Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Vikings Shmikings


I had no idea just how awesome Native Americans were.

The bloodthirsty piratical marauders known as Norsemen (or Vikings) tried to settle in North America about 600 years before Columbus. They came into contact with Native Americans, known to the Norsemen as Skraelings (meaning aboriginal or native people) who at first were friendly, and trade was established. No one knows why, but soon after settling the Norsemen were attacked by the Skraelings, and after only a year of settling, the Norsemen retreated to the seas and never returned. The Norsemen had metal - swords, shields, armour - and they were beaten back by the passion and fervor of the Native Americans (I believe they were the Inuits, Wabanaki and Beothuks). Bravo.

6 comments:

  1. Supposedly, an indian tried to steal an axe from a Norseman, who then killed him, theft was not tolerated in their culture. The Skraelings attacked, and due to overwhelming numbers, slaughtered most of the Norse, who then retreated back to Greenland via Markland.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The irony is killing me of calling the Vikings "bloodthirsty piratical marauders" when they were obviously the innocent party who were attacked because of racial and cultural differences.

    For you information most of the marauder-reputation the Vikings have comes from the fact that the Danish vikings turned to conquest and plunder to solve their insufficient land (Viking tribes had too little territory to support their populations), with their eyes on England (Danelag/Danelaw) and France (Normandie) for settlements. The Norwegian vikings turned to exploration and colonization, the Swedes to trade with the east to gain more resources than pure farming could.

    With the "Dane/Norwegian/Swede" distinction being a purely geographical reference since they weren't separate entities yet.

    P.S. Got to this page because it's #1 on Google image-search when I searched for "Skraeling". :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your points; I'm always up for a good argument, especially if I'm learning from it. But if your story is true about an Indian stealing an axe and a Norseman killing him because it was not tolerated in his culture, I would say that the Indian was the victim of racial and cultural differences - or at least, both sides are victims of racial and cultural differences.
    I'm interested to read that story though; if you could link me that'd be great.
    I admittedly didn't research this thought for very long at all; it just peaked my interest in differences in older cultures and the outcomes of different conflicts (especially with thought to things like technology, diplomacy and, like you say, sheer numbers.)

    Also, I thought if the Dane/Norwegian/Swede denominations weren't distinct, separate entities at the time of colonising North America, their behaviour couldn't be distinguished between the different races. This is why I don't think calling them bloodthirsty piratical marauders is ironic - perhaps more a supposition that without proper distinction, Vikings were Vikings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just want to add that the Norsemen were not really any more violent and bloodthirsty than any other culture at that time. Just look at the christians, who slaughtered thousands of Europeans who refused to convert to the new religion. And the Native Americans were no different, they went to war with each other all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thorir your opinion is noted, but I didn't think the relative comparison of violence or bloodthirstiness is a factor in my opinion. I was just saying that I found it interesting that a people with blacksmithing and horsemanship (yes, as bloodthirsty and violent as any other nation of the time) could be repelled by a comparatively primitive race (who were just as bloodthirsty and violent as any other nations of the time). I just wanted to highlight the difference in technology. If you thought this post was aimed to instigate a theological response, I apologise. In the same token, I'd rather you didn't take a loose conviction based on "who is more bloodthirsty or violent" to have a shot at Christianity. That is not the intention of this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. viking were not "blood thirsty"! they were Farmers, traders, fathers and sons. And the savages of North america attacked us first! not our fault!

    ReplyDelete