C.J. Adrien's Blog, page 13

How fast did Viking Longships Sail?

In The Two Lives of Charlemagne, by the biographer Notker the Stammerer, we encounter a deeply troubled Charlemagne who witnessed an unusual event in southern France. A fleet of Northmen sailed up the coast to raid but, seeing a garrison of Franks stationed where they had hoped to strike, they fled. The Franks sent a fleet to pursue them, but they could not match the Northmen’s speed. Notker tells us Charlemagne recognized the imminent threat of the Vikings on his empire when he said, “I do not fear that these bandits will do me any harm; I am sick at heart to think that, even in my lifetime, they dared to attack this coast, and I am horror-stricken when I think of the harm they will do to my descendants and their subjects.”

Already in his lifetime, we learn that the Vikings’ longships had a reputation for sailing much faster than those of the Franks. All the people who bore witness to the raids and invasions of the Vikings convey awe at the speed of their ships. Until recently, however, historians did not know precisely how fast their ships could sail. First, in the 19th century, historians did not have a real boat to work with—the first ship burial was not discovered until the early 20th century. Over the course of several decades, more and more vessels were pulled from the ground, yet speeds for these were merely educated guesses. How Fast Did Viking Longships Sail? Not until the first full reproductions did historians learn the actual speed capabilities of the longships. 

The Viking Ship Museum’s Reconstructions

The Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Denmark, has built five reproduction ships which they have used to test average and top speeds of the various ships they have from Viking Age burials. Below are the five ships and the information the museum lists about them:

Skuldelev 1 – The ocean-going trader

Skuldelev 1 is a sizeable ocean-going cargo ship from Sognefjord in western Norway. The vessel is built of heavy pine planks and has a rounded form that gives it a high loading capacity and great seaworthiness on the North Atlantic. It was repeatedly repaired with oak in Norway and Denmark. The ocean-going trader could have sailed all over the North Sea and the Baltic as well as in the North Atlantic. The ship and its cargo may have been owned by a chieftain or by a group of merchants sailing it on trading expeditions. The ship had decks fore and aft as well as an open hold.

Age: ca 1030
Length: 15.84 meters
Breadth: 4.8 meters
No. of oars: 2-4
Crew: 6-8 men
Sail area: 90 m2
Average speed: 5-7 knots
Top speed: ca 13 knots

Skuldelev 2 – The great longship

Skuldelev 2 is a warship built to carry warriors at high speed from place to place. With a crew of 65-70 men, it was a ship owned by a chieftain or king, like those praised in the sagas. Tree-ring analysis of the timber shows that the vessel was built of oak in the vicinity of Dublin around 1042. Vikings settled in Ireland in AD 800 and established several fortified bases along the Irish coast. These bases developed into towns, which today are among the largest in Ireland.

Age: ca 1042
Length: approx. 30 meters
Breadth: 3.8 meters
No. of oars: 60
Crew: 65-70 men
Sail area: 112 m2
Average speed: 6-8 knots
Top speed: 13-17 knots

Skuldelev 3 – The coastal trader

Skuldelev 3 is a small, elegant, and sturdy trading ship built for carrying goods across Danish coastal waters and throughout the Baltic. The ship is the best preserved of the five Viking ships found in the Roskilde Fjord and was built with Danish oak. It had decks of loose planks fore and aft and an open hold with room for about 4 tons of cargo. The ship may have been used when the owner and his associates or family traveled to a market or meetings at the assembly.

The wind was the most important means of powering the ship, but the oars could be used when maneuvering or when traveling short distances in calm weather. 

Age: ca 1040
Length: 14 meters
Breadth: 3.3 meters
No. of oars: 5
Crew: 5-8 men
Sail area: 45 m2 
Average speed: 4-5 knots
Top speed: 8-10 knots

Skuldelev 5 – The small longship

Skuldelev 5 is one of the smallest longships and was likely used as part of a war fleet. It was ideal for sailing in Danish coastal waters and through the short, choppy waves of the Baltic. Unlike the other Skuldelev ships, it was built using both new wood and recycled timber. A few years before the ship sunk, it was repaired with both new and recycled wood. We do not know why the ship was built this way, but the construction and repairs were carried out by skilled boatbuilders.

Age: ca 1030
Length: 17.3 meters
Breadth: 2.5 meters
No. of oars: 26
Crew: 30 men
Sail area: 46 m2
Average speed: 6-7 knots
Top speed: 15 knots

Draken Harald Hårfagre

The Draken Harald Hårfagre is the largest reconstruction ever made and has sailed across the Atlantic as far as New York. The project was meant to create a ship that adhered to the descriptions of the largest longships found in the sagas with the building techniques discovered in actual burial ships. The website for the Draken Harald Hårfagre warns, “Draken Harald Hårfagre is a clinker-built Viking longship. She is not a replica of a known ship, she is a reconstruction of what the Norse Sagas refer to as a “Great ship”. Knowledge of history, and especially the Norse sagas, archeological findings and Norwegian boatbuilding traditions combined created the world’s largest Viking ship sailing in modern times.” 

It is essential to understand that this ship is not the best source for understanding the speed of the longships of the Viking Age because she is not a replica of a known ship, and is much larger than any of the ships ever found. However, the experiment has shown us a profound trend: bigger does not equal faster. The top speed recorded for the Draken Harald Hårfagre is 14 knots, a full three knots shy of the Skudelev 2’s top speed. While an impressive ship, its size certainly affects its top speed and maneuverability.

How Fast Did Viking Longships Sail?

How Fast Did Viking Longships Sail? While modern replicas offer us some evidence for the top speeds of Viking longships, it remains a debatable subject. Replicas have topped 17 knots in ideal weather, but most sail in the 8-12 knot range. Some historians have proposed ships built in the Viking Age may have topped 24-25 knots, but no modern replica, to my knowledge, has attained such speeds. Considering speeds of 24-25 knots are extremely difficult and rare even for modern sailboats, as well as sailboats with two hulls, it is highly unlikely Viking longships reached such speeds. From the evidence, the 17-21 knot top-speed appears the most reasonable range until a new replica proves otherwise.

Like this:Like Loading...

The post How fast did Viking Longships Sail? appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate?

It is a question I am often asked when someone finds out I am passionate about and make my living writing about the Vikings: is the movie The 13th Warrior historically accurate? In social circles that know anything about the Viking Age and have seen the movie, the answer is a resounding no, and the movie has picked up quite a few detractors over the years. Yet, the movie is not entirely without merit. In this article, I will deconstruct The 13th Warrior with a historical eye and point out both accuracies and inaccuracies for educational purposes.

The 13th Warrior as Good Historical Fiction

Let’s start with the most obvious fact about The 13th Warrior: it is historical fiction, not historical fact. The film is based on a bestselling novel by Michael Crichton — the guy who did Jurassic Park — called Eaters of the Dead. Eaters of the Dead was intended as an adventure-filled retelling of the Beowulf legend told through the narrative of an outside observer from the Middle East. As far as the storyline is concerned, it is your typical Michael Crichton romp with just enough history or science to set up the story before taking readers (and viewers) through the meat of the plot. Broadly, it is considered historical fiction, and in my opinion, it is a good historical fiction insofar as the narrative is concerned. Michael Crichton spins a good yarn. The book is a fun read, and the movie makes for great entertainment.

What The 13th Warrior Gets Right

In typical Micheal Crichton fashion, the movie introduces a fair amount of historicity to set up the story at the beginning. Both the novel and the film begin with the narrator of the story, a character named Ibn Fadlan. Ibn Fadlan was a real historical figure, and in regards to the Viking Age, he wrote one of the more interesting and insightful primary sources on the Vikings who navigated along the Dnieper and Volga rivers and were called the Rus. The Rus traded as far Constantinople and perhaps even Baghdad. 

Ibn Fadlan’s account about his encounter with the Vikings on the shores of the Volga River covers a myriad of subjects, from grooming habits he observed to their unusual trade customs. Unlike the film, the real Ibn Fadlan was not an exile, but instead the chronicler of the voyage of his superior, Susan al-Rassi, who traveled to the land of the Bulgars to preach the word of Islam. They were missionaries of sorts, and so it is no surprise that when they encountered the Rus, they attempted to establish peaceful relations.

The most famous passage of the Ibn Fadlan account is his description of the funeral of a chieftain. It is from this passage, and indeed most of the text of Ibn Fadlan’s account of the Rus, that Michael Crichton composed the first three chapters of his novel. Below is a passage from the account, which coincides well with one of the opening sequences of The 13th Warrior film:

“Then the closest relative of the dead man, after they had placed the girl whom they have killed beside her master, came, took a piece of wood which he lighted at a fire, and walked backwards with the back of his head toward the boat and his face turned toward the people, with one hand holding the kindled stick and the other covering his anus, being completely naked, for the purpose of setting fire to the wood that had been made ready beneath the ship. Then the people came up with tinder and other firewood, each holding a piece of wood of which he had set fire to an end and which he put into the pile of wood beneath the ship. Thereupon the flames engulfed the wood, then the ship, the pavilion, the man, the girl, and everything in the ship. A powerful, fearful wind began to blow so that the flames became fiercer and more intense.”

From a historical standpoint, the 13th Warrior film holds some merit, or at least just enough to earn credibility among a wider audience. For a lack of a better analogy, it is akin to how Michael Crichton established a minimum of scientific precedent — based on lofty science, to say the least — to establish the premise of his book, and later film, Jurassic Park.

Where The 13th Warrior Gets It All Wrong

A keen observer will note that many of the more contestable features of Ibn Fadlan’s account made it onto the big screen, including the way the Rus bathed in the morning after a hard night of drinking. Michael Crichton stayed true to Ibn Fadlan’s narrative but neglected to research how historians regard these descriptions. When dealing with primary sources, it is important not only to consider the writer’s testimony but also their credibility and cultural lens. Hence, both the novel and the film depict a highly debatable testimony of Viking culture that clashes with many of the other primary sources on the same subject.

Whoever decided to adapt the novel to the big screen appears to have tried extremely hard to appear historically accurate, but also appears to have had no knowledge of the time period. Every detail the film attempts to pass off as a small history lesson is woefully wrong. Casting Antonio Banderas as a clean-shaven Ibn Fadlan aside (a man of his status would undoubtedly have had a beard following at least one pilgrimage to Mecca), we are first led to believe that the Rus rode mighty horses that put the Arab horses to shame. Historically, Scandinavian horses were small, while the world of Islam had a rich culture of husbandry whereby they bred large, gallant steeds. The 13th Warrior got that fact backward.

The historical inaccuracies abound from there. Many of the twelve Scandinavian warriors wear armor that would not have been available to anyone at the time, let alone them. The costume designers appear to have lazily borrowed equipment from other sword-and-sandal films such as Gladiator and Braveheart to compose the equipment of some of the characters. What audiences should understand is that when the main characters arrive in Hrothgar’s kingdom, the film (and book) essentially become complete fantasy. From the fatalistic belief system that is espoused by the main characters to the botched attempt at a holmgang, nearly every attempt at world-building deviates from the academic understanding of the Viking Age. 

Interestingly, the antagonists, called the Vendol, appear to be an amalgam of sorts. The name is obviously borrowed from the Vendel, which were the people who lived in Sweden in the period preceding the Viking Age. In character, they display the characteristics of cavemen and, curiously, the idea of the noble savage (an American concept applied to native tribes). And where did they get all the horses?! Michael Crichton is exceptionally imaginative. 

Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate?

Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate? Absolutely not. But it’s a whole lot of fun. As I discussed at length through several posts, historical fiction does not necessarily need to be all that accurate. In my interview with Bernard Cornwell, for example, he explained that as a historical fiction writer his first objective is to tell a compelling story and to be historically accurate second. In that spirit, Michael Crichton’s story about an Arabic man who travels to Sweden to fight flesh-eating cavemen is a successful attempt at entertaining the masses. Personally, I enjoyed the film for what it was: a fun adventure story.

Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate?

It is a question I am often asked when someone finds out I am passionate about and make my living writing about the Vikings: is the movie The 13th Warrior historically accurate? In social circles that know anything about the Viking Age and have seen the movie, the answer is a resounding no, and the movie has picked up quite a few detractors over the years. Yet, the movie is not entirely without merit. In this article, I will deconstruct The 13th Warrior with a historical eye and point out both accuracies and inaccuracies for educational purposes.

The 13th Warrior as Good Historical Fiction

Let’s start with the most obvious fact about The 13th Warrior: it is historical fiction, not historical fact. The film is based on a bestselling novel by Michael Crichton — the guy who did Jurassic Park — called Eaters of the Dead. Eaters of the Dead was intended as an adventure-filled retelling of the Beowulf legend told through the narrative of an outside observer from the Middle East. As far as the storyline is concerned, it is your typical Michael Crichton romp with just enough history or science to set up the story before taking readers (and viewers) through the meat of the plot. Broadly, it is considered historical fiction, and in my opinion, it is a good historical fiction insofar as the narrative is concerned. Michael Crichton spins a good yarn. The book is a fun read, and the movie makes for great entertainment.

What The 13th Warrior Gets Right

In typical Micheal Crichton fashion, the movie introduces a fair amount of historicity to set up the story at the beginning. Both the novel and the film begin with the narrator of the story, a character named Ibn Fadlan. Ibn Fadlan was a real historical figure, and in regards to the Viking Age, he wrote one of the more interesting and insightful primary sources on the Vikings who navigated along the Dnieper and Volga rivers and were called the Rus. The Rus traded as far Constantinople and perhaps even Baghdad. 

Ibn Fadlan’s account about his encounter with the Vikings on the shores of the Volga River covers a myriad of subjects, from grooming habits he observed to their unusual trade customs. Unlike the film, the real Ibn Fadlan was not an exile, but instead the chronicler of the voyage of his superior, Susan al-Rassi, who traveled to the land of the Bulgars to preach the word of Islam. They were missionaries of sorts, and so it is no surprise that when they encountered the Rus, they attempted to establish peaceful relations.

The most famous passage of the Ibn Fadlan account is his description of the funeral of a chieftain. It is from this passage, and indeed most of the text of Ibn Fadlan’s account of the Rus, that Michael Crichton composed the first three chapters of his novel. Below is a passage from the account, which coincides well with one of the opening sequences of The 13th Warrior film:

“Then the closest relative of the dead man, after they had placed the girl whom they have killed beside her master, came, took a piece of wood which he lighted at a fire, and walked backwards with the back of his head toward the boat and his face turned toward the people, with one hand holding the kindled stick and the other covering his anus, being completely naked, for the purpose of setting fire to the wood that had been made ready beneath the ship. Then the people came up with tinder and other firewood, each holding a piece of wood of which he had set fire to an end and which he put into the pile of wood beneath the ship. Thereupon the flames engulfed the wood, then the ship, the pavilion, the man, the girl, and everything in the ship. A powerful, fearful wind began to blow so that the flames became fiercer and more intense.”

From a historical standpoint, the 13th Warrior film holds some merit, or at least just enough to earn credibility among a wider audience. For a lack of a better analogy, it is akin to how Michael Crichton established a minimum of scientific precedent — based on lofty science, to say the least — to establish the premise of his book, and later film, Jurassic Park.

Where The 13th Warrior Gets It All Wrong

A keen observer will note that many of the more contestable features of Ibn Fadlan’s account made it onto the big screen, including the way the Rus bathed in the morning after a hard night of drinking. Michael Crichton stayed true to Ibn Fadlan’s narrative but neglected to research how historians regard these descriptions. When dealing with primary sources, it is important not only to consider the writer’s testimony but also their credibility and cultural lens. Hence, both the novel and the film depict a highly debatable testimony of Viking culture that clashes with many of the other primary sources on the same subject.

Whoever decided to adapt the novel to the big screen appears to have tried extremely hard to appear historically accurate, but also appears to have had no knowledge of the time period. Every detail the film attempts to pass off as a small history lesson is woefully wrong. Casting Antonio Banderas as a clean-shaven Ibn Fadlan aside (a man of his status would undoubtedly have had a beard following at least one pilgrimage to Mecca), we are first led to believe that the Rus rode mighty horses that put the Arab horses to shame. Historically, Scandinavian horses were small, while the world of Islam had a rich culture of husbandry whereby they bred large, gallant steeds. The 13th Warrior got that fact backward.

The historical inaccuracies abound from there. Many of the twelve Scandinavian warriors wear armor that would not have been available to anyone at the time, let alone them. The costume designers appear to have lazily borrowed equipment from other sword-and-sandal films such as Gladiator and Braveheart to compose the equipment of some of the characters. What audiences should understand is that when the main characters arrive in Hrothgar’s kingdom, the film (and book) essentially become complete fantasy. From the fatalistic belief system that is espoused by the main characters to the botched attempt at a holmgang, nearly every attempt at world-building deviates from the academic understanding of the Viking Age. 

Interestingly, the antagonists, called the Vendol, appear to be an amalgam of sorts. The name is obviously borrowed from the Vendel, which were the people who lived in Sweden in the period preceding the Viking Age. In character, they display the characteristics of cavemen and, curiously, the idea of the noble savage (an American concept applied to native tribes). And where did they get all the horses?! Michael Crichton is exceptionally imaginative. 

Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate?

Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate? Absolutely not. But it’s a whole lot of fun. As I discussed at length through several posts, historical fiction does not necessarily need to be all that accurate. In my interview with Bernard Cornwell, for example, he explained that as a historical fiction writer his first objective is to tell a compelling story and to be historically accurate second. In that spirit, Michael Crichton’s story about an Arabic man who travels to Sweden to fight flesh-eating cavemen is a successful attempt at entertaining the masses. Personally, I enjoyed the film for what it was: a fun adventure story.

The post Is The 13th Warrior Film Historically Accurate? appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

The Danevirke Receives World Heritage Site Status

One of the most important sites for the study of the Viking Age has received recognition this month from the Unesco World Heritage committee. The Danevirke, designated a world heritage site in July of 2018, was discovered in 1897 and has contributed tremendously to our understanding of the Vikings. A world heritage site designation will help to protect and preserve the site for future study and may secure funds from Unesco to further future research. 

What is the Danevirke?

Lorenz Frølich’s impression of Thyra Dannebod ordering the foundation of the Danevirke.

The Danevirke is a 40 kilometer (25 miles) long series of ditches and fortifications along the southern border of the Danish peninsula, Jutland, which effectively separated what was once the kingdom of the Danes and the Carolingian Empire. Archeological research estimates the first sections of the Danevirke as having been built as early as the sixth century. Current scholarship theorizes that the building of the fortifications was encouraged by constant internecine warfare between the inhabitants of the peninsula and their southern Germanic neighbors, the Saxons, and the Franks. In fact, this same period of conflict is cited by scholars as a significant cause for the departure of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to Britain.

Theories for what the Danevirke was are many-from a simple wall, akin to Hadrian’s wall, to a canal that served as a shipping channel. Interestingly, a recent find has helped to further the idea that the Danevirke may have been an important shipping route before and during the Viking Age. In 2010, archeologists discovered a (the) gateway through the wall, about five meters wide, that correlates with written descriptions of the gateway that connected Jutland with Charlemagne’s empire, and is described as having had an inn and a bordello (Read more about the discovery). The find helps to support the idea that the primary sources about the gateway through the Danevirke are, in fact, reliable.

Archeological evidence shows further fortifications began in the early 9th century, also described in the Royal Frankish Annals. They explain the Danish king Gudfred rebuilt the Danevirke specifically to repel a Frankish invasion. Archeological finds place more extensive construction in the time of Harald Bluetooth, and scholars disagree over which monarch was most responsible for the expansion of the more extensive fortifications that earned the Danevirke its later reputation as a symbol of the separation between the Danes and their southern Germanic neighbors.

The Future of the Danevirke as a World Heritage Site

To date, archaeologists believe they have uncovered less than five percent of the Danevirke, and that many more finds, such as burials and settlements, have yet to be discovered. The Danevirke is believed to have been a crucially important structure during the early medieval period for both warfare and trade. Located in Northern Germany, many parts of the structure are believed to lie beneath modern construction and infrastructure. As a world heritage site, archeologists may have a better chance of preventing more construction projects from permanently covering or destroying more of the Danevirke. 

You can read more about the new designation, as well as other sites that received the same honors this month, at smithsonianmag.com.

The post The Danevirke Receives World Heritage Site Status appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

American Vikings: Did the Greenland Norse take Native American Wives?

It’s a well-known fact of history that the Vikings got around, both figuratively and literally. They reached distant lands, as far as Bagdad in the Middle East and Newfoundland in North America, and they tended to leave behind far more than their trade goods. Vikings, as we best understand them, were prolific progenitors all across the world. They took wives in distant lands, they sometimes brought those wives back to Scandinavia, but predominantly they left behind their genes where they roved. Considering all of this, one question about the American Vikings* remains an elusive mystery to us all: did they take Native American wives in North America?

To answer this question, it is essential to explore the evidence we have for Viking settlements in North America, as well as the sagas, which tell the story of the activities of the American Vikings. From the evidence, we may then deduce the plausibility of whether or not they took native brides.

*A quick note about nomenclature: throughout this article, I will be using the term “American Vikings” to describe the Greenland Norse who established colonies in the Americas. I have used the term interchangeably with “Greenlanders” and “Greenland Norse” in certain portions, particularly those where the Greenlanders were forced to abandon their colonization attempts. All of these terms refer to the same group of people who attempted to establish themselves on the American continent.

The American Vikings: Origins

The story of the American Vikings begins in Norway in the second half of the tenth century when a man named Thorvald found himself on the wrong side of the law. Little is known about what exactly he did to land himself in that position, but we do know it involved the killing of a few people. Thorvald fled into exile and moved to Iceland where he believed he would have a fresh start. 

Eric the Red (Eiríkur rauði). Woodcut frontispiece from the 1688 Icelandic publication of Arngrímur Jónsson’s Gronlandia (Greenland). Fiske Icelandic Collection.

Thorvald found redemption in Iceland where he became a farmer and raised a family. After his death, his son Erik took charge of the farm. It did not take long for his likeness to his father to shine through. The Sagas of the Icelanders tell us this of Erik’s first run-in with the law:

Then did Eirik’s thralls cause a landslip on the estate of Valthjof, at Valthjofsstadr. Eyjolf the Foul, his kinsman, slew the thralls (slaves) beside Skeidsbrekkur (slopes of the race-course), above Vatzhorn. In return Eirik slew Eyjolf the Foul; he slew also Hrafn the Dueller, at Leikskalar (playbooths). Gerstein, and Odd of Jorfi, kinsman of Eyjolf, were found willing to follow up his death by a legal prosecution; and then was Eirik banished from Haukadalr. 

Erik’s spat with his neighbor over a few slain slaves landed him in exile, just like his father. According to Icelandic law of the time, his property would be confiscated, and no one would be allowed to shelter him. Others could kill him without cause and with impunity. Interestingly, the court who decided his punishment for the murder of Eyjolf agreed against full outlawry; they instead sentenced him to a lesser sentence and ordered him to pay a fine and leave Iceland for at least three years. The lesser punishment allowed Erik to gather his property, family, and kinsman and move. 

With no land and no option to return to Iceland or Norway, Erik had to find a new place for his family to live and thrive. He had heard through stories told in Iceland of a man named Gunnbjørn Ulfsson who, while sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course. When Gunnbjørn finally arrived in Iceland, he reported having discovered a new land far in the north where none had ever before sailed. Left with few other options, Erik followed a rumor across the northern Atlantic and made landfall in what would one day be called Greenland.

Summer in the Greenland coast circa the year 1000 by Carl Rasmussen

According to Erik’s Saga, Erik spent three years exploring Greenland’s coastline. Having satisfied his sentence with Icelandic law, he returned to Iceland and reported what he had discovered. His saga reads: 

“In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, ‘Because,’ said he, ‘men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.’”

Thus began three centuries of colonization of Greenland by Scandinavians. It is from this colony that the first voyages to, and colonization attempts of, America got their start. The story of the Greenland colony is a fascinating one, but what is essential to understand for this article is that Scandinavians had colonized Greenland and began to push evermore West.

The First European Settlements in America

Statue of Thorfinn Karlsefni is Philadelphia

A few years later, a man named Bjarni Herjolfson set sail for Greenland to visit his father. He drifted off course and found himself a long way off from where he had intended to sail. When he corrected his course and continued along his journey, he spotted new land to the west, which he reported to the Greenlanders when he arrived. His accidental discovery inspired attempts by the Greenlanders to find and to explore the western lands. The Saga of the Greenlanders relates to us five separate voyages of discovery, led by Erik’s son Leif.

Leif Erikson is perhaps the most famous Viking Age Scandinavian of them all. He is credited with discovering the American continent centuries before Columbus and has earned a place in popular culture in both North America and Europe. For all the attention he receives, the Saga of Erik the Red gives him little credit. In contrast to the Saga of the Greenlanders, where Leif plays a central role, the Saga of Erik the Red condenses the account of the discovery of America into a single voyage and credits a man named Thorfinn Karlsefni with leading the expedition and with the discovery of Vinland, even though the first Greenlander to set foot in the Americas was Leif.

When the Greenlanders set sail for North America, they searched for ideal locations to establish a new colony. They named the places they found on their way in ways that have allowed historians to figure out their modern equivalents, and to piece together the trajectory of their voyage. For example, they named one place Helluland, or Land of Stone Slabs, which historians have associated with Baffin Island.  Next, they discovered a land with thick forests of spruce and larch, which they called Markland, and further on they sailed into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where they discovered a land they called Vinland.

Coast of the Remote Peninsula in Sam Ford Fjord, northeast Baffin Island

The Saga of the Greenlanders names only one settlement in America, Leifsbudir, or Leif’s camp. No one knows for sure where it was, but historians have placed the settlements of the American Vikings named by the Saga of Erik the Red. The first was Straumfjord, and it is the settlement mentioned in the sagas most likely to have been the one found in archeological digs in L’Anse Aux Meadows in Newfoundland. A second settlement, called Hóp, was used transiently to launch expeditions for timber to ship home to Greenland.

L’Anse aux Meadows has proven an exceptionally rich archeological site that has greatly informed our understanding of the American Vikings. We know from the evidence that they brought cattle and other livestock, built houses made of turf, and had ironworks. Interestingly, no barns or structures for livestock have been found, which has led some historians to theorize that the settlements in North America were never meant to be permanent colonization, but rather a logging operation to send timber home to Greenland where there were no trees.

The sagas spend little time describing life in the North American settlement, but quickly move to describe the interactions between the Greenlanders and the Native Americans who already lived in the area. They called the natives “Skrælling,” and at first relations between them were amicable. It did not last.

The American Vikings’ Relations With the Skrælling Turns Sour.

Vikings and Skraelings by Angus McBride. Photo credit: Osprey Publishing.

Relations with the Skrælling began on as positive a note as one might have hoped at the time. The Saga of Erik the Red tells of a vast host of Skrælling in canoes who appeared near the Norse settlement of Hóp one morning to investigate them. The Greenlanders set up a market and traded cloth for pelts and other goods. All was well until one of the bulls, who roamed the grasslands freely with the other cattle, charged at some of the Skrælling and sent them running.

“Now it came to pass that a bull, which belonged to Karlsefni’s people, rushed out of the wood and bellowed loudly at the same time. The Skrælingar, frightened, rushed away to their canoes, and rowed south along the coast. There was then nothing seen of them for three weeks together.”

When the Skrælling returned, they attacked the Greenlanders with strange and frightening weapons. Caught off guard by the attack, the Greenlanders retreated. Sole Karlsefni’s wife, Freydis, stood her ground. She called out to the men and said, “Why run you away from such worthless creatures, stout men that ye are, when, as seems to me likely, you might slaughter them like so many cattle? Let me but have a weapon, I think I could fight better than any of you.”

She faced the Skrælling, pounded her breast with her sword, and sent them running for their canoes.

Eventually, the Greenlanders realized that they would not endure long with constant attacks from the Skrælling, so they abandoned the settlement of Hóp to return with their livestock to the main settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows. It is here that the mention Greenlander-Skrælling interactions end in the Saga of Erik the Red, and the fate of the main settlement remains unknown. 

Did the Vikings take Native American Wives?

The Saga of the Greenlanders mentions that the Vinland colony had a major demographic problem: most of those who moved there were men. With women in short supply, and considering the Vikings’ reputation for proactive procreation, it would not be a considerable stretch of the imagination to think that they may have satisfied their needs and desires with the locals. However, the evidence for Viking-Skrælling coupling is close to nil, and the accounts given in the sagas do not inspire confidence.

Let’s start first with the archeological evidence. At L’Anse aux Meadows, there is evidence of trade between the American Vikings and the Skrælling in the form of nuts that only exist many miles to the south. Perhaps the Greenlanders sailed further inland, but the more plausible explanation is that the natives traded the nuts for other goods. From an archeological perspective, there were Viking-Skrælling relations, the extent of which is unclear.

With little evidence archeologically, we must turn to the sagas for answers. Nowhere in the sagas is there any mention that a Greenlander took a Skrælling wife. We do, however, have some thin evidence on how the Greenlanders viewed the Skrællings. Recall the incident where the men fled a Skrælling attack, and the only one brave enough to face them was Freydis. She called the Skrælling “worthless creatures” which tells us that there may have been a measure of dehumanization propagated by the Greenlanders. More disturbing is the account in the Saga of Erik the Red where Greenlanders happened upon some sleeping Skrælling and just slaughtered them. If there is evidence for anything in the sagas, it’s that the Greenlanders were unequivocally hostile toward the Skrælling.

If there is no archeological evidence and no textual evidence in the primary sources, what was the point of going through the whole story of the American Vikings? A recent paper published by Agnar Helgason of deCODE Genetics and the University of Iceland turned up some surprising and controversial evidence that at least one Skrælling bride may have been brought back to Iceland. The proof is in the DNA of today’s Icelanders. The findings have sparked all manner of rumor and conspiracy theories, and have led to a lot of people asking the question: Did the Vikings take Native American Wives?

The study, which dates back to 2010, found 80 living Icelanders with a genetic marker that is only found in Native American populations. Agnar Helgason proposes that the variation began with a single woman who passed down the variant through the generations. Genetic testing is still in its infancy, and even Helgason admits that his findings are not concrete. In a 2010 National Geographic article, he explained, “It’s possible that the DNA variation came from mainland Europe, which had infrequent contact with Iceland in the centuries preceding 1700. But this would depend on a European, past or present, carrying the variation, which so far has never been found.”

There is no clear and straightforward answer to the question of whether the Vikings took Native American brides. To date, there is no evidence, genetic or otherwise, that any Greenlander DNA was passed along in Native American populations. What we can say is that from the archeological and textual evidence, there is no indication that this was the case. Especially in regards to the Sagas, it appears the Vikings had no interest in the natives except to slaughter them. Even if the recent genetic evidence proposed by Agnar Helgason proves correct — and it’s relatively shoddy evidence — it would only indicate that one Native American made it into the Icelandic gene pool, which would mean whatever the story, it was an isolated incident and does not constitute any trend.

Did the Vikings take Native American wives? For now, the answer is probably not. The answer could change, however, if new evidence emerges to prove otherwise. As always, check out my selected bibliography to find out more about the Vikings and their history.

The post American Vikings: Did the Greenland Norse take Native American Wives? appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

How Tall Were the Vikings?

There exists a peculiar perception among the general public that the Vikings stood taller than other Europeans of the Viking Age. Books, shows, and even some notable museum displays paint a portrait of tall and powerful men with keen skill at killing others. Luckily, the Vikings buried many of their dead in a way that preserved their bones and, through diligent osteoarcheology, we can say with some degree of confidence how tall Viking Age Scandinavians were. How tall were the Vikings? Read on to find out.

How to answer the question: How tall were the Vikings?

As with everything to do with the Viking Age, nothing is certain, nor is it likely written in stone (both figuratively and literally). The evidence for how tall or short the Vikings may have been can only be deduced from those pieces of evidence we can find. Written sources on the subject are unreliable for two reasons: first, they were written by the victims of Viking raids (clerics) who often embellished certain details; second, the most detailed of the written sources were composed long after the fact, and thus have little chance of being accurate. Thus, archaeology stands as the only sound method for determining the average height of a Viking Age Scandinavian.

Luckily for us, this questions has been explored by historians and archaeologists alike since the beginning of Viking studies. As with every issue I attempt to tackle in my blog, the answer is not straightforward. We must first take into account that the Viking Age is a broadly defined period that spans more than 300 years. Also important to note in such an investigation is the fact that geographic distinctions, variations in weather and harvest, as well as plagues, warfare, and any number of other factors can affect a population’s height in a particular location at a specific time.

With this in mind, the following is some of the research that has been done on the subject.

How tall were the Vikings in Iceland?

In 1958, Jon Steffanson composed an essay titled “Stature as a Criterion of the Nutritional Level of Viking Age Icelanders” in which he compiled known data about the heights of men and women found in Icelandic cemeteries that date to the Viking Age. Iceland is a fantastic place to do such research since the people who settled the island broadly qualify as Vikings. As luck would have it, my friends at medievalists.net have published the essay for all to read for free (click the title of the article above to read it).

To summarise his findings, Steffanson looked at the bones of 86 individuals who lived and died in Iceland in the 10th century (except for a select few skeletons that predate the others). He found that the average man of the time stood between 171 and 175 cm tall, and the average woman stood between 157 and 161 cm tall. Interestingly, when Steffanson compared these figures to 20th century Icelanders, he found that the average height of both men and women had remained relatively consistent. Icelanders only began to grow taller, on average, starting in the 1950’s, which is precisely what we tend to find in other European nations.

How tall were the Vikings in Sweden and Denmark?

Viking Age Scandinavians in Sweden and Denmark do not appear to have been any taller or shorter on average than their Icelandic counterparts. In his new book, The Age of the Vikings, Anders Winroth explores the subject of heights not to answer the question of how tall the Vikings were, but how their heights fluctuated as a criterion for how healthy and well fed these populations were (similar to what Jon Steffensen had done for Icelanders in 1958). In regards to the Fjälkinge grave site in Sweden, he writes of the Viking Age skeletons:

“In the Fjälkinge grave field, adult males were 160-185 centimetres tall while women measured 151-171 centimetres.” (pg. 163)

Concerning the averages, these heights are on par with those of the Icelanders of the same period. What’s more interesting is that the Fjälkinge contains graves of generations who were buried before and after the Viking Age. These graves show a slight dip in the average heights of men and women in the Viking Age. From this grave site (and this site alone), it appears that Scandinavians were shorter during the Viking Age than before and afterwards. What these findings mean I will leave to another blog for another day.

In Denmark, similar research has been done to find the average heights of men and women during the Viking Age. This research, as summarised by Mr Winroth, found the following: “The average height of Viking Age skeletons in Denmark is 171 for men and 158 centimetres for women.” (pg. 163)

How did the Vikings compare with other Europeans?

Conveniently, someone did the research to answer this question as well and summarised his findings in an easy-to-read-chart found at the end of his essay, Health and Nutrition in the Preindustrial Era: Insights from a Millennium of Average Heights in Northern Europe. Looking at data from archaeological findings, Richard Steckel of Ohio State University, an economist by training, found that Vikings Age Scandinavians were no taller than people in other places at that time, including the British Isles and Mainland Europe.

Things to keep in mind about the Vikings

Remember that Viking Age Scandinavia was a stratified society. Historian Neil Price recently proposed in an article for National Geographic that Viking Age Scandinavian society was set up more like the plantation system in the Southern U.S. states before the American Civil War than anything else.

“This was a slave economy,” Price explains. “Slavery has received hardly any attention in the past 30 years, but now we have opportunities using archaeological tools to change this.”

Due to the inequalities of Viking Age Scandinavian societies, the more prosperous and healthier members of the community would have grown taller than their servants and slaves. Also to note is the fact that the Vikings had to import slaves to meet the demands of their farming system, so there was a lot of intermixing of populations going on that could have affected heights.

Another point to note that may interest some of you is defining what the word Viking means, what the word describes, and how that might affect how we interpret the findings. If we use the word Viking to describe all Scandinavians of the Viking Age, then the sources and evidence discussed above make sense and satisfactorily answer our question. However, if we restrict our meaning of the word Viking to only those who left and roved foreign lands, we will find the above discussion lacking in every respect.

The Takeaway

We only have the evidence we have. Many factors can influence a population’s height, and considering the geographical dispersal of their population and the time span separating the first Vikings to the last, it’s hard to say definitively what their average height was. What we can say through archaeological evidence is that Vikings were not taller or shorter than their southern neighbours. We can also say that, similar to other European countries, the men and women of Viking Age Scandinavia were shorter than the people who live there today.

Learn more about the Vikings by reading some of these books:

[image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error]

The post How Tall Were the Vikings? appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

Drinking Horns: Were They Really Used by the Vikings?

Modern portrayals of the Vikings seem to be obsessed with horns, particularly in regards to those worn on the head (as part of the helmet) and those used for drinking alcohol. While the former has been proven false time and again – THE VIKINGS DID NOT WEAR HORNS – the second use, drinking from a horn, is a much different story. According to modern depictions, Vikings have a pseudo-monopoly on drinking horns, but the Vikings certainly were not the first to use them. Were Viking drinking horns really a thing? They were, but perhaps not exactly how you had envisioned.

What did the Vikings use to drink alcohol?

Drinking horns have been found scattered across the Viking Age archaeological record, from grave finds to pictorial evidence. No evidence is more compelling than the depiction of a drinking party, painted on a stone in Gotland in the 8th century, and which depicts every attendee of the party holding a drinking horn.

Does this mean all Vikings drank exclusively from drinking horns? No. We must remember that the artist was likely paid by a chieftain who was much concerned about his enduring reputation, and therefore he would have asked the artist to make it look like the best party there ever was.

The reality is that the Vikings would have used whatever was available to them to drink their ale. The most primitive vessels may have been small cones made of rolled birch or rowan bark. Bowls and goblets would have been the most commonly used vessels to drink, made from whatever material the owner of it could afford. Believe it or not, some Vikings could afford glass chalices, though these would have been extremely rare.

What place did drinking horns have in Viking society?

Drinking horns, historians believe, would have been a luxury item used almost exclusively for special occasions and rituals (such as ritual drinking). Horns were difficult to procure, mainly since animals were exceedingly expensive to raise in Viking Age Scandinavia. Hence, they held tremendous value, and only a wealthy chieftain or his family could have afforded one.

This does not mean less wealthy folk did not also enjoy the occasional drink from a horn. Viking culture demanded largesse from chieftains and kings. Leaders recruited and retained the loyalty of their warriors by showering them with gifts. A polished, decorated drinking horn would have made any warrior of the day extremely happy.

Were drinking horns invented by the Vikings?

No. Drinking horns were nothing new by the time the first Vikings set sail for Lindisfarne. In fact, drinking horns had had a long history dating back to antiquity. Julius Caesar, famed emperor of Rome, observed the use of drinking horns by the Gauls (who lived in modern-day France). He described their use in his book, De Bello Gallico:

“The Gaulish horns in size, shape, and kind are very different from those of our cattle. They are much sought-after, their rim fitted with silver, and they are used at great feasts as drinking vessels.”

Further Reading:

[image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error] [image error]

The post Drinking Horns: Were They Really Used by the Vikings? appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

IAmA Proof for C.J. Adrien on 9/28/18

The post IAmA Proof for C.J. Adrien on 9/28/18 appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

How historical is historical fiction? An Interview with Bestselling Author Eric Schumacher

In July of 2017, I attended a panel discussion on the authenticity of historical fiction at the International Medieval Congress at the University of Leeds. While several authors of note were present, conspicuously absent were a few who I thought would have meaningfully contributed to the discussion. Chief among them was Bernard Cornwell, whom I interviewed this past September. Today I have the honor of interviewing another author who I believe would have made an excellent addition to the panel: bestselling author Eric Schumacher, author of the book series Hakon’s Saga.

The topic of the round table was defined as follows: “Fiction offers a degree of creative freedom unavailable to the scholar, yet as both readers and critics, we desire authenticity in these texts – particularly because, for many, such texts are the first point of contact with the medieval world. Thus, historical fiction as a genre raises important questions. How ‘historical’ is it? How does the fiction writer balance creativity against the restraints of historical ‘accuracy’? What is the relationship between research and storytelling? This round table discussion will explore these issues, as well as practical aspects of writing and publication, with published fiction writers whose works can be broadly classed as ‘medieval historical fiction’.”

Eric Schumacher, thank you for taking the time to answer the panel questions.

How historical is historical fiction? What does the term historical fiction mean to you?

I would like to think that historical fiction is very historical. Meaning, it should transport the reader back to that bygone period in time. Readers should get a good sense of what it was to live in that time and in that setting, based on what we know. To me, historical fiction is the telling of a good story in that historical context.

What is the relationship between research and storytelling?

I think research is great for unearthing stories, for putting historical facts in order, and for understanding what it was like to live in the past; but it should never get in the way of a good story. As a writer, you want the characters to come alive on the page, you want the plot to carry you along, and you want the setting to lend to the authenticity of the story. Research can and should support all of these things, but in a way that doesn’t bog down the story with unnecessary detail.

What is historical ‘accuracy?’ Can authenticity exist in fiction writing?

My books take place in the Viking Age. We know much of events that occurred in that age and how the people lived, but new facts are coming to light all the time. Given that, it’s impossible to be 100% accurate, but with thorough research, we can certainly try our best. That accuracy lends itself to authenticity. However, there are certain judgement calls an author has to make for the sake of the story that can affect authenticity. The hope, for me, is to find a good balance between those two.

How do you balance accuracy, authenticity, and creativity?

That’s a great question. I start off by staying as close to the facts as we know them. That’s not always easy, especially for the Viking Age, when facts are in short supply. For instance, birth dates of certain people can vary in historical texts. Dates of certain events can vary. The location of battles can vary. So there’s much we don’t know, but there is still enough to provide plenty of historical guideposts. Once those are set, I then overlay a story, and try my best to put the two together in such a way as to tell the most entertaining, and most plausible, story possible.

Where authenticity plays a big role for me is not only in the setting, but in the mindset and motivations of the characters. It’s all too easy to overlay a modern way of thinking on an ancient character. So I frequently stop myself to ask whether I’m approaching a problem from a modern point of view or from a Viking point of view. Of course, we have no way of knowing if I’m 100% accurate in that thinking, but there’s enough research out there to at least point the way.

Sometimes, it’s a judgement call whether to exercise our creative license for the sake of the story or for the sake of authenticity. For instance, authenticity demands that I use the old Norse form for names of people, places, or things. I usually use the modern form. Why? Because I’d rather have the reader focus on the story than try to pronounce a place name like Þrœndalǫg for the sake of authenticity. Others will disagree, but that’s OK.

How do you access research materials? Does academia hold a monopoly on the information necessary for historical fiction writing?

Written research materials are everywhere (in libraries, online, etc), but those materials don’t hold a monopoly on the information necessary for historical fiction writing. Rather, I would say that they give me a skeleton for my writing. For instance, with research you can dig up interesting stories that might make a good novel. You can find fascinating factoids to use in your writing. You can gather dates of certain events that affect your plot either directly or tangentially. That said, relying solely on research for stories about Vikings isn’t always possible because scientists and archaeologists and historians are still putting the pieces of the Viking Age together! That’s partly why I love writing about this period in time — I get to dream up plausible relationships between what we know occurred, what might have occurred, what certain people might have been like, and so on. You get to put the meat on the bones of history, and I love that!

What is the responsibility of the historical fiction writer?

I would say there are two. The first, and most important, is to tell a good story. The second is to use history to help tell that story, but to do so responsibly. Overload your story with historical facts and you end up with an historical text book. Embellish or change facts too much and you end up with something closer to fantasy.

More about Eric Schumacher

Eric Schumacher is an American historical novelist who currently resides in Santa Barbara, California with his wife and two children. He was born and raised in Los Angeles and attended college at the University of San Diego.

At a very early age, Eric Schumacher discovered his love for writing and medieval European history, as well as authors like J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Those discoveries continue to fuel his imagination and influence the stories he tells. His first novel, God’s Hammer, was published in 2005. God’s Hammer is currently the #1 bestseller in Norse and Icelandic fiction on Amazon.

Eric Schumacher’s Books:

The post How historical is historical fiction? An Interview with Bestselling Author Eric Schumacher appeared first on C.J. Adrien.

Why Are the Vikings So Popular?

For those who study the Vikings professionally, there is an intrinsic fascination that drives their desire to study the Viking Age in the same way that others are drawn to ancient times, the medieval period, or even contemporary history. Yet, the Vikings’ popularity also manifests itself in popular culture, and has captivated a wide audience for nearly two centuries. From Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, a 19th century opera based on Norse and Germanic mythology, to today’s Vikings on the History Channel, the Vikings have captivated the imaginations of people across the world. This brings up an intriguing question: Why are the Vikings so popular?

Disclaimer: This is not a particularly historical post, but rather my own musings on why the Vikings have become so popular in popular culture. Everyone, it seems, has some notion of who the Vikings were, whether true or a fabrication, and the appeal of the Vikings appears to be spreading beyond Western nations. Here I will examine why the Vikings first became popular (in a very condensed summary) and why they are more popular than ever today.

First, Let’s Talk About Scandinavia

Scandinavia is arguably the easiest place to define the Vikings’ popularity. They are the region of origin of the Vikings, and Viking history is their history. Fascination with the Vikings in Scandinavia is akin to a fascination with chivalry in France, with the Moors in Spain, or the Romans in Italy. It is part of their national history and narrative, and it is their ancestry (for the most part). Therefore, the popularity of the Vikings in Scandinavia is easy to see and to understand. When I broach the subject of the popularity of the Vikings, I do so for areas outside of Scandinavia, and the reasons I will postulate for their popularity will not necessarily apply to Scandinavian countries.

How the Vikings First Gained Popularity in Western Europe

Beginning in the mid 19th century, the governments of Europe, both nascent democracies and established autocracies, sought to bend the narrative of history to build or increase the authority of their governments. In France, for example, the fledging revolutionary government created an official national narrative in which modern France was the product of the Carolingian empire, a holy Christian institution that helped to stabilize Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. In England, the official historical narrative began with the Anglo-Saxon kings, like Alfred the Great, to emphasize that the English monarchy had a long and rich history, and to reinforce their legitimacy to the people they ruled. These narratives were used to incite national fervor and support for the government, a phenomenon we call nationalism today.

It is within the context of nascent nationalism that the study of the Vikings began. Not surprisingly, the Vikings were immediately painted as a heathen enemy who threatened Christian civilization and had to be defeated (us against them). In fact, the triumph of Christendom over “the ravages of heathen men”, as written in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, was regarded as a pivotal, divinely ordained achievement, exploited by the governments of Europe as a means to further incite national pride and reinforce their legitimacy to govern.

This early historical construct of the Viking Age has created a litany of inaccurate perceptions of the Vikings that persist to today. For the history buffs out there, I share your pain. But it is the fictional representations of the Vikings, first begun in the 19th century, and perpetuated until today, that has led to what they represent to popular culture. However inaccurate, their popularity is directly derived from the caricatures popular culture has created for them based on shaky historical interpretation (and fabrication).

What is a Viking in Popular Culture?

Let’s put the historical Vikings aside for a moment and define what a Viking is in popular culture. To do this fairly (albeit anecdotally), I asked my wife, who knows close to nothing about Viking history, to describe a Viking. Here’s what she said:

“They were brutes. Bearded, dirty, mean and violent. Strong and superstitious. Didn’t they believe in magic? Just…just bad. But kinda sexy, too? I don’t know.”

Believe it or not, she’s never watched the History Channel’s Vikings, but she essentially described Ragnar Lothbrok, the show’s protagonist. Love it or hate it, the show has created the perfect caricature of what a Viking is to popular culture, minus the horned helmets. And it is this caricature that has allowed the Vikings to conquer popular culture.

How the Vikings Conquered Popular Culture

There are many subjects that have captivated modern audiences: Vampires, Werewolves, Wizards and Witches, and Vikings. Wait…how do Vikings fit in with Vampires? To answer this question, let’s first deconstruct why Vampires have become popular in recent times.

They’re ancient: Vampires are allegedly ancient creatures that began to roam the earth in the distant past.

They’re mysterious: For all we think we know about Vampires, they are still incredibly mysterious. They only reveal themselves to a select few, and their origins are always cast in shadow.

They’re dangerous: Vampires are first and foremost killers. The danger they pose makes our imaginations run wild with fear, which excites us.

They’re immoral/do not share our sense of morality: Vampires are a great “other” who live outside the bounds of our society and do not adhere to our societally imposed moral constructs.

They’re a forbidden pleasure: You’re not supposed to like Vampires. They’re the bad guys. So being attracted to one in a sexual way is a forbidden pleasure. As we all know, forbidden pleasures are a huge turn-on for many people.

If we start to run through the list with the Vikings, we quickly start to realize that they fit the bill. Are they ancient? Yes. Are they mysterious? Of course! Are they dangerous? The most. Are they immoral? Duh…Ragnar! Are they a forbidden pleasure? Considering they have been painted as “the other” for nearly two centuries, I’d say so! And thanks to Harlequin Romances, I think we can say with relative certainty that there’s a certain sex appeal to them.

Now, I could delve into the psychological reasons why all of these traits are attractive to broad audiences, but I’m not a psychologist. All I know is that people are attracted to these sorts of things, and the Vikings, as defined in popular culture, possess the right “stuff” to have broad appeal.

Is the Popular Culture Portrayal of Vikings Bad?

There are many who would argue that the popular culture portrayal of the Vikings is a tremendous disservice to society. It’s reflective of how poorly most people understand or care to understand history, and a bane on the real study of the Vikings by academics. I argue the opposite.

In an age where history and the arts are increasingly lacking funding, the rise of Vikings in popular culture has actually been a benefit to Viking studies. Interest in the subject has led to tremendous advances in the field in the past two decades. Every week, it seems, there is a new discovery, or a newly established dig to expand our understanding of the Vikings’ past. Funding in academia is a fickle thing, yet it seems Viking studies are in less of a shortage of such funds than other subjects, particularly in Europe.

For me, it is more in the interest of us all to embrace the aspects of the Vikings that give them broad appeal, and to leverage their popularity to further the funding and research of the real Vikings, as well as other topics. Understanding the past is a tremendous benefit to our society, so if enduring watching people troll around with horned helmets on Halloween helps to expand our breadth of knowledge in some way, in my opinion, it’s worth it.

There is a limit to this benefit, however, particularly when fictitious caricatures of the Vikings are used to legitimize racist or intolerant groups. An unfortunate reality with the popular portrayal of Vikings is that it has been far too easy for white supremacist groups to bastardize the historical Vikings to suit their ideologies. This, of course, is a conversation for another post, but it is worth noting in regards to whether we should allow the popular culture portrayal of Vikings to endure unchallenged.

Why do you think the Vikings are so popular? I welcome your thoughts in the comments section below.

The post Why Are the Vikings So Popular? appeared first on C.J. Adrien.