Reddit reviews Swords of the Viking Age
We found 3 Reddit comments about Swords of the Viking Age. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Boydell Press
Reddit reviews Swords of the Viking AgeWe found 3 Reddit comments about Swords of the Viking Age. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
A few resources for anyone wanting to learn more about crafting Viking-age swords:
Edit: Further reading (tried to find free, online sources)...
Peirce, "Swords of the Viking Age": https://www.amazon.com/Swords-Viking-Age-Ian-Peirce/dp/1843830892
Petersen, "De Norske Vikingesverd": https://archive.org/details/DeNorskeVikingesverdEnTypologisk-kronologiskStudieOverVikingetidens_105
... partial translation into English at http://www.vikingsword.com/petersen/
This book gives a great survey over what has been found and where and would answer some of your questions.
In terms of how swords were perceived you would have to understand the work that goes into making a suitable steel weapon. Since the Norseman during the Viking Age got their iron from processing bog material and making billets from what they could gather from blooms, iron was very high priced and was worth it's weight in gold. So if you obtained iron for your own uses in the home, you would be more likely to prioritize it for a cauldron for cooking, knives/seaxes that can be used for cooking or utility reasons, an axe which could also be used for cutting down trees and shaping/cutting wood, arrows for hunting, and even a spear that could be used for hunting boars. Iron that was obtained was also used for nails/rivets, chains, and other tools that could help out with farm functions. As I have listed: seaxes, axes, spears and arrows have utility outside of war and thus are something that is considered more necessary. A sword on the other hand, what other utility does it have besides for war? None. The other part of a sword is that to be able to properly use one you need to train constantly because swords are way more unwieldy than an axe or spear which are two weapons that can used without much training at all. Thus the status of a sword is because it is solely used for war and thus exemplifies the owner's status of a warrior because in Norse society the main way to elevate your status is bravery and willingness to war.
Swords came from a few places. There were of course swords that were made in Scandinavia that could be of poor quality to good quality because of how they processed the steel. There were also swords that were made by the Franks that were much sought after to the point that the Frankish kings such as Charlemagne and Charles the Bald put serious restrictions (on pain of death) on trading swords and even chain-mail to the Northmen. During the Viking Age the best steel actually came from Arabian Peninsula and around the Persia. Since the Norsemen made trips to the Middle East for trade they did get steel and possibly swords that would be remade to suit Norse styles and aesthetics. The other place swords could of been obtained (although debated) is off of the dead after battles. While it sounds logical that you could just get a free sword off a dead opponent, the argument against it is: the Norse were very superstitious and they saw swords as having supernatural abilities, a sword that was used by a slain opponent (Frank, Saxon, etc) may be perceived as bad luck because it didn't serve the person to protect them why would it serve the new owner any better? That said, I believe there may of been people that were superstitious that would have left the sword with their unlucky owner but also there might have been some people that were not effected by superstition and the idea of getting a free sword would of appealed to them.
Swords varied in quality and some swords were more expensive than others. In the book I linked above you will see swords that are essentially only made of poor-middle grade steel and some that are higher quality pattern-welded steel with copper/silver embellishments in the cross-guard, pommel, and even the blade. Steel quality and how the sword was made would dictate how it would hold up in battle and thus swords that were pattern welded and folded enough would have the rigidity to not bend but also enough flexibility so it wouldn't snap in half. Swords that were made from poorer and less worked steel could end up having too many impurities or to much carbon making it so they could break or bend easier. Thus in some battles it was possible that some higher quality swords could cut though other lower quality swords. If you didn't understand the properties that went into a steel sword back then I could see how people could see some swords as being more "magical" than others.
So who owned these swords? Well, many types of people. Obviously kings and jarls would own swords that were beautifully embellished. Kings and Jarls also had a hird (personal retinue) that had freemen of important status that might of had a sword or even a broad axe (also known as a Dane-axe). Another type of person that might of had a sword would be a hersir who was a military leader of a hundred (county subdivision) who aspired to be a land owner. Goði who were chieftains and religious leader may of had a sword too. But swords did not have limited ownership by class, the only limit was the ability to carry them on their person. As such only kings, jarls, and karls (freemen) could carry around a sword. Women and thralls were restricted from carrying a sword but there were cases of women and thralls that did own a sword, although rare.
There is much, much, much more but having to type out everything is tiring. I would suggest reading the book I linked but also another tip is to understand that the "Vikings" were not a single cultural entity. There are micro cultures that existed in the Norse world that can be seen by the regional variances in sword and axe design as well funerary practices. As such there are practices that would of been different in Iceland compared to Sweden.
I hope this helps.