"Viking Weapons and Combat Techniques by William R. Short" Topic

Another on the summer reading list, another disappointment.
The book gets off to a bad start when the author states in the introduction that 'it is not known how the Vikihgs(sic) used their weapons' and proceeds to state his reconstruction of the 'lostcombat techniques of the Viking age' are 'highly speculative' and based on medieval evidence.
The rest of the book is about how weapons and combats from 13th century sagas have an uncanny resemblance to 13th century(and later) combat styles as evidenced from fechtbucher.
There is , unfortunately nothing here for the wargamer. The intended audience is the growing modern western martial arts fans. The only sources used are Icelandic sagas.
The book ends with a statement as disconcerting as that in the introduction. He says Viking(sic) raids became unprofitable by the period around 807A.D.793-807 is a short timespan for viability of raids. .Just what they thought they were doing until 1066 – his ending of the 'Viking Period' he doesnt say.

The book is interesting for what it says about modern ideas about Vikings more than anything else, but I agree with your main points.

1066 is usually taken to be the end of the Viking Age, so it is not just Short's definition. I know that some use 1050 but that is just rounding down the numbers. Any period date is going to be debatable but at least having them provides a frame of reference for discussion. You should hear the debates we have had around the team regarding when the medieval period ended! At least 1066 is a Memorable Date, in fact one of only two Memorable Dates. :-)

I'm going to guess that they made the pointy/sharp end go into their target using either the technique of jabbing or swinging.

1066 is used as a convenient end to the viking age becuse it is the year of the last defeat of a 'viking' army trying to conquer English territory an dis memorable – but that is a bit lazy. Sven Estridssons fleet arrived in 1070 and plundered despite Williams best efforts. In 1075 Knut Svensson led a fleet which arrived too late to support an insurrection. In 1085 Knut assembled a fleet but it never sailed. So in England A 'viking' threat remained until then. Viking was going on in th eBaltic until the 15th century, carried out by all and sundry. Most archaeologists and historians now favour a date around 700 for the start of the viking era.
blackscribe, you have it in a nutshell.

Like I wrote, the dates are debatable They are also geographically variable; a researcher in the north of Scotland would not use an English chronological definition of the Viking Age. Any such chronology just provides a convenient referent for discussion. No one got to 1066 (or whatever) and woke up thinking "We're Norse now and not Vikings."

Interestingly, English Heritage does not differentiate at all and just uses early medieval (410-1066).

Speaking as a professional archaeologist in Britain, we would normally refer to the Saxon or Anglo-Saxon period (in some areas of the country it would be Anglian) over here and it would stop at 1066. The Viking Age as a referent is only really used by researchers into that period.