Welcome to discussion
OrcBeard92 135 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 331 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....