Talk:Ulfberht swords

Nova
Just links to the relevant Nova episode.
 * PBS.org
 * Youtube

Quality of source disputable
This article is mainly based on a disputable source: a TV documentary. It makes bold claims that should be checked against more academic literature.

Further reading: Anne Stalsberg, Herstellung und Verbreitung der VLFBERHT-Schwertklingen. Eine Neubewertung. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 36, 2008, 89-118.

Mikko Moilanen, On the Manufacture of Iron Inlays in Sword Blades: An Experimental Study. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 26, 2009, 23-28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.195.67 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above comment, some of the "facts" in the article are scientifically wrong. "While most medieval weapons were made of soft iron with little carbon, the steel used to fabricate an Ulfberht had a much higher level of carbon and less slag. This made the weapon more flexible and reliable, as well as easier to remove from enemy shields." High carbon steel is, in fact, more brittle, not more flexible. More, most medieval weapons were not made of iron, but of steel with a variety of carbon content within a single blade. It was the very purpose of the process of pattern-welding to tailor the ductility and hardness of the blade as it was needed. As metallurgy improved, this process became redundant later on. --95.88.31.175 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Extremely low carbon steels will bend out of shape, rather than flex. This bending, combined with the breakable nature of the impure swords meant they would shatter easier (speculation).So, in this case, it makes sense to call the higher carbon, but more pure steels more flexible, since they would snap back into place after a displacement. ==Not Elphion== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.93.189 (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2014


 * Not really you need to temper the steel to make it that flexible and too high carbon content actually makes the steel prone to breaking and not flexible at all. 47.64.213.76 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What the program said is that the higher carbon made the blade stronger, not more flexible. The flexibility came from the purity of the steel (absence of slag inclusions). "Most" early medieval blades were in fact made of low carbon steel and were fairly fragile.  Only high quality blades were pattern-welded, and the true Ulfbehrts were made from a uniform high-carbon steel, not patterned as in the Damascus blades -- Elphion (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again no the actual problem back then was that steel often had TOO MUCH carbon,that's why they folded it to burn out carbon and later decarbonized the steel with other techniques. 47.64.213.76 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, to some extent. Obviously you need some carbon for strength, and yes, too much makes the steel brittle.  The true Ulfbehrts clearly managed to hit a happy medium.  Excessive carbon was one problem with medieval swords, but the limiting property was the impurity of the steel.  The Ulfbehrts avoided both issues through starting with a moderate-carbon steel of high quality, probably not produced locally. -- Elphion (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has experience of making tools will know that pure or low carbon steels are relatively soft, and would bend easily if used as weapons. The steel would work harden, and soon be broken. On the other hand a good high carbon steel is ideal for swords and things like suspension leaf springs (a good raw material for knives). The secret is in the process of hardening and tempering (cionfusingly temopering and drawing in the US). Done correctly the appropriate amount of flexibility can be imbued in the metal with the minimum loss of hardness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Purity" here does not mean low-carbon, but freedom from slag inclusions. This was the principal advantage of the Ulfbehrts (plus of course, their moderate carbon content). The tempering process is also important, as you say, but there's no indication what process was used for the Ulfbehrts, or whether it was significantly different from usual practices of swordsmiths of the time. -- Elphion (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And "moderate carbon" should be taken with a big grain of salt: the true Ulfbehrts had a pretty hefty carbon content, higher than conventional "high-carbon" steel -- see http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/dec/27/archaeology-vikings-sword -- Elphion (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, a Guardian article is an even lower-quality source than a PBS/NatGeo documentary. How much carbon it contained is irrelevant to the article. Even early steel sometimes contained very high carbon levels; they simply added more charcoal. You can even do it after the crucible process, by literally beating organic ash into the hot steel and folding it; repeat.  The  of the metal of the genuine +VLFBERH+T swords is the story, not carbon content.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed this source, and including some details from it, without WP:UNDUE weight, is perfectly fine per WP:RS. It is not an Alien Ghosts and Bigfoot Astrology Channel [cough, cough] I mean History Channel bungle, but a high-quality PBS/National Geographic tandem effort, based on real scholarship and science (plus some experimental archaeology for the "human interest" factor, but that doesn't affect the reliability of the 5 experts used for the facts, or question the results of electron microscopy they did). The previous attempt at including material from this docu in the article was simply incompetent, and sorely misunderstood and misrepresented much of what the experts in the film were saying! I'll take a stab (pun intended) at doing this properly later (already drafted, just need to integrate it into the extant text). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Improved?
The source listed does not mention that the Vikings "Improved upon" Central Asian techniques. So I have removed it. Sorry for my english. --Arsaces (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Quality of this article
This article is in major parts wrong and the information presented is based on a TV documentary.

Please see the German version of this article and use it for corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.222.204 (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cnut the Great with an Ulfberht?


I am sure most will agree the likelihood of the sword in the image here being an Ulfberht is extremely high. Yet it remains unproven. The best lead can be seen on YouTube in 'RIDDLE OF STEEL: Secrets of the Viking Sword' that's all about the enigma of the Ulfberht, worn only by the warrior elite. It struck me that the prime specimen on exhibit (shown first @ 01:51 on the film) matches the sword Cnut holds in the illustration perfectly.

Does this information not warrant a place in this article with its uncertainty indicated in the image's description? Do we really need a published source to validate the fact that this sword looks like an Ulfberht? Does the illustration itself not serve as a reliable source?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you need a source. My immediate reaction to your addition was "how do we know?".  The TV program made it clear that imitations were rife -- and it's not clear that the design of the pommel was unique to Ulfberhts and their imitations. -- Elphion (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * no way. inlay'd name and material used is what makes Ulfberht stand out from the others, not shape of the sword. not at all. in fact, shape itself is quite common one even in that era. see Oakeshott typology. --Yk49 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a point of interest I hope people will find here in the talk section. In the documentary there are suggestions that the shape of the Ulfberht blade was in some way unique, in particular the point for pierceing chainmail, and the high ratio of its width measuring edge to edge from base to tip - as is best I can describe it myself. I did glean some clarification from Richard Furrer (blacksmith featured in the TV programme mentioned here) who indicates that while we may identify the type of hilt and blade, the detail is not good enough for any certainty; i.e. no inlay to be seen.

I guess while this may be unsuitable information for the Ulfberht page, it may work well in the Cnut the Great article. I think I will try and slip in a subsection in the section this here image is in already. I will need to do alot more research though if it going to stand up to scrutiny. Frankish connections with the Ulfberht being of interest in context with the expansion of Christendom. I can also find a webpage that indicates the blade shape we may be seeing in this illustration was common to the Ulfberhts. We don't accept webpages for the Wikipedia though, eh? Does anyone know of a reference that supports this?

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually the crucible steel that sets it apart. Ca. 2012, scanning electronic microscopy has shown that the "+VLFBERHT+" swords are low-grade counterfeits of the contemporary real "+VLFBERH+T" crucible-steel swords.  Agreed that using that image here would be original research, and over 99.999% likely to be patently false.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This claim VLFBERHT vs VLFBERH+T and counterfits has been determined to be unsubstantiated and not a determing factor in this reguard. 24.17.255.128 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ulfberht a viking sword?
Today the german newspaper published an article about the swords. The reasen is that in Lower Saxony a well conserved ulfbreht was discovered in the Weser-river. Scientist are now able to locate the origin of the swords in the Taunus hills in Germany. The article describe like the german wikipedia article the swords as a frankish product. It is a logical thing. Why should the vikings give their swords a viking name?

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/ulfberht-schwerter-wunderwaffen-aus-dem-kloster-1.2067956


 * The unsigned contribution above is not mine. It refers to a suggestion in the article that the swords are not Frankish. That suggestion was apparently based on a misreading of the paper by Anne Stalsberg. I have edited the article to more closely reflect Stalsberg's paper and the contribution above. --Frans Fowler (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Afaics, the linked article does not suggest anywhere that the swords may not be Frankish. It treats their Frankish manufacture as uncontroversial fact. The article's motivation is the examination of the Großenwieden find, and it discusses hypotheses trying to pinpoint the place of manufacture more specifically within Francia.
 * In any case, this article should ignore journalistic sources as far as possible. Journalists sometimes get it right, and in such cases, you just happen to get the correct information that you would have got from the scholarly publication directly. But in many cases, they will distort and falsify, simply because their job is re-phrasing and editing material they do not really understand. German Wikipedia now even has a section Verklärende Darstellung in den Medien in its Ulfberht article. I do not think this is the way to go. Journalism should be ignored (and not "debunked" or "corrected") by Wikipedia, unless and until a journalistic publication reaches its own notability, at which point it will become a primary topic of encyclopedic interest, it will never function as a reference for anything. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional source
I don't have access to this at present.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Debunking possible sensationalism
At this URL, Ulfbehrt swords are made out to be a great mystery, somehow made with metalworking techniques that would not be invented for another 800 years.

Is it safe to say there really is no mystery after all? GPS Pilot (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume a clickbait site called "cyber-breeze.com" had anything to say on the topic? They are ... intriguing for representing an internationally recognized "brand name", indeed about 800 years before this became the norm, but they are hardly "mysterious". --dab (𒁳) 06:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Runic O
The crosses in the name are not Christian crosses but Runic "O"s. The name is properly given as "Oulfberhot", "Wolf and Bear (bones) Forge". Becavse. The Oulfberhot swords are Viking, not Frankish. The Viking swordsmiths had exposure to the metalworking done at the other end of the Volga trade route, something the Franks would have been entirely without. The vastly inferior forgeries, however, ARE Frankish, as the misplacement of the second Runic O so aptly demonstrates. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sword-skeleton theory. --dab (𒁳) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dab, your snarky comment might be construed as a competent criticism, but only by a minority of rational persons. Did you actually have some refutation of my observation, or are you just making this comment as a demonstration of the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"? Whatever I may lack in snobbish Legitimacy (political), I more than make up for in a straightforward and Naturalistic pursuit of Meaningfulness. So were you going to admit that you have no credentials and named yourself after a soccer player, or are you an authentic expert on Searle's Chinese Room? --TheLastWordSword (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You are so right TheLAstWordSwordr. The name is actually UlberhoteR and in old viking badass norse means "The wolf and bear viking overlord forgery". The frankish peasants, who were bad at everything of course, would never have been able to forge such weaponry.The personal logic you follow is flawless. It seems that we, the vikingaboos, are the only rational persons here.

Greetings and hail Odin from a fellow vikingaboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of swords found from Finland?
Why the article has been changed to state that there has only been found 14 Ulfberht swords from Finland? As it is mentioned in the article this information is at least 60 years old because Stalsberg's numbers are based on Leppäaho's findings from the 1960s. The more recent Moilanen`s number (31) is from 2015. I suggest that we use the more recent source for the number of known Ulfberht swords in Finland in the article. Velivieras (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)