It's pretty well agreed by scholars that the Brits were familiar with the Scandinavians through trade long before Lindisfarne. There are also recorded attacks by Scandinavian fleets in Merovingian/Frankish lands in the early-6th century, among others. There was a lot of piracy, viking or otherwise all over that part of the world, east and west, but particularly in places like the south Baltic, for centuries before Lindisfarne. Also, we should be cautious about thinking there was a relatively homogenous group of Scandinavians running around here and there, darting around from east to west. The Salme warriors, or those like them from Sweden, very likely had nothing to do with viking warriors in the west, and vice versa. Also, the motives -- other than portable wealth -- were likely as varied as the viking war bands themselves were. And they weren't always successful. The violent injuries of the Salme warriors have led scholars to interpret their situation as a raid that went horribly wrong for them. They were likely on the losing side from the looks of it. There's lots of ongoing research going on right now (my own included!) that is widening the lens on the "Viking Age" by a lot. Stay tuned!
Hydrachies is a term also used in literature now - diverse groups forming temporary communities on the go. Routes to the East were very much explored before the full-blown attacks in the West due to the opportunity to amass large quantities of silver dirhams (favourable political context of the rise of the Abbasids).
Yep. That's largely my friend Christian Cooijman's book: Monarchs and Hydrarchs: The Conceptual Development of Viking Activity Across the Frankish Realm (c. 750-940). Other scholars have picked it up now too as a viable term, including me :)
A gradual escalation of raids makes so much more sense than the sudden explosion narrative that predominately features in textbooks and popular histories. It also helps explain maybe why the raiders seemed to know who and where to attack so quickly.
I think there’s good evidence the Frisians had a far greater role in the early North Sea trade, Anglo-Saxon settlement of England and later Viking armies than commonly known…
“No high value targets around?” In a society practicing polygyny (see articles by Raffield), people were well worth taking - something which persisted in the Baltic into the fourteenth century.
Tack så mycket för den informationen!
Varsågod!
Nice post! There's a Salme exhibit at a museum in Stockholm right now, for anyone in the area: https://www.vrak.se/en/visit-the-museum/exhibitions/vikings-before-vikings/
It's pretty well agreed by scholars that the Brits were familiar with the Scandinavians through trade long before Lindisfarne. There are also recorded attacks by Scandinavian fleets in Merovingian/Frankish lands in the early-6th century, among others. There was a lot of piracy, viking or otherwise all over that part of the world, east and west, but particularly in places like the south Baltic, for centuries before Lindisfarne. Also, we should be cautious about thinking there was a relatively homogenous group of Scandinavians running around here and there, darting around from east to west. The Salme warriors, or those like them from Sweden, very likely had nothing to do with viking warriors in the west, and vice versa. Also, the motives -- other than portable wealth -- were likely as varied as the viking war bands themselves were. And they weren't always successful. The violent injuries of the Salme warriors have led scholars to interpret their situation as a raid that went horribly wrong for them. They were likely on the losing side from the looks of it. There's lots of ongoing research going on right now (my own included!) that is widening the lens on the "Viking Age" by a lot. Stay tuned!
Hydrachies is a term also used in literature now - diverse groups forming temporary communities on the go. Routes to the East were very much explored before the full-blown attacks in the West due to the opportunity to amass large quantities of silver dirhams (favourable political context of the rise of the Abbasids).
Yep. That's largely my friend Christian Cooijman's book: Monarchs and Hydrarchs: The Conceptual Development of Viking Activity Across the Frankish Realm (c. 750-940). Other scholars have picked it up now too as a viable term, including me :)
A gradual escalation of raids makes so much more sense than the sudden explosion narrative that predominately features in textbooks and popular histories. It also helps explain maybe why the raiders seemed to know who and where to attack so quickly.
I think there’s good evidence the Frisians had a far greater role in the early North Sea trade, Anglo-Saxon settlement of England and later Viking armies than commonly known…
You are brilliant and prove the point, history is not exact or true, most of the time.
Well that's what historians are for, to dig through the layers of reality.
“No high value targets around?” In a society practicing polygyny (see articles by Raffield), people were well worth taking - something which persisted in the Baltic into the fourteenth century.
What was meant is the village itself had nothing to offer - except yes, perhaps women or slaves in general.