The death of a medieval Danish warrior

[Erpingham]

Nice little article on a medieval casualty.  Very reminiscent of Visby and the wound pattern.  Classic example of overkill head trauma too.  As often the case, you find yourself wondering what kind of helmet he was wearing.  Bought from a supplier who got very little repeat custom but at least no-body brought stuff back and asked for a refund?

[Jim Webster]

Nice little article on a medieval casualty.  Very reminiscent of Visby and the wound pattern.  Classic example of overkill head trauma too.  As often the case, you find yourself wondering what kind of helmet he was wearing.  Bought from a supplier who got very little repeat custom but at least no-body brought stuff back and asked for a refund?

I probably laughed more than I should have at that last comment 

[Patrick Waterson]

As often the case, you find yourself wondering what kind of helmet he was wearing.

One that fell off prior to the head-wounds, I suspect.

Bought from a supplier who got very little repeat custom but at least no-body brought stuff back and asked for a refund?

I think the supplier would have been seriously worried if anyone did.

[Erpingham]

As often the case, you find yourself wondering what kind of helmet he was wearing.

One that fell off prior to the head-wounds, I suspect.

Perhaps so in this case, as those seem to be pretty unimpeded sword blows.  But, given the prevalence of cranial trauma in battle casualty burials, does this indicate helmet loss was a commonplace?  In some cases, we are probably dealing with hits from heavier weapons, like halberds, or penetrating ones like the spike on the back of a poleaxe, which defeated the armour . 

[Patrick Waterson]

But, given the prevalence of cranial trauma in battle casualty burials, does this indicate helmet loss was a commonplace?

An interesting thought.  One would expect the helmet to stay on while the owner remained upright, but a style of helmet which sat on the head as opposed to fitting snugly around it might be displaced if, say, the owner's head were to jerk backwards upon receipt of a leg wound.  Or some helmets might be easier to knock off than others, but if so one would expect some mention in battle accounts and - not least - sagas.

In the case of the deceased, it would appear that someone initially went to work on his leg and then he or someone else switched to the exposed and convenient head.  This suggests to me that the deceased's head protection absented itself between these two occurrences, or the first opponent was of very limited stature.

In some cases, we are probably dealing with hits from heavier weapons, like halberds, or penetrating ones like the spike on the back of a poleaxe, which defeated the armour. 

Indeed, as there seems little point in devising an armour-piercing weapon and then not using it to pierce armour.  The deceased's head wounds were, in the opinion of the article writers, inflicted by sword-strokes, which is why I assume any head protection went missing prior to their infliction.

[Dangun]

As often the case, you find yourself wondering what kind of helmet he was wearing.  Bought from a supplier who got very little repeat custom but at least no-body brought stuff back and asked for a refund?

This reminds me of when I first went sky diving.
The guy packing my chute noticed me studying the process, and quipped: "don't worry, never had any complaints."

More seriously, the conclusion of the paper suggests that the soldier was no longer standing, and was taking defensive wounds to the arms, before the head trauma commenced.
So he was already incapacitated and possibly disarmed.
Also from the conclusion, one wonders what the point of head trauma blow 3 to 5 was, because it was unnecessary/effectively post mortem.

[Jim Webster]

perhaps the dead guy had upset somebody?

[Patrick Waterson]

Or might we be back to the concept of berserking?  The archetypal berserker, having started, tends not to know when to stop, or at least can be reluctant to do so.

Or it might just be someone making sure, cf. Macbeth:

"But Banquo's safe?"

"Aye - with twenty trenched gashes in his head,
The least a death to nature."

[Erpingham]

Attributing the head wounds to the culturally specific berserker is, alas, to underestimate the general savagery of medieval combat.  It isnt uncommon to find overkill like this, hacking away after the opponent is clearly down and pretty obviously to a rational observer dead.  The victor could have been a perfectly ordinary chivalrous knight when the red mist had cleared. 

[Jim Webster]

Attributing the head wounds to the culturally specific berserker is, alas, to underestimate the general savagery of medieval combat.  It isnt uncommon to find overkill like this, hacking away after the opponent is clearly down and pretty obviously to a rational observer dead.  The victor could have been a perfectly ordinary chivalrous knight when the red mist had cleared.

Indeed he might just have been the victim of his ex-wife 

[aligern]

It might also be that the head wounds were inflicted by a second warrior as the combat passed over the dead man? If a man goes down fighting in the front rank it might be difficult for the man who brought him low to finish him without becoming a victim to the next enemy in the file, so step over him and let him be butchered by your supporter following up who can bend to attend.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I think I like Roy's idea of what may have happened.  Either way, having been rendered prone would explain the absence of a helmet just as things became personal and terminal.

[Dangun]

Although if he was prone, any one of the lesions 1-5 would have been difficult to deliver... And given that the report says any one of lesion 1, 2 and 5 would have been fatal, it was as though he was held upright (and helmet less) to be mutilated some more.

So... Lesion 8, 9 and he's kneeling, helmet goes missing (and his shield if he had one because its not on his forearm), then any combination of 3, 4 and defensive lesions 6, 7 and he's not dead yet but not having fun. After either 1, 2 or 5, its hard to imagine he'd not prone and dead. And the last two are just for unpleasantness?

[aligern]

It may be a bit harsh to ascribe wounds to 'unpleasantness' . When everybody is worked up and its kill or be killed I suspect that combatants keep hitting out because its not a cold hard decision that an oppinent is dead. Such action might be stopped and diverted if a new opponent closes with you . Men following behind the file leaders would have no such interruption from an enemy to the front and would be wound up , excited, scared angry etc.
I do also wonder how quickly killer wounds actually dispose of opponents. Presumably a deep axe blow to the head instantaneously stops a man from fighting, but other wounds that might be fatal in minutes will leave him still dangerous and thus worthy of further blows. One is reminded of why the British military moved to .45 revolvers, because ( supposedly) in the Indian Mutiny, officers could put two bullets in an opponent charging them with a sword, but this would not stop a worked up swordsman reaching and getting his blow in.
Roy

[RichT]

It would be pretty unpleasant to be on the receiving end, though.

It is a fair point that the standard (TV/movies) view of shot/stabbed/brushed with sword = fall down instantaneously, neatly and quietly dead is a long way from what would really have happened.