-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I suppose if they are teaching that not all Scandinavians were raiders whose idea of a good leader was a berserker with a heavy axe, then you could describe it as rebalancing rather than sanitising. 
On the other hand (IIRC) the "Vikings" WERE the raiders, not the ones who stayed home and minded the goats.....
Pergite - the link between the Vikings and the Normans was sort of forgotten by all but die-hard historians until quite recently when there was a TV programme on the Vikings that explained the connection. I admit it was news to me.
On the other hand (IIRC) the "Vikings" WERE the raiders, not the ones who stayed home and minded the goats.....
Pergite - the link between the Vikings and the Normans was sort of forgotten by all but die-hard historians until quite recently when there was a TV programme on the Vikings that explained the connection. I admit it was news to me.
Originally posted by Malthus
Well, I get my impression of Vikings from the Sagas - about charming guys like Harald Hadralada, & the other sagas, which mostly survived in Iceland - a fun-loving crew they were.
Sorry, but there were a LOT of problems with sagas you refer...
1) They are texts from Iceland, and from 13th century (at least for those of Snorri Sturlusson). So, it's not an easy-to-use source for viking era.
2) Saga of Harald Hardrada (and also of Olaf Tryggvason, and others) is a part of the Heimskringla , story of kings of Norway, from Snorri Sturlusson. They are not classical sagas, although they were written in the same way. So, Heimskringla is the story of kings, warriors. Not a real portrayal of scandinavian society.
I can't easily explain my views on viking era in English, but if the "trader version" is excessive, and hide the main aspect of the movement (piracy, looting and finally conquest), the "dark version" must absolutely be removed from spirits :
Scandinavia was a real land of civilisation, although it was not christian. And vikings were terrible warriors, but not only. They have made more damages than good things in Western Europe during their action, but their role in sea trading shouldn't be forgetable, and in a long term consequences were probably positives.
Scholar books are not here to repeat some legends, but must have a critic vision (in France, vikings are a very little thing at school, but with a more moderated view)
Best works in English (although a bit old) for a critic view of viking era :
ANDERSON (T.) & SANDRED (K.I.) The Vikings, Proceedings of the Symposium of the faculty of arts of Uppsala University , Uppsala, 1978.
FOOTE (P.) & WILSON (D.) The Viking Achievement , London, 1970.
SAWYER (P.H.) The Age of the Vikings , London, 1962.
Norwegians found Ireland too void of cities to plunder, so the founded Dublin
Also they found angles and saxons too sissy to fight, so they raided the scots instead
I'd put america on the icelanders account, although they were closely related to the norwegians I wouldn't lump them up (personally)
Most important when teaching about vikings.
They did not have horned helmets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as that is in the book it's good
They did not have horned helmets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as that is in the book it's good
If you read my later posts, you will see I am well aware of the fact that the Sagas were written at a later date.
Also, I do not doubt that the Vikings (or rather the Norsemen) had a positive side to them. It is not an "either-or" situation, in which one side is arguing that all Norsemen were bloodthirsty savages, and the other side arguing that they were all peaceful traders.
Rather, *if* the article I cited is true (and Gupta has demonstrated that it may well not be the whole story, or even a story at all), the argument is against those who would one-sidedly portray the Norsemen as peaceful traders, and ignore their violent aspects altogether.
Now, I take the point that the Sagas must be read with care, given the time difference. Yet at the same time, their portrayal of the attitudes of the warrior class cannot be dismissed altogether. Moreover, combine the account in the Sagas with the contemporary account of Western Europeans, with the archaeological evidence - Viking weapons in Ireland and N. England, settlements burned, etc. - and I think there is enough evidence to support a portrait of a violent, expansionistic Viking past as having at least *some* validity to it.
I take it we do not actually disagree on this.
I always thought the writers/redactors of the Sagas were writing of the Vikings with *approval* - but I could be mistaken about this.
BTW, has anyone read Harry Harrison's "One King" trilogy? An amusing Viking "alternative history", with the followers of the Viking pantheon being the "good guys".
Originally posted by peo
Most important when teaching about vikings.
They did not have horned helmets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As long as that is in the book it's good
They had those silly war-masks with moustashes on them though - at least, the one from the Sutton Hoo burial did.
Otherwise, everyone knows that horns are for drinking out of - a helmet with horns on it probably announced to everyone, "I drink so much I need two extra cups on my hat"!
Hm, maybe that's the true driving force behind every warrior society that goes on a pillaging + conquering tour? Metaphorically speaking - too scared to go home late after a long pub night, so instead go and burn down Paris?
In classical sagas (not sagas of kings), where heroes are the ancesters and pioneers of 13th century Icelanders, "vikings" are seen as bad and violents men. They were not glorified.
But, in the same time, the heroes frequently do the same thing, but in the same time (and sometimes in the same travel) they are also traders, explorers, and so on.
I think fight was a cultural thing for land owners' society during viking times, but this aspect declined in Iceland. So writers are not in an easy place, and can be confuse about viking era.
For place of women, it's totally different. Women in sagas are not really differents from icelandic women of 13th century. So description can be false, but not with so problems as vikings.
But, in the same time, the heroes frequently do the same thing, but in the same time (and sometimes in the same travel) they are also traders, explorers, and so on.
I think fight was a cultural thing for land owners' society during viking times, but this aspect declined in Iceland. So writers are not in an easy place, and can be confuse about viking era.
For place of women, it's totally different. Women in sagas are not really differents from icelandic women of 13th century. So description can be false, but not with so problems as vikings.
Originally posted by Malthus
They had those silly war-masks with moustashes on them though - at least, the one from the Sutton Hoo burial did.
Well, iirc Sutton Hoo predates the Viking Age with a few centuries. Nonetheless, the silly war-mask was Swedish-made
A bunch of the viking raids were the kind of looting you'd see in the wake of warfare in any age, including our own. The rest were more opportunistic endeavours.
To see viking era Scandinavians as nothing but bloodthirsty looters, and ignore the trading and such, is rather inaccurate... but I guess that's already been agreed.
Jacob
To see viking era Scandinavians as nothing but bloodthirsty looters, and ignore the trading and such, is rather inaccurate... but I guess that's already been agreed.
Jacob
Originally posted by Isebrand
Hm, maybe that's the true driving force behind every warrior society that goes on a pillaging + conquering tour? Metaphorically speaking - too scared to go home late after a long pub night, so instead go and burn down Paris?
"What are you doing tonight, my son?"
"Well - I was thinking of going on a Viking raid ..."
"What? Boozing, ravaging and plundering with your friends again? When are you going to grow up and get a real job?"
"Mom - the only good land in this fyord is ten square feet, and dad plows that - eveyone is laughing at me for living at home still - I'm 25 years old ..."
"So, if your friends all jumped off a cliff, you would too? Ploughman is a nice steady job, and plus I have heard that Olaf has a fine daughter - its not too early to think of these things..."
"Olafsdaughter? She is as wide as she is tall! I tell you, I'm going to pillage Ireland! At least the women there have noticable waists! I'm old enough to do what I want!"
"Oh, don't think you are so old I can't box your ears young man - hey, where are you going? And with your father's best sword! Come back here *right now*, I was talking to you, I'll tell your father - you know how beserk he gets ...!"
[Probably not an unaccurate account of the origins of Vikings
]
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
Well, iirc Sutton Hoo predates the Viking Age with a few centuries. Nonetheless, the silly war-mask was Swedish-made
Perhaps it was worn by the pre-Viking version of The Villiage People.
PJ ORourke illustrating the Swedish history of collective decision making:
Imgaine dividing up the loot at the end of a raid. "Sven had seven rapes, but Jan only had two, so Jan gets to rape Sven."
Imgaine dividing up the loot at the end of a raid. "Sven had seven rapes, but Jan only had two, so Jan gets to rape Sven."
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1932
This is a 1930s book on Noways kings, as always, history is revised, presently the peacful kindly vikings are in vouge, much like Alexander has a Tarn or Bosworth pov, so do the Vikings have different povs, what im waiting for is someone to claim the Aztecs were just misunderstood and the human sacrifice was just bad european press.
Oral historys, say Homer, describe events so that the audience can understand the story, ie identify with the cast, so the battle descriptions can be aduced to be reasonably accurate, now as i understand it the Sagas are based on Oral tradition, so i have no problem with them being revengfull and proud, etc, just so long as we acept they wernt raving homicidal maniacs either.
HB
This is a 1930s book on Noways kings, as always, history is revised, presently the peacful kindly vikings are in vouge, much like Alexander has a Tarn or Bosworth pov, so do the Vikings have different povs, what im waiting for is someone to claim the Aztecs were just misunderstood and the human sacrifice was just bad european press.
Oral historys, say Homer, describe events so that the audience can understand the story, ie identify with the cast, so the battle descriptions can be aduced to be reasonably accurate, now as i understand it the Sagas are based on Oral tradition, so i have no problem with them being revengfull and proud, etc, just so long as we acept they wernt raving homicidal maniacs either.
HB
A very good series. I didn't enjoy the portrayal of the Swedes though. Didn't quite cater to my chauvinism.