[net.nlang] Vikings

mikeb@inset.UUCP (Mike Banahan) (10/25/85)

I'm not so sure that the Vikings were uncivilised. ``Njal's Saga'' (admittedly
Icelandic rather than Viking) makes the place look a damn sight
more pleasant to live in, and better run, than most of the rest of the world
looks today. Or is my view pessimistic?
-- 
Mike Banahan, Technical Director, The Instruction Set Ltd.
mcvax!ukc!inset!mikeb

barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (10/28/85)

In article <760@inset.UUCP> mikeb@inset.UUCP (Mike Banahan) writes:
"Njal's Saga" (admittedly Icelandic rather than Viking) makes the place
look a damn sight more pleasant to live in, and better run, than most of
the rest of the world looks today.

First off, Viking is an activity, not a country.  Several of the Njalssons
went Viking.  (Skarp-Hedin never got around to it.)

Second, bad as things are today, I think most of the world is at least as
pleasant as 1000 CE Iceland as portrayed in that saga, with perpetual
feuding ending in bloodshed which the society at large found no
ordered way to cope with.  Certainly the culture we live in finds easier
ways to divorce a man than to have one's foster father "cure" his backache
with an axe, easier ways to resolve problems between neighbors than to
hire servants to kill them.  Few lawyers these days would regard it as a
coup to arrange for the trial to end in a pitched battle.

"Njal's Saga" is great reading, but I wouldn't want to live there.

I will agree that women were treated better in medieval Iceland than
elsewhere in medieval Europe.  I will agree that theory of the Althing
appeals to me.  I like the theory of a society which governs by law and
consensus.  I think Ireland's Brehon Laws handled it better, though.
(You'll find them discussed at length under that name in a Britannica II.)

--Lee Gold

slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/31/85)

>Mike Banahan :
>I'm not so sure that the Vikings were uncivilised. ``Njal's Saga'' (admittedly
>Icelandic rather than Viking) makes the place look a damn sight
>more pleasant to live in, and better run, than most of the rest of the world
>looks today. Or is my view pessimistic?

I tend to agree with you.  I would qualify it by using a different word
than Vikings, though.  The "Vikings" proper were those Scandinavians who
took to coastal raids.  If we say Scandinavians in general of that period,
you are probably right that it was better than many places today.  You are
certainly right that they were civilized.  

Most were small farmers, living in fairly isolated areas, and lived lives of 
calm, but possibly boring, usefulness.  They had enough to eat, and produced 
wonderful artifacts and sagas.  They had a deep, if rather grim, religious 
life, beautiful scenery to look at and a good sense of humor.  They certainly 
were happier in general than many in the world today.  I wouldn't trade places 
myself, but if I were an Ethiopian refugee or a slum dweller in any city in 
the world, it would look damn good.

You would have to exclude the serfs, though.  And those who did go into
raiding and conquering had short, bloody lives.  Personally, the main
reason I've never wanted to trade times with anyone is modern medical
and dental care!

By the way, can anyone recommend a good textbook, dictionary, or grammar
of Old Norse?  (I have a character in a live-action fantasy game who is
a Norse cleric--and I'd like to say my spells in it.)
-- 

                                     Sue Brezden
                                     ihnp4!drutx!slb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity,
   location, and musical ability are as yet unknown.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~