HI Seax...

K

Krull

Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
869
This is the one thing HI makes that I find to be..well just wrong;I've never seen a seax like this and to be honest since it has no guard it can't be used as a weapon (sliding one's fingers onto a blade is bad enough,do that in a fight and you're in deep) lastly-it's too small! I know the seax was anything from 4 inches all the way to 28 but between 10 and about 14 inches is the norm.

So all how about a redesign? I made a quick and dirty sketch on my paint program,and used seax repros I'd seen around I don't think the Kami's would have any trouble since there's no guard (it's bulit in) and has the wood scales bolted on-have a look.
(it's a thumbnail click on it)
 
Hmmm, my HI seax is about 1/8" shy of 14", seems to be in the correct size range.
cheers,
--Dave
 
I'm talking of the blade-not OAL...and it don't look right :grumpy: the one I designed is about 11 century type.
 
The Kamis do as they do, Krull; but at some point I'm sure Yangdu would be happy to look at your drawing. There are new Kamis coming and the work would be appreciated.

With Yangdu around a Harpoon is not out of the question.




munk
 
I just got my HI seax the other day. Thinking about posting some pix when I can find the camera...but anyhow, I think the current model is plenty big. I actually wish they were smaller, ideally around 10" OAL. That would make the knife more useful as a utility/eating blade, since combat is not the small seax's primary use. However, I do prefer the blade profile in your sketch to the current HI profile. Generally I'm quite pleased with my HI seax, and I don't see a reason to do a re-design, but if there's a general concensus for one, I'll back it and get one of those as well :D

One thing to keep in mind: the HI seax is not meant to be an accurate reproduction, but the kami's interpretation of the knife.

-Tycho-
 
This disscussion just happened some time ago. HI version is basically english broken back type (well it has been found all over europe, but in england it survived longest time in to the 11. century) fitted with modified khukh handle.

Your drawing looks like some neeetherland and continental (Gotland and other sites) 5. 6. and 7. century pre viking seaxes such as the findings in vimose.

After Daniel Koster´s tease I made me this one:

http://www.sweb.cz/RobertNowak/seax2.JPG

Jaroslav
 
I know one thing in reguards to the Kamis-the more simple the better :D
Seax's is Europe's "plain" knife,used mostly for everyday camp chores and what have you,they would be deployed as a weapon as a last-ditch effort (sword is out of action;too close for an ax caught by surprise etc.)

Well if any think I should send it along to Mrs.Yangdu? it could be an intresting variation.;)

Or maybe she'll just notice it tomorrow.
 
There are pure fighting versions of these big knives and since they are without guard we have to assume that our ancestors werent that clumsy to slice own fingers onto blade.
For "sword is out action" - I think that philosophy is "if you cannot afford the sword just get the biggest knife local swordsmith is able to make for the moment when spears are discarded." There are also damascus versions inlaid with gold or silver, but these are found in graves together with fancy swords, hence auxiliary weapons.

As one of my knifemaking friends says anybody who cuts himself with a knife without a guard should use any and fact that scandi knives which are best utility and all around knives also have no guard speaks for itself.

Jaroslav
 
Perhaps you all ought to read Bernard Cornwall's descriptions of fighting in a shieldwall in his two books on 9th Century England, The Last Kingdom and The Pale Horseman. In both of them, he describes the seax as the perfect weapon for the close-in work of a shieldwall fight where one does not have the room to swing a sword. Remember, the swords of the time were slashers, not stabbers.

Krull, you need to understand that a riveted hilt has never been found on an historic seax. To date, all seaxes found have had whittle tangs glued into their hilts or tangs that were peened over some sort of pommel cap. Now, I am the last one to say that they will NEVER find a seax with a riveted tang as I am not a believer in "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." Like the various "missing links" in paleontology, such absent eveidence has a way of appearing in the damndest places if we but keep open minds.

However, I do not see khukri-like hilts on seaxes as a rational possibility. Sorry, guys. That would be like a Viking sword with a Japanese Katana-style hilt on it.
 
To me ? Looking at a Seax from a wanna be makers viewpoint ? A seax is a pointy piece of metal to let the air out of things . Then it has a handle and so on and so on . It looks like the most basic tool for the job and just got improved from there as the skill level of the maker dictated .It will hopefully be my first project and not be much more than I first described .
 
Older seaxes like vimose or previking gotland finds have "pistol" handles with riveted scales. The handles have still holes for 2 sometimes three rivets.

Look on frojel gotlandica site or do search for vimose seax.


Jaroslav
 
May I ask a question? What were the dates of the Vimose and Gotland seaxes? I am curious, as I just bought a seax with a riveted hilt from Tinker Pearce and have already been catching Hell for it. I knew that it was at best questionable for an Age of Migrations time period living history environment but if you have ever seen any of Tinker's work you will know how irresistably beautiful it is.

In case you are interested, here is a thread about the knife, complete with a person questioning the riveted hilt and a picture:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=385159
 
Who are you catching it from? That knife is a sweetie. Looks ready to carve up anything that came along.
 
Purists in the re-enactment community who believe that a seax cannot thave a riveted hilt.
 
In some areas ad some times it shall not have riveted scales and it should not have brass bolsters or guard.

Vimose which is closest in shape is

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39568

and it si from 3. century.


The problem in remaking an historically accurate replica is that old things are very proportion sensitive. Often you just look at the repro and know its not right. Other thing is that modern maker often uses materials which he fancies instead of these which at least look auhentically say cocobollo for handle.
Brass bolsters or improper guards are also "evil".

They shouldnt be present neither on vimose type or english type of seax, they do appear on some frankish or carolignian stuff, but the ratio of guarded/non guard fitted is about 1:30.

Viking longknifes altough different in shape are fighting knifes by definition and these have no guard and no ferulle. But usually wooden handle is wrapped by silver vire to avoid splitting.

There is perhaps 1 single find of what is supposed to be knife ferule from gotland and everyone butchers repros with it saying "but it has been found".

Take a look on these knives:
http://www.skjaldborg.livinghistory.cz/10_stol/noze.html

They have good authentic look.
 
OK, thanks, guys. As I said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And what you all have said has just shown that again. While the Viking Era seaxes appear not to have used tangs with riveted scales, pre-Viking Era ones do seem to have done so. I wonder why that method of hilting a seax went out of style, especially when it is my understanding that other knives with traditionally riveted scales continued to be made throughout that period. I also wonder why such seaxes appear in Vimose in the 3rd Century while others seem not to have made them and I wonder what the dating on the Gotland seaxes is. Oh, well, the mysteries of history and archaeology! They are part of what make it so endlessly fascinating.
 
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

- not true - in living history or reenactment we are standing on basis of archological finds. This means that we should not speculate unles absolutelly neccessary. Everything shall be at least based on something.

Seaxes go back to 1. century bc to single edged germanic swords, which resembles falcata quite alot.
Then there is complete genealogy of these big fighting knives according to era and place.
 
OK, hawkwind, how do you feel about the use of lamellar armor by, say, Normans in the 11th Century? I'll not sandbag you on this. It was a subject of much debate over at SwordForum a couple of years ago and it remains a contentious matter to this day. I happen to believe that, while we have no specific evidence of it being used by the Normans in Normandy or in England during the 11th Century, we do have evidence of it being used all around them geographically and temporally, so I maintain that you cannot simply say that they could not have used it, especially when their Norman brothers and cousins down in Italy and Sicily were using it during that time.
 
If there is no evidence from archeological find, iconographic proof or description of period trusted scholar, it is as good as non existent.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

- is exactly kind of mindset which a person who is into reenactment and live history should avoid at all costs.

e.g. - there is a 9. century find of budha ivory pendant in scandinavia. Shall we assume that everybody wore such pendant? No its exactly one find amongst thousand of others. It made its way there via remnants of the silk road thats far sure ad person who wore it probably didnt even knew what it was.

Now if you are viking reenactor and want to have one and you come on an reenactment event where 2 others have the same budha pendant "it has been found" - you just have increased the occurence of deviant artefact 300%. Surelly not thing one want.


This if you want to do the thing seriously. If you are in SCA it doesnt matters.

Jaroslav
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top