- This topic has 8 voices and 52 replies.
-
Posts
-
Well it is rather new information, I mentioned on another thread that current excavation in and around Kiev have shed light on the Rus and their activity in the 8-9th century. There is a video production co. called “Kulture” they have produced dvds on historical topics and are availible through the libraby network. In “Vikings” the subject of overland river hopping and trade, as well as the settlement on Laborador, and recent digs are discussed at legnth. If I can find an online source I will post it. This is a good starthttp://www.nordicway.com/search/Vikings%20in%20the%20East.htm
http://library-studies.blogspot.com/2006/01/vikings.html
Viking sagas describe sea battles being fought by lining up two opposing fleets with the bows of the ships facing the enemy. The defending fleet would fasten their ships alongside each other with the strongest and largest ship in the center. Attackers would climb upon the smaller boats, fighting warriors along the way and throwing spears and arrows at the center ship. Once a smaller ship had been commandeered, the attackers would set it adrift from the rest of the defending fleet. Depending on the strength of the two armies, the attackers would either retreat with the captured boat and booty or would continue to fight until the center ship was taken
Boarding was one of the preferred tactics in naval battles until the advent of gunpowder weapons. The description provided could describe any number of naval battles from Phoenicia to the Hundred Years War. I have never heard that the Vikings used a different ship type than longboats for Littoral warfare but I suppose it could be true. It makes no sense to me that they would build two different kinds of ships while living barely above a subsistence level.I have to say that i was initially disbelieving of your etymology of the word slave but everything I have found says that you are correct. The word slave derives from the slavs. I thought the word was older than that.
It makes no sense to me that they would build two different kinds of ships while living barely above a subsistence level.
Why do say they were living barely above subsistence? This is after the Vikings raided all along the coast of Britain, France and Germany and they had wealth, wanted more. The proof of cargo/merchant ships is in the digs and from Arab texts. They are funerary mounds which contain the burnt relics of these ships and Arab descriptions of them.Further, why would anyone travel down river and overland, in vessels that could not hold a lot of cargo? Why would anyone go to such lengths to trade and not have a ton of cargo?
[The description provided could describe any number of naval battles from Phoenicia to the Hundred Years War/quote]
Any battles except where Vikings are involoved? That is not a sufficent rebuttal, you have not proved this information is incorrect.
Why do say they were living barely above subsistence? This is after the Vikings raided all along the coast of Britain, France and Germany and they had wealth, wanted more. The proof of cargo/merchant ships is in the digs and from Arab texts. They are funerary mounds which contain the burnt relics of these ships and Arab descriptions of them.Further, why would anyone travel down river and overland, in vessels that could not hold a lot of cargo? Why would anyone go to such lengths to trade and not have a ton of cargo?
I would agree with you that the Vikings must have lived above subsistence level given their growth of income from raids and even from trading with places as far away as Baghdad. But I think that the Vikings certainly would not have traveled up river with attack parties in cargo ships. The reason for the standard Viking longboat was that it was capable of traveling on open sea but the hull was shallow enough to allow river navigation as well. Further, we do know that when the Carolingians tried to defend Paris from the Vikings by making fortified bridges from which they could assault the passers-by, the Vikings simply went ashore before the bridges and portaged their way around the bridges. That entails a ship which is light enough to be able to do this kind of thing.
The Vikings like every other society before about the 1850's lived barely above subsistence level. It was only with the development of modern canning methods that the threat of famine was lifted from the developed world. Income from raiding and war will only buy food if that food is available. That is one reason why crop devastation was such a successful tactic in the pre-industrial world. Most people were only one bad harvest away from starvation to begin with. The Vikings were no different in this respect. Any society that depended on agriculture was vulnerable.The vast majority of what the Vikings took was not bulky and did not require cargo ships. They took things like gold, silver, and jewels, not furniture, food, or pots and pans. They wanted booty and plunder that was of value. They did not even take their own horses; they took them when they got to where they were raiding. The Vikings used horse for strategic mobility and did not fight mounted. The best analogy to their fighting style is that of the ancient Celts or Gauls who were fierce dismounted warriors.
Ok, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by “subsistence level”. But then….what society did not live above subsistence level at that time? I imagine they would all have been subject to crop destruction, including the Carolingians or even what was arguably the greatest civilization then – the Byzantine Empire.
That is my point exactly. Medieval people did not expend extra effort if they did not have too. They were too often living on the ragged edge of starvation to do otherwise. Think of the amount of effort and wealth involved in building a ship. Why would you build two different types and use both for warfare? Warships are warships and cargo vessels are cargo vessels for a reason. It was not until after the advent of gunpowder weapons that the cargo ship and man of war became somewhat similar.We can discuss the huge differences between galley and galleon warfare if someone wants to go there. Warships were shallow draft and narrow for a reason just like cargo ships were wide beamed and deep draft for a reason. They both served different purposes. If the Vikings had used cargo ships for raids it would have been very easy for even a small galley fleet to decimate them as they approached, the fact that this did not happen mitigates against viking use of cargo ships as the main vessel for their raids.
The Vikings were not raiding on the Black Sea, they wanted silver, and gold. They came to trade, I can only assume that you dismiss Cambridge and Oxford and Thomas S. Noonan of the U. of Minnesota, a leading expert on Vikings and their travel, which included North America! Way beyond subsistence and into adventure. They were bringing livestock, slaves and furs.
More than a millennium ago, as fleets of Viking raiders were striking fear into the hearts of coast- and river-dwellers throughout western Europe, other Norsemen of more mercantile inclination were making their way east. With no less boldness and stamina, bearing luxurious furs and enticing nodules of amber, they penetrated the vast steppes of what is today Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and entered Central Asia. There they met Muslim traders who paid for Norse wares with silver coins, which the Vikings themselves did not mint, and which they coveted.
I have not dismissed the notion that the Norse did not engage in trading. I understood that the discussion was about the type of ship that they used on raiding expeditions not trading voyages.
Yes Scout, I understand that the discussion is about vessels used and the manner in which battles were fought at sea. You do expand the topic by blanketing the entire medieval world in this subsistence status. You are a good sort, its fine with me to debate, thats why I come here. What will it take to convince you that the Vikings used merchant ships, to travel by river? ???
I dont doubt that they used merchant ships. I doubt that they used merchant ships as warships. I stand by my contetnion that the Vikings used Longboats to conduct their raiding expeditions. I have never discounted that they engaged in trade as well as plunder. I think the closeness in which people lived to starvation before the modern era is indeed germane to the topic.My turn to be confused ??? I think I have gotten lost somewhere in this thread, perhaps you can tell me where I did so?I repeat:
I have not dismissed the notion that the Norse did not engage in trading. I understood that the discussion was about the type of ship that they used on raiding expeditions not trading voyages.
I guess I am confused, I thought you were resistant to the idea of vikings using merchant ships for trade. The level of comfort is applicable, but I understood you raised that issue to say the Vikings would not be traveling unless in need of food or living space.
I guess I am confused, I thought you were resistant to the idea of vikings using merchant ships for trade. The level of comfort is applicable, but I understood you raised that issue to say the Vikings would not be traveling unless in need of food or living space.
I guess I am a little confused too. I have tried to point out that the Vikings would not use longboats for trade or merchant ships for war. I have not denied that they engaged in trade. Why else did they raid, conquer, and plunder except for food and living space? Of course the quest for glory in battle was part of it but that was not their only motivation they could have easily fought among themselves if all they wanted was glory and they could have traded peacefully if they wanted to as well. The Vikings were under population pressure and facing starvation in their homeland. This is not surprising given the relative poorness of northern soil and its short growing season. Given the state of early medieval agriculture it was conquer or starve for the Vikings, which is where subsistence farming comes in. So yes, to some extent I am saying that they did not mount their raiding expeditions for the fun of it. What I have not done is claim that they engaged in no trade. I have though, made the claim that they did not employ merchant ships in their raiding expeditions for warfare they relied exclusively on the Longboat.
