Classic-Castle.com

Damien wrote: Too many people seem to think 'Vikings' were an actual culture of people.

Ya, weren't they just called Norsemen when not on raids?

It's not that easy. There is no one definite definition of the term "viking". Usage varies, without any of them necessarily being wrong.

The origin of the word is also very unclear, and there are many different theories. Many claim the first written reference to the term viking is in the anglo-saxon poem Widsith (english) from 5-600 AD - long before the viking age and raids.

And too many people seem to think vikings were nothing more than barbaric warriors.

Really? Now, maybe I missed something in here, but I don't seem to recall reading any post in this thread that made any such claim.

For viking settlers, it was common to bring horses and other animals on their ships.

'Viking settlers?' The only 'Vikings' that settled was more happenstance than anything else. The very concept of going 'a-viking' was NOT to settle. Northern Germanic tribes certainly went the route you are suggesting. They were not, however, vikings, generally speaking.

Viking graves often contain horses and horse equipment. [/quote

Scandinavian graves? Sure. "Viking graves?" No.



Again, the Viking were not a society. They were not a culture. They were an occupation.

Ya, weren't they just called Norsemen when not on raids?

Sort of. Norsemen comes from 'North Men.' It was a term often used to describe pretty much all of the North-Western European peoples. So in a general sense, quite. But more specifically, Vikings when not raiding should rightly be called by whatever culture they came from -- Norway, the Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.


Hence the confusion some seem to have. As I mentioned, people tend to use the word 'Viking' mistakenly believing it refers to an actual culture or society to which they can attribute societal norms, politics, etc. (Usually the term is used simply in the belief that it refers to Scandinavians as a whole, while others seem to actually think 'Viking' was itself a culture distinct from those of Scandinavia.) It can't be done. The very terminology (which as mentioned, predates the 'Vikings') is somewhat ambiguous in its origin. Its usage, however, is not as ambiguous as you may be led to believe.

We know, historically, WHO was referred to as Vikings and what historians accept as 'Vikings.' We also know that there was never a culture/race/ethnicity known as 'Viking.'

Thus, it is purely incorrect to equate 'Viking' with one given people.


It's equivalent to using the word 'knight' to refer to the French. Not all Frenchmen were knights, and not all knights were French.

Damien,

Your definition of viking is obviously limited to the concept of "going on viking". This is not wrong. There are, however, other definitions in use, also by historians. You can't say that they are wrong, either. It all depends on context and definition. Even in the actual times of the vikings the word was used differently by different people.

You limit "viking" to being an act more than a person, which is fine, although often problematic in discussions such as these. Even so, your claim that vikings "did not come from a culture of equestrians" could at least be debated, as there are many examples that horses were, in fact, quite common in scandinavian culture at that time. Right?

Anyway, I think we agree a lot more than I initially thought

they used cavalry when invading other inland tribes but they would take a few horses when traveling on ships

the vikings ATE horses. they probably rode on sheep.

try sheep

The vikings didnt realy use cavalry because they had a great navy and there foot soldiers had a technique to fighting on foot.

The vikings didnt realy use cavalry because they had a great navy and there foot soldiers had a technique to fighting on foot.

The Vikings were not a nation, therefore they could not have a navy.

Bluesecrets wrote:

The vikings didnt realy use cavalry because they had a great navy and there foot soldiers had a technique to fighting on foot.

The Vikings were not a nation, therefore they could not have a navy.

They sure had some great warships though.

As far as I know, Vikings used horses, and were some times burried with them, when they died. The horse was then killed to be burried with their owners.

Just a question, but is 'burried' spelled right? I'm not sure.

Gijs25 wrote:As far as I know, Vikings used horses, and were some times burried with them, when they died. The horse was then killed to be burried with their owners.

Just a question, but is 'burried' spelled right? I'm not sure.

I think its just one R. Buried.

[quote="Bluesecrets"][quote]The vikings didnt realy use cavalry because they had a great navy and there foot soldiers had a technique to fighting on foot. [/quote]

The Vikings were not a nation, therefore they could not have a navy.[/quote]

Okay Denmark's,Norway's and sweden's navy was great.

I am not sure that the horse usage and navy is tied directly except perhaps in transport of them. Viking boats could hold horses but they are not ideal for them, especially in large numbers.

My guess of why they did not use them directly in war is a complex one but their culture just really didn't. Not too odd as the Anglo-Saxons did not really until the 11th century but mostly from Norman influence. Regions just have different tactics and styles of warfare. Some never get much into cavalry while others held onto it long after it was a hugely viable method of waging war....

Heir

I think what people said about the navy meant raids ( groups of ships raiding the coast line ). The vikings didn't have allies because they raid almost very one on the coast.

At this point this disscussion is about as pointless as debating weather vikings helmets had horns or not.(they didn't)actually scratch that theres less point in this than debating wether a samurai or a knight would win a duel.