C.J. Adrien's Blog, page 26

Vikings Episode 208 Earns High Marks for Writing

Again, the drama continues in beautiful fashion with Ragnar’s deformed son’s birth, Lagertha asserting her power, and the growing bond between Rollo and his nephew. Rollo, in my opinion, is the most intriguing and well developed character in the series. He is fallible, but has a strong moral center which always pulls him back. I am happy that he is picking up the slack for Ragnar in helping Bjorn develop as a warrior. Ragnar’s hubris is getting the best of him, which is consistent with human nature. Floki’s attitude towards Ragnar is a very interesting development, and he too wrestles with his own success within the shadow of his former friend. Thus far, the episode is everything I have come to expect from Vikings.

Where does the episode go wrong? Eh, I am enjoying the series too much to nitpick anymore. The writers are doing something very right: they are keeping the main plot and character stories compelling and interesting. Each character is different and appeals to different types of viewers. As mentioned before, I believe Rollo is the most interesting character. He speaks to me insofar as he makes mistakes, he accepts his flaws, and makes the best of ever situation he enters. He experienced the most hardship in sacrifice for Ragnar’s ascension and received the least among of recognition from his peers. Arguably, the peer I speak of all died in season one.

This continues to be the best show on television, so keep watching, keep enjoying, and most of all have fun!

King Arthur Was Not English

The anglophone world is all too willing to assume that the legend of King Arthur originated in England, and is thus English. King Arthur’s legend in reality likely originated outside of the British Isles. Many people have heard of the alternative versions of the myth, including Arthur’s humble beginnings as Arthurius, a Roman centurion. All of these are as fabricated as the English myth. The myth does, however, begin with the Romans, but not in the way Hollywood has attempted to portray it. It certainly does not begin in England; it begins in Bretagne.

We begin with a simple but important fact: the Romans kept impressive records. In Bretagne — Brittany in English — archeological digs of Roman sites have uncovered a large array of evidence to paint a fairy accurate picture of the region under Roman control at the end of the 4th century (Under Emperor Valentinius). We know for sure that there were several large garrisons on the peninsula, as well as what the Romans called an “Atlantic Wall”. The wall served to protect settlements from coastal raiders. No, these were not the Vikings, though they resembled them closely. These raiders were the Franks. Prior to their vast expansion under Clovis, the Franks had a rich maritime tradition, which they eventually abandoned to pursue conquests on land in the vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, we also know that the Roman prefect in control of Bretagne (known then as Armorica) in the early 5th century also managed the failing and shrinking Provincia Britannia (Great Britain). At the end of Roman rule in England in the 5th century, a mass exodus of Britons fled to Bretagne to which they lent their name.

The Romans withdrew from Britain and stationed their troops in Armorica to attempt to protect the mainland from barbarian invasion. It is here that the mythic Arthur would have made his triumphant debut as the defender of the Britons. There are no viable candidates who fit the bill exactly; the legend could have originated from any number of brave warriors during the ensuing wars at the collapse of the Roman Empire. In 405 C.E. a particularly cold winter allowed masses of Germanic peoples to cross the frozen Rhine river into Gaul where the Romans would attempt to stop them. This accumulation of Franks, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths pressured the Romans to act. The Romans knew that the Britons had fought these barbarians before, and thus their garrisons were called forth to defend the empire in a series of brutal conflicts in the north of Gaul. Among the Britons was general Gerontius, a candidate for Arthur of sorts, who united split factions of the Roman army to withstand a massive campaign by the Germans. Unfortunately, Gerontius was killed in battle.

Now that we understand the course of historical events, which is important in deciphering the myth in terms of place names, we can analyze the myths themselves. Armorica, or Bretagne, was known after the Roman period as Britain, whereas modern day England would only much later reclaim its name as Great Britain. We must also recognize that the population of Bretagne at the time was more homogeneously Briton than England who had already intermingled heavily between the Angles, the Saxons, the Britons, and the varieties of other tribes present (welsh, pict, etc). Therefore, when Arthur claims he is “King of the Britons” he is referring to the Britons of Bretagne, not England.

Then there are the legends. Sir Thomas Mallory was the first to write the legend in his masterpiece Le Mort D’Arthur (a French name) in which he makes no distinction between which Britain, and which Britons, Arthur was king of. Because he was English, and because he wrote the legend in English, it was assumed he wrote about the English. Across the English channel, Chrétien de Troyes wrote his Arthurian legend, Lancelot du Lac, in which we all know he added a typically French knight who slept with the king’s wife. Mallory later wrote in a journal of his contemporary, “leave it to a Frenchman to take a perfectly goode English tale and ruin it with adultery”. While humorous, this small change in the story is an important one. Lancelot was the French knight, with a French name (this is true of both Mallory and de Troyes). Following the logical composition of name etymology, that must mean that Camelot must have been French as well (Lancelot, Camelot). The most compelling evidence in the legend that points to Arthur being French is that it is recognized throughout in the first writings of the legend that all the events occurred on the mainland (i.e. continent), and that Arthur would only sail to the “Isle of Avalon” after his death.

During the 100 year’s war, the legend took new significance. The king of England wanted to rally the support of his knights by creating the Order of the Garter, an Arthurian based organization for knights which included a round table. It was during this time that the divide between Arthur’s national origins began. Similarly, the king of France created the Order of the Star, similarly based on the Arthurian legends. Thus, the legend of Arthur, king of the Britons, has since been the subject of controversy and disagreement between the French and the English (although, what hasn’t?). I assure you, however, that Arthur was most certainly not British nor French. He was Briton, from Brittany. If you visit Bretagne today, you can even walk the path supposedly walked in the enchanted forest were he removed excalibur from a stone. Finally, a song:

Ils ont les chapeaux ronds,

Vive la Bretagne,

Ils ont les couilles en plomb,

Vive les Bretons!

(They have big round hats,

Long live Brittany,

They have balls of steel,

Long live the Britons)

Vikings in Brittany: Part III

Muddied and trite, the Bretons began a long period of restoration to repair damage done by the Vikings. Still, the overlords from the north seemed a new permanent feature to the Breton landscape. Raids intensified in the continuing decades after the apt Alain the Great — who expelled the Vikings under Solomon — died without a suitable or qualified heir. The situation grew more difficult when a Viking force comprised primarily of Danes sacked and occupied Nantes a second time. Defeated, the Bretons retreated to their countryside where they squabbled in civil war over who should lead them to victory against the invaders.

Then, a glimmer of hope appeared in 913 C.E. with the birth of a child. His legend says that saints attended his birth and he received many blessings. In actuality, his birth would have been as unremarkable as any other, only this child was the grandson of Alain the Great. Through a strangely contrived marriage, the child received an invitation from his godfather King Athelstan of Wessex to live under the protection of his kingdom. No manuscripts have survived which tell us of the child’s upbringing in England, but he emerged a giant among men. His name was Alain Barbe-Torte. He earned his name from the uneven cut of his beard, which was a trait he shared with his grandfather according to one chronicle.

Alain held all the virtues of an effective leader: charismatic, cunning, quick-whited, and of course full of the utmost prowess in combat. Upon his return he laid claim to the throne of Brittany. The little resistance he encountered was squashed. It took little more than a fortnight for Alain to gain support from the entire kingdom. Thus began one of the more aggressive and seldom known military campaigns of the Viking Age. Alain led an army beginning in Normandy where many Vikings entered into Brittany having been forced out of the Seine river valley by Charles the Bald. It is difficult to imagine that Vikings could be the victims of a massacre, but at the hands of Alain Barbe-Torte they certainly were.

After cleansing the northern territories of Brittany of the Vikings, Alain marched south: straight for Nantes. As they passed through Viking held villages Alain’s troops left a wake of devastation behind them. Further and further they marched into the Loire river territory, and the more nervous the usurpers of Nantes became. The final push besieged Nantes where, conveniently enough, a fresh fleet of Vikings had sailed up the river to sack the city. Alain recruited these Vikings to help him sack the city. His agreement with them included something unusual: a settlement charter. The agreement was that if these Northmen joined him in battle, Alain would grant them rights to fertile lands in the Loire River Valley; so long, of course, they also convert to Christianity. With a deal brokered, the two armies converged on a heavily fortified Nantes. Within two days the city was taken.

The end of the Viking Age was upon Brittany. After over a century of turmoil and strife, the invasions and raids subsided. This was due to a global slowing of the Scandinavian exodus that changed the world, as well as the harsh tactics utilized by Alain Barbe-Torte. Alain established a strict legal code in Brittany, as well as permanent coastal defenses, secured trade routes, and a navy capable of intercepting approaching fleets. The Bretons had reclaimed their independence. Breton Sovereignty lasted until the 15th Century when the dukes of Brittany finally accepted to join the kingdom of France.

Question and Answer Session with C.J. Adrien

Thank you to all who participated in the question and answer session.

James Dixon asked: “If you were transported, as you stand, back to those times and knowing what you know, would you embrace it or would you want to come back. (you can take loved ones and teabags).”

I would want to come back for two major reasons:

The bacteria and diseases of today have evolved to be more ferocious than 1000 years ago. Our present day immune systems can resist infection, but as a denizen of the present, I carry pathogens that would have a devastating effect on the population of Viking Age Europe. In essence, by simply showing up, I would bring about a new plague whose consequences would have dire implications for the present. That is my pseudo-scientific response to the question. This is all assuming of course that the Grandfather Paradox is not applied.

Assuming that none of what was stated above were true, I would certainly enjoy exploring Viking Age Europe. However, seeing as my modern sensibilities make me avert to the act of killing, I would certainly be rapidly introduced to a way of life unfamiliar to me. It is easy to read of the killings of people in books, but to witness them in person is an entirely different affair. We must remember that the Dark Ages were an age of violence and the value of human life was much less than what we give it today. There was also much less stringent concepts of law and right and wrong. Safety was a major issue back then that we take for granted today. Therefore, it would be interesting to visit, see how how they lived, but I certainly would want a way home to the present.

Acorn Everhart asked: “Was Oak the only type of wood Vikings used to make Dragonships and Knarrs? Greenlanders would have had to switched to pine from Markland at some point not being able to rely on oak shipments from Norway.”

The tradition of seafaring in Scandinavia began with the Franks of the 4th century who left their homes to raid west. Think of it as a Viking Age before the Viking Age. They harassed the Romans to no end in ships that closely resembled the long ships of the Vikings. That seafaring tradition was transferred across the baltic to become the engineering pride of the Dark Ages. The wood they used varied greatly depending on location and availability. One of the great wonders of the long ship was the design was simple enough that they could be built out of anything. During the Viking Age, ships were primarily built from ash, birch, spruce, pine, oak, and alder. An archeological find on the island of Groix in the Bay of Biscay (France) determined a Viking ship to be made of a combination of oak, ash, and even some aspen! Needless to say, the Vikings were very resourceful.

Many thanks again to all the participants. I hope you enjoyed the session, and watch for the next question and answer submissions!

Vikings Episode 207: The Lamentable Curse of a Good Run.

Up until this point I have fought hard to give Vikings good press; and deservingly so. Blood Eagle, however, made huge mistakes at several critical junctures in the storyline. First, the tale of Ecbert in Wessex is a vexing assortment of some misguided attempt at appeasing English national pride. Second, the tale of Floki and his new wife has diverged from mainstream history and entered the halls of fantasy. En revanche, the Blood Eagle was a marvelous spectacle: a slow buildup, dramatic cut scenes, and a final opaque glimpse at the horror. Was the blood Eagle accurate? This episode as a whole fell victim to the lamentable curse of a good run for it did not rise to the high expectations the previous episodes set for it.

The scene where the kings of Wessex and Northumbria meet vexed me. Their meeting included a most unusual homage to England with the chant “God Save England”. To put this Take 5 Productions idiosyncrasy into analogous perspective, the island they refer to as England was not referred to as such in the Viking Age. No, the island was known as Britain, a name given to it by the Romans. In fact, the region of France known as Brittany (Bretagne) also derives its name from the same source: Rome placed modern England and Brittany under the same prefecture. Nor did the British Isles have any modern sense of national coherence. Shortly prior to the Viking Age, the island had been invaded by Saxons and Angles, Germanic tribes who escaped the villainy of the Franks in the 5th century. Britain was a divided region. In fact, it was king Ecbert, years after the supposed time of the Vikings series, who conquered the small kingdoms around him to become the first proto-king of Britain; only to split apart again a few years later due to the deep divisions between the people of the region. The name England only surfaced in the beginning of the Middle Ages (some 200 years later) after the Norman conquest. England was lent its name by the Angles, a tribe of Germans who settled Britain with the Saxons. “God Save England” was a horrendous faux-pas.

Floki’s wedding also vexed me. Vikings exchanged dowries at weddings, not rings. Our tradition of exchanging dowries comes from the Vikings. A marriage in Viking Age Scandinavia was a contract in which both parties entered as equals, but the woman kept the dowries in case the husband died in battle. This was to ensure that the property rights passed to the wife upon the death of her husband. This was neither discussed nor explained in the show, nor adhered to as a historical fact. A deep ritual cleansing would have preceded the ceremony, which we did not see either. The wedding was a tremendous opportunity for the show to demonstrate a deeper understanding of how the Vikings conducted a wedding ceremony and its significance in the community. To this effect, they failed.

Lastly, the blood eagle delivered everything it promised. A colleague of mine asked me about my thoughts on the historical accuracy of the act. He was shocked that the Vikings would have been capable of such a horrific execution; and in public? Historically, the only evidence for the blood eagle comes to us from Adam of Bremen who briefly mentions the execution method. There is no other evidence, literary or otherwise, to substantiate whether or not this was an actual practice. Historians agree, however, that the act may have actually been used because human cultures have demonstrated repeatedly in history the ability to do horrific things to one another. In Japan, ritual suicides where the defeated party cut into his own stomach, removed his entrails, and presented them to his conquerors before being beheaded (Sepuku, or Hara Kiri) was a prolific cultural practice. As late as the 1950’s in the United States, courts ordered public hangings where families took their children for picnics. Therefore, I feel confident that the Vikings would have been capable of carrying out such an act. Does that meant they actually did it? No. But hey, this is historical fiction, they are allowed some fun!

Other than the blatant errors listed above, the drama of the show did not cease. I look forward to the next episode, but as of today I am not going to pay as close attention to the historical details and watch the show for what it is, entertainment. Vikings has begun caring less about the history and more about the Game of Thrones-esque plots which drive audiences. I understand this, and I accept it.

The Vikings in Brittany Part 2

By 847 C.E. it became clear that the Viking invaders of Western Europe had developed political ambitions beyond the sporadic raiding of the previous three decades. Their sights moved beyond Britain and Normandy to other, less defended lands such as Ireland and Brittany. At first, resistance was effective. For example, within one year the Irish won an unprecedented four victories over the Vikings which effectively expelled a tremendous portion of the invaders from Ireland. But That same year in Brittany, Viking raiders began an invasion of the mainland peninsula and won three decisive victories over the Bretons who at the same time were repelling an invasion from the Franks. The Vikings used Noirmoutier, an island in the Bay of Biscay, as their base to launch a massive invasion attempt and to supply the warriors involved. The resources of the island, salt, was a necessary resource for any army of the time, and the Vikings were no exception.

With great cunning and strategic thinking, the Vikings exploited the rift along the Breton March between the Franks and the Bretons. A struggling Breton army even solicited the help of the Vikings to help defeat the Frankish army on two separate occasions. Once defeated, the Franks could no longer defend their borders, and the Viking invasion quickly saw the sack and occupation of Nantes on the Loire. With Nantes under Scandinavian control, the great citadels of Brittany followed: Cornouaille, Broweroch, Poutrocoët, Domnoée, and finally Saint-Brieuc. Pitting the two sides against one another, the Vikings expertly divided the lands and conquered them. By 854 C.E. a state of full military occupation was in place. So it seemed, Brittany would remain under their dominion.

Vikings, however, were ambitious people. No two groups thought alike, and no two groups settled for sharing power. In Normandy, the heavy influence and frequent raids of Vikings changed the political landscape. Charles the Bald, king of France, began a campaign to use the variable alliances of the Vikings against them. On the Seine, Charles hired Vikings to defend certain areas of the river. Once secured, Charles turned his attention to Brittany where a powerful warlord, Salomon, ruled over a large area of the region. At first, Salomon appeared keen on an alliance with Charles; the Vikings in the Loire themselves had recently been troubled by raids from other groups. Charles offered Salomon land rights and the status of vassal. Unfortunately for Salomon, a simultaneous Danish raid on Chartres and Tours following the new alliance sent the counts of Neustria (Western France) into revolt. Charles was forced to cancel his promises to Salomon.

Free of the protectorship of Charles the Bald, the Vikings on the Loire suffered a heavy defeat by Robert the Strong, the leading Neustrian Count who had had enough of the Scandinavians invading his lands. The conflict ended in a stalemate. For the next 20 years a similar political and military climate dominated the region. Along the Seine the Vikings continued to sack and pillage, and the Franks continued to rebuild and attempt to mount a resistance. Along the Loire, things settled. It had more or less been decided that Brittany had been lost to the invaders.

As luck would have it for the Bretons, Salomon was murdered by his rival in 874. The ensuing power vacuum caused a civil war between the Vikings in which a Breton-Frankish alliance emerged to drive an even deeper wound into the heart of the occupiers. Hope glimmered a moment, until the realization that the power vacuum left by Salomon would attract more raiders with ambitions of their own. The raids intensified. An internal struggle again erupted between the Bretons and the Franks, causing the resistance to dissolve. Sole one leader remained with a guerrilla force to fight the Vikings: a man named Alain of Broweroch. Alain mounted an effective resistance and pestered the invaders constantly. His big break came when the Carolingians successfully pushed out the Seine Vikings who fled into Brittany and disrupted the power structure there. With a renewed civil war between the Vikings, Alain fielded two Breton armies and led them to repeated victories. By 892 Alain had completely expelled the Vikings from Brittany. Scandinavian fortunes were not good along the Seine either: the Great Danish Army left mainland Europe and sailed for England to focus on the kingdom of Wessex.

Alain the Great ruled over Brittany after the expulsion of the Vikings as a sovereign king not loyal to Charles the Bald. The Bretons saw the Franks as incapable of defending them, and thus loyalty to the empire served them no benefit. A period of peace ensued. Through military endeavor, judicious alliances, and payment of Tribute, Alain kept the peace in his lands. Upon his death in 907 C.E., his successor, Gurmhailon should have had no trouble keeping this peace. The system put in place by Gurmhailon’s predecessor quickly fell to pieces. Scandinavian invaders again sacked the Breton coast and began deep incursions into Breton lands. In this chaos, one man would emerge to put an end to this long struggle. One man would rise to become the first true and remembered Duke of Brittany.

The Vikings in Brittany Part 1

Introduction: As part of my efforts to educate the public about the Vikings, I thought it pertinent to do an in-depth series on the Vikings in Brittany. Brittany is a region of France which survived a violent and catastrophic period during the Viking Age from which they emerged weakened and unable to remain independent from the larger Carolingian Empire. Most of the information about the Viking Age focuses on England, but the Vikings affected the entire world. It is important to understand how they interacted with other regions and cultures to foster the most complete understanding of who they were and their intentions. Enjoy!

A skaldic verse from Egill Skallagrimson paints the picture of what once was considered the perfect Viking; created impatient from birth, presumptuous, and with a burning desire for a far-off adventure:

“My mother promised me, and soon she will buy me, a vessel and oars, to leave to distant lands with the Vikings…and to strike and fight.”

The Vikings brought the world to its knees, but the Viking Age began rather slowly. For a hunter to hunt effectively, he must first study his prey. As early as 793 and 799 C.E. Scandinavian raiders struck fast and hard in isolated areas of the known world. Following these abrupt and shocking attacks, a period of thirty or so years remained relatively calm. In Brittany, the first recorded attack saw the pillaging of the monastery of Saint Philbert on the island of Noirmoutier, but few further incursions occurred until the 830’s. Coastal defenses built by Charlemagne provided ample protection for the western Frankish Empire, but those defenses rapidly waned under the poor leadership of Louis the Pious. What the Franks failed to realize was that a new threat waited in the shadows, watching, lurking, and learning.

Historians agree that despite an early strike on Noirmoutier in 799 C.E. the Viking Age began much later in Brittany than in England or Normandy. The region had already developed a strong sense of Breton identity and frequently revolted against the Frankish Empire. By the early 9th Century, the Bretons had won their independence under the leadership of Nominoé, a charismatic politician and talented tactician. With this victory came the burden of independence: political organization, defenses, and economic ties. Unfortunately for the Bretons the timing could not have been worse for the Viking Age was about to spill into their lands.

In 843, Brittany experienced what they interpreted as the Apocalypse. Chroniclers struggled to find the words to describe the cold blooded reality of the events of the 24th of June, 843. The denizens of the city celebrated the festival of Saint John (La Saint Jean in French). Everyone participated, including the city guards. None thought to fortify the city for they had not imagined that God would allow anything to disturb their festivities. By the time the people of Nantes realized their sort, it was too late for them to organize any kind of resistance. It is proposed that the raiders had entered the city posing as merchants, but that under their cloaks they bore the weapons of Nantes’ demise. The bishop of Nantes, a man named Gunhardus, continued his sermon on the steps of the cathedral and proclaimed, “Sursum Corda!” (high hearts) before he was violently gutted before the townspeople. With no consideration for age, sex, or status, the Northmen slit the throats of all whom they could find. By evening, the city burned in ruin.

The retelling of this event comes to us from the Annales d’Angoulême compiled by nearby priories who rescued some of the survivors of the event. In the Annales, we learn that the Northmen were Westfaldingi, in other words Men of Westfold (a region on the continental coast of the Fjord of Oslo). Their movements had been traced and recorded as far as the Hebrides, and they ostensibly travelled through the Bay of Saint George to arrive in the Bay of Biscay where they improvised a raid on the Saint John festival. They continued along the Loire River and terrorized the Pays de Retz further inland. Once they had filled their ships they returned to the coast, but not without incident. Two of the fleet’s ships wrecked along the river, too heavy from their booty to keep afloat. Finally, the Northmen established a base on the nearby island of Noirmoutier where they stored and split their spoils. Some returned north, while others continued their voyage south. They avoided returning to the Loire thereafter, for the new count of Nantes, Lambert, fortified the Loire River’s banks to prevent a repeat of the monumental catastrophe in Nantes.

Some of the Northmen sailed as far as Spain where historians lose track of their movements. But the damage to the region had been done. The horror of the events reverberated across the Carolingian Empire, and nearly all the Annales, or chronicles, of the time make reference to the carnage of the sack of Nantes. Of course the Bretons seized the opportunity to solidify their independence from the empire, but the disunity on the Breton March would prove to be their demise. While the people hoped they had heard the last of their attackers, the Viking Age had formally begun in Brittany, and it would last for over a century.

Love the Vikings? Check out C.J. Adrien’s novel on the Vikings in France here.

In The Raven’s Wake cover reveal!

Click the cover to read the prologue to C.J. Adrien’s next viking epic! Est. Release Date: Winter 2015.

History Channel’s Vikings Does Not Disappoint

Episode six of Vikings had the feel of a Game of Thrones episode more than the usual Vikings. A few elements have led me to this conclusion. Indeed, there is still a great deal of history covered in the episode, specifically in the tale of Athelstan and his relationship with Ecbert, but the developments in the pot were the most compelling aspect of this episode even for a historian. In Kattegat, the deep character development and twists in the plot set the scene for a complicated and strange series of events reminiscent of George R. R. Martin’s fascinating yet disturbing creativity. This short review will present some plot spoilers. To view the episode online first, click here.

 

 

First, Jarl Borg’s fascination with his wife’s skull, and his unbelievably disturbing interaction with it, point to a man whose sanity has left him in the wake of a broken ego. To make his young wife carry the skull for him demonstrates his lack of apathy for anyone else’s feelings. Second, Siggy’s power play backfired terribly to the point where her choices put her in an unusual situation. Horik on his end is a perverted egomaniac, but we all already knew. Yet, it still surprises and shocks that Horik forces Siggy to initiate an intimate act with his son only to watch from the comfort of his bench. These details are fit for a Game of Thrones episode, but they fit in well with Vikings insofar as the character development and plot have made for a darkly captivating story.

 

 

Finally, the detail that sticks in my mind is the Blood Eagle. I admit, I am somewhat infuriated that the show has thrown in yet another element found in my novel; I suppose our research comes from the same bodies of work. In terms of good show making, the Blood Eagle will not disappoint. For those of you who did not understand entirely what it entails, allow me to introduce it to you through the narrative of my novel:

 

 

“Light shone through the cracks of the poorly constructed shack, partly illuminating the interior. Horror overcame Kenna. Upon waking she saw a sight beyond horrific — so disturbing that even the brave princess averted her eyes. Kenna look up again, extremely disturbed by the sight of a man nailed to the opposite wall. The man’s body faced away from Kenna, his hands pronated against the wall with nails driven into them. His bare back left exposed, the man’s ribs had been removed from behind, and his lungs pulled through the gap like wings, reddened with various shades of blood. Thus the name, Blood Eagle, signified giving a man wings like an eagle using his own lungs. As Kenna studied the sight in disgust, she heard a calling from across the farm.”

 

In all, episode six was intriguing, entertaining, and certainly worth viewing more than once.

Vikings: A Culture of Learning

History has falsely remembered the Vikings as brutish, amoral barbarians with no respect for their victims. What we know of the vikings comes to us from the works of Christian clerics (the only literate people of Viking Age in Europe) who vilified the raiders from the north due to their hostile actions against monastic orders. These were the only materials available to the scholars of the 19th century who began to piece together the history of the Viking Age. Their conclusions have lent to the stereotypical frameworks of the Vikings we have grown accustomed to in literature and the media. In the last twenty years however, the misrepresentation of the people we know today as the vikings has redressed; new finds and evidences point to a much more cultured and intellectual population. Archeologists, historians, and medievalists now acknowledge that our previous understanding of Scandinavian culture in the early medieval period was wrong. A more holistic approach to the field has shown us that indeed Viking Age Scandinavians had rich traditions, and most importantly, a culture of learning.

The culture of learning in Viking Age Scandinavia begins with a myth. Norse mythology was central to the establishment of Scandinavian institutions and power structures, as well as cultural life and social expectations. In particular, the myth surrounding the nature of the leader of the Aesir, or Norse deities, resonates profoundly even today among many who ascribe to Norse paganism. Odin, creator of men, obsessed over knowledge. He prided himself on his ability to learn and to apply that learning to his life (see The Norse Gods Were Mortal). His obsession led him to take extreme measures. In fact, Odin discovered a way to learn about the future, about the end of the world known as Ragnarok. This knowledge unfortunately carried a price. Mimir, the guardian of the well of knowledge, demanded a sacrifice of an eye. Odin obliged.

The myth serves as a counterpoint to the old paradigms of scholarship on Viking Age history. Odin, the most beloved deity in the Norse pantheon, strived for knowledge. To make a modern analogy, it is as if Justin Bieber suddenly decided to attend college for his own self enrichment. Following suit, we may rightly conclude that such a decision would have a dramatic influence on an entire generation of devotees, and college attendance would soar. Similarly, we may assume that Odin’s thirst for knowledge would have influenced generations of Scandinavians to explore their curiosity without hinderance. Even with the backing of a myth, however, such a claim requires more tangible evidence to be supported; lest we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of historians past.

As it turns out, archeology has provided evidence that Viking Age Scandinavians imported more than loot. One example is the finding of a sword, the Ulfberht, whose construction required a technology not available to most of Europe until hundreds of years later. Analysis of the metals in the sword have shown the steel’s purity to be nearly that of crucible steel. What does that mean? Simply put, the purity of the steel would have required temperatures higher than any fire made by any blacksmith in Europe at the time. The technology to produce such an artifact tells us that the Norse must have learned the technique elsewhere, likely in the east. This was possible due to the exploits of the Swedish vikings known as the Rus who traveled across the eastern steppes of modern day Russia as far as the Black Sea and beyond. Trades and cultural exchanges were common — to the point where an 11th century Arabic silver coin was found in Newfoundland! The vikings, we now know, attained many advances and much wealth as a result of their travels.

Archeologists have also found more evidence of technological imports across Scandinavia. Farming technology nearly identical to the technologies used in Francia and Britain, suddenly appear in the archeological record around the midpoint of the Viking Age. It is proposed that those Scandinavians who returned from raiding brought home farming technologies from the areas they raided. This also means that Vikings undoubtedly did not always massacre everyone in sight. To have learned about the technologies and how they worked, the Vikings would have had to communicate with the owners of that technology and worked with them to familiarize themselves with its uses. Curiosity, it appears, reigned among the Vikings whose interests were truly to better themselves.

Why then, if Vikings were so interested in learning, did they sack and pillage instead of peacefully trading? Simply put, the Christian Empire of Charlemagne forced their hand. Not only did Charlemagne threaten the Danes on their border, but he denied trade to non-Christians, trade which the Scandinavians relied upon. The violence perpetrated by the Christian Empire undoubtedly influenced the Vikings‘ foreign policy. It might even be said that after the incident on the Elbe (see Why Did the Viking Age Begin?) the Vikings may have assumed that Christians would be violent, and so they treated them accordingly. We must remember that this was an age of violence. All of Europe experienced a period of horrific and constant warfare in the vacuum left by the Romans. Because the only people who could leave a record of the Vikings were Christians, the Vikings fell victim to an ever present and applicable historical phenomena: propaganda.