. In combat, not fencing, the weapon is stupid, many well-known samples had a representative purpose, but there are also quite combat ones. Among the possible use cases is just breaking through such a front. A physically pumped character in good plate armor first cuts a place among the spears in order to squeeze closer to the enemy. And more often it simply pushes the forest of spears, acting with a sword as a lever. And then, using the half-sword technique, he tries to pick out this enemy from behind the shields. You can do it the old fashioned way, with an ax. But in the first place it is hard with an ax, you will reproach faster than you will overwhelm someone. And you need a place to swing. A two-handed hack is worse, but short-handed it can act like a short spear or a crowbar. As for the history. Who is our best gnawer of ancient phalanxes? Legionnaires. In this case, among the breakthrough of Roman documentation, there should have been a lot of evidence of pushing with shields. Which is clearly not observed.
              1. +3
                18 January 2017 13: 59
                Pushing pushing is different. Pushing spears with shit is of course nonsense, on the contrary, spearmen and pikemen of antiquity regularly resorted to the reverse maneuver. Another thing is the melee of two groups armed with short weapons, both chopping and piercing. Here the work of the shield in the shield is quite appropriate. On the topic of two-handed weapons, this is still a later era, when the full armor and pikemen of the Renaissance spread everywhere. At the time of the Vikings, two-handed people were at first unbelievably expensive due to the complexity of their manufacture, unreliable due to the quality of the raw materials and their effectiveness was not in demand, there was nothing to destroy the ax and the ax was sufficient and more universal.
                1. +1
                  19 January 2017 12: 19
                  Quote: rasteer
                  Another thing is the melee of two groups armed with short weapons, both chopping and piercing. Here the work of the shield in the shield is quite appropriate.

                  And what, pushed? Some science fiction writer recalls the development of the topic. Pavezes (growth two-handed shields) with shield bearers chained to them, fastened together by chains. Such a barrier can only be pushed through with a bulldozer. And it is not difficult to do, only an additional convoy will be required for these shields.
                  Quote: rasteer
                  On the topic of two-handed weapons this is still a later era

                  We take the sarissa, shorten it, we get the opportunity to work in about the same style. Crush the spears, get to the shields and start picking the shield bearers themselves.
                  1. +1
                    19 January 2017 13: 22
                    And what, pushed?

                    But no laughing This option is possible, as a result of a collision. No one will go on the attack without gaps between the lines, it’s stupidly not convenient, and it’s easier to take a hit by closing the lines. So here everything depends on tactics. Good illustrative material is provided by the work of the police of different countries in dispersing demonstrations.
                    Take the sarissa, shorten it,
                    I did not quite understand why shortening the sarissa would be an ordinary spear which was used by both Vikings and their enemies. You kind of started talking about a two-handed sword and its analogues, but their time came later.
                    I propose to Perumov to forgive his chain gnomes-pikemen, as they say, everyone will offend the artist, but understand and caress .... wassat
                    1. 0
                      20 January 2017 11: 48
                      Quote: rasteer
                      This option is possible, as a result of a collision

                      And what is the use? Well, they are pushing - then we will retreat, we’ll scatter to the sides, hit the flanks and rear. While the compacted wedge of attackers will understand the situation, but the regrouping will begin, some will already fall. So in the end, there will be one fist of the heavy infantry, which in the sides, in the back of FIGs you pick. But without support.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      I don’t quite understand why shorten the sarissa to get a regular spear

                      I cited Sarissa as an example, proceeding from the fact that the indicated instrument does not require any special tip. And it’s not a spear, but something even shorter so that you can wield in tight spaces. Well and durable, because not so much stabbing as how to act as a lever.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      started a conversation about a two-handed sword and its analogues, but their time came later.

                      Well, the style of work against the enemy will remain the same. The only thing is that when it comes to individual fights, a two-handed sword against a sword will seem more comfortable than a stub of a spear. Handle, guard, balance, all things.
                      1. +1
                        21 January 2017 20: 56
                        Well, they are pushing - then we will retreat, we’ll scatter to the sides, hit the flanks and rear. While the compacted wedge of attackers will understand the situation, but the regrouping will begin, some will already fall.
                        It is immediately obvious that you have little idea of ​​the degree of coherence, mobility and controllability of a close formation of several hundred people (albeit professionals) with long-arms weapons and in a stressful battle situation.
                  2. +1
                    21 January 2017 20: 53
                    Pavezes (growth two-handed shields) with shield bearers chained to them, fastened together by chains. Such a barrier can only be pushed through with a bulldozer.
                    Delusional delirium. We kill at least one of those bound in a chain. Falling, he turns into an unrealistic burden for neighboring fighters. Which is no longer up to an active battle. And this whole chain very quickly turns into meat. Dead meat.
                    We take the sarissa, shorten it, we get the opportunity to work in about the same style. Crush the spears, get to the shields and start picking the shield bearers themselves.
                    Why spoil sarisa for this (consider an ordinary peak) if normal spears have been known since the time of the nearly Stone Age? .. fool With a normal large leaf-shaped tip, allowing to apply both piercing and chopping blows. Yes, any kovyryalovo in the manner of godendag halberds and other runes with alshpis is much more convenient for this. If you chop off the peak (sarisa) to 1,5-2 m in length, then with its small tip you will actually get a dart. And it’s small because with a total length of up to 6 meters, a large tip is difficult to balance with a counter-flow-in. The total weight of the weapon will be sooo awkward.
              2. +4
                18 January 2017 20: 50
                Quote: brn521
                Who is the best gnawer of the ancient phalanges? Legionnaires. In this case, among the breakthroughs of the Roman documentation there should have been a lot of evidence of pushing shields. Which is clearly not observed.

                In ancient times, the infantry battle in the ranks was really perfected. It is likely that the Vikings just had a military advantage over the others at the dawn of the Middle Ages precisely because the former restored the combat formation during the battle. And accordingly, they lost it when their opponents learned to fight in the ranks.
                As for the confrontation of the legions with their manipulations and cohorts and the Greek phalanges, I do not see any contradictions with the theory that I defend. Quite the contrary - confirmation.
                Let's start with the phalanx. A dense formation, shoulder to shoulder, covered with shields and bristling with spears. On the march, the distance between the ranks is about one and a half meters, in a collision with the enemy, the front rows (spears no more than two meters in length, i.e. the distance between the first rows of opponents at the moment of the beginning of the collision is no more than a meter and a half) slow down the movement, the rear ones catch up by setting spears between the soldiers, "piercing" the mass of the enemy army and continue to prop up the front. With the approach of the next rows, the distance between the front rows of opponents decreases, the number of spears that "pierce" the enemy's formation increases, and the total pressure on the enemy formation increases. Losses of the enemy in the front line and constantly increasing pressure (the hoplites, like no one else, knew how to keep pace and move in sync) overturns the front rows, forcing the rear to retreat. It is wrong to think that in front of the formation at the very beginning of the collision there were ALL spears, a kind of hedgehog. So an elite two-handed swordsman who broke through the tips of the front row collided with the EXTENDING spearheads of the second row, then the third, etc. The death of such a hero is inevitable, since the spears, moreover, not only advanced, but also made sharp stabbing movements back and forth. And then, in your opinion, the "forest of spears" pushed apart with a sword and that's it - the system is practically defenseless. Not so simple.

                Now about the legions. Indeed, the legionnaires knew how to deal with the phalanges. But they didn’t do it at the expense of ramming a frontal blow, with such a blow the phalanx could pierce only the same phalanx. The legionnaires, due to their manipulative order (you remember, the cohorts were staggered in three lines), created uneven resistance along the front of the phalanx attack, thereby violating the monolithic nature of its structure and creating gaps in it that individual fighters could break into or even entire units armed, notice, with smooths, that is, short swords, almost daggers. It was such a weapon, which did not deliver a crushing blow, but which does not require much space for a swing, was most effective in close combat, when the shield is to the shield, and the body to the body. It was for such a battle that the legionnaires were equipped and it was precisely such a battle that they tried to impose on the enemy. Volley of pilums and forward, in cramped conditions, but not in insult.
                Both the Romans and the Greeks were apologists for fighting in a tight formation, when the front ranks are propped up by the rear ones, and only 1/6 or even 1/10 of the unit's soldiers are fighting directly. True, these fighters ("festliners", as they say in near football, from the English "first line") are the most experienced and strong.
                So the practice of using phalanxes and legions in ancient times "the theory of pushing with shields" does not at all refute, colleague.
                hi
                1. +2
                  18 January 2017 23: 25
                  The Vikings, most likely, differed from the Macedonians and Romans in their ability to change their battle formation right in the course of the battle - "pig", "turtle", dense formation, loose formation, etc.

                  Those. Viking tactics are the highest stage in the development of contact foot combat using cold steel.
                2. +2
                  19 January 2017 13: 40
                  Quote: Luga
                  It is likely that the Vikings just had a military advantage over the others at the dawn of the Middle Ages precisely because the former restored the combat formation during the battle.

                  I have been postponed by the prevailing opinion about those Vikings that are raiders, and not those who were united in the army. And it is there that individual preparation is celebrated. Those. one Viking in the shortest possible time could injure or kill a dozen militias on the principle of one blow - one corpse.
                  Quote: Luga
                  So the elite two-handed swordsman

                  Well, or no less elite Viking with an ax.
                  Quote: Luga
                  bursting through the tips of the front row collided with retractable tips of copies of the second row, then the third, etc. The death of such a hero is inevitable, since the spears, moreover, not only advanced, but also made sharp, stitching movements back and forth.

                  And these spears were hindered by the backs and shields of their own comrades. However, I do not recall information about special "assault" units armed in this way. Rather, it is a private initiative of individual characters who had the opportunity to better arm themselves and make heroes in the front rows.
                  Quote: Luga
                  And then, in your opinion, the "forest of spears" pushed apart with a sword and that's it - the system is practically defenseless. Not so simple.

                  The fighters in the front row of the phalanx are almost defenseless. They can neither leave to the side, nor throw a spear / shield.
                  Quote: Luga
                  True, these fighters ("festliners", as they say in near football, from the English "first line") are the most experienced and strong.

                  If we are talking about "those" legionnaires, then the most experienced are just the triarii. And the front ones are only gaining experience and are practicing the skills they have hammered into practice.
                  Quote: Luga
                  The legionnaires, due to their manipulative system (you remember, the cohorts were staggered in three lines), created uneven resistance along the front of the phalanx attack

                  Well. They were not pushing with their shields. They used the sluggishness of the phalanx. The phalanx had to move as a whole and replenish the front rows only at the expense of the rear. As a result, most of the Phalangists could not fight against manipuli at all, they stood stupidly and held the line, while their comrades in some area were banally "showered with hats."
                  Quote: Luga
                  So the practice of using phalanxes and legions in ancient times "the theory of pushing with shields" does not at all refute, colleague.

                  And does not confirm. Moreover, there is an explicit principle of consumables, not designed for who pushes someone. The front ranks suffered losses, lost the one who did not have the opportunity to enter the replenishment, restoring the system. Let's get back to the picture itself:
                  Quote: Luga
                  In the middle - shield to shield, body to body. The back rows are pressing hard on the front. And then one side begins to slowly hand over. Half a step back, a step ... The second one starts to press and at some point, the first line breaks up on "one or two, took", the back rows run, the front rows fall under the enemy's feet

                  It is highly doubtful. Why do the rear ones run, and the front ones lie down? After all, on the line of collision, the fighters are so compressed that they cannot fight at all. Well, the line gave in, began to roll back, and what's the use? On the contrary, the "winner" runs the risk of pushing himself to the point that he himself opens his flanks and rear. Moreover, we are looking at an intermediate version. Well, I pressed the enemy in front of me with a shield, took a step forward. As a result, the sides of his neighbors, not covered by shields, were opened to me, but my sides also opened on both sides. The same applies to the phalanx, which decided to wedge itself between the maniples - it will destroy its own system. It's another matter if the enemy in front of you was killed or wounded. You are not moving forward, since you are not and not a suicide bomber, but the unprotected sides of his neighbors in the ranks have opened up in front of you, which is what you are trying to take advantage of. And a fighter from the second enemy row will urgently move forward in order to have time to restore the formation of shields. And when the replenishment is over, the enemy will suddenly find two new unprotected flanks at the place of the breach.
                  1. +2
                    19 January 2017 15: 52
                    I have been postponed by the prevailing opinion about those Vikings that are raiders, and not those who were united in the army.
                    .
                    Yes, but this is not a banal gop-stop for you, these raiders occupied Normandy and England, essentially a professional robbery army.
                    If we are talking about "those" legionnaires, then the most experienced are just the triarii.
                    You are confusing the different eras of Rome, the Triaries have never encountered the Greco-Macedonian phalanx, there were classical legionnaires with pilums and gladiuses. Thanks to this, the legion possessed greater maneuverability.
                    And the legion never used a tight build against the phalanx; this is really unrealistic. But during the intra-imperial dismantling of the legions, this was quite real, because throwing pilums to the legions had no choice but to converge in close combat.
                    And does not confirm.
                    Let's just say that if two detachments adhered to the same tactics, namely victory in the center of the system and were armed approximately the same (sword, ax, shield), then such a push would become inevitable.
                    Very doubtful. Why are the rear ones running and the front ones?
                    Have you ever participated in a wall on a wall, of course there are different options for it, but the most popular is who pushes someone. So there, in the center, a blockage regularly occurs, and then whoever has more on his feet, he will crush in the end. Imagine one detachment built with gaps between the rows, even if it closed the row to a half-turn, and the second goes and starts to push in the center and the backs support the front ones, they push the first row, either overturning the enemy, or pushing him to the second row, but most likely just pushing it to the sides will thereby break the enemy’s formation, and then many tactical options, but historically the heavy infantry attack with a compact formation in the center brought victory, the exceptions are battles where the enemy had a numerical superiority Being in the cavalry or gunners. And by the way, a constant appeal to the legions and phalanges is not appropriate for the Vikings on the wrong scale.
                    1. 0
                      20 January 2017 13: 34
                      Quote: rasteer
                      Yes, but this is not a banal gop-stop.

                      Nevertheless, initially these are separate harmonious groups scattered around the ships. So advanced in military matters that it was useless to arm the peasants against them. The opposition required a similar preparation and coherence, the level of about the prince and his squad. But in order to show real individual training, the Viking needs to use free space, and not push shields with militias.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      You are confusing the different eras of Rome, the triaries have never encountered the Greco-Macedonian phalanx

                      Nevertheless, experienced fighters who proved their skill and aptitude for discipline were not placed in the first row. It was simply disadvantageous in terms of the existence of the unit. In the front rows too much loss. But the rearguard will be left without work, or vice versa will come into effect too late, when losses and panic inflict become too big a problem.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      But during the intra-imperial dismantling of the legions, it was quite real, because throwing pilums to the legions had no choice but to converge in close combat

                      But did not push?
                      Quote: rasteer
                      if two detachments adhered to the same tactics, namely victory in the center of the system and were armed approximately the same (sword, ax, shield), then such a push would become inevitable.

                      Only if it is some kind of heavy bands in full plates and assault helmets. Otherwise, losses will come to the fore, rather than pulling the front line. Those. will kill each other, and not try to budge and push back.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      Have you ever participated in wall to wall,

                      At the level of individual fights in youth, no more. Not a reconstruction, of course, but some ideas developed. Without copies in such a dense construction there is nothing to do. But since we are such slovens, there are no copies, there are no bows, and for some reason there are shields, albeit small ones, then I am more inclined to the option described below. The worked out small groups (deuces-three-fours), which simply disperse or scatter to the sides, preferring to fall on the flanks and rear. Or having waited for the rolling front to fall apart. The Viking armament is somehow not particularly designed to fight in the line. There, other shields are needed, good greaves, helmets, different spears and bits instead of swords. A typical Viking weapon is a combat weapon.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      thereby breaking the enemy’s order

                      a broken formation of the enemy is when you have a line of shields, and the enemy has gaps in this line. These holes cannot be created by simple pressure, because The line of contact is common. So there will be a shield against a shield. Will you have to drop someone for this? And why would he fall, his back from his back? Wounding or killing is another matter. So we look at the picture. I go ahead with all my might, and the opponent, instead of pushing with all my might, strives for me either to screw an ax with a helmet, or to poke a chain mail under the hem. What will be the result? Especially considering that some boobs rested in my back and did not allow me to move normally? As a result, I will fall down under my own feet, along with my shield. On this victorious progress will end. Therefore, I doubt very much that in real combat, the rear tried to put pressure on the front to push the front. Rather, they stood in line to replace the fallen and close the gaps.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      historically the heavy infantry attack with a compact formation in the center brought victory

                      Once the usual phalanx provided victory. And there were so primitive battles that the outcome of the war was decided by fights, or a clash of the front ranks. After that, the side that was the first to lose fighting enthusiasm scattered and allowed itself to be killed in stabs in the back. So with a compact system like that. Sometimes he broke through the enemy’s system and he began to scatter. But there were also tricky options when the enemy’s system did not collapse, but surrendered. And here the problems of the compact system had already begun - how strong were his flanks and rear and how much he could regroup with such a tight construction. Moreover, attackers in a losing state initially. Once you move forward in the line, it makes no difference whether you can do this or not. You may have a spear, slingshot, thicket or puddle in front. You can be hurt. But you have nowhere to go, you have to stomp forward, no matter what. Of course, this will turn into considerable blood.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      they will push the first row, either overturning the enemy, or pushing him to the second row, but most likely they will simply push along the sides thereby breaking the enemy’s line

                      Well, the second row will also give back. And after him the third. This is one of the benefits of a regular army - they know how to retreat. The most delicious is the flanks and rear. Does the enemy want to expose them under attack? The flag in his hands, let him stomp even to the Indian Ocean.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      and then a lot of tactical options

                      Well, this is understandable even during the Second World War. When the group, which tried to advance and surround the enemy, received a sudden blow to the base and itself was surrounded, because it violated its own front.
                      Quote: rasteer
                      And by the way, a constant appeal to the legions and phalanges is not appropriate for the Vikings on the wrong scale.

                      Up or down? The Greeks do not care. They have 200 people - they are building a phalanx. There are 5000, they are building anyway. They and weapons for this phalanx are sharpened. And then the Vikings, imprisoned for fights. And suddenly they begin to build a phalanx. And since they forgot the spears at home, it turns out some kind of nonsense. Moreover, we are for some fig make them fight with the same crowd of the same Vikings, who forgot the spear at home. We push each other so that there are no gaps between the rows and the maneuverability is reduced to zero. What for? This is not a war, this is some kind of sport.
                      1. 0
                        20 January 2017 14: 33
                        Quote: brn521
                        Only if it is some kind of heavy bands in full plates and assault helmets.
                        You obviously outplayed some of the wrong games.
                        You read the history of ancient wars, there were neither fullplates nor assault helmets, but the tactics were surprisingly monotonous butting in the center of heavy infantry under cover from the flanks of either light infantry or cavalry.
                        Nevertheless, experienced fighters who proved their skill and aptitude for discipline were not placed in the first row.
                        The statement is more than controversial, it all depended on the chosen tactics. In early Rome, the Triaries were in reserve, but in the late when Rome came to equip barbarians with mercenaries and the legionnaire began to buy weapons at his own expense, the most experienced armored wars were in the front line. Landsknecht and Swiss pikemen did the same.
                        Up or down? The Greeks do not care.
                        The Vikings basically had a smaller scale, do not offend the Greeks, again, the whole point is in the period, at the sunset of Hellenism, when they adopted the Macedonian tactics of pikemen, it was really difficult for them to reconstruct, but in the classical period the individual preparation for the war was higher, there is a description of how The Olympic Games in my opinion Thebes and Athens started a war and the battles between small groups of warriors took place right in the middle of Olympia during the competitions, there couldn’t be a conversation about any phalanx.
                        This is not a war, this is some kind of sport.
                        wassat Oddly enough, war and sport have common roots.
                        I won’t comment on the rest. We’ll overflow from empty to empty.
                        Look, is it really true that the police work during the dispersal of demonstrators, by the way, there are a lot of videos from the Maidan, there are a lot of things to see, you can shoot from successful angles, so to speak, as if ordered. What I am suggesting is that now the only place where two organized groups can actually clash without the massive use of firearms is these "riots". The Maidan is also indicative of the Maidan there were very well organized, developed tactics and so on, and modern special equipment was inactively used against them.
                3. +1
                  19 January 2017 22: 15
                  There is one "small" nuance in your vision of the issue, namely - the manipulative system of the Roman legion was introduced not to create an UNEQUAL system with protrusions (here the situation is far from unambiguous, since a legionnaire could have received a falcata in the side), but for better maneuvering on the battlefield, because alas, it almost always has an uneven relief. The phalanx is good for short strikes, and the manipulation order is more maneuverable and controllable, allowing it to move faster. And at the moment of the upcoming collision, the maniples were aligned and became a phalanx. Only not in one, but in three lines of 5-10 people in a row (depending on the situation).
                  1. 0
                    20 January 2017 12: 01
                    Quote: Stilet
                    the Roman legion's anipular system was not introduced to create an uneven system with protrusions

                    As far as I remember the history of the issue, in the case of the phalanges, they also tried to create unevenness. But not at the front line, but at the rear. And they puzzled how to do it faster and more successfully.
                    Quote: Stilet
                    at the time of the impending clash, the maniples leveled and became a phalanx.

                    Typical construction, the most natural.
                    Quote: Stilet
                    Only not in one, but in three lines of 5 to 10 people in a row

                    This is not a phalanx, but a maniple, or whatever it is, stretched into a line. The phalanx is characterized by a dense construction from edge to edge. Protection of the flanks required either to use the protection of the terrain, or to have a building width not less than that of the enemy.
                    But that is not the question. At what point did the legionnaires start jostling with phalanx shields instead of fighting normally? Immediately all the training and all the training cat down the drain.
                4. 0
                  24 January 2017 07: 44
                  interestingly it turns out. wedge into the phalanx in the gap, imminent death from other copies, and the Romans knew how to deal with the phalanx precisely wedging themselves in the gap among the copies? !!! that they did not stop 2 or 3 rows of the same copies? modet here is not at all the size of the smoothness? (although it is more successful in close combat) the Romans were simply afraid of everything and everyone in those days! the factor of fear of the Roman legion was enormous. the Romans successfully used slingers, flank attacks of cavalry, tried on catapults and all kinds of mechanical devices against infantry, which upset the ranks of all kinds of phalanges! I think it wasn’t sweet if you move in the ranks of the phalanx, covering your chest and any garbage flies on your head in the form of stones small or large weighing 20-50 kg. And from the side you are poked with cavalry with spears. The Greeks used cavalry little for battle, to a greater extent For pursuit of the enemy or for an ambush, the Romans used cavalry along with the infantry. Remember what the Normans did with their cavalry and darts. And now another nuance, the Germans beat the Roman legions not only in that forest but also in the open, why? Yes, because they used cavalry in the same way and wedged the crowd into gaps with the same smoothness. So, here, basically, there was a tactic to cut the ranks into the 2nd, and even into the 3rd, the spears interfered, in a close formation they just lay around they were under the feet of the system and if they cut the system, they try to erect it back, in the heat of battle from the flanks they begin to put pressure on the center, revealing the back of the cavalry which is crowding the flanks, which is why the Germans always divided the enemy army in tank breakthroughs!
                  1. 0
                    24 January 2017 12: 02
                    Quote: cheap trick
                    interesting turns out. wedge into the phalanx in the gap-imminent death from other copies

                    according to reconstructions known to me, the gap in the row of shields was not used to wedge their carcass there. And in order to quickly prick or cut the enemy, which is located next to the breach and because of this is deprived of full protection. There is not much time for this, since replenishment is pulled from the back rows and the gap is closed by another shield bearer. But with proper training and luck, the replenishment will not have time to restore the system.
                    Quote: cheap trick
                    that they did not stop 2 or 3 rows of the same copies?

                    build an impenetrable forest of copies will not succeed - their own fighters and shields in the front row interfere. Medieval pikemen, by the way, had an advantage in this regard - their shields did not interfere. Thus, it is worth breaking through a short distance and the spears of the enemy are almost not afraid of you. But short blades just right. In the resulting gaps in the wall of the shields, we beat no longer with spears, but with gladiuses, which is much more convenient.
                    Quote: cheap trick
                    the factor of fear of the Roman legion was enormous.

                    Here, the existence of the legion as a self-sustaining and independent universal combat unit is rather important. Even if the legion is thoroughly thinned, it will quickly replenish its ranks and bring the recruits to the right condition. The barbarians could not boast of such. Their best fighters were in the front ranks, died in the first minutes of the battle and then in the coming years there was no one to replace them.
                    Quote: cheap trick
                    Germans beat Roman legions not only in that forest but also in open areas, why?

                    In the end, the legions were no longer the same. Motivation was broken, defensive tactics began to prevail. And the Germans had learned a lot by this time.
                    Quote: cheap trick
                    that is why the Germans in the WWI always tank breakthroughs divided the enemy army into two!

                    German tactical breakthroughs at the beginning of the Second World War are actually a gamble designed for the low level of opposing troops. The Germans themselves admit this, mentioning the mess reigning in such an offensive in the German units. Disrupted their own communications and provision. It all depended on which side of the first is organized, will build a single picture of what is happening and begin to act.
                    1. 0
                      24 January 2017 19: 31
                      thanks buddy
              3. 0
                21 January 2017 20: 44
                In this case, among the breakthroughs of the Roman documentation there should have been a lot of evidence of pushing shields.
                The tactics of the legionnaires was based on depriving the enemy of the shield. For this, pilums were used.
              4. +1
                25 January 2017 07: 31
                But I've come across such a description that in the ranks of that very "pig" of the Vikings, differently armed soldiers alternated. Those. a swordsman with a shield covered himself and the spearman with it, who wielded a heavy, thick spear of a shock type, holding it with both hands. For a continuous system, this is quite possible and is not dangerous with ruptures. since the swordsmen did not fence, but cut and stabbed. Those. the swordsman defended himself with a shield, saving his hand for a decisive blow. Although the author, telling us about swords exclusively with round ends, which were not pricked, apparently did not look at the illustrations for the article. It is obvious that a number of swords in the photo were also piercing, it was just that time and corrosion ate the edge of the blade.
                1. 0
                  25 January 2017 09: 58
                  Quote: Visitor
                  Obviously, a number of swords in the photo were stabbing

                  Only for this, quality material was required. Otherwise, either the sword will be too heavy, or bend at the injection, or will acquire a format unsuitable for cutting.
    2. +17
      16 January 2017 07: 49
      So after all, they studied it longer than us and they have more materials. Only a fool ignores the opinion of a professional. Didn't it cross your mind? Before you have an opinion, you need to turn to the opinions of those who have been doing this for a long time and have recognized authority. In addition, you inattentively read and RASTEER just pointed it out to you - this is not a link, but an indication of the source of available information. As for my personal opinion, of course I have it: if you don’t know how to read, you don’t understand what you read ... Don’t show this to people! They will laugh and ... already laugh!
      1. +4
        16 January 2017 08: 01
        Quote: kalibr
        and an indication of the source of available information.

        We also have our own sources. M. Semyonov "Vikings".
        1. +9
          16 January 2017 08: 44
          This is Maria Semyonova who? This is not a source ... Or rather a secondary source. Primary - when people "held" to objects with their hands, directly worked with the material - they are:
          1. Rudgley R. Barbarians. Secrets of the Dark Ages. L .: Channel 4 Books, 1992.
          2. Oakeshott E. The Archeology of Weapons. Arms and Armor from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry. L .: The Boydell Press, 1999.
          3.Norman AVB, Pottinger D. Warrior to soldier 449 to 1660. L .: Cox & Wyman, Ltd., 1964.
          4.Nicolle D. Romano-Byzantine armies 4th - 9th centuries. L .: Osprey (Men-at-arms series No. 247), 1992.
          5.Newark T. Why knights never used bows (Horse Archery in Western Europe) // Military illustrated. 1995. No.81, February. RR 36-39.
          6.Gravett C. Norman Knight 950 - 1204 AD. L .: Osprey (Warrior series No.1), 1993.
          7. Edge D., Paddock JM Arms and armor of the medieval knight. An illustrated history of Weaponry in middle ages. Avenel, New Jersey, 1996.
          1. +5
            16 January 2017 08: 47
            Quote: kalibr
            Is it Maria Semenova who? This is not the source ...

            However, her work is much more serious than yours. hi
            1. +14
              16 January 2017 09: 06
              Are you laughing, I guess? Do you demand "seriousness" from a popular article in VO? This is a 10000 character compilation as a "general" informational overview. And that's it! Don't ask the 45-heel to shoot at planes too! And if you want "serious" work with links to sources - please, "History of Knightly Armament" (Lomonosov Publishing House).
              1. +6
                16 January 2017 09: 10
                Quote: kalibr
                Do not demand that the 45 heel also shoot at planes!

                So it is necessary to change the caliber. At eight or eight. request Just kidding
              2. +5
                16 January 2017 10: 57
                The 45-mm semi-automatic universal gun 21-K fired at aircraft. The 21-K artillery system, according to the design documentation, was a device of the 45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1932 of the year to the marine machine.
                1. +8
                  16 January 2017 11: 22
                  A 45-mm 21-K semi-automatic universal gun fired at airplanes.

                  yes, only the shells did not have a remote fuse, and the plane could only be hit with a direct hit. Dull and ineffective, and not from a good life set. with respect, hi
              3. +2
                16 January 2017 20: 30
                So there were modifications of the magpie, which fired at planes, the so-called. universal guns, put on 2 small ones "," pikes "and other" MO-shki "and not only
              4. +7
                16 January 2017 21: 57
                Quote: kalibr
                Are you laughing, I guess? Do you demand "seriousness" from a popular article in VO? This is a 10000 character compilation as a "general" informational overview. And that's it! Don't ask the 45-heel to shoot at planes too! And if you want "serious" work with links to sources - please, "History of Knightly Armament" (Lomonosov Publishing House).

                Thanks for the book, for the article.
                I downloaded it with pleasure.
                But dissatisfied with the history of armaments, I simply advise you to go to other pages of topwar.ru
                There are much more reasons to gnaw.
                God the gods Caesar Caesar.
                And it depends only on you which of them you consider yourself.
                Share the discussion of history and technology with its curiosities and politics with its idiots and heroes - different things and each of them is interesting in its own way.

                And do not swear, we must rejoice at the diversity and wide coverage of the interests of the site.

                And then, God forgive us, let's roll to the level of Square neighbors.
                I do not want to be like ...

                With respect, to colleagues.
                Lekov.
                soldier
    3. +8
      16 January 2017 08: 15
      This is a strong move! Since I referred to the English historian, I won’t read everything. They are bad. Do you have your own opinion? Have you heard of the Norman conquest of England?
      1. 0
        16 January 2017 08: 28
        Why is "d" not? And it doesn't fix it.
      2. 0
        19 January 2017 01: 30
        Quote: Dekabrist
        This is a strong move! Since I referred to the English historian, I won’t read everything. They are bad. Do you have your own opinion? Have you heard of the Norman conquest of England?

        Historians conduct work (propaganda) in the interests of their peoples and countries, and referring to enemy propaganda is not even idiocy, it is a betrayal.
        1. +3
          19 January 2017 13: 18
          No comments!!!
          1. 0
            19 January 2017 15: 45
            And you read the history of your country.
            1. +1
              19 January 2017 23: 12
              And you read the history of your country.
              What does she have to do with it? An article about the weapons and tactics of the Norse Vikings? Vyacheslav managed to dodge the politically dangerous moments, he doesn’t always succeed in doing it sometimes, on the contrary. but here it’s perfect, so where does the history of Russia?
    4. +7
      16 January 2017 08: 52
      In fact, Western historiography in a number of areas is much better developed than ours. I know from ancient Rome.
      1. +9
        16 January 2017 09: 12
        That's it! Nobody requires references to English-language historiography ... Chukchi. Or in Russian wooden architecture ... But they know very well what is directly related to their history.
      2. 0
        19 January 2017 01: 32
        Quote: Deniska999
        In fact, Western historiography in a number of areas is much better developed than ours. I know from ancient Rome.

        The disadvantage of the pseudoscience of history is that it cannot be tested and understood. Unlike physics or chemistry - where you understand what you are studying, when studying history you are forced to take the word "authoritative sources". History is religion, not science.
    5. +3
      16 January 2017 12: 31
      The author initially emphasizes that the Vikings are Scandinavians, which is not the case. This is what is written in The Earth Circle.
      “When they went east into the sea, they were attacked by the Vikings. It was zst. They captured both people and good. They killed some of the captured, in others they divided among themselves as slaves. ” And here is another
      “Eirlic Jarl sailed south to the Wendian Country. At Staura, he met several Viking ships and entered into battle with them. He won and killed the Vikings. ”
      1. 0
        18 January 2017 17: 13
        Viking is not a nationality. Viking is a profession.
      2. +1
        18 January 2017 21: 34
        It can be added that "Olaf killed the Vikings wherever he found - both Danes and Wends." Well, there is also a mention of the Curonian Vikings (a branch of the Latvians, those from Courland). Either the Korels or the Novgorodians brought the Sigtun Gate to Novgorod - but in the latest version, they did not rob Sigtuna themselves, but wrestled the loot from the Estonians. In fact, the inhabitants of all the shores of the Baltic have noted!
        1. +1
          19 January 2017 07: 15
          I would have doubted that the Novgorodians went to plunder Sigtuna for the reason "Iba until", that was still a robber city. In fact, ushkuynism was born in him. So they could just go gop on the neighbors, or they could squeeze out from other gopniks, the Baltic in those days was a robber puddle laughing
      3. 0
        25 January 2017 07: 39
        The author initially insists that the Vikings were robbers. And yes, they were mostly Scandinavians. But not exclusively. A warrior of any nationality, attracted by the jarl, could be accepted into the squad and admitted to the oar of the drakkar. Somewhere I read that there was such a custom: even a branded slave, by the will of the jarl or by chance, who sat down on the room (bench for rowers) of the drakkar and took the oar, became free. some analogy with Western custom. what makes the city air free. Therefore, not only a Scandinavian could have a Viking. After all, there was no national unity in the Coastal Brotherhood either. The crews of the pirate ships were not strictly mono-national. It may well be that the Estonians also went to the Vikings, all the more closely adjacent.
    6. 0
      17 January 2017 07: 24
      The Soviet have their own pride.
  2. +1
    16 January 2017 07: 49
    From where is the opinion of chain mail as a uniform. This is still 10-12 kg. valuable iron after all. In addition, the information, although somewhat faster, is done, but only the last stage. Saved somewhere no more than a quarter of the work. At the same time, chain mail requires more frequent repairs and protects worse. I did a survey of armored masters on the features of production. This is now a five-fold difference in price, before the cost should have been close.
    1. +3
      16 January 2017 10: 22
      From the same historical documents. Sources of all the victims of the Normans, from the Romans to Mary, indicate that the Normans were bound by iron. Do not forget that Scandinavia has rich deposits of iron, and they have been actively developed.
      Again, archaeologists dig not only mounds. And if on the battlefield there is a shkilet in chain mail, and a skull in a helmet, and both accessories are not very decorated with iron, then the conclusion suggests itself. I read to someone that the first successes of the Vikings in Great Britain were connected with the fact that, in comparison with the natives, they all had chain mail, helmets and discipline.
    2. +2
      16 January 2017 12: 25
      Actually, chain mail as a "uniform" was characteristic of the "Vikings", that is, a part of the population of Scandinavia who hunted robbery, by the way, not only by sea they could have raided their settled neighbors by land. And if war is the main source of income and the meaning of life (according to beliefs), then the loot was spent on preparing for war, and not on the development of agriculture.
      Despite the obvious shortcomings, chain mail as a means of protection was popular precisely because of its cheapness, ease of repair, and versatility.
      The relatively low price of chain mail was based on the fact that the wire by the then technology could be made from lower quality raw materials and faster than flakes, plates and even more solid armor. Here it is impossible to compare production technologies that existed before 10c. and the way modern blacksmiths work, even the most stubborn reenactors, at least different raw materials.
      1. 0
        18 January 2017 21: 40
        Quote: rasteer
        According to the technologies of the time, wire could be made from lower-quality raw materials and faster than flakes, plates, and even more so solid armor.


        Do not forget: the art of dragging the wire was long lost, it was stupidly forged! Most likely the problem was making the flakes the same size (to cut it with a stamp, you must first forge it large a sheet - and here the problem of constancy of thickness had already arisen, they also did not know how to roll metal). But to bend rings of the same diameter (even from wire different thickness) is not a problem - wound it on a flat bar and cut it with a chisel!
        1. 0
          19 January 2017 07: 24
          I did not talk about dragging. The point here is that it is easier to forge a wire from steel with a high content of slags than a strip plate, even if the wire somewhere crackes and breaks off from the residues, it will still be possible to make rings, but with a plate it is more difficult. Do not forget that spoiled billets in those days were simply thrown away if it was not possible to adapt them to something else. Thanks to what archaeologists are now simply discovering layers of products. By the way, the scales were not cut out with a stamp from a sheet, it is too difficult, it was cut from strips that are easier to forge, because the cheapest had the shape of a rectangle.
          1. +1
            25 January 2017 07: 44
            Iron thrown away? Yes you! Expensive is a pleasure. Rather, it was reforged. that. what was not suitable for weapons could be used for household products, but kitchen knives, for example.
  3. +4
    16 January 2017 08: 00
    That is, the laws of war (if only the war has any laws!), Blows with the sword in the legs were quite allowed.
    ..Kicks on the legs were also allowed in judicial duels, which took place between Jarnac and La Chatenre in July 1547 during the reign of the French king Henry II .. During the duel Jarnac struck his opponent on the legs ... and the victory was recognized for him .. This blow was later called "Jarnak's blow" ..
    1. 0
      18 January 2017 21: 46
      It was not just about the legs there - they were both in full armor, and only the knees were open (otherwise how to bend the legs ?!) To hit the knee is a long study! This technique was developed by Achilles Marozzo back in 1510 - but he "went to the masses" only in 1547, just after Jarnac's duel, which made him an awesome advertisement: Chasteneri was considered the coolest fighter in France, and none of the spectators believed that Jarnac would win!
  4. +4
    16 January 2017 08: 17
    Vyacheslav Olegogvich! But what about samurai?
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 08: 50
      What are samurai? You don’t think I’m writing all this right on the eve of the release, do you? The first was a study on the English-language historiography of knightly armament from 1958 to 2008. Actually, this is the text of my doctoral dissertation. From time to time I take material from there, give it a "popular" look and ... go. Samurai are two chapters from it, expanded into the books Atlas of the Samurai (Rosman, 2007) and Samurai (Eksmo / Yauza, 2016). So samurai are samurai, and knights (and vikings) also remain. You see only the tip of the iceberg here ...
      1. +4
        16 January 2017 09: 00
        I meant the ending. There were two parts, but the ending?
        1. +1
          16 January 2017 09: 01
          About beliefs? There will be an ending, but what about ... spelling!
          1. +4
            16 January 2017 13: 25
            Be sure to wait for the end.
  5. +1
    16 January 2017 08: 50
    . But they still did not have large equestrian units, since it was difficult for them to transport horses on their ships!
    I read somewhere that one of the tactics of the Viking raids was to capture as many horses as possible after landing. And this means that the Viking intelligence worked well, since they knew the place of grazing. After that, the detachment moved very quickly around the territory, capturing other trophies and without waiting for the troops to approach, loaded and left.
    1. +2
      16 January 2017 09: 03
      This is who wrote about it. .Rudgley R. Barbarians. Secrets of the Dark Ages. L .: Channel 4 Books, 1992.
      But then, apparently, it parted ... There is even a stone on Gotland, where a Viking rider in pants is painted with bubbles!
  6. +1
    16 January 2017 09: 47
    At the same time, the best blades were delivered to Scandinavia from France.
    Why from France? it seems that the French themselves could never boast of their production - at least so as to be exported. Another thing is northern Italy with production centers in Milan, Brescia and Venice and southern Germany - Passau, Augsburg, Nuremberg
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 10: 26
      How much bought, then sold. I didn’t come up with it myself. A number of areas of Germany are also called. Metallographic analysis was performed!
      1. +3
        16 January 2017 11: 43
        Quote: kalibr
        How much bought, then sold. I didn’t come up with it myself. A number of areas of Germany are also called. Metallographic analysis was performed!

        There is a good book by Becker. "Iron. Legends and Facts." The book is on the history of metallurgy, but it is easy to read and gives answers to many questions.
        1. Cat
          0
          16 January 2017 20: 09
          In one word - "Carolingians"!
    2. +3
      16 January 2017 12: 41
      Another thing is northern Italy with production centers in Milan, Brescia and Venice and southern Germany - Passau, Augsburg, Nuremberg

      Only it was later.
      France in the Roman era was one of the main places for the extraction and processing of iron.
      Actually, in the French Alps, however, as well as in Scandinavia, it was in the "Viking Age" that at the beginning, raw-blown forges became widespread, and at the end of this era in the Pyrenees, the so-called "Catalan forges".
      France and Germany in the early Middle Ages were the main producers of high-quality weapons, perhaps this was the legacy of Rome.
      1. +1
        16 January 2017 18: 28
        I honestly don’t remember. I don’t want to argue where I don’t know for sure, but at least in Cardini, in the book The Origins of Medieval Chivalry, Britain and Norica are mentioned as metallurgical centers from the time of the Republic of Ingushetia. Moreover, the success of the Romans themselves in this area is very modest.
        1. +1
          16 January 2017 19: 44
          The issue of the Roman heritage is complicated, that's why I wrote "perhaps", only one thing can be said for sure, "raw forges" were a technological breakthrough that made it possible to obtain high-quality steel with a low admixture of slags. Since in them it was possible to reach temperatures of the order of 1400 Celsius, and the melting point of pure iron is 1535 degrees. Admixture of carbon lowers the melting point, so cast iron can be cast even at 1240 degrees. That is, technologically it was possible to produce decent steel both in Europe and Scandinavia, the local analogue of the Osmund furnaces. The next question was the skill of the blacksmith. In general, the so-called crucible steel could be obtained in Europe, a combination of marsh iron and a cold-blown forge.
    3. 0
      18 January 2017 22: 04
      Quote: sivuch
      Why from France?


      Blooper translation: one must understand from Frankish Empirewhich included both Italy and Germany! They were forged, mainly in Germany (although it is difficult to say for sure: the same "Ulfberchts" were forged, it seems, on the Middle Rhine, somewhere at the junction of the borders of Germany, France and Belgium); Italy in those years was more famous for armor!
      Actually, already in the Roman Empire there was a clear division of specialization between metallurgical centers - even Pliny wrote that steel from Norik (Styria and Carinthia) went for spats, from Bilbilis and Turiasso (Spain) - for smoothies, from Aqua Salis (England, Somersetshire) - for pilums. Teben (Thebes?) - shields, Arretium (Tuscany) - helmets, Concordia - arrowheads. Moreover: in later times for gladiuses, solid blade steel was in Spanish, the soft base was from Norik, and the package was welded in Luke (Campania, near Rome)
  7. +3
    16 January 2017 11: 22
    [quote] Because otherwise he would have known that not only in English, but also in Russian there is a book by Astrel Publishing House (this is one of the most popular and accessible editions), The Vikings, authored by the famous English scientist Ian Heath , which was published in the Russian Federation in 2004. [/ quote
    In addition to this book, there are others, and from the Russian authors I came across only Aron Gurevich "Selected Works. Ancient Germans. Vikings." I have several more books about the Vikings, but apart from Gurevich, I have not met Russian authors.
    1. +2
      16 January 2017 14: 03
      In my opinion, this is the most affordable, since the circulation is large!
  8. +1
    16 January 2017 11: 47
    Quote: Amurets

    In addition to this book, there are others, and from the Russian authors I came across only Aron Gurevich "Selected Works. Ancient Germans. Vikings." I have a few more books about Vikings, but besides Gurevich, I have not met Russian authors.


    Read Valentin Ivanov "Tales of Ancient Years" (Chronicles of the 9th century). Our ancestors inserted a good wick for the Vikings. The book is worthy of being a desktop for us poor ..., it is not for nothing that it was published by Voen Publishing House.
    1. +3
      16 January 2017 13: 23
      Quote: cedar
      Read Valentin Ivanov "Tales of Ancient Years" (Chronicles of the 9th century). Our ancestors inserted a good wick for the Vikings. The book is worthy of being a desktop for us poor ..., it is not for nothing that it was published by Voen Publishing House.

      Thanks! I have the entire trilogy "Primordial Russia," but this is a fiction book, not a documentary one. The whole trilogy consists of "The Tale of Ancient Years" "Primordial Rus" "Great Rus"
  9. 0
    16 January 2017 12: 01
    Quote: cedar
    Quote: Amurets

    In addition to this book, there are others, and from the Russian authors I came across only Aron Gurevich "Selected Works. Ancient Germans. Vikings." I have a few more books about Vikings, but besides Gurevich, I have not met Russian authors.


    Read Valentin Ivanov "Tales of Ancient Years" (Chronicles of the 9th century). Our ancestors inserted a good wick for the Vikings. The book is worthy of being a desktop for us poor ..., it is not for nothing that it was published by Voen Publishing House.


    Here is the link http://modernlib.ru/books/ivanov_valentin_dmitrie
    vich / povesti_drevnih_let / read /
  10. +3
    16 January 2017 12: 04
    Quote: kalibr
    So after all, they studied it longer than us and they have more materials. Only a fool ignores the opinion of a professional. Didn't it cross your mind? Before you have an opinion, you need to turn to the opinions of those who have been doing this for a long time and have recognized authority. In addition, you inattentively read and RASTEER just pointed it out to you - this is not a link, but an indication of the source of available information. As for my personal opinion, of course I have it: if you don’t know how to read, you don’t understand what you read ... Don’t show this to people! They will laugh and ... already laugh!

    Non-companion Shpakovsky write better about armor and about tanks at you get it!
    1. +4
      16 January 2017 13: 27
      Non-companion Shpakovsky write better about armor and about tanks at you get it!

      Hmm, that is, they did not begin to read the article?
      Here and so basically about weapons and a little about battle tactics, in general, nothing new is sensational.
      I don’t understand at all, after "Viking" you are so sausage with chtoli? What you are looking for political subtext everywhere.
      Tomorrow someone on the basis of American materials will write to you about the Wright airplane device and you will start yelling about the author’s venality without your own opinion, well, not seriously.
      1. +2
        16 January 2017 13: 39
        Hmm, do you read Shpakovsky’s articles? What about his books? That's when you read then and talk !!!
        1. +3
          16 January 2017 14: 02
          Yes, I read and far from completely agree, about which I sometimes write.
          I did not read writing in style, but I do not approve of trolling myself.
          In general, you mentioned your opinion here, forgive me, but in order to make up your mind about the Vikings, you need to spend many years in archives of distant countries and in the excavations. Or re-read a bunch of everything and compile it based on the work of others.
          With regard to the history of the early Middle Ages, here most likely 5% will not be typed by those who really tinkered in the soil and archives, especially somewhere in England or Norway.
          So this is a question for you. How did you form an opinion about Shpakovsky without reading his articles?
          Or still read at night with a flashlight under the covers wink
          1. +3
            16 January 2017 14: 49
            Dear, one book of this author Hitler was enough for me the winner! Does your name say anything?
            1. +2
              16 January 2017 15: 10
              1. the author does not have such a book.
              2. there is a book "If Hitler took Moscow". Have you read it? It is freely available, download it, read it. Nothing seditious, the USSR wins the war.
              Do not judge by name. There are entire sites on alternative history.
              1. +1
                16 January 2017 15: 21
                Is this book called Flibust?
                1. +1
                  16 January 2017 15: 27
                  no idea. The author does not have the book "Hitler the Winner".
              2. +2
                16 January 2017 15: 23
                But I forgot Flibuste on the search engines is not displayed!
            2. +3
              16 January 2017 15: 28
              And I don't have such a book! It is enough to type in Google ... There is a book "Let us die near Moscow or the swastika over the Kremlin" - this is the second edition. The first edition of the same book was called “If Hitler took Moscow”. The names are different, the content is the same. But you didn't read it either, because otherwise ... You would know what it is about. And you should not look at filibusters, but on the website of the publishers. These books were published by the EKSMO / YAUZA publishing house!
              1. 0
                16 January 2017 15: 40
                Excuse me "Let's die near Moscow" swastika over the Kremlin!
                1. +2
                  16 January 2017 15: 42
                  If Hitler had taken Moscow! Is this your best?
                  1. +1
                    16 January 2017 17: 12
                    Of course better! After all, this is a question to which the book contains the answer ...
                  2. 0
                    18 January 2017 22: 07
                    Napoleon took it, and that - ended that war is still in Paris!
    2. +3
      16 January 2017 13: 50
      Non-companion Shpakovsky write better about armor and about tanks at you get it!

      half of the article is about armor. Unfortunately, the Vikings did not have tanks. What is the essence of the claim?
      1. +7
        16 January 2017 15: 46
        I am simply amazed at what becomes of the site. Yesterday Today. We do not read articles, we comment immediately. I wanted to write something else, but I won’t. The article is short, but interesting, another in scope is impossible here. Great comments complement it, always something new. Let's communicate normally at least on this page. I repeat, many people stopped just writing, but it's a pity the comments were informative.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +3
          16 January 2017 16: 13
          I am amazed myself. Not a discussion, but a set of personal accounts.
        3. +3
          16 January 2017 17: 24
          Do not be surprised! Life is nervous, people feel uncertain about the future, they don't use a drug like Phenibut, again the salary ... is far from ... Therefore, the slightest "against the grain" turns them on. I would like "we are great, we are powerful, there are more clouds above the sun ...". And then it turns out that everything is like everyone else, and they pay little. It's a shame. Do you see how they immediately translate into money? The Americans are paying, the British ... everything is paid. At least this may console you with bread! Hence the comments are not to the point. And people also have problems with free time. No time to educate yourself! Has anyone read the Voprosy istorii magazine, refers to it? Journal "History of State and Law" - State! Ours! They are fighting for patriotism, they are tearing the shirt on their chest, but reading an article in the magazine "Rodina" is almost a feat. But "Motherland"! Isn't it interesting? Is someone referring to this edition? And so in everything! Buy a book for 1700 rubles, 2000 rubles. - has become a problem, and good books don't cost less. So do not be surprised - this is the result of such a difficult life! By the way, an interesting phenomenon was noted in the USA: predatory fish in rivers began to gain weight! They eat small things that have become less active. We carried out tests and found out that the Americans eat so much sedative (it is excreted in the urine!) That the sewage treatment plant cannot cope and these sedatives get into the water. It does not affect large fish, and small fish becomes more "calm". That's where they eat it! So we have it yet!
          1. +3
            16 January 2017 18: 01
            I’ll start swearing soon from these nervous people. Instead of enjoying the article and discussing it, we are engaged in clarifying the relationship. You certainly do not owe any of them three rubles? otherwise they’re already emanating from the contents of the rectum. Remember, this is important, otherwise they won’t be left behind. By the way, where is Murzik? Boring without it ..
            1. +1
              16 January 2017 20: 31
              For a picé vest? No, it should not! I in Penza owe nothing to anyone, let alone beyond its borders! And Murzik is on duty. And there, apparently, you can’t turn on the Internet, you need to protect it. So he looks into the monitor at the parked cars, instead of our beautiful pictures. Nothing else will appear. This is not the gold that drowns, but that which floats!
              1. +2
                16 January 2017 21: 30
                And Murzik is on duty.

                I will wait, but I can waitwink A good article today! Thank! hi
          2. +3
            16 January 2017 19: 20
            The spiritual development of man is a long process; this is a journey through wonderful countries, rich not only in amazing events, but also in obstacles and dangers. It is associated with the processes of deep moral purification, complete transformation, awakening of many previously unused abilities, the growth of consciousness to a previously unthinkable level, its expansion into new internal spaces. Therefore, it is not surprising that such important changes undergo various critical stages, which are often associated with nervous, emotional and mental disorders. On the way to achieving full spiritual consciousness, a person can go through several stages. One of them is the Internet hamster stage.
            1. +1
              16 January 2017 20: 37
              Yes, Victor, you are 100% right. Now I look back at my life - well, I was surrounded by fools from all sides. I entered a university in 72, I went to the FIRST Doctor of Science in the history of the CPSU in Penza. I want to join your circle. He should be happy: young, his eyes are burning. So he gave me a topic for a report: The personality cult of Mao Tse-tung and its consequences. Well, tell me that he is not after that? I don't know Chinese, I live in the USSR, the main document is the Pravda newspaper. What can I write as a freshman? Funny, huh?
              1. +3
                16 January 2017 21: 44
                Yes, from the Soviet press of that time, of course, it was possible to write about a cult, but about the consequences ... The Chinese, in my opinion, also did not really understand them after the cultural revolution, these consequences. Yes, and Mao was still alive.
                1. +1
                  17 January 2017 07: 36
                  Here, Victor. And I mean the same ... But you could have sent me to the archives and given a job: the Anglo-Boer War in the Penza provincial press. Or "The revolt of the Penza militias in the war of 1812", or "The revolution in Penza according to newspaper materials." That is, what is based on archival documents, and where a student can at least "discover" something. No Chinese ...
                  In my senior year I turned to a historian ... I got the topic: "The Revolution of 1905 in Persia." In Persia !!! Why not on Mars, based on the novel "Aelita". Recently I met a couple of teachers of that time, my teachers. Still alive !!! I told them all this. I say, why were you such fools? And they told me: "It was such a time!" Now I don't give such topics to my students ...
                  1. +2
                    17 January 2017 08: 36
                    As for me, a great topic. The main thing is relevant.
  11. 0
    16 January 2017 14: 42
    Vyacheslav, explain to me, if you can, on the basis of which the word "Viking" is identified by you with the word "Varangian".
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 15: 29
      Is I identified? Me? You are reading inattentively. This is written in the book of Ian Heath, which the article has.
      1. +2
        16 January 2017 15: 38
        Varang - the scandal. Væringjar, Greek Βάραγγοι, glory. Varangian, who took the oath of a hired warrior, a Viking in the service of Byzantium.

        The composition of the Varangians could include Western Slavs - residents of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea.
        1. +1
          16 January 2017 17: 56
          Quote: Operator
          Varangian, who took the oath of a hired warrior, a Viking in the service of Byzantium.

          Did not quite understand.
          If the Varangian is a hired warrior. then Viking and Varangian are different concepts. Something like a Pirate and a Soldier?
          1. +4
            16 January 2017 19: 41
            That's right, with the only clarification - a pirate can turn into a contract soldier for a specified time in the contract, after which he will again become a pirate.

            At the same time, the man himself (in most cases the Scandinavian is Dan, Svei or Norman, in a minority of cases the Western Slav is Vendian, encourages or Pomeranian) remains one and the same by origin.
  12. +3
    16 January 2017 14: 54
    Quote: Rivares
    Vyacheslav, explain to me, if you can, on the basis of which the word "Viking" is identified by you with the word "Varangian".
    Actually, the Varangians are Slavs! And the German historians who wrote ours stupidly confused the Vikings with the Viking and?
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 15: 31
      !
      Quote: burigaz2010
      Actually, the Varangians are Slavs!

      Quote: burigaz2010
      And the German historians who wrote ours stupidly confused the Vikings with the Viking and?

      You should write about it in the journal "Questions of history". This will be a discovery! You will immediately receive the title of Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a grant from the President of Russia for achievements in the scientific field! I'm not kidding!
      1. +2
        16 January 2017 15: 48
        Shpakovsky do not tell me how to translate Berlin?
        1. +1
          16 January 2017 17: 10
          I am sure that you know.
          1. +1
            17 January 2017 11: 18
            That's why I did not see the answer! And I also know how to be rude !!!
    2. +1
      16 January 2017 16: 03
      Actually, the Varangians are Slavs!

      Did Zadornov tell you this?
      The operator wrote correctly
      Varang - the scandal. Væringjar, Greek Βάραγγοι, glory. Varangian, who took the oath of a hired warrior, a Viking in the service of Byzantium.

      Here, perhaps a mistake only in the word Viking would be more correct "Varang - Varyag, sworn mercenary soldier in the service of Byzantium". Since there was no one there.
      Although yes there was recently an article about the fact that the Vikings were not there because the audience was demographics. However, for someone, Alexander Nevsky and Macedon are one and the same person laughing
      1. +3
        16 January 2017 17: 21
        According to the meaning in Russian realities, a Viking is an ushkunik, a Varangian is a Cossack in imperial service.

        As a part of ushkuynikov and Cossacks (basically Slavs) there were no ethnic groups.

        For example, the ancestors of Mikhail Sholokhov were from the Ugro-Finnish tribe of the Meshcher, who was listed in the Cossacks on a government account and resettled by Tsar Ivan the Terrible from near Moscow to the Don. Moreover, the tribe before the resettlement and a considerable amount of time after the resettlement professed Judaism, which they inherited from the Bulgars.
    3. +3
      16 January 2017 17: 45
      Actually, the haplogroups are different with the Scandinavians!
      1. +3
        16 January 2017 20: 21
        Not quite so - we have different haplotypes (specific gravities of the same haplogroups on average by ethnicity):
        - among the Eastern Slavs 50% R1a, 20% I1 + I2, 15% N1c1 and 5% R1b;
        - in Scandinavians, 20% R1a, 40% I1 + I2, 10% N1c1 and 20% R1b.

        True, the subclades of the same haplogroups are completely different with the Scandinavians, i.e. there is a common ancestor far removed in time, for example, a common ancestor along the line of the Aryan haplogroup R1a lived about 5 thousand years ago until the termination of family ties.

        PS In fact, my previous comment only concerned Cossacks who have a more variegated haplotype than other Russians - while maintaining the dominance of R1a in the composition of Zaporizhzhya and Don Cossacks there is an increased number of carriers R1b (descendants of the Cimbrians, Goths and Bulgars) and J2 (descendants of the Scythians and Khazar), as well as such exotic as N1c1 (descendants of the Meshchera from the Don Cossacks).
        1. 0
          18 January 2017 22: 14
          Quote: Operator
          also such exotic as N1c1 (descendants of the Meshcher among the Don Cossacks).


          it is exotic for the Cossacks N1c1, and for the Don (at least the upper one) - why?
          1. 0
            18 January 2017 23: 45
            The inhabitants of the Upper Don had contact with the Scythians (J2 + R1a), the Khazars (J2 + C1), the Bulgars (R1b + С1) and the Tatars (R1a + С1). None of them had Ugrofin N1c1.

            If we consider the Kuban Cossacks, they contacted the Circassians (Circassians), who are carriers of the Caucasian haplogroup G2 (up to 80% percent).
  13. +3
    16 January 2017 15: 13
    Quote: Diana Ilyina
    Yes, in general, I really don’t give a damn who and what pays you.


    Then do not make up! You can only write about what you know on 100%! This is decent!
  14. +1
    16 January 2017 15: 37
    The best Ulfberts were forged from crucible steel. The basis for the supply of such material is the path from the Varangians to the Greeks, so that the Franks are in flight.
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 16: 30
      Excuse me, that is, you want to say that goods from the East, in particular India, could get into Western Europe only along the Volga-Dnieper?
      Merchant paths have passed since the time of Rome and the Mediterranean Sea.
      Further, the statement about the eastern origin of "steel" for the Ulfberts is controversial. The fact that it differs from mass steel is indisputable, but I have not seen the spectrographic analysis, maybe I missed it, but only on the basis of it we can talk about its origin.
      1. 0
        16 January 2017 17: 51
        Quote: rasteer
        the statement about the eastern origin of "steel" for the Ulfberts is controversial

        The archeology of crucible furnace furnaces shows us only the Middle East and Central Asia. In Europe, nothing of the kind. In addition, there were allegations about unsuitable European ore for melting in crucibles.
        Quote: rasteer
        Excuse me, that is, you want to say that goods from the East, in particular India, could get into Western Europe only along the Volga-Dnieper?

        This is what the characters of the only Russian-language primary source want to say - the film "Secrets of the Viking Sword". One of the arguments they cite is the crucible Ulfberts, of which about one quarter of the samples studied, archaeologically ceased to exist synchronously with the supposed path from the Varangians to the Greeks. Plus, it is argued about the existence of a trade embargo from Europeans against the Vikings on the subject of weapons and metals. I understand that this is not certain, but all we need is some other fossilized crucible steel weapon. But already referring directly to the Franks themselves in this period, and not scattered over the Viking burials. Moreover, Ulfbert is recognized by the Frankish name or the name of some monastery. And the cross in front of the name in writing is a distinctive sign of a Christian bishop or abbot. The only thing is that the filmmakers mention a pattern. The material of the Ulfberts, whose second cross was written after the name, was much worse than that of those where the second cross was placed before the "t".
        1. 0
          16 January 2017 18: 03
          I got into a translator to see what the English-language Wikipedia writes there. Still referred to the typical European swords, but there, welded steel is the norm, and a higher quality crucible is deviation. There is also a link among others: Viacheslav Shpakovsky, David Nicolle, Gerry Embleton, Armies of the Volga Bulgars & Khanate of Kazan, 9th – 16th centuries, Osprey Men-at-Arms 491 (2013), p. 23f. So all questions to Shpakovsky :).
        2. 0
          16 January 2017 18: 08
          There is also a distribution area: Norway: 44, Finland: 14, Germany-13, Sweden-12, Russia: 10 (except for an additional area. 20 samples were found in the Kaliningrad region, most of them at Linkuhnen cemetery), Estonia: 9, Latvia- 7, Poland: 7, Ukraine: 6, United Kingdom: 4; Denmark and the Netherlands, 3 each; Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ireland, Iceland, Lithuania: 2 each, Belarus, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland: one. Which of them are made of and how are not specified.
        3. 0
          17 January 2017 20: 10
          I watched this film refreshed my memory, so to speak. Another nonsense from amerikosov, it is interesting that the very process of reconstruction of production and some comments about the difference between "originals" and fakes. Perhaps I argue my opinion right away.
          1. "The way from the Varangians to the Greeks" ceased to exist in the 10th century synchronously with the "disappearance" of swords. Just ask yourself the question, why did this path suddenly cease to be used after the baptism of Rus? But at the same time, the Russian cities that stood on this path continued to flourish right up to the middle of the 13th century. that is, the Mongol invasion. Answer the trade route has not gone anywhere, the era of the Vikings-Varangians ended and the way was no longer called that.
          2. From the same opera, the archaeologists cease to come across swords during this period, but where exactly they dig them out, the answer is simple. Most of the finds were made in the burial mounds of noble warriors. But in 10-11th that the Russians, that the Scandinavians everywhere adopt Christianity and the funeral rites are changing, swords are no longer put in the graves.
          3. The trade embargo was indeed introduced by the Franks many times, but in the first place it was canceled as many times. and secondly, whom it stopped smuggling came up far from in Odessa.
          4. It seems like there is no archaeological finding of the necessary furnaces as a serious argument, but you saw the furnace in the film, after sintering it was simply dismantled neither of casting slag nor of enormous size. In fact, forge steel was usually used a blacksmith furnace temporarily smeared from above.
          5. What speaks against the hypothesis that steel was produced in Asia, and swords were forged somewhere in Europe, the blacksmith in the film gives the answer, the production of swords from such steel required specific experience that could not be acquired by processing mass steel, and this means the relative availability of raw materials. With the then logistics, this was poorly implemented.
          In general, the American scientific.
          1. 0
            18 January 2017 13: 00
            Quote: rasteer
            In general, the American scientific.

            Of course, a normal source would be much better. For example, with research data on the material of the swords found in the form of a scientific article. And so Wikipedia only seems to have the option that some later swords of the 10th century were made of crucible steel. Referring, it seems, to this source as David Edge, Alan Williams: Some early medieval swords in the Wallace Collection and elsewhere, Gladius XXIII, 2003, 191-210 (p. 203).
            Quote: rasteer
            It seems like a serious argument there are no archaeological finds of the necessary furnaces

            There are not only the furnaces themselves, but also the remains of the crucibles, and the castings themselves. In Asia, this is all there. On the territory of Russia, somewhere in the south, they also dug up a whole settlement with this matter. But the Europeans have this bad.
            Quote: rasteer
            But in 10-11th that the Russians, that the Scandinavians everywhere adopt Christianity and the funeral rites are changing, swords are no longer put in the graves.

            But quite a few samples have been preserved. Moreover, on their basis no one is trying to disprove the current history of European metallurgy. And this story was written by Europeans, not Americans. It also reflected that when such steel was desperately needed, no one knew how to melt it. The need to add broken glass to the crucibles stumbled by accident. But this is almost recent.
            Quote: rasteer
            The answer is that the trade route has not gone anywhere. The Viking-Varangian era has ended and the path has ceased to be so called.

            Well, what prevented the Vikings from using this way to purchase materials that significantly exceeded European ones in quality? I repeat, in Europe nothing of the kind was found, but in Asia in bulk. Thus, if you want to refute, provide documents or archeology data that the Franks had their own crucible steel, that's all.
            1. 0
              18 January 2017 14: 43
              But quite a few samples have been preserved.

              There are several reasons
              The first "ulfberts" were not weapons of an ordinary warrior, so while the Slavs and Scandinavians had pagan burial rites, the chances of being buried with the owner were great. But in the 10-11 centuries there is a widespread adoption of Christianity, utensils cease to be placed in the graves, and the mounds cease to be poured.
              The second crucible steel, in contrast to the mass steel, contains less oxygen and impurities and therefore is less oxidized. So it lasts longer.
              Well, what prevented the Vikings from using this path to purchase materials,

              It seems that everyone agreed that the "Ulfberts" were produced somewhere in baptized Europe and not Scandinavia. The stability of supply was highly dependent on politics, robbery, weather, and just luck.
              In general, on the one hand, there seems to be no data on the production of crucible steel in Europe, but there are many arguments against imported raw materials, and given the fact that the original "ulfberts" were apparently forged in only one place, why not assume that this local forge owned such a secret. Especially if she was at a monastery.
    2. 0
      18 January 2017 22: 21
      Quote: brn521
      Best Ulfberts Forged from Crucible Steel


      1) As a pro, I’ll say: this is only unproven versionbased only on the fact that no welds were found in the blades. However, with the technology by which Wölund made his Mimung, there would also be no seams!
      2) There could have been supplies - only, as Biruni wrote, “The Rus made their swords from [s`ubur`akhan] a (hard steel), and the grooves in the middle of them - from [narm`akhan] a (soft iron), to give them impact strength and prevent breakage, because fullaz (damask steel) does not tolerate the cold of their winters and breaks when hit.
      3) "The path from the Varangians to the Greeks" is also in flight - here the much more important, but less publicized "path from the Varangians to the Persians" ruled (down the mother along the Volga).
      1. 0
        19 January 2017 07: 44
        based only on the fact that no welds were found in the blades.

        The seams may not be visible on the finished product, but under the microscope on the cross section, the difference in the crystal structure of the layers will be noticeable. The question is of course what section was shown in the film.
        here ruled a much more important, but less publicized "path from the Varangians to the Persians"

        If crucible steel was delivered to the Middle Rhine then Volzhsky and the Dnieper route weren’t the most successful, and if it was possible to reload from the Dnieper to a pack caravan, the Volga route had to pass through the Gop-Stop-Baltic Sea in any case, and the Volga passed through the lands of the Pechenegs and other nomads, and the ushkuniki still favored. There was still the Mediterranean route through Byzantium safer although most likely more costly in terms of freight charges.
        1. 0
          19 January 2017 22: 49
          At the time when the "Ulfberkhts" were forged, the Volga route was safe - the Khazars were not well aware of the matter! But after Svyatoslav ruined the Khazars, the volume of trade with Iran and India fell sharply!
          1. 0
            19 January 2017 23: 21
            I agree on the account of the Khazars, but then the Baltic and here could stop anybody, because there are more than enough people who want to. In other matters, omitting the logistics, the question remains why the "Ulfberts" were forged in only one place in Europe for a century.
            1. 0
              20 January 2017 10: 26
              Quote: rasteer
              why "ulfberts" were forged only in one place in Europe for a century

              This is the opinion, as I understand it, based on the name of the sword and individual finds. Since the name is the same, it means they forged in the same place. Plus, a somewhat outdated idea that since the Franks were able to produce high-quality steel, and the Vikings did not, it means the Franks were to forge this sword and forge. The swords themselves (I have a slightly higher comment with data from the bourgeois Wikipedia) are archaeologically scattered quite widely.
              As for me, the Ulfberts originally made francs. Some Vikings captured or bought swords. It turned out that both the form and the material of the swords were higher at that moment of all praise, all the kings, or whatever they were, came out with saliva. Since then, this name has become a mark of quality. The Viking brought a stock to a well-known Viking or any kind of experienced blacksmith (they sold such blanks, and unfastened them where it is more convenient and on order) and asked Ulfbert to forge it and nothing else. And always with the inscription. Settling in distant lands, the Vikings brought Ulfberth with them. They also ordered new Ulfberts and went to the graves with them until they assimilated, changed their faith, habits, etc. It is not surprising that when new steel was farmed along the eastern trade routes, significantly superior to the Frankish steel, then Ulfbertov was immediately forged from it. The Vikings simply did not find this expensive material the best use.
              1. 0
                20 January 2017 11: 10
                This is the opinion, as I understand it, based on the name of the sword and individual finds.
                This is not my opinion, it is put forward in the film, without spectral analysis it is impossible to say where the steel came from. As well as to say who made the steel for "fakes" based on the film, steel is even worse than the original, but still better than the mass. In general, as I wrote, typical American science pop, "sensation ... sensation ..." and nothing intelligible.
      2. 0
        19 January 2017 14: 23
        Quote: Weyland
        no welds found in the blades

        The filmmakers also mention the absence of slag in combination with high carbon. How can slag be slaughtered from a workpiece literally to zero, without carbon being burned out of it?
        Quote: Weyland
        "for fulaz (bulat) cannot stand the cold of their winters and breaks down on impact.

        The Viking main hostilities were in conditions when the seas and rivers did not freeze. So they could afford damask steel. The only thing is that the film is clearly not about damask steel. Foundry steel, melted in a crucible. Of this in the 18th century, metal-cutting tools were made, the best watch springs, etc. .. The emphasis is on this. Uniform composition, high carbon content, lack of slag. Frankish blacksmiths could at least go completely sweat, but this could not be achieved by ordinary refining.
        Quote: Weyland
        "The way from the Varangians to the Greeks" is also in flight

        There is such a thing - in the graves and treasures there are many Arab and Buddhist objects. Almost no of Constantinople. However, it can be assumed that the indicated swords were an element of luxury. What could a wealthy Viking spend his wealth on? Including the best sword available, even if it is worth its weight in gold. It’s not to build a palace and hang it with tapestries, the sword is much more prestigious. But he washed away the same thing - the Franks were out of business here, since they could not make such steel.
        1. 0
          19 January 2017 16: 10
          Foundry steel, melted in a crucible.

          The fact is that this "crucible steel" cannot be called a full-fledged casting steel, the reason is that the steel does not go completely into a liquid state, it is rather a kind of porridge, and it is glass and sand that serves to pull out impurities, so they melted and pulled impurities take over this effect when impurities tend to the liquid fraction is now used everywhere.
          In general, technologically it was quite possible to do in Europe.
          Once again, I will emphasize only one aspect, based on the finds, the original "ulfberts" were made in one place, no more European weapons made of similar steel have been found. The question is why steel supplies were so selectively carried out, which prevented merchants from trading such goods not only with a specific forge? Moreover, all this dates back to a century-old period, I still understand the personal relationship of two people, but there are 3-4 generations. That is why the issue of spectral analysis is important. Because archaeological finds do not reveal the answer to the question where such selectivity comes from.
          1. 0
            19 January 2017 23: 06
            Quote: rasteer
            In general, technologically it was quite possible to do in Europe.


            And they did it in Europe - this is the so-called. "Brescian way" (see Biringuccio, "Pyrotechnia") .; it has not been translated into Russian, but it is extensively quoted by Agricola - good, his books have been translated (but Agricola does NOT call the method "Brescian")
            1. 0
              20 January 2017 11: 03
              Quote: Weyland
              In Europe they did it - this is the so-called. "Brescian way"

              Those. were the "special" Ulfberts (0,75% carbon, homogeneous, no slag) made according to the Brescian method?
              1. 0
                20 January 2017 23: 43
                rather, according to the Mimung method - expensive, but for an elite blade they could be distorted!
        2. +1
          19 January 2017 22: 57
          Quote: brn521
          uniform composition, high carbon content, lack of slag. Frankish blacksmiths could at least go completely sweat, but this could not be achieved by ordinary refining.

          Have you familiarized yourself with the manufacturing technology of Mimung in detail? I, as a pro, guarantee both homogeneity and high carbon, and the absence of slag in the "Tyodrek Saga" is said in plain text! At a later time, a simplified version of this method was used (because it is very expensive) - the "Brescian method", from this steel they made Milanese armor. And Biringuccio also writes about high purity from slag!

          Quote: brn521
          Including the best sword available, even if it is worth its weight in gold.


          What do you! A good sword (both Yemensiky and "Ulfberht" were valued both by the Vikings and, which is typical, by the Arabs at 1000 dinars (4,26 kg of gold) - that is, not worth its weight in gold, but three times more!
          1. 0
            20 January 2017 10: 57
            Quote: Weyland
            Have you thoroughly got acquainted with the manufacturing technology of Mimung?

            No, only public tales. We take the workpiece, grind it into powder, feed it to poultry, process the litter and suddenly we get a miracle - another workpiece, without any loss of material. How much does it actually burn when forging metal? Or is that pile of files that we grind on the workpiece also taken into account? But what about the remnants of overcooked bird food, will be eliminated on their own, or will there still be some traces in the metal? In general - yes, something substantial on this issue, with reconstruction, will not hurt. And then in RuNet this thing is at the level of mythology.
            Quote: Weyland
            At a later time, a simplified version of this method was used (because it is very expensive) - the "Brescian method"

            Also interesting. I have ideas at the level of "iron history". Where Gentsman's invention is seen as a very serious step forward in the industry.
            Quote: Weyland
            And Beringuccio also writes about high purity from slag!

            In the case of the "crucible" Ulfberts, it is not about the purity of slag, but about its complete absence.
            Quote: Weyland
            not worth its weight in gold, but three times more expensive!

            In this situation, such a blade is dangerous, albeit annealed and tied in a knot, put in the grave. They can ruin.
            1. +1
              20 January 2017 11: 45
              In the case of the "crucible" Ulfberts, it is not about the purity of slag, but about its complete absence.
              No saying! Even in the movie there is a slag spot on the cut.
              Complete removal of slag is possible only from a molten metal, and it must be a hot melt, modern steel is poured at 1610 C, but for homogenization it must be overheated to 1640-1670 C. I tell you this as a metallurgist.
              In this situation, such a blade is dangerous, albeit annealed and tied in a knot, put in the grave. They can ruin.
              What actually happened and the graves of all ages were looted.
              We take the workpiece, grind it into powder, feed it to poultry, process litter
              At the same time, the workpiece is saturated with phosphorus which gives brittleness to the metal, although it adds hardness. All modern metallurgy of steel was built to combat three admixtures of parasites with oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus, and here, on the contrary, phosphorus is saturated. In general, the implementation of such a sword looks fantastic.
              1. 0
                20 January 2017 23: 57
                Yeah. That's why Wiland did the operation twice - the first time he provided sulfur removal and saturation with nitrogen, but added phosphorus to the steel. But when he repeated the operation with the powder, he cleaned it of sulfur and phosphorus (and not at all in the goose’s stomach, but right in the litter - probably this litter with sawdust had been lying for a week before smelting, it took him a month to do all the work) . But he probably spent the 1nd swimming heat not in the litter, but washed the powder and used it accordingly. fluxes (do not forget: he had to work almost in front of a competitor, andsomething in the description of the technology - deliberately thrown fake!) If you are interested in the details - in PM!
            2. +1
              20 January 2017 23: 50
              This is not a fairy tale - the method guarantees deep cleaning of sulfur. And with a competent approach, the loss of material is only 10% (although, according to the saga, Wieland lost 2/3 - the 3rd sword was three times lighter than the 1st, but the 1st cut 1 bag with wool, and the 3rd - 3). It’s quite realistic and impressive at the same time: they cut the head of a mannequin rolled from felt with an Arabic damask, and a clover in half with a Caucasian checker (and it is 20-25 mm thick!) Of course, with a file Wiland sharpened his sword to avert the eyes of competitors' spies - he got iron powder otherwise, and there was no longer any slag in the powder (if details are needed - in PM)
  15. +3
    16 January 2017 17: 16
    ruskih,
    I offer you my sincere apology.

    As an explanation (not an excuse) - they already got a personal showdown in the comments (the place for them is a letter to the PM).
    1. +5
      16 January 2017 18: 27
      Apologies are accepted. love I am pleased to read your comments. I also got a personal showdown, so I absolutely agree with your explanation, I have already called for more than once to be correct, at least on this page.
  16. +1
    16 January 2017 17: 20
    I was surprised at some comments with excessive emotionality, even anger.
    The author writes interestingly, his articles are well illustrated and against the general background of VO articles, his materials stand out for the better. I save a lot for myself.
    And the feeling that many commentators didn’t read these lines further
    To begin with, the Viking theme is again politicized for some reason. “In the West, they don’t want to admit that they were pirates and robbers” - something like this I had a chance to read at VO not so long ago. and it only says that a person is poorly informed about what he writes or that he was thoroughly brainwashed, which, incidentally, is being done not only in Ukraine.

    And then some of the article just ran diagonally.
    1. +3
      16 January 2017 18: 57
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      And then some of the article just ran diagonally.

      Personally, I expected more from the article.
      1. +2
        16 January 2017 19: 37
        Given that we do not have a thematic resource and are visited by a wide variety of people, the information in this article is quite sufficient for acquaintance and the desire to learn more.
  17. +1
    16 January 2017 17: 28
    Dekabrist,
    Yes, look, because it is precisely on it that there will be an article about Petersen's typology and Viking swords. It is good that you have it. Today there is no more complete work on them. And Petersen is a recognized specialist in them.
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 19: 12
      Actually, in this regard, I like "Archeology of weapons. From the Bronze Age to the Renaissance" more. As for me, Petersen is more for specialists, narrow professionals.
      1. +2
        16 January 2017 19: 48
        Quote: Dekabrist
        Actually, in this regard, I like "Archeology of weapons. From the Bronze Age to the Renaissance" more.

        Jack Collins: "Evolution of Europe's Armament. From the Vikings to the Napoleonic Wars."
        1. +1
          16 January 2017 21: 00
          Jack Coggins; Coggins. I think these are completely different levels. Coggins is primarily an artist, moreover, the artist is a marine painter. His illustrations are, yes, good.
          1. +2
            16 January 2017 21: 06
            Quote: Dekabrist
            Coggins.

            Yeah, a bit of a bump.
      2. +1
        16 January 2017 20: 23
        Totally, Victor, I agree with you. So my task is to make this highly professional text interesting enough and not for professionals, simple enough, not too scientific, but also scientific at the same time. So that it would be interesting to read to those who go to the VO. Let's see if it succeeds?
        "The Archeology of Weapons ..." by E. Oakeshott of the Centerpolygraph Publishing House is a very interesting book, but it has been delayed. It would have been translated into Russian and given earlier ...
  18. +4
    16 January 2017 17: 32
    Diana Ilyina,
    As one Murzik writes here - don’t bother, Diana! God is alone! And he allowed, yes, without his will and hair he won’t fall, yes, he allowed what? At first the collective farm, and then he did not like him and he ... drunk! Isn’t that so? I think so! However, Diana, this is not even important. It is important that at this time the article collected 9545 views, and it will still be collected by night. Those who decided to write something wrote 84 comments, that is, actually those who write very little. But those who read - a lot! But even if half simply went in, looked and went out - and then bread. By doing so, they increased the investment attractiveness of the site. You understand, Diana, that no matter what picture you stick to your profile picture, and so that you don’t write in defense of the USSR, people will not come here for you. They’ll come in to read such articles, and your destiny is simply to let off steam, and that’s it.
  19. +2
    16 January 2017 17: 54
    Quote: Razvedka_Boem
    And then some of the article just ran diagonally.

    Or did not run at all, as with the book "Hitler the Winner"!
  20. +3
    16 January 2017 19: 28
    Very informative article: weapons, tactics good .

    I’ll add that I read somewhere that the constant threat of Viking raids
    became a "trigger" in Europe for the construction of castles, large and small.
    The Vikings did not like long sieges. You could sit out if you could
    run away quickly under the protection of the walls.
    1. +3
      16 January 2017 20: 58
      As far as I understand (Kalibr corrects, if I am mistaken), the Normans (such is the European name for the Vikings) in Western Europe were simply crushed by a number - for some time (the XI century and beyond), the aboriginal military forces were quickly gathering at the landing point, the number of which increased in proportion to the growth of the population, supported by large reserves of farmland and a mild climate in Western Europe.

      The number of Normans was limited by the limited area of ​​arable land and the more severe climate in Scandinavia.

      In Eastern Europe, the Vikings (the local name of the Vikings) did not show themselves at all (at the level of Normandy and Sardinia, where the Vikings created full-fledged states) for other reasons:
      - less interest in the robbery of the Eastern Slavs due to the lower level of their material well-being in comparison with Western Europeans;
      - the remoteness of the main Eastern European cities from the sea coast (on the rivers the natives had the advantage in organizing ambushes);
      - A stronger military rebuff to the natives.

      Therefore, the Vikings traded in Eastern Europe with paid mercenaries among the Aborigines, acting as highly professional, but small-sized strike groups as part of local squads and militias during raids on Byzantium and intra-Slavic squabbles.

      When the Varangians crossed the line and tried to act independently, the response was super-rigid - for example, the Novgorod squad in 1187 in a naval raid with the Karelian allies. Estonians and Izhora completely looted and burned the largest Swedish city - the capital Sigtuna so that the Swedes were forced to move the capital to another city. From the raid, among other things, bronze gates were brought (produced by Magdeburg), which can now be seen in the main temple of Veliky Novgorod - St. Sophia Cathedral.
      1. +1
        17 January 2017 07: 27
        Nothing to fix! If you decided to write an article on the socio-political genesis of Scandinavian society, then all this would go there one to one! It is very pleasant when people at this level know the material.
      2. 0
        18 January 2017 22: 28
        Quote: Operator
        - less interest in the robbery of the Eastern Slavs due to the lower level of their material well-being compared with the Western Europeans; - remoteness of the main East European cities from the sea coast (on the rivers the Aborigines had advantages in organizing ambushes); - a stronger military rebuff to the Aborigines.

        As for welfare - nonsense! Russia then was richer than Europe (especially furs)
        but military resistance is yes! In Europe, the feudal lords had already lowered the people below the plinth, and the simple villain did not know which side to take the sword from. That is, the task is simple - hit and run, rob, until the baron and his retinue galloped to the village! And in Russia, any peasant was a good fighter right up to the Time of Troubles inclusive ("war slaves" - where did the nobles recruit from? Yes, from their own men!)
        1. +1
          19 January 2017 00: 07
          Russia per inhabitant was clearly poorer than Europe for a simple reason - a harsher climate and poorer soils (the basis of the economy at that time was agriculture).
          1. 0
            19 January 2017 08: 19
            Poor soil? You open the map of soils and put it on the map of the Early Middle Ages, just like Russia of that period had order with its rich soil and climate. Most of Russia was in the black soil zone. The Novgorod principality stood apart; the climate there was not agricultural, but Novgorod was the main transshipment center of trade; trade routes from the North and the North-East flowed into it, and Novgorod was a Russian "Port Royal" loot flowed into it and it was possible to grab it, and the Vikings did not go where they beat laughing.
            Great income gave Russia and the way from the Varangians to the Greeks. Trade routes always and everyone gave a large income with a minimum of costs, and therefore tried to control them.
            The protection of the southern principalities from Viking raids was not only due to the fact that they had to sail along the rivers; all the same, Paris was not on the French coast, but was robbed. And the fact that the Dnieper flows to the south, and from the Baltic it can only be dragged into it.
            By the way, you contradict yourself that poor Russia could not afford cheap pleasure, hire Viking squads.
            And Europeans were envious of the wealth of Russia.
            1. +1
              19 January 2017 09: 31
              The chernozems on the Central Russian Plain are concentrated in the region of the Central Black Earth Region, which during the time of Russia was a zone of military conflicts with nomads.

              Shopping centers in Russia - cities were relatively rich in villages, but to a lesser extent than shopping centers in Europe - cities that had more income from rural residents.

              Plus an order of magnitude lower population density in Russia - to rob the same size of production, it was necessary to travel a much greater distance in a much longer time. The Viking robbery was set up as a branch of the national economy - no one would have come up against the horn in Russia if there was a much more effective business project in Europe.

              In the time of Russia, the tonnage of sea / river vessels made it possible to transport them overland by horse-drawn transport by drag on log rollers. For this, there were specialized settlements in the places of convergence of rivers flowing in different directions, such as Volok Lamsky.

              The trick is that the number of hired Viking squads in Russia has always been very limited due to the limited means of employers. Russian riches could not afford to form an entire army of mercenaries, as in Byzantium.
              1. 0
                19 January 2017 10: 46
                The chernozems on the Central Russian Plain are concentrated in the region of the Central Black Earth Region, which during the time of Russia was a zone of military conflicts with nomads.

                Are you serious? we list the principalities included in the black earth zone: Kiev, Vladimir-Volynsky, Galitsky, Turovo-Pinsk. Partially Polotsk, Smolensk, Murom-Ryazan. Which is equal to two-thirds of the well-developed territory of Russia, we do not take the north of the Novgorod region.
                horse-drawn transport on log rollers.
                So who argues Only that which is handy to merchants worthless to robbers, mobility is lost.
                Such a maneuver only Yermak turned and even then because he was not going to return.
                the number of hired Vikings in Russia has always been very limited
                The question is, who counted their numbers? Where does the statistics come from?
                Dogon, you narrowly understand the definition that agriculture was the basis of the economy. This related to the imbalance of subsistence and craft.
                So this is for Europe, with its meager resources, wealth was measured by plowing, in Russia there were much more options for its management.
                By the way, your thesis about the small number of raids due to poverty breaks down on one more moment of their campaigns and conquests in the west: Ireland, North Scotland, Iceland, Greenland, and even central England, just the most beautiful agricultural lands, the weather, "stick stick the tree grows" laughing
                1. 0
                  19 January 2017 18: 56
                  Which school did you graduate from - Soviet or Russian? laughing
                  Map of Black Soils of Russia

                  Map of black soils of Ukraine


                  The mobility of the robbers was at the level of mobility of the merchants - they suddenly sailed to Volok Lamsky, they all bent, the boats were dragged, the same thing in the opposite direction.

                  I did not understand your theses about “the imbalance of the subsistence economy and the handicraft [probably commodity?],” “In Russia there were much more options for doing it [what?],” “The small number of raids due to poverty [who?].
                  1. 0
                    19 January 2017 21: 12
                    Which school did you graduate from - Soviet or Russian?

                    Church parish, but the Black Sea still did not have the chance to dig, I regret wassat
                    But seriously, the regions described by me are a fertile land on the background of the Baltic coast. And you did not answer why the Vikings captured Ireland and the north of Scotland?
                    I do not understand your thesis
                    I’m translating, maybe not scientifically expressed, the battle with 1C is distracting laughing
                    Let's start with the difference in the infrastructures of Europe and Russia of that time.
                    In Europe there were three centers of gravity of the city, castles and monasteries. In Russia, only the city. Here is the first difference: European cities have always been relatively independent of the feudal nobility, as well as church estates. In Russia, cities, apart from Novgorod, were part of princely possessions.
                    Further, despite such a difference, if the main income of Russia was land cultivation, people like in Europe settled closer to the land, that is, villages, but in Russia of that period there is an imbalance in the direction of urban development. That is, economically Russia could provide the life of the city, but the question is how? And here there are several options 1. Craft - indeed in the pre-Horde period in Russia things were made which technology was lost and this product was valued in the world. 2. Russia is rich in forests and rivers, especially the north, for hunting, fishing, flight-hunting and other trades it is not necessary to settle close to the place, it is enough to go by artel for a few months to a hut farm-ranch wink. 3. Service trade routes here is not the land plowed. Security, barge haulers, fuss, pilots, inns, worldly pleasures wink. 4. Well, actually, if some of the most powerful trade routes pass through your land, which prevents you from becoming a merchant, a friend of a merchant, an employee of the region. Well, if you didn’t take even the workers out of fear, then you can go to the ears and go to the Byzantine service. This I mean that Russia is not so dependent on plowing ka Europe.
                    suddenly sailed
                    Yes, but suddenly the city is locked up, and the working people fled. Okay, they dragged the ships themselves, the logs remained, for joy they robbed something somewhere, taking into account the specifics of Russia, if a caravan did not get caught, then a couple of three villages (I do not deny their presence), the city is difficult. And that they will have a maximum of slaves from this campaign, from where the village has gold and diamonds. By the way, if you look at Europe, it becomes clear that there is a lot of history of the same collective farmers, but there is nothing to take from them, but to take the baron's castle for a long time, chipidale will run over. But there is a weakly guarded concentration of "devil's metal" and other material goods, monasteries. As they say, God himself commanded. Well, okay, let's return to our "Volokolamsk", it means the Vikings have robbed and are returning, and then suddenly the lads are waiting for them ... hi , and all because the flipping of this bottleneck will not work around it.
                    In general, the drag protected from raids no worse than the Himalayas.
                    In flood then more article wassat
                    1. 0
                      19 January 2017 21: 51
                      In the Soviet school there was a subject "geography", and in it a section "economic geography", which clearly stated that the only black earth region of the USSR was the Central Black Earth Region of the RSFSR. The rest are small pieces scattered across the territory of Ukraine.
                      It is not a fact that at least one of them underwent agricultural processing during the time of Russia, since almost the entire territory occupied by Slavic tribes was covered with forests - a natural defense.

                      A larger number of settlements surrounded by a fence in Russia in comparison with Scandinavia does not yet speak of their wealth, but it speaks of a large excess of such building material as wood. The houses in the Russian city (unlike the European one) were not filled with values ​​that made sense to rob (metals).

                      The Vikings did not even think of capturing the territories of Ireland and Scotland - they only traded there by raids and robberies of property. The climate of Scotland and Ireland allowed to breed sheep in droves, the source of wealth of local residents was wool, which was produced in commercial quantities - i.e. for sale, and not just within the subsistence economy (for ourselves). From the commodity economy, the Scots / Irish were rich, and the Vikings re-retrieved them.

                      Hunting, dressing of export goods - furs (junk) - these are seeds. The product itself is whimsical to the conditions of transportation and storage (technologies are available only to merchants - specialists), it is voluminous compared to metals and does not accumulate in any particular place - you will have to run around furs for merchants' sheds in the forests. Skins are not divided for calculations, unlike metals, and require wholesale sales with a loss in price.

                      But what the hell is a Viking, when in much larger quantities in Europe there were metals concentrated in known places, with access directly from the sea?
                      1. 0
                        19 January 2017 22: 26
                        Let's start from the end laughing
                        And on a fig it is a Viking,
                        I agree why so much movement is likely to run into an otter, if the monastery is around the corner without guard.
                        The Vikings did not even think of capturing the territories of Ireland and Scotland
                        Well, from that time on, the Saxons had the custom, "we didn't think it just happened that way"laughing. But they also captured Central England, too, and received a new king from their Norman relatives a little later. Well, do not forget the expansion to the north-west, farmers on sheep did not sail there.
                        A greater number of settlements surrounded by a fence in Russia compared to Scandinavia does not yet speak of their wealth,
                        I did not talk about the wealth of fortified settlements in principle, I said that, due to the specifics of the region, well, completely worthless villages were left without a stockade, but not even each stockade had anything to do with. All the buns, in the absence of a fortune-acquiring church, were concentrated in the hands of the princes, and these princes were much smaller than the counts, and the squad, unlike barons and knights, did not crawl through the castles. So in fact, having arrived at Ukyyiv’s gate for pots, instead of gosh, you got nuts and fell ... fell ... the main thing away.
                        that the only chernozem region of the USSR is the Central Chernozem Region of the RSFSR.
                        Yes, yes, they also wrote a word on the fence, the girls went to check ... netuu. The current sho went off again, opened a map of the soil of the USSR, and what we see is, yes, there is such a weight as the Central Committee of the RSFSR, but in the region of Ukyyivu and other principalities with chernozem everything is fine too. I will tell you so the most objective assessment of the quality of the land was given by the Nazis, exporting black soil from Ukraine with echelons.
                    2. 0
                      20 January 2017 11: 26
                      Quote: rasteer
                      In general, the drag protected from raids no worse than the Himalayas.

                      No, the Himalayas still protect better. Vikings can unite in a small army and make a raid. But it’s much more profitable not to quarrel with the local population, otherwise you will have to go through the indicated draw later, with the strength of no less than the army. The risk will be great, but little use. Or, in general, to abandon this direction after a raid, which is stupid, since the rich lands remained, You can trade with them, or rob, or rob merchants who trade with them, but this is all behind the drag.
                      So I also doubt it. For the Vikings, the loss of ships is very critical, and ships and cargo on the way are very vulnerable. Therefore, I think that at this stage the Vikings turned into merchants. They paid local cones, that is, a fee, and were afraid only of colleagues in the robber trade trade. On the drag, you can even run into an ordinary diversion, from small gangs. The ship will be burned or broken and scattered. But the Vikings will have no choice but to throw in place part of the valuable junk that was transported.
  21. +1
    16 January 2017 19: 34
    Oh, these Vikings. They inhabited almost the entire north. Yes
    1. +1
      16 January 2017 20: 57
      And not only. Also the West (Iceland), East (Novgorod), South (Africa) and even the Center. For Viking is a pirate. And the author writes about this.
  22. +2
    16 January 2017 21: 49
    while colors like blue or green were not often chosen for coloring
    The cost of blue dye in the Middle Ages was very high.
    1. 0
      17 January 2017 20: 48
      Where does this information come from?
    2. 0
      18 January 2017 22: 30
      It depends on what. Indigo price - yes. Lapis lazuli is generally worth its weight in gold (but this is not for clothes or shields, but for frescoes, icons, etc.) But the wyda was very inexpensive!
  23. 0
    17 January 2017 08: 55
    I read, though I don’t remember the source anymore, that the Slavs used one and a half sharpened swords, like a Finka, one and a half cubits long and no more than 2-3 fingers wide with a central groove and a cross and the same one and a half handle with a ball top, under the so-called one and a half grasp. As far as all this is true, I saw swords in museums ranging from one-handed to two-handed, I kept replicas in my hands, including with a one-and-a-half handle, but the question of historicity remained with me. (the handle has a thickening in the place where the brush ends, as it were).
    1. +2
      17 January 2017 14: 53
      Perhaps you meant the tops. One explanation is to balance the sword.
      1. 0
        18 January 2017 00: 37
        Thank you, but I know this, I wonder if there were swords with one and a half hilt in our history at all? (maybe he didn’t quite accurately describe the subject and expressed his thought, it’s possible to excuse me).
  24. +1
    19 January 2017 17: 29
    Quote: Luga
    thereby multiplying the combined force of pressure on the enemy system, it is most effective in short-range attacks with the goal of breaking through the enemy system, forcing the enemy to back off, backing forward.

    The concept is quite reasonable. What happens is that both building strenuously crushing each other, while the front rows are also actively cut among themselves. The dead and seriously wounded gradually accumulate, which, due to the squeezing, cannot fall to the ground and simply hang. The living, however, cannot enter the battle, the dead interfere with them and it remains to press stupidly. As a result, someone will pass someone over. Those take a step back, the pressure eases and the dead fall. Here, it seems to me, the retreats, most importantly, close the "disheveled" formation, while the attackers make their way through the corpses. If they succeed, the confrontation will continue, if not ...
    These are my purely free reasoning, not connected by any experience, just painted a situation for myself.

    Quote: Luga
    my circle of contacts includes people involved in football hooliganism and participating in real street battles, when the number of participants on each side is up to three hundred people.

    As far as I know about wall-to-wall fights, the main action here is in small groups, deuces, triples, fours. Their interaction both within the group and between groups.
    1. 0
      20 January 2017 14: 11
      Quote: Victor Red
      while the front rows are also actively cut among themselves

      How can they actively cut with each other, if they are not given maneuvers at all? You stand sideways, in one hand a shield, in the other a sword is useless somewhere dangling over your head, because there is still no room for a swing - the back ones are in the back. Subway simulator at rush hour.
      Quote: Victor Red
      Gradually, the dead and seriously wounded accumulate, which due to squeezing cannot fall to the ground and just hang.

      I recall this alignment in fiction, something like fairy tales about Galmikar Barka from a series of crowd to crowd, without organization, discipline and sensible weapons.
      Quote: Victor Red
      Here, it seems to me that retreating, the most important thing is to close the "disheveled" formation,

      It’s not necessary to close the line; the main thing is to regroup in an organized manner. What the closeness of hypothetical series, stupidly leaning against each other, completely does not contribute. The first to win his part of the crowd from the heap-small and rebuild in a more sensible order, he won.
      Quote: Victor Red
      As far as I know about wall-to-wall fights, the main action here is in small groups, deuces, triples, fours. Their interaction both within the group and between groups.

      Well, this is closer to the topic. In two crowds leaning against each other, there will be no sensible interaction.
  25. 0
    19 January 2017 22: 52
    rasteer,
    The Angles, Saxons and Normans were not Vikings (reketirs), they were territorial invaders for the purpose of their subsequent settled life. In addition, the Vikings were overwhelmingly Scandinavians, the Angles and Saxons - Germanized Celts mixed with Scandinavians, Normans - Romanized Celts mixed with Scandinavians.

    The Germans simply did not know what a real black soil looks like from near Kursk and Belgorod laughing
    1. 0
      20 January 2017 12: 05
      The Germans simply did not know what a real black soil looks like from Kursk and Belgorod laughing
      Of course, they generally learned about black soil only in Ukraine wink
      Angles, Saxons and Normans were not Vikings
      Are you serious? In Ireland, it looked as follows, the Vikings raided first on the coast, and then deep into the island, and on the coast founded settlements in particular Dublin. Normandy was handed over to the Vikings by Rollo, a charter from raids by them and other Vikings.
      And so everywhere on the European shores, the same Old Ladoga was founded not only for the merchants. There are a couple of exceptions: Iceland and Greenland were not robbed, they wanted, but there was no one, they just had to be colonized.laughing
      1. 0
        20 January 2017 12: 48
        Do you distinguish raids of Vikings from their settled (Sardinia, Normandy, Dublin)? laughing
        Old Ladoga was founded not by the Vikings - the Scandinavians, but by settlers - Slavs (the Wened tribe of Rus). The Viking burial in the area with a gulkin nose is at the level of 1 percent.
        1. 0
          20 January 2017 14: 42
          It all started with raids, but after them migration expansion began in Ireland, or in Normandy they received land in exchange for protection and peace.
  26. +1
    20 January 2017 14: 52
    Again Shpakovsky .......
  27. 0
    20 January 2017 17: 20
    Quote: rasteer
    You read the history of ancient wars, there were no fullplates, no assault helmets, but the tactics were surprisingly monotonous butting in the center of the heavy infantry

    So that’s the point. Indicate the sources where it is described as you have. Type rested against each other and stalled, trying to budge.
    Quote: rasteer
    The statement is more than controversial

    Well, okay, in this case it is not important. Unfired soldiers will sit out in the rear until they smell fried. And only after that it becomes known what they are capable of, can their legs be thrown away.
    Quote: rasteer
    The Vikings basically had a smaller scale

    I have one impression about the main history of the Greeks - a spider's nest. Up to the point that the village could go to the village. By the way, the Odyssey is just a description of the adventures of the ancient Vikings.
    Quote: rasteer
    there is a description of how the Thebes and Athens started a war during the Olympic Games in my opinion and the battles between small groups of warriors took place right in the middle of Olympia during the competition, there could not be any talk about any phalanx.

    Let me explain, this is not just a phalanx, secretly hoplite, or what else, but a dense construction by a rank, hiding behind shields. So, for example, built a Viking. Okay. But to force them to shout at the enemy, pushing shields, in my opinion was somewhat cruel. I cited the ancient phalanxes, manipulations of legions and other things as an example to the fact that this business was not practiced even in ancient times. Moreover, if it were so, the same Romans would have left some written evidence about such a strange battle. On what opponents of the theory defended by you rest. There are no documents that hustled. There are documents that cut and pricked each other, and nothing more. But they only pressed their own ranks during a stampede.
    Quote: rasteer
    See if the police work when dispersing demonstrators.

    This picture has nothing to do with the medieval war. The police play the role of a mobile fence against the hysterical demonstrators and hooligans. To give both sides at least spears, the situation will change dramatically. If you put in front of each other in a row of riot policemen with shields and spears, those who will stab and maneuver, and not those who will shove with shields, will win.
    Quote: rasteer
    modern special means were inactive against them

    If this carelessness led to mass death on the border of contact, then yes, it would be at least some illustration. And so again, this is an illustration of the battle of some over-protected wars. In fullplay, in heavy assault helmets, etc. Who are in no hurry to die at the point of contact.
  28. 0
    23 January 2017 11: 37
    abrakadabre,
    It's about the Viking system, which was built most densely, after which it was sent to push with shields with the enemy.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    It is immediately obvious that you have little idea of ​​the degree of coherence, mobility and controllability of a close formation of several hundred people (albeit professionals) with long-arms weapons and in a stressful battle situation.

    Well, that’s how the manipulations of the legion make it possible to assemble the system, and where it is not necessary, to disassemble. No? In the Vikings, the role of maniples or smaller independent units could theoretically be performed by crews of ships.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Delusional delirium. We kill at least one of those bound in a chain. Falling, he turns into an unrealistic burden for neighboring fighters

    I wrote fiction. One of the consequences of the idea of ​​ancient and medieval battles as pushing shields. Actually an attempt to create a mobile fortification. About the possibility of overthrowing this system - it is in vain, there are some backups, plus they are interconnected. And slaves chained to them are for carrying and as an additional support. Another thing is why it is needed at all.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Why spoil sarisa for this (consider an ordinary peak) if normal spears have been known since the time of the Stone Age? .. fool With a normal large leaf-shaped tip,

    It's not about that, but about the availability of such weapons. To be short, durable at break, narrow enough, and the cutting edges also do not hurt.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Legionnaires tactics based on depriving the enemy of a shield

    More likely - on deprivation of mobility. Somewhere the fastenings of the tips bent, somewhere partially broke - part of the rivets on the mount were replaced with wooden elements. The result was an imitation of a peak stuck in a shield and resting on the ground, after which the phalanx took further time to rebuild for further advancement. But is this all for what? The legionnaires had no desire to jostle with the phalanx - wherever there is tightness and there is no room for maneuver, losses are inevitable. So why then would the Vikings suddenly start pushing themselves with shields, and even resting on each other's backs?
  29. 0
    28 February 2017 13: 20
    Nice to see Vyacheslav keep writing great articles!
  30. 0
    2 May 2017 15: 31
    ... fantasy bloomed to indecent ..
    One is the reflection of Christ .. Jesus Christ is Prince Andrei of Bogolyubsky Emperor ..-crucified on the cross on the Bosphorus ... in 1185 .. after the palace coup, the founder of Moscow .. There can not even be a mention of God Odin about any 5th or 8th century ... The first Rome is the territory of Russia after the brothers' campaigns - George and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich ... The Vatican was founded by Yaroslav Vsevolodovich = Yaroslav the Wise = John Kalita = Khan Batu ...
  31. 0
    12 December 2017 05: 51
    the author is a mass entertainer, he mixed everything in a heap.
    And poetry, and Kennings and the “pig” system, which, just like the “pig,” appeared not among the Vikings.
    Shields or chain mail didn’t have “names” like “iron sheet” - this is a metaphor

    That is sword - for a red word in poetry may be called "shield scramble fish"And"canvas of the virgin helmet-bearing Labor / or Hild "but it's uwfemism - a sword in general.
    And here "Gray blade" or Youkul Sword is the name of a particular sword of a particular person.
    Vikings won victories just when their opponents were disorganized. When the Franks and Angles more or less united, the Vikings gradually came to naught. Hence the "settled" but concentrated mainly on the lands of Ireland, England (Northumbria), islands and Normandy.
    Concerning the Varangians - Varangians and Rus - there are many works of Russian historians - not only Gurevich, but also Melnikov, Gorsky, Tsvetkov. In fact, there are also the Scandinavians themselves - Helge Ingstad, for example, or the parents of Sigrid Unset.
    So the Americans who can drive the blizzard can not be referenced.


    А according to the same Americans, the entire Russian north is Ladoga, Novgorod, and so on. founded the Scandinavians. Particularly vividly, "Scandinavian blood appeared in the baptizer of Russia - Vladimir."

    quotes from american viking work
    Vikings. Descendants of Odin and Thor
    Posted by Jones Gwyn 2010


    It is hardly worthwhile to attach importance to the story of the three brothers who came from overseas (the usual motive for this kind of legend), as well as the message that they were allegedly invited by the inhabitants of abundant land suffering from wars and feuds (another “wandering” plot ); and it is unlikely that we will ever be able to find out if Rurik was exactly the same Chronicler-Rorik, whom we know from his exploits in Frisia and South Jutland in the 850s. (we have no indication that the Russ first appeared in Russia in the 850s, the facts rather speak in favor of an earlier date). However all this does not give us a reason completely deny the legend or try to imagine Russ Slavs, Khazars, Crimean Goths or anyone else.

    The Khazars, an Asian tribe who spoke Turkish, ruled in the territory from the Caucasus and the northern Caspian almost to the Urals, and Crimea also belonged to them. Their capital - Itil - was located in the Volga delta, about where Astrakhan is now located. The Khazars had a special talent for trade, and their customs and religious customs were notable for moderation rare for Asian peoples, and thanks to these qualities they won the favor of Byzantine emperors. West of the Khazar lands and north of Byzantium lived westernUlgars - a strong, aggressive people who often fought with the empire. Modern Bulgaria is named for the first conquerors of this region, but its original population was Slavic, and over time the invaders completely disappeared into it.

    Historical literature has proposed many cunning and sometimes conflicting translations of “gentem suam Rhos” and “gentis Sueonum,” found in Article 839, but on the whole these definitions are quite consistent with what other sources and archaeological data tell us about the Rus. The Russians who appeared at the court of Louis the Pious were Swedes, but they did not live in Sweden. They went with a friendly embassy to the south and, passing safely populated wild tribes of the region along the banks of the Dnieperarrived in Constantinople. Now the envoys were returning home in a roundabout way, to Russian lands, where there was a certain settlement, colony, kingdom - call it what you like - whose ruler was so strong and free from the power of the Swedish king that he could be called (at least, in the mouth of the Byzantine emperor) Hakan: the so-called supreme rulers of the Khazars and Bulgars. Almost a century later, the Arab Ibn-Rust wrote that the Rus called their ruler "Kagan-Rus."

    Old Ladoga. Aldeiguborg, covering an area of ​​2,5 square kilometers, in addition to the rivers and ravine covering it, it was protected by an earthen rampart. Even before the appearance of the Swedes, a Finnish or (what less likely) Slavic settlement.

    However, the contribution of the Normans to Russian history is not limited only to the creation of the principality of Kiev. They can be credited, however, not with the “foundation of the Russian state” (which the Swedes are often and undeservedly credited with), but with the founding of trading cities that continued to live and flourish thanks to their efforts. The largest and most influential of these cities are Novgorod, Beloozero, Izborsk, Polotsk, Rostov, Smolensk, Chernihiv - played a decisive role in the formation of Slavic statehood in the territory from Lake Ladoga to the Black Sea. The formation of the Russian state took place gradually, in very complex ways, and the Rus were noticeable and important, but not the only force involved in this. The question of when the history of the Principality of Kiev can no longer be considered in the framework of the history of the Vikings remains an open question. According to strict estimates, the border runs through the XNUMXth century .; even more severe critics argue that there was no close connection between Russia and Scandinavia from the very beginning. An unbiased observer will easily notice that most Scandinavian historians zealously defend the “Normanist” theory, while Russian historians no less zealously try to refute it. In the laws, customs, social institutions and forms of money circulation of the Principality of Kiev, they say, just as in the language, art, beliefs and traditions of the Scandinavian origins are hardly traced quite clearly; and all the messages of the Arab and Byzantine sources can be correlated with the "Scandinavian" Normans, and only with them. The Eastern Slavic peoples and Byzantium have much more to do with the founding of the Russian state than the Normans, although Arab and Turkic influence should not be completely discounted.


    Publisher Summary
    The book contains unique material from the history of the Viking era. It tells about an unprecedented expansion to the west in search of unknown lands of the inhabitants of Scandinavia, who spoke the same dialect, professed the same religion, recognizing similar laws, and waged fierce wars on the sea and land of Western Europe for three centuries. Data from archaeological research, an analysis of literary monuments and historical evidence are designed to create a multidimensional image of the Vikings.

    https://history.wikireading.ru/28330

    As for the Russians, as far as I understand, a more or less recognized concept has developedthat it is part of the Scandinavians mixed with the Slavic tribes, / part of the Slavic / Swedish tribes that made up the fighting squad. It is the squad, not the Rus tribe.
    The Varangians are the Scandinavians who came after them, partially assimilatedsettled on the lands and the area of ​​Adog, Novgorod and the north stands out
    Varangi is the Slavic name of the Varangians warped by the Greeks, namely, part of the Vikings sent to Constantinople (part!) with the accompanying document - ... "I recommend the Varangians to settle, and not to keep in one place as a group. "
    That is, it was after this Russian-Scandinavian "Varangians" - the Greeks gave birth to the word "Varangians"

    In general, to study such controversial issues, it is better to read not articles on the VO, but refer to specialized sites.
    though Valhalla - the forum of northern glory very often was littered with all sorts of non-Scandian-nationalists, then all sorts, so it was often blocked by Roskomnadzor, but there are norse.narod and ulvdalir
  32. 0
    12 December 2017 06: 00
    Actually, the "Yokul sword" should be called by your own name.
    Yokul - it seems to translate as Icicle.
    That’s the name of the sword of Grettir the Stronger, and he was called the Icicle because it was extracted from the mound of a dead ghost
  33. 0
    12 December 2017 06: 18
    А Gray blade - that’s how the sword seemed to be called Gisli from the Gisli sagawho had been hiding in Iceland for 13 years, the second record after Grethyr Silach
    I wouldn’t post such amateur articles in general on VO.
    Previously, I came to VO through a search for a specific fact - Shyutkorites and the Tallinn transition, the death of the S-80 submarine or something also clearly indicated, and it’s a shame to read all this semi-amateurish reprinting of other people's works.
    There are many books and websites dedicated to the Vikings, Normans, and Samurai - where all these topics are covered at a different level.
    General questions of "history" or "the phenomenon of samurai - go to forums of historians and specifically orientalists, at VO I would like to read specific articles about specific facts.
    I thoroughly worked on the issue of some kind of sword - I wrote an article about this sword or this type of swords, not in general, but in full. With a description, drawings, found artifacts and so on.

    Incidentally, the rector-pedant is looking for those who want to sign up for Talmuds with samurai swords. It seems to be its own detailed systematization.
    Author about his project: (I read only von Winkler, I can not judge the level of a person) https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/graft2008

    For the past three or four years, for references on Japanese-made armor and weapons, I have been referring mainly to my notes and posts. Comprehensive books like Bazhenov cannot boast of good (from my point of view, of course) orderliness, and it can be very difficult to find something there. In books more superficial, such as Khorev, many facts simply do not exist. Finally, a certain amount of unique information (such as the relatively recent sample of kabuto nozarashi), in principle, does not occur in Russian-language literature - it must be sought either in English or in Japanese sources. You won’t translate Japanese every time, storing all this in pieces is still not very convenient, therefore, it’s not the first year that I cherish the thought of a book. It’s probably worth taking Nosov as a model (which describes almost all weapons and armor), changing the structure and deepening the whole thing with interesting private examples.
  34. 0
    12 December 2017 08: 05
    In general, if we seriously talk about weapons, then the so-called "culture of large axes" first appeared
    And, in fact, then it “blossomed”.

    If you read the sagas or the Sigrid Unset book, then there is such a description of a "trip" / journey from one farm to another, or from one yard to a remote grazing. that is, "homestead" is a loose concept in Norway, this includes a 2 "farmhouse" and buildings, a summer kitchen, a blacksmith shop and a shed on a summer pasture in the mountains, and a building on a public pasture (communal land). So, two men were driving skiing stopped chopped wood, lit a fire.
    Or a model of "blood feud" - Egil and Kveldulf attacked the king’s protege in his house.

    A large whale was nailed to the communal land, the workers chopped meat for some reason, but then the workers of the owner of the neighboring land came up and said that the meat belonged only to them.

    In the Saga of the burned Nyal couple, a man managed to get out of the house. Having cut a hole in the wall or having chopped up the beams / supports.

    The tactics of attacking / boarding ships was as follows: jump onto a strange ship and clear itor Arnvid Khnuva, or Eivind the Lamb with an ax cut through the bottoms / sides of the ships king (Harald Harfagra) so that they did not have time to catch up with Torolva or Egil Skallagrimson.
    i.e the main weapon of the militia / peasantry and the original - was an ax. A universal tool - chop wood and chop the head, and patch the boat.
    Further evolution - an ax with a long handle - an ax..
    Poor bonds might not have MPCH, but the ax / ax was usually inherited
    A sword is a weapon of a wealthier owner.
    Shields were often small and wooden, all sorts of edging and other things. Also met that could be "nibbled" berserkers. And also the shield could be thrown at the enemy, either Gisli, or someone else, when he was fighting on the island, would seem to have thrown a shard of the shield when it cracked or cracked.
    Helmets were simple such as "shishak", without horns, more often without any bells and whistles of the "arrow" type, covering the bridge of the nose and the mask - rather like trophies - yes, they themselves did not bother.
    not at all, either chain mail seems to be woven or sewn metal plates on a leather base.
    Oh, another spear. It was common, onions - rather the stage of "apprenticeship" of the teenager and for hunting. Offhand I know Einar Bryukhotryas, who was considered a master archer, but during a battle with either Olav or Harald, his bow was damaged. Here is a quote:

    Einar, in turn, also pulled a bowstring, but the arrow sent by Finn hit the Einar's shaft of the bow and broke it in half. There was a terrible crack. Konung Olaf Tryggwason asked:

    - What did it burst with such a crash? Einar replies:

    “Your business has burst in Norway, king.”

    “There has never been such a loud crack,” says the king. - Take my bow and shoot.

    And he threw him his bow. Einar took the bow, pulled the bowstring on the tip of the arrow and said:

    - Weak, too weak is the king's bow.

    And he threw his bow, took his shield and his sword, and began to fight. [9]


    Basically archers were considered / hired Finns.
    1. 0
      12 December 2017 08: 19
      and here’s the “system” in the battle at Stamford Bridge:

      BATTLE

      The Norwegians are located 13 km east of York, at the crossing of the Derwent River, known as Stamford Bridge. They expected the hostages from the North English Tenes, which they were supposed to give out as a sign of alliance. Meanwhile, the army of the English king Harold was advancing from the south in a quick march. Already on September 24, she was in Tadcaster (where the Viking fleet was not far from the parking lot), and on the morning of September 25, having freely passed through York, she encountered the Norwegians at Stamford Bridge. The meeting was an unpleasant surprise for Harald. Having sent messengers calling for help on the ships, he quickly built his warriors.

      Snorri Sturluson left a description of the Viking maneuvers. King Harald ordered the flag to be thrown out, roughly meaning "danger on land." The Vikings were built in a long formation, then both flanks of the system were pulled back and closed, thus forming a ring with an equal density of soldiers everywhere. In the center of the ring system was the king himself with his retinue and bodyguards, and archers were next to them. The soldiers of the first row were ordered to rest the spears on the ground and point the tips at the chest level of the riders, the soldiers of the second row to point the tips in the chest to the horses.

      According to one version, the positions of the Scandinavians were located on the opposite bank of Dervent; the bridge over the river remained unguarded, which the Anglo-Saxons took advantage of. Despite the heroic defense of the bridge by one single Norwegian Viking, whose feat was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the British captured the crossing, but apparently the delay gave Harald time to build an army in battle formation. However, the story of this Viking was entered by hand into the Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the XII century, and later acquired such details that the Viking allegedly killed 40 English with his ax, holding back the entire Anglo-Saxon army until 3 o’clock in the afternoon, until it was stabbed with a peak boats from under the bridge. However, the Viking poet Snorri Sturluson does not mention this feat, citing many other details of the battle. If we exclude the history of the Viking, then the course of the battle becomes clear.

      A group of 20 knights separated from the British army, who jumped to the Norwegian ranks and offered, on behalf of King Harold, a third of the kingdom of England to the joint reign of Count Tostigu. Tostig asked what King Harald would get. A mocking reply followed that Harold would give him "seven feet of English land, or more if he is taller than other people."

      The battle has begun. Anglo-Saxons circled around the Viking system, unable to overcome the wall of shields and spears. When, however, the British managed to breach the wall, a cruel slaughter ensued there, and King Harald without armor with a two-handed sword hastened into the thick of the battle. There he was killed by an arrow in the throat. Commander of the Vikings took over Count Tostig. There was a break in the battle, the English king offered peace to Tostigue and mercy for the Vikings, which they indignantly rejected. In a renewed battle, Earl Tostig was killed.

      At this moment preinforcements from ships led by the Viking Einstein Teterev, again a fierce battle began to boil. Here is how Snorri Sturluson writes about her:

      “Eystein and his people were in such a hurry on the way from the ships that they were completely exhausted, and when they arrived on the battlefield they had almost no strength to fight, but then they got so frantic that they did not hide behind shields while they could stand on their feet. At the end in the end, they threw off their chain mail, and then it became easy for the British to strike them, but some of them died without getting injured, simply from exhaustion. Almost all the noble Norwegians fell. It was already at the end of the day. As you might expect, not everyone behaved the same way, many took to flight, there were many who were fortunate enough to be saved. Before all this massacre ended, evening darkness fell. "

      http://ulfdalir.narod.ru/archaeology/battles/stam
      fordbridge.htm
  35. 0
    12 December 2017 08: 41
    Well, the tactics of "blood feud" or combat experience
    as a rule in sagas it is described as follows:
    went towards - met there dismounted and fought, met the jarl ship - attacked and captured
    or
    holmagang, one on one duel
    or
    attacked the master's house:
    here xnumx options
    1. set fire from different angles / roof and met at the exit "those who tried to get out of dma - they killed him"
    2. Who I do not remember specifically - stood in the doorway with a sword and killed those who tried to go outside.
    while often women and children were invited to go outside before the attack

    There were such books "Vikings: Raids from the North"fairly reliable with the appearance of photographs and Belov is something about Slavic.
    So Belov parses the tactics of either Eirik or Einar against the pursuers: he bent down the branches of nearby trees and set up an ambush. And then they threw on top either a net or a cloak.
    That is, those whose brains were boiled - he also thought over tactics and construction during the course of the play.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"