The Nationalist Myth of Vikings

Vikings: Scandinavian a people from Scandinavia, or a bunch of multiethnic seafaring barbarians who pillaged, raped, and conquered their way through more than three centuries of European history? Or maybe they never existed at all?

Hosted by: Indy Neidell & Spartacus Olsson
Written by: Spartacus Olsson
Director: Astrid Deinhard
Producers: Astrid Deinhard and Spartacus Olsson
Executive Producers: Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson, Bodo Rittenauer
Creative Producer: Maria Kyhle
Post-Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Research by: Spartacus Olsson
Image Research by: Lucas Aimó
Edited by: Lucas Aimó
Sound design: Marek Kamiński

Sources:
Icons created by the Noun Project

A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.

[TimeGhost]

So about those horns... one of the favorite 'myths' people like to point out is that 'vikings did not wear horns on their helmets'. Although even then, as this video shows, one begins to delve into the realm of oversimplification and mystification. What version of the history did year hear growing up, and what is the true, complicated story? Discuss.

[RedfishUK]

"Trade can mean anything from buying and selling to Rape and plunder"
Mrs Viking - "where have you been all summer"
Mr Viking - "Oh, just trading"

[gustavth]

This was a strange video. I agree with the message of explaining how vikings aren’t accurate to depict as a people, but I am disappointed you offered no more explanation of the term.

In norwegian history, the term is used to describe any trader, icelandic settler or sea warrior from the viking age.
Even though the etymological origin of the term is debated, the term existed in the contemporary age, where vikingr referred to a person, and viking referred to an activity. The word is found on inscribed stones, and preserved scaldic poems.

Talking about scaldic poems, there’s a debate on how «authentic» they are. But it is an accepted position, at least here, to take it into consideration into mapping a historic image. The position bases itself on that the scaldic poems followed strict rules in build up and rhymes, and any change through transfer would render the poem «unusable» as a scaldic poem.

There is also debate on the accuracy of the sagas, yes, but this video doesn’t give a good explanation of them, only that they were written down «long after.»
This is a misrepresentation, as Icelandic literature is written down suprisingly early, and many originals still exist. In fact, so much literature has been found in iceland, that I’ve come across professors calling it «the cultural capital of the viking age.»
As for the validity of the sagas, a recent archeological dig in my hometown, found a direct link to Sverre’s saga. The Saga clearly says that two men were thrown into a well in Sverre’s castle, to poison the water supply. This ended a siege of the castle. The well was filled up, and the castle torn down. And what have they found amongst the ruins? Two skeletons.

All in all, I don’t think you have the basis to «debunk» vikings as blatantly as you do here. Scandinavians of the era didn’t constitute a nationality as we know them today, but several power politics revolved around going viking. Numerous Norwegian kings based their power and opposition to the more powerful ‘danish’ or ‘swedish’ tribes, on the wealth they attained while plundering.

[harbl]

"And 1200 years hence, a bunch of apologists on will say this never happened." -- the Lindisfarne Chronicles, 793AD
And the Great Heathen Army that rampaged across England? Well, that was just a trading collective, nothing else.

[Hrafnskald]

You should do a colaboration with the Tiktok girl who posted a video claiming Ancient Rome is a lie.

[unclecrusty]

Coming from historians I generally considered much better then this this video seems like nose dive in terms of quality and honesty. Yes there where "pirate" raids from North Africa and Arabia into Europe however this people group is very distinct from the Pagan Norsemen who at the same time where raiding, trading and settling up and down Europe (Dublin, Danelaw, normandy, Kievan Rus and so on). Just because the historical evidence on what their culture was exactly like doenst cast doubt on the existence of the pre-christain norse population. We dont doubt the existence of the Mycnean greeks as a distinct culture when compared to other ancient cultures just because the Illiad and Odysessy where our best sources for centuries on them. Its also clear that there was a separate Norsemen culture to the rest of the Euro-Asian-African pirates as the Norsemen raids ceased. There are populations with clear genetic links to ancient Norsemen in Great Britian, Normandy, Ukraine and other places.

[Valdagast]

Oh, you need to watch the movie Vikingdom. It's a Malaysian movie that treats Norse mythology with the same care and dedication that we treat Malaysian mythology with. It has vikings! It has druids! It has Stonehenge! Located in the Danish alps! And they have an Australian wrestler playing Thor, who is the big bad.

[Storgaaard]

I love your shows and watch all of them but the two last episodes on "myths" are perhaps the worst I have ever watched. It is videos build on strawmen-arguments that are so short and deconstructivst in their nature that they can be reduced to simply an argument that because reality (supriise) is a lot more nuanced than folklore and myths nothing really exists. Its quite ridicoulous and not as snappy as it would like to be.

You by a slight of hand cast the Icelandic sagas of despite the fact that they remain some of the only and best sources we have of the period and puts in its place an argument that because people intermingled between cultures (which of course they did), there was A LOT of internal wars and power struggles (like in every other place before the strong Weberian state) and that only few people actually were warriors (like in all cultures) a whole culture can be described as nothing more than a myth.

I can see it becoming a very long line of videos because with this line of argument most history before perhaps the 1800s can be decast, debunked and deconstructed to fit the notion that there is no such thing as nationality, cultures or people. In my opinion it is as hollow and politized an idea as the myths you mock.

The truth is that the world is a lot more nuanced. Yes of course human beings have been traveling and intermingling between cultures since nearly the begining of humankind. Here in Denmark we have found a noble woman in the bronze ages coming from Southern Europe in a burial - it doesnt mean there wasnt cultural differences developing over time as people lived with people and produced traditions of their own. Yes of course all scandinavians wasnt warriorcults who raped and plundered - that doesnt mean that some of these mentioned cultures haven't in period of their history turned to outside aggression - from the vikings to the mongols to the germans in WW2.

In short (as these videos): Just because all scandinavians wasnt tall blonde warriors who raped and plundered (or had horns) it doesnt mean there was no such thing as the viking age or a culture around it.

[peterrandall]

Hi! I am a big fan of your channel, and I study Viking Age / Medieval Scandinavian history. Although much of what you say here is correct, I wanted to note a slight error. Historians certainly still use the Icelandic sagas as sources on the Viking Age, though with great difficulty - they need to be used in addition to archaeological and linguistic evidence. I would also add that we actually know a fair bit more about what is sometimes termed the "Late Norse period" (going by Scottish historiography here). This includes the period in which the sagas were actually written down (12th-13th centuries). Until recently, there had been a great neglect of using these sources to understand the period they are actually from, but this is changing.

I also think that some of the comments here reflect a misunderstanding of the key point: the "Viking Age" was a period of large scale migration and an increase in trade and piracy, but the idea of a "Viking" people is anachronistic. Those involved in these activities of migration, trade, piracy and conquest were not a unified people and had no concept of national identity as we would understand it today. They were, however, largely from Scandinavia or descended from Scandinavian settlers, and would have belonged to a shared linguistic and cultural community of "Northmen" or "Danes" (meaning Scandinavians).

Personally, I do not think we should totally disregard the idea of "Vikings". It isn't useful in discussion among historians unless referring to raiders specifically, but the idea of a "Viking Age" or a "Viking Expansion" is useful. Perhaps it could be better named, but I think it has stuck now. It can be a good way to get people interested and excited by the topic, while still dispelling myths created by nationalism.

[nikolajwinther]

Viking is mentioned on more than one contemporary runestone in Scandinavia.
No, Vikings weren't one destinct people living solely on the raiding of others, calling themselves exclusively Vikings.
That doesn't mean there were no such thing as Vikings.

[g.aathoz]

This is a very bad video... Also I guess the supposed debunking of the origin of the Vikings is based on the study which basically only looked on a few archeological remains from a trade node that concluded that some of the people had non-Scandinavian origin; not that weird and to be expected from a seafaring people controlling international trade-routes and dealing in slaves... There has been multiple genetic studies on the Norse and their migrations, the fact that you can trace them and make out significant connections to the modern-day Scandinavian population kind of disproves any attempt of trying to claim that Vikings were multi-cultural or multi-ethnic.

[danceswithmetroids]

Very disappointing video. Seems very much in the line of modern anti European historical revisionism and I've un-subbed.

For everybody who wants actual history on the Norse people, visit Jackson Crawford's channel.

[wyrdwik]

Ultimately this video is simply arguing that some nationalists starting in the 19th century began to romanticize Viking history for their political or artistic purposes. The most infamous example of this being the Third Reich. This is well known and hardly constitutes any sort of debunking of Scandinavian history or the Vikings role in history at large.

[FOLIPE]

I don't get it... There weren't Vikings except that there were people from the place Vikings are supposed to come from doing activities we associate with the Vikings? Now, of course the Nazis used all that in a horrible way, but they did the same with the idea of an Indo-European migration/invasion into India... But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

[astrobullivant]

@3:25,
"...often came from the same place originally"
Yeah, but that's kind of a weak argument for saying that Vikings didn't exist. All humans come from the Rift Valley at some point.

@4:27,
It's definitely true that the Nazis used Viking imagery for their propaganda to do horrible things, but that neither means that Vikings didn't exist nor does it mean that medieval vikings should be judged based on what the Nazis did. The Nazis also used imagery from Frederick Barbarossa and his Holy Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean the study of Frederick Barbarossa should be linked to Nazi propaganda.

@4:59,
You refer to "technological innovation, growing trade, migration, and integration...by a very, very diverse population", which are all fairly subjective, but I'd agree there was definitely a lot of that going on. For instance, there were definitely Sami vikings. Still, the things you describe could often emerge from an unpleasant "long string of brutal bloody conquest". One strong piece of circumstantial evidence for a "brutal bloody conquest" is the extent that Icelandic people have Celtic mitochondria and Norse Y-chromosomes. Usually, in a peaceful integration and mingling of peoples, the people's respective men and women marry and procreate with each other at approximately equal rates.

[Martin-ikhf]

I love your program but some of your statements are borderline false. Some of the Sagas are written many years after the events, yet it’s based on poetry and contains poetry that is often accepted from being that time. Also depending on which historian you ask, the Viking age ended waaaay later than 1066. Tore Skeie states that the Viking age could be consider to be going at least until the 1300, as Norwegians were still raiding and using their longboats, they just weren’t raiding England anymore, but they did still raid Scotland for instance.

That would then make the Sagas not written way after. As Snorre lived in the 1100 and died mid 1200.

These sources can often be cross checked by using the Flatøybok that is written about the same events as Snorres Saga.

Obviously the Sagas need to be taken with a grain of salt, actually a lot of it, but to completely dismiss it is doing a rather great disservice to many of the works that can be used to create an idea of that time.

[nathanoliver]

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to take away from this 5 minute video was but what I’m afraid about is people taking from this video is that Vikings, longships, and Norway doesn’t exist because the nazis thought they existed.

[Somewhat-Evil]

I guess the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and several other primary source books will need to be reclassified as fan fiction. Seriously, this is getting close to the opinions held by historians prior to the discovery of L'Anse aux Meadows proving the Sagas had some true historical value. Most of what we know about Alexander the Great and Charlemagne was also written centuries after their deaths or cribbed from books lost to history that cannot be "proven" to have existed at all. Are the ancient Macedonians and Franks myths as well? The Sagas are, for the most part, like the Iliad or The Song of Rolland oral historical tradition written down centuries after the fact.

As for those accursed "horned helmets" IMO a poor interpretation of early archeology is to blame. The Nordic Bronze Age wasn't understood at all when the Grevensvænge figurines of warriors with axes and horned helmets were unearthed in the 1700s. Add in numerous ancient stone pictographs showing similar figures on oared longboats that somehow got linked to the much later Viking Age Norse. The famous Veksø Helmets discovered in 1942, are likely from the same or related early Nordic culture that crashed soon after the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilizations fell during the Great Bronze Age Collapse. The horned helmets used during performances of Wagner's operas in the 1800s might have been based on a poor understanding of history rather than pure whimsical fantasy.

[jliller]

I'm once again reminded why I have no interest in studying ancient history.

I disagree with the idea if the Vikings didn't call themselves Viking we can't either. "Viking" to me simply refers to Scandinavians during a particular period of time. It's like how "Native Americans" is a useful term even if the vast majority of those people primarily or entirely identify based on a tribal affiliation.

I also think "we know very little about Vikings and they are very very very heavily mythologized" is not the same as "Vikings didn't exist."

Besides geographic residence, is the use of longships something we can say is unique to Vikings?

[verihimthered]

Now we know very little... then why are you making so many assumptions