09-20-2010, 03:44 AM
Hello Ron,
The idea of carrying a secondary blade on the battlefield has to be an old one. In Britain, on the "other side," we know the Saxons and Angles carried a seaxe. This had to be a primary blade for those who couldn't afford a sword, probably a majority of the warriors. Whether it was single or double eged mattered little, only in name (example in Chinese: the jian and dao). That's why I thought it should be included in our weapons and armor list. As time went on, such a blade was carried tucked into a belt, used both for feasting and protection yet still a weapon.
Over all, I don't think the sub-Roman Britons were so "materially poor," as mentioned in some previous posts. If we could have been a proverbial "fly," we might even be surprised at the continuity of Roman culture during this period. This appears substantiated by the written word, still in Latin after the sub-Roman period. (And still studied as a compulsory language by the Victorians who evidently dismissed how Latin arrived in their academies in the first place!
hock: ) Someone mentioned the Franks and Gauls as another example (maybe Robert); and we can include the Goths who were still quite "Roman" in 700. The idea-- that Roman culture dissipated at an alarmingly fast pace after 476-- might persist among individuals still reading pre-1980s opinions, but we are gaining a new picture of post Roman societies and it ain't all that bleak. 8)
Lucky for us, today's Latin might be mostly dead but not totally dead, now elective in public schools. :lol:
The idea of carrying a secondary blade on the battlefield has to be an old one. In Britain, on the "other side," we know the Saxons and Angles carried a seaxe. This had to be a primary blade for those who couldn't afford a sword, probably a majority of the warriors. Whether it was single or double eged mattered little, only in name (example in Chinese: the jian and dao). That's why I thought it should be included in our weapons and armor list. As time went on, such a blade was carried tucked into a belt, used both for feasting and protection yet still a weapon.
Over all, I don't think the sub-Roman Britons were so "materially poor," as mentioned in some previous posts. If we could have been a proverbial "fly," we might even be surprised at the continuity of Roman culture during this period. This appears substantiated by the written word, still in Latin after the sub-Roman period. (And still studied as a compulsory language by the Victorians who evidently dismissed how Latin arrived in their academies in the first place!
hock: ) Someone mentioned the Franks and Gauls as another example (maybe Robert); and we can include the Goths who were still quite "Roman" in 700. The idea-- that Roman culture dissipated at an alarmingly fast pace after 476-- might persist among individuals still reading pre-1980s opinions, but we are gaining a new picture of post Roman societies and it ain't all that bleak. 8) Lucky for us, today's Latin might be mostly dead but not totally dead, now elective in public schools. :lol:
Alan J. Campbell
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians
Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)
"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
