The first recorded Viking attack: Lindisfarne

[Thorum]

fAdsgsS0pc4

:thumbs up

[Hrolf Kraki]

I wish I lived back in the 9th century. :(

[The Black Prince]

Nice doc, but a little to spectacular...:P

The title is good 'The first recorded Viking attack: Lindisfarne' because it was the first recorded Viking attack (the well known:"oh god save us from the fury of the Northmen" :D). But for the rest the authors seem to speak about it as if it's a revolutionized way of warfare and that's not entirely true.

The only revolution was the attacking of the not/bad protected monasteries (how courageous..). But piracy and searaiding in those areas was as old as the people living there. And the ships they used were more the subject of evolution, by the introduction/development of new technologies and tools and/or the adaptation to the different waters, than revolution.

[Cato]

Those monk turds had it coming.

[Osweo]

The video talks of the Norsemen's 'ferocity and greed', but I wonder if there wasn't also an element of disgust? A bunch of unmarried men, all living together, dressed weird and with a creepy tonsure. It still freaks me out to deal with monks! :p Is there any hint of such an attitude in the saga literature?

[Aemma]

The video talks of the Norsemen's 'ferocity and greed', but I wonder if there wasn't also an element of disgust? A bunch of unmarried men, all living together, dressed weird and with a creepy tonsure. It still freaks me out to deal with monks! :p Is there any hint of such an attitude in the saga literature?

Not from what I've read.

[Hrolf Kraki]

The video talks of the Norsemen's 'ferocity and greed', but I wonder if there wasn't also an element of disgust? A bunch of unmarried men, all living together, dressed weird and with a creepy tonsure. It still freaks me out to deal with monks! :p Is there any hint of such an attitude in the saga literature?

I've read a lot of sagas and none give much specifics about the people the Vikings raided. They were easy pickings and that's pretty much all the Norsemen cared about. It was considered a great honour to go on Viking raids and those too frightened to go were considered cowards and held little respect.


The foolish man thinks he'll live forever if he stays away from fighting.
But old age won't grant him a truce even if the spears do.

[National_Nord]

789 - The first Viking attack on England.The attack on the monastery of Lindisfarne was the second attack of the Vikings (793).

[Osweo]

789 - The first Viking attack on England.The attack on the monastery of Lindisfarne was the second attack of the Vikings (793).

Heh, indeed! (Не верю, что не заметил ету ошибку!)

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle that I have a copy of says 787, indeed, though there may have been some small error:

A.D. 787 . This year King Bertric took Edburga the daughter of
Offa to wife. And in his days came first three ships of the
Northmen from the land of robbers. The reve (30) then rode
thereto, and would drive them to the king's town; for he knew not
what they were; and there was he slain. These were the first
ships of the Danish men that sought the land of the English
nation.

[The Black Prince]

^ and ^^

Yeah, completely forgot.:D

This is the reason that Lindisfarne is general considered as the first recorded Viking attack:


Although this attack was the first attack from Vikings against the people of the island, it was not the first attack in the area. For several years, people living on the coast had been aware of attacks from people arriving via the sea.

Apparantely the difference is made init that the first was not a raid against the people but just some Vikings passing through.

I believe between the two attacks there is mention in some contemporary literal source of a Anglosaxon lord/king making preparence against possible future searaider attacks (guess it didn't work out as supposed.:P).

[Thulsa Doom]

Nice doc, but a little to spectacular...:P

The title is good 'The first recorded Viking attack: Lindisfarne' because it was the first recorded Viking attack (the well known:"oh god save us from the fury of the Northmen" :D). But for the rest the authors seem to speak about it as if it's a revolutionized way of warfare and that's not entirely true.

The only revolution was the attacking of the not/bad protected monasteries (how courageous..). But piracy and searaiding in those areas was as old as the people living there. And the ships they used were more the subject of evolution, by the introduction/development of new technologies and tools and/or the adaptation to the different waters, than revolution.

Correctomundo.

The problem is that the vikings are defined by the Anglo-American history writing done in Oxford University. So the Viking Age starts with Lindnisfarne and ends at Stamford Bridge, both located in England. In Scandinavia those point´s in time are not significant, the truth is that the "viking raids" had been going on since the Bronze Age in the Baltic Sea (the Eastern Sea) and the southern coast of North Sea. The organization was there the whole time, created for defense reason, but very often used for conquering. Sweden is littered with ancient forts and placenames connected to the Ledung.

[Cato]

It was revenge for Boniface chopping down Thor's Oak.