"Vikings: new interpretation?" Topic

Thanks to SAGA (the Dark Ages skirmish game) I've started reading early medieval history.

Perhaps "a little knowledge etc" but one of the things that have struck men is the re-interpretation of the viking incursions into Europe & Britain in particular.

I was unaware of the challenge to the Old School view of the pillaging & plundering warriors wreaking destruction: the interpretation that feels that much of this negative impact is exaggerated & in reality they were simply traders with a taste for hard negotiation (at the point of a sword & a burning brand…) who came in limited numbers rather than an enveloping swarm.

What's the TMP readership feel about these two interpretations? Were the Vikings a scourge or just very naughty boys?

The Vikings were really no worse than anyone else in Europe at the time which is not to say that they were not vicious at times. Guy Halsall has an interesting post about Viking atrocity on his blog:
link

He also recently posted about the ethics of understating the effects of Viking violence, or of trying to downplay it:
link
This post provides much food for thought in the light of attempts to depict the less violent side of Vikings. Suffice to say that they could be pretty nasty pieces of work, but that if you met them socially you would probably like them and they might recite their poetry for you, or tell you a saga or two. The reality is that there is an element of truth in both interpretations that you present, and that a balance needs to be sought between the two.

I don't think your assertion that 'the Old School view of the Vikings as pillaging & plundering warriors wreaking destruction' is accurate. Perhaps Hollywood and popular culture hold that view, but most scholars have had a much more balanced view of the culture thanks to archaeology and other sources. Farmers, fishers, settlers and explorers has been the view for some time.

I think you've suddenly discovered a debate that's been going on for about fifty years!

Yeah you missed so much of it you are just about up to date again.

Peter Heather takes the view that pillaging & plundering warriors wreaking destruction is accurate. Much of the trade was in slaves or otherwise involved extortion. I'd say Heather is about the best we have got.

Ibn Fadlan, if I'm spelling it right gives an interesting account of the Vikings he met on his travels if you can get a copy.

My understanding for years is that if the defenses were weak they pillaged. If there were decent defenses they traded.

I think I read that about 50 years ago.

One presumes that particular bands might have had varying predispositions as to when/if to pillage or trade.

I think you've suddenly discovered a debate that's been going on for about fifty years!

Evidently. But in my defence it wasn't "my period".

There were genuine "Viking" campaigns of conquest. These caused the most damage over time. They would establish a winter quarters area, fortify it, and get in reinforcements for the spring invasion/raiding. Taking horses from the locals, they would ride far and swiftly, bent on plunder and little else. This went on for several centuries in a sporadic, that is to say, on and off again, nature. The outcome was a huge swath of eastern England under the Danes and Norse (further north). And permanent occupation of NW "France", named after them, "Northmandy". By the early 11th century, you had an established king in England (Cnut). This did not come about through trading and "settlement". The idea….

I don't think your assertion that 'the Old School view of the Vikings as pillaging & plundering warriors wreaking destruction' is accurate

Not my assertion:

"AD. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery dragons flying across the firmament. These tremendous tokens were soon followed by a great famine: and not long after, on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter."
Entry for the year 793 in the Anglo Saxon chronicle.

So they "traded" for the area of France that became Normandy? And the siege of Paris was just "extended negotiations". Wow, who knew? :)

The establishment of 'Normandy' was a bit of quick thinking by Peppin, the French King. The area was in revolt and Peppin did not have money/resources for a personal army. Then along comes a bunch of freebooters looking for a bit of fun. Peppin says -'Call me king instead of 'Fat Bas$$$d and you can have all of this area you can conquer'. Pretty much a win-win – Peppin gets his enemies rubbed out and gains a 'loyal' province, Norse get farms, slaves/serfs and loot.

The symptoms of AD793 are much like those of a major Solar event, sheets of light and flying dragons are a lot like the Aurora being seen much further south then normal. Also there were no known record keeping inhabitants of Iceland so we have no way to know if there was a major volcanic event as well. Any associated famine in Northumbria would have been even worse in Scandinavia, so it would have made sense for every loose hand to hop on a boat and set off to see what they could find to eat elsewhere.

I would like to suggest that Vikings who went overseas were very much opportunists. Depending on the situation, they could be raiders, traders, mercenaries, explorers, settlers or conquerors. Whatever they would find beneficial at the time.

A lot would depend on how large grouping of followers a chieftain could maintain. If you commanded just a single boat with a crew, you would not have much of a chance as a conqueror. While on the other hand a fleet of 100 ships could be a bit impractical for a simple trading expedition.

Vikings also seem to have been culturally moderately adaptable, and picked various influences from lands that they visited.

There seem to be some years were it was pretty bad, and the only negotiation and trade done was probably how much you would pay not to be assaulted and plundered.

Here is a map in the campaigns into the Rhineland – especially in 882 they got pretty far. Dorestad also probably is more a follower of the "old" interpretation.

link

In 884 a large viking army was destroyed at the battle of Norditi by the Frisians, probably using flooded terrain – seeing to the abandonment of the camps in Frisia. It is likely that this was in the core of the same army that devastated the Rhineland two years before.

link
(sorry, no english page on that)

The terrain controlled by the vikings and without owner afterwards was administrated by a cooperative after that battle, the "Theelacht" in Norden (from "geteilte Aufsicht/Acht", or "divided administration"), the oldest still surviving cooperation I am aware of. Their decendants still meet twice a year, though the money made from leasing out the land just suffices for a good meal :-)

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theelacht
(again, just in German)

On the other hand, we talk about well over 200 years of history here. The "easy victims" adapted, and once the risk for being outright killed raised, it became more profitable to trade then to loot. I assume that simple views and interpetations always, or at least more often then not, fail. The "hard negotiation trader" is surely as wrong as the "bloodthirsty thug", if you apply it to the whole picture.

Heather notes the perigrinations of various Great Armies from France to Ireland, Scotland and England and back again according to where ever resistance was fiercest. He also thinks their inteligence system was pretty good with an eye out for civil war.

The trading was basically just casing the joint. The raid on Portland in 789 was reportedly carried out by a group who had previously traded hence their friendly greeting by the Reeve who became the first recorded Viking victim in England.They ended up settling a large chunk of Britain and ruling most of it. This was not achieved by trading and some nice carving…

If you are going to trade you generally bring goods. That's a very different plan from launching an attack.mIf your ship is already full of trade goods then there will not be much room for loot. If trade is the objective you need fewer men with you, if raiding you would carry more fighters. several Viking campaigns are clearly well organised with many ships.
So I suggest that there is very little likelihood that Vikings would switch from trade to raid. Both objectives require too much planning to be flexible.

@Lewis: I don't see a Viking crew embarking with "either or" in mind. The trading would come first. Legitimate trading occurred one season, with the Scandinavians taking notes, then coming back next year with men and weapons and room for booty. If the place where they were trading looked plush and vulnerable, that is when the trading stopped and the raiding began. But there was time between to switch over….