That's inaccurate, a viking sword (an Ulfberht) is much lighter than an arming sword and serves a very different purpose. You don't fight at all the same with them.
edit: fixing backwords-ness
My point was you're ment to fight in combination with a shield. True arming swords are a later design and are supposed to pierce plate. Ulfberhts while being more advanced metallurgy than its anglo saxon counterparts rarely had to deal with plate armor. Scaled plate at best.
Arming swords weren't meant for use with a shield except that a rider typically had a shield no matter the weapon they carried. Vikings fought on foot and their swords reflected that. Lighter, shorter, bulky point. Arming swords look vaguely similar but are an extremely different sword in that they were designed for primarly horseback combat and was typically a sidearm rather than the main weapon that a Ulfberht serve as. They were much heavier, had a much less bulky tip, much longer for reach from horseback.
They are no where near similar except for the fact they are both double edged blades. That's basically their only similarity. The arming sword is far closer to a spatha than it is to an Ulfberht.
And you know the fact that are both single handed weapons to be used in combination with a shield or horse. And besides I never said they were same i said they were similar to avoid going into the exhaustive details. I know they're different.
Saying they are similar is incorrect as the only similarity they have is that they are double edged one handed swords. They look moderately similar but only in the way any sword looks moderately similar to any other sword. Also as i said in my comment Vikings never had horses.
Quit backpedaling.
"Dont insult my intelligence"
you are an idiot.
-
you spent the entire conversation backpedaling from a patently incorrect statement waiting for a chance to use a fallacy and you finally got it. Taking someone's statement out of context and then using sources and statements not relevant to the discussion that upon actual inspection support the claims of your opponent is a sign of lack of intelligence.
-
this was a discussion of weapons and combat. The statement "they never had horses" in the context of weapons and combat is patently correct. You, again, are an idiot. Your idiocy and inability to hold a discussion without resorting to logical fallacy has been noted and your contributions to further discussions on any subject requiring intelligence will ignored until the time at which it has been shown this is no longer the case.
This is not a debate I wanted to have with you. I know full well the differences between all the weapons mentioned and the cultures/civilisations that used them. I never said they were same but you keep acting like I've committed some cardinal sin. My only point if we're going back to the original topic was. The ulfbert is the closest to the arming sword given the other swords in the image. True I didnt say that last bit but thats what I ment and should have said.
I knew it was inaccurate because I was being vague and trying to not be a know it all. This was never supposed to be a debate over specs and archeological data on a sword that honestly changes name depending on the historian you ask. You saw a chance to be a sword snob and you took advantage.
Quit acting like you're some prime example of gentlemany debate I've taken note too. You've been argumetative and looking for fights. do us all a favor and promptly remove the stick from your ass before it becomes stuck.
And for the record the arming sword or knightly sword by some historians was thought to be developed from the ulfberht design around the 11th century. As they found similarities in hilt and blade length. Found in several countries like England france and the HRE. The name comes from the french and is theorized to be used by knights on horse back as a side arm (as many had lances). Should the lance break on the charge you have a second weapon. The weapon developed over the centuried to a sharper taper and point to meet the demands of modern armies in plate armor as a sharper point was needed to defeat plate. Bodkin tip was developed for this reason as well.
Edit: spelling
99% of your second comment is restating what i said.
"You saw a chance to be a sword snob and you took advantage."
you stated inaccurate information. That should always be corrected. Leaving misinformation uncorrected spreads said misinformation. The fact you get salty over the fact you were wrong and continuously backpedaled making more inaccurate statements to try to defense your original statement shows that you don't actually care about true or false. You only care about being considered right.
You said nothing about a taper. Thats my information. You didn't say anything about that name origin or country of origin. The only thing I said that you also said was its use by cavalry. I care about true or false. I'm still fighting you because I know what a fucking arming sword is. I own one. I keep trying to beat this into your thick skull. I made a broad statement to not be a know it all. Its a meme not a doctoral disertation I dont have to be 100% accurate. I know its not 100% accurate. Neither was the meme to start with. But we arent whinning about that are we. No you attack me personally to prove that you feel smarter because you studied the hell out of an obsolete weapon.
"I know its not 100% accurate."
Your statement was just false. You admitted that you knew it was false. It wasn't partially correct. It was just wrong. You are just trying to cling to being partially right after knowingly spreading misinformation.
I own a car. By your logic that means I know enough about said car from simply owning it that I could functional discuss its functional similarities with cars I don't own. You made a broad statement that was just wrong. You can't cling to any of the rightness that you so desperately need. You were wrong. Your statement was wrong. No amount of back pedaling or logical fallacy will change that.
"No you attack me personally to prove that you feel smarter because you studied the hell out of an obsolete weapon. "
I made a personal attack on you because you became indignant at being corrected.
We keep throwing around percentages like it even matters. We keep arguing over wether im right or not. When in reality they debate is still out on this sword on its name usuage and design. They have broadswords, arming swords, knightly swords that all describe about maybe 1000 different sword designs from individual smiths. I dont know why I decided to dive into this debate with you when the image isnt even a real arming sword nor is it describing one. The point is too round. Im clinging to my "rightness" because i do know what an arming sword is. Even if I gave incorrect information when this shit show started.
You're right in saying that my statement was incorrect. For the rest of this debate I tried to explain that i know they aren't they same I know thats not accuate but you keep coming at it. I tell you what the sword is but you keep relying back to my first statement that they are similar to prove that i dont know what the sword is. Im "backpeddling" because I was being vague. But you had to make it personal.
creole is like new Orleans 3differentlanguagesmixedtogetherorsomething right?
also its not "a" language per say. Its whatever form of the words happened to pop into my head for that sentence in whatever language they happened to appear in.
edit: fixing backwords-ness
They are no where near similar except for the fact they are both double edged blades. That's basically their only similarity. The arming sword is far closer to a spatha than it is to an Ulfberht.
Quit backpedaling.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/sport/gallery/icelandic-horses/index.html
http://www.riding-iceland.com/blog/origins-of-the-icelandic-horse
True the vikings rarely used effective Cavalry in formation. But what you said was arrogant and also incorrect. Dont insult my intelligence. I made a very BROAD statement to avoid this kind of debate. But you clearly have no intention of getting off your high horse. So do proper research before you go mouthing off again.
Edit: one of the links didn't function correctly
you are an idiot.
-
you spent the entire conversation backpedaling from a patently incorrect statement waiting for a chance to use a fallacy and you finally got it. Taking someone's statement out of context and then using sources and statements not relevant to the discussion that upon actual inspection support the claims of your opponent is a sign of lack of intelligence.
-
this was a discussion of weapons and combat. The statement "they never had horses" in the context of weapons and combat is patently correct. You, again, are an idiot. Your idiocy and inability to hold a discussion without resorting to logical fallacy has been noted and your contributions to further discussions on any subject requiring intelligence will ignored until the time at which it has been shown this is no longer the case.
I knew it was inaccurate because I was being vague and trying to not be a know it all. This was never supposed to be a debate over specs and archeological data on a sword that honestly changes name depending on the historian you ask. You saw a chance to be a sword snob and you took advantage.
Quit acting like you're some prime example of gentlemany debate I've taken note too. You've been argumetative and looking for fights. do us all a favor and promptly remove the stick from your ass before it becomes stuck.
Edit: spelling
"You saw a chance to be a sword snob and you took advantage."
you stated inaccurate information. That should always be corrected. Leaving misinformation uncorrected spreads said misinformation. The fact you get salty over the fact you were wrong and continuously backpedaled making more inaccurate statements to try to defense your original statement shows that you don't actually care about true or false. You only care about being considered right.
Your statement was just false. You admitted that you knew it was false. It wasn't partially correct. It was just wrong. You are just trying to cling to being partially right after knowingly spreading misinformation.
I own a car. By your logic that means I know enough about said car from simply owning it that I could functional discuss its functional similarities with cars I don't own. You made a broad statement that was just wrong. You can't cling to any of the rightness that you so desperately need. You were wrong. Your statement was wrong. No amount of back pedaling or logical fallacy will change that.
"No you attack me personally to prove that you feel smarter because you studied the hell out of an obsolete weapon. "
I made a personal attack on you because you became indignant at being corrected.
Edit: to not be an ass
also its not "a" language per say. Its whatever form of the words happened to pop into my head for that sentence in whatever language they happened to appear in.