In battle the weapons of defence were helmet, corselet and shield. The shields were of wood with a heavy iron boss in the centre. The corselets were made of iron rings, leather, or thick cloth. The weapons of offence were mainly sword, spear and battle-axe. The sword was of the two-edged type and usually had a shallow depression along the middle of the blade, known as the blood-channel. Above, the blade terminated in a narrow tang, bounded at either end by the hilts. Round the tang and between the hilts was the handle of wood, horn, or some similar material, often covered with leather, or occasionally with metal. Above the upper hilt was a knob, which gave the sword the necessary balance for a good steady blow. Generally the knob and the hilts were inlaid with silver, bronze, or copper-work. The battle-axe, the most characteristic of Viking weapons, was of the heavy broad-bladed type. Next to warfare and trade, the chief occupation of the Viking was farming, while his chief amusement was the chase. At home the Viking leader lived the life of an active country gentleman. His favourite sport was hawking, and one of the legendary lives of St Edmund tells how Ragnarr Loðbrók himself was driven by stress of storm to land on the East Anglian coast, receiving a hospitable welcome from the king, but ultimately meeting death at the hands of the king's huntsman who was jealous of his prowess as a fowler. Of the social organisation of the Vikings it is impossible to form a very definite or precise picture. We have in the laws of the Jómsborg settlement (_v. supra_, p. 71) the rule of life of a warrior-community, but it would be a mistake to imagine that these laws prevailed in all settlements alike. The general structure of their society was aristocratic rather than democratic, but within the aristocracy, which was primarily a military one, the principle of equality prevailed. When asked who was their lord, Rollo's men answered 'We have no lord, we are all equal.' But while they admitted no lord, the Vikings were essentially practical; they realised the importance of organised leadership, and we have a succession of able leaders mentioned in the annals of the time, to some of whom the title king was given. These kings however are too numerous, and too many of them are mentioned together, for it to be possible to give the term king in this connexion anything like its usual connotation. It would seem rather to have been used for any prince of the royal house, and it was only when the Vikings had formed fixed settlements and come definitely under Western influence that we hear of kings in the ordinary territorial sense--kings of Northumbria, Dublin, Man and the Isles, or East Anglia. We hear also of _jarls_ or earls, either as Viking leaders or as definite territorial rulers, as for example the Orkney-earls and more than one earl who is mentioned as ruling in Dublin, but these earls usually held their lands under the authority of a king. By the side of