Interesting video about conventional sword naming

[Mike Andriacco]

So, I think this is the right place to put this. I found an interesting video on the YouTube channel Shadiversity regarding what we commonly call the "Viking sword," and whether or not that is an acceptable name. No endorsement implied, but I find his logic and proposals interesting, and he puts out some cool videos from time to time. I was curious, as makers, how folks here feel about it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyk2SJw39Z4

 

Hope I did that link right. First time posting from Chrome.

[Joshua States]

The problem I have with this video and the "logic" used, is that he belittles the real differences between the Roman Spatha and the Migration Era and Viking Age sword styles. He actually says "they are the same sword."

 

Well then. If the pommel shapes, guard shapes, blade dimensions, etc. make no difference what-so-ever, why call any European sword anything other than a Spartha? You could just start calling any Great Sword, a Great Spartha, because, hey, they are the same sword, only one is bigger than the other. (and a few minor differences in design). A Side Sword then becomes a Skinny Spartha and so on.

 

I have a feeling that the literary folks who call these swords "Viking Age" and "Migration Era" do so because it provides a better understanding of when, what, and where the sword came from. I also have a feeling that Shadversity is not an accredited educational institution......

 

The most troubling thing about this video is not that the author is attempting to remove "misinformation" only to provide even more of it, it's in the comments below from viewers. I think I counted at least a half dozen folks who seem to think this style of sword is called an "Ulfberht."

[Mike Andriacco]

I agree. I take what he says with a grain of salt but it encourages me to look into things deeper for myself. I am actually kind of fond of the "sverd" idea.