Vikings afraid of Scots?

[BEEDEE]

An interesting article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10598779

Brian

[BoldHighlander]

As one of both Scots & Norse descent (amongst others), I found this article interesting. Thanks for sharing the link Brian.

I don't know if I agree with the authors conclusions that the Norse/Vikings feared the Scots/Celtic people. As I see it, being cautious is a healthy thing & shouldn't be equated with fear

[Red Stag]

"...established powerful colonies in... North America..."

I think not. The only known Norse site in North America is L'Anse aux Meadows and from the documentaries that I have seen they say that it was only a temporary settlement and that they weren't there for very long. Maybe only a couple of years. The Natives seemed to have chased the Vikings out.

[BoldHighlander]

"...established powerful colonies in... North America..."

I think not. The only known Norse site in North America is L'Anse aux Meadows and from the documentaries that I have seen they say that it was only a temporary settlement and that they weren't there for very long. Maybe only a couple of years. The Natives seemed to have chased the Vikings out.

Yeah, I caught that too

I've watched & recorded a number of Viking/Norse documentaries. As I recall it wasn't so much hostilities with the Native population that sounded the death knell for L'Anse aux Meadows, as much as it was the great distance that overstretched & exhausted their supply stores (being a "temporary" base camp/way station for further exploration south).

*********************************************

I went back and re-watched my PBS/Nova special on the Vikings, and just now finished watching the segment on L'Anse aux Meadows. It confirmed my original thoughts about the demise of L'Anse aux Meadows. It was in a bad spot (exposed to the elements with little natural resources to support them). Basically they "withered on the vine", if you will. They had to leave or die.

[Morris at Heathfield]

This appears to be the kernel of truth behind the headline:

A new analysis of the classic Icelandic Sagas (Islendingasagur) has unearthed the following counsel: "Icelanders who want to practise robbery are advised to go there ... but it may cost them their life."

I'd be surprised if there weren't some Norsemen who were afraid of some Scots at some time, but I'm not sure this bit of practical advice counts as even a single instance of such.

[Woodsheal]

This appears to be the kernel of truth behind the headline:



I'd be surprised if there weren't some Norsemen who were afraid of some Scots at some time, but I'm not sure this bit of practical advice counts as even a single instance of such.

The quote is from the 13th C. - well after the "Viking Age." The Northmen probably had a healthy respect for Celts, but abject fear? Didn't stop them from conquering and occupying significant swaths of Celtic territory...!

[Morris at Heathfield]

I found a couple of similar articles here and here. All have similar, but not the same, content. The latter is by the same author as that of the article linked to in the original post.

I have a few observations:

First, no sources are cited. Citing the "classic Icelandic Sagas (Islendingasagur)" is about as helpful as citing the "Arthurian legends", the "British muster rolls", or the "American passenger lists". Given that this is not a new find, but a rereading and reinterpretation of "classic Icelandic Sagas", is it too much to ask that the author of the article actually name the specific sagas quoted rather than give us the Icelandic name for the entire corpus?

Second, both articles I linked to (as well as Brian in the post above) noted that the Vikings established colonies in Gaelic lands: Scotland, Ireland and (if I may add it) the Isle of Man. According to the Telegraph article, "Mr Sigurdsson believes the Norse Vikings were particularly nervous about the Gaels of Ireland and west Scotland." There's probably a good reason the Norse were more nervous about the Gaels of Ireland and West Scotland than, say, the Khitans of the Liao Dynasty, but I'm not sure if I can put my finger on it.

Third, one of the unnamed sagas tells the story of Icelandic merchants being surprised by a force of 13 Scottish ships. In this case there was apparently genuine fear (and genuine reason to be afraid) but, well, these are merchants we're talking about. This is where the several meanings of "Viking" (sea raider; early medieval Scandinavian) can be misleading if not kept straight.

Fourth, the title of the Independent piece: "Why even the fiercest Viking warrior steered clear of Scotland". Given the evidence presented in the subsequent article, I would have to say this headline is not only incredibly misleading, but outright wrong. From the same article: "At the height of their power the Scandinavian seafarers claimed Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland as their own. They had also established powerful colonies in mainland Scotland, England, Ireland, France, North America
and Russia." And they did it all without their fiercest warriors!

Fifth, I believe this set of articles had a good point to make that was buried under all the sensationalistic rubbish: namely, that the Vikings weren't a bunch of unconquerable killing machines without mercy and without fear, as they tend to be depicted, whether sympathetically or unsympathetically, in popular culture; that they were as capable of fear, self-preservation, and calculating costs as anyone else.

[ohiopiper]

I would tend to pronounce a litle skepticism on the article, too. I am of primarly germanic and norse stock, and have looked into the sagas and history a little.

Viking is a verb, to go raiding. Having said that, I'll use the term for the people since everyone knows what I'm talking about.

They had a very strict code of ethics, but it was vastly different than anyone else's. I think this has resulted in the "murderous savage" monicker through history. They, like any other society that preys on others, were looking for easy targets. I'm I'm going to rob a house, I'll choose the pacifist, not the guy with a dozen NRA stickers in his window and a "This prorty protected by Smith & Wesson" bumber sticker. Same with them.

So I think it boils down to not fear, but acknowledgement that there were people out there as willing and able to throw down as they were. Let's go pick on someone else if we can. Of course if we want to stick to the topic of who WAS unnerved by the celts/gael/et al, we can begin the list with the romans. There's that whole Hadrians Wall thing.

[Slag101]

I think we have to realize that the interpreter may be prejudice, as well as not truly know the context in which a statement is made. Also, is this the commentary of one particular saga, or multiple? Differing views by authors of the era?

This all reminds me of a scene from Zombieland:

Columbus: You know there's a place untouched by all this crap?
Tallahassee: Back east, yeah?
Columbus: Yeah. Yeah. You heard the same thing?
Tallahassee: Out west, we hear it's back east. Back east, they hear it's out west. It's all just nonsense. You know, you're like a penguin on the North Pole who hears the South Pole is really nice this time of the year.
Columbus: There are no penguins on the North Pole.
Tallahassee: You wanna feel how hard I can punch?

[Riverkilt]

Well, I'm just glad that the Norse that invaded Skye and the Natives of Skye got along well enough to intermarry and make babies or I'd not have been given the gift of life.