Vikings May Have Been More Social Than Savage

[Ian]

This article is about as groundbreaking as an article taking the position that vikings didn't really wear horned helmets.

They didn't wear horned helmets?!?!?!?!
JK

[Svartalf]

Actually, "sending armies" is pretty much a malapropism when speaking of the Norse... Sure, every chief had a band or armed retainers, and kings had large bands of warriors in their service, but to call any such band an "army" would be like calling the pond in your backyard a sea. Full scale military expeditions were exceedingly rare.

Most of the viking raids in history were from bands of merchants who noticed places with a large amount of riches (gold and silver items, pacifistic slave stock) completely unguarded.

[Coito ergo sum]

You folk are aware that viking forces never won an engagement when there was anything like a sizeable or reasonably organized opposition, right? (even when it was adjudged more expeditious to buy them off than to actually fight them down)

Bollocks. In 1066 Harald Hardrada won the Battle of Fulford resulting in his capture of York. The victory was shortlived, of course, because he was later defeated in a subsequent battle at Stamford Bridge, but that doesn't take away the victory. In 991, the Anglo-Saxons were defeated by vikings at the Battle of Maldon. In the Battle of Thetford in 870, the Danes defeated the Angles, and King Edward was killed. In the Battle of Reading in 871, the Danes defeated the Saxons. Same in the Battles of Basing and Merton in the same year. The Battle of Dollar saw the vikings defeat the Albans in 875. The annals of St. Vaast set forth many viking raids and the devastation they wrought all over France for many years.

The Danish vikings conquered much of southern Britain and held it under the Danelaw. In the 9th century, the viking invaders not only won battles but survived, held land and started farming and living there.

In the Early 1000s, England was part of the Danish Empire:


King Cnut, and his sons, ruled from Denmark.

It was only after Cnut and his sons were gone, that we got an Anglo-Saxon King in England, Edward the Confessor.

He ruled until 1065 or early 1066, and then the big fight took place. Harald Hardrada of Norway invaded near York, took York as noted above, then he was killed at Stamford Bridge by Harold Godwinson, and then Harold Godwinson had to march all the way back to Hastings to meet the invading Normans under William the Bastard, later William the Conqueror. William, of course, thought Edward the Confessor had promised him the throne, but then Godwinson took over in his stead, and William invaded and killed Godwinson at Hastings.

The rest, of course is History.

There is this historical theory that you espouse - one historian I recollect who really scorned the vikings was Paddy Griffith and he wrote the Viking Art of War -- but, when you look into it, this allegation that the vikings never won a battle when anyone fought back is just bollocks. If that were true, how did they rule part of England for centuries? Nobody fought back? They Normans -- from Normandy -- were the descendants of Northmen (viking) conquerors -- Gonga-Rolf (the French refer to him as Rollo, I think) was a viking, and they took Normandy and his direct descendant, William the Conqueror, conquered England in 1066.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, "sending armies" is pretty much a malapropism when speaking of the Norse... Sure, every chief had a band or armed retainers, and kings had large bands of warriors in their service, but to call any such band an "army" would be like calling the pond in your backyard a sea. Full scale military expeditions were exceedingly rare.

Most of the viking raids in history were from bands of merchants who noticed places with a large amount of riches (gold and silver items, pacifistic slave stock) completely unguarded.

Full scale military ventures were exceedingly rare for everyone in those days, not just vikings. Armies and fleets were smaller. Harald Hardrada is said to have had about 300 ships in his war against Sweyn of Denmark. And, these ships, though, didn't have many men on them, because they were small. They had several thousand men. That was a big army back in the day. Even The Great Heathen Army referred to in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is thought to have only numbered in the thousands.

[Svartalf]

Charlemagne, and the Caroligian kings had larger armies, and were more apt to use them, than any Norse King, even the like of Harald Hardrade of Magnuss Barefoot, or the Canutes.
Oh, and I maintain what I said about the British stuff, they won against paltry, unorganized opposition, that's why Ethelraed was called 'unready' ... even Harold Godwinson managed a victory when he managed to make a proper muster (of course, force marching them from Yorkshire to the South coast caused him to lose at Hastings... against southernified vikings)

[Coito ergo sum]

Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire had overall a larger number of men in their army overall, but they never were all in one place at one time. That empire was huge in comparison to Great Britain and Scandinavia.

While Charlemagne's armies were formidable forces in their day, they still were made up mostly of conscripts from the estates of wealthy noblemen. I think Charlemagne boasted 20,000 men at his largest. That doesn't mean an army of 20,000 marching together. That would have been unheard of. They were divided around the Empire, and the larger sized armies were raised when the Muslims were rearing their ugly heads.. Fielding an army of much more than 20,000 would have been almost impossible prior to the Rennaissance.

Most armies in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries were at most a few thousand strong. That's a huge army back then.

The main reason they were so small is that they didn't know how to supply the armies. What good is a 10,000 man army hanging out in France? Where would they get their food, unless they had supply lines, which they did not, or scavanged off the land, which could not possibly last long.

They had fighting seasons back then. They had to fight at certain times, and then they had to plow the fields, and harvest.

[Svartalf]

Even a simple count had enough troops at his beck and call to deal with a full fledged viking military expedition, as count Eudes showed when Ragnarr Lodbrokkr besieged Paris in 885.

[klr]

Big on Twitter. Just plundering Holy Island. Lol.

"Pillage, plunder and rape" easily fits in a text message alright ...

[Hermit]

Isn't the initial premise that they were "savage" a bit retarded?

Depends on which meaning of the word is meant. There is quite a variety of them.

savage

adj.
1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
2. Not civilized; barbaric: a people living in a savage state.
3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.
n.
1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.
tr.v. sav·aged, sav·ag·ing, sav·ag·es
1. To assault ferociously.
2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/savage


On second thought, the study referenced is a load of shit. The Norse were no more nor less primitive, uncivilised, brutal or fierce than any other power at that time. They were just more successful conquerors then. If you doubt that, read up on the history of the crusades that took place not a long time later, paying particular attention to the sacking of Jerusalem.

And nothing beats the sheer savagery of Massacre at Béziers in 1209, unless, of course, you keep the several genocidal campaigns of a number of civilised European nations during the 20th century in mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even a simple count had enough troops at his beck and call to deal with a full fledged viking military expedition, as count Eudes showed when Ragnarr Lodbrokkr besieged Paris in 885.

They weren't really "troops" from the 9th to the 11th centuries. They didn't have the capacity to maintain armies. They mustered them when necessary. So, yes, the Holy Roman Empire had more men, and therefore could muster a bigger mass of men, but they did not have the capability to supply them or feed them for anything but temporary periods. One cannot picture a 9th century "army" like one pictures 17th and 18th century Holy Roman Empire armies. The Rennaissance brought leaps and bounds of advancement. In the 9th century, most armies were woefully deficient even as compared to 3rd century Roman armies.

[Svartalf]

That does not change the fact that a count (provincial governor) had enough armed retainer and potential levies to deal with a viking attack.

[Coito ergo sum]

That does not change the fact that a count (provincial governor) had enough armed retainer and potential levies to deal with a viking attack.

Perhaps, but not all viking armies were dealt with. The allegation that the Vikings never won a battle where anyone fought back is easily disprovable. Not only did I provide a list of many battles won by Vikings, but I could also provide many more. I barely scratched the surface.

Let's look at one of the items you mentioned, though. The Siege of Paris in the 800s. If, indeed, the Carolingian Counts could muster many thousands of men to easily repel Viking armies, then why was it that Count Odo in Paris could only muster a few hundred men to defend Paris?

Basically, the reason the Siege of Paris failed was because the vikings had insufficient siege engines to break through the walls of the city. Large numbers of the viking siege army just went up and down the Seine River pillaging, plundering and doing their various viking activities. They were raiders and plunderers after all.

After months besieging the city the Viking army was still there, and FINALLY Emperor Charles the Fat showed up with an army. And, he had to come from Italy all the way to Paris, after Odo had to beg the King to help him. If any Count had plenty of men to deal with vikings, then why would Odo have to beg Charles to come bail him out? And, if Charles' army that finally arrived was so awesome compared to the viking army, then why didn't he attack the vikings and wipe them out? Instead, he held off attacking and let the vikings rampage on and they raided Burgundy, Le Mans, Chartres, Evreux and the Loire. and such. Charles proposed paying a Danegeld to get the vikings to go away. Rather than fight the vikings, he wanted to buy them off. This may be a smart move, as fighting means risking bloodshed and the expenses associated with it. Fighting also risks losing. But, if things were as you say that "no viking army could win if someone fought back with an army" then surely Charles would have seen little risk? He would have just seen a rabble of easily defeatable brigands, wouldn't he? Instead, Charles thought he had something to lose that a large Danegeld would be a preference to destroying the viking army. Yes, the Vikings left, but they left after ravaging France and being bought off by the Emperor, Charles.

Also, let's remember that the vikings SACKED Paris in 845. So, that's one more victory. The vikings also attacked Paris three times in the 860s, and they only left after filling up their boats with enough valuables, gold and bribes to be bought off to go away.

[laklak]

[Coito ergo sum]

[laklak]

I was trying to find the one where the war leader tells his troops "Now remember - it's pillage, then burn!