"When did Viking age end?" Topic

Most of the books I have read have the Viking age ending with 1066 "and all that."
However, I have been reading a bit on Somerled (Flourished in 1150-1164. Admittedly one of the books is a historical novel, so who knows how much is author's imagination. Anyway, sure seems like an awful lot of Viking style things (raids, etc) going on on Western Scotland and the Isles during this time period.

Do the "experts" think of this time & place as part of the Viking age?

Incidentally, here is a Somerled v Vikings write-up using "War & Conquest" rules I did a few months back.
link

Most academics use the Battle of Stamford Bridge as the end of the Viking Era. Surely there were sporadic raids from time to time, but the Christianization of Scandinavia and the lack of any large-scale invasions after 1066 are generally held to have marked the end of the Viking Era.

In Scotland, its the battle of Largs, 1263.

One distinction sometimes used is 1103/1104, which is when every part of Scandinavia had become a part of a bishopric, and thus "integrated" in medieval Christian European culture.

But Viking art and culture survived longer, though not as a dominant part of the elite. The common people kept alive fragments of the old religion well into the 19th century.

Fun fact: I worked for a while as a cemetary caretaker at a Swedish church which was situated close to a bronze age religious site. This bronze age site included sacrificial holes bored into the exposed mountain, which had been used more or less continuously since the bronze age, including the Viking period.

Yes, every now and then there would be sacrificial coins put in secret in those holes. At least not blood sacrifices though! But it makes a point of how long pagan rituals and ideas would survive despite the Christianization of Scandinavia.

The last invasion of England was 1069-1070. But at that Point these are hardly hit and run raids, there more about influencing politics and conquest. If you are talking about a more freebooting time, then you want to go before Danelaw.

Clontarf. Stamford Bridge was a Norwegian invasion, not a Viking raid.

But, please, PLEASE don't base your argument on a historical novel.

Robert P.
Of course not.
Hence the disclaimer in OP & Question ;-)

IKEA.

It will end when the series is finally cancelled.

Viking mercenaries were being employed by the Rus until the Battle of Listven in 1024.

Different times in different places. The likes of Orkney, Shetland islands, Hebrides, Iceland, the Irish sea and northern Scotland probably didn't feel like the Viking age had finished in 1066.

The "Viking" thing, ie raiding was pretty much over by the second half of the 11th century.

The nail in the coffin was the creation of centralized states with a monarch at the head rather than loose communities under chieftains.

Raiding had been a highly profitable affair in earlier centuries allowing increasing larger groups to get organized until they were able to seize land in the British isles and Eastern Europe which were even more profitable.

Issues in earlier centuries had now been settled and Vikings faced increasingly stronger defenses and had to choose between trade and pillaging. You can't raid people on Tuesday and then set up a market stall on Thursday without getting at least a raised eyebrow.

The Viking age was good while it lasted, but it did morph into something else over time.

We should not make the mistake and assume there was such a thing as the "Viking" people, some did raid and the booty of one single raid could set up a person for life, but the vast majority it was much the same life as the rest of Medieval Europe, farming the land, fishing or plying a trade. Once commercial interests such as the Hanseatic league become a factor there is no turning back.

Culturally the Scandinavians integrated into the rest of Europe simply by osmosis and increased contact such as trade and christianization. Iceland was a bit of an outlier being really on the fringes of Europe, where the old ways linger on until the 13th century with people like Snorri Sturlusson writing the last sagas. They may stick around much in the same way Charlemagne or Arthurian legend, but references in the late Medieval Period are done solidly through the prism of Christian European values.

Celtic or Viking culture tend to be romantic reinventions as if centuries of Christianity and several European cultural epochs never happened. It's all 19th century Victorian nostalgia repackaged in whatever tickles one's fancy in the 21st century and a highly subjective dreamworld.

The Scandinavians didn't retain stylistic elements from an earlier era in later times just like the Scots you see in Braveheart are a pure fantasy, they would have looked much the same with mere local details like their English counterparts.

The important thing we can take away from the period is that it was a very dynamic one for Scandinavia and it had a profound influence on Europe, redrawing the map and changing the course of several nations like Britain. Like so many things spanning centuries its nature changed profoundly over time and that perfect "Viking" age, in itself a misleading term, probably never existed it was simply a very remarkable by-product of circumstances.

Excellent answer from Patrick!

My shorter answer – blame the Christians…

One can argue that the true Vikings were pagans and the Norwegians were Christians so… theoretically… it ends when the majority of so-called Vikings adopt Christianity.

Once they are Christians you lose the whole 'berserk' pagan psycho ethos for one thing.

So Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland could be seen as the last bastions of the Vikings as they were probably the last places to adopt Christianity.

B

Thanks for the discussion everyone.

Terror is an extremely effective tool, just ask Isis or Mexican drug gangs. Scare your enemies witless and they won't bother you too much.

Berserkers were probably the bikers of the their day, probably a mix of foolish young men with a high risk mindset, people with certain mental issues and prone to violence etc.

If you look at gangs, violent individuals are prized for their willingness to fight and are often "used" to clear the way in confrontations with other gangs. Berserkers were probably picked for similar reasons and because there was a demand berserker clubs or societies were created to attract more of such people.

Of course a violent maniac is nice to have around for your average brawl, but in mass combat with drilled troops their effectiveness tends to be a mixed affair and at some point you're not longer a gang you're a noble and consorting with people of that ilk isn't really giving you favours with the Bishop or the ambassador, so they simply died out or became knights of a particularly violent kind.

And yet the adaptation of Christian-culture is what leads to the demise of the Greenland colony.

When it's just another Christian king invading another Christian kings lands. It's just European war. Not a viking thing. The 1066 is a somewhat arbitrary but nice end to it. But you can also round it off with too 1100 if you want want
The Norwegian army in 1066 was nominally Christian. But most would probably be pagan or some mix of pagan and Christian.
This was bearly 30 years after the official start of Norway as a Christian nation so just over one generation. And even with the killing of none Christian's, many would still be pagan.
There is evidence that in Norway many pagan beliefs and customs stayd all the way to the reformation. And only then did we become pious Christians.
As late as the 13th century, the pagan gods were thanked for a battle victory in Sweden.