Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Summary
Bibliography
Credits
Appendix

Return to Aethelmearc Archery

    There are also a few accounts I ran across in my searches that show that chain mail providing protection against sword blows. Now, according to the section of the "Marshal's Handbook" concerning the acknowledgment of blows, 'Blows must be delivered with effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, and must strike properly oriented and with sufficient force, to be considered an effective, or good, blow.' Unfortunately, what constitutes that 'sufficient force' is not clearly defined. But I doubt that most persons would think that a sword blow that knocked a person down lacked 'sufficient force'. In fact, a person repeatedly throwing blows so hard that their opponents are knocked off their feet consistently may very well be called down for 'excessive force'. Yet some of these accounts indicate blows landing with that much force.

26. "Heimskringla - The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway" by Snorri Sturlson  Quoting from Heimskringla, HARALD HARFAGER'S SAGA, PART 1 SECTION 13. DEATH OF EARLS HAKON, AND ATLE MJOVE. (A.D. 869) 'So says Eyvind Skaldaspiller: --
                                                "He who stood a rooted oak,
                                                Unshaken by the swordsman's stroke,
                                                Amidst the whiz of arrows slain,
                                                Has fallen upon Fjalar's plain.
                                                There, by the ocean's rocky shore,
                                                The waves are stained with the red gore
                                                Of stout Earl Hakon Grjotgard's son,
                                                And of brave warriors many a one." '
    Earl Hakon was unhurt by sword blows, but was killed by arrows. The lay does not state what type of armor Hakon was wearing, or even if he was wearing armor, but it's hard to believe a person could withstand sword blows without wearing armor. In Scandinavia, in 869 AD, the normal armor was chain mail. I didn't use this account to show arrows penetrating chain mail, though. Since it does not say he was armored, nor that the arrow penetrated his armor, it is not usable for that. But it is usable to show him able to withstand sword blows. You may believe he did this withstanding of sword blows wearing no armor, if you want to, but don't expect me to believe it, unless you have some very convincing proof..

27. "The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis" by Orderic Vitalis. Quoting from his description of the Battle of Bremule in 1119.
'William Crispin, however, who had been surrounded with his men as I have described, caught sight of the king. Tearing through the ranks towards the man he hated above all others, he struck a fierce blow at his head with his sword, but the collar of the noble prince's hauberk protected his head from injury. Roger the son of Richard at once struck down the rash assailant, took him prisoner as he lay prostrate'
    This again shows a person struck by a sword without injury. The armor used in 1119 was normally chain mail, and we, at least in the SCA, normally think of a hauberk as being chain mail. The Battle of Bremule was fought in 1119 between Henry I of England against Louis VI (the Fat) of France. Orderic Vitalis provides the most extensive account of this battle, noting how few people were killed during the fight.

28. "The Murder of Charles the Good" by Galbert of Bruges. Quoting from his account of March 9th, 1127.
'At this time George, the most powerful knight among the traitors, was intercepted; it was he who with Borsiard had killed the count. The knight Didier, brother of Isaac the traitor, hurled him from his horse and cut off both his hands. (This Didier, although he was the brother of the traitor, was not, however, an accessory to the plot.) That most wretched George, his hands cut off, fled to a place where he hoped to hide but he was immediately denounced to a certain Walter, a knight of Gervaise, and dragged out. The knight, sitting on his horse, ordered a fierce young swordsman to kill him. The latter rushed at George, struck him with his sword and knocked him to the ground; then, dragging him by his feet into the sewer, he saw to it that he drowned for his evil deserts.'
    This account does not specify that the Knight, George, was wearing armor. But it does say he was knocked to the ground by a sword blow given by someone under orders to kill him. He was knocked down by a sword blow that did not kill him, as the swordsman dragged him to a sewer and drowned him. If he wasn't wearing armor, we just have a period reference to a real rhino-hide that didn't even need armor to 'not die' from sword blows. If he was wearing armor, the armor (chain mail) kept him from being killed by a sword blow strong enough to knock him to the ground. This happened on March 9th, 1127.
    Later in the same document we find, on March 19th:
'Among them was Borsiard, huge and wrathful, ferocious and undaunted, mighty in bodily strength, who resisted the citizens steadily face to face, wounding many, prostrating and hurling down more who were stunned by the hammer-like blow of his sword.'
    Again, it does not specify that they were wearing armor at that specific time. But again, it is hard to believe that someone not wearing armor was just 'stunned' by a sword blow, while others were wounded. But notice, they were stunned, not wounded, and not crushed. This was on March 19th, 1127. So we can be pretty positive that the chain mail armor being worn in Bruges, in March of 1127, could, and did, protect men from being killed or even seriously injured by sword blows.

29. "The Chronicles of Froissart" by Jean Froissart. Quoting from his account concerning The Battle of Otterburn in 1388- "How the Earl James Douglas by His Valiantness Encouraged His Men, Who Were Reculed and in a Manner Discomfited, and in His So Doing He Was Wounded to Death".
'he was so well armed that he bare well off such strokes as he received. Thus he went ever forward like a hardy Hector, willing alone to conquer the field and to discomfit his enemies: but at last he was encountered with three spears all at once, the one strake him on the shoulder, the other on the breast and the stroke glinted down to his belly, and the third strake him in the thigh, and sore hurt with all three strokes, so that he was borne perforce to the earth and after that he could not be again relieved.'
    Earl Douglas was so well armored (armed) that he managed to withstand all the blows striking him, until he got hit with three spears at once. This happened in 1388, in Scotland. It might be possible he was wearing plate armor, as the chronicle itself does not describe his armor, but in 1388, plate was just beginning to come into it's own as a replacement for chain mail.

30. "Heimskringla - The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway" by Snorri Sturlson  Quoting from KING OLAF TRYGVASON'S SAGA, PART 5, CHAPTER 119 - OLAF GIVES HIS MEN SHARP SWORDS. (1000AD) 'The king stood on the gangways of the Long Serpent. and shot the greater part of the day; sometimes with the bow, sometimes with the spear, and always throwing two spears at once. He looked down over the ship's sides, and saw that his men struck briskly with their swords, and yet wounded but seldom. Then he called aloud, "Why do ye strike so gently that ye seldom cut?" One among the people answered, "The swords are blunt and full of notches." Then the king went down into the forehold, opened the chest under the throne, and took out many sharp swords, which he handed to his men; but as he stretched down his right hand with them, some observed that blood was running down under his steel glove, but no one knew where he was wounded.'
    Remember that, according to the proposal sent to the Earl Marshal, 'Each other weapon we use is effective against armored areas because it is historically shown that they either penetrated the armor causing grievous wounds or crushed the armor and the body beneath to cause grievous wounds.' Yet in this account, we find 'that his men struck briskly with their swords, and yet wounded but seldom' because they were using dull swords. I would take this to mean that, at least in Norway in the year 1000 AD, unless the sword actually 'cut' through the armor being worn at that time, it did little harm. They seemed to not get any 'crushing' of the armor and the body beneath. The force and effective impact between a 'sharp' sword and a 'dull' sword, as felt through chain mail armor and a padded gambeson, is negligible. This last one is out of chronological order, because it is a 'special' case, showing the 'way' swords affected people wearing chain mail, not 'how much' they did. This happened at the island of Svold.