Vikings (problem with sources)

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#1
I'm doing a little write-up for my history class basically comparing the portrayal of Vikings in The 13th Warrior (terrible movie) to what they were truly like. I'm stuck now writing about Viking weaponry, trying to figure out if spears or swords are the primary weapon of Vikings. Both my history book and wikipedia say that spears were the weapon of choice, but I have other websites and a lecture on tape claiming swords were most popular.

If anyone has any knowledge of viking weaponry or know of any accurate sources, your help would be greatly appreciated.
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#3
Actually, homeboy, I've never done anything even remotely close to cheating in school, even in high school. I'm simply asking for some help clearing up an apparent misconception.
 

Mike Manson

Still Livin'
Apr 16, 2005
8,998
19,414
113
44
#5
When I was like 8 years old I got my hands on everything I could find involving Vikings. I know some of the history and shit, but am not clear about their weaponry...I think it was mostly swords, but also axes and spears.

You gotta keep lookin for a good site on it.
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#6
Yeah, I just finished my paper. It was supposed to be 3 pages and I wrote 6. I stayed away from making any overly-bold statements and just said that swords and spears were both used (in addition to axes, arrows, and javelins). The only thing that threw me off is that wikipedia said that swords were reserved for the wealthy, but I didn't find any other source that supported that claim. My history book implied that the spear was a man's weapon of choice, but about ten other sources said swords were so I sort of leaned in that direction without blatantly saying it.

The research was fun though, Vikings are dope!
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#8
I cited all my sources. I'm very careful with that kind of stuff because what schools tend to call "academic integrity" is very important to me, hence my response to that guy earlier. I take pride in my papers, even the small ones. This wasn't the type of paper where I could discuss conflicts among sources, so I simply avoided saying "swords were the primary weapons of Vikings," or "spears..." I talked in a more general sense of weaponry.

I believe it was 3 pages minimum because I recall my teacher telling us at the beginning of the semester that 3 pages won't get you an A, no matter how well written it is.

Is there a particular reason you ask?
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#9
Your teacher is obviously gay. If the miniumum is 3 pages and a person meets the requirement, thats wrong to say the person won't get an A if they don't type more than that. If I were a teacher I would glady give an A to a student who presented a paper with a well outlined thesis, constructed the body well, cited sources in the essay (use of quotes etc) and stuck to the assignment. I would value QUALITY over QUANTITY.
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#10
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said, except that as an instructor (knowledge of material, clarity in lecture, willingness to help, enthusiasm, etc.) she's great, it's just her grading criteria that is ridiculous.

I think the idea behind it is that it is nearly impossible to execute a well-written paper in 3 pages for this particular assignment, but that's not to say it can't be done. Personally, if I had to cram my shit into 3 pages, the paper would lack depth and would probably turn out to be something a highschooler would turn in.
 
Mar 9, 2005
1,345
1
0
44
#12
I think three pages would be sufficient on this topic - that is, depending on whether she wanted them double-line spaced, font size etc. Single line spaced 12pt Times New Roman would have filled three pages nicely - instead of dribbling shit, keep it short and sweet and you'd be able to cover it well.

For future reference, when doing any assignment at school/university, don't go to Wikepedia. In fact, don't use any website as a source of information unless it's from an official source (NASA, Max Planck Institute etc.). The internet is not peer reviewed and anyone can write what they want, so the integrity of data is poor at best. Next time, get off your butt and go to the library, I'm sure they have several good books on the topic of interest. Also, there are several Journals that your institution might well subscribe to - it is in these that the leaders in any particular field publish their results (not only science, but also history, psychology, political theories etc.) - they are the best source of reputable information on Earth. Plus, if your teacher sees that you've ONLY referenced books and journal papers, I guarantee she'd be impressed.
 
Jul 22, 2006
809
0
0
43
#13
Learning to write a concise argument (within a specified range of pages) is a valuable lesson, meeting the minimum page length should never be the sole factor that disqualifies a person.

Since you're done with your paper:

"Offensive weapons

Laws of the late Viking period show that all free men were expected to own weapons, and magnates were expected to provide them for their men. The main offensive weapons were the spear, sword and battle-axe, although bows and arrows and other missiles were also used. Weapons were carried not just for battle, but also as symbols of their owners' status and wealth. They were therefore often finely decorated with inlays, twisted wire and other adornments in silver, copper and bronze.

The spear was the commonest weapon with an iron blade on a wooden shaft, often of ash and 2 to 3m in length. It was used for both thrusting and throwing. The blades varied in shape from broad leaf shapes to long spikes. Skilled spearsmen are said to have been able to throw two spears at once using both hands, or even to catch a spear in flight and hurl it back with deadly effect.

Swords were very costly to make, and a sign of high status. The blades were usually double-edged and up to 90cm, or a little over, in length, but early single-edged sabres are also known. They were worn in leather-bound wooden scabbards. Early blades were pattern-welded, a technique in which strips of wrought iron and mild steel were twisted and forged together, with the addition of a hardened edge. Later blades of homogeneous steel, imported probably from the Rhineland, bore inlaid makers' marks and inscriptions, such as INGELRII or ULFBERHT. Viking craftsmen often added their own elaborately decorated hilts, and many swords were given names, such as Leg-biter and Gold-hilt.

Long-handled battle-axes might be used instead of swords, particularly in open combat. The famed, double-handed broad axe is a late development, typical of the late 10th and 11th centuries. But as the owner could not hold a shield at the same time, he would take cover behind the front line of warriors, rushing out at the right moment to hew down the enemy."

^^ quoted from Barry Ager curator of the Continental Early Medieval Collections at the British Museum. He has published a number of articles on these topics, including, together with Janet Lang, Swords of the Anglo-Saxon and Viking periods in the British Museum: a radiographic study', in Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England edited by SC Hawkes (Oxford, 1989).


Some sources:


The Viking Achievement by PG Foote and DM Wilson, (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1980)

Viking Hersir, 793-1066 AD by M Harrison (Osprey, 1993)

The Viking Art of War by P Griffith (Greenhill Books, 1995)

Viking Weapons and Warfare by JK Siddom (Tempus, 2000)
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#14
Hutch said:
I think three pages would be sufficient on this topic - that is, depending on whether she wanted them double-line spaced, font size etc. Single line spaced 12pt Times New Roman would have filled three pages nicely - instead of dribbling shit, keep it short and sweet and you'd be able to cover it well.

For future reference, when doing any assignment at school/university, don't go to Wikepedia. In fact, don't use any website as a source of information unless it's from an official source (NASA, Max Planck Institute etc.). The internet is not peer reviewed and anyone can write what they want, so the integrity of data is poor at best. Next time, get off your butt and go to the library, I'm sure they have several good books on the topic of interest. Also, there are several Journals that your institution might well subscribe to - it is in these that the leaders in any particular field publish their results (not only science, but also history, psychology, political theories etc.) - they are the best source of reputable information on Earth. Plus, if your teacher sees that you've ONLY referenced books and journal papers, I guarantee she'd be impressed.
It was 3 pages double spaced, which isn't that much IMO. (Weaponry was only a minor portion of this paper, btw.)

And I never use wikipedia as an official source (because of the reasons you mentioned), only as a starting place to see what kind of ideas I may want to pursue. I always double/triple/quadruple check my data with several sources before putting it to paper.

But this assignment was described as a "film review" and our teacher basically wanted us to use our notes from class on it to check historical accuracy, but we're still on the early Romans so I had to look to outside sources. That's the only reason this looks like a little research project, it wasn't actually designed to be like that.