I remember reading something about the sacrifice of people, it was mostly troublesome slaves and criminals that was killed. The killing of a good slave was bad business, sometimes illegal.
Mr.penguin
Last edited:
-
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 remember reading something about the sacrifice of people, it was mostly troublesome slaves and criminals that was killed. The killing of a good slave was bad business, sometimes illegal.
Mr.penguin
Danes are usually portrayed as vicous killers in our history books. They burn and sacked our cities back and forth during the course of our history. The Danish King Christian II is for example to our school children known as Christian the Tyrant 
"Vikingablot" is still a well practised tradition, at least by our military
"Vikingablot" is still a well practised tradition, at least by our military
I wouldn't put to much trust in his account of burning a ship.
The ships was the lifeblood of the village, extremly expensive and especcialy when it comes to longships rare.
A knarr maybe or a smaller boat possibly but afaik only the most powerful kings got burried with their ships.
Gokstad or whatever it is called in Denmark is a prime example.
There are also a few of them in Sweden and Norway but non that well preserved.
About human sacrifice at Uppsala: While Adam of Bremen isn't extremely reliable I think it's quite possible that there was some human sacrifices going on. The chance of physical evidence being preserved isn't that huge so probably we'll never know. But AFAIK there was found in Denmark (Ribe? Don't remember) a piece of a human skull with the word "Odin" written in runes. Not necessarily the result of human sacrifice but an interesting piece of evidence nonetheless.
It seems many people didn't mind being buried with expensive objects. For instance Frankish swords and so on. While ships were expensive a burial is kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I don't think people were extremely cost-conscious. And in this specific case obviously it was a smaller ship for river travel.
There may be reasons to discount part of his tale, but I don't know if the ship burning is part of this. It was the burial of a chieftain, after all.
I actually have a translation of Ibn Fadlan's account somewhere, but I can't find it. As far as I recall, it doesn't claim it was a longship. A knarr sounds reasonable.
Aside: considering the nature of ship burnings, I wouldn't ecpect there to be many well preserved remains of it... especially if they were done on the water as in Ibn Fadlan's account (if I recall correctly).
Aside 2: Gokstad isn't Danish. Is it Norwegian? We've got some from Roskilde Fjord though (a nice museum too, I recommend it).
Jacob
Yes, great series, but while the first book to me felt "histrocial" the second and third felt more as fantasy than history.
The Scandinavians used rather small ships on the Russian rivers, not longships nor even knarrar, so the burning of a ship is not that unbelievable. There is a similar description in the sagas, but I don't remember where and who (think it was Baldr's funeral though). As Brain said, I doubt people hesitated about costs when it comes to the funerals of chiefs or kings (think Valsgärde, it was pre-Viking, but anyway).
All depends on status though. More powerful king = bigger/better ship. After all, a burial has alot to do with making an impression on the living, and most kings want to be remembered in a rather stupdendous fashion.
Yes very good books. My parents inherited them at some time and I sort of claimed them.
Perhaps people fal to make the distinction between Vikings and Scandinavians because though one came from another it doesn't mean that all Scandinavians are Vikings. e.g. Some English were Pirates (Vikings is scandinavian or old english for pirate) during the 1700's does that make all English of the Period Pirates?
Also I would say there is a big differenc between the Early Scandinavian raiders who were genuine pirates and the later Scandinavians under Cnut etc... who invaded with massive armies to conquer and settle England and Normandy which they did successfully for some time until they were assimilated by their hosts. These incursions whould be known as Norwegian and Danish invasions not Viking ones.
Cheers
Also I would say there is a big differenc between the Early Scandinavian raiders who were genuine pirates and the later Scandinavians under Cnut etc... who invaded with massive armies to conquer and settle England and Normandy which they did successfully for some time until they were assimilated by their hosts. These incursions whould be known as Norwegian and Danish invasions not Viking ones.
Cheers
Totally agree.
"Classic" viking operations (little units, raider operations...) in Western Europe are over starting 10th century. No more profits compare to the risks.
In 11th century, the great "come-back" is caused by monarchic ascendency. No more "vikings", just use of navies and soldiers who seem to be the same for western witness.
Completely correct. I have told people this numerous times, but it seems hard to understand
About the etymology BTW, there existed two words, viking and vikingR, meanins sea warrior/raider and sea campaign/war/raid, resp. The creation of the word is still disputed though. Some say it means 'a man from the bay' (vik meaning bay), but personally I found that dubious. Here's a good site about the ethymology of the word, Swedish only though:Ordet Viking
About the etymology BTW, there existed two words, viking and vikingR, meanins sea warrior/raider and sea campaign/war/raid, resp. The creation of the word is still disputed though. Some say it means 'a man from the bay' (vik meaning bay), but personally I found that dubious. Here's a good site about the ethymology of the word, Swedish only though:Ordet Viking
"Vikingr" seems to come from "Vik", "Wik" or "vici", the type of port, trading center or little urban place of Northern Europe...
in English, the norwegian word "vik" means "creek" according to my wordlist.
BTW, we (norway) found America. Iceland wasn't independent until 1945. There was no such thing as an Icelander then (I guess they used it sooner or later, but not 50 years after finding it. There was no natives on Iceland either except inuits maybe, and they didn't find America).
If you live in the channel islands, you don't see yourself as a channel-islander do you?. You are English then.
To say that the icelanders found america would be like saying: "the english never went to cape cod, it was the Puritans!"
BTW, we (norway) found America. Iceland wasn't independent until 1945. There was no such thing as an Icelander then (I guess they used it sooner or later, but not 50 years after finding it. There was no natives on Iceland either except inuits maybe, and they didn't find America).
If you live in the channel islands, you don't see yourself as a channel-islander do you?. You are English then.
To say that the icelanders found america would be like saying: "the english never went to cape cod, it was the Puritans!"
the meaning of the word have changed during the years. i believe "Sire Philippe" comes pretty close to what it meant back then
True. The Old Saxon word wic meant trading port, while the Old Norse vik meant bay.