PDA

View Full Version : The Warlord's Gladius



I-ModernSpartan
10-13-2017, 11:49 AM
Don't you think that calling the Warlord's sword gladius make no sense?
The Centurion has a real gladius, gladius is a roman sword
and ye I know that it's not orginally roman but it was the main weapon of the roman soilders and they are the ones who made it famous
The weapon that the Warlord have is a viking sword... calling it gladius just making the game less historaclly accurate instead of calling it viking sword to make it more histocally accurate
I know that this is a game and that It doesnt supposed to be historcally accurate but it would have been nice to call the Warlord's sword "viking sword"/"ulfbert"

Devils-_-legacy
10-13-2017, 11:52 AM
Vikings generally didn't use swords in combat as they were ceremonial purposes

Devils-_-legacy
10-13-2017, 11:53 AM
Carolingian sword

Devils-_-legacy
10-13-2017, 12:03 PM
The Viking sword or Carolingian sword was developed in the 8th century from the Merovingian sword or the Frankish production of swords from the 6th to 7th century this itself was derived from the Roman spatha I think

Tundra 793
10-13-2017, 01:23 PM
Vikings generally didn't use swords in combat as they were ceremonial purposes

Vikings didn't generally use swords, because swords were the most expensive weapon they could buy. But they absolutely used them in combat.

I wasn't even aware For Honor were calling the Warlord's sword a Gladius, it could definitely be changed. Not necessarily for historical accuracy or anything, just because it by definition isn't a Gladius.

Halvtand
10-13-2017, 01:24 PM
Don't you think that calling the Warlord's sword gladius make no sense?
The Centurion has a real gladius, gladius is a roman sword
and ye I know that it's not orginally roman but it was the main weapon of the roman soilders and they are the ones who made it famous
The weapon that the Warlord have is a viking sword... calling it gladius just making the game less historaclly accurate instead of calling it viking sword to make it more histocally accurate
I know that this is a game and that It doesnt supposed to be historcally accurate but it would have been nice to call the Warlord's sword "viking sword"/"ulfbert"

It is my theory that the description of the warlord was at some point copy-pasted from what would become the Centurion. There is a reference to the wrong type of sword (gladius) as well as a text that mentions him draining the enemy's stamina and using his own for a good punish. We know that WL does not have more stamina than normal and that his attacks are generally pretty draining, as opposed to Cent who has more stamina than normal and the ability to punish.
This then becomes a mistake due to lazyness.

Also, in the spirit of historial accuracy, the Ulfbhert sword isn't a type of sword so much as the product of a different type of manufacturing technique. The design is still the same as regular "viking" or norse swords. Documentary on the Ulfberht sword:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lspB3QhrW_Q


Vikings generally didn't use swords in combat as they were ceremonial purposes

This is just plain wrong. Not only is the sword the symbol of a warrior in this culture (which makes not using it contradictory) but it is also a formidable weapon and not using it as one would seriously go against the Scandinavian's deeply rooted pragmatism. Please supply source.

I-ModernSpartan
10-13-2017, 02:23 PM
Vikings generally didn't use swords in combat as they were ceremonial purposes


Carolingian sword


The Viking sword or Carolingian sword was developed in the 8th century from the Merovingian sword or the Frankish production of swords from the 6th to 7th century this itself was derived from the Roman spatha I think


It doesn't matter if swords weren't used in combat by the vikings - they won't change his weapon and shouldnt imo
They can also call it carolingian sword but I think that ulbfert is a better
Mabey it was develpoed from the spatha but still it not a sphata/gladius

I-ModernSpartan
10-13-2017, 02:30 PM
Vikings didn't generally use swords, because swords were the most expensive weapon they could buy. But they absolutely used them in combat.

I wasn't even aware For Honor were calling the Warlord's sword a Gladius, it could definitely be changed. Not necessarily for historical accuracy or anything, just because it by definition isn't a Gladius.

https://forhonor.ubisoft.com/game/en-GB/game-info/heroes/warlords.aspx

Devils-_-legacy
10-13-2017, 02:45 PM
Halvtand Was a college project but wiki was the easiest to find ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour Swords were very costly to make, and a sign of high status. They were rarely used and some swords found in graves were probably not sturdy enough for battle or raiding, and instead were likely decorative items. I think it was in Hedeby they found some of the swords.

Halvtand
10-13-2017, 03:29 PM
Halvtand Was a college project but wiki was the easiest to find ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour Swords were very costly to make, and a sign of high status. They were rarely used and some swords found in graves were probably not sturdy enough for battle or raiding, and instead were likely decorative items. I think it was in Hedeby they found some of the swords.

I think you've made a slight misinterpretation. You are entirely correct in many things, such as the price of swords and that some have been found to be of extremely poor quality. But it is the word "rarely" that is the issue. Because of the status associated with the sword and wealth required to own one (let alone one of those fancy Ulfberht swords) it is fine to assume that swords were not a common sight among the regular fighting men who would probably use a spear, an axe or long sax (shorter, single-bladed sword) instead. However, the warrior population, those who actively fought and raided, those who had a higher probability of amassing enough wealth to buy a sword - they would get a sword. This is basically because it is an objectively better weapon that offers a lot more options than any of the others with the added bonus that much like a Cowboy's six-shooter, you know that this guy means business. Basically, these swords were the machine guns of their time, not getting one if you can is like sticking with a regular revolver.

The poor quality of swords found in Hedeby (if that is where, not important) can be traced to other things as well. One is the ceremonial burials associated with Odin's Cult or any similar cults with emphasis on warriors. Another is basically poor worksmanship, some fool bought a bad sword, but still wanted to be buried with it. Another closely related to economics is that these poor swords may have been cheaper, allowing even the less fortunate to carry one of these coveted blades.

That said, we haven't actually found that many swords, which is used as evidence for the rarely of the weapons. However, if you look at the swords that have been found, most of them is in such a bad state that they can no longer be used. This is because of geographical hazards. As Scandinavia fell into Christianity (a pacifistic and strictly hierarchic religion) it became frowned upon for regular people to own weaponry. The swords, that could not be used for hunting or chopping wood like spears, bows and axes, were disposed of. Where? In bogs, marshes and lakes. This is still a mystery as handing them over to a blacksmith for smelting would give the people some great material and satisfy their pragmatic streak, it is plausible that abandoning them had a symbolic worth or that they were originally intended to be stored, hidden away, and then forgotten as time went by. We don't know how many more swords there are left to be found, or for that matter how many have been destroyed either by entirely natural causes or by things like careless (unknowing) farmers.

In the end, "rarely" should be read with an unspoken "in comparison to other weapons" rather than as "almost not at all".

Devils-_-legacy
10-13-2017, 03:41 PM
Ik were really off topic but I agree My bad rarly was just a shorter word then uncommon to use lol but also look at the one found in September in Oppland Norway that's the best one so far found

Devils-_-legacy
10-13-2017, 03:43 PM
This is it https://www.archaeology.org/news/5911-170912-norway-viking-sword

Halvtand
10-13-2017, 05:40 PM
Ik were really off topic but I agree My bad rarly was just a shorter word then uncommon to use lol but also look at the one found in September in Oppland Norway that's the best one so far found

No problem. In the end it kind of means the same thing.
I found this video with the sword:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwTwY6YHfv8
We know that all of the archaeological finds yet are total ****e when we can look at something like that and say "It's the best one yet" XD