Enkidu98 17 posts
The Spear (and other pole weapon variants) was the weapon of choice for most all warriors and remained as such through most all of our history of armed, hand to hand, combat. Swords are the backup weapon for battle, they were for when your spear was no longer available/useful.
Swords as the primary weapon are an artifact of myth and mythologizing of the past that even occurred contemporaneously. Generally, they were the weapons of chieftains etc.until the general level of iron working and mass production of swords made it a possibility that more could carry it, but even then, they were primarily a backup in massed warfare.
Certainly, I found the lack of one handed swords a bummer. I like swords too. But if you are going to write a long post on the subject, please review and reeducate yourself.
I relate to this post so much. Swords were weapons of a Lord and his retinue. Symbolically they marked out a warrior in early medieval society.
It's one of my least favourite things about the game they were ditched.
There is hope they'll add them in at some point as it's the second most requested feature behind a transmog system , but it's so annoying their not there first place. They're my weapon of choice in early single assassin's creed game, in my historical reenactment group, I use a sword and it just makes no sense that they're not in the game.
And yes, spears should be the most common weapon. I can't fathom why their not.
@asgardian02 the Eagle bearer was never seen using a shield in any trailer, and ubisoft had an excuse as to why they left it out as they wanted players to be more aggressive, use the adrenaline system, compared to origin's combat. They also said because the Eagle bearer was an outcast and was taught to fight non traditionally, they wouldn't have taught with a shield anyway.
If course whether you agree with it or not is down to opinion.
The absence of swords hasn't been justified or explained.
OrcBeard92 141 posts
I'm personally not too bothered about the lack of swords. Some of the seaxes you can use are almost as long as swords anyway, and were more of a common weapon back then, being a kind of jack-of-all-trades tool as well as a weapon. It only stands out in some instances where you will see NPC's carrying them, or are able to be used in executions. Eivor even picks one up in the prologue.
As is mentioned in previous posts, there may have been some design or thematic choice behind it, however strange it might be that they didn't include them. Bayek used a shield because he is a 'protector'.
Alexios/Kassandra use the broken spear representing a broken lineage and holding onto the past, being channelled into a cutthroat life of aggression.
Eivor carries the small francisca on his back because of how they used it when becoming 'wolf-kissed'. Maybe this implies an affinity toward axes in general.
I could go into more detail but I don't want to go off on a tangent. We don't really know why they're not there, but we may get them in the future. Maybe even in the DLC? Francia/Ireland may add a new weapon type as well as the gear we are hoping for.
@orcbeard92 I got to respectfully disagree with you there. Seaxes were a side arm and weren't really used in combat in ght viking age. They were really popular during the merovingian period (pre vikingl, but as swords became more common around 700, Seaxes swere seen less and less as primary weapons and more as side arms.
There's no excuse in the game. They have either planned to release it with the dlcs or just didn't include it as an oversight.
Based of one the producer's tweets, it was an oversight. They clearly went with the popular (incorrect image) of vikings=, big, oversized two handed swords
(didn't even exist in the viking age) and axes
OrcBeard92 141 posts
@max18400 I appreciate you're passionate about the subject but you don't have to disagree lol. When I say 'more common' I mean they were more accessible. Virtually everyone would have access to a seax, even women. It's a knife or even a short sword in some cases like the scramasax (wounding knife) or langseax. The saxons even take their name from the weapon.
Swords were obviously a widespread weapon, but among fyrds, seaxes would certainly be more easy to find. You see many NPC's in the game with a seax at their front or back, in an antler or bone scabbard. More iron is more expensive. Swords are a status symbol. You have to be able to pay for what you are using. Seaxes were widely used into the 8th-11th century and have been dated in burials from England to Burgundy. I never said they were a main weapon though! Just more common.
Also sidearm is a broad term in itself. The main weapon throughout history has always been the spear. A sword could therefore be a sidearm. (It even hangs at your hip! lol)
@orcbeard92 oh yeah absolutely. Apologies I didn't mean to sound rude or disrespectful. The spear was a mark of freedman. Every freeman owned a spear. Thing is the saxons got their name from seax, but it wasn't exclusive to them as there are more frankish burials with seaxes in then saxon graves. And as you say, they were more tools than weapons by the viking age. The sword definitely wasn't common with the fryds, it was more for rich landowners, rulers and warriors-when I say warriors I don't been the levied fryd, I mean like career warriors, a Lords retinue etc .
In theory yes, anything could be regarded as a side arm, but swords were used by the warrior elites because they were such versatile and reliable weapons when they were well made.
SheriffBayek 2 posts
It is a very weird choice. Historically correct or not, I always like one handed swords and they are my go to weapon. I surely missed them, they should have cut the daggers instead (or just have more weapon variety, surely wouldn't have hurt).
The closest thing to a one handed sword is using a 2-hander with a shield. But it is not the same.
Original poster Gemini-IX 5 posts
@enkidu98 In massed warfare yes, weapons with more of a ranged ability would have been preferable, but as a student of Norse history, I must stress that raiders in particular, especially those such as Eivor is portrayed as, would have preferred the sword and axe as a close range weapon for close quarters combat in villages and towns. They were also much easier to transport back and forth from longships to shorelines.
TORFINR 351 posts
Not adding one handed swords in a viking game is an odd decision, but adding instead two handed swords and flails is just plain stupid (as both were used hundreds of years after the events of Valhalla and never by vikings).
Hey Ubisoft, you forgot the horned helmets! Vikings need horned helmets!
@davidtsmith333 no there's not? The swords in vahalla currently look comically large and unrealistic.
I mean if you're happy with them, crack on. But the ommision of actual viking age one handed swords as a usable weapon is a joke. I'm happy that they're going to be added at some point with either the Paris DLC or maybe even before. But they should've prioritised them over adding a syths in the upcoming druids dlc. I can't comprehend ubisofts thought process
Ken_Koerperich 52 posts
I want a sword or axe that ACTUALLY helps a Bow User....
@davidtsmith333 I don't agree personally. I don't use them. And I don't find the range to be an advantage. Most players (friends and people on here) want the actual one handed sword, regardless of stats. I'd much rather use an actual one handed sword that isn't comically large. Especially as it looks cooler, would be faster and actually allow you to use one of the most famous viking age weapons in a game about vikings....