Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Vikings? Bunch of jessies....
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Friday, 19th May 2006
The Vikings were famous for their martial skills and the bonds of loyalty between warriors and their lords. Strength and honour in battle were seem as paramount, warriors occupied positions of prestige in the society, and fighting and raiding played central roles in their economy and society. Their literature is filled with tales of heroism and bravery, their pantheon of Gods was lead by a war god and included gods of battle and thunder.
My question is, why were these warriors so happy to attack and kill unarmed churchmen. I know they're obviously an easier target than an armed opponent, but why was there no stigma attached to those warriors who killed unarmed and defenseless people - surely the very opposite of the warrior ideals they tried to represent? Is this a case of reality versus the heroic ideal portrayed in their literature? Are attacks on priests over-reported in historical accounts because they were being written by priests? Were non-warriors or non-vikings considered to be no better than animals and so not accorded the status of honourable opponent? Am I just talking rubbish?
Any thoughts gratefully received.
SW -
Message 2
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 19th May 2006
I don't see why we should consider attacks on unarmed churchmen surprising - it's perfectly compatible with the warrior ethos so long as we don't assume that any particular glory was gained from going for such easy targets.
Also, when pagan vikings were acting as conquerors, deliberately seeking to undermine the enemy state, there was a good strategic reason to attack the church, destroy books etc as it sapped the Christian enemy's morale considerably.
Good for them, I say... -
Message 3
Posted by diamond_dogg (U3916457) on Friday, 19th May 2006
Did pagan vikings view christianity as a heresy against Odin etc, and was that ever a motivation for their attacks on churches?
-
Message 4
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Friday, 19th May 2006
The Vikings raided primarily in those early days(England, 793 at Lindisfarne- then a leading centre of spiritual learning and culture, with beautiful gilted parchments), for booty, slaves to sell and possibly to test English defences for further, larger raids that might win their own people land. Which did happen later.
They were a militaristic and hardened warrior-people, and had no preference to this end
whether killing priests(perhaps their religious and social nemeses?), armed Saxon warriors opposing them or women & children in unsuspecting villages/burhs. There is evidence that, despite their undoubted bravery and fighting professionalism, that as foreign invaders in later generations, that they preferred to avoid pitched battles, thus increasing their chances of reaching their harboured fleet with their booty.
This would change with the beginnings of major invasion armies bent upon not raiding then sailing away, but the full conquest of England. The first of such was the "Great army" of 865. -
Message 5
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Saturday, 20th May 2006
"Is this a case of reality versus the heroic ideal portrayed in their literature? Are attacks on priests over-reported in historical accounts because they were being written by priests?"
Yes and yes. The raid on Lindisfarne in 793 AD being a prime example. -
Message 6
Posted by Cerdic (U3121326) on Saturday, 20th May 2006
Ironaxe is right. You can't lump all vikings together. The early raids that we have records of were carried out by small groups after plunder. They raided churches etc because that is where the loot was! Noble sentiments didn't come into it.
The guys who came much later to try and gain land and power were different type of people. Just because they were all "norse" and came from Scandinavia doesn't mean they all had the same ideas and opinions anymore than the population of Britain shares the same ideas and opinions with each other! -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 20th May 2006
Cerdic has a point as each Vicking raid in the west south or east had different characteristics: many were indeed raids by unorganised groups of 200-300 raiders but others were real armies
In any case, I only find it natural for raiders and invaders to have a preferance to attack unarmed villages as that was easy looting (though not much) but most importantly easy provisions (food and materials) necessary in order to continue the campaign.
Monasteries was a unique target since they gathered considerable amounts of wealth concentrated in a small place relatively undefended (ok, many christian monks would not be of zero experience in the arts of war but then on the overall they could not present any valid resistance in comparison to other armies).
Similar behaviours was followed by most barbarians other than the Vickings. The ferocious Bulgarians (a tribe that was actually more wild than Vickings) preferred to raid unprotected small cities and avoid direct confrontation with the Byzantine Imperial army (though they had some important victories against Byzantine regional armies). Vickings also preferred to avoid direct confrontation with well organised armies but then later on when their presence was strengthened they would take up to larger campaigns confronting larger armies like the Saxon-english army, the Frankish armies, and of course the Byzantine Imperial army itself with a varying degree of success.
Nontheless, their fighting virtue was recognised and they were the preferred mercenary of many kingdoms. However, in Byzantium they were not so much preferred for their fighting capacities (Bulgarians for example presented the same level of fighiting spirit) but mostly for their fidelity to the emperor and to their neutrality even during dubious change of head in the Empire (I do not remember when - it must have been around the 11th century, an emperor was murdered, and another one was crowned, but Varragians tried as much as possible to remain out of that and only 1 week after the events presented themselves to swear under the new Emperor showing that they were faithful to the Empire as a state (whoever was the emperor) and not to a particular person. They simply knew how to make business...
... and in business of course it is more convinient to attack targets of low resistance and higher rewards than take the risk attacking targets of high resistance ... just for the shake of proving to be courageous. -
Message 8
Posted by Binge-Drinker (U1655287) on Saturday, 20th May 2006
Perhaps the Saints were not so saintly? the Church also had power bases with hold on the local community, perhaps the Danes realised that if they got read of the church and monks they were more likely to be master.
It is difficult to say what actually happened as the myths are often twisted spin, something that still goes on over a thousand years later, and religion is suprisingly still a major power base and ruler said to be for good but as history shows us it is often the root of evil. Greed and power struggles are the basic causes.
Amen -
Message 9
Posted by Wendol (U4076986) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
The distintion between military and civilian is a modern idea. In viking society all free men were armed. And if there were people in the other societies they raided that were unarmed or unable to protect their women and children, then the vikings would of considered that there own stupid fault. Looting and pilaging have been normal practices of armies and war until the 20th century. The only part that the medieval chronicalers found unusual was that the vikings included monestries and churches in their targets, which to an unbeliever would be inviting attack.
Also I dont think it is at odds with the ideals they portrayed in their literature. Although their are many heroic battles their are just as many raids and other murders in the sagas.
For example(from
"A story from chapter 46 of Egils saga Skalla-GrΓmssonar illustrates the distinction between raiding and stealing. While raiding a coastal farm, Egill and his men were captured by the farmer and his family, who bound all of the raiders. In the night that followed, Egill was able to slip his bonds. He and his men grabbed their captors' treasure and headed back to the ship. But along the way, Egill realized he was acting like a thief, which was shameful. So, he returned to his captors' house, set it ablaze, and killed the occupants as they tried to escape the fire. He then returned to the ship with the treasure, this time as a hero. Because he had fought and won the battle, he could justly claim the booty."
Even the code of chivalry from later medieval times only aplied to nobles as there relatives could give you a profitable ransom. While captives from the lower orders could be disposed of.
Stephen Wordsworth -
Message 10
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
If they ONLY fought unarmed clergymen u would definitely have a point - bUT they seemed quite happy to fight anyone - the object was the same - glory and loot
in fact a historic version of millwall
-
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
Nobody likes us Scandinavians and we don't care ...
(I live in Norway, believe me - it's still the philosophy!) -
Message 12
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Tuesday, 23rd May 2006
SW,
I remember during my undergrad course that it was pointed out that monasteries were often repositories for the local clan's wealth as well as the wealth of the church. Monastic attacks were not uncommon during times of local conflicts, and were considered legitmate military targets. The repputation vikings is based unpon the unexpected nature of there attacks and the manner in which annals are kept. A long slow build upon to an attack does not warrant much individual record, as it was expected and forearned. A sudden unheralded assault from the sea often caused the scribes to waxlyrical. In Ireland at least apparently more monasteries were sacked by gaels than by Vikings during the early period of smash and grab assaults, whilst later viking activities ahve to be seen through the lens of residency that they were now intertwinned with the political world they had migrated too.
This is not to whitewash their activities, but rather that one must consider the source and weight it accordingly. The first waves freaked people out big style, but they were not unusually violent by the standards of their time. Back home they were just farmers.
Elistan -
Message 13
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 24th May 2006
All,
Thanks for all your comments - very interesting reading.
I just had a vision of two Vikings sitting around in Valhalla, chatting over a horn or two of mead.
First Viking: So, how did you get here?
Second Viking: At the Battle Of Thjomstrkkinthfjord I leapt from my long boat, slew fifty fighting men, breaking axe, shield and spear, before wrestling King Snorri Snjkthlthmlo with my bare hands and rending off all his limbs and head, before expiring having been pierced by a hundred arrows and spears. What about you?
First Viking: I killed three unarmed priests and nicked their gold.
Second Viking: Ooh, is that the time? Excuse me...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.