Viking ironclads / barða, járnbarða, járnbarði (iron barde)

I looked into that a while ago and could not find a single depiction of a Byzantine ship looking like that, unless its a hodge-podge by the artist. I find it more likely that viking ship builders copied the design for naval ships intended for ramming
Click to expand...

You can see several illustrations of this type here, along with explanations of how thw prow was used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromon. I have seen 4th-century (?) sculptures of ships in Rome that match the Viking image almost exactly.

In sea battles, Viking ships fouled each others oars and collided. But I find it hard to imagine ramming being a valuable tactic. It was seldom used even in Classical times. The ships were light and flexible enough to ride up over the ramN. Maneuvering into ramming position would be diffcicult and would leave the attacker vulnerable to attack by others.

This is not true. Period stories describe them all the time, often in great numbers and they are a favorite in period depictions. The viking age, as per the name, was not very peacefull, especially in the baltic, with skirmishes and raids happening fairly often. Archeological evidence show warships they were in demand and produced in a great variety and sizes. They were status symbols and boat burrials were common.
Click to expand...

Describe, yes. But see? No.

Long ships were exotic and interesting. Then as now, warships are never common sights compared to commercial vessels. I grew up on the US east coast in the suburbs of a port and visited several others over the years, But I saw only a few destroyers and logistics vessels. No aircraft carriers. No battleships. Long ships were like aircraft carriers and battleships. No power could afford a lot of them, given their cost and specialized function. But they were the most glamorous ships of the day and thus commanded the most attention. Seldom seen, but often described.

Remember also that the sources, with the exception of some contemporary Skaldic poetry, all date from a century or two after the fact. Sagas are imaginative--good stories with some historical elements. But they are not history per se. More and bigger ships make a better story.

What archeological evidence are you referring to? Ships from the pre-modern period are rare. Viking ships especially so. No Drakkar--the kind described in Heimskringla--have been found, as far as I know. One 120-ft ship was found at Roskilde, and it is not of the Drakkar type.

Even war fleets depended primarily on multipurpose, civilian-owned ships that didn't have to be built and maintained by the king. Long ships were like aircraft carriers and battleships. No power could afford a lot of them. But they were the most glamorous ships and commanded the most attention.

w warships they were in demand and produced in a great variety and sizes. They were status symbols and boat burrials were common.
Click to expand...

Dedicated warships were status symbols because they were rare. They were so expensive that only a few grandees could afford them. In Heimskringla, the Svolder conspirators are drooling in anticipation of who will get which of Olaf's three uniquely, fabulously valuable long ships.

Boat burials are not all that common. I only know of a dozen or so. Nor did they include long ships--the large Drakkar-type vessels. The biggest buried ship was 65 feet or something like that.

As per above, especially with the location of the stone (at the time, possibly only a couple of minutes from the sea due to land rise), it would be extremely unlikely that the carver had never seen a longship.
Click to expand...

My point is that the sea surrounding any given point of land in VIking Age Europe is unlikely to be occupied by one of these rare vessels at any given time. The artist is far more likely to have heard a description of these wondrous craft than to have seen one in action. The artist knew these ships were different from the familiar ships in the harbor and exaggerated the differences based on these descriptions.
 
Historians always tend to believe that every invention happened only once in the time and then the knowledge spread around and was copied. Being an engineer, I know this is rarely the case and similar circumstances will lead to similar solutions. The idea of ramming enemy ships is quite obvious and when its about killing the enemy people tend to became very creative. I think, the theory of copying the idea from a Greek ship is not the most plausible explanation and I don’t agree that the Greek ships were looking very similar.

I also don’t see evidence for distinct war ships and merchant ships by the Vikings and find it more plausible that these were always used as multipurpose ships. There might have been some which focused more on combat and others which were better suited for transport but they surely didn’t build a merchant marine flotilla. When the Vikings went to work (plundering, loitering, robbery and murder...) they always needed ships which were used for war in the first part and transport in the second part.
 
Nicknick said:
Historians always tend to believe that every invention happened only once in the time and then the knowledge spread around and was copied. Being an engineer, I know this is rarely the case and similar circumstances will lead to similar solutions. The idea of ramming enemy ships is quite obvious and when its about killing the enemy people tend to became very creative. I think, the theory of copying the idea from a Greek ship is not the most plausible explanation and I don’t agree that the Greek ships were looking very similar.

I also don’t see evidence for distinct war ships and merchant ships by the Vikings and find it more plausible that these were always used as multipurpose ships. There might have been some which focused more on combat and others which were better suited for transport but they surely didn’t build a merchant marine flotilla. When the Vikings went to work (plundering, loitering, robbery and murder...) they always needed ships which were used for war in the first part and transport in the second part.
Click to expand...
There are definitely examples of multipurpose ships, but there are also defined ship types by name which we have very good info on as most continiued to be used into the high-medieval periods and some even up to today. For example, snäcka and snipa are ship types by name which goes back to the viking age and still remain in circulation: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipa
 
iverson said:
Describe, yes. But see? No.

Long ships were exotic and interesting.
Click to expand...
One of the most common scenes in westerns - literary, TV, movies - is the "quick draw" duel in the street between two gunslingers.

Issue: "gunslinger" was first recorded not in the 1850's, but the *1950's.* The word didn't exist in the "old west." And while duels weren't uncommon, the stereotypical "quick draw" duel happened *maybe* twice.

The point: actual events aren't near as interesting as the writers make it out to be. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
 
Orionblamblam said:
One of the most common scenes in westerns - literary, TV, movies - is the "quick draw" duel in the street between two gunslingers.

Issue: "gunslinger" was first recorded not in the 1850's, but the *1950's.* The word didn't exist in the "old west." And while duels weren't uncommon, the stereotypical "quick draw" duel happened *maybe* twice.

The point: actual events aren't near as interesting as the writers make it out to be. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Click to expand...
The quickdraw fight has more to do with Hollywood copying the Japanese Samurai movies than quickdraw happening back in the day.

Because there's a whole martial art around the quickdraw of swords.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The quickdraw fight has more to do with Hollywood copying the Japanese Samurai movies than quickdraw happening back in the day.

Because there's a whole martial art around the quickdraw of swords.
Click to expand...
Quickdraw comes from dueling with pistols. It did happen back in the day but has been popularized by Hollywood, although not necesarily from Japanese movies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_draw
Now, back to topic.
 
Nothing says the armor (if any) had to remain on the ship.

It and the hull used for a mead hall or something.

Or removed and burned for dead warriors.

Any good against shipworms?
 
New addition to OP:

Snippet from Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar
Original Old Norse text: (note the erronous spelling in my copy)​
Oc siðan býsc Eríkr jarl med lið sitt; hann hafði þat skip er callat var Jarnbarðiɴ. þat var mikit skip oc akaflega harðgert. stafniɴ huorr tueggi þakiðr með miklu iarni. oc huossum eggia broddum​
​
Original Old Norse text:​
And then came Earl Erik with his lead; he had that ship which was called The Iron Barde. It was a large ship and very heavily covered (protected). The stem was twofold (on both sides) covered with much iron. and sharp edged spikes​
​
 
Found that the Ledberg runestone of the same time period (around the year 1000, as per the Battle of Svolder) has a motif akin to the Tullstorp Runestone (despite being very far away from eachother), featuring the weird angular ship and wolf (plus more characters). Might be the same carver upon inspection, as both feature similar carving styles.
 

Attachments

  • Ledbergsstenen.jpg
    Ledbergsstenen.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 13
  • Skepp_på_runsten_Ledberg.jpg
    Skepp_på_runsten_Ledberg.jpg
    98.4 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
blockhaj said:
Found that the Ledberg runestone of the same time period (around the year 1000, as per the Battle of Svolder) has a motif akin to the Tullstorp Runestone (despite being very far away from eachother), featuring the weird angular ship and wolf (plus more characters). Might be the same carver upon inspection, as both feature similar carving styles.
Click to expand...
Same carver does not increase the confirmation probability, unfortunately.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom