According to BBC online, the Vikings did not terrify Europe and were actually peaceful settlers most of the time. So, what were they? Terrible raiders who raped and pillaged? Or explorers and settlers? As always, history is frequently revised as more information is unearthed. This is a long article but worth reading for history buffs. It can be found @ http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858
The Vikings came and settled. You have the Danish/Viking man and his Saxon woman living on the farm. Their root word for horse or cart are basically the same. It is the differences that happen with cases, direct, indirect, etc. And the plurals too. So the Danish man and his Saxon woman manage with their nouns and the preposition and simplified pleural and more importance to word order, English is born. A rough take on that part of the history as told by Robert MacNeill, "The Story of English". The difference between a trader and a raider is considering how much of a fight it might take and what reputation is at stake. They were also working the rivers of Europe and Russia. A lot of the little scenes of Viking life are taken from the manuscript of Ahmad ibn Fadlan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan Ahmad ibn Fadlān ibn al-Abbās ibn Rāid ibn Hammād (Arabic: أحمد بن فضلان بن العباس بن راشد بن حماد‎ was a 10th-century Arab traveler, famous for his account of his travels as a member of an embassy of the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad to the king of the Volga Bulgars. His account is most known for providing a description of the Volga Vikings, including an eyewitness account of a ship burial. His manuscript was the inspiration of Michael Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead", and the movie - "The 13th Warrior" Good stuff. Moi No
Was prob'ly one o' Granny's great-great-grandmothers... Scientists Say DNA Tests Show Viking Warrior Was Female September 11, 2017 — Scientists say DNA tests on a skeleton found in a lavish Viking warrior's grave in Sweden show the remains are those of a woman in her 30s.
They might've had female warriors, but claiming Vikings were anything else than Patriarchic is ridiculous. The most famous of Viking warriors are all men; Harald Blåtand, Sven Tveskägg, Leif Eriksson, Rollo and Ragnar Rodbrok.
In that era, there was often little difference between traders and pirates. Like the Arabs, the Vikings were also renowned in the era as maritime traders. And like most other cultures (Greeks, Romans, Phoneticians, etc), they most often got by on trade. But if the opportunity came up, they often would not hesitate to use piracy or raiding either.
If you are interesting in the vikings, this Muslim navigator traveled and lived with them.. It may be the only written accounts of their lives. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/vikings-in-the-east-the-normans.207553/
Uncle Ferd says the reason Vikings were such good sailors is `cause dey was ScandiNAVYans... Walrus bones provide clues to mystery of lost Viking colony Aug. 8, 2018 | WASHINGTON – Clues to the mystery of why Viking colonies in Greenland flourished and fell have been found in the DNA of medieval walrus bones housed in more than a dozen European museums.
they weren't much different than anyone else of the time...farmers, fisherman, traders...on their down time raiding neighbours was common activity, vikings even raided other vikings...before the viking raids began in england it was Saxons and Frisians raiding roman Britannia it's where the name Saxon Shore came from, roman defenses built to fend off raids from what is now Netherlands and NW Germany...until the Romans left then it was a full scale invasion of saxon/frisians to repopulate england, who were in turn raided by vikings...
yup traders/fishermen were opportunists, piracy and raids on isolated communities were lucrative easy targets ...life was cruel and harsh back then...
Among the Norse Tribes The Remarkable Account of Ibn Fadlan Written by Judith Gabriel Photographed by Eirik Irgens Johnsen More than a millennium ago, as fleets of Viking raiders were striking fear into the hearts of coast- and river-dwellers throughout western Europe, other Norsemen of more mercantile inclination were making their way east. With no less boldness and stamina, bearing luxurious furs and enticing nodules of amber, they penetrated the vast steppes of what is today Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and entered Central Asia. There they met Muslim traders who paid for Norse wares with silver coins, which the Vikings themselves did not mint, and which they coveted. Their routes were various, and by the ninth and 10th centuries, a regular trade network had grown up. Some Norsemen traveled overland and by river, while others sailed over both the Black and Caspian Seas, joined caravans and rode camelback as far as Baghdad, which was then under Abbasid rule and populated by nearly a million souls. There, the Scandinavian traders found an emporium beyond their wildest dreams, for their fjord-rimmed homelands had only recently seen the emergence of a few rudimentary towns. continued http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issu...ibes-the.remarkable.account.of.ibn.fadlan.htm
unfortunate the vikings weren't a literate society were they recorded events other than by oral tradition...so any historical eye witness account is invaluable ....the travels of another historian Iben Battuta is sadly under reported in western schools...
These must be berserkers, for only they would go into battle so blood crazed that they threw off their armor. Their name supposedly comes from the Bearskin cloaks they wore at other times but I see this was a misspelling
I have Norwegian in-law who claims the beserkers went into a crazed state before battle due to a combination of drugs and alcohol, plausible but I don't know of any factual accounts to back it up...and the in-law other than reveling in his ancestors fame has no expertise...
I'd call that the BBC clarifying a common misconception that Vikings, raiders, invaders and other warring pillaging types was a full time occupation... standing full time armies were a rarity until relatively recently, they couldn't afford to have thousands of healthy men standing around doing nothing expecting to be fed and paid. warfare and raiding were often seasonal in nature, it normally wouldn't occur during spring seeding or harvest time...raiding warriors and the civilian population from which they came, needed to be fed, housed and clothed...
"The Last Kingdom" on Netflix has some interesting historical references to the 9th Century England and the Danes. No chicks in horned helmets though. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4179452/?ref_=nv_sr_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Kingdom_(TV_series)
"Viking Helmet With Horns Not True". If not more than one Viking was found buried with a horned helmet than it is "true". If the media and the arts prefer portraying Vikings in horned helmets as though it was a common thing to do then that's not our fault. But a horned helmet is not the figment of someone's imagination. An exaggeration? Almost certainly. But false? Absolutely not.
No, it is false because there is no evidence in the historical record. There are absolutely no contemporary records (made during that era) to show that they were used. No pictures, no carvings, no writings. And there is plenty of such records in existence. The Saxons who invaded England were Vikings. But on none of the writings of this invasion in England, nor in Scotland or Ireland are there records of horned helmets. Oh, there might have been one or two. Perhaps not unlike the Roman soldiers, most did not wear crests. But some did, either running front to back or side to side (this was generally saved for officers). Some of them (Viletes) even wore a wolf head over the helmet. So at some time did some Viking chieftain add horns to his helmet? It is very possible. One also may have added the ass end of a cow onto his helmet, who knows? There is no record of such anywhere. The entire "Horned Viking" thing appears to have come from 1876, when a German artist created costumes and illustrations for a Richard Wagner opera Der Ring des Nibelungen. It never appeared in any illustrations made prior to that.
I understand all of that but it only takes one find (burial for example) to create the belief that it was in general use. I think we can say with a great deal of certainty that it was not in general use but that doesn't mean it wasn't used at all. I was employed for 2 years as a 'Viking' at a "living Viking Museum" here in Sweden. https://www.fotevikensmuseum.se/ We informed visitors that the horned helmet was not a Viking thing but that it was most likely found (buried) as something of Norse festivities and the imagination took it from there. At that time (more than 10 years ago) that was our understanding. Now, if you have more recent information that excludes the horned helmet from ever exciting at all ... then that is another matter.