Hello Gus. I commend you on being broad-minded enough to revise your view of the Vikings when confronted with new information. I also share your suspicion that the Viking attacks on monasteries like Lindsifarne may have been retaliation for Charlemagne’s Holy War against the Saxons. I have written a paper called “The Evils of Christianization” which attempts to explore this idea, though not to any definitive result. You can find the essay online if you search for it. However, I also have to say that I am personally very discouraged by what I find among the Norse Pagans/Heathens/Asatruar of America. Many seem mesmerized by the Viking Warrior image, and to hold to an extremely macho version of the ancient Norse religion. I have known Scandinavian Asatruar who are much less war-minded and more impressed by other aspects of the Vikings such as their capacity for wide-ranging travels and interaction with other cultures, and their poetry, crafts and cultural achievements. I put down the difference to contemporary America’s general rightward lean toward a militaristic view of the world. I hope to present on this at the next AAR meeting.

Very interesting and thoughtful analysis.
I think the destruction of Irminsul was the turning point. After that, the Pagans of the North viewed all Christians are mortal enemies and gave them no quarter.
I haven’t read Ferguson’s book yet, but I keep hearing great things about it!

Wow. And here I thought that “going Viking” had to do w/ survival due to a mini-Ice Age.
In other words, if climate change was the opposite of global warming…..and it became difficult to sustain in northern climes, raiding for survival.
Plus coming of age aspects (thinking that young men did the raiding).
Your info brings a whole different light to the subject.

Another small factor: up to about 800 it was the Frisians, not the Danes, who ruled the North Sea. When the Frisians were defeated by the Franks, a buffer zone between the two civilizations was removed.

I’m sceptical about the level of organisation that seems to be implied. OK, the Danes were threatened by the Holy Roman Empire, and Viking attacks on the coasts of what are now Holland and Belgium may have been connected with that. The Danes certainly built the Dannevirke to defend their southern border against the HRE (and against Slavs, to a lesser extent). However, a lot of Vikings were Norwegians not Danes, and Norway, not yet even a unified kingdom, was itself threatened by Danish expansionism (its very name – “North Way” – shows that it was seen more as a trade route than a country). The idea that Heathen Norwegian attacks on churches in Scotland and Ireland were revenge for Christian attacks on Heathens in Saxony takes a lot of swallowing; even when two religions are in conflict, realpolitik often trump religious loyalties.
Even aside from issues of realpolitik, it is disputable whether Saxon and Scandinavian Heathenism were the same religion.
Another point is that Heathens often tolerated Christians, which they would have been unlikely to do if they saw such a black-white religious divide. For example; there were priests, churches and proselytism in Denmark from about 810, tolerated by the king, but the court did not accept Christianity until about 930.
Christians were less tolerant of Heathens, but even in this respect there were surprising levels of interaction. For example, Ohthere, a Heathen chieftain from the far north of Norway, visited the court of King Alfred as a friendly merchant, selling furs and walrus ivory, at the same time as Alfred was fighting Heathen Danish invaders.
Also, clasqm’s point is important.
The best general book about the Vikings I have read is that by Else Roesdahl.
Michael: I strongly agree with what you say about Asatruar in different countries. In Iceland, Asatru tends to be politically liberal, and is strongly environmentalist. In England, in my experience, when people refer to “Asatru” they mean the right-wing US form, and they tend to use “Heathen” to refer to a more earth-based religion.

I’m glad you found Ferguson’s information worthwhile, Gus.
Rombald, I don’t think that a large degree of organization is necessary for some of the Vikings to have been motivated by concern that they would soon be the next targets of the sort of imperialistic behavior that was occurring to the south of them. And while the religions of the heathen Scandinavians and Saxons may not have been identical, their religious views had far more in common with each other than with that of the Christians.
I agree that there is a definite problem within American Asatru and other forms of heathenry with the “Viking Warrior image” that Michael mentions; when one of your first major national organizations is the Viking Brotherhood, you’re kind of starting in a hole. Fortunately, it seems (personal observation only here, based on my own interactions with other heathens IRL and online) that we’re growing out of it as heathens are able to get more reliable information on the pre-Christian Germanic peoples than what is provided by Hollywood and sensationalized/romanticized pulp histories and coffee table books. The pirates, sea-roving war bands, marine bandits, and similar folk who could be categorized as Vikings made up only a very small part of the population; someone had to be doing the farming, building, crafting, herding, and similar work, and those someones had their own spirituality, too.
For those who might be interested, Hrafnkell Haraldsson, author of the blog “A Heathen’s Day,” has a pretty good series of posts on the problem at:
http://aheathensday.com/2006/09/past-present-and-future-part-13.html
http://aheathensday.com/2006/10/a-return-to-viking-heathenry.html
http://aheathensday.com/2006/10/a-last-stab-at-viking-heathenism.html

Gus,
My ancestors were from Sweden, and I’ve always had a difficult time understanding how those “evil” raiders of yore could be reconciled with those advanced, socialist cultures of today. Thanks so much for the insight that your post provides.

I really do not have a dog in the fight over why the Vikings did what they did, though the Ferguson argument makes it far more understandable. Apuleius, that was an interesting piece, as was the discussion that followed. Thanks. Michael- I found a copy online but it was not complete and I could not print it out, alas. But it looked good.
I have time for reading papers but not, alas, books. Maybe someone can do a guest post reviewing the Ferguson and Roesdahl books? If amyone does an even handed review, contact me on Facebook and I will arrange to make you a guest blogger here. But it seems to me that certain issues would suggest where the preponderance of the evidence lies on a complicated issue that happened a long time ago.
1. Did Danes attack before the Norwegians?
2. They had traded with the monasteries previously. Why the sudden shift in tactics to extermination?
3. Did the Vikings target Christian monks and clergy more murderously than they targeted other people?
4. How does Robert Ferguson respond to the account of toleration of Christians in Denmark?
I simply do not have the time to study an area so very far away from y own field of research, but the debate my throw away line inspired has gotten me interested in the issue.

Kenneth Harl’s Teaching Company lecture series on the Vikings is excellent and an enjoyable way to learn a great deal about this subject. Incidentally, I recommend all of his Teaching Company lecture series if you are interested in ancient or Medieval history.

“Many lay Christians are wonderful people, but more and more I believe that Christianity is incapable of being a civilized neighbor except insofar as it followers abandon the lie that their way is essential for salvation….But many others have not, and in civilized terms, are barbarians or would become such when offered the opportunity.”
So the author would call Christians “barbarians” unless they hold that their way of thinking is not objectively true. With due respect, this is ridiculous. Who in their right mind wants to believe in something – even die for something – which they think is a fabrication? The assertion in his remark is that some larger “truth” of relativism exists which trumps the Christian claim to truth. In the end, the author would have Christians abandon their own truth and adhere to the author’s sense of truth. For those of us who do not follow the pagan path, why should we follow pagan truths?

Phid, because not abandoning that lie is creating Christian Extremists who are happily tramping upon the religious freedoms of others. Most Pagans would be content if those of you who don’t follow the Pagan path would just leave us ALONE and not continually force, aka proselytize, your “truths” upon us.
However, Christian Extremists are incapable of doing this.
On a related note, there’s an interesting article over at the Pagan Newswire Collective you might want to take the time to read if you’ve not already seen it:
http://politics.pagannewswirecollective.com/2010/02/26/an-interview-with-mikey-weinstein-of-military-religious-freedom-foundation/

Good article except for one thing. Hatred and violence are “demonic.” Do you believe in the christian version of demons, then? Correct me if I’ve misinterpreted you here, but that makes you sound more like a fluffy fake Wiccan (not all Wiccans are like that) than a raw and proper Pagan.
Hatred and violence are natural, self-defense induced responses to being wrong. The animal kingdom and the natural world can show us this. If this impulse was not meant to be there, it wouldn’t be. If these are not heeded on some level appropriate to the wrong in the situation, the offenders, like the Christians, will walk all over you and think nothing of it. If you think that feeding violent energy with responding in kind is bad, it’s so much worse when a bully or tyrant realizes they can do whatever they please to people.
People don’t heed the consequences of their actions, and if someone wrongs someone else, the offender should not be surprised at any retaliation that comes their way. You may a good case about defensive-natured Viking raids, but you probably shouldn’t use such Christian terminology if you claim to be a Pagan. At least don’t if you want to be taken more seriously. This “Good” and “Evil” stuff needs to go away, because that is one of the main things keeping hostile Christianity alive. It is the “holy” conviction of the Christians taht they are righteous not matter what they do, and that’s why the fake Wiccans I mentioned earlier thrive. They are simply christians who want more of an edge on their personal lives. They make real Wiccans and Pagans look bad. Violence is just as natural as peace. Right and wrong are more of a matter of interpretation, and, even more so, of responsibility.

@Phid:
When was the last time a Pagan tried to force their beliefs on Christians? Never. Christians are the ones with the huge track record of violence, torture, murder, genocide, and false conversions. Expect no pity for the way you’ve raped the world.
Pagans and other non-christian groups ARE capable of peaceful coexistance, but I don’t think this holds true for a good number of Christians. Part of Christian religious doctrine is the contention that they are right and everyone else is wrong and must be converted.

ENCOURAGING hatred and violence is demonic, and this judgment has nothing to do with being ‘fluffy.’ Read me more closely. It has to do with getting off on a certain quality of energy.
That nasty energies and spirits exist is not a claim rooted in Christianity – it is an insight in many traditions going back a log ways. They are not evil in the Christian sense, but they exist and mean us no good, nor are they ‘neutral.’ I discuss the issue in Pagans and Christians.

Isn’t it just as possible that the raids against monasteries were because that is where the largest amount of plunder with the least amount of defenses was available? Why attack a castle when you can get silver and gold easier from the monasteries?
Admittedly, you propose an interesting theory, but I’m not entirely convinced that religion played that large a part in their attacking monasteries.
Look at the defenses the Vikings built in northern Germany to protect their trade routes. Was that to protect them from Christians or from having their goods stolen? I think it is the latter, but I may be mistaken.

@stan smith
Ive considered that the begginings of the Viking Raids in the context of retaliation against Charlegmagnes imperialist war against the Saxons for a lont time. Im glad to see that others are considering in that light as well. The causative forcees of Medieval (especially very early ME) war are constantly debated. In the 19th century the idea that the crusades were fought mainly for land and riches took hold. The consensus is now that while some poerful crusaders were probably motivated by desire for conquest, the vast majority were in fact inspired by religous devotion. I think The same can be said for the attacks of the Northmen. The attacks that hit Britain,and Northern France were not run of the mill cattle and horse stealing parties. They were large,costly and well outfitted war bands. They were also posssed of a hatred one does not find in the sagas and Saxon chronicle in describing warfare EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF BLOOD FEUDS. why would the Northmen fell a blood hatred against Christians, who they regarded at earlier times as harmless fools? because of the depredations of Charlemagne against the North Germanic People.