Are Vikings overrated?

VIKINGS

3 thinks for all to reconsider, and 2 are written here,

1rst, When a warrior died, they 'force' women to follow him,

2nd When Byzantines and West Europeans follow or hide in Abbeys and monasteries, hoping to a peacefull life in the 'hug' of church, and afraid 'hell' more than death, vikings were Free, of all these,
they did not fear death and hell, their death destiny was Wallhala, think of that, at battle of Majikert estimated that orthodox monasteries were overcrowded, hundrends thousands went to avoid join the army, which was a life time (from 15-16 to 45-50).

3rd Gold and women, being out of christian rules, they could easily raid and fight so to buy wine and women back home.
 
"There are archeological discoveries related to Scandinavians in Russia."

Not at all... There was not found 1 single "Viking" grave in Russia. Even more, Swedish language contains at least 300 Slavic words that i've counted so far which aren't of "germanic origin".

Vikings were Swedish Jarls and have nothing to do with Slavic Russian Variags or Vagrians. Vagrians were a Slavic tribe which originated from current Poland and Germany. Their capital city was called Stargard (according to Adam von Bremen) or Stargrad ("Old city"). Gard was old name for Grad ("city") . After their unification with Russians they've moved their capital city to Novgorod, which means "New city". And yes the Vikings are overrated.
 
Last edited:
"There are archeological discoveries related to Scandinavians in Russia."

Not at all... There was not found 1 single "Viking" grave in Russia. Even more, Swedish language contains at least 300 Slavic words that i've counted so far which aren't of "germanic origin".

Vikings were Swedish Jarls and have nothing to do with Slavic Russian Variags or Vagrians. Vagrians were a Slavic tribe which originated from current Poland and Germany. Their capital city was called Stargard (according to Adam von Bremen) or Stargrad. Gard was old name for Grad ("city") . After their unification with Russians they've moved their capital city to Novgorod, which means "New city". And yes the Vikings are overrated.
Stargard is today's Oldenburg / Holstein (=old castle, same name, one time the Slavic, the other time the Low German version). There is a nice museum about the excavations, maybe you should visit it. The oldest city wall dates to the early 7th century, when Slavs had not yet arrived in the area (guess why they called it "old"). It was neither Viking nor Varangian, but a typical West Baltic trading town with a mixed Slavic-Saxon-Danish-Swedish population, similar to Liubice (Old Lübeck), Reric (near Wismar) or Wolin. There are dozens of Stargard / Stargrads along the Baltic coast and its hinterland, none of them is related to Novgorod. That "new town" replaced the nearby Varangian settlement of Old Ladoga.

The Vikings were mythicized by early medieval Frankish scholars, who built them up as "evil pagans" to justify war against Saxons and, later on, Danes and West Slavs. During the last years, a major excavation was carried out in downtown Hamburg, at the supposed place of the first settlement. They especially looked for evidence of the 845 Viking raid. Guess what they found - a lot of settlement traces going back at least to the early 8th century, but no signs of violent destruction (no ash horizon etc.) during the 9th century. The same holds true for Cologne (also a reported target of Viking raids during the 9th century) - and believe me, there is hardly a city in Germany that has been as diligently screened by archaeologists as Cologne. I don't know about the situation in Paris, which according to Frankish chronicles was raided as well - maybe there is some truth in it (after all, the Vikings settled in Normandy to develop into Normans), but for Germany, most of what medieval sources tell about the Vikings doesn't match the archaeological record.
 
"There are archeological discoveries related to Scandinavians in Russia."

Not at all... There was not found 1 single "Viking" grave in Russia. Even more, Swedish language contains at least 300 Slavic words that i've counted so far which aren't of "germanic origin".

Vikings were Swedish Jarls and have nothing to do with Slavic Russian Variags or Vagrians. Vagrians were a Slavic tribe which originated from current Poland and Germany. Their capital city was called Stargard (according to Adam von Bremen) or Stargrad. Gard was old name for Grad ("city") . After their unification with Russians they've moved their capital city to Novgorod, which means "New city". And yes the Vikings are overrated.

in early 20th century in Crimea some still spoke Gothic, that means that either Getae and Goths are the same, either Guts habbited Crimea.
 
So? There were Turks who lived in Greece and Cyprus even in 1. century AD and before and spoke Turkish language. The world was much more diverse than you think...
 
So? There were Turks who lived in Greece and Cyprus even in 1. century AD and before and spoke Turkish language. The world was much more diverse than you think...

although this is not an answer, yet Yes there could be turks, if we find linguistic or archaiology's evidence.
 
Vedun:
could you, please, give us a list of these 300 slavic words in scandinavian languages without link with continental germanic? It would be very interested


NFrank:
I appreciate your love of precision anddocumentation-
just some points :
« mythicized « ?Perhaps... But not only Frankish scholars but Breton monks toodescribed the fear the Vikings spred in western Europe... theprotection against these pirates was part of the prayers at that time- For Normandy, it is a very good « leg » to pirates madeby a powerful king so... all the way Vikings norse gave usplacenames in Normandy and people surnames too, even in farnorth-eastern Brittany – it's history, not myth- concerningCologne/Köln I don't know and trust your lectures, all the way,Cologne (a celtic name, I think) is far from the northern shores ofGermany-
for physical anthropology, the 19th Cymaritime or rural population of Schlesvig-Holstein showed yetstatistical differences between the most maritime compared to mostinland ones, the first ones being more dolichocephalic and higherstatured, in short more 'nordiclike' (whatever the sense we put itit) – some « old » scholars attributed that to a Vikinginfluence : I have no archeology nor history record on thispossibility – it could have other (ancient and modern reasons), itis true so...
 
Vedun:
could you, please, give us a list of these 300 slavic words in scandinavian languages without link with continental germanic? It would be very interested


NFrank:
I appreciate your love of precision anddocumentation-
just some points :
« mythicized « ?Perhaps... But not only Frankish scholars but Breton monks toodescribed the fear the Vikings spred in western Europe... theprotection against these pirates was part of the prayers at that time- For Normandy, it is a very good « leg » to pirates madeby a powerful king so... all the way Vikings norse gave usplacenames in Normandy and people surnames too, even in farnorth-eastern Brittany – it's history, not myth- concerningCologne/Köln I don't know and trust your lectures, all the way,Cologne (a celtic name, I think) is far from the northern shores ofGermany-
for physical anthropology, the 19th Cymaritime or rural population of Schlesvig-Holstein showed yetstatistical differences between the most maritime compared to mostinland ones, the first ones being more dolichocephalic and higherstatured, in short more 'nordiclike' (whatever the sense we put itit) – some « old » scholars attributed that to a Vikinginfluence : I have no archeology nor history record on thispossibility – it could have other (ancient and modern reasons), itis true so...
I don't doubt that Normans settled in the Normandy, and Danes of course also collected the Danegeld in England. But the latter, I believe, wasn't extraordinary - collecting tribute was quite common practice since antiquity.
The interesting thing is that Viking expansions into the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean correspond to periods when there was shortage of supply of Arab silver to the Baltic Sea region. The economic base of the Vikings / Varangians was trade via Novgorod and the Kiev Rus (along the Volga and Dnieper rivers) with the Eastern Mediterranean, the Arab Caliphates, also the western end points of the Silk Road (and the Hanseatic League, after several wars with Denmark, later stepped into that business). Occasionally, you had some Tartars, Magyars etc. temporarily cutting of that trade link, and in those periods the Vikings turned westwards. When the Golden Horde finally closed the eastern trade route, the Normans re-oriented towards the Mediterranean and conquered Sicily as their new hub for trade with the orient.
Of course, when the first Viking pioneers started to look for alternative routes, they made the experience that their merchandise (amber, fur, honey, blonde hair etc.) wasn't nearly as popular along the Atlantic as in the Middle East. Seafaring makes hungry, and the wife at home expects some gold and silver, so what do you do? Robbing and looting. Not the nicest behaviour, but also not really extraordinary (->Crusaders, Arab & Barbary pirates, Venice, Sir Francis Drake, etc.)

As to Cologne, you really disappoint me. Colonia Claudia Ara Augusta Aggripinensium is of course a Roman name. Empress Agrippina honoured her home town and in 50 AD had it elevated to the provincial capital of Germania Inferior. Before, it was known as oppidum ubiorum. The Ubii, federates of Caesar, had been resettled by him from the right to the left bank of the Rhine to protect them from incursions by the Chatti (Hessians), and to repopulate the former terrain of the Celtic Eburones after their failed revolt in 54 BC. While Caesar lists the Ubii as Germanic, they had a number of Celtic cultural features, including minting own coins according to Gallo-Celtic standards (photo below). The former capital of the Eburones, Bonn (bona), however, has a Celtic name, as has Vindobona (Vienna).
Cologne isn't further away from the coast than Paris, and it isn't that difficult to get there by boat up the Rhine.
640px-D%C3%BCnsbergfund_Silbermuenze.jpg


Along the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein, you primarily find Frisians. The North Frisians are believed to have immigrated from the Ems area around the 8th century. Further south, and along the banks of the Lower Elbe, the lands are quite flood prone and were hardly settled during the early medieval. Well, whom do you call in when it comes to building dykes and draining wetlands? Of course, the Dutch (or better- the coastal Dutch, i.e. the West Frisians) - they colonised the area during the High Medieval. Place names like Hollern, Hollenstedt, or "Altes Land" (<Hol-land) still testify that colonisation. Further inland was traditional Angles (Schleswig) and Saxon (Holstein) land, and East Holstein was Slavic until the 12th century, and then colonised by Saxons, Westphalians and Flemish.
The Frisians (West, East and North) were legendary pirates during the middle ages, and sailed to all parts of the world from the 16th century on, so we may have some kind of shared Viking-Frisian tradition here. There is surely also genetic linkage (yDNA I, etc.) but I suppose that linkage is much more ancient, and can't be attributed to the Vikings.
 
Vikings were pretty badass and taught the Celts a lesson, they would never forget.
 
Vikings were pretty badass and taught the Celts a lesson, they would never forget.

Are you referring to what happened at the Battle of Clontarf?
 
No I'm not talking about alliances with Kelts.

I don't understand your comment. The Battle of Clontarf was not about an alliance between Vikings and Celts. It was a battle in which the Irish kicked the crap out of the Vikings and ended their influence in Ireland. I was just asking whether that was an example of what you said previously about the Vikings being "badass" and teaching the Celts a lesson they'd never forget. The actual historical events weren't quite as one sided as you seem to imagine.
 
I don't understand your comment. The Battle of Clontarf was not about an alliance between Vikings and Celts. It was a battle in which the Irish kicked the crap out of the Vikings and ended their influence in Ireland. I was just asking whether that was an example of what you said previously about the Vikings being "badass" and teaching the Celts a lesson they'd never forget. The actual historical events weren't quite as one sided as you seem to imagine.

The Battle of Clontarf (Irish: Cath Chluain Tarbh) was a battle that took place on 23 April 1014 at Clontarf, near Dublin, on the east coast of Ireland. It pitted the forces of Brian Boru, high king of Ireland, against a Viking-Irish alliance.
 
If that was the case the Vikings did't not rule Dublin and parts of Ireland for an extended period..

The Vikings conducted extensive raids in Ireland at first they founded Limerick in 812, then established a settlement near Waterford in 853, invaded Dublin and maintained control until 1169.
 
And obviously this explains the minor but still evident R1a1 in Northern Ireland ans Scotland.
 
  1. Nfrank
    Moesan: his answer in oblique letters
    I don't doubt that Normans settled in the Normandy, and Danes of course and also collected the Danegeld in England. But the latter, I believe, wasn't extraordinary - collecting tribute was quite common practice since antiquity.​
    The danegeld was not a small tribute collected on the cost of monks or peasants but on the cost of states – it makes some difference
    The interesting thing is that Viking expansions into the North Sea, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean correspond to periods when there was shortage of supply of Arab silver to the Baltic Sea region. The economic base of the Vikings / Varangians was trade via Novgorod and the Kiev Rus (along the Volga and Dnieper rivers) with the Eastern Mediterranean, the Arab Caliphates, also the western end points of the Silk Road (and the Hanseatic League, after several wars with Denmark, later stepped into that business). Occasionally, you had some Tartars, Magyars etc. temporarily cutting of that trade link, and in those periods the Vikings turned westwards. When the Golden Horde finally closed the eastern trade route, the Normans re-oriented towards the Mediterranean and conquered Sicily as their new hub for trade with the orient.
    Of course, when the first Viking pioneers started to look for alternative routes, they made the experience that their merchandise (amber, fur, honey, blonde hair etc.) wasn't nearly as popular along the Atlantic as in the Middle East. Seafaring makes hungry, and the wife at home expects some gold and silver, so what do you do? Robbing and looting. Not the nicest behaviour, but also not really extraordinary (→ Crusaders, Arab & Barbary pirates, Venice, Sir Francis Drake, etc.)
    You seem having some historical sources I have not ; but are you so sure the western activity of Vikings is so timingly based (in details) upon periods of lost of commercial activities in East ? The first bases chosen by them in Northwestern Europe (their first appearance as Vikings about the 700/800's because the eastern activities seem later, around the 1000(s I believe) are not the more pleasant places and their activities there seem to me more based upon hazard and some friends informations than upon a well planned organization – organization came later – my old lectures tell me (as you say) some commercial purposes came in the game but it appears that Scandinavia was very populated at these times and that the heritage system gave all the lands to the elder son putting his brothers in a worst condition – it could be that Northern Europe was yet well populated at these times and the Northern coasts around the eastern part of the North Sea were not the best choice to do – more pleasant coasts were in Northwestern and Western Europe?I think the period knew more than a cause to viking raids PLUS emigration, not always in the same time (emigration and raids are not the same thing : Norvegians send back home very few of their robberies and a majority of their Vikings (not the whole population) stayed in some of their new countries without return) – and Vikings in East colonized some places and created markets about the 1000's without ask permission of the previous populations : good trade or bad trade the same – their most important markets were in North Russia, no surprise here, and I'm not amazed that other places more southern and timber built were destroyed and hardly found at all - by the way, and it is for Vedun and other here active forumers, the old name of Novgorod would have been Holmgar[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]đ[/FONT]r (14m depth of black deposit of human occupation !) - the Arabs chronicler of the time seem having observed the weakness in organization of the Slavic people of their epoch and, even if wrong, I dont argue here, their « legend » concerning the Swede rulers of Russia shows at least the strength of the Varengians and other 'fellagar' (fellows!) commerce and settlements – I cannot imagine all the historic texts about them in different part of Russia would be only « old wives chatter » (always for Vedun?here)
    the late Normans colonizations in Southern Italy about the 1040 are the fact of people who were no more Vikinged and whose relations with the « Homeland é of Scandinavia were cut, for I think - they were Norman(d)s mercenaries of the Normandy low gentry , speaking a kind of french, of feudal background -
    As to Cologne, you really disappoint me. Colonia Claudia Ara Augusta Aggripinensium is of course a Roman name. Empress Agrippina honoured her home town and in 50 AD had it elevated to the provincial capital of Germania Inferior. Before, it was known as oppidum ubiorum.​
    I'm sorry for Cologne : I red I think it was at first a celtic place or near to it – its current name is not celtic, as you say ! I was not too affirmative as you can see in my proper words, I think I was influenced by Bologne/Bologna supposed to be a former Bononia which name would have been celtic (fortified place) spite it finally was reconquired by the Romans – excuse my poor old « first generation » brain ! I could have verified before to write...

    Cologne isn't further away from the coast than Paris, and it isn't that difficult to get there by boat up the Rhine.​
    I agree – but according to more or less courage and strength of the local defenders, places so far from sea are not the best places for sea raiders : but no present trace don't disprove a past battle somewhere – but colonization is an other thing – and Paris owners did not give Paris to Normans, only the more northern Normandy, more uneasy to defend...
    my disgression about physical types in Schlesvig contained my own doubts about these Viking theory – as you say, people of the same old stock (like Frisians) held these places long before and were not so weak to leave the ground – and other events can have occurred long after the Vikings time -
    &: thanks for your first work of analysing some truly or so called slavic-scandinavic names without germanic cognates or loans... As you write, a lot of them can be found in other germanic languages or, even, more largely are I-Ean cognates
 
First of a series of answers - more to come:

The danegeld was not a small tribute collected on the cost of monks or peasants but on the cost of states – it makes some difference

Yes, it makes a difference, because collecting tribute was common practice. East Rome had paid off the Huns, the Avars, and probably also already the Goths before. The first record on the collection of Danegeld is by Bishop Ansgar of Hamburg-Bremen, who visited the Swedish capital of Birka in 829-31 and several times thereafter. In 840 a Danish army arrived at Birka and caught everybody by surprise. As the King with the Swedish army was elsewhere, the city commander paid off the Danes with 700 pounds silver, collected from the citizens, and they left. Further payments of Danegeld are reported for 845 (7,000 pounds) by the Frankish king to end the Danish siege of Paris, and several times thereafter. Contributions as part of a peace deal have been common until today; Germany last year finished paying its contribution as per the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.

Vikings weren't unified. In fact, there have been at least three kingdoms, namely Sweden (Varangians), Danes, and Norwegians. They regularly also were at war with each other, for conquest, or in order to destroy competing trade ports. In 808, e.g. Danish Vikings destroyed the Obotrite trading place of Rerik (near Wismar), and resettled merchants from there to the Danish trade port of Haithabu (Schleswig). In 900, the Swedes took Haithabu, in 934 it was conquered by the Franks, retaken by the Danes in 983, conquered by Norwegians in 1050, and ultimately destroyed in 1066 by the Rani as a late revenge for the destruction of Rerik (note the year - the Danes had just been defeated in England).
Around 940, the Danes founded Vineta/ Wolin as trading colony on the southern Balitc Sea. This lead to regular conflict with the neighbouring Slavic Rani (Rugani), who started to raid the Danish isles. The Rani also in 1100 unsuccessfully laid siege to Liubice (Lübeck), a major port of the Obotrites, who were allied with the Danes. In 1147, the Danes joined German and Saxon nobility in the Wendish crusade that broke the power of the Rani, and in 1168 conquered the Rani strongholds on the island of Rugen.

Essentially, what I want to say here is that most of the Vikings' actions were common practice of the time, not different from what Franks, Saxons and Slavs did (and Goths had done before). The main actor in the North Sea (including the settlement of Normandy) were the Danes, and their motives were control of trade flows, tribute collection, and empire building. Reducing population pressure may have been a welcome side effect, but clearly not the main issue. From 900 onwards, Denmark even appears to have lacked the population base to maintain the (politically desired) expansion. Otherwise, Normandy and England would speak Danish today.

The case is a bit different for the Norwegians, where population pressure is likely. They, however, first went for sparsely or uninhabited areas (Orkneys around 800, Hebrides around 850, Iceland 870, Greenland 892), and only afterwards started incursion into Ireland (895).
 
Viking currency

The Viking (Baltic) economy didn't use coins. Instead, payment was made in silver, more precisely hacksilver, i.e. silver hacked into pieces according to the weight required. Traces of this system are still found in currency units such as the Pound Sterling, the oere (ore), and the Ruble (from rubit - to chop). Consequently, many silver hoards found around the Baltic Sea consist of chopped coins, or other silver articles (see Photo below of the Anklam hoard):
newsimage123546KLEIN.jpg.12961.jpg


For such a system to work, standardised weights are required. The first of these weights were imported from Arab countries from the mid-9th century onwards, and confirm to the official Islamic weight standard, the mitqāl, of c 4.23g, though they came in different sizes up to 150g. Later on, Scandinavians set up their own weight standard with trapezoid bronze or lead weights. These were much smaller, only up to 4 grams, whereby dots on the top marked their weight as multiples of 0,7 grams. This means a 6-dot cubic weight would equalise a mitqāl, so both weights could be used together.
wickinger.jpg

image
]

In fact, however, the small weights only became common in the area under Swedish and Danish influence. Norwegian and Scottish-Irish Vikings continued to use the old Arab weights, or developed specific local ones. Thus, the map below, which displays finds of trapezoid Danish/ Swedish weights, helps to identify their influence sphere. [Normans, of course, had switched to using Frankish coins.]
cubo-octahedral+weights+world+rivers.bmp


Note that the use of hacksilver as currency has several important implications:
  1. Silver objects are as good as money - actually, they are money. And they tend to be especially present in monasteries for liturgical purposes.
  2. There is no possibility to control or manipulate the money supply. Coins can be altered in weight or composition in order to expand monetary supply. But when your prices are in grams of silver, thinning coins doesn't work. Reduced silver supply immediately leads to deflation and economic downturn, especially in the absence of paper money (letters of credit etc.).
  3. The state (king) can't finance itself from minting profit, but requires other funding sources. This provides strong political incentive to aim at controlling long-distance trade (customs duties), Raising revenue abroad is politically much less risky than taxing domestic citizens.

Some background & more maps:
http://vikingmetalwork.blogspot.de/...d-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=4
https://floasche.wordpress.com/category/on-the-discipline/page/3/
 
First of a series of answers - more to come:


Yes, it makes a difference, because collecting tribute was common practice. East Rome had paid off the Huns, the Avars, and probably also already the Goths before. The first record on the collection of Danegeld is by Bishop Ansgar of Hamburg-Bremen, who visited the Swedish capital of Birka in 829-31 and several times thereafter. In 840 a Danish army arrived at Birka and caught everybody by surprise. As the King with the Swedish army was elsewhere, the city commander paid off the Danes with 700 pounds silver, collected from the citizens, and they left. Further payments of Danegeld are reported for 845 (7,000 pounds) by the Frankish king to end the Danish siege of Paris, and several times thereafter. Contributions as part of a peace deal have been common until today; Germany last year finished paying its contribution as per the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.

Vikings weren't unified. In fact, there have been at least three kingdoms, namely Sweden (Varangians), Danes, and Norwegians. They regularly also were at war with each other, for conquest, or in order to destroy competing trade ports. In 808, e.g. Danish Vikings destroyed the Obotrite trading place of Rerik (near Wismar), and resettled merchants from there to the Danish trade port of Haithabu (Schleswig). In 900, the Swedes took Haithabu, in 934 it was conquered by the Franks, retaken by the Danes in 983, conquered by Norwegians in 1050, and ultimately destroyed in 1066 by the Rani as a late revenge for the destruction of Rerik (note the year - the Danes had just been defeated in England).
Around 940, the Danes founded Vineta/ Wolin as trading colony on the southern Balitc Sea. This lead to regular conflict with the neighbouring Slavic Rani (Rugani), who started to raid the Danish isles. The Rani also in 1100 unsuccessfully laid siege to Liubice (Lübeck), a major port of the Obotrites, who were allied with the Danes. In 1147, the Danes joined German and Saxon nobility in the Wendish crusade that broke the power of the Rani, and in 1168 conquered the Rani strongholds on the island of Rugen.

Essentially, what I want to say here is that most of the Vikings' actions were common practice of the time, not different from what Franks, Saxons and Slavs did (and Goths had done before). The main actor in the North Sea (including the settlement of Normandy) were the Danes, and their motives were control of trade flows, tribute collection, and empire building. Reducing population pressure may have been a welcome side effect, but clearly not the main issue. From 900 onwards, Denmark even appears to have lacked the population base to maintain the (politically desired) expansion. Otherwise, Normandy and England would speak Danish today.

The case is a bit different for the Norwegians, where population pressure is likely. They, however, first went for sparsely or uninhabited areas (Orkneys around 800, Hebrides around 850, Iceland 870, Greenland 892), and only afterwards started incursion into Ireland (895).

good stuff, thanks - but for me the perforance is they were as a rule (I think) less numerous than Goths or Huns or Avars...
 

This thread has been viewed 86732 times.

Back
Top