I've been reading some ignorant people's blogs lately, and want to address some of the myths they propose as facts. I guess it's flattering that they want to learn all about the history of my ancestry, but they're missing some key information, or willingly leaving out information, in an effort to mis-portray the vikings in a negative light.
So, let's have a history lesson, shall we? But first, let me state this...my ancester, Roger de Montgomerie, was a Norman, a descendant of vikings. It is true that by this time in history, "The Viking Age," was coming to a close, despite the couple of large scale viking victories that took place after The Battle of Stamford Bridge. So, is the person making allegations against vikings, or the Normans? It's very hard to tell, maybe because the Normans and the vikings shared the same blood.
And for Ricky and Presby, the line of ancestry (I used ancestry's tree because it's the quickest one I have access to right now. Edit: I took this line down because I have a more accurate one without duplicate names to put up later.
1.
Allegation: Normans and Saxons were much better (than vikings) at large pitched battles.
Reality: Who were the Normans? The word "Norman" is a word that came from the word "Northmen," or "Norsemen." So, to say that the Normans were better warriors than the vikings is not true. "Normandy," was founded by Rollo,
a viking, three generations prior to The Battle of Hastings. William the Conquerer was Rollo's great-great-great grandchild. The Normans, were in fact,
Norse.
2.
Allegation: The vikings lack of pitched battle experience and lack of tactics meant Harold's army had the upper edge and were able to quickly annihilate the viking hordes.
The whole story (or The Tale of Two Harold's): The person who made this allegation is referring to The Battle of Stamford Bridge, where Harold Godwinson, the questionable King of England (there were at least a few contenders for the throne after King Edward's death), surprised the viking forces of Harald Hardrata, the King of Norway. Now, the allegations are that the Norwegians lost this battle because they lacked battle tactics and pitched battle experience. However, that simply is not true.
The vikings lost this battle because in the wake of the surprise attack, they made a decision to leave their armor behind. Had Harald's men been wearing their armor, the outcome may have been very different.
We can see how "well" the English army handled one giant Norseman, who was solely blocking the path over a bridge.
One Norseman with a Dane Axe held off
the entire English army, killing about forty of them before the English finally got smart and attacked the Norseman from under the bridge with a lance. This brave warrior gave the vikings the time they needed to organize a last minute defensive shield-wall.
However, it wasn't enough, and eventually, the Norsemen fell. But, historians agree that had the vikings taken their armor with them that day, the outcome would have been in their favor.
Now, the allegation that the vikings were "quickly annihilated" is not true, either. The battle lasted many hours. There was time for viking reinforcements to arrive. Part of the viking army formed a very strategically planned shield-wall, and Harold's army lost many men trying to get past the otherwise unprotected vikings.
And consider this passage from history-net.com:
The English gained early momentum, especially on their left flank, but in the end Hardrada’s military expertise proved decisive. Fighting under his fearsome Landwaster (“Terror of the Land”) standard—a black raven on a white background—the Viking warlord sensed an opportunity to turn the battle and swung his left inward away from the Ouse, rolling the English into the ditch. A terrible rout followed, many Saxons meeting death by drowning or at the point of Norse steel. When the fighting ended, the marshes were choked with the corpses of more than a thousand English warriors—men who would be sorely missed in the weeks ahead.
And:
The English may have well outnumbered their opponents, and a Viking messenger was dispatched to Riccall to summon Eystein Orri with reinforcements. Whatever the numbers, the Vikings were renowned for their ferocity in combat, and the fighting is said to have lasted well into dusk, both sides sustaining heavy casualties.
So the un-armored vikings fought against armored men that outnumbered them, and even when they saw their leader fall, their high esteem they placed on honor bound them to form a "corpse-ring" around their fallen king. They would happily fight til death there, knowing they would die with the honor needed for a Valkyrie to escort them to Valhalla.
Now as to Harry's definition of "pitched battle..." Maybe Harry should take some time to look it up. The Battle of Stamford Bridge was NOT a pitched battle. Both sides did not know when the battle would begin--the surprise attack indicates that Harold and his army were the only ones who knew the attack was imminent. In a pitched battle, the place and time of battle is known to both parties. So, Harry is right that the vikings were not experienced in pitched battle, because their strategy relied on surprise. But to say that is why the vikings lost Stamford Bridge is an error, because that was not a pitched battle.
3.
Allegation: Harold's victory stunned the vikings and prohibited them from making future raids.
The whole story: The founding of Normandy was the beginning of the end of the viking raids. Many had, by the time, converted to Christianity (one of William the Conquerer's interests in gaining the English throne). Many Norsemen in Norway and Denmark had already converted to Christianity by this time, too. The defeat at Stamford Bridge was no doubt one of the last viking raids, but it wasn't
the last.
4.
Allegation: Vikings were not soldiers or disciplined warriors able to prevail against armed formations in a pitched battle. They (the vikings) were known as berserkers not just cause they foamed at the mouth but because they lack discipline...
The truth: Not all vikings were berserkers. They were called berserkers because they were the intimidation factor in a battle. A good battle strategy, I think. They would drink the boiled down pieces of a hallucinogenic plant that would cause them to go "berserk."
Berserker's were comprised of the toughest, biggest, and most intimidating warriors. It was their job to intimidate the their enemy, and they did a very good job at it--most everyone in other countries dreaded to see the viking ship appear on the horizon more than anything else.
When berserkers weren't fighting, they were normal dudes. Vikings were not savages. They were, in fact, cleaner and more refined than their European counterparts. They thought the English were lice-ridden, filthy mongrels.
History tells us the Vikings were some of the MOST disciplined warriors out there. Children learned to fight at a young age, and some very capable viking warriors had earned their right to fight by 12 years old. And to be able to fight alongside the vikings, you could not be undisciplined or weak. You had to PROVE it first.
The Vikings had 9 Virtues that they upheld even in battle:
Courage
Truth
Honor
Fidelity
Discipline
Hospitality
Industriousness
Self-Reliance
Perseverance
Now, if those virtues aren't signs of a civilized and organized culture, I don't know what is.
An army is only as efficient as it's leader, and Harold of England was not an effective leader. However, Hardrada, on that day, grossly underestimated his competition, and was too confident from the outset.
Now, let's move on to the Battle of Hastings, where my ancestor, rode with William the Conquerer (both of Norse descent).
5.
Allegation: Still Harold almost won (the Battle of Hastings) by deploying his inferior force in a strong defensive stance.
The reality: Harold made many mistakes, which cost him the battle..
1. H
arold mis-placed his men. He had mobilized only half his forces, and mistakenly chose to advance on William instead of taking a defensive approach.
From the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Harold was approaching Hastings with about 7,000 men, many of whom were half-armed, untrained peasants. He had mobilized barely half of England’s trained soldiers, yet he advanced against William instead of making William come to meet him in a chosen defensive position. The bold yet ultimately unsuccessful strategy is probably explained by Harold’s eagerness to defend his own men and lands, which William was harrying, and to thrust the Normans back into the sea.
William, warned of Harold’s approach, determined to force battle immediately. At dawn on October 14 William moved toward Harold’s army, which was occupying a ridge 10 miles (16 km) northwest of Hastings. William disposed his army for attack—archers and crossbowmen in the front line, his heavy infantry in the second, his knights in three divisions in the rear, Normans in the centre, Bretons and French on left and right, respectively. Harold’s English army, lacking archers and cavalry, prepared for defense on the protected summit of the ridge. Their position was not wholly favourable; William’s advance was unexpected, and Harold had to fight where he stood or retreat. He placed himself, his housecarls, and his other trained troops around his standard at the summit of the ridge (where the high altar of Battle Abbey was later placed), grouping his other troops along the crest for about 400 yards (365 metres) westward and about 200 yards (about 180 metres) eastward, at which points the slope became steep enough to protect both flanks. The front was too small: some men, finding no fighting room, withdrew; the rest, in too close order, made a perfect target for arrows.
2. Harold mistakenly assumed his position uphill was favorable. However, as Brittanica further states:
"The easy slope allowed William’s knights an open approach, against which Harold relied on the close “shield wall” formation of his trained troops to hurl back and dishearten the enemy. The heavily armoured knight, riding a powerful charger and holding couched a heavy thrusting lance, was still 100 years away. Norman armour was flimsy, the horses light and unprotected, and the knights, using javelins, maces, and swords, had to engage the English infantry hand-to-hand. Harold’s hopes depended on keeping his line unbroken and his casualties light, thus exhausting and demoralizing the Normans."
Harold's hopes were not realized. William took advantage of all his men--archers and infantry to slowly annihilate William's forces.
"
William pressed his cavalry charges throughout the day, interspersing them with flights of arrows, and annihilating considerable numbers of Englishmen whom he drew from their positions by feigning retreat twice. The defense, hard-pressed, depleted, and tiring, was worn down and slowly outnumbered. Harold’s brothers, Gyrth and Leofwine, fell, and, according to the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold himself was killed late in the afternoon when he was struck in the eye by an arrow. The leaderless English fought on until dusk, then broke; a last rally in the gloom caused the Normans further casualties and endangered William himself. As darkness fell, the English scattered, leaving William the winner of one of the most daring gambles in history."
3. Allegation: Harold's army made a fatal mistake...
Yes, that's actually the truth. What kind of army disobeys it's general, leader, or KING?
4. Allegation: Harold's army "almost won."
The truth: There is no almost, Harry. William won quickly and decisively.
5. Allegation: Normans were superior to vikings because they had better equipment and armor.
The truth: The Normans WERE Vikings, but with better equipment. Give Vikings the same equipment, and who would be better? I'd think the battle would be very, very close, because they were kinsmen.
Many circumstances can decide a battle. Sometimes, the underdog prevails. Sometimes, the elite army experienced with pitched fighting prevails. There are many factors that decide a battle, and because of that, it is illogical to say that in the complicated fights between Vikings and Harold, and Harold and the Normans, that one side was clearly "better" than the other.
Hopefully, this little article has helped to give a bigger picture of what the fighting forces did right and wrong on those fateful days, and will help people realize that not all wars are fought solely with weapons.
