Time Frame – approx 350 AD to 880 AD
Politics/Economics – With the collapse of the Roman Empire and the shift of most of its power to Greek cultured Byzantium, the ability to maintain any of the infrastructures that allowed for the “Pax Romana” disintegrated as well. Without the ability to keep large numbers of soldiers and engineers in the field, the likelihood of being attacked when traveling increased, and the slow disrepair of roads and bridges reduced travel even more. Trade decreased, and with it the dissemination of knowledge and culture. Political power devolved to that of the tribal chieftains, and while some areas developed true kingdoms, they were not monarchies, for the king himself would have only a limited power outside of his own demesne.
The tribes that inhabited the colder climates of Europe included those that gave Rome a great deal of trouble, for example the Visigoths but also Slavs, Danes, several British tribes. These, as well as ill-defined groups such as the German-speaking Franks and the vaguely Turkic Magyars, were scattered throughout the central European plains. While many of these tribes had been relatively docile during Roman occupation, all quickly took up arms to conduct raiding attacks on their neighbors. All were similar in social structure and technological development.
The disruption caused by the Roman occupation and later collapse led directly to the breakdown of what had been fairly stable and tight-knit tribal communities. These were chieftain as opposed to tribal societies, meaning that they were led by one strong central figure, usually the dominant warrior rather than an elder council. The position was not hereditary, and often was filled by a general consensus among the family heads. Rarely an occasional dynamic and charismatic leader might form a loose confederation among related tribes which could field large numbers of warriors, and some were able to mimic the battle strategies of the ancient Romans. But this was the exception rather than the rule, and the objectives they reached for were strictly military, not political. Most leaders were expected to pay their warriors handsomely with the captured wealth of other tribes, so raiding for slaves and booty was a constant feature of this warrior culture. A particularly successful leader might expect to draw followers from completely unaffiliated tribes and then raid neighboring tribes of the same clan. Fighters might travel hundreds of miles in order to serve under the command of a renowned warrior/king. But these warrior societies were never able to develop the economic resources necessary to sustain a general domestic growth in the Roman form. As soon as any charismatic leader such as Charlemagne died, any confederation would quickly collapse.
As long distance transportation of goods became more difficult, most of Europe reverted back to subsistence farming. Without a strong central government, monetary exchange was abandoned in favor of barter, further isolating most villages from their neighbors. In time, this isolation would extend to language as well, Latin breaking up into the varied romance languages of southern Europe that we know as Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and French, among others. [In northern Europe, where Roman influence had never been quite as strong, the many Germanic and Norse Germanic languages continued to be used.]
As these were subsistence farmers, the vagaries of agricultural success in any given year could propel a normally peaceful tribe into seasonal raiding into neighboring regions. Warfare devolved as well into old-fashioned raiding parties, usually of no more than twenty or so warriors picking off a village by surprise and making off with that year’s harvest. Trying to muster a defensive force from nearby villages proved useless, for the raiders would be long gone by the time an alarum could be raised. The only effective counter was to have easily defensible fortified positions – castles and walled towns. As a direct result of all of these changes, a new social construct was formed. Feudalism (possibly inherited from the Parthians) began as an understanding between a local strongman and the local agricultural workers, “I’ll protect you from raids if you provide for my needs and help construct the common defense”. In time this became, “All of this land is mine. I’ll let you farm it if you give me a percentage of the harvest, and you fight for me when I need you to.” Feudalism expanded quickly in southern Europe, whereas tribalism continued for much longer in the northern climes.
With the Bishop of Rome having lost the mechanisms for control of the population, and the Byzantine Empire being too far away to exert much influence, Christian practices began to blend with pagan local traditions. In response to and benefiting from the increased isolation from papal power, monasteries were founded that paralleled the feudal structure of the local warlords.
Fashion/Manners – The civility and simple luxuries that even middle class Romans took for granted evaporated. Life was dirty, harsh, and brutal for everyone, regardless of station. Depending on the wealth of the lord, meals were taken in a common hall, shared by his family and those of the most elevated vassals. Even sleep was largely communal, privacy being a luxury even for the comparatively rich. Peasant families of course remained in their own single room hovels.
As one would expect in such harsh conditions, clothing is a matter of practicality over elegance. Roman dress using cotton and fine linen in flowing robes and tunics are discarded in favor of heavy durable fabrics made of rough tow linen and wool. For the first time, trousers are acceptable as standard attire.
The artwork of the period shows little of what we can identify as proscribed manners. Some gestures such as extending the hand and perhaps slightly bowing are indirectly indicated, but it seems likely that what might be customary in one castle would be completely unknown a hundred miles away.
Civilian Conflict – Once the safety that had been provided by the Roman army went away, people had a not unwarranted feeling that the world was a dangerous place. Almost all men and most adult women wore an all-purpose knife, some a true dagger meant for self defense. Swords were not worn unless immanent battle was expected. It is true that Charlemagne wore his for almost all occasions, but the very fact that contemporaries wrote about it tends to confirm that the practice was exceptional rather than the rule. Considering the amount of physical labor that everyone needed to do on a daily basis, it is likely that fights were physical, brutally harsh and quick.
Warfare – Although large armies had been mustered to fight against the Romans, once that threat was gone, erstwhile allies reverted to raiding each other for cattle, grain, and tribute. Mustering an entire male population became more and more difficult, so warfare became the occupation of specialists, full time warriors supported by the local population. Gone were the sophisticated tactics of a Roman army in favor of a direct assault by what was in reality a group of individual warriors led but not necessarily controlled by the biggest, baddest fighter. The place of the warrior/king in battle was at the center of the front line, his most trusted subordinates fanning out to either side, and the ranks behind filled with less experienced warriors. Everything depended on closing quickly with the enemy and subduing him with an overwhelming attack. Sophisticated maneuvers and tactics were impossible, as each man fought as an individual. Riding into battle was common, but the heaviest fighting was done on foot. On the rare occasions when a civilian levy was formed to augment the warriors numbers, simple spears were provided to these untrained peasant farmers.
Weapons available – Use of the spear declines, and ultimately disappears as the primary weapon of battle. As soldiers act primarily as individual warriors, axes predominate as the favored weapon with swords a distant second.
As villages became ever more isolated, the technology of high quality steel making was slowly lost to the average blacksmith. Most of the skills used by the traveling craftsmen of the Roman army survived, although their priority had been on quantity, not quality. But pockets of native ingenuity did produce some craftsmen capable of producing some of the finest edged weapons that Europe had ever seen. The all-iron swords were carefully crafted from dozens of individual iron strands, twisted and hammer welded to form blades of surprising strength. Many blacksmiths somehow acquired or relearned steel-making techniques and became true swordsmiths, producing weapons far superior to the knives and axes made by the common village blacksmith. And it is here that the European fascination and mythology of the sword has its genesis.
Building quality steel from iron requires the removal of most of the carbon content by repeated heating, melting (“puddling”) and pounding, and then the reintroduction of a very small quantity of carbon or manganese into the metal. By heating and folding the metal many times, a flat bar of steel becomes lighter and far stronger than even a strong piece of iron of the same size. An exceptional swordsmith would have the patience and knowledge to carefully fold the metal along its length perhaps hundreds of times. Some would create sword blades with layers of differing hardness, providing further resilience within the steel.
Finally the entire blade would need to be tempered, which is a process of heating and cooling the steel so as to bring about its final balance between softness and brittleness. First the blade is evenly heated at close to 1300 degrees, and then quickly quenched using a high quality oil, for water will cause the steel to crack. At this point the blade is extremely tough but very brittle. So the steel is once more heated, but this time to 900 degrees, and then allowed to slowly cool in warm air. This final step is tempering, giving the blade a spring-like flexibility. [Just as with blades, when a person, “loses his temper” he can no longer spring back to normal when faced with a problem]. Even more difficult and exceedingly rare in Europe is the process of differentially tempering different areas of the sword, but some cutlers were even able to master this skill. If any part of the final process is incorrectly performed, if the temperatures are not exactingly controlled, if the introduction of the alloy is not carefully calibrated, then months of work is wasted.
Although a swordsmith might start his career as a blacksmith, the working conditions of the two were very different. A blacksmith worked in the day in an open forge, with natural cross ventilation so as to make the workplace tolerable. Naturally, his every action was visible to any passerby, and his workshop was often conveniently near the center of the village. As his forge produced relatively low temperatures, judging the temperature of heated iron was done by a rough count, for example, so many seconds in the heat for a piece of iron of a given thickness. Quenching was done simply with water. All manner of implements were created and repaired, and virtually everyone at some point would have business there.
The swordsmith led a very different life indeed. His home was located far from the village, preferably in an area little traveled. His techniques were his trade secrets, so he rarely would have an apprentice. In order to produce the high temperatures needed for his craft, his forge was enclosed and cross currents of air strictly controlled. So as to heat the blade uniformly, some craftsmen would immerse the steel into baths of molten lead before putting the blade into the forge. In order to judge the temperature for tempering, the swordsmith could see the changes in color of the steel as the blade heated, white for the highest temperature, cherry red for the final quenching. But there are many tones and levels of brightness of steel as it heats and cools, so capturing the correct temperature required evaluating the precise shade of color. This was better done at night than during the day, and working in a forge with these high temperatures was also much more bearable in the coolness of night. Quenching was done using a variety of substances, even salt, although clarified goose oil was especially prized.
What were the local villagers to make of such a man? He worked in darkness and isolation. He bought lead but never produced any lead products, and everyone knew that lead was a popular material for alchemists. In the weeks before he would finish a sword, a number of animals would be purchased and killed, although he could hardly eat all of his killing. Surely he was making sacrifices to the old gods. Worse still was the smell of burning flesh. Were some of the sacrifices human?
Naturally, a savvy swordsmith would do nothing to downplay any such wild rumors. He probably even started a few of them, letting people assume that he was expert in the black arts. This helped keep his techniques secret, kept prying eyes at a distance, and tripled the selling price of his fine creations. So what if he could only make two or three of these weapons each year? The prices he could demand were enough to keep him well-fed indeed.
Many of these craftsmen were thought to be magicians, and certainly Merlin was such a one. To spin a fantastic tale on the origin of Excalibur and have it swallowed whole by a gullible public was good for business. But the final proof of any weapon is in battle A perfectly built sword that could survive with nary a scratch while hundreds of others lay shattered on the ground was bound to bring fame to the owner and prestige to the builder.
So the next time you read Lord of the Rings, or see a production of Camelot, or even watch Star Wars, just keep in mind that all of the “sword and sorcerer” tales come from this very ancient tradition. The iron swords of the Romans and the bronze swords of the Greeks were never considered magical.
Some Regional Variations:
Vikings
These were the Scandinavian raiders and traders who ran almost unchecked in Northern Europe after the collapse of Rome. Although attacking in very small numbers in only one or two ships at a time, the effects of their sporadic raids changed the face of Western civilization forever, leaving permanent changes far more profound than any caused by the Greeks or Romans. Consider the following: they established trading colonies and then permanent settlements across the width of Northern Europe, and their descendants formed all of the major royal lineages. In Eastern Europe, Swedish Vikings were known as Rus (“red” – for their red hair), later called Russians, and conquered the native Slavs. In the British Isles, descendants of Danish Vikings became the leaders of the Anglo-Saxons. In Western Europe, Norwegian Vikings were known as Norsemen, then simply as Norman, and as they settled in the continent, dominated the local population wherever they expanded. It was they who imposed the feudal system that kept them in power and established the ruling lineages that controlled all of Europe. Indeed, in the Norman conquest of England in 1066, what we think of as the last battle of a British king against French invaders, both sides were only a few generations removed from their Viking forefathers.
Viking warfare was a particularly brutal form of raiding attack. Whereas their contemporaries were content with a lightening strike to steal available grain, gold, and cattle, Vikings would first launch a direct attack on the villagers themselves. After killing off the majority of able-bodied resistance, much of the remaining population would be taken as prisoners, for the Vikings conducted a very lucrative slave-trading business. Their individual skill and prowess in face-to-face combat was widely acclaimed to be of the highest caliber. Indeed, in most cases they attacked when at a numerical disadvantage, trusting on their fighting ability to win battles against much larger forces.
Apart from warfare, there also existed a formal dueling procedure within the warrior community. Called the homganga (“island going”), two combatants would go to a small island so as to impede either from running away in the middle of the fight. (In later times, a simple square was roped off in any convenient flat area.) They would trade blows, one after the other, with sword or axe until blood was drawn, at which point the fight was considered won. In some variations, the disputants were allowed to bring three wooden shields each, and when the last shield broke the very next strike would obviously end the fight.
Weapons available – Three foot swords with very little hand protection and usually circular shields of wood. Just as common were single and double hand axes, as well as bow and arrow. Short spears were used by the few mounted warriors.
Celts
Even though Celtic peoples lived throughout Europe, for our purposes we’ll focus on the pre-Anglo-Saxon tribes of the British Isles. Very little direct evidence exists as to how they lived, for the few contemporary written sources were from the Romans, not known for their scientific rigor nor dispassionate neutrality when describing their subjugated conquests. The Celts also had no written language, although they had a strong oral tradition to transmit their legends and culture. Alas, very little of that survived their being overrun by Roman, then Anglo Saxon, then Viking, then Christian attempts to annihilate their culture, especially the repository of knowledge that was the combined memory of Druid priest/scholars. Be that as it may, it does seem that the varied tribes were led by warrior/“kings”, were generally subsistence farmers and herders but still managed to maintain a class of priests and artisans. Women could achieve a level of power and respect above that found in other societies, even becoming warrior/kings themselves.
In war, all accounts agree that Celts fought primarily as complete tribes. All healthy males, and many powerful females, would join in the fray. There was no attempt at an organized attack. Instead, the king would personally lead an all-out wild charge into the middle of the assembled enemy, each warrior fighting to suit the best of his/her ability. The wealthier tribes used war chariots carrying two people – one driver and one (usually high-ranking) warrior, much as did the chariot armies of the ancient Middle East. The difference here was that the Celts used the chariot as a vehicle from which to fight using close weapons instead of as a firing platform for archers.
Celts generally had better iron and proto-steel making technologies than did their contemporaries, but due to their all-or-nothing charges, were not considered an especially troublesome adversary. The swords blades were long and only one inch wide. Iron blades of that length bend easily with each strike, and there are accounts of Celts having to bend their swords straight again after each blow. The Romans in particular knew that the biggest danger came in the first moments of the initial charge of the Celts. If that could be withstood, a disciplined army could wait until the “barbarians” tired themselves out. One the other hand, should the Celts break through the Roman shield and spear defense, the Celts were much more likely to win in a hand-to-hand battle.
Weapons available – Long bladed (3-foot) single hand swords, and short spears and axes for ground fighting. It is interesting to note that the swords were of excellent quality, and yet offer almost no hand protection. The guards seem to be there merely to keep that hand from sliding onto the blade, with no attempt to deflect an enemy cut from hitting the fingers. While this might strike us (and the Romans) as strange, we must remember that the Celts valued displays of personal courage more than anything else, and often ran into battle nearly naked. Exposure to danger marked an exceptional warrior.
For the same reason, the shield, although easily available, was considered a warrior’s personal choice rather than a warrior’s essential equipment. The majority of Celts in Britain fought without shield, armour, or helmet. Where used, the shield was oblong, covering two thirds of the body, and grasped with one hand from a central handle, much as one would the later Renaissance buckler.