Quote:
|
The traditional view of Vikings has recently come in for some rethinking, particularly as that notion of them comes down to us from those who fought with them. Rome, after all, had a vested interest in explaining just how and why she was conquered.
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa. First off, Rome (in the West) was centuries gone by the time of the first Vikings (traditionally Lindisfarne, 793)
In the second place, the portrait I referred to was the Norsemen's *own*, drawn from their quasi-historical sagas, and from Heimskringla. They were barely-concealed *proud* of their killers, even when they couldn't pay their weregeld and had to be outlawed. Reading what the Vikings wrote about *themselves* and their interpersonal relationships puts me in mind of nobody so much as LA street gangs: "show me respect or I'll put an axe in yo' ***."
This is not to say that the Vikings did not have admirable qualities: at least those qualities valued in a warrior culture- honor, loyalty, courage, generosity. But it was, unapologetically, a warrior culture, which regarded rapine, pillage, plunder and bloodshed as praiseworthy things and the true measure of a man.
Mind you, I *like* the Vikings. But while we can admire their seacraft and artwork and many other things, we shouldn't forget that that most ancient of parliaments, the Althing, was followed by the 'weapontake:' the men taking up their arms again after they left the assembly. And it's hardly a puzzle why no weapons were allowed inside......