What is their traditional reputation and why ?
"Never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race. … Behold, the church of St. Cuthbert, spattered with the blood of the priests of God, despoiled of all its ornaments; a place more venerable than all in Britain is given as a prey to pagan peoples." -Alcuin of York, describing a violent raid by Vikings on a monastery in present-day Scotland.
But, were they really like that?
For centuries, the Vikings have had an extremely negative traditional reputation as ruthless and blood-thirsty raiders. They have also been extensively accused of raping and ill-treating their victims. They've always been seen as wild and dirty looking people, who’d sack a monastery as soon as they set eyes on it. This reputation for mindless savagery has been given to the Vikings as they were quick, fierce and efficient while carrying out raids.
They used weapons including metal swords and heavy wooden shields and sometimes wore helmets made of metal and animal hide as a means of protection. (They did not wear horned helmets! ) Most Viking men had large bushy beards that made their appearance more savage. As a result people also judged them on their appearance. Their image as primitive plunderers is a stereotype that has been associated with them for ages. Hence, the genuine and true reason behind their raids remains hidden.
The Vikings' homeland, Scandinavia wasn't suitable for farming. Raiding was the most convenient option left for their survival. They raided for food and supplies to feed themselves and for gold, silver and diamonds, to make jewellery. Most people view the Vikings as vicious creatures; archaeologists view them as people who wanted to survive. Therefore, the Vikings are far from the traditional reputation given to them. They absolutely do not deserve their bad reputation.
Raiding gave them a plethora of opportunity to get whatever they want, without much struggle. Their skills at sea, came extremely handy to them as well. Ships were their key tool-from small boats and ferries to the famous longship, they built it all! They acclimatised to sea life and became successful raiders. The true reason behind their raids is however, still debatable.
WHY MIGHT THERE BE Re-interpretations of this reputation ?
While the Vikings have always been referred to, as people who raided wealthier nations for treasure and women, their culture and motives were far more diverse than that. The traditional reputation of pillaging and cold-blooded raiders given to the Vikings has been blindly followed by the people since centuries. However, modern archaeologists are driven by curiosity to truly know about the Vikings and their life. Majority of the information collected regarding the Vikings are from biased primary sources. Since they were incapable of writing, much of their history was recorded by the British and French clergy-the very people who were victims of their raids. They would have clearly tried to convince others about their ruthlessness and would have described them in the most negative way possible.
Hence, the true, unbiased description of the Vikings remains unknown. A biased source cannot be the truth. Archaeologists are thus trying to find out more about the Vikings, in order to get a precise description about them. A victim’s point of view would usually be against their attackers whereas the attacker’s point of view would be in favour of themselves. Hence, there might be many re-interpretations of their reputation, in order to lead us to the hidden truth of the Vikings.
MYTHS V/S FACTS
Certain stereotypes and misconceptions has severely botched the Vikings' reputations. Lets clear the air and see what is actually true:
MYTHS1. Vikings wore horned helmets.
2. They were unclean and shabby.
3. They were bulky and heavily muscled.
|
FACTS1. This myth came up during the post-medieval times. In fact, Vikings either fought bareheaded or wore simple helmets made of animal hide or metal, occasionally with face guard as a means of protection. Wearing a heavy horned helmet would have proved hazardous to the warrior's own side!
2. Archaeologists find evidence of combs, spoons and other grooming instruments on a regular basis proving that the Vikings maintained a good hygiene. They were not unkept and dirty. This myth was only automatically associated with their savage traditional appearance. 3. Due to a short summer season, and scarce resources, farming wasn't the best option for food in Scandinavia. As a consequence, many of the Viking people were much smaller than they are usually depicted as, due to lesser availability of food. |
Bibliography
- "Sorry- the Vikings Really Were That Bad." The Spectator. N.p., 10 Aug. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8989111/sorry-the-vikings-really-were-that-bad/>.
- Lovgren, Stefan. "Vikings' Barbaric Bad Rap Beginning to Fade." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 17 Feb. 200. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0217_040217_vikings.html>.
- "Do the Vikings Deserve Their Bad Reputation?" StudyMode. N.p., Aug. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. <http://www.studymode.com/essays/Do-The-Vikings-Deserve-Their-Bad-1887534.html>.
- Goodrich, Ryan. "Viking History: Facts & Myths." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 16 May 2013. Web. 04 May 2014. <http://www.livescience.com/32087-viking-history-facts-myths.html>
Made By- Shreya Gupta