(clarification about the use of bows and body strength below) We hope you enjoyed the two specials on the Vikings. We will return the the early-modern period in the next uploads. The next video will be on Gustavus Adolphus (finally I guess). If you enjoy the content consider tipping via Patreon or Paypal! www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandRhomanhistory Edit: our comment on body strength and the use of bows was not very well formulated I guess. The argument is not our own, it's just taken from the literature but badly translated. Basically, it is about that you're at a disadvantage when fighting in melee if you're physically weaker than your enemy (which is true for women on average). So, the argument that women tended to have used bows or missile weapons is logical in itself. (you can still disagree, we just wanted to clearify that it is not an argumentative mistake on our part. I hope it's clear from the video that we just try to report what scholars think about these topics)
Wow man... missile weapons such as bows take a lot more strength than swinging a 1 IB sword or a 20 IB shield. Archers were burly strong men not little scantily clad women pulling 20 ib prop bows.
I am more curious why does being buried with a bow must automatically mean someone was a military archer? It's pre 1000 north Europe, not exactly a fully agrarian society, hunters existed. It takes a lot less effort to shoot a smaller bow at birds and rabbits. Not saying the argument is completely without merit, but that would be my first guess, regardless whose bones laid in the grave.
I dont understand why people can't imagine that a woman or weaker man could use a bow made for hunting or just a smaller one made for war. A bow that isn't a longbow could easily be just as deadly when most people may not have even been wearing chainmail. Also, I highly doubt that the average woman back then who lived in an agricultural society and most likely on a farm would have been as weak as your average western society woman today due to the amount of manual labor they performed.
"Viking raids were often launched from a secure position, to which they could retreat." Vikings liked a safe space. "This pillaging is so stressful, Kräl, I need to go back."
While i think it's overall a well researched video, I agree that his claim about missile weapons requiring less strength to use is questionable. I'm not quite sure what kind of bows were used during during this time period, but especially bows for battle field use required a considerable amount of strength in order to pull back the string.
@@jackthestripper7368 Vikings didn't use longbows or anything that was particularly difficult to use. The bow was definitely far from their favorite weapon and they sometimes just used hunting bows. Still wouldn't have required less strength than a sword or whatever and the whole idea about "strength requirements" is a bit silly because people think of it as like DnD where you can't use some weapons unless you have a high enough strength stat. You use a weapon and then train with it, that means that you'll naturally build up whatever muscles are needed for that, that's how our bodies work. Doesn't really matter if you're a woman or a man, spears were probably mostly found because the spear is literally the most popular weapon in history, not because it needed less strength, which it doesn't.
But most written sources are from the romantic era so it is only normal to base suggestions on this. There is very little contemporary written sources. And even archeological finds are debateable and ideas changed every 20 years on what the find means. The video takes so many liberties and suggestions it's hardly different from a romantic saga 200 years after the events.
A battle axe and a wood-cutting axe were completely different tools. One specialized for killing the other for wood cutting obviously. A Dane axe for example would be unsuitable for cutting wood.
You are absolutely right about the 2 handed axes. It would be a bad idea to use a light, thin-bladed "Dane axe" to cut down a tree, or to use a heavy felling axe in war. It is less clear cut with the single handed bearded axes, which could be used as carpentry tools and used around camp, as well as being light enough to wield in a fight.
I come from west Norway (Hordaland, or the land of the hordes) and I firmly believe the tactical advantage that our local boat building tradition offered was key to the Vikings. Mediterranen boats made sturdy to ram would disintegrate on the open ocean. The boats built here were lighter, faster, smaller, going through the sea instead of against it. Up here along the coast everybody were fishermen (in the north sea) and thus able seamen and boat builders from early age. To the "Viking" the boat was as important to him as the horse for a Mongol. My guess: 10 to 20 guys spent the winter to co-build a boat to go treasure hunting together with down south in summer (each also have a fishing boat to maintain). Seldom very sophisticated or coordinated since the population in west Norway was/is extremely spread out along the coast. Also, not so much red mushrooms here but psilocybin grow everywhere.
Yes the basic form of the Viking longship, and the skill to build them survived long long after the end of the Viking era, being the basic construction of the fishing fleet of the North Sea right until the twentieth century.
It was the combination of shipbuilding and early navigating! The vikings where actually more farmers and fishermen than real warriors. When first conquering england they stood up to monks and peasant warriors. They where gaints in the eyes of the english. Yes the vikings fought and where trained. But in every war they just outnumbered the english! And the english army was not more than a few hundred trained warriors and a lot of peasants. Against the mighty numbers of vikings. Like in every war even fought! The army with the most fighters wins! And don't forget the vikings where from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and also Holland. They where called Frisain that time.
Hordaland doesnt mean land of the hordes though. Stop Anglizicing everything. It most likely is protogermanic and means warrior or hero. Not horde though.
@@beersmurff It's means where they have more men than land. I'm from it. Have you heard about fjords? They are bountiful lands. My great great grandfather and his brothers were toiling for very very small land before they left for the aluminum or electricity factories.
@@beersmurff sorry i must answer you again. Geologically, morene sand (silt from a glacier Front, which all the Fjords really are) is optimal for growing any crop. The Fjords are famous for cherries, apples and plums, cider and mushrooms. Make the maths, please
so true, the likes of Kings and Generals, armchair historian and others with millions of subs never get even close to this comprehensible, accurate account. Many others do barely any research at all... just wikipedia and animations.
@@clintmoor422 Wikipedia and animations disguised as a documentary..never thought about it that way before. I still have faith in K&G though. Only channels I follow now are K&G, SandRhoman, Pike and Shot, Historia Civilis, Epic History TV and Flash Point History.
Good point about the misinterpretation of shieldwalls. Every time I see this shield-on-shield shoving match in a movie or a tv series, I cringe heavily.
In the case of the subject Leidangr (ledding), I would go to the Scandinavian sources. People underestimates the huge work required to build and maintain a longship. The Ledding system was not just a sustem to summon boats, but to PREVENT a king to summon boats- basically he couldnt by law summon more than a quarter of available ships. A full ledding required a national emergency, and often inspired revolt (as an example this happened to Svend Tveskæg) beacause the cities supposed to supply these ships just couldnt bear the cost. So in most years, a citys ship wasnt requested by the king, and so the locals were free to sail out on their own venture. I think there is a Norwegian source that mentions ledding as early as 850, but I cant recall who it is...
Youve done it again! excellent work! A thing to add about the viking shield wall debate is that not all vikings or groups of vikings received uniform levels of training, and a shield wall is only as effective as the individuals who made it up. A motley force of raiders formed up in a shield wall would not look or fight the same as a group of professional or seasoned warriors ready for battle. In Either case vikings likely weren't ever on the level of for example roman formations, but veteran warriors would likely recognize the benefits/be much more capable of fighting together in a more orderly 'shield wall' and possibly even be able to pull off more complex smaller unit maneuvers (flanking/wedge formations/etc) IF the men are used to fighting with eachother as a team. This not only applies to vikings but combat in general, and really to any group tasks; a group of NFL players play a more coordinated and intense game of football than the neighbor kids do, and a kitchen full of chefs who have been cooking together for years looks very different to my family cooking once a year on thanksgiving xD
I want to add : a line of men with round shield of 80cm diameter are like a wall of shields. Even if there not shoulder to shoulder. In my opinion a good shield wall is a line when the men are at 60cm to each other. They can manipulate shield and weapons easely and protect there mate even if there a not very close together
I've always found it very handy to think of many medieval conquerors as gangsters. Glorifying them as king, emperor, khan or caliph didn't stop them from being gangsters. When viewed like that it makes it easier to imagine their often smaller sizes.
Can you imagine the amount of teenage boys who's dreams were shattered by this video? Although I'd be careful with the notion of battle axes or spears being useful as tools for woodworking or hunting. That is a very slippery slope to stand on. They are not made for those purposes and arguably are terrible at them.
I have always been a big fan of the Viking culture. I have never really believed the Bloodeagle as it was described. It just seems like most people would die of blood loss or shock before they could do the whole punishment.
This is a great channel, really with the way you represent the characters. If you take requests ever, please do a video on Dark Age/Medieval Irish Pirates!
If someone gonna comment about missile weapons and body strength, remember: it's not that you can be weak and use those, it's that you don't need to directly compete on a test of strength against your opponent
0:11 whenever I watch your videos I always feel so bad for that poor couple, no matter what era of warfare and no matter the location, they're always getting picked on and prodded at by invaders :(
as a scandinavian, dane specifically, i always enjoy these videos. a norwegian channel i follow once described it as the norwegians basically went out and beat up anyone they could taking their stuff, even other norwegiants or us danes to the south, and many of the small-scale raids were norwegian. while we danes were the big guys in the regard to going out viking. stuff like the great heathen army. normandy. things like that. there is a reason it was called danegæld and the danelaw. danegæld basically means dane debt.
@@64fairlane305 I`l suggest that you study facts in the matter. sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandinavien. Even thou the fact is does`nt lay on the Scandinavian penninsula, it does`nt mean it`s not a Scandinavian belongin.
@@64fairlane305 yes it is? You Nordic yourself? Scandinavia literally refers to Denmark, Sweden and Norway. It’s a cultural and a geographical subregion. What would it else be? It’s refers to the historical, cultural and linguistic ties between us three. Edit: I see you are Norwegian, you must not been in school 😂 you must be thinking the Scandinavian Peninsula, in that aspect you are right tho
A great deal of conjecture for a video entitled "Myths vs Reality". I read a lot, and even historians agree that too many modern "historians" use their modern belief system to form their opinions One such disagreement is the female Viking warrior...which is generally considered a modern construct.
Out of interest, do we have contemporary figures for the size of Anglo-Saxon armies mustered in England in this period? Figuring the size of Saxon forces could assist in calculating the size of a Viking Army. For example, if the King of Mercia could field 2,000 troops maximum, the idea of Viking armies under 1,000 becomes more feasible. As the defending nation, we could infer that the Mercians would have had to leave a substantial portion of those 2,000 troops on garrison duty/patrolling/other tasks, leaving maybe as few as 1,000 to take actual field. In this case, a force of 600 Vikings attacking by surprise could overwhelm their enemies. On the other hand, if the Mercian king could raise 10,000 troops, this means that the Great Heathen Army would have to have been substantially larger. Also, it would depend on the quality. Also, from my understanding, the Saxon armies of the time were not particularly professional either and relied heavily on levies and the fyrd. These levies would be more susceptible to psychological warfare projecting the Norse as fearsome warriors and plunderers. Thus, a Viking army that consisted primarily of warriors (assuming a lot of the farmers/non-combatants stayed at home or near the ships), would have a significant advantage over a larger Saxon force that consisted of a small core of trained soldiers (household warriors, vassals, etc) and then a larger force of levies.
The Scandinavian armies were also almost entirely composed of farmer-raiders rather than professional warriors. And the Fyrd were a trained and equipped Militia with many having at least limited prior combat experience. Both the Viking and Anglo-Saxon armies had these militia/levy forces as the bulk, with a small core of Aristocrats and their armed retainers, in Anglo Saxon culture called Thegns (Aristocrats and their Retinue) and in Scandinavian culture HouseKarlr (house men/retainers). These were the 10% of professional warriors in these armies. Anglo Saxon armies and Viking armies were typically small. Alfreds army at Edington likely numbered 2,000 men at most, the great coalition battle and Anglo-Saxon victory at Brunanburh in 937 likely had 10,000 men on the field total. So these forces would typically be quite small, with "battles" even having a few hundred combatants per side. Also, the Viking's actual record in pitched battle is dismal to say the least. It's really the inverse of what's happened to France's war reputation in recent decades.
@@TheSunderingSea One more thing, the Scandinavian Norsmen did choose to "go viking" (become a sea-raider) hence they was better mental and skillswise perperd for combat. I know I will fight for my life within three months, better to preper myself, or this "go vilking" thing is not for me, I continue to be a farmer.
@@kirgan1000 not necessarily. There's a difference between "I'm going to go raiding" and "I'm going to go to war". As a former soldier and private contractor, I'll testify to that. This is likely a factor in Vikings avoided pitched battles. If you're going out to raid, you are after profit/wealth, not particularly keen on battle unless you absolutely have to. This is especially true in this period where battles were often chaotic, disorganized and highly susceptible to chance.
I made a comment wondering about the differences between the depiction of Vikings in popular fiction vs. reality on your last video. The answers I got were pretty much all over the place, so I'm very glad you made this follow up.
They absolutely do require far more body strength than melee weapons. It annoys me how every rpg rates bows as dex/agility and swords/axes as strength. It's literally the opposite. The only strength needed for a melee weapon is to be strong enough to lift it and swing it effectively, which doesn't require much strength at all
@@einarr7301 One exception would be crossbows because with those you can use mechanical aids but I'm under the impression that crossbows weren't yet that common in Europe during the Viking age.
@@seneca983 yeah thats a good point. Some strength is needed because when you're winding back the crossbow string the resistance does get pretty substantial towards the end but it's nothing compared to a 160 pound longbow. Crossbows weren't common at all during the viking age though, and I know the old norse didn't use them. they didn't become prominent until the medieval period. On a side note, funnily enough, contrary to popular belief a crossbow is a poor armor piercing weapon. It suffers from low velocity due to a very short draw distance. It's just far easier to learn how to use than a full fledged war bow which takes years of training. You can still deliver devastating damage with them but armored opponents will be a problem. It also comes down to what kind of bolt heads you're using. I think they're most effective when shooting in mass numbers
@@einarr7301 "they didn't become prominent until the medieval period" As a minor nitpick, the Viking age was technically within the Medieval period but indeed the point still stands that crossbows only became common in Europe later in the Medieval period. "It suffers from low velocity due to a very short draw distance." This depends on the type or crossbow. There are bigger ones like Wallarmbrusts which pack a lot more punch than the smaller ones though I think those appeared later than the smaller crossbows.
@@seneca983 yeah what I meant was the middle/late medieval period. I know the medieval period spanned a several centuries and that the viking age technically is a part of the medieval period but I kinda put the viking age into the end of the dark ages and refer to the medieval period as the post viking age after the norman conquest of England because the term medieval times can be extremely broad and doesn't really narrow down exactly what era you're talking about. The viking age was like the bridge between the dark ages of the post Roman collapse and the feudal knightly era of europe. Just makes it a little easier to specify in my opinion. Those big crossbows did appear later but weren't as common as the smaller ones. I actually just read a bit 14th/15th century crossbows and apparently the most common types didn't even require a windlass or any kind of crank to operate which I did not know. Most crossbows have a roughly 6-7 inch draw distance where a longbow would have a roughly 26 inch draw distance and shot a much heavier projectile, and even those would be deflected by a high quality breastplate. Apparently a steel breastplate that wasn't even hardened was strong enough to deflect shots, which I also wasn't entirely aware of. The curved and rounded surfaces of plate armor is what actually contributes most to the shot deflecting rather than being super strong hardened steel because it minimizes the chance of direct impact
The idea of berserker warriors taking magic mushrooms before battle sounds dramatic, but mushrooms don't somehow make people more violent and aggressive, it's quite the opposite.
Yep, vikings only consumed mushrooms after a lost battle or when they were about to die from starvation, specially hunters looking for food in the woods. And berserker or berserkergang other than the mythological warriors, was just a way to fight in a duel and has more to do with bulls(horny helmets) and not bears.
They didnt just pop a doxen shrooms before charging into battle. Their druids would have to wait for the brew to take effect, then hype the warriors up in their altered mental state. It also depends on the strain of mushroom.
I mean although berserkers might have not existed. Certain mushrooms have pain killing effects and hallucinations which would help warriors if they could manage to deal with the other side effects
Other than the bow body strength issue I'd also like to add that you wouldn't use your wood cutting axes in war, or your weapons as tools other than in emergencies. These axes are built very differently, and you'd ruin your Dane axe quickly if you used it for felling trees regularly.
@@Greensiteofhell True, but if your opponent does not hold still and maybe even tries to chop your head off instead, you'll appreciate a thing that was meant to be handled as a weapon. Battle axes are built very differently from wood chopping ones, and while you can cross-use them in a pinch, you would quickly damage your, e.g., Dane axe.
Excellent video and content, based on actual historians' books with sources as usual, that put things back in their place. Even most debunking videos/articles about Norse cultures and "vikings" get so much wrong and actually brew old myths or newer viking "pop culture" ideas. I appreciate that you also step back from the "shieldmaiden" controversy and gives both points of view, but personally I don't think this was a regular thing simply based on demographics and archeology as well. Female warriors, noblewomen with weapons, notables... was obviously a real, but that was an exceptional thing most likely. We are far from whole female fighting contingents. Noble women could access to power in Norse societies and farmers could learn how to defend themselves but only in emergency. About females actually fighting in battles all geared up, the sources always spoke about actual "Vikings" (i.e. merchants/pirates/mercenaries that lived most of their lives in foreign lands, constantly moving as militarized societies). In these cases, it is highly probable that they traveled with their wives and concubines for obvious reasons, just like regiments of Landsknechten did in the Renaissance. It is thus not impossible to see some of these women gearing up and joining their husbands in a raid to buff up the numbers, especially if they received some training before.
17:25 The application of 13th century law, from a highly organized and litigious period, to the far less formal social and political structures of the 9th century, seems pretty silly. The distinction between a "legitimate" king raising an army and a social-climbing warlord raising a band of opportunistic adventurers seems appropriate to the later period, but too fine for an earlier time when any noble could suddenly become a petty king. After all, Henry II's great-grandfather Fulk was a minor noble who rose to the heights of power through outright banditry in a nominally hierarchical Frankish kingdom in the 11th century. This debate calls to mind the Hellenic distinction between a legitimate "born" king of a polis, and a tyrant who had usurped the throne. It seems so alien to us because we've come to associate the word tyrant with the form or tone of rulership, whereas for the Greeks it just referred to the means of acquiring office, so many "tyrants" were praised as just rulers. The warband leaders who are the subject of this debate seem more analogous to these men than to pirate captains or freebooters.
Indeed, outside of Karl the Greats Frankia, the Muslim World and the Byzantines, leadership could be very fluid indeed. Even in the Islamic world, the Abbasids basically rose to power via the military support of Shia Muslims in Eastern Iran and not on account of being terribly "blue blooded" and having a legitimate claim.
Thanks for the interesting video! I would be interested to hear any response to the following thought: I would contest the idea that Viking raiders were no more brutal than other cultures for the following reasons 1: Our default position should be believing in the sources unless there is a good reason to doubt them. 2: Surviving Scandinavian sagas (e.g. Volsungsaga) also describe a harsh culture with a high level of violence. These sources were not biased and are widely believed to incorporate a large amount of material from as early as the 9th century. 3: There is a lot of comparative evidence suggesting that pre-Christian Scandinavian culture could have displayed a high level of cruelty. Many cultures used cruelty deliberately (e.g. Assyrians, Mongols, Commanches) in order to gain a psychological edge. It was also common for semi- or fully professional raiders to see their victims as less human and to enjoy their suffering. This fact isn't so much a pragmatic one, but a result of how cultures develop through feedback loops and reinforcement. Therefore, there is good practical and social reasons for Vikings to have been particularly cruel: it would have intimidated potential opponents and Viking raiders were unusually committed to predation on foreign communities, making them fit a broader pattern of high cruelty predator cultures. As a final point, although warfare was quite brutal in the early medieval period generally, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Vikings were cruel in an unusual way. I think that historians can be a little excessive in "dispelling myths" to the extent where they end up having to argue that the surviving sources are basically untrustworthy.
Carolingians king, Carolus Magnus order to cut the head of 4000 Saxons when they refuse to convert to Christianism. Everybody were cruel in war. Frisons, and Tetons raiders were cruel. Tatar raiders were cruel. Scandinavians raiders were no more cruel than all people living in this Era in my opinion. They just plunder sacred place with violence so there legend was born ! Yes they used psychological warfare, but, I think, not more than other.
Really doubt the existence of shield maidens on any larger scale. You'd think the christians would have written about it, it would have propably seemed very barbaric in their eyes. Women may have occasionally joined the defenses in a desperate siege maybe, but I'm not sure how common that was in the middle ages tbh. Also the other cultures of the time similar to the scandinavians show no evidence of female warriors either.
I don't know, there is evidence of Women having gone to war dressed as men in practically every army in Europe. Sure they were not there in large numbers, but enough of them to get mentioned in the history books.
There have always been some occasional female warrior in history, but they can not have been many in the Viking culture, becuse there are no rune-stone who celebrates their warrior achievements or work as a "headstone" or memorial stone for a female who did die abroad as warrior.
I think you greatly underestimate the importance of viking ships and seamanship here. First of all, there are many examples of ship to ship battles taking place in and around Scandinavia, with detailed descriptions of how such battles would be conducted. Secondly, the share reach and frequency of viking excursions on sea, be it raiding, trading, or exploration, as compared to other cultures/peoples at the time, suggests that there must have been something related to viking ships and/or seamanship which was significantly supperior for their time.
Truls Hansson - Very simple poverty, lack of land and a good ship design lead to a lot of people who take chances, others had not to take these high risk, likey death endeavor, as they had an easier and better life.
Around 10:40 you suggest that projectile weapons require less body strength to use. However to wield a bow and arrow properly it's one of the most strength intensive weapons to yield
They do not suggest that using a ranged weapon requires less body strength, but rather that fighting requires a lot of strength. What is meant is that in a melee men stand a better chance than women, on average, as men are naturally stronger. If two shields clash against each other, you are likely using far more strength to push back against your shield, than it would take to draw a bow, or swing a sling.
@@GravityRainblow That's actually a false assertion. Weapons are force multipliers, a woman's physical limitations are greatly reduced by adding one. Also if you think pushing back with a shield requires less strength than a bow, then you've simply never shot a war bow. These were not sports bows. The draw weight on those bows is ridiculous, most men had train with them their whole lives to be able to use them effectively. Not even talking longbows here
Lets be honest here. Raiding was not done first in the 700s, in fact raiding was a Germanic past time for the young and unproven wolves. Perhaps this time it was on a much larger scale, which is why it was recorded by the Bri'ish.
dane axe for wood cutting ?? nope but other than that yes. Wait less body strength to use a bow or a spear ? realy depends on the draw weight of the bow. And a twohanded spear? thats heawy you cant throw that very far at all. There is a difference in a hunting spear for hunting and one for combat. the viking age fighting spear was a male wapon not a ranged one. ( not for throwing )
Not counting that even a boar spear has 2 lil' nobs (forgot the name) meant to stop boar from continuing to charge you, same applies to fighting spears, as you don't wanna spent 1 minute trying to pry your spear off a guy;Those nobs would have made for shit aerial stability, aka would not spin and therefore go off on a random direction! Dane axes were likely used to chop wood someday,but probably out of desperation or lack of proper equipment,seeing as, y'know, it's still an axe and can be resharpened
Exactly it takes a lot more strength to pull a warbow or even a hunting bow than pulling a 20 ib prop bow or swinging a 1 ib sword with a 15 ib shield.
as a woodworker, I get really picky about "wood cutting". People assume "felling trees" and doing all the regular axe shit, which a dane axe clearly cannot do. But if I were a guy who was building longboats, I would be squaring up logs into timbers, usually standing on top of them over a pit. For that job, I don't think you could convince me to use anything besides a dane axe. And thus we shine light on the dangers of using a term so broad as "wood cutting".
@@Daylon91 From what I know, the Viking war bow was possibly the same bow used for hunting? I just know they they may have lesser draw weights than an English Warbow. I'm assuming around 70-100lbs..
Great video. Seems much more plausible explanation of warfare. I would like to know more about the driving force that started the viking raids. Was it due to food shortages in Scandinavia?
There are a lot of factor. We are not sure nowadays : - increasing of population - wars between Christians King in great-britain, carolingians empire and in Ireland, so it's easy to do a sneaky raids against them - a lot of silver and some gold in Christians building, with no guards. - the birth and emerging of King in Scandinavia, with some people who refuse this, so go raid and settle in other country - the development of sail in the 7th century.
I think you should’ve touched on how Scandinavia was overpopulated, leading to warbands being formed much more often than other peoples at the time. Also, the difficulty of raising an army by a king or earl that was sizable enough to confront a raid was a huge, difficult, and lengthy venture, you can see evidence of this in the size of battles and length of wars at the time. an important note is that the idea of a Borough came about due to the Great Heathen Army- so there was an absence of walled towns especially in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (even the walled Roman city of London was abandoned, and lived around and outside of). as far as the fleets of ships, well, looking at the geography of Scandinavia ships were much better, faster transportation than say in France for example. so they had a lot of ships, and were good at using them. These factors, especially the necessity compared to European rulers of Scandinavians to leave their homes created the perfect storm that left other Europeans helpless. I’d argue the main reason being that vikings tended to operate outside of the scope of the nobility, which cut down on the logistics and politics that often times bogged down organizing a campaign elsewhere in Europe.
"Viking" simply means "raiding." It is inherently violent. Not all Scandinavians raided, and those that did, didn't usually do it all the time, but to go viking meant to go raiding. It's true, on the battlefield they weren't any more violent than any other pirate or warband, but they were more violent because they _didn't_ usually fight on a battlefield, they raided small isolated areas, killed anyone that wouldn't be a good slave, and left before anyone could respond. By this time, most of Europe was more or less culturally and religiously united enough that there was a general understanding between who could and couldn't be attacked. The Vikings weren't part of that culture, didn't know the rules, so of course broke them. Those same _vikings_ might then sail to the next town and peacefully trade with them.
Very good video - a couple of notes though: The ships were made as light as possible in order to travel primarily slong coast lines and rivers, that's true, but viking ships made it all the way to both Iceland and Vinland (northern America/Canada) which was a great feat. They were also easy to roll on the ground on tree trunks which is why eastern Vikings (Swedish vikings) could make it all the way to Constantinopel. The weapons were not only light on metal: the metal was often atrociously bad, since the vikings lacked proper steel smithing. I'm not so sure that only a few men in each settlement were warriors; they were all more or less fighters who went out in viking as a kind of conscription or volunteering.
It was not that Viking iron was bad, far from it. Their forges could reach temperatures of up to 2000 degrees Celsius, which is a requirement for steel smithing, which was a Viking innovation. Viking swords had similar qualities to spring steel, a 14th century method of smithing. We have no archaelogical evidence of Vikings wearing cloth armour like leather and gamberson, but we do have chain mail. It was that the acquisition of the iron in their homelands was extremely difficult in mountainous and tundra environments without good transportation and supply. Vikings would often trade or pillage for metals because it was easier to acquire than mining the ore. The iron would then be used for farm tools, construction, e.c.t., before being used for weapons and armour. In the early Viking age they could acquire the metals almost unopposed and in large quantities, but once other nations became more prepare for raids, the dependency on raiding started crumbling the Viking kingdoms.
@@sebastianpijov8708archeological evidence for gambeson is harder to obtain because it rots. The "viking" metals were also mostly TRADED for, not domestically produced. And only really shot up by the 9th century well into the viking age. Smithing was also not a viking innovation, at least not the norse method of using iron from bogs, everyome in a bog with iron did the same thing be it Scandinavia, Britain or Ireland. And when Eastern Rome had far superior methods and capable of arming a unit of Kataphraktos its a bit stretching.
I'm not convinced of the idea of secondary purpose of the viking weapons, and for me just is another myth. Battle axes are different than wood chopping axes and require a lot of skill to made. Some of them have high quality steel edges, usually incredibly thin and light, made for cutting people and not wood. A warbow and a hunting bow require a similar skill, but I don't think people went hunting with 100# bows (Hedeby). 50# or 60# bows are enough for any large european animal. Being able to hunt with a bow and being effective with a bow on the war field are two very different things. Spears are easier to make but I heard of some spear heads showing pattern welding. Not something the typical village blacksmith may make. Arming a warrior was not that cheap at it sounds. And most important, weapons don't make a warrior! Training and culture make a warrior.
If u can shoot the bow u have than using it in on the battlefield is NOT a different thing. You may use a bow that's heavier to get more smack and penetration. Look I'm Sioux and we used our 50 ib bows for both hunting and war and it didnt change anything
@@Daylon91 I agree with you that one can hunt pretty much everything with a 50# bow and I think this is a very good poundage for a fast and well placed shot, something which may be hard to do with the 100#. Norse longbows from Hedeby were around 100#! They could pierce much of the armour of the period and even a wooden shield may not provide 100% protection. Training to shoot a "war" bow will take more time as compared to a hunting bow and must be done regularly to maintain the strength. The idea of some viking taking his hunting bow and his chopping axe and going to war with it does not sounds realistic to me, and more important, I don't think is consistent with archeological finds.
@@Daylon91 BTW, I assume bows used by mounted warriors (like Sioux?) tend to have a lower average poundage as it is harder to shoot a bow from the horse back.
@@al-rediph yea we shot bows 45-50 ibs. Since we didnt have stirrups our draw weight was limited but 50 pounds approximately. With stirrups you can brace yourself somewhat and use more muscles to pull the bow resulting in bows on average from eastern horse cultures of 60 pounds to 130 pounds on horseback and 200 pounds on the ground.
First, I really like your channel and your videos. To other watchers: do subscribe! But this video, kind of triggered me .... Myths and reality is a nice title. Yes, there are a lot of myths, so let's not create more. I think we should start by separating the norse and viking culture. Going viking was one aspect of the norse culture and only some Scandinavians participated in viking raids. Many, were farmers, handlers, colonisers, warriors or a mix of all this, depending on circumstances. I agree that the vikings were not the unwashed, dirty barbarians they are usually and unfortunately shown in popular media. For me they are more like professional soldiers and mercenaries part of a raiding culture. The perception, by the cultures they raided, of the vikings, as being extremely violent, even for the time the lived in, should be addressed and not cheaply put aside with arguments like: "they were not that different from their contemporaries", because they obviously were quite different. Warfare and culture are not the same. Yep, it may not be easy to differentiate between an Anglo-Saxon and a Norse warrior. But the motivations, the pagan / christian relations, laws, the whole cultural context of warfare makes a huge difference! So how about looking into why the contemporary people talk about "never seen atrocity" (see Alcuin of York) or about "wrath of God" when they speak about vikings, but not about the franks (see Verden)? How did the viking raiding culture evolved and why it disappear? Are there similarities between the vikings and the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England?
The Viking culture actually was very brutal, if you examine many of their sagas (i.e. the stories which formed the moral basis for their culture) then you can see that their mythology encouraged an aggressive and cruel approach to things like war. As well as something of a cruel sense of humour. One of them had the epither Olvar 'the child lover', because he was being mocked for not killing children etc Not that they were evil or anything, they were just culturally a hard people
I think there are some real reasons why Vikings were considered formidable warriors. The most obvious one would be that the Nordic people are taller then average Europeans, Vikings were relatively wealthy and well fed making them most likely significantly more physically impressive. While wealthy so were they not lazy either as they had to work the land, hunt and fish to survive. Also when out on the ships so did they have to row and that obviously provides ample physical training. The religion was also highly martial with only warriors fallen in battle going to Valhalla. That obviously made training for battle popular as well. These two reasons alone should have made Vikings formidable warriors if not disciplined soldiers. Ordinary European peasants would be hard pressed to put up a fight on a one and one basis.
right. part of the problem fighting vikings was the feudal system in Europe. in the viking society most free men were free warrior peasents, while most peasents in rest of Europe weren't even allowed to own weapons. the Saxon fyrd is an exception, but even those men were not well trained and only few of them had useful weapons. you are not very motivated to face vikings in open battle when even the land you are working on ist not your own. and the vikings become better equiped with each raid.
Swords may have been out of reach for the “everyday man”, but the evidence points to swords being actually very common for the warriors of Viking armies. There are over 2,500 found Viking swords in Norway alone. So it’s like today, saying common military equipment was not common among the general population, but very common among the army. Your average peasant herder/farmer maybe didn’t have a sword, but your raiders and heathen army clearly did if Norway has so many swords dug up.
10:45 here you say that a lot of weapons found were misile, wich do rquere less body strengh. if by misile you are refering to bows, that statement dosnt seem that acurate, couse a lot of bows require a lot of strengh and endurance to use efectibly.Very nice video btw
Same with throwing weapons like javelins. The men's record is 96.96m while the women's record is 72.28. Whenever it comes to any physical exertion such as power generation, speed or sheer strength, men outdo women by magnitudes, in both the upper and lower body.
Some bows require a lot of strength. Others don't. If you're not that strong, you'd presumably favor a bow that doesn't. You don't need a massive longbow to kill people.
@@alltat A proper war bow has a ridiculous draw weight. I'm not even talking about a longbow. The sort of bow people use in the Olympics is much lower than your average war bow. For a comparison, the heaviest draw weight in the Olympics is 50lbs (used by men), the lightest war bow was 80lbs. For anything lighter than a war bow you'd need a very lucky shot to kill someone. A lesser bow might cause a great deal of pain, possibly even leave someone with a permanent injury, however it would be unlikely to kill. There's also a good chance you'd leave them mobile and now incredibly pissed at you
@@AeneasGemini Range matters. Longbows were used for massed long range volleys. Shorter bows were used for skirmishing, which was also deadly as you'll be close enough to shoot someone in the face rather than aiming for "those guys over there". A shorter bow also allows you to shoot much faster (you can't really do speed archery with a proper longbow).
The Sagas are, first and foremost, stories, not histories. Berserkers are a "cool story", not fact. Shield maidens, if they existed at all, were very, very rare. For the same reasons that there are no female players on teams in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and other major sports (though most such leagues have no rule against female players). Training with weapons is not the same as killing with them. Shield maidens are wishful thinking.
Battle hardened shield maidens? What? All two of them? There is very little evidence of woman joining their men when viking. Though it may have been possible it would have been extremely rare to the point of being almost mythical.
@@Greensiteofhell fair enough. Bows are as powerful as they are made to be. But plenty of grown ass men can't pull hunting bows. That is a good point though. Swinging a sword and moving about would be tiring but you dont require the same amount of strength to swing sword as tou do just to pull most functional bows back
@@colonelkernel2959 When defending a settlement or a region all kinds of weapons was used. Think of womens, kids and elderlys as a support/skirmish unit harassing enemies with stones, bows etc An axe, spear or sword together with a shield might not be that heavy, but close combat is about speed and strength combined with expertise and reach, and I would not rely on a woman to have those skills. In other words a woman would usually not stand a chance in close combat with a warrior or just a man. It makes logic to me. Not all bows are super heavy compound bows.
@@Greensiteofhell A bow that kills rabbits will have to have a very lucky shot to kill a man (we're talking arrow in the eye here). A proper war bow is exceptionally tough to draw, it's incredibly unlikely that the majority of women could fight with one. There are actually channels that have covered this subject, if anything a woman would be far more likely to use something like a hammer or a mace, where the weight is distributed more towards the end, so less of the force comes from the shoulder and more from the weight of the weapon. Bear in mind that weapons are force multipliers, a woman's physical disadvantages are greatly reduced if you throw in a weapon of war in close combat. Given this a woman stands a better chance in close combat with a weapon than with a bow at range that she just can't use
War bows required a crap ton of strength as well, and women would have an easier time fighting with spear and shield than a bow. It was perfectly normal for a war bow to have a draw weight of over 100 pounds.
Fun fact Vikings aren't a people it's a word that means raiding. Some of my ancestors were Normans and they came from Rollo the raider who went Viking. Yes THAT Rollo.
The lion of the north is a great pick for Viking mythology. Gustav's advancements in Germany caused a stir among the Imperialists- who thought the Swede never got cold, could cross rivers magically, and rode into battle on reindeer!
@@edwardandezra when its half a millenia with little to no connection yes. karelian is a swedish only phenomena they deserve that crown not the rest of us.
isn't the dismissal of historical accounts of Viking raids by those attacked equivalent to victim blaming and holocaust denial? why are the literate peoples accounts of crimes questioned? the Vikings had every chance to write justifications for their aggressions if we are even calling them aggression at the moment. before 1940 were there ever attacks launched against the Viking homelands by European nations?
I apologize for not having any answers, but for what it's worth that's a very interesting comment. It sometimes seems to me today that a lot of historians, perhaps for the lack of anything really new to tell us, go out of their way to mythbust and end up throwing out sources for silly reasons. That thing about the numbers of ships in accounts being 'suspiciously even'. Well when you make a guess at a number of things you do say "about 10/30/50", not "oh about 37." So that seems a silly reason to reject the source's claim. It's all very difficult at this range of time, and with such scanty hard evidence, I don't think we can say a lot for certain about details.
I'm binging your channel the past view days. Love it! Buuuut... missile weapons need less strenght to use? Where did you get that idea? Throwing spears, javelines, pilums (i know that's not Plural for pilum lol) darts and even slings are only effective if used with great force. Bows and Crossbows are famously hard to operate without physical strenght... Using a sword/one handed axe in combination with a shield would be far easier for someone weaker. Edit: just saw your own comment and clarification. Nevermind.
I have wondered if maybe the simplest of all motivations can explain a lot of the viking phenomenon. Hunger. Just, plain, literal hunger. The Scandinavians had little farm able land, and a growing population. No sensible people send their best young men to die. That is literal cultural suicide. So the motivations must be such that they justify the risk. Other European cultured did the same, but to a lesser degree. Could the difference be as simple as options? The vikings had fewer options, and so took greater risks. We know only of those that succeeded. So we have this perception of them succeeding. But there is no record of how many died in anonymity, or how many starving families were the motivation for young men to face horrible suffering and fear.
That was often argued but the short answer is that recent analyses of bones showed no or no more signs of starvation / lack of food in scandinavia than elsewhere. So this opinion seems to be rarely held today.
@Christian Swensen Its the opposite, the climate was very favorable in Scandinavia during the viking age. That led to a population surplus, the oldest son did inherited the farm, but the younger ones did need to, break new ground in Scandiava (hard work) colonize new (empty land) like Icland, or conquer/emigrate to new land like England.
Bows with a higher draw weight would take a tremendous amount of strength to use. Try using it repeatedly too. And the strength of a man among other things would affect his ability to throw javelins regardless of how difficult for a weaker person they would be to throw
@@mrward6510you missed the part where he said [missile] weapons were found. I.E javelins too. Stronger body will always be more useful but a woman can hurl a javelin and kill or hinder a shield all the same.
One issue with your point that women buried with missile weaponry would have used them, perhaps they could have used light spears as javelins as they don’t require an extreme amount of strength, but bows on the other hand for battle usually need a poundage of over 70LB even 70LB requires a good amount of upper body strength to use effectively, let alone 90 or 100LB so I don’t think it’s a valid enough proof for women Vikings, spears however I would see as the best weapon for women in the Viking age, despite that I am in the opinion that women were a rarity on the dark age battlefield, there may well have been cases like how there’s been cases of female warriors in Japan but evidence for it remains to be seen, terrific video though enjoy your content
We all like fantasies, stories and tales of the past and myths, though the reality is a much better story. We want to believe them because of our prejudices, and some go fanatical about those.
what like marvel or netflix trash? no thank you. Undermining northern europes importance in the human story with distasteful hollywood propaganda is a shame and a disgrace.
@@akrobatish what am I talking about and what conclusion you made. Every piece of art is a propaganda, wether it's a medieval monk artist, composer from classic era or modern day film maker, they produce art for the ruling class to the masses how the artist feels or thinks, but things differ if you can call it art or mass product. Yes Hollywood degradation is oblivious, HBO or Netflix or other mass-produced cheap films/series push their own agenda and world view, instead of making a good movie based on writed scripts, like some medieval movies in the 60's with iron/steel authentic armor, or like "Waterloo" or "war and peace" or like "lord of the rings" even "pirates of the Caribbean" 1-3
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say... It was perhaps only a few thousand TRUE vikings that went and raided in the UK, but when they got there they would recruit locals as well, who wanted freedom and power themselves. I mean we're talking about a period of 500 odd years. That's a lot of time for a few people to come, settle, conquer, integrate locals, and reproduce with locals.
I have long doubted the widespread use and availability of swords in the period from the fall of Rome to 1000Ad. Just too expensive for the average footman. As to fighting ability, the Norse would have had their super athletes, like any other culture - thus the Berserker myth, but I have been to the Armory at Graz, Austria. There are several full suits of armor, made for knights, that are clearly for a man of 6ft and taller. All societies had their champions. I suspect that, for the great mass of troops, a spear, a bludgeoning weapon of different types, a lot of axes and other stand-off pole weapons/farm implements, and some very basic head protection would have been the most common sight on any battle field. Archers were likely levied hunters and foresters, not regular missile troops. In the end, it was just a big Hack Fest.
Sword can be widespread. Cheap sword who broke or bend easily were very common. Good sword were rare and very expensive. And langsax (just a big big knife or shirt sword) with one edged shaped were common in the Germano-Scandinavian world. Yes the spear was the first weapons on commoners, with in second position sax and langsax, and the axe is the next.
The evidence shows that your opinion is incorrect. There are over 2,500 Viking swords found in Norway alone. So swords were pretty common, but obviously not everyone could afford one. Most likely the armies had most of the swords.
"for the everyday man swords were out of reach..." Peasant: "aww who put this fucking sword on top of this tall pole! I wish I was a Lord, with their fancy ladders..."
"guess I'll just have to stick to my yokel spear, with its long haft with many perpendicular handles along its length..." Lord Fancyladder Mcpants: "mwahaha, my name is Lord Fancyladder Mcpants. I've only appeared in this narrative to say this. I serve no plot purpose. Look at my sword and my fancy ladder...!!"
![The Last Viking - The Campaigns of Harald Hardrada [FULL DOCUMENTARY]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uYsmHdgD5V4/mqdefault.jpg)
(clarification about the use of bows and body strength below)
We hope you enjoyed the two specials on the Vikings. We will return the the early-modern period in the next uploads. The next video will be on Gustavus Adolphus (finally I guess). If you enjoy the content consider tipping via Patreon or Paypal!
www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandRhomanhistory
Edit: our comment on body strength and the use of bows was not very well formulated I guess. The argument is not our own, it's just taken from the literature but badly translated. Basically, it is about that you're at a disadvantage when fighting in melee if you're physically weaker than your enemy (which is true for women on average). So, the argument that women tended to have used bows or missile weapons is logical in itself. (you can still disagree, we just wanted to clearify that it is not an argumentative mistake on our part. I hope it's clear from the video that we just try to report what scholars think about these topics)
Gustavus!!! Finally!!!!
Wow man... missile weapons such as bows take a lot more strength than swinging a 1 IB sword or a 20 IB shield. Archers were burly strong men not little scantily clad women pulling 20 ib prop bows.
Finally a way to donate!
I am more curious why does being buried with a bow must automatically mean someone was a military archer? It's pre 1000 north Europe, not exactly a fully agrarian society, hunters existed. It takes a lot less effort to shoot a smaller bow at birds and rabbits. Not saying the argument is completely without merit, but that would be my first guess, regardless whose bones laid in the grave.
I dont understand why people can't imagine that a woman or weaker man could use a bow made for hunting or just a smaller one made for war. A bow that isn't a longbow could easily be just as deadly when most people may not have even been wearing chainmail.
Also, I highly doubt that the average woman back then who lived in an agricultural society and most likely on a farm would have been as weak as your average western society woman today due to the amount of manual labor they performed.
"Viking raids were often launched from a secure position, to which they could retreat."
Vikings liked a safe space. "This pillaging is so stressful, Kräl, I need to go back."
Kräl? You mean Karl?
This channel is one of the few that make me still believe in TH-cam and the Internet as a platform for knowledge and enlightenment.
Yes...
Kings and generals as well!
He didnt do all his research and thinks Dane axes cut wood and women were archers. It's just hilariously stupid
While i think it's overall a well researched video, I agree that his claim about missile weapons requiring less strength to use is questionable. I'm not quite sure what kind of bows were used during during this time period, but especially bows for battle field use required a considerable amount of strength in order to pull back the string.
@@jackthestripper7368 Vikings didn't use longbows or anything that was particularly difficult to use. The bow was definitely far from their favorite weapon and they sometimes just used hunting bows. Still wouldn't have required less strength than a sword or whatever and the whole idea about "strength requirements" is a bit silly because people think of it as like DnD where you can't use some weapons unless you have a high enough strength stat. You use a weapon and then train with it, that means that you'll naturally build up whatever muscles are needed for that, that's how our bodies work. Doesn't really matter if you're a woman or a man, spears were probably mostly found because the spear is literally the most popular weapon in history, not because it needed less strength, which it doesn't.
As a Danish archaeologist, I appreciate your work here. Exaggeration and romanticising is all to common on this topic.
But most written sources are from the romantic era so it is only normal to base suggestions on this. There is very little contemporary written sources. And even archeological finds are debateable and ideas changed every 20 years on what the find means. The video takes so many liberties and suggestions it's hardly different from a romantic saga 200 years after the events.
A battle axe and a wood-cutting axe were completely different tools. One specialized for killing the other for wood cutting obviously. A Dane axe for example would be unsuitable for cutting wood.
You are absolutely right about the 2 handed axes. It would be a bad idea to use a light, thin-bladed "Dane axe" to cut down a tree, or to use a heavy felling axe in war. It is less clear cut with the single handed bearded axes, which could be used as carpentry tools and used around camp, as well as being light enough to wield in a fight.
@@mikefule That makes sense. It didn't occur to me to differentiate between single handed and two handed axes.
Most probably couldn't afford an axe made for battle and just used what they had like a wood cutting axe which could still kill a man just fine
You could cut hafts with a Dane axe, maybe not a whole tree but people need firewood right?
@@thenoblepoptart Ah, so only for firewoods huh? Is it possible to cut and skin venisons with the said axe, since it's bigger blade than knives
I come from west Norway (Hordaland, or the land of the hordes) and I firmly believe the tactical advantage that our local boat building tradition offered was key to the Vikings. Mediterranen boats made sturdy to ram would disintegrate on the open ocean. The boats built here were lighter, faster, smaller, going through the sea instead of against it. Up here along the coast everybody were fishermen (in the north sea) and thus able seamen and boat builders from early age. To the "Viking" the boat was as important to him as the horse for a Mongol.
My guess: 10 to 20 guys spent the winter to co-build a boat to go treasure hunting together with down south in summer (each also have a fishing boat to maintain). Seldom very sophisticated or coordinated since the population in west Norway was/is extremely spread out along the coast. Also, not so much red mushrooms here but psilocybin grow everywhere.
Yes the basic form of the Viking longship, and the skill to build them survived long long after the end of the Viking era, being the basic construction of the fishing fleet of the North Sea right until the twentieth century.
It was the combination of shipbuilding and early navigating! The vikings where actually more farmers and fishermen than real warriors. When first conquering england they stood up to monks and peasant warriors. They where gaints in the eyes of the english. Yes the vikings fought and where trained. But in every war they just outnumbered the english! And the english army was not more than a few hundred trained warriors and a lot of peasants. Against the mighty numbers of vikings. Like in every war even fought! The army with the most fighters wins! And don't forget the vikings where from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and also Holland. They where called Frisain that time.
Hordaland doesnt mean land of the hordes though. Stop Anglizicing everything. It most likely is protogermanic and means warrior or hero. Not horde though.
@@beersmurff It's means where they have more men than land. I'm from it. Have you heard about fjords? They are bountiful lands. My great great grandfather and his brothers were toiling for very very small land before they left for the aluminum or electricity factories.
@@beersmurff sorry i must answer you again. Geologically, morene sand (silt from a glacier Front, which all the Fjords really are) is optimal for growing any crop. The Fjords are famous for cherries, apples and plums, cider and mushrooms. Make the maths, please
Liked even before I watched the entire video. One of the most underrated history channels in YT.
so true, the likes of Kings and Generals, armchair historian and others with millions of subs never get even close to this comprehensible, accurate account. Many others do barely any research at all... just wikipedia and animations.
True. Great channel and offers references (!)
@@clintmoor422 Wikipedia and animations disguised as a documentary..never thought about it that way before. I still have faith in K&G though. Only channels I follow now are K&G, SandRhoman, Pike and Shot, Historia Civilis, Epic History TV and Flash Point History.
@@2natec thanks for the recs :) History Marche and Hoc Est Bellum are good too
@@clintmoor422 Kings and generals has some really good videos tho, or i am mistaken?
There's an interesting source on the Vikings its called mount and blade, you should check it out
lol
Ah yes; I see youre a man of historical accuracy aswell.
@@EinFelsbrocken only the best sources
"Less talking, more raiding!"
speaking of warbands lol
Good point about the misinterpretation of shieldwalls. Every time I see this shield-on-shield shoving match in a movie or a tv series, I cringe heavily.
1:14 “ Gustavus Adolphus soon on the Sandrhoman channel“ lol
He didn't lie
The Varangian King
In the case of the subject Leidangr (ledding), I would go to the Scandinavian sources. People underestimates the huge work required to build and maintain a longship. The Ledding system was not just a sustem to summon boats, but to PREVENT a king to summon boats- basically he couldnt by law summon more than a quarter of available ships. A full ledding required a national emergency, and often inspired revolt (as an example this happened to Svend Tveskæg) beacause the cities supposed to supply these ships just couldnt bear the cost. So in most years, a citys ship wasnt requested by the king, and so the locals were free to sail out on their own venture. I think there is a Norwegian source that mentions ledding as early as 850, but I cant recall who it is...
Youve done it again! excellent work!
A thing to add about the viking shield wall debate is that not all vikings or groups of vikings received uniform levels of training, and
a shield wall is only as effective as the individuals who made it up. A motley force of raiders formed up in a shield wall would not look or fight the same as a group of professional or seasoned warriors ready for battle. In Either case vikings likely weren't ever on the level of for example roman formations, but veteran warriors would likely recognize the benefits/be much more capable of fighting together in a more orderly 'shield wall' and possibly even be able to pull off more complex smaller unit maneuvers (flanking/wedge formations/etc) IF the men are used to fighting with eachother as a team. This not only applies to vikings but combat in general, and really to any group tasks; a group of NFL players play a more
coordinated and intense game of football than the neighbor kids do, and a kitchen full of chefs who have been cooking together for years looks very different to my family cooking once a year on thanksgiving xD
I want to add : a line of men with round shield of 80cm diameter are like a wall of shields. Even if there not shoulder to shoulder.
In my opinion a good shield wall is a line when the men are at 60cm to each other. They can manipulate shield and weapons easely and protect there mate even if there a not very close together
I've always found it very handy to think of many medieval conquerors as gangsters. Glorifying them as king, emperor, khan or caliph didn't stop them from being gangsters. When viewed like that it makes it easier to imagine their often smaller sizes.
Can you imagine the amount of teenage boys who's dreams were shattered by this video?
Although I'd be careful with the notion of battle axes or spears being useful as tools for woodworking or hunting. That is a very slippery slope to stand on. They are not made for those purposes and arguably are terrible at them.
I have always been a big fan of the Viking culture. I have never really believed the Bloodeagle as it was described. It just seems like most people would die of blood loss or shock before they could do the whole punishment.
It is a total fantasy and not the only one that gets repeated about Vikings.
This is a great channel, really with the way you represent the characters. If you take requests ever, please do a video on Dark Age/Medieval Irish Pirates!
If someone gonna comment about missile weapons and body strength, remember: it's not that you can be weak and use those, it's that you don't need to directly compete on a test of strength against your opponent
*Gustavus Adolphus mentioned*
*power riff starts blasting in the distance*
A time of religion and war, legends tell, the tale of a lion!
@@darthwalrus4740 This beast in the shape of a man with a dream to rule sea and land
För alla som står i hans väg,
Väntar död, för han ger ingen nåd
Med en mäktig arme ifrån norr,
I strid, denna tid, till krig.
@@teammsi5003Much better version
You channel is the best general history channel because you use sources and really bring something new
Awesome video!
I enjoyed the picture of axe-wielding Vikings gathering horses way too much 13:54
0:11 whenever I watch your videos I always feel so bad for that poor couple, no matter what era of warfare and no matter the location, they're always getting picked on and prodded at by invaders :(
Very thoroughly researched! As a scholar who works in this field, I am impressed.
sure
I'm a ScHoLaR duUuuUuude!
Amazing video. The animations are getting better and better!
My favourite underrated historical channel uploded. What can I do exept like?
as a scandinavian, dane specifically, i always enjoy these videos. a norwegian channel i follow once described it as the norwegians basically went out and beat up anyone they could taking their stuff, even other norwegiants or us danes to the south, and many of the small-scale raids were norwegian. while we danes were the big guys in the regard to going out viking. stuff like the great heathen army. normandy. things like that. there is a reason it was called danegæld and the danelaw. danegæld basically means dane debt.
Denmark is not a part of Scandinavia Mr Dane
@@64fairlane305 I`l suggest that you study facts in the matter. sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandinavien. Even thou the fact is does`nt lay on the Scandinavian penninsula, it does`nt mean it`s not a Scandinavian belongin.
@@64fairlane305yes it is tf😂 and I say this as a Swede, you must think of Finland
@@Shadow.behind.mountains nope, scandinavia is the name of the peninsula that norway and sweden shares and has nothing to do with denmark
@@64fairlane305 yes it is? You Nordic yourself? Scandinavia literally refers to Denmark, Sweden and Norway. It’s a cultural and a geographical subregion. What would it else be? It’s refers to the historical, cultural and linguistic ties between us three. Edit: I see you are Norwegian, you must not been in school 😂 you must be thinking the Scandinavian Peninsula, in that aspect you are right tho
Love the variation of graphic's/animation's you've used with this one.
A great deal of conjecture for a video entitled "Myths vs Reality". I read a lot, and even historians agree that too many modern "historians" use their modern belief system to form their opinions One such disagreement is the female Viking warrior...which is generally considered a modern construct.
Opionion...theory, whichever word you prefer.
Great video, I can really tell how much work you put into it! Looking forward to seeing more!
Out of interest, do we have contemporary figures for the size of Anglo-Saxon armies mustered in England in this period? Figuring the size of Saxon forces could assist in calculating the size of a Viking Army.
For example, if the King of Mercia could field 2,000 troops maximum, the idea of Viking armies under 1,000 becomes more feasible. As the defending nation, we could infer that the Mercians would have had to leave a substantial portion of those 2,000 troops on garrison duty/patrolling/other tasks, leaving maybe as few as 1,000 to take actual field. In this case, a force of 600 Vikings attacking by surprise could overwhelm their enemies. On the other hand, if the Mercian king could raise 10,000 troops, this means that the Great Heathen Army would have to have been substantially larger. Also, it would depend on the quality.
Also, from my understanding, the Saxon armies of the time were not particularly professional either and relied heavily on levies and the fyrd. These levies would be more susceptible to psychological warfare projecting the Norse as fearsome warriors and plunderers. Thus, a Viking army that consisted primarily of warriors (assuming a lot of the farmers/non-combatants stayed at home or near the ships), would have a significant advantage over a larger Saxon force that consisted of a small core of trained soldiers (household warriors, vassals, etc) and then a larger force of levies.
The Scandinavian armies were also almost entirely composed of farmer-raiders rather than professional warriors. And the Fyrd were a trained and equipped Militia with many having at least limited prior combat experience. Both the Viking and Anglo-Saxon armies had these militia/levy forces as the bulk, with a small core of Aristocrats and their armed retainers, in Anglo Saxon culture called Thegns (Aristocrats and their Retinue) and in Scandinavian culture HouseKarlr (house men/retainers). These were the 10% of professional warriors in these armies.
Anglo Saxon armies and Viking armies were typically small. Alfreds army at Edington likely numbered 2,000 men at most, the great coalition battle and Anglo-Saxon victory at Brunanburh in 937 likely had 10,000 men on the field total. So these forces would typically be quite small, with "battles" even having a few hundred combatants per side. Also, the Viking's actual record in pitched battle is dismal to say the least. It's really the inverse of what's happened to France's war reputation in recent decades.
@@TheSunderingSea One more thing, the Scandinavian Norsmen did choose to "go viking" (become a sea-raider) hence they was better mental and skillswise perperd for combat. I know I will fight for my life within three months, better to preper myself, or this "go vilking" thing is not for me, I continue to be a farmer.
@@kirgan1000 not necessarily. There's a difference between "I'm going to go raiding" and "I'm going to go to war". As a former soldier and private contractor, I'll testify to that. This is likely a factor in Vikings avoided pitched battles. If you're going out to raid, you are after profit/wealth, not particularly keen on battle unless you absolutely have to. This is especially true in this period where battles were often chaotic, disorganized and highly susceptible to chance.
I made a comment wondering about the differences between the depiction of Vikings in popular fiction vs. reality on your last video. The answers I got were pretty much all over the place, so I'm very glad you made this follow up.
Quality of the content, and academic integrity is what I expect of a channel with 8M subs.
10:45 Missile weapons don't necessarily require less body strength. Warbows likely require more of it.
They absolutely do require far more body strength than melee weapons. It annoys me how every rpg rates bows as dex/agility and swords/axes as strength. It's literally the opposite. The only strength needed for a melee weapon is to be strong enough to lift it and swing it effectively, which doesn't require much strength at all
@@einarr7301 One exception would be crossbows because with those you can use mechanical aids but I'm under the impression that crossbows weren't yet that common in Europe during the Viking age.
@@seneca983 yeah thats a good point. Some strength is needed because when you're winding back the crossbow string the resistance does get pretty substantial towards the end but it's nothing compared to a 160 pound longbow. Crossbows weren't common at all during the viking age though, and I know the old norse didn't use them. they didn't become prominent until the medieval period.
On a side note, funnily enough, contrary to popular belief a crossbow is a poor armor piercing weapon. It suffers from low velocity due to a very short draw distance. It's just far easier to learn how to use than a full fledged war bow which takes years of training. You can still deliver devastating damage with them but armored opponents will be a problem. It also comes down to what kind of bolt heads you're using. I think they're most effective when shooting in mass numbers
@@einarr7301 "they didn't become prominent until the medieval period"
As a minor nitpick, the Viking age was technically within the Medieval period but indeed the point still stands that crossbows only became common in Europe later in the Medieval period.
"It suffers from low velocity due to a very short draw distance."
This depends on the type or crossbow. There are bigger ones like Wallarmbrusts which pack a lot more punch than the smaller ones though I think those appeared later than the smaller crossbows.
@@seneca983 yeah what I meant was the middle/late medieval period. I know the medieval period spanned a several centuries and that the viking age technically is a part of the medieval period but I kinda put the viking age into the end of the dark ages and refer to the medieval period as the post viking age after the norman conquest of England because the term medieval times can be extremely broad and doesn't really narrow down exactly what era you're talking about. The viking age was like the bridge between the dark ages of the post Roman collapse and the feudal knightly era of europe. Just makes it a little easier to specify in my opinion.
Those big crossbows did appear later but weren't as common as the smaller ones. I actually just read a bit 14th/15th century crossbows and apparently the most common types didn't even require a windlass or any kind of crank to operate which I did not know. Most crossbows have a roughly 6-7 inch draw distance where a longbow would have a roughly 26 inch draw distance and shot a much heavier projectile, and even those would be deflected by a high quality breastplate. Apparently a steel breastplate that wasn't even hardened was strong enough to deflect shots, which I also wasn't entirely aware of. The curved and rounded surfaces of plate armor is what actually contributes most to the shot deflecting rather than being super strong hardened steel because it minimizes the chance of direct impact
This is possibly my favorite historiography channel on here. Thanks for your hard work.
The idea of berserker warriors taking magic mushrooms before battle sounds dramatic, but mushrooms don't somehow make people more violent and aggressive, it's quite the opposite.
Berserkers are largely a fantasy concept that exists in stories.
Yep, vikings only consumed mushrooms after a lost battle or when they were about to die from starvation, specially hunters looking for food in the woods. And berserker or berserkergang other than the mythological warriors, was just a way to fight in a duel and has more to do with bulls(horny helmets) and not bears.
They didnt just pop a doxen shrooms before charging into battle. Their druids would have to wait for the brew to take effect, then hype the warriors up in their altered mental state. It also depends on the strain of mushroom.
I mean although berserkers might have not existed. Certain mushrooms have pain killing effects and hallucinations which would help warriors if they could manage to deal with the other side effects
This was a very nicely done video. I knew half of the facts on this video but the other half not so much. It's nice to learn something new.
Agreed
@@NH-bh5zq 😊👍
Hey, could you do a video on the Byzantine, Persian and other cataphracts??
Other than the bow body strength issue I'd also like to add that you wouldn't use your wood cutting axes in war, or your weapons as tools other than in emergencies. These axes are built very differently, and you'd ruin your Dane axe quickly if you used it for felling trees regularly.
Any axe works just fine chopping heads..
@@Greensiteofhell True, but if your opponent does not hold still and maybe even tries to chop your head off instead, you'll appreciate a thing that was meant to be handled as a weapon. Battle axes are built very differently from wood chopping ones, and while you can cross-use them in a pinch, you would quickly damage your, e.g., Dane axe.
Excellent video and content, based on actual historians' books with sources as usual, that put things back in their place. Even most debunking videos/articles about Norse cultures and "vikings" get so much wrong and actually brew old myths or newer viking "pop culture" ideas. I appreciate that you also step back from the "shieldmaiden" controversy and gives both points of view, but personally I don't think this was a regular thing simply based on demographics and archeology as well. Female warriors, noblewomen with weapons, notables... was obviously a real, but that was an exceptional thing most likely. We are far from whole female fighting contingents. Noble women could access to power in Norse societies and farmers could learn how to defend themselves but only in emergency. About females actually fighting in battles all geared up, the sources always spoke about actual "Vikings" (i.e. merchants/pirates/mercenaries that lived most of their lives in foreign lands, constantly moving as militarized societies). In these cases, it is highly probable that they traveled with their wives and concubines for obvious reasons, just like regiments of Landsknechten did in the Renaissance. It is thus not impossible to see some of these women gearing up and joining their husbands in a raid to buff up the numbers, especially if they received some training before.
@Deborah Meltrozo Pretty much
@Ru paul Very true.
You channel is amazing, i watch a least one of your videos each day. Thank You for such good content, its my favorit history channel in youtube!
17:25 The application of 13th century law, from a highly organized and litigious period, to the far less formal social and political structures of the 9th century, seems pretty silly. The distinction between a "legitimate" king raising an army and a social-climbing warlord raising a band of opportunistic adventurers seems appropriate to the later period, but too fine for an earlier time when any noble could suddenly become a petty king. After all, Henry II's great-grandfather Fulk was a minor noble who rose to the heights of power through outright banditry in a nominally hierarchical Frankish kingdom in the 11th century.
This debate calls to mind the Hellenic distinction between a legitimate "born" king of a polis, and a tyrant who had usurped the throne. It seems so alien to us because we've come to associate the word tyrant with the form or tone of rulership, whereas for the Greeks it just referred to the means of acquiring office, so many "tyrants" were praised as just rulers. The warband leaders who are the subject of this debate seem more analogous to these men than to pirate captains or freebooters.
Indeed, outside of Karl the Greats Frankia, the Muslim World and the Byzantines, leadership could be very fluid indeed. Even in the Islamic world, the Abbasids basically rose to power via the military support of Shia Muslims in Eastern Iran and not on account of being terribly "blue blooded" and having a legitimate claim.
Thanks for the interesting video!
I would be interested to hear any response to the following thought:
I would contest the idea that Viking raiders were no more brutal than other cultures for the following reasons
1: Our default position should be believing in the sources unless there is a good reason to doubt them.
2: Surviving Scandinavian sagas (e.g. Volsungsaga) also describe a harsh culture with a high level of violence. These sources were not biased and are widely believed to incorporate a large amount of material from as early as the 9th century.
3: There is a lot of comparative evidence suggesting that pre-Christian Scandinavian culture could have displayed a high level of cruelty. Many cultures used cruelty deliberately (e.g. Assyrians, Mongols, Commanches) in order to gain a psychological edge. It was also common for semi- or fully professional raiders to see their victims as less human and to enjoy their suffering. This fact isn't so much a pragmatic one, but a result of how cultures develop through feedback loops and reinforcement. Therefore, there is good practical and social reasons for Vikings to have been particularly cruel: it would have intimidated potential opponents and Viking raiders were unusually committed to predation on foreign communities, making them fit a broader pattern of high cruelty predator cultures.
As a final point, although warfare was quite brutal in the early medieval period generally, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Vikings were cruel in an unusual way. I think that historians can be a little excessive in "dispelling myths" to the extent where they end up having to argue that the surviving sources are basically untrustworthy.
Carolingians king, Carolus Magnus order to cut the head of 4000 Saxons when they refuse to convert to Christianism. Everybody were cruel in war. Frisons, and Tetons raiders were cruel. Tatar raiders were cruel.
Scandinavians raiders were no more cruel than all people living in this Era in my opinion. They just plunder sacred place with violence so there legend was born !
Yes they used psychological warfare, but, I think, not more than other.
Really doubt the existence of shield maidens on any larger scale. You'd think the christians would have written about it, it would have propably seemed very barbaric in their eyes. Women may have occasionally joined the defenses in a desperate siege maybe, but I'm not sure how common that was in the middle ages tbh. Also the other cultures of the time similar to the scandinavians show no evidence of female warriors either.
Exactly. It's up there with horns on helmets as a myth.
I don't know, there is evidence of Women having gone to war dressed as men in practically every army in Europe. Sure they were not there in large numbers, but enough of them to get mentioned in the history books.
There have always been some occasional female warrior in history, but they can not have been many in the Viking culture, becuse there are no rune-stone who celebrates their warrior achievements or work as a "headstone" or memorial stone for a female who did die abroad as warrior.
I think you greatly underestimate the importance of viking ships and seamanship here. First of all, there are many examples of ship to ship battles taking place in and around Scandinavia, with detailed descriptions of how such battles would be conducted. Secondly, the share reach and frequency of viking excursions on sea, be it raiding, trading, or exploration, as compared to other cultures/peoples at the time, suggests that there must have been something related to viking ships and/or seamanship which was significantly supperior for their time.
Truls Hansson - Very simple poverty, lack of land and a good ship design lead to a lot of people who take chances, others had not to take these high risk, likey death endeavor, as they had an easier and better life.
Amazing video as always. On to one millions subs!
Awesome. Keep making these guys!
Love the Viking Content, great work as always!
Thanks man, I'll be sure to show this video to my bros at the Lindisfarne monastery next time we get raided by fucking Ragnar
Around 10:40 you suggest that projectile weapons require less body strength to use. However to wield a bow and arrow properly it's one of the most strength intensive weapons to yield
They do not suggest that using a ranged weapon requires less body strength, but rather that fighting requires a lot of strength. What is meant is that in a melee men stand a better chance than women, on average, as men are naturally stronger. If two shields clash against each other, you are likely using far more strength to push back against your shield, than it would take to draw a bow, or swing a sling.
@@GravityRainblow That's actually a false assertion. Weapons are force multipliers, a woman's physical limitations are greatly reduced by adding one.
Also if you think pushing back with a shield requires less strength than a bow, then you've simply never shot a war bow. These were not sports bows. The draw weight on those bows is ridiculous, most men had train with them their whole lives to be able to use them effectively. Not even talking longbows here
Its not a longbow it's s low power short bow
If you ever do a follow up video, Viking winter warfare would be awesome.
Lets be honest here. Raiding was not done first in the 700s, in fact raiding was a Germanic past time for the young and unproven wolves.
Perhaps this time it was on a much larger scale, which is why it was recorded by the Bri'ish.
dane axe for wood cutting ?? nope but other than that yes.
Wait less body strength to use a bow or a spear ? realy depends on the draw weight of the bow. And a twohanded spear? thats heawy you cant throw that very far at all. There is a difference in a hunting spear for hunting and one for combat. the viking age fighting spear was a male wapon not a ranged one. ( not for throwing )
Not counting that even a boar spear has 2 lil' nobs (forgot the name) meant to stop boar from continuing to charge you, same applies to fighting spears, as you don't wanna spent 1 minute trying to pry your spear off a guy;Those nobs would have made for shit aerial stability, aka would not spin and therefore go off on a random direction! Dane axes were likely used to chop wood someday,but probably out of desperation or lack of proper equipment,seeing as, y'know, it's still an axe and can be resharpened
Exactly it takes a lot more strength to pull a warbow or even a hunting bow than pulling a 20 ib prop bow or swinging a 1 ib sword with a 15 ib shield.
I was going to write a similar comment, battle axes of any sort make very poor tools for most tasks that axes are normally used for.
as a woodworker, I get really picky about "wood cutting". People assume "felling trees" and doing all the regular axe shit, which a dane axe clearly cannot do. But if I were a guy who was building longboats, I would be squaring up logs into timbers, usually standing on top of them over a pit. For that job, I don't think you could convince me to use anything besides a dane axe. And thus we shine light on the dangers of using a term so broad as "wood cutting".
@@Daylon91 From what I know, the Viking war bow was possibly the same bow used for hunting? I just know they they may have lesser draw weights than an English Warbow. I'm assuming around 70-100lbs..
Great video. Seems much more plausible explanation of warfare. I would like to know more about the driving force that started the viking raids. Was it due to food shortages in Scandinavia?
There are a lot of factor. We are not sure nowadays :
- increasing of population
- wars between Christians King in great-britain, carolingians empire and in Ireland, so it's easy to do a sneaky raids against them
- a lot of silver and some gold in Christians building, with no guards.
- the birth and emerging of King in Scandinavia, with some people who refuse this, so go raid and settle in other country
- the development of sail in the 7th century.
Thank you. Stunning graphics!
I think you should’ve touched on how Scandinavia was overpopulated, leading to warbands being formed much more often than other peoples at the time. Also, the difficulty of raising an army by a king or earl that was sizable enough to confront a raid was a huge, difficult, and lengthy venture, you can see evidence of this in the size of battles and length of wars at the time. an important note is that the idea of a Borough came about due to the Great Heathen Army- so there was an absence of walled towns especially in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (even the walled Roman city of London was abandoned, and lived around and outside of). as far as the fleets of ships, well, looking at the geography of Scandinavia ships were much better, faster transportation than say in France for example. so they had a lot of ships, and were good at using them. These factors, especially the necessity compared to European rulers of Scandinavians to leave their homes created the perfect storm that left other Europeans helpless. I’d argue the main reason being that vikings tended to operate outside of the scope of the nobility, which cut down on the logistics and politics that often times bogged down organizing a campaign elsewhere in Europe.
"Viking" simply means "raiding." It is inherently violent. Not all Scandinavians raided, and those that did, didn't usually do it all the time, but to go viking meant to go raiding. It's true, on the battlefield they weren't any more violent than any other pirate or warband, but they were more violent because they _didn't_ usually fight on a battlefield, they raided small isolated areas, killed anyone that wouldn't be a good slave, and left before anyone could respond. By this time, most of Europe was more or less culturally and religiously united enough that there was a general understanding between who could and couldn't be attacked. The Vikings weren't part of that culture, didn't know the rules, so of course broke them.
Those same _vikings_ might then sail to the next town and peacefully trade with them.
And also, thank you. Very good channel and I think your videos are well done. Subscribed and thumbs up!
Very good video - a couple of notes though:
The ships were made as light as possible in order to travel primarily slong coast lines and rivers, that's true, but viking ships made it all the way to both Iceland and Vinland (northern America/Canada) which was a great feat. They were also easy to roll on the ground on tree trunks which is why eastern Vikings (Swedish vikings) could make it all the way to Constantinopel.
The weapons were not only light on metal: the metal was often atrociously bad, since the vikings lacked proper steel smithing.
I'm not so sure that only a few men in each settlement were warriors; they were all more or less fighters who went out in viking as a kind of conscription or volunteering.
It was not that Viking iron was bad, far from it. Their forges could reach temperatures of up to 2000 degrees Celsius, which is a requirement for steel smithing, which was a Viking innovation. Viking swords had similar qualities to spring steel, a 14th century method of smithing. We have no archaelogical evidence of Vikings wearing cloth armour like leather and gamberson, but we do have chain mail.
It was that the acquisition of the iron in their homelands was extremely difficult in mountainous and tundra environments without good transportation and supply. Vikings would often trade or pillage for metals because it was easier to acquire than mining the ore. The iron would then be used for farm tools, construction, e.c.t., before being used for weapons and armour.
In the early Viking age they could acquire the metals almost unopposed and in large quantities, but once other nations became more prepare for raids, the dependency on raiding started crumbling the Viking kingdoms.
@@sebastianpijov8708archeological evidence for gambeson is harder to obtain because it rots. The "viking" metals were also mostly TRADED for, not domestically produced. And only really shot up by the 9th century well into the viking age. Smithing was also not a viking innovation, at least not the norse method of using iron from bogs, everyome in a bog with iron did the same thing be it Scandinavia, Britain or Ireland. And when Eastern Rome had far superior methods and capable of arming a unit of Kataphraktos its a bit stretching.
I'm not convinced of the idea of secondary purpose of the viking weapons, and for me just is another myth.
Battle axes are different than wood chopping axes and require a lot of skill to made. Some of them have high quality steel edges, usually incredibly thin and light, made for cutting people and not wood.
A warbow and a hunting bow require a similar skill, but I don't think people went hunting with 100# bows (Hedeby). 50# or 60# bows are enough for any large european animal. Being able to hunt with a bow and being effective with a bow on the war field are two very different things.
Spears are easier to make but I heard of some spear heads showing pattern welding. Not something the typical village blacksmith may make.
Arming a warrior was not that cheap at it sounds.
And most important, weapons don't make a warrior! Training and culture make a warrior.
If u can shoot the bow u have than using it in on the battlefield is NOT a different thing. You may use a bow that's heavier to get more smack and penetration. Look I'm Sioux and we used our 50 ib bows for both hunting and war and it didnt change anything
@@Daylon91 I agree with you that one can hunt pretty much everything with a 50# bow and I think this is a very good poundage for a fast and well placed shot, something which may be hard to do with the 100#.
Norse longbows from Hedeby were around 100#!
They could pierce much of the armour of the period and even a wooden shield may not provide 100% protection.
Training to shoot a "war" bow will take more time as compared to a hunting bow and must be done regularly to maintain the strength.
The idea of some viking taking his hunting bow and his chopping axe and going to war with it does not sounds realistic to me, and more important, I don't think is consistent with archeological finds.
@@Daylon91 BTW, I assume bows used by mounted warriors (like Sioux?) tend to have a lower average poundage as it is harder to shoot a bow from the horse back.
yeah, except when you're on campaign... you use multipurpose tools
@@al-rediph yea we shot bows 45-50 ibs. Since we didnt have stirrups our draw weight was limited but 50 pounds approximately. With stirrups you can brace yourself somewhat and use more muscles to pull the bow resulting in bows on average from eastern horse cultures of 60 pounds to 130 pounds on horseback and 200 pounds on the ground.
First, I really like your channel and your videos. To other watchers: do subscribe!
But this video, kind of triggered me ....
Myths and reality is a nice title.
Yes, there are a lot of myths, so let's not create more.
I think we should start by separating the norse and viking culture. Going viking was one aspect of the norse culture and only some Scandinavians participated in viking raids. Many, were farmers, handlers, colonisers, warriors or a mix of all this, depending on circumstances.
I agree that the vikings were not the unwashed, dirty barbarians they are usually and unfortunately shown in popular media. For me they are more like professional soldiers and mercenaries part of a raiding culture.
The perception, by the cultures they raided, of the vikings, as being extremely violent, even for the time the lived in, should be addressed and not cheaply put aside with arguments like: "they were not that different from their contemporaries", because they obviously were quite different.
Warfare and culture are not the same. Yep, it may not be easy to differentiate between an Anglo-Saxon and a Norse warrior. But the motivations, the pagan / christian relations, laws, the whole cultural context of warfare makes a huge difference!
So how about looking into why the contemporary people talk about "never seen atrocity" (see Alcuin of York) or about "wrath of God" when they speak about vikings, but not about the franks (see Verden)?
How did the viking raiding culture evolved and why it disappear?
Are there similarities between the vikings and the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England?
The Viking culture actually was very brutal, if you examine many of their sagas (i.e. the stories which formed the moral basis for their culture) then you can see that their mythology encouraged an aggressive and cruel approach to things like war. As well as something of a cruel sense of humour. One of them had the epither Olvar 'the child lover', because he was being mocked for not killing children etc
Not that they were evil or anything, they were just culturally a hard people
Underrated comment.
Awesome documentary
I think there are some real reasons why Vikings were considered formidable warriors. The most obvious one would be that the Nordic people are taller then average Europeans, Vikings were relatively wealthy and well fed making them most likely significantly more physically impressive. While wealthy so were they not lazy either as they had to work the land, hunt and fish to survive. Also when out on the ships so did they have to row and that obviously provides ample physical training.
The religion was also highly martial with only warriors fallen in battle going to Valhalla. That obviously made training for battle popular as well. These two reasons alone should have made Vikings formidable warriors if not disciplined soldiers. Ordinary European peasants would be hard pressed to put up a fight on a one and one basis.
right. part of the problem fighting vikings was the feudal system in Europe. in the viking society most free men were free warrior peasents, while most peasents in rest of Europe weren't even allowed to own weapons. the Saxon fyrd is an exception, but even those men were not well trained and only few of them had useful weapons. you are not very motivated to face vikings in open battle when even the land you are working on ist not your own. and the vikings become better equiped with each raid.
Martial arts was a major part of the Norse society. The boys were put into training at the age of five.
Yeah baby cant wait for Gustav Adolf videos!
Could you guys also make a video on the life beyond the raids?
Swords may have been out of reach for the “everyday man”, but the evidence points to swords being actually very common for the warriors of Viking armies. There are over 2,500 found Viking swords in Norway alone. So it’s like today, saying common military equipment was not common among the general population, but very common among the army. Your average peasant herder/farmer maybe didn’t have a sword, but your raiders and heathen army clearly did if Norway has so many swords dug up.
10:45 here you say that a lot of weapons found were misile, wich do rquere less body strengh. if by misile you are refering to bows, that statement dosnt seem that acurate, couse a lot of bows require a lot of strengh and endurance to use efectibly.Very nice video btw
Same with throwing weapons like javelins. The men's record is 96.96m while the women's record is 72.28. Whenever it comes to any physical exertion such as power generation, speed or sheer strength, men outdo women by magnitudes, in both the upper and lower body.
Some bows require a lot of strength. Others don't. If you're not that strong, you'd presumably favor a bow that doesn't. You don't need a massive longbow to kill people.
@@alltat A proper war bow has a ridiculous draw weight. I'm not even talking about a longbow. The sort of bow people use in the Olympics is much lower than your average war bow.
For a comparison, the heaviest draw weight in the Olympics is 50lbs (used by men), the lightest war bow was 80lbs. For anything lighter than a war bow you'd need a very lucky shot to kill someone.
A lesser bow might cause a great deal of pain, possibly even leave someone with a permanent injury, however it would be unlikely to kill. There's also a good chance you'd leave them mobile and now incredibly pissed at you
@@AeneasGemini Range matters. Longbows were used for massed long range volleys. Shorter bows were used for skirmishing, which was also deadly as you'll be close enough to shoot someone in the face rather than aiming for "those guys over there". A shorter bow also allows you to shoot much faster (you can't really do speed archery with a proper longbow).
The Sagas are, first and foremost, stories, not histories. Berserkers are a "cool story", not fact.
Shield maidens, if they existed at all, were very, very rare. For the same reasons that there are no female players on teams in the NFL, NBA, NHL, and other major sports (though most such leagues have no rule against female players). Training with weapons is not the same as killing with them. Shield maidens are wishful thinking.
The evidence for shield maidens is so scarce you cannot even take it as a possibility.
I once met a Swedish shield-maiden. Her name was Pia.
Ah, good times.
@Ben Garrison Or 100% biki clad women.
@Black Mussolini Yes, according to this event in my CK3 Seljuk campaign
imgur.com/a/iQBRUXI
Astonishing work!!
Battle hardened shield maidens? What? All two of them? There is very little evidence of woman joining their men when viking. Though it may have been possible it would have been extremely rare to the point of being almost mythical.
A bow requires much more strength than a sword does.
Children used bows to shoot rabbits etc and that was very light. And I would not like to get hit by an arrow from one of those.
@@Greensiteofhell fair enough. Bows are as powerful as they are made to be. But plenty of grown ass men can't pull hunting bows. That is a good point though.
Swinging a sword and moving about would be tiring but you dont require the same amount of strength to swing sword as tou do just to pull most functional bows back
@@colonelkernel2959 When defending a settlement or a region all kinds of weapons was used. Think of womens, kids and elderlys as a support/skirmish unit harassing enemies with stones, bows etc An axe, spear or sword together with a shield might not be that heavy, but close combat is about speed and strength combined with expertise and reach, and I would not rely on a woman to have those skills. In other words a woman would usually not stand a chance in close combat with a warrior or just a man. It makes logic to me. Not all bows are super heavy compound bows.
@@Greensiteofhell i get that. I just dont agree that a bow requires less strength.
@@Greensiteofhell A bow that kills rabbits will have to have a very lucky shot to kill a man (we're talking arrow in the eye here). A proper war bow is exceptionally tough to draw, it's incredibly unlikely that the majority of women could fight with one.
There are actually channels that have covered this subject, if anything a woman would be far more likely to use something like a hammer or a mace, where the weight is distributed more towards the end, so less of the force comes from the shoulder and more from the weight of the weapon.
Bear in mind that weapons are force multipliers, a woman's physical disadvantages are greatly reduced if you throw in a weapon of war in close combat. Given this a woman stands a better chance in close combat with a weapon than with a bow at range that she just can't use
War bows required a crap ton of strength as well, and women would have an easier time fighting with spear and shield than a bow. It was perfectly normal for a war bow to have a draw weight of over 100 pounds.
Great video I have learned a lot
Please make more on logisitics for armies and vikings
Fun fact Vikings aren't a people it's a word that means raiding. Some of my ancestors were Normans and they came from Rollo the raider who went Viking. Yes THAT Rollo.
The lion of the north is a great pick for Viking mythology. Gustav's advancements in Germany caused a stir among the Imperialists- who thought the Swede never got cold, could cross rivers magically, and rode into battle on reindeer!
Except the viking age ended with haraldr hardrada 500 years prior to gustav
So when the era ends, all cultural references /identity of said era ends as well?
@@edwardandezra when its half a millenia with little to no connection yes. karelian is a swedish only phenomena they deserve that crown not the rest of us.
@@edwardandezra the norwegian era was 500 to 800-900 the danish dominated 900 to 1100 the swedes dominated the 1600ds
So if someone were to make a viking reference in regards to a Swede, that would actually be incorrect?
A fascinating subject, splendid illustrations and animations once again...Love the Easy Targets board...inpiring!😍😍😍😍
This is my favorite video so fare 😍
They even were viktims of other pirates. In 1187 Russians destroyed Sigtuna, the Swedish capital of those times.
1187, to be fair, is Firmly After the Viking era.
CORRECTION spurdospärdes burnt down sigtuna
Karelians, not Russians.
Not Russians, the Rus were themselves a scandanavian culture
@@AeneasGemini slavic-norse culture
Great video!
9:24 A legend. Watch Gannicus fight unarmoured in Spartacus and think again. Book-worms will never understand warriors
If you could go back in time, what people would you choose to lead?
isn't the dismissal of historical accounts of Viking raids by those attacked equivalent to victim blaming and holocaust denial? why are the literate peoples accounts of crimes questioned? the Vikings had every chance to write justifications for their aggressions if we are even calling them aggression at the moment. before 1940 were there ever attacks launched against the Viking homelands by European nations?
I apologize for not having any answers, but for what it's worth that's a very interesting comment. It sometimes seems to me today that a lot of historians, perhaps for the lack of anything really new to tell us, go out of their way to mythbust and end up throwing out sources for silly reasons. That thing about the numbers of ships in accounts being 'suspiciously even'. Well when you make a guess at a number of things you do say "about 10/30/50", not "oh about 37." So that seems a silly reason to reject the source's claim. It's all very difficult at this range of time, and with such scanty hard evidence, I don't think we can say a lot for certain about details.
Did they slaughter the unarmed priests at Lindasfarne? If so what does that say about their mindset?
From what i remember from a book i read back in Highschool they were slaughtered or enslaved
it says kill them while they have no chance of fighting back
they were pagan warriors. so called christians massacred pagans en masse - so, what does that say about the "christians" mindset?
Can you do a video on medieval naval warfare? I don’t think there were any big engagements there, right?
I'm binging your channel the past view days. Love it!
Buuuut... missile weapons need less strenght to use? Where did you get that idea?
Throwing spears, javelines, pilums (i know that's not Plural for pilum lol) darts and even slings are only effective if used with great force.
Bows and Crossbows are famously hard to operate without physical strenght...
Using a sword/one handed axe in combination with a shield would be far easier for someone weaker.
Edit: just saw your own comment and clarification. Nevermind.
I have wondered if maybe the simplest of all motivations can explain a lot of the viking phenomenon.
Hunger.
Just, plain, literal hunger.
The Scandinavians had little farm able land, and a growing population. No sensible people send their best young men to die. That is literal cultural suicide. So the motivations must be such that they justify the risk.
Other European cultured did the same, but to a lesser degree. Could the difference be as simple as options? The vikings had fewer options, and so took greater risks. We know only of those that succeeded. So we have this perception of them succeeding. But there is no record of how many died in anonymity, or how many starving families were the motivation for young men to face horrible suffering and fear.
That was often argued but the short answer is that recent analyses of bones showed no or no more signs of starvation / lack of food in scandinavia than elsewhere. So this opinion seems to be rarely held today.
@Christian Swensen Its the opposite, the climate was very favorable in Scandinavia during the viking age. That led to a population surplus, the oldest son did inherited the farm, but the younger ones did need to, break new ground in Scandiava (hard work) colonize new (empty land) like Icland, or conquer/emigrate to new land like England.
Vikings were not the majority of the Norse population. Most Norse were farmers who occasionally fought when needed.
Sorry missile weapons require less body strength ? What be easier carrying a 2kg sword or spear or drawing a 120lb war bow ??
I think the 120lb war bow was a much later development, to cope with armour, Vikings would not have needed such powerful bows at the time
@@inregionecaecorum The minimum war bow too many knowledge is still 90lb which is still a hard pull down over and over again
Bows with a higher draw weight would take a tremendous amount of strength to use. Try using it repeatedly too. And the strength of a man among other things would affect his ability to throw javelins regardless of how difficult for a weaker person they would be to throw
@@mrward6510you missed the part where he said [missile] weapons were found. I.E javelins too. Stronger body will always be more useful but a woman can hurl a javelin and kill or hinder a shield all the same.
Man! That's good!
From Craig the Viking.
Modern historians build their careers on "new and revolutionary" interpretations, and academic attacks on "old and outdated" theories..
so old theories are always right?
@@clintmoor422 no, but new theories aren't either
@@GoryWory of course they are better. the new can read the old and doubleckeck the old cannot
I think Hollywood over exaggerates the viking martial skills, they are like Spartans of the Norths for the viking popular culture
One issue with your point that women buried with missile weaponry would have used them, perhaps they could have used light spears as javelins as they don’t require an extreme amount of strength, but bows on the other hand for battle usually need a poundage of over 70LB even 70LB requires a good amount of upper body strength to use effectively, let alone 90 or 100LB so I don’t think it’s a valid enough proof for women Vikings, spears however I would see as the best weapon for women in the Viking age, despite that I am in the opinion that women were a rarity on the dark age battlefield, there may well have been cases like how there’s been cases of female warriors in Japan but evidence for it remains to be seen, terrific video though enjoy your content
We all like fantasies, stories and tales of the past and myths, though the reality is a much better story.
We want to believe them because of our prejudices, and some go fanatical about those.
what like marvel or netflix trash? no thank you. Undermining northern europes importance in the human story with distasteful hollywood propaganda is a shame and a disgrace.
@@akrobatish what am I talking about and what conclusion you made.
Every piece of art is a propaganda, wether it's a medieval monk artist, composer from classic era or modern day film maker, they produce art for the ruling class to the masses how the artist feels or thinks, but things differ if you can call it art or mass product.
Yes Hollywood degradation is oblivious, HBO or Netflix or other mass-produced cheap films/series push their own agenda and world view, instead of making a good movie based on writed scripts, like some medieval movies in the 60's with iron/steel authentic armor, or like "Waterloo" or "war and peace" or like "lord of the rings" even "pirates of the Caribbean" 1-3
I dont see how a thousand men could conquer and occupy half of england
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say... It was perhaps only a few thousand TRUE vikings that went and raided in the UK, but when they got there they would recruit locals as well, who wanted freedom and power themselves. I mean we're talking about a period of 500 odd years. That's a lot of time for a few people to come, settle, conquer, integrate locals, and reproduce with locals.
@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva could you please elaborate
Because it was likely much more than a thousand
Another great video. Thanks and keep up the quality content.
I have long doubted the widespread use and availability of swords in the period from the fall of Rome to 1000Ad. Just too expensive for the average footman. As to fighting ability, the Norse would have had their super athletes, like any other culture - thus the Berserker myth, but I have been to the Armory at Graz, Austria. There are several full suits of armor, made for knights, that are clearly for a man of 6ft and taller. All societies had their champions.
I suspect that, for the great mass of troops, a spear, a bludgeoning weapon of different types, a lot of axes and other stand-off pole weapons/farm implements, and some very basic head protection would have been the most common sight on any battle field. Archers were likely levied hunters and foresters, not regular missile troops.
In the end, it was just a big Hack Fest.
Sword can be widespread. Cheap sword who broke or bend easily were very common. Good sword were rare and very expensive. And langsax (just a big big knife or shirt sword) with one edged shaped were common in the Germano-Scandinavian world.
Yes the spear was the first weapons on commoners, with in second position sax and langsax, and the axe is the next.
The evidence shows that your opinion is incorrect. There are over 2,500 Viking swords found in Norway alone. So swords were pretty common, but obviously not everyone could afford one. Most likely the armies had most of the swords.
"for the everyday man swords were out of reach..."
Peasant: "aww who put this fucking sword on top of this tall pole! I wish I was a Lord, with their fancy ladders..."
"guess I'll just have to stick to my yokel spear, with its long haft with many perpendicular handles along its length..."
Lord Fancyladder Mcpants: "mwahaha, my name is Lord Fancyladder Mcpants. I've only appeared in this narrative to say this. I serve no plot purpose. Look at my sword and my fancy ladder...!!"
I could make these videos. With my extensive knowledge of the Early Middle Ages I've demonstrated
I first read the title as 'Viking Warface' and got confused if it was about facepaint or something. 😂
BerserkerGang rise up
Beseeker literally just means they wore bear/2 other animals that I forget skins/furs. : /
Love your content, thank you for the work you do