The Viking Age is known as the period that existed from the late 8th century through the mid-11th century. It is the historical era that recognizes the birth of the vicious Vikings of Scandinavia, and their overseas and river conquests and raids throughout Western Europe. Now, extensive historical research along with important, yet limited, archaeological evidence has resulted in the emergence of various hypotheses explaining what may have caused, or rather, contributed to the Viking Age, however, a final conclusion has not yet been reached. Throughout this paper, I will present the ideas of three authors: Barrett, Simek, and Sawyer. Then, explore and compare their arguments regarding what did or did not cause the Viking Age, as well as their
…show more content…
Of all the Viking theories, population pressures seem to be most challenging to disprove among historians. However, Barrett states that evidence suggests that this migration may have occurred during the Viking age, but not before. In fact, based on archaeological material, there is an implication of migration patterns spreading along networks rather than digressing from large populations. These were shorter sea trips, usually to places in which migrants could receive information or support, as opposed to longer land trips. Therefore, these movements were not based on geography, or finding suitable land to now inhabit, but on social spaces. Simek’s response to the hypothesis was the evidence of arable land that was uninhabited during, and even after the Viking age. There was no shortage of land, nor evidence of malnourishment due to a lack of it. Therefore, he also rejected the theory of …show more content…
Here, he rejects the hypothesis that “the major drive behind the raids could be seen by looking at the sudden increase in the flow of wealth (particularly silver) between Scandinavia and their settlements in Russia.” Was the presence of silver (or maybe lack of), what drove them West, however? There is the argument that because of the industrialization of urban centers in Britain, they quickly became the target by the Scandinavians. But, seeing that the initial raids were not on these urban centers, but at monasteries and rural areas, maybe not. Additionally, raids did not become common in the more industrialized zones until the mid-9th century. In terms of politics, many argue that weakness within polities in western Europe provided the perfect opportunity for Vikings to attack. Barrett rejects this however when he explains that that the earliest Viking raids actually began while there were strong Anglo Saxon European powers in existence. Simek considers that the expansion of Western civilization, may have been the most plausible reason for the sudden Viking raids. While Barrett rejects the claim, Simek considers this a plausible hypothesis. He agrees that in the case of westerners taking over the settlements of the Vikings, or destroying them, retaliation seems to be a likely response. Barrett, however, remains in support of the raids targeted towards the treasures of the men, in order to attain this
Of all the Viking theories, population pressures seem to be most challenging to disprove among historians. However, Barrett states that evidence suggests that this migration may have occurred during the Viking age, but not before. In fact, based on archaeological material, there is an implication of migration patterns spreading along networks rather than digressing from large populations. These were shorter sea trips, usually to places in which migrants could receive information or support, as opposed to longer land trips. Therefore, these movements were not based on geography, or finding suitable land to now inhabit, but on social spaces. Simek’s response to the hypothesis was the evidence of arable land that was uninhabited during, and even after the Viking age. There was no shortage of land, nor evidence of malnourishment due to a lack of it. Therefore, he also rejected the theory of …show more content…
Here, he rejects the hypothesis that “the major drive behind the raids could be seen by looking at the sudden increase in the flow of wealth (particularly silver) between Scandinavia and their settlements in Russia.” Was the presence of silver (or maybe lack of), what drove them West, however? There is the argument that because of the industrialization of urban centers in Britain, they quickly became the target by the Scandinavians. But, seeing that the initial raids were not on these urban centers, but at monasteries and rural areas, maybe not. Additionally, raids did not become common in the more industrialized zones until the mid-9th century. In terms of politics, many argue that weakness within polities in western Europe provided the perfect opportunity for Vikings to attack. Barrett rejects this however when he explains that that the earliest Viking raids actually began while there were strong Anglo Saxon European powers in existence. Simek considers that the expansion of Western civilization, may have been the most plausible reason for the sudden Viking raids. While Barrett rejects the claim, Simek considers this a plausible hypothesis. He agrees that in the case of westerners taking over the settlements of the Vikings, or destroying them, retaliation seems to be a likely response. Barrett, however, remains in support of the raids targeted towards the treasures of the men, in order to attain this