[quote="Tiddles"]From my understanding the Saxons seamed to be almost identically equipped. But I think the Vikings had a verity of equipment between individuals. Based on what the individual acquired through trade and conquest. Common sense says they would have only used what would keep themselves and there companions alive.[quote]
Choice of weapon is much more influenced by social class than "race". For a start, "viking" is a job description (ie "pirate" or "raider"), and viking armies were made up of a mix of Scandinavians and freebooters they'd picked up on their travels. The main items of wargear in use across the early medieval west were (in rough order of ubiquity): spear (inc javelins), shield; and then (for higher status) sword, horse, helmet, mail shirt; axes appear fairly often in Scandinavian contexts; bows aren't all that common - but slings are probably vastly underrepresented; and everyone carries a knife.
Wargear was expensive and not something that any old person had access to. Metal requires quite a bit of work and isn't cheap. Possessing wargear automatically marks you out as being a person of status - whether as a free man (as opposed to the many who weren't free) or as a Very Important Person.
Wargear was frequently given by one's lord, underlining relationships of service and loyalty. I give you this sword, and in return you swear to use it in my service, protecting my body and avenging me if I die. That's pretty powerful stuff. Everybody (ie *everybody*) has a lord to whom they owe service, even a king (directly responsible to God). When an English thegn died, his weapons were returned to his lord (the 'heriot' payment), and presumably then handed to his heir together with associated land. The same thing happens in 'Beowulf' and you can trace the same relationships in viking sagas (though I'm less familiar with the evidence).
I would be very cautious about suggesting that English armies were identically equipped. Yes, lots of spears and a good number of swords, but we're not in an era of standarised weaponry. Look at Wheeler's typology of swords - there are a lot of different styles of hilt-fittings; blades may be imported, but the fittings are done locally to suit local tastes.
Earlier (ninth-century) viking armies may have had a bit more variety in equipment (mixture of spears, axes and swords), but in the tenth century "viking" armies in Britain were a mixture of local and foreign (and intermingled) populations, whether "Hiberno-Norse" or "Anglo-Scandinavian". In the eleventh century you have major royal-led expeditions from Denmark and Norway, where I would expect to see a much greater proportion of spear-and-shield troops raised through ship-service systems.
[quote="Tiddles"]My background is 14C so the injury was not a problem as I used two handed swords. The only single handed sword I used was a short falchion that was tailor made for me by Iron Head. Plus I relied on my armour to compensate for my lack of wrist/hand strength.
I do have a Chinese sword that I use with Pirating. That is single handed but weighs of almost nothing. The design goes back to 10C China but think it would be silly to try and explain its presence in Viking hands.
Its straight sword that give me the problem. There is no problem with curved blades. [quote]
At risk of being a bit of a numpty, you're looking to use a curved sword because you're struggling to use a single-handed straight sword safely? Or have I missed something?
If so, there is a simple, one-word answer: training.
There are some very good, very light "normal" swords out there (try Paul Binns or Armour Class) which will dance around your opponent's shield like Strictly Come Viking. Yes, it may mean learning a slightly different style, but there's nothing wrong with a challenge
You *will* need to learn to pull your blows if you're covering the 10th-11th century (we're not clankies), but there is absolutely no reason you can't fight safely and competitively... provided you train.
