Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it unfluffy for Dwarfs to have swords? I know that WHFB is largely enspired by The Lord of The Rings and in that setting Dwarfs use swords. Also since Dwarf Rune and weapon smiths know how to make swords and have made them for centuries that they would have reason to make them before they began trading with men which leads me to believe that although they aren't very widely used that Dwarfs could/would use swords. I haven't been able to find any mention of a Dwarf with a sword in novels and such but that dosen't mean it can't happen, what do you guys think?

Dwarfs DO NOT use swords in WHFB, they dont beleive they are worth using or some such (i cant remember exactly)
yes they make them but thats it im afraid.
There was even an instance where during a GW global campaign, the Dwarves ended up winning a magic item for their race and it was a sword. However, to for the fluff that a Dwarf would never use a sword they came up with some story that its a talisman and would only be carried, never wielded.

They did used to have swords though, some of the older Dwarf minis had them. The old imperial Dwarfs, and I think the 4th-5th edition ironbreakers had them.


But Revenent Reiko is indeed correct that the current fluff is the Dwarfs think they are second rate weapons.

Dwarves don't use swords because their body structure doesn't favor the way swords are wielded.


Swords(discounting Gladius's and Daggers) are used in long slashing arcs or long thrusts.

Dwarf arms are too short for that to be practical so dwarves use Hammers, Axes, and other blunt instruments.

Dwarves make swords for other races so they can make them and certaintly know all the methods of forging, but they don't use them themselves.

Grey Templar wrote:Dwarves don't use swords because their body structure doesn't favor the way swords are wielded.


Swords(discounting Gladius's and Daggers) are used in long slashing arcs or long thrusts.

Just gotta say this isn't entirely correct, the way a sword is used is dependant on what type of sword it is and what it's intended for so not all swords are used in long slashing arcs or long thrusts. There are plenty more sword types besides the Gladius (daggers aren't swords) that aren't designed for long slashs or thrusts. And this is kind of contradictory in that most larger axes and hammers which are used by the Dwarfs are used in long slashing arcs (crushing for the hammers). So saying they can't use swords for that reason means they can't use axes for that reason which isn't the case. An axe can have the same range as a sword and be used in the same way, the differance comes in blade area.

Dwarf arms are too short for that to be practical so dwarves use Hammers, Axes, and other blunt instruments.

Except that Dwarfs woulden't use a sword desgined for a human and would have more relevant length, and if the length of an axe from pommel to head is the same length as a sword from pommel to tip then a Dwarf can use a sword. If they don't use swords for fluff based reasons then that I can understand, but I highly doubt that Dwarfs woulden't use swords because of their physical nature when many of the same issues put forth as to why they coulden't use them would also be present in Axes and Hammers which the Dwarfs obviously use (and axes are not blunt weapons, most war axes are designed for slashing the same as swords.) And besides, swords aren't only used by people with long arms

Now not that I don't believe you guys but does anyone have a source to where it says Dwarfs don't use swords because they think they're inferior weapons?

Thanks for the replies

Dwarfs are pragmatic.
An axe is a multitool. You can hack, slash, chop, make wood, climb....
And, more importantly: It's tradition. This settles all arguments.

Korraz wrote:And, more importantly: It's tradition. This settles all arguments.

Except not all Dwarfs follow tradition so sorry but nope dosen't settle all arguments besides there haven't been any actual "arguments" per say except saying that Dwarf physically can't use them because of their design and the dwarfs physical nature which is inccorect.

Hmm, the "axe haft is the same length as a sword from pommel to tip" is slightly misleading, as you can use the entire haft without risk of getting your fingers sliced off, which allows for greater maneuverability in the weapon. Something important when you are about 4 feet tall. Another thing is that a Dwarf can put a lot more force into an Axe or Hammer swing due to the longer space on the haft, whereas a sword can only be swung using the not sharp handle or possible (guard thingy they put on Zwei Handers, forget what they are called but allow the sword to be gripped above the cross tree) meaning that the tip speed in mps isn't as high.

Another reason I think stems from what the Dwarves actually do. A lot of dwarves are miners and smiths of somekind are they not? That means that you would be using a tool that is handled much the same way as a two-handed axe or hammer, or a one handed axe in the case of a blacksmith. A sword has no real use outside of battle, and thus it would take dedicated time to train with the weapon instead of simply using it in your day-to-day job.

I know that Dwarfs consider swords an inferior weapon- and their smiths often train by making swords until they're ready to move on to "proper" weapons. One of the last two dwarf books had a bit of fluff about this- was pretty decent. I'll see if I can't track it down.

If you look at the metal Longbeard minis, you can see that they are equipped with short swords (or long daggers, take your pick).

The main reason why I think Dwarves don't use swords is because GW says so.

Also in the 6th edition Dwarf armybook, there's a short story where a Dwarven smith is talking to an envoy from Averland and he basically says that he has his apprentices constructing swords because they are not proper weapons like axes or hammers.

Bah. Fluff creep.
My old Marauder Longbeard regiment is armed mostly with swords. My favorite longbeard has a huge two-handed sword. And don't even get me started again about dwarves with spears.

Ratbarf wrote:Hmm, the "axe haft is the same length as a sword from pommel to tip" is slightly misleading, as you can use the entire haft without risk of getting your fingers sliced off, which allows for greater maneuverability in the weapon.

Not sure how it's misleading since not once did I say anything about grabbing the blade. The comment made was that Dwarfs coulden't used swords because the intendid use of a certain type of sword isn't useable with a Dwarfs anatomy. Dwarfs do not have stubby little arms and are fully capable of grasping a weapon of relative size at any of its parts and are able to use those weapons just like everyone else.

Another thing is that a Dwarf can put a lot more force into an Axe or Hammer swing due to the longer space on the haft, whereas a sword can only be swung using the not sharp handle or possible (guard thingy they put on Zwei Handers, forget what they are called but allow the sword to be gripped above the cross tree) meaning that the tip speed in mps isn't as high.

Except when you swing an axe you aren't holding it high up on the haft you're holding it at the bottom which is where mechanical advantage comes in by making a fulcrum (so having a longer surface area to grab dosen't mean you can put more force into a swing). You don't see people chopping wood (or if you've done it yourself) holding the axe high up on the shaft. So you are holding the sword and the axe in the exact same place when you swing it.

And the power of the blow is not determined just by where you are able to hold the weapon it's determined by the strength of the user and the design of the weapon. If a Dwarf swings an axe into a goblin as hard as he can and then does the exact same thing with a sword then the Dwarf is applying the same amount of force to both swings. The differance in how much power is applied transfered through the blade of the weapon, an axe blade has a smaller surface area and so will apply greater force when it hits the target then a sword would with the wider surface area of the blade.

Another reason I think stems from what the Dwarves actually do. A lot of dwarves are miners and smiths of somekind are they not? That means that you would be using a tool that is handled much the same way as a two-handed axe or hammer, or a one handed axe in the case of a blacksmith. A sword has no real use outside of battle, and thus it would take dedicated time to train with the weapon instead of simply using it in your day-to-day job.

But there are dedicated soldiers among the Dwarfs so while all dwarfs may not have access to swords in their every day lives there are Dwarfs who would have the opportunity to train in sword fighting. And swords like the Machete, Khukri blade and Cutlas are used outside of battle all the time. You are right though that most Dwarfs woulden't have the ability or time to train with swords and outside of battle woulden't have a use for them but that dosen't mean every Dwarf woulden't be able to train in their use.

Dwarfs can physically use swords just like everyone else so that isn't a reason why whfb don't use them., Swords have advantages in certain ways just like axes and hammers have advantages in certain ways and it usually comes down to preferance as to which is used so it can't be said that "axes are better which is why they don't use swords". Now yes not all Dwarfs would have access to or have training with swords but that dosen't mean that none of them would be able to train or have them so that can't be a reason why why they don't use them.

So in the end for fluff based reasons as to why Dwarfs don't use swords (in mass) is because they prefer not to, the axe is more available and can be more of a multipurpose tool (though I'd like to see someone try to climb a mountain with a battle axe ). Plus it just seems to just fit more with the race and their inspiration since Saxons and other norse peoples where known for using axes more then anything.

actually, when swinging a 2 handed ax, you first have one hand at the top of the weapon near the head.


when you swing, you allow your hand to slid down the haf the the base and finish with both hands at the bottom. this allows you to have the weapon close to your body(won't get knocked away, and can still be used in tight formation) and still get the same force you would get with a full long swing.

I know this from splitting stumps and its sure easier and more accurate then just swinging the thing around.

Grey Templar wrote:actually, when swinging a 2 handed ax, you first have one hand at the top of the weapon near the head.


when you swing, you allow your hand to slid down the haf the the base and finish with both hands at the bottom. this allows you to have the weapon close to your body(won't get knocked away, and can still be used in tight formation) and still get the same force you would get with a full long swing.

I know this from splitting stumps and its sure easier and more accurate then just swinging the thing around.

I repeat, when you swing an axe are not holding high up on the haft you are holding it near the bottom. You hold the axe under the head when at rest then transfer your hand to the bottom when you actually swing. I've cut wood to.

if the length of an axe from pommel to head is the same length as a sword from pommel to tip then a Dwarf can use a sword.

That phrase implies that the grippable length of the tool is the same.

I repeat, when you swing an axe are not holding high up on the haft you are holding it near the bottom. You hold the axe under the head when at rest then transfer your hand to the bottom when you actually swing. I've cut wood to.

Not exactly sure how you swing an axe, but when I do it, and I spend a large portion of my falls and summer cutting down wood and splitting it, when you swing an axe you start with one hand under the head and one near the bottom, then you slide the top hand down towards the bottom hand when you swing, it contracts swings arc while giving it the same end speed, meaning you have to use less muscles to do so. Same goes for sledgehammers, I have never seen someone start a swing with both hands on the bottom like a baseball bat.

So in the end for fluff based reasons as to why Dwarfs don't use swords (in mass) is because they prefer not to, the axe is more available and can be more of a multipurpose tool (though I'd like to see someone try to climb a mountain with a battle axe ). Plus it just seems to just fit more with the race and their inspiration since Saxons and other norse peoples where known for using axes more then anything.

If memory serves vikings used swords as their basic weapons, and saxons used spears and their seax knives when in shieldwall. Axes were largely used to destroy the shield of the opposing shield wall to get at the squishy man underneath, but they were not the majority weapon iirc.

And the power of the blow is not determined just by where you are able to hold the weapon it's determined by the strength of the user and the design of the weapon. If a Dwarf swings an axe into a goblin as hard as he can and then does the exact same thing with a sword then the Dwarf is applying the same amount of force to both swings. The differance in how much power is applied transfered through the blade of the weapon, an axe blade has a smaller surface area and so will apply greater force when it hits the target then a sword would with the wider surface area of the blade.

Actually, a sword is much less effective on the swing at range than an axe, as the majority of the weight of the axe is in the head it generates far greater momentum than a sword of comparable length and weight. The majority of weight in a sword should be roughly at the crosstree, as this facilitates ease of swing and movement. That also means that you are generating a lot less force when you hit with the tip of the weapon from a swing. For example, an axe could break through chainmail with an overhead swing, swords historically did not. You had to lunge with the tip of the blade to produce enough pounds per square inch to break through the metal links.

As for the wider and smaller surface area of an axe compared to a sword, on contact it is likely that both weapons would have a similar contact area when used against mail, and that a sword would have a smaller contact point against a shield due to straightness of the blade hitting the rim or boss, if you ever conected with your whole sword across a shield, you were doing something wrong.

Finally, how and where you grip a weapon means a lot actually. An axe of similar wieght and length should be quicker on the overhead swing than a two handed sword, simply because you don't need to bring the whole weapon up all they way. An axe swing should start from the front of you, then go out slightly to the side, and then acheive full upright at roughly the 2/3 o'clock area. With a two handed sword to achieve the same 2/3 o'clock area you have to move the whole sword into the position from a side angle instead of just the head of an axe.

Ratbarf wrote:

if the length of an axe from pommel to head is the same length as a sword from pommel to tip then a Dwarf can use a sword.

That phrase implies that the grippable length of the tool is the same.

To me the phrase implies that the sword and axe he's talking about are the same length from top to bottom.

I repeat, when you swing an axe are not holding high up on the haft you are holding it near the bottom. You hold the axe under the head when at rest then transfer your hand to the bottom when you actually swing. I've cut wood to.

Not exactly sure how you swing an axe, but when I do it, and I spend a large portion of my falls and summer cutting down wood and splitting it, when you swing an axe you start with one hand under the head and one near the bottom, then you slide the top hand down towards the bottom hand when you swing, it contracts swings arc while giving it the same end speed, meaning you have to use less muscles to do so. Same goes for sledgehammers, I have never seen someone start a swing with both hands on the bottom like a baseball bat.

He didn't say you start with both hands at the bottom like a baseball bat he clearly says you start with one hand underneath the axe head then transfer it to the bottom as you actually swing. You said the exact same thing that he did so you actually do know how he cuts wood because it's the same way anyone who knows how to cut wood does it.

So in the end for fluff based reasons as to why Dwarfs don't use swords (in mass) is because they prefer not to, the axe is more available and can be more of a multipurpose tool (though I'd like to see someone try to climb a mountain with a battle axe ). Plus it just seems to just fit more with the race and their inspiration since Saxons and other norse peoples where known for using axes more then anything.

If memory serves vikings used swords as their basic weapons, and saxons used spears and their seax knives when in shieldwall. Axes were largely used to destroy the shield of the opposing shield wall to get at the squishy man underneath, but they were not the majority weapon iirc.

Given that axes where more easily produced then swords axes where the vikings main weapon with the more wealthy men able to purchase swords etc. Based off of what you're saying in order for the vikings main weapon to have been the sword they would have used the axe to get rid of the shield then dropped it for a sword which makes no sense given the time it would have taken to switch weapons.

And the power of the blow is not determined just by where you are able to hold the weapon it's determined by the strength of the user and the design of the weapon. If a Dwarf swings an axe into a goblin as hard as he can and then does the exact same thing with a sword then the Dwarf is applying the same amount of force to both swings. The differance in how much power is applied transfered through the blade of the weapon, an axe blade has a smaller surface area and so will apply greater force when it hits the target then a sword would with the wider surface area of the blade.

Actually, a sword is much less effective on the swing at range than an axe, as the majority of the weight of the axe is in the head it generates far greater momentum than a sword of comparable length and weight. The majority of weight in a sword should be roughly at the crosstree, as this facilitates ease of swing and movement. That also means that you are generating a lot less force when you hit with the tip of the weapon from a swing. For example, an axe could break through chainmail with an overhead swing, swords historically did not. You had to lunge with the tip of the blade to produce enough pounds per square inch to break through the metal links.

I don't see how this makes what he said wrong?

As for the wider and smaller surface area of an axe compared to a sword, on contact it is likely that both weapons would have a similar contact area when used against mail, and that a sword would have a smaller contact point against a shield due to straightness of the blade hitting the rim or boss, if you ever conected with your whole sword across a shield, you were doing something wrong.

1. Not everyone wore chainmail in wars and it's the same in WHFB. 2. the contact area of the target isn't what he was talking about so this above point is irrelevant to what he said. Wether the entire blade of a sword hits an opponent or just a small section it dosen't change that the smaller blade area of an axe vs a sword will focus the force making a more powerfull blow where as a sword will have the force distributed through the entire blade instead of being focused in one area like an axe.

Finally, how and where you grip a weapon means a lot actually. An axe of similar wieght and length should be quicker on the overhead swing than a two handed sword, simply because you don't need to bring the whole weapon up all they way. An axe swing should start from the front of you, then go out slightly to the side, and then acheive full upright at roughly the 2/3 o'clock area. With a two handed sword to achieve the same 2/3 o'clock area you have to move the whole sword into the position from a side angle instead of just the head of an axe.

Warboss said that

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
The power of the blow is not determined JUST by where you are able to hold the weapon

He never says where and how you hold the weapon isn't important he said that it isn't the only thing that determines the power of a blow. Any idiot knows that you don't hold an axe underneath the head while swinging if you want to get the most power for your blow.

Chainmail was fairly common towards the middle part of the middle ages. partly because it was passed down from person to person by inheritance or looting.

Chainmail, while difficult to make, is fairly easy to maintain. almost anyone wearing chainmail would have had a small kit for repairs or known someone who did. this was one reason it was so popular. the expense wasn't the difficulty in its making, but the tediousness and time consumption of the task.

Chainmail was actually very common(for armor), amoung the fighting classes. a Nobleman's paid soldiers would be wearing chainmail, but when he had to conscipt his peasents they would be lucky to get a leather or padded jerkin.

Given that axes where more easily produced then swords axes where the vikings main weapon with the more wealthy men able to purchase swords etc. Based off of what you're saying in order for the vikings main weapon to have been the sword they would have used the axe to get rid of the shield then dropped it for a sword which makes no sense given the time it would have taken to switch weapons.

As for the ability to attain swords, the vikings weren't peasants out on a jaunt, they were either noblemen or the retainers of noblemen. In Viking age Scandinavia, the farmers stayed home and the warriors rode the dragon ships.

1. Not everyone wore chainmail in wars and it's the same in WHFB.

The amount of area hit doesn't really change whether you use Chainmail or not, as chainmail is flexible anyways.

2. the contact area of the target isn't what he was talking about so this above point is irrelevant to what he said. Wether the entire blade of a sword hits an opponent or just a small section it dosen't change that the smaller blade area of an axe vs a sword will focus the force making a more powerfull blow where as a sword will have the force distributed through the entire blade instead of being focused in one area like an axe.

Actually in that it depends on how you strike, an axe used on a swing will deliver damage along a good proportion of the blade if used accurately, say roughly a third to half, which should equal into several inches. A sword on the swing will have roughly the same amount of contact as the axe, but the strike itself will be weaker due to the lack of momentum behind the swing. If you were to stab the sword however, the contact point is no lowered to however sharp the point of the sword is, which could be less than a couple of centimetres, greatly increasing the punching power. The problem with this however is that longswords suck at stabbing, they are simply too long, and they are ineffectual at swinging against an opponent in an enclosed space. An axe on the otherhand can be used in a close formation as repeated overhead swings are viable, even in a cramped space. Seeing as dwarves build their tunnels with picks, it would seem likely that there would be room upwards to properly swing an axe, however, there would likely not be the space to swing a sword horizontally if you wished to put up a tight defense.

Lol I am so confused right now as to where this is going and where it is coming from and what a lot of this has to do with the original post.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Korraz wrote:And, more importantly: It's tradition. This settles all arguments.

Except not all Dwarfs follow tradition so sorry but nope dosen't settle all arguments besides there haven't been any actual "arguments" per say except saying that Dwarf physically can't use them because of their design and the dwarfs physical nature which is inccorect.

Those dwarfs genereally have the attribute of being dead or being that much of Notjobs not even the weirdest exiles, not even Makaisson himself would stay with them in the same general terrain.
Tradition is an argument if you talk about Dwarfs. A dwarf that does not follow tradition will never enter the Table Top together with a Dwarf army.

Hmm, a good point to consider is that many Dwarfs fight underground. As Ratbarf stated, overhead axe swings can still be viable within a formation, and seeing as how some tunnels can afford very little space the axe is probably their weapon of choice.

Still, if fluff states that Dwarfs don't prefer swords I doubt that there aren't any sword-wielding Dwarfs, but to all the regular Dwarfs they'd be weird. Korraz makes a point that Dwarfs have a very strict tradition, and that there are only few that dare break it, and most are usually engineers.

I always wondered speaking of dwarf weapons, why would they use axes if they do indeed live underground?

I'd expect people like elves who love using wood to death to use bunches of axes (and the white lions do)

Are their forges wood powered? I guess thats the answer

Dwarves would use coal if they couldn't get wood.


the main purpose of having an Axe as a weapon is its dual nature. you can use it to chop woods and offending parties into pieces of useful size.


the Sword is actually the 1st weapon which does not have a use as a tool.

Bows and Spears are hunting weapons 1st and formost.

Axes are tools for chopping wood.

the Hammer is also a tool(albiet a true Warhammer wouldn't be a practical tool for nailing nails into wood)

Knives are for slicing meat and butchering game.


the sword has no domestic use. it has one purpose, Warfare.

Grey Templar wrote:Dwarves would use coal if they couldn't get wood.


the main purpose of having an Axe as a weapon is its dual nature. you can use it to chop woods and offending parties into pieces of useful size.


the Sword is actually the 1st weapon which does not have a use as a tool.

Bows and Spears are hunting weapons 1st and formost.

Axes are tools for chopping wood.

the Hammer is also a tool(albiet a true Warhammer wouldn't be a practical tool for nailing nails into wood)

Knives are for slicing meat and butchering game.


the sword has no domestic use. it has one purpose, Warfare.

True, but this brings up the point of why a civilization that spends almost all of its time underground would use such large numbers of axes. Hammers make perfect sense. Dwarfs are prodigious stone and metal workers. The axe seems to serve little purpose outside of warfare. Which brings up the point that a short, sharp thrusting sword would really be the ideal weapon for tunnel fighting. Sure, the dwarfs home tunnels would have been carved with picks to provide the clearance to swing an axe overhead, but what about goblin or especially skaven tunnels? Skaven dig tunnels with their paws, they've adept at moving through cramped spaces, and they fight largely with swords. It seems to me that any dwarf who plans to fight skaven would be best served by a light shield and a short, sharp blade.

Someone said earlier that much greater force can be applied with an axe or hammer than a sword.

Dwarfs are quite strong, so it's entirely logical that they would use weapons that enhance their strengths.

That and if they wanted to use the edge of a sword their enemies would have to be a bit closer.

Also, every other fantasy range I can think of has dwarfs with swords. Which is why GW ones don't.

It is interesting I've read this thread though, because I've been thinking of doing some chaos dwarfs with great swords like these, but with a short handle.

FeistierErmine wrote:

True, but this brings up the point of why a civilization that spends almost all of its time underground would use such large numbers of axes. Hammers make perfect sense. Dwarfs are prodigious stone and metal workers. The axe seems to serve little purpose outside of warfare. Which brings up the point that a short, sharp thrusting sword would really be the ideal weapon for tunnel fighting. Sure, the dwarfs home tunnels would have been carved with picks to provide the clearance to swing an axe overhead, but what about goblin or especially skaven tunnels? Skaven dig tunnels with their paws, they've adept at moving through cramped spaces, and they fight largely with swords. It seems to me that any dwarf who plans to fight skaven would be best served by a light shield and a short, sharp blade.

Yea thats why I asked in the first place, I think its warhammer dwarves that hate working with wood so axes seem like a purposeful as a sword (unless they like to piss off wood elves)

Also tunnelwise thats why LotR dwarves are smart! True not too much stabby power but it works!

Dwarfs don't hate to work with wood. Barrels are made from wood. Some furniture. They power their furnaces with wood. No problem with wood.

Korraz wrote:Dwarfs don't hate to work with wood. Barrels are made from wood. Some furniture. They power their furnaces with wood. No problem with wood.

Actually, the book mentions that they DO dislike making things of wood, they only do it out of necessity or if making it out of stone is impractical. To them, wood is inferior since it doesn't last as long as things made of stone or metal.

Korraz wrote:Dwarfs don't hate to work with wood. Barrels are made from wood.

True and ale is always important, mmmmm ale

Some furniture.

Never heard of this except for those Dwarves who live above ground in settlements and not in holds but that's because they don't have access to the same amounts of stone Imperial Dwarves do.

They power their furnaces with wood.

Actually they power their furnaces with either a special chemical mixture that takes both Engineers and Runesmiths to make or with magma depending on where the hold is at.

It's the same to No problem with wood.

As was said Dwarves prefer not to use wood and it says this in the army book when it shows a bolt thrower crew member with his pipe. And since the majority of Dwarves use wood for so few things it dosen't make alot of sense that they use them because they chop alot of wood. Besides most Dwarves who live in Karaks woulden't need to chop wood, the Kruit do but then when someone fields an army of Dwarves they are most likely fielding an army from one of the Holds.

Ratbarf wrote:

If memory serves vikings used swords as their basic weapons, and saxons used spears and their seax knives when in shieldwall. Axes were largely used to destroy the shield of the opposing shield wall to get at the squishy man underneath, but they were not the majority weapon iirc.

Vikings main weapon was the spear they used to throw it at the enemy in honor of Odin then the average viking would use an axe because it was cheap to make, if they had a lot of money they would use a sword. The weapon a viking had was a symbol of its class; sword=rich, most likely nobility, axe=average Joe viking.

Vikings main weapon was the spear they used to throw it at the enemy in honor of Odin then the average viking would use an axe because it was cheap to make, if they had a lot of money they would use a sword. The weapon a viking had was a symbol of its class; sword=rich, most likely nobility, axe=average Joe viking.

Yes swords were a mark of the rich, but that, again if memory serves, was only if they were made in (then) Frankia. As I said before, the majority of the actual vikings were semi-professional warriors. Ergo it's likely they managed to pick up a sword here and there. The real markings of a rich man was a mail coat.