A little about scramasax
"When the Saxons rebelled this year, King Chlothar sent troops against them and destroyed most of them. He marched through Thuringia and devastated it because it had provided aid to the Saxons."
History of the Franks. Book IV. Gregory of Tours, Bishop
History of the Franks. Book IV. Gregory of Tours, Bishop
History weapons. Since a number of VO readers have asked me questions about the scramasax, it makes sense to answer them first and then return to "sword notches." Incidentally, I have a very amusing memory associated with this ancient weapon.
It so happened that at one time I had a very good, friendly relationship with Mikhail Gorelik—a renowned historian, art critic, and an exceptionally knowledgeable man (may he rest in peace!). So one day, I was visiting him, and he was showing me the new gun replicas he'd made and telling me that not long ago, a Moscow reenactors' club had invited him to tell them about his work. He arrived and saw a notice on the wall: "Scramasax test tomorrow at..." He asked how that could be, since nothing was known about it except that it existed. "But we... reconstructed how it was used..." He turned to these "experts" and left.
Since then, the topic of scramasax has intrigued me immensely. Has history really preserved nothing about it for us except its name? And now, it turns out, there is something!
The name itself was born thanks to the historian Gregory of Tours: in the 6th century he wrote that the Frankish king Sigebert was attacked with the help of "powerful knives, commonly called scramasaxes"But it's clear that he left us no description of the appearance of these "powerful knives." But if it was a knife, that means it had a single-edged blade. Several similar blades were found and later identified with the scramasax. The most famous example of this type of bladed weapon was discovered, quite by chance.
This is the so-called Thames Scramasax (also known as the "Beagnot Sax"). Dating back to the 9th-10th centuries, it is decorated with an intricate pattern of copper, bronze, and silver wire inlay, and its blade bears a runic inscription with the name of its owner or smith. And it was discovered entirely by chance...
The Thames Scramasax. British Museum
It so happened that Henry Briggs, a laborer who worked cleaning the banks of the River Thames near Battersea (a residential area in south London), repeatedly found various artifacts in the mud and silt, which the British Museum eagerly purchased from him. So, despite his unskilled work, Briggs was a man of intelligence and at least some understanding of his finds, and most importantly, he knew who to offer them to! It's ironic that between 1843 and 1867, he sold no fewer than 43 different finds to the museum, meaning he contributed to science as much as some qualified archaeologists!
So, in early 1857, Briggs made his next discovery—he found a short, but clearly very old, sword in the mud, which he promptly sold to the museum. On May 21, 1857, it was put on display at the Society of Antiquaries of London for appraisal. It was decided that it was a blade. "resembling the Frankish scramasaxes, examples of which are very rare in England, and having a number of runic characters inlaid with gold"It was then that it began to be called the "Thames Scramasax," although the term "scramasax" itself appears only once in the works of the Frankish historian Gregory of Tours and is not described in any way. However, since the true meaning of the "scrama" part of the word was unknown, most researchers began to call the sword simply a "long seax."
The artifact found in the Thames was an iron blade with a single cutting edge. It measured 721 mm in length, of which the blade itself measured 551 mm from tip to heel, and the tang 170 mm. The blade had a maximum width of 38,7 mm and a thickness of 8,2 mm. It weighed 985 grams. This makes it a fairly heavy weapon—and would have been even heavier had it included a hilt and pommel. However, the hilt was missing. It was likely made of wood.
On both sides of the blade, a deep fuller could be seen, above which was a rectangular band with copper inlays. On the other side, this band was filled with a pattern of asymmetrically arranged diamonds made of silver and copper wire.
Inlay with runic symbols ᛒᛠᚷᚾᚩᚦ
On the opposite side of the blade, symmetrically to the patterned band, were two runic inscriptions, inlaid with brass and silver. The left inscription contained twenty-eight letters of the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet. The right inscription, separated from it by a diamond pattern, was none other than a proper name: ᛒᛠᚷᚾᚩᚦ (Beagnoþ or Beagnoth, Russian ≈ Beagnot). This is why he became known as "Sax Beagnot." Australian-British professor Ralph Elliott, an expert on ancient British runes, suggested that this blade was wielded by a noble warrior from the Kingdom of Kent, since the runic alphabet there contained exactly 28 symbols, while the Northumbrian runic alphabet had three more.
Furthermore, two individuals named Beagnoþ or Beagnoth are recorded in Kent. One is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle during the reign of King Eardwulf of Kent (748–767), who granted him grazing rights near Rochester. The second was a monk mentioned in the Chronicle of King Æthelwulf of Wessex as a participant in one of the Synods of 803. Interestingly, in Old English, the word beag means "ring, bracelet, wreath," while nōþ means "courage, prowess." Together, they can be translated as "ring" or "wreath of good fortune."
The scramasax is a medieval bladed weapon, often referred to as a "great sax." Essentially, it's a cross between a large fighting knife and a short sword: long and massive enough to be effective in close combat, yet not as bulky as a full-sized sword.
In general, the scramasax was a fairly narrow blade (about 2–3 cm wide), but very thick at the spine. Its thickness at the spine could reach 1 cm or more. From tip to spine, there was a noticeable bevel (false edge), which clearly increased its penetrating power and allowed for powerful thrusting blows, possibly even penetrating chainmail or leather armor. The blade could have a fuller—a longitudinal groove that increased its rigidity and somewhat reduced its weight.
The scramasax handle could be either straight or slightly curved, and it had no guard. The handle was at least 10 cm long, ensuring a secure grip. The handle was most likely made of wood, but materials such as bone and horn could also be used. And why not? It was mounted on the tang of the blade, after which the end of the tang was riveted or bent to secure it. The handle could be decorated with decorative elements, such as carved animal heads, which also had a sacred meaning for the Scandinavians.
The scabbard was made from a piece of thick cowhide, folded around the blade and then stitched together. Metal plates (either bronze or silver-plated) could be placed along the seam, to which rings were attached, allowing the scabbard to be hung from a belt.
The scramasax became widespread during the Migration Period and the early Middle Ages (roughly from the 5th to the 11th centuries) in Northern and Central Europe, among the Baltic peoples, and in Ancient Rus' (in the 10th century). It was carried as a secondary weapon, often alongside a sword (such as a spatha), and in some cases, it could replace it. It was especially prized in close, chaotic encounters—in narrow corridors, in crowds of combatants, and among shields, where a long sword would have been a hindrance.
Besides combat, the scramasax was widely used in everyday life: it was used to butcher game, chop branches for shelter, and perform various household tasks. In some cultures (for example, the Anglo-Saxons), owning such a knife was considered a sign of freedom.
Based on blade size, there are two main types: long (langsaxes, 38–63 cm) and short (kurzsaxes, the majority of finds are no longer than 25 cm). Longer blades likely originated in the Byzantine-Sassanid zone, while shorter blades evolved from late Roman and possibly Germanic combat knives.
Over time, as armor developed and became more widespread, such as chain mail, the effectiveness of the scramasax as a primary weapon significantly decreased—the heavy blade could no longer effectively penetrate their defenses.
Information