Having previously written a post on Alfred the Great (who I still think was the greatest Englishman who ever lived) and his family, I think it would be nice to present a pro-Viking post (or at least pro-Norse: not quite the same thing).
To go a Viking is to ‘raid’ in the language of old Norse and most Norse people were not raiders – they were farmers, craftsmen and traders (although someone might be any of these three things and still be a raider at some time in their life) like most non-Norse people in the period (from the late 8th to the early 12th centuries).
Raiding is not a libertarian activity (robbery, slave taking, rape and murder are violations of the non-aggression principle) and (as stated above) non-raiding occupations were much the same among Norse folk as among non Norse folk. So why do many libertarians (and non-libertarians) have a soft spot for the ‘Vikings’ (if we must call the Norse Vikings)?
Well a case can be made for the Norse as the freedom loving folk of pro-Viking popular legend.
It starts with Charlemagne (768-814). Charles the Great King of the Franks and later first Holy Roman Emperor. Charlemagne’s grandfather was the great general Charles Martel who defeated the Arab invasion of France, and his father was Pepin who deposed King Childeric and made himself King of the Franks (rather than just the “Vicar of the Palace” and real power behind the throne that Charles Martel had been). Charlemagne had some trouble imposing his rule (over other claimants to the throne) and had to beg the aid of Tassilo the ruler of Bavaria.
However, the internal politics of the Franks would not be a great concern if it were not for the policies of Charlemagne. Most rulers of this period raided (the later Vikings were not breaking totally new ground here) – loot was a good way of winning the loyalty of the hard men one need to be able to count on to preserve one’s rule. But Charlemagne raided more than any other ruler of his time.
Sometimes Charlemagne waged war with an ideological justification, for example the long wars against the Saxons in order to impose Christianity (more on this later). Other times it was to eliminate a potential rival (such as when Charlemagne betrayed Tassilo by the conquest of Christian Bavaria) and sometimes it was just in search of loot and ‘glory’ (such as the long distance raiding against the Avars). Charlemagne’s wars against the Saxons and his pressure on the Frisians (part of centuries of pressure on these folk of what is now the coast of north west Germany and north east Holland) and Denmark caused considerable interest in the Northern world.
Serfdom (the semi-slavery of the peasants – and idea that went back, in various forms, to the late Roman Empire) was never successfully imposed on the Frisians or the Saxons, but the spreading of religion by the sword was not Charlemagne’s only intent – the spreading of the Frankish social system (a military elite, loyal to a great warlord, living off the forced labour of others) was certainly part of the story. And in order to imposer this vast numbers of people were killed in Charlemagne’s campaign of terror.
It is hard to be sure (and it is contested) but some claim that there were great councils of the North – and that the ‘Viking Age’ (at least at first) was a response to the activities of Charlemagne. Certainly (even if we keep to the idea of the Vikings as independent raiders) the pressure on the Frisians meant that their sea power could no longer control the North Sea – leaving the area free for others.
Charlemagne also favoured the power of the Church – not just the worship of the Christian God. This meant the rise of what came to be called tithes and other forms of church taxes. But even after the Norse became Christians they tended to resist such taxes. For example in Iceland they were not imposed till the 1080’s and in Norway to the early 1100’s.
Serfdom as also strongly resisted by the Norse. In won out in Denmark – but never in Sweden or Norway (even after these areas became nation states). The case of Norway is interesting. As late as the early 1100’s there were still four different peasant assemblies that elected Kings (who did not have to be the same person) – such ideas were outside the mainstream of European thought (as expressed by Charlemagne and those who came after him). Slavery did exist in the Norse world – but it tended to decline. For example, in Iceland it died out completely in the 11th century. And (of course) Charlemagne was just a greater slave trader than the Vikings ever were.
Lastly there is the matter of price control. There were (broadly speaking) two views of the concept of the ‘just price’ in legal-theological thinking of the time. There was the view that the just price was a price that was freely decided between buyer and seller (this view is reflected in the laws of Bavaria in the 8th century) and there was the view that the ‘just price’ was the price established by custom or law.
Charlemagne favoured the latter view – and his officials (and those of later Kings) tried to impose detailed price controls (and other regulations). The Church was never united behind Charlemagne and his officials – but Charlemagne had saved the Pope from the power of the Lombards and the Pope did declare him Holy Roman Emperor, so the view of the dream of extensive state power (itself a dream of re-establishing the controls of the late Roman Empire) was a respectable one within the Church – and cast a long shadow over the Middle Ages and beyond.
The Norse however rejected the very notion of Imperial power in such matter (indeed in all matters). So perhaps people are not totally foolish to remember some aspects of the ‘Vikings’ with certain warmth.
Interesting post. There were undoubtedly elements of Viking life that were genuinely freer than in other european societies. What’s harder to tell is whether this was anything more than disorganisation (or barbarism if you prefer) on behalf of the Vikings. Viking justice appears enlightened until you realise that without a state to enforce the decisions, it still allowed the rich and powerful to do what they wanted. It was up to the victim to enforce the punishment imposed on the perpetrator, something that was impossible without a reasonable balance of friends and influence on your side.
I also struggle with the idea that Vikings were anything but avid, enthusiastic and successful traders and keepers of slaves. To say that slave trading was on the decline in the 11th century is a bit meaningless, because Viking civilisation asa whole was on the decline then.
Top Viking Tip: Cutting off someone’s nose carried the highest fine of all injuries – higher than cutting off their head.
I suspect that much of the libertarian fondness for Vikings or the Norse has to do with the social organisation of Iceland (especially as presented in the Sagas).
Between the relatively minimal law, the lack of any sort of King or equivalent, the hiring of private justice (and payment for non-murderous, in the specific Icelandic meaning of murder, killings via arbitration and simple money payments), and hiring of legal representation, I think it might be as close as there ever has been to a libertarian minimal state ala Nozick.
What I liked about the Danes was, after they’d been extracting Danegeld for a few years, they stopped even bothering roll their boats out into the cold and hazardous N Sea to come over for a raid. They basically just faxed over their ETA if the money wasn’t deposited in their account by the due date, and included their bank’s IBN code. That was quite a coup!
Intersting post. The Vikings and the Saxons are the reason that NW Europe has been traditionally the haven of democracy, cussedness and generalised buggeration to such things as the “European Project”.
I’m English, but my ancestors came (mainly) from Co. Donegal and are as Viking as they come. I’m 5’11”, blonde and when I look in the bathroom mirror after I haven’t shaved for two days I look like I’m about to torch Whitby.
I have a fondness for Vikings. So does my girlfriend who is 1/8th Danish. She likes ’em for the very practical reason that she earns her living by translating Russian and Scandy into English. We also likes the fact that the Danes and Norwegians plow there own very fertile furrow without giving a toss for anyone else.
This post puts me in an odd position. I like the Northmen, but I also regard Charles Martel as a truly epic European hero. If the EU (in its infinite wisdom) were ever to institue a “Europe Day” holiday then the 10th of October ought to be it (battle of Tours), 732 AD.
Hush yo’ mouth! Don’t even put the idea of a Europe Day into the ether!
Excellent post Paul. As an East Anglian (Suffolk) with a certain amount of what is now I suppose North German/Danish blood with bits of French as well, I can relate to this post.
David Friedman has written some interesting material on the Vikings and Icelandic legal systems, by the way.
Excellent piece.
As someone who is very much Norman, my family has been traced back to before the invasion on the Dodge side (which means breast in Norman hence the crest on the blog) I have always had a great deal of fondness for the Vikings. Vikings were a fascinating group of people and I can quite understand why libertarians have fondness for it.
What I find amusing the campaign by Hispanics trying to subsume the fact there is a Viking sentlement on Northern Maine (as there are in Atlantic Canada). I once got into an argument over this where the person told me…they were not “permanent settlements” just fishing huts. Considering these stone dwellings are being found currently; the dwellings seem pretty damn permanent to me.
The “little Iceage” messed up Viking communications – undermining both the North American colonies and the colonies in Greenland.
I should have just typed that Charlemagne was a great slave trader – I certainly do not claim that Charles the Great dealt in as many slaves as all the Vikings did put together (over several centuries).
Liking Charles Martel – what is the problem with that? One can like Charles Martel without liking his grandson.
On Iceland:
Yes indeed a choice of judges – from a limited range of familes but still a choice. That was a practice in other parts of the Norse world as well.
Nor were the Norse technologically primitive – actually they had the edge on their foes.
Remember how far the Norse got – they had held places in North Africa for a while.
On slavery – not just the slave trade but slavery itself died out in Iceland.
The Irish slaves that the Vikings brought with them became one people with the Norse (and a good thing to – otherwise their would not have been enough genetic diversity in Iceland). And this was because of the poltical structure – slavery is helped by a strong state (see Salmon P. Chase’s arguments that slavery in the South was maintained by government power).
On the “only rich could get justice” point.
A judge who favoured rich over poor was likely to lose his reputation (and they competed in Iceland and other places).
Also if a rich man did not accept judgement one could appeal to the people – the Althing.
Even a rich man might find he had few friends if he had been declared outlaw by the Althing.
Also remember that the poorest man can wield a weapon. So even a rich man would be wise to be polite.
My favourate genetic story is that of the “claw hand”.
On a B.B.C. series “The Blood of the Vikings” a big thing was made of the fact that both Ronald Reagan and Mrs Thatcher suffered from this (basically with age the fingers of the hand curl round like a claw) – and it was traced to their Viking heritage (one from Irish stock, the other from Lincolnshire a county of stong Viking settlement).
The commercial and violent Vikings without a Chritian communal spirit the show seemed to be saying – no wonder Mrs T. and Ronald Reagan had this vile blood.
As both people had a rather different interpretation of Christianity to the communal (in the statist sense of today) one, I think they would have taken all this as a complement. And gloried in their heritage.
All this reminds me – I must go to the Isle of Man before I head down south.
Whitby Viking event – I lived in York for years and did not even go and see the York event.
My youth was made up of various books my head was stuck in – I had little outside life.
I missed a lot.
I do not quite understand the other side of the story.
By entitling itself as such it implicitly acknowedges the historic and in my opinion correct and generally negative view of the Vikings. That is not to say that Viking culture did not have plus points. Indeed there have been previous attempts to paint the Vikings in a more than positive light. However as far as I can remember they did not for perhaps obvious reasons mpress the don who presented the Anglo Saxon lectures I attended at university and I doubt if the situation has changed much since.
Well, of course, Vikings are painted as being uncouth thugs…alot of the writing about them was written by people who got beaten by them.
AID – V good!
Well my lot used to hide in the bushes till they’d gone.
Always the safer bet we used to find.
That’s why Welsh Cathederals like St David’s are small and hidden away out of sight of the sea.
I thought it was something to do with inheritance laws that made the second sons go a raiding?
Interesting about the ‘second sons’ bit. I have a very small fraction of ‘English’ ancestry. At least I thought it was English. One Richard Ormsby arrived in Plymouth colony in the 1620s. He was one of the Lincolnshire Orsmbys. But the catch, the Lincolnshire Ormsbys were decended from the Scottish Ormsby clan which was decended from a guy named Orm. Who being a not-the-eldest son in Scandinavia, (later even than second) chose to go a viking with a ‘sea-king’. I don’t have a clue what one of those is. Any way, Orm was involved in a sea battle with the Scots, they won, but Orm lost his leg above the knee in the battle and wasn’t getting around very well. The ‘sea-king’ said the first person to set foot on shore would be the ruler of the conquered territory. Not much hope for Orm, right? Yet when they got close to shore, he stood up and flung his severed leg to land. The offer was honored and he was made ‘ruler’.
While of dubious provenance, these old legends are fun, but even better is the ancient coat of arms that it purports to explain.
Gotta love that motto.
“Then he fell in the water!”
Sorry Midwesterner, you’d not get that one in a million years.
A tale worthy of the Mabinogion!
Another flaggon of mead over here
wench if you please….
RAB – I don’t know about the inheritance laws, perhaps in Denmark where there wasn’t as much good land, or in Norway it might have been a factor, but in Sweden there was ample land for the taking. Sweden was undergoing a lot of internal colonization to the north (Dalecarlia, etc) well into the 17th and 18th centuries. But I could see how a few profitable raids down the Volga on the hapless Slavs might make the finances of setting up a frontier farmstead in north-central Sweden a bit more realizable 🙂
Anyhow, that’s where my family was from and I heard the old stories from my grandfather about how the Poles must have been created by God just for Swedes to go kick ass upon (probably has more to do with the Vasas and the Protestant-Catholic split, but there was probably a lingering post-Viking disdain for the Slavic peoples that got wrapped up in the legends). Also, it was the fringe, frontier regions of Sweden that led the numerous peasant/smallholder rebellions against the centralizing tendencies of the Danish monarchy. Makes me wonder what happened in the last 100 years to make the Scandies so socialistic – and thankful Grampa dodged the draft and got to the US as soon as possible!
The Vikings got around a fair old bit.
All the way to Modern Turkey etc.
But they still had the odd fiasco despite their Macho.
“Well ok! we called it Iceland cos that’s what it looks like”
Waddia mean youve discovered somewheres further west? It’s huge, and it’s frozen solid and it looks like Iceland.
For Odins sake call it Greenland this time, we’ve just invented PR.
Sound like modern day realtors. They do similar things now giving a developments names like “Mountain Hills” when the highest piece of land has marsh plants growing on it.
A little closer to the original topic, I wonder how fierce the Vikings could really have been when they were run out of North America by people who were later conquered by the English, Spanish and French.
A little closer to the original topic, I wonder how fierce the Vikings could really have been when they were run out of North America by people who were later conquered by the English, Spanish and French..
My suspicion is that they probably settled on somewhat marginal territory during the Medieval Warm Period, which is supposed to have ended around the 14th c. When it ended, the land would have gone from being marginal to poor, and they probably left.
Besides that, when the English, Spanish, and French showed up, they had metal weapons and armor, and gunpowder. The old Vikings had to do it with metal weapons, body odor, and bad breath.
rosignol,
There’s a bit more to it than that… The end of the warm period basically made the Greenland colony untenable and the Inuit forced the Vikings out. With Greenland gone Vinland was totally untenable and had to be abandoned. There is some evidence that Vikings coasted as far south as Mexico… Perhaps something to keep Verity up at night.
Midwesterner,
I am utterly speechless.
Well Bravery with Prudence beats ours.
Leni Perfruar Otio. No one bloody knows what ours means. Some scribe (a drunk monk mb?) probably buggered it up hundreds of years ago or its a family joke no one bothered to pass on.
“Well ok! we called it Iceland cos that’s what it looks like” Waddia mean youve discovered somewheres further west? It’s huge, and it’s frozen solid and it looks like Iceland. For Odins sake call it Greenland this time, we’ve just invented PR.
This is classic and deserves to be quote of the day. So is Foxton a Viking name?
I wrote a long reply yesterday to some of the points people had made. I got a “Thankyou from Samizdata” bit of nonsense, but the comment did not appear.
It still is not here – this sort of event drives me up the wall.
It is why I do not carefully check such things as spelling. To me this is all light on a screen – I can not touch it and it may or may not stay.
I could spend ages carefully writing something and then have it vanish as if it had never been.
Of course this can happen with books also – with the use of fire. But at least I can touch a book before it is burned.
I will try and reply to some of the points made.
Yes there was choice in judges in Iceland (limited to certain families but a real choice) this was also true in some other parts of the Norse world.
On judges favouring rich men – well a judge that did that was likely to lose his reputation (a vital thing for a court without a monopoly).
On the problem of enforcement. If a man would not go to an arbitor or rejected his judgement he was likely to be outlawed (after being heard) by the people assembelled – the Althing. And even a rich man might find he had few friends if he had been declared outlaw.
And remember even the poorest man can wield a weapon – so a rich man (however well armed) should still, if he is wise, be polite.
Not only the slave trade but slavery declined – in died out in Iceland in the 1080’s (I have now typed this three times – and, he said in his middle aged fury, I am not doing it again).
Yes the “little Ice Age” hit Viking communications and undemined the settlements in Greenland (and thus cut off North America).
There were too few Norse in North America to make a big impact.
Liking the Vikings and liking Charles Martel – no problem, after all liking Charles Martel does not mean that one has to like his grandson.
Genetics – my favourate story on this is the “claw hand” (basically the fingers of the hand twist round with age till one’s hand looks like a claw) that the B.B.C. series “Blood of the Vikings” went on about.
The show made a bit thing of the fact that both Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher suffered from this condition – their Viking blood (one of Irish decent the other from Lincolnshire – both areas of heavy Viking settlement) supposedly gave it to them.
The evil blood of the greedy and violent Vikings – as opposed to the good communal Christians. As both Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher had a rather different interpretation of Christianity from “progressive” people, I doubt that having Viking blood would have disturbed them
“Greed” to (R.R. and M.T.) meant lusting after other people’s goods, not wishing not to have your own stolen.
To them compulsory charity was not charity at all – it was theft. A gift must be freely given or it is no gift.
And if the Imperial power comes to take your stuff (or the stuff of other folk) you meet violence with violence.
On the Irish and the Vikings – it is good that the slaves who went to Iceland stopped being slaves and intergrated into the people otherwise there would have been not enough gentic diversity for Iceland to survive (in breeding would have been a problem),
As for slavery – a strong state often helps rather than hurts slavery (see Salmon P. Chase “the slaves lawyer” on how slavery would have had great touble surviving in the Southern States without the positive actions of their governments – for a society where the slaves are the same colour as the free people, government records and enforcement is even more useful).
On Whitby: I lived in York for years and never even went to the Viking event there – I had my head stuck in various books in my youth (I missed a lot).
Which reminds me – I must go to the Isle of Man before I head back south.
rosignol said-
” The old Vikings had to do it with metal weapons, body odor and bad breath…”
If you have ever seen Indians from North East USA and Eastern Canada, they are rather large fellows. I was in Dorval, Quebec (the one on Grand Lake Victoria) and the Indians were huge. The little guys were six feet and had to go at least 230lbs and the big guys were at least 6’6″ and 280lb. So the Vikings had their work cut out for them, especially when they had to brave a hail of arrows to get close enough to use their swords.
Nick,
I wrote a detailed reply yesterday and ‘the computer chewed it’. It was about the time I lost communication with samizdata for the rest of the day.
WHat it cooks down to, as best I recall, was
Vikings sailed better than the other Europeans.
Vikings survived harsh weather better than the other Europeans.
Vikings navigated better than most (all?) Europeans.
The other Europeans had the same logistics needs as the vikings.
I think it was gunpowder. Plain and simple.
That and a little bit the number of people involved that Paul points out. Although, if first colonies had survived as they did in Plymouth Colony (with guns) that problem would have quickly changed.
Don’t underestimate native American’s combat skill and strength. Without gunpowder, I think the future of the New World would have been very different.
Samizdata did seem to be down for a few hours yesterday.
I agree with Midwesterner here.
The Vikings did have good ships (most likely better than other people’s) and they did have good navigation.
I am prepared to believe that they had optical aids. But if one says that to an establishment historian they simply say something like “and you believe in alien spaceships…..”
Even digging up lenses or even full telescopes from the ancient world (long before the Vikings) does no good – “the telescope was invented at X date, so it can not have been about at a date before this”.
And, of course, technology (once invented) can never be lost (and be reinvented later).
Who says the “Whig interpretation of history” is dead.
Still let us say that the Vikings had greater experience of navigation because of their cultural conditions – that is nice and safe.
On gunpowder – yes the Vikings never had it.
Oddly enough one of the early people to work on gunpowder in Europe (the Chinese long had gunpowder), Roger Bacon, also wrote that the Romans had optical instruments – but what did he know, he was only one of the greatest scholars of the time. He can not have had access to documents we no longer have…. (sorry for the sarcasm).
Still there have been some improvements since I went to school.
People are no longer taught that knowledge of Greek did not exist in Western Europe in the middle ages (which would have been news to people in Italy who traded directly with Constantiople – or even to men like Bacon in cold places like England).
And they are no longer taught that Roman cavalry could not charge because they did not have stirupps (spelling alert).
Whether the Romans had such things or not – a Roman saddle means you can charge without them.
Which would explain the lances and heavy armour (including hourse armour) in late Roman cavalry.
It was only in about 1984 that the establishment historians gave up the “Roman cavalry could not shock charge” line.
Victories do take place – even though it is never admitted that the line changed under pressure.
I am even seeing some references to the point that Stalin was planning to invade Germany – so the German attack in 1941 was not such a silly idea after all. Remember “Icebreaker” by “Victor Survorov” (spelling alert).
Certainly that racist mass murderer Adolf Hitler wanted his “living space” (or killing space) in the East – but he also was not prepared to sit about waiting to get hit.
The Red Army was in nice attack positions in 1941, and all their plans and training were for the comming offensive – which is why they took such vast casualties when the Germans decided to hit them first.
I recon it was definately the gunpowder.
When Cortes conquered Mexico he had a pretty small force but state of the art technology of war.
The Aztecs had never seen guns (or indeed swords made of metal). They had never seen horses either.
But being far from stupid they were very very interested.
I heard a story once about the Aztec spies monitoring the progress of Cortes little band towards Mexico City.
It may be fiction but here goes.
They wern’t sure right off whether the riders and the horses were seperate or one single new thing that they had never seen before, like Centaurs (though they wouldn’t have heard of those either). Well they figured that one out quite quickly.
The guns they had seen in action and wanted them badly.
So they decided to ambush the column and keep only three people alive to tell them their secrets. Not Cortes! bugger him!! the guys they wanted were the Ostler who looked after these stange horse creatures, the armourer naturally and the magician who lived in that tent over there.
The magician in the tent over there!!? Well the bloke they were most impressed with was the barber. They observed from a distance nackered and dishevelled Spanish soldiers enter the tent and emerge cool clean shaven and resplendent. We want a bit of that they said!
As we know Cortes got the massacre in first and the rest is History (or revisionism!)
“The Red Army was in nice attack positions in 1941”
Odd. I read that the Russkis had helped Hitler develop the Stuka and the Panzers on the plains of Ukraine during the ’30s so that their fellow-(National) Socialists could destroy the French and British capitalists. If Stalin was in such a “nice attack position”, how come he lost half his officer corps to the SS, after killing the other half in the purges of the late ’30s? We should have denied him aid, let Hitler push all the way past the Urals and atom-bombed Berlin. Roosevelt nearly lost the war. The 1944 election presented an even worse choice than in 2004. Hardly seems possible, but it’s true.
Metal? Hell. The Aztecs didn’t have the wheel, or alphabetic writing or glass or paper or machine tools or draft animals . They were living in the Stone Age. They were four thousand years behind the Conquistadors. That’s why the Conquistadors conquered Mexico and Peru easily, but failed utterly to conquer England in 1588. And now the descendants of the Conquistadors whine to the American government for “affirmative action”. And complain that “Aztlan” should have always been Mexican.
“The 1944 election presented an even worse choice than in 2004. Hardly seems possible, but it’s true.”
Robert, surely you jest!
Do you *really* believe that the haughty French looking candidate who would be more nuanced and had such a good plan for Iraq that it was never really articulated, was serious Presidential material????
As for Bush’s stretegery, do you *really* belive that driving a stake into the black heart of the middle east, by taking out uncle Saddami and growing a democracy (like we did in “unreconstuctable” Germany and Japan) is not the kind of bold and visionary concept that would trump the failed policies up to 2002?
Just Wonderin’
And if wishes were horses ….
To put it more clearly, a wish is not a plan.
I have a soft spot for Tom Dewey as a historical character.
Although people who know of his departures from free market principle might argue that the soft spot was between my ears.
As for how come the Soviets had terrible casualties when they were in good attack positions in 1941.
Good attack positions are not good defensive positions – and the Germans did not wait to get hit.
Hi y’all. how are u doing? okey. I’m to write a short story about the Viking but i got no idea. Any help?? Just hit me on my Email . I will be very happy for ur help. Thanksss
Hi y’all. how are u doing? okey. I’m to write a short story about the Viking but i got no idea. Any help?? Just hit me on my Email david_k2008@yahoo.com . I will be very happy for ur help. Thanksss