Was that wire an attempt to wrap the hilt?! Ouch...
I personally might be tempted to take the hild components off that and put them on a newer blade, and keep the original blade separately. Probably blasphemy, but nevertheless... :D

It is the top of the scabbard. there are a abundance of cheap replicas of this/a very similar sword that actually has the scabbard mount casted in one piece with the hilt.

[ Linked Image ]




Edit: Added picture

I think Del Tin is the only one who has gotten it right. The 2105. Had to guess at the pommel of course.

Elling Polden wrote:

It is the top of the scabbard. there are a abundance of cheap replicas of this/a very similar sword that actually has the scabbard mount casted in one piece with the hilt.

---

 Attachment: 23.13 KB

Eric

Quote:

That is the sword in the Gold Room in the Historical Museum...right?

I think it is that one, i have never been there :(

Quote:

Yes, I would like a better picture of the Grobina sword. Do you have the statistics Patrik?

I have uploaded one in albums, but i can't find it, :confused:
there was no statistics in that book about it, sorry!

I've never heard of a true two handed Viking sword, neither had Ewart or Ian Pierce, nor any of the various museums in Denmark,Norway or Sweden that I talked to.In Sweden the swords seemed to be slightly larger than in Denmark or Norway, but far from a two handed sword. Talk about a quest, but wait. I'll put in a new posting.

Here are that picture :)
Link to Latvia Viking sword

Actually, it's not a "13th warrior movie sword" reference, rather a Beowulf reference.

The sword used to slay Grendel's mother is described as being of two handed proportions.

I believe there are a few other references in the Sagas as well.

I can't check it at the moment, but I thought the sword in Beowulf was supposed to be the sword of a giant. And was hence so big it was wielded two handed...

Thomas Jason wrote:

Actually, it's not a "13th warrior movie sword" reference, rather a Beowulf reference. The sword used to slay Grendel's mother is described as being of two handed proportions. I believe there are a few other references in the Sagas as well.

My feelings on these are probably pretty much the same as Eric's. One of the biggest statements that always gets me is when someone says they really love viking swords, but wish they were two handed. To me that just says that they really don't appreciate what makes swords of the viking age so unique. The feel and handling of viking age swords just doesn't transfer over to a two handed sword very well.

One of the things that hasn't been touched on with this sword when trying to figure out the grip length is that most of the time organic components are usually oversized when compared to steel versions. The link below is to some of Laking's work and you can see an example with an organic hilt where the guard is oversized.

http://www.vikingsword.com/laking/lak001b.html

As it has been pointed out we do have examples of late migration era/ vendal period swords that have the same general set-up with mixed medium hilts, and a variety of other ways as well. Attached is a picture showing a few, and you can see how they look like there is a longer grip than normal. I wish I recalled where the picture came from, could probably find it given enough time, although it probably wouldn't be worth the bother looking for it.

All that said, I have to say I have my doubts about the sword in question. It just looks off in the shaping and designs to me, so it will take some pretty solid research for me to take this one seriously.

Shane

Wouldn't the cross-section of the blade be different for a larger sword? Maybe not if it were just cutting cloth and flesh, and occasionally maile, but viking swords are rather thin, broad, and generally lenticular in cross section, right? A slicing blade with a lot of flex, if I'm not mistaken. So how would this fullered lenticular shape perform when streched out to two handed proportions? would it still cut cleanly, or would excessive blade wobble be a problem?

I'm just throwing that out there. I'm trying to maintain the additude that you can't change one dimention without considering the whole.

From the Appendix to The Sword in the Age of Chivalry:

Quote:

Incontrovertible evidence that the use of a long (7"-8") grip and a "wheel" pommel were in use in the Viking Age is given by a watercolour drawing (dated 1846 and owned by the Society of Antiquaries) of the grave-goods of a 10th century Viking tomb cleared at Claughton Hall in Lancashire.

That and the Leppaaho finds that gave evidence of similar longer grips and wheel and brazil nut pommels show that we can't definitively say that swords of grete swerd proportion did not exist or were not in use during at least the late Viking Age. If they were in use then, there is no reason to believe they weren't in use during the Crusades, too, given swords of that size that Oakeshott dates to the mid-1100s (this applies to the thread asking about Crusader-era longswords).

I believe they weren't common at this point, but we have evidence that they did exist.

If there is any one thing I have learned in over 60 years study of arms and armour, it is that there are no unbreakabloe rules or that such swords never existed until--------. Take the rapier...and yet there is a Celtic sword with a long,thing blade, no edge to speak of, that could have only been used to thrust with, and could have been used as a rapier. Two hand and hand and a half swords sure were not common, nor do we have any examples, but I would not go so far as to say that no one ever used one. (posted example is exluded until age and source is verified.)