Even at the first hurdle, this type of theory fails. As you point out, the "Viking Age" begins with an attack on England and continues with large-scale attacks, largely on England, who clearly did not fight the Saxons. The replies were also not timely; the invasion on Lindisfarne in 792 occurred about a decade after the Franks' conquest of Saxony under Charlemagne.
 |
| Photo by hao qin on Unsplash |
While the Saxon Wars lasted several decades, it would be a risky strategy for Norse polities to aid the Saxons in their fight against the Frankish army by assaulting English monks in Northumbria. Small and infrequent attacks on isolated and weakly defended areas of wealth (both treasure and slaves) in the British Isles and around the Baltic lasted for most of the 8th and early 9th centuries.
Viking attacks on the Franks, who were clearly attacking the Saxons rather than the English, Irish, Picts, or any other group of people, only increased after the reigns of Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious, both of whom led powerful centralized and effective governments capable of keeping the Frankish heartlands secure from Norse raids (for the most part).
Norse raids were entirely mercantile in character; they sought wealth in cash, kind, ransoms, or slaves.
The Viking raids on the remainder of Europe were not triggered by any single element, but they were certainly not caused by the Christianization of a nearby people (that they occasionally fought with as well). They were the result of economic opportunities that the Norsemen were able to seize.
However, this did not necessarily take the form of raiding. Trade, mercenary service, "colonizing," and raiding all served the same purpose: economic progress, albeit through various ways. In many ways, the Viking age was just a continuation of the earlier migration period, as long as you believe in the existence and significance of relatively large scale migration in Europe from the Germanic World (and later the Slavic world).
The primary cause for migration is usually economic opportunity. This took the shape of Foederati service in the Empire, raiding into the Empire, exacting tribute from the Romans, and so on in the late Roman period.
In many ways, the Viking playbook was very similar. The Vikings exacted tribute from those they invaded, as seen in the Viking attacks on Paris and France. They targeted valuable targets such as monasteries for their priceless artifact collections (and people). This, however, was not the end of their interactions with the rest of Europe. They were used as mercenaries, most notably in the Byzantine Empire's Varangian Guard.
As part of the lucrative trade with not just the Byzantine Empire, but also the Muslim world, trade opportunities were grasped, particularly in Russia and Finland. As you point out, colonization operations were launched in a number of locations, including Ireland, the Danelaw in England, Novgorod and Kiev in Russia, and Normandy in France.
There is no universal agreement, however, on the actual number of Scandinavian migrants that came in these regions. There is also disagreement on the population makeup of these areas, such as whether women and children moved there or if this was a male-only phenomena.
I'll go over each of these briefly, Raiding is a rather simple action. Arrive in a location, take what you can in movable riches, and return home. This might include gold, silver, and other precious metals, as well as slaves. These raids occurred throughout Western Europe, with some extending into the Mediterranean.
The "Great Heathen Army" that overran England is typically regarded as the pinnacle of this period of Viking history. Despite tales of Ragnarr Lothbrok and promises of vengeance, the Great Heathen Army was perfectly content to accept tribute and gifts from native Anglo-Saxon monarchs.
This time of raiding and coming home, however, gave place to more organized conquest endeavors, such as adding England and other areas to the Norse lands in Scandinavia. According to Peter Heather, this was owing to the rising involvement of powerful kings in Scandinavia, rather than just small warbands unable of taking on larger realms or polities.
However, even during this period, Scandinavia was a motley collection of tiny polities; unification in Scandinavia would not occur until the end of the Viking Era. This increasing consolidation was accompanied by bolder and more daring expeditions aimed at outright conquest.
Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut the Great's invasions of England in the early 11th century come to mind. This was after the "great heathen army" and the unification of England by the kingdom of Wessex. The invasion of England by Harald Hardraade in 1066 comes to mind as well.
Mercenary service is less visible in historical records. However, it has a definite historical predecessor in the late Roman Empire's foederati and the service of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxon conquest. The most well-known and well-documented mercenary group at this time is the Varangian Guard of Byzantium.
Membership in the guard was a prestigious and lucrative position. The splendorous fortune of individuals who served in the guard and returned to Scandinavia is mentioned in the Sagas. According to Harald Hardraade's saga, the Varangians had the right to carry all they could from the royal treasury upon the death of the Emperor, in addition to their customary pay and plunder from their involvement in Byzantine matters.
This system included trade as well. Goods from the Islamic realm, such as silver coins and linen, have appeared in Scandinavia, most likely via Russian intermediaries (also Norse dominated at this time). According to Peter Heather, Norse exploitation in Finland and Russia was yet another enormously profitable venture for Norsemen, particularly in the trading of lumber and furs with the Islamic World. This Scandinavian hegemony over Eastern Europe gave rise to the Russian republics of Novgorod and Kiev.
Now there's "colonization, migration, or whatever you want to call it," which is closely tied with trade, but I'm not well-versed in the details of this side of Norse life. Norse monarchs rose to positions of power and influence in many parts of Europe that had previously had little Scandinavian influence; nonetheless, it is debatable to what extent the Norse imposed themselves on existing structures and how much of it was their own creation.
Many of the regions where they settled had long been populated and were part of trade networks. Calling it a colonization process is a little problematic because it implies that indigenous ways of life were imposed from without. This cannot be proven definitively, and the process could have been more migratory, with Norsemen seeking economic possibilities elsewhere and settling there.
In several areas, such as Russia, Normandy, and the Danelaw, the Norse simply came to dominate local politics and trade, indicating a migratory rather than colonial tendency. Other regions where they completely established were Iceland, the Faroes, and the famed Vinland Saga. I can't really speak to Norse influence in Ireland or Scotland, so I'll leave that to others to discuss. Trade in these locations was evidently profitable and widespread. Silver from the Islamic world has most certainly made its way to Scandinavia in exchange for lumber and furs.
Viking attacks were just one part of viking economic opportunism in Europe during the Middle Ages. This was not so much a matter of vikings deciding they didn't like the Saxons being assaulted by the Franks as it was a process in which Norsemen were able to capitalize on opportunities that existed throughout Europe.
This manifested itself not only through raiding but also through mercenary service, trade, and migration/colonization. This could be considered as a continuation of the earlier Germanic migrations that characterized Late Antiquity.
Your question, however, raises a larger issue. There was no cultural affinity between the Saxons and the Norse. They were not co-religionists fighting against intruders; in fact, their shared cultural aspects were far from a unifying force. The Early Medieval Sphere's social world was not based on shared identity, whether through culture, language, or religion. At this period, identity was linked to personal allegiance and reciprocal social institutions, rather than shared culture.
The Norse and Vikings would not have rushed to the Saxons' aid because they had no reason to. They owed them no allegiance and had no reason to consider themselves to be part of the same group of people.
Comments
Post a Comment