[Sca-cooks] New PBS Show Warrior Challenge

[Decker, Terry D.]

As I recall, the discussion was about what Vikings would eat in the field.
If you want to consider the general diet of the medieval Scandinavian family
at home and abroad http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/vikfood.html is a good
starting point.

The Viking venture was one of seaborne raid and trade, often carried out by
outlaws.  The classic Viking venture is that of the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok
and Bjorn Jarnsida who raided and traded their way around the coast of
Europe into the Mediterranian to Byzantium and back.  This is the pattern of
the early Viking period from the late-8th into the late-9th Centuries.

During this same period, the Scandinavian countries were changing from a
tribal culture to consolidated kingdoms.  Most of the Scandinavian
settlements abroad occur during the late-9th and 10th Centuries.  It has
been suggested that this was a deliberate policy of these newly formed
kingdoms to ease population pressure and civil unrest at home.

The Vikings did attack a number of places and occasionally wintered in some
of them, but was the growth of overseas settlements actually a Viking
venture?

The Viking period tends to be dated from 8 June 793 (the raid on
Lindisfarne) through Good Friday 23 April 1014 (the Battle of Clontarf) or
15 October 1066 (the Battle of Hastings) or 1098 (Magnus Barelegs' taking of
the Western Isles).  I tend to support 1014 because it was a battle lead by
a Viking commander.  Both Harald Hardrada and William of Normandy were
royalty  leading proto-national armies as was Magnus III "Barelegs"
Olavsson.  The Battle of Largs (October 1263) which some purport to be the
final Viking raid on the British Ilses was an accidental incursion by a
royal fleet of King Haakon IV of Norway.

Now Dublin was certainly a Danish settlement and during the Battle of
Clontarf a Viking fleet was present at the town and the men of that fleet
opposed the Ardrigh Brian Boru.  Sitric Silkenbeard, the Danish commander,
was technically Brian Boru's stepson and was the King of Dublin, not a
Viking adventurer.  Was Clontarf a Viking battle or the culimination of a
civil war?  Danes and Irish served on both sides of the fight and the prize
was the rule of Ireland.

The Danelaw is actually a treaty of common law signed in 886 between King
Alfred and King Guthrum, the leader of the settled Danes, as to how both
Saxon and Dane were to be tried in the Danish controlled territory.  The
name came to be applied to that territory.  While there continued incursions
and fighting for the next 130 years, it usually isn't considered "Viking"
outside of casually using the term Viking to mean Scandinavian.  The
culmination of all this was Canute becoming King of England and marrying
Ethelred the Unready's widow, Emma of Normandy.  Canute later became King of
Denmark and King of Norway.  Harald Hardrada's claim to the English throne
was through one of Canute's sons while Williams was through Emma and Harold
Godwineson's claim was as brother-in-law of Edward the Confessor, the son of
Ethelred and Emma.

Normandy was enfiefed to Rollo I (who was at the time a Scandinavian outlaw
a-viking in France) by Charles III (referred to in Sweden as Karl the
Stupid) in 911 to create a buffer against Viking raids.  Rollo also became
Charles' son-in-law.  Once he got his, Rollo was in the ruling business
rather than the Viking business.

As for Sicily, don't confuse Normans with Norsemen.  The Norman involvement
there was a band of Christian pilgrims being hired as mercenaries for the
Lombards against the Byzantine government of Bari in 1016.  Normans worked
the other side in 1018 in a Byzantine army.  In 1038, the Hauteville
brothers (Drogo, William and Humphrey) signed on with the Byzantines in an
army which included Harald Hardrada.  For his service, William de Hauteville
was made Count of Apulia.  With the Lombards defeated, the Hautevilles
stepped into the vacuum and began consolidating control of southern Italy.
In 1046, Robert (Guiscard) de Hauteville joined his brothers, followed by
Roger de Hauteville in 1053.  The essential went into business for
themselves as the independent rulers of Southern Italy and Roger invaded
Sicily first in 1061 (rebuffed), then again in 1062.  In 1091, Roger holds
Sicily.  His descendents will hold Sicily until 1194.  No Viking settlement,
just a common Italian mercenary land grab.

Hastings is a big question mark.  The depiction of Harold Godwineson's army
as a pitiful band of worn out warriors may not have been the case, despite
his comments at Stamford.  Yes, they had force-marched from Stamford to
Hasings, and 3,000 Anglo-Saxons engaged the enemy at 7 am on Senlac Hill.
Despite having 3,000 knights and 5,000 foot soldiers, William could not
break the Anglo-Saxon shield wall.  The Battle lasted into late afternoon
until Normans began to withdraw.  It is believed that the the Anglo-Saxons
thought William was dead and broke to pursue the withdrawing Normans.  The
Normans turned and rode the Anglo-Saxon army into the ground and broke what
remained of the shield wall.  Harold Godwineson was killed.

The destruction of the Anglo-Saxon army and the death of Harold Godwineson
made Hastings decisive, but it certainly wasn't the foregone conclusion you
suggest.

Bear

> >Well... raids, yes. But they didn't limit themselves to
> smash and grab
> >raids. You've heard maybe of Dublin? The Danelaw? Norse
> settled there,
> >as well as in Normandy, Sicily, and any place they could get
> a foot in
> >the door.
> >
> >Though if you'd asked the English of 1066, they'd probably
> have thought
> >the army of Harold Hardrada, which they defeated the week before
> >Hastings, was closer to the vikings than William was. That
> army was also
> >planning to stay. Didn't... One of the great What If's of
> history - What
> >if the English army had not just roundly defeated a much
> larger invading
> >army, then force marched, wounded and all, across the nation
> to arrive
> >in Hastings just barely in time to set up to meet William. They were
> >exhausted, hungry, and limping. Amazing they were able to
> offer any real
> >resistance at all.
> >
> >AEllin