Weapons and armour in Anglo-Saxon England

However, the establishment of a literate Christian clergy in Anglo-Saxon England resulted in the production of several textual sources that describe weapons and their use in battle.

Evidence for arms and armour in Anglo-Saxon England derives from three types of sources — archaeological, textual, and illustrative — all of which raise different interpretation issues and are not evenly distributed in a chronological manner.

[2] According to historian Guy Halsall, the "deposition of grave-goods was a ritual act, wherein weaponry could symbolise age, ethnicity or rank; at various times and places a token weapon might be used to illustrate such concepts.

[4] The popular historian Stephen Pollington proposed that this was either a return to the prehistoric practice of "deposition in sacred waters" or a reflection of the fact that battles were being increasingly fought at fords, which is confirmed by contemporary sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

[5] Archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon weaponry allows the documentation of the chronological development of weapon styles over time and the identification of regional variations.

[6] However, questions have been raised as to how representative these items, specifically deposited with a purpose, are of the wider array of weapons used in Anglo-Saxon life.

[4] Scholarly knowledge of warfare itself relies mostly on literary evidence, which was produced in the Christian context of the late Anglo-Saxon period,[6] from the eighth to the eleventh century.

[4] The law codes and wills authored in the tenth and eleventh centuries also provide some insight into the military equipment used by the Anglo-Saxon nobility in this period.

[11] The law codes of Ine (King of Wessex from 688 to 726 CE) stipulate the imposition of fines for anyone who assists the escape of another's servant by lending them a weapon.

[11] Pollington asserted that the "Germanic peoples [which includes the Anglo-Saxons] took great pride in their weapons and lavished much attention on them, in their appearance and in their effectiveness.

[13] In many Northern European societies (likely including Anglo-Saxon England), spears could only be carried by a freeman, with law codes prescribing strict punishments for any slaves discovered to possess one.

[18] Spearheads were sometimes decorated, with bronze and silver inlay placed on the blade and socket; in such instances, a simple ring-and-dot motif was most common.

[21] Once the spearhead had penetrated an enemy's body, the barb caused much difficulty in removing the weapon, thus increasing the likelihood that the pierced individual would die as a result of the wound.

[18] Pollington describes the sword as "the most symbolically important weapon" of the Anglo-Saxon period,[29] and historian Guy Halsall referred to it as "the most treasured item of early medieval military equipment.

[47] Several Anglo-Saxon corpses were apparently injured or killed in this manner; the cemetery of Eccles in Kent contains three individuals who had sword cuts to the left sides of their skulls.

[49] Archaeologists and historians have sometimes referred to the seax as a scramsax, although this term is not found in any medieval literature save for Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks.

[55] The blades were sometimes decorated with incised lines or metal inlays,[56] and a number of examples contain inscriptions bearing the name of the owner or maker.

[60] David Gale suggests that they were more of a status symbol, pointing out that the shorter, common seaxes were "both too small and too highly ornamented for everyday functional use."

"[61] Sonia Chadwick Hawkes concurs with Gale's assessment, mentioning that he had performed a practical demonstration of the "total ineffectiveness [of the seax] against both spear and sword" at a conference in Oxford in January 1987.

[67] Writing in the sixth century CE, Roman author Procopius described the use of such throwing axes by the Franks, noting that they would be hurled at the enemy prior to engaging in hand-to-hand combat.

[68] In his History of the Franks, the Frankish chronicler Gregory of Tours (also writing in the sixth century) described the throwing of an axe at the enemy.

[72] Iron arrowheads have been discovered in approximately 1% of early Anglo-Saxon graves, and traces of wood from the bow stave are occasionally found in the soil of inhumations.

[77] As for bodkins, he proposed that they were designed for use against armoured opponents—the long tapering point would pass through the chain links of mail or puncture the iron plate of a helmet if shot at close range.

[85] Furthermore, he proposed that the event recorded in Wilfrid's hagiography may not be an accurate account, but rather a reflection of the writer's desire to draw Biblical parallels.

Evidence indicates that alder, willow, and poplar wood were the most common types; shields of maple, birch, ash, and oak have also been discovered.

[97] Pollington theorized that the shield was "perhaps the most culturally significant piece of defensive equipment" in Anglo-Saxon England, for the shield-wall would have symbolically represented the separation between the two sides on the battlefield.

[99] A completely intact coat of mail from the fourth or fifth century, similar to those that probably were used in Anglo-Saxon England, was found in Vimose, Denmark,[99] which has been rebuilt by archaeologist Marjin Wijnhoven.

[102] Following construction, the coat was case hardened by being packed in charcoal and subsequently reheated, so that some carbon could transfer to the metal's outer face.

[119] The frame comprises seven pieces of iron, and the helmet is crested with a bronze boar figure—the figure is decorated with garnet eyes mounted in beaded gold, along with gilded, inlayed tusks and ears.

[126] For instance, the ring-sword was evidently created in Kent in the mid-500s, but by the seventh century it had become widespread across Europe, being used by Germanic-speaking peoples as well as in Finland and the Kingdom of the Lombards.