Diehard seems to be into smithery, so he can correct me as needed.
All swords were of pattern welded construction, strips of hammer welded Iron, the Iron forged in a weave of sorts, it was edged with Steel also forged on.
These were slashing swords with rounded points similar to the Roman Spatha. They were very, very, very expensive. The Iron gave shock absorbance, the steel a cutting edge.
The weak point was the steel edge. If you took a hit wrong a big chunk was missing or at worse the blow cut through the Iron and you eventually you.
> There are many Web Sites on Medieval Fencing on the web, you might want to take a look at them.
The entire Auckland CBD Chapter of the Guardian Angels is heavily into the European martial arts: swords, daggers, axes, armour, chain mail &tc. I love visiting their HQ because it’s like an old armoury, with obscure weapons and swords all over the walls...
So, you’re saying that you are guessing, based on the sword’s construction.
Such graphical evidence and textural clues as exist would lead me to believe that the Norse would have used a shield for the defense, and avoided blade parries.
I’ve seen the “parry with the flat’ claim before, but I think it is usually an unjustified extrapolation from Eastern sword techniques. Experimental sparring and later existing German texts do not bear the theory out. Parrying a solid cut with the flat of your blade is a good way of getting your parry blown straight through, and my head is more valuable than the edge of my sword. (Think of the body mechanics of a hammer blow vs a slapping motion. The wrist and arm are more rigid in line with the knuckles.)
P.S. I am assuming you mean by “parry”, an intercepting block. Now, if you mean by “parry”, an intercepting countercut to the oblique or flat of your opponent’s incoming strike, that is different.