Fun Puzzle: Which parts of Canada and the US did the vikings visit?

[Rubidium]

Ah. Also, what lands were given to Norse rulers aside from Normandy?

Dorestad is the most famous example (and Rorik is actually playable there in the 867 start date for CK), but Norse exiles being taken into Carolingian service was fairly common. If you can get access to this article, it discusses a bunch of cases from the 9th century (so, well before Normandy).

And of course the broader practice of settling barbarians in exchange for military service goes back to the days of the Roman empire, if not earlier.

 

[Barsoom]

Dorestad is the most famous example (and Rorik is actually playable there in the 867 start date for CK), but Norse exiles being taken into Carolingian service was fairly common. If you can get access to this article, it discusses a bunch of cases from the 9th century (so, well before Normandy).

And of course the broader practice of settling barbarians in exchange for military service goes back to the days of the Roman empire, if not earlier.

Military service is part of the picture but only part. The Danish warlords that were given lands, usually some part of Frisia, were mostly members of dynasties with claims to the Danish throne. The Carolingians converted them, as a condition for the land (and the oaths that came with it). The exiled princes could use the lands as a basis from which to organize a campaign to conquer their homeland. At which point the Carolingians' troublesome neighbor should turn into a nice, friendly, Christian buffer state. The policy didn't work as well as hoped, but most princes did indeed gather an army and sailed back home, only they were then defeated or didn't behave in the expected Christian fashion. Unlike in Normandy, they didn't come to stay and didn't keep their lands when they sailed off.

The Carolingian ones were only about what they observed from raiders, IIRC. And hw much would single missionaries have been able to report, and crucially, woiuld they have played up the barbarism parts given how it was heathens so they couldn't look civilised.

You haven't been around missionaries much, I'm guessing. They tend to interest themselves in the culture of the people they intend to convert, in large part because it's easier to convince people when you make nice. Also because the difference between a regular priest and a missionary is that the latter wants to travel and see new places, they're often curious people. Missionaries wrote down many Norse sagas before the Eddas were written (and they too were written down by Christians).

Overall, the Carolingians were certainly not ignorant of the Norse world, they simply couldn't afford to be. Of course their knowledge was focused on the nearby parts, like Denmark, which was also the heaviest populated and sent out the majority of irksome raiders. As Christianity spread, the church at least gained knowledge of further lands; there are records of the Greenland diocese in the Vatican archives.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Missionaries wrote down many Norse sagas before the Eddas were written

I wonder if thise are the ancient sagas.
Or which sagas did they write down?

 

[Barsoom]

I wonder if thise are the ancient sagas.
Or which sagas did they write down?

That's a weird question. The ancient sagas are the supernatural stories written down a long time ago. We know what they are because they were written down, whether that was done by Christians Icelanders or by Christian missionaries in Denmark. You might ask which one stuck closest to the oral traditions, that's a reasonable question, but even if there were distortions, they're still ancient sagas.

 

[Wagonlitz]

That's a weird question. The ancient sagas are the supernatural stories written down a long time ago. We know what they are because they were written down, whether that was done by Christians Icelanders or by Christian missionaries in Denmark. You might ask which one stuck closest to the oral traditions, that's a reasonable question, but even if there were distortions, they're still ancient sagas.

What I meant is that there's a specific part of the sagas called the ancient sagas, at least in Scandinavia. Those sagas are the ones covering the time before Iceland was settled. And they take place in Scandinavia.

Hence it seemed likely, that it'd have been the ancient sagas that the missionaries had written down.

Though, perhaps it was some of the othe sagas they wrote down.

 

[Barsoom]

What I meant is that there's a specific part of the sagas called the ancient sagas, at least in Scandinavia. Those sagas are the ones covering the time before Iceland was settled. And they take place in Scandinavia.

Hence it seemed likely, that it'd have been the ancient sagas that the missionaries had written down.

Though, perhaps it was some of the othe sagas they wrote down.

OK, I see what you mean. From the perspective of Icelandic writing, you can assume that those referring to places they knew from before their migration are generally older than those referring to places from after. Though, they could keep the story and just change the place names in it. Iceland has a lot of natural phenomena that fit nicely in, for example, the story of how the world was created.

As for the Christian missionaries, they wrote the sagas mostly when they worked in Denmark, the place names are from there and the surrounding countries (Scandinavia but also sometimes northern Germany). I guess that qualifies them as ancient sagas.

 

[Wagonlitz]

OK, I see what you mean. From the perspective of Icelandic writing, you can assume that those referring to places they knew from before their migration are generally older than those referring to places from after. Though, they could keep the story and just change the place names in it. Iceland has a lot of natural phenomena that fit nicely in, for example, the story of how the world was created.

As for the Christian missionaries, they wrote the sagas mostly when they worked in Denmark, the place names are from there and the surrounding countries (Scandinavia but also sometimes northern Germany). I guess that qualifies them as ancient sagas.

The ancient sagas are specific ones, though.
E.g. the ones about ragnar lodbrog.

But could well be, that the missionary ones all or mainly are considered part of the ancient ones.

 

[Barsoom]

The ancient sagas are specific ones, though.
E.g. the ones about ragnar lodbrog.

But could well be, that the missionary ones all or mainly are considered part of the ancient ones.

Then maybe you could actually tell us how to distinguish ancient sagas from ordinary ones? Instead of leaving us to guess?

Some of the tales about Ragnar Lodbrok come to us via Iceland, some via missionaries in Denmark. I have absolutely no idea whether either sort qualifies as what you call an ancient saga, in my book they're all pretty damn ancient.

 

[HistoryDude]

About the sagas, they have a lot of authors. What those authors were is unclear, though. Since you mentioned Ragnar, I’ll start with him. The first source, the Gesta Danorum, for example, was written by a Christian monk after the Christianization. This definitely happened. The other main source was his saga, which was, yeah, written in Iceland. Most of the sagas that we have are from Iceland.

There are a few from Norway, but they‘re really rare.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Then maybe you could actually tell us how to distinguish ancient sagas from ordinary ones? Instead of leaving us to guess?

Some of the tales about Ragnar Lodbrok come to us via Iceland, some via missionaries in Denmark. I have absolutely no idea whether either sort qualifies as what you call an ancient saga, in my book they're all pretty damn ancient.

Legendary saga - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Seems ancient sagas are called legendary sagas in English.
This seems to be a list of them. I only skimmed it, but seems to have at least some of the stuff in my hardcopy collection of the ancient sagas.

Seems those are all Icelandic, if the text at the top of the article is to be believed.

About the sagas, they have a lot of authors. What those authors were is unclear, though. Since you mentioned Ragnar, I’ll start with him. The first source, the Gesta Danorum, for example, was written by a Christian monk after the Christianization. This definitely happened. The other main source was his saga, which was, yeah, written in Iceland. Most of the sagas that we have are from Iceland.

There are a few from Norway, but they‘re really rare.

I know Saxo and even have two copies of his works. The early 1920s edition (the one with a sword on top of a swastika. Speaking of, does anybody know if that meant anything Norse wise or if it just was a random symbol. Obviously is pretty nazi) and version from a few years ago.

Saxo isn't a middionary, though.
I believe, but could he wrong, that the Lejre and Roskilfe Chronicles also were written post Christianisation.

Was asking specifically for stuff written by missionaries, and hence pre Christianisation.


Also, any idea why sagas mostly exist from Iceland.
We're they just more inclined to poetry up there, or is it rather a case of it just not having survived down here on the mainland, perhaps due to different climate?

 

[Barsoom]

Legendary saga - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Seems ancient sagas are called legendary sagas in English.
This seems to be a list of them. I only skimmed it, but seems to have at least some of the stuff in my hardcopy collection of the ancient sagas.

Seems those are all Icelandic, if the text at the top of the article is to be believed.

I know Saxo and even have two copies of his works. The early 1920s edition (the one with a sword on top of a swastika. Speaking of, does anybody know if that meant anything Norse wise or if it just was a random symbol. Obviously is pretty nazi) and version from a few years ago.

Saxo isn't a middionary, though.
I believe, but could he wrong, that the Lejre and Roskilfe Chronicles also were written post Christianisation.

Was asking specifically for stuff written by missionaries, and hence pre Christianisation.


Also, any idea why sagas mostly exist from Iceland.
We're they just more inclined to poetry up there, or is it rather a case of it just not having survived down here on the mainland, perhaps due to different climate?

Thank you. Yes, according to Wikipedia the classification is based on Icelandic sources, making a distinction between new tales and old ones that were passed on from before the migration (as I said a couple of posts above). Other sources for the same sagas are not considered legendary even if they tell the same story or even if they were actually written down before the Icelandic copy. Saxo, for example, wrote before Snorri but his tales are not included in the category.

You're right that Saxo wasn't a missionary. I would place him in the missionary tradition, as he was a pupil of a bishop who was also a pupil of a bishop etc. going back to the missionaries who build the first churches. But I would also place him in the tradition of military storytellers, sitting around campfires with compatriots. He seems to have had a pretty active fighting career for a churchman. Some of his stories came from one side of his heritage, others from the other side. So, in my view, a bit of both.

Saxo became the most cited author on Norse myths from Denmark because he wrote a full book, earlier actual missionaries did write stuff down but in more scattered form. Short passages, often placed in a different context, for example put into a story about how some missionary "cleansed" a pagan holy place. They don't make a lot of sense on their own but when you have a framework to place them in, you can often puzzle out where they fitted originally and then you often have an older version of some story that made it into Saxo's or Snorri's work. If I recall correctly, a lot of it was held at Bremen because that was the bishopric that took the lead in converting Denmark.

As for swastikas, they were indeed a common symbol in Norse religion, used as decoration on buildings and artifacts, even on combs. Apparently they may have had significance in worship of Odin or Thor, but it's hard to puzzle out exactly what they meant. If your book is from the early 1920s, that's probably before the Nazis repurposed the symbol. The Nazis weren't the first nationalists to dig up old pagan stuff to show their country's great past, though, the 19th and early 20th century saw a lot of that. Some of it was honest, even democratic, unearthing of folk traditions that had been ignored by elite culture (the brothers Grimm are a good example of that), some of it was pretty shady, gradually sliding into the truly scary. The Nazis didn't spring up out of nothing, after all.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Saxo, for example, wrote before Snorri but his tales are not included in the category.

Snorris writings aren't part of the ancient sagas either, though. And neither is the old edda, albeit there might he some overlap between it and the ancient sagas, not sure.

You're right that Saxo wasn't a missionary. I would place him in the missionary tradition, as he was a pupil of a bishop who was also a pupil of a bishop etc. going back to the missionaries who build the first churches. But I would also place him in the tradition of military storytellers, sitting around campfires with compatriots. He seems to have had a pretty active fighting career for a churchman. Some of his stories came from one side of his heritage, others from the other side. So, in my view, a bit of both.

Saxo lived in a time when they church was extremely close to the royals, especially during Absalon, who himself was from the extremely powerful Hvide dynasty.
And Saxos story is very clearly written as a way to make the king look grander. So I don't think it can be said to be missionary style. It was very clearly made for the purpose of the king, and likely funded by him. Didn't know Saxo fought in battle, though not surprised. I thought we knew essentially nothing about him, though.

If your book is from the early 1920s, that's probably before the Nazis repurposed the symbol.

Oh, it is fully unrelated to nazis. That was what I tried to explain, to avoid somebody calling it a nazi edition. It's from before the nazis got big even in Germany and in any case before the swastika got bad here. It used to be used everywhere. Look at the main entrance to the original Carlsberg brewery. That has two huge elephants flanking the portal in the tower (think they are marble) and those have to this day swastikas on the side (can't remove them without ruining the protected statues). And until 45 there was a prominent swastika in the mansion connected to the brewery, said mansion having been built way before the nazis. The swastika was part of a larger mosaic, iirc. It was chiseled away in 45.

And there's many such examples across Denmark from the late 1800s, perhaps earlier, and until the 30s. Don't think anything with a swastika was made after the early 30s but before that very much.
Most is ling gone by now, though. But that Saxo edition is one of the main ones, and before the late 1980s edition was the last, big edition.

 

[HistoryDude]

Okay, that makes sense. Icelanders wrote sagas because they had nothing better to do or something? They didn’t fight a lot of internal wars and were far enough away from the rest of Europe to not get involved in their wars. Also, they wanted to preserve the culture of their ancestors - it’s a romanticism of the past.

Snorri probably wrote the Heimskringla, which is a historical saga. The Eddas are related to the sagas a bit, but I’m not sure how much.

 

[Wagonlitz]

They didn’t fight a lot of internal wars

Ehm, they did. A lot. Iceland was extremely bloody. In fact Snorri himself was murderer in one of the feuds, iirc.
And it was all that infighting that meany that Iceland lots her independence and got back under the Norwegian crown around 1272.

Snorri probably wrote the Heimskringla, which is a historical saga.

AFAIK he wrote it
And it's not an ancient saga.
Also, the old edda is a collection of sagas. And the new edda aside from listing lots of kennings also tells parts of various sagas.

 

[Barsoom]

Snorris writings aren't part of the ancient sagas either, though. And neither is the old edda, albeit there might he some overlap between it and the ancient sagas, not sure.

I used Snorri as a reference for the time period because Wikipedia has absolutely nothing on when the legendary sagas were written down, except that they're "late medieval" which isn't very precise but generally refers to the period after 1200.

Saxo lived in a time when they church was extremely close to the royals, especially during Absalon, who himself was from the extremely powerful Hvide dynasty.
And Saxos story is very clearly written as a way to make the king look grander. So I don't think it can be said to be missionary style. It was very clearly made for the purpose of the king, and likely funded by him. Didn't know Saxo fought in battle, though not surprised. I thought we knew essentially nothing about him, though.

You're still missing the point about the missionaries. That strong monarchy was their work, that partnership with the church, too. The missionaries wanted it because it was the most efficient way to christianize the country and it conformed with the Biblical model (as they read it). They formed the first bureaucracy, kept records for the kings, organized registers of property ownership, tax obligations and liege service. Pagan kings didn't have all that, they had only as much authority as they gained from successful leadership, so they were more vulnerable in case of defeat, more likely to be contradicted on law or tradition, more liable to suffer revolts. This is probably the biggest advantage the Christians offered to the kings: if you convert, you gain power over your subjects. As a bonus, they could install younger sons in church positions, where they'd work for the dynasty while at the same time being barred from the succession. So what you say about Saxo's environment is actually evidence that he stands in the tradition of the missionaries.

As for his military side, it's clear from what he wrote that he was very familiar with the soldiers' lives. You don't get that kind of true to life impression if you spend your time in church libraries, so scholars concluded that he must have been on campaign. His primary role would have been to pray for victory, encourage soldiers, comfort the wounded and the dying, and all those other things that army chaplains do to this day. But in his time they didn't have the clear separation between soldiers and chaplains that we have today, we have lots of records of priests who actually fought. So here again, scholars think it's highly likely that he spent time on campaign talking to soldiers and if he did travel with the army, it's also likely that he fought.

 

[Wagonlitz]

except that they're "late medieval" which isn't very precise but generally refers to the period after 1200.

Ah. And yeah, looking it up it seems all the ancient sagas were written from the 1100s onwards. So doesn't seem to include the missionary works after all.

Also, especially the youngest ancient sagas are most likely purr fiction, but the older ones in particular seems to be based on older sources and have at least some accuracy.
One for instance talks about wars between the Goths and the Huns between the mid 100s to mid 400s AD, and uses names that are known from elsewhere.

You don't get that kind of true to life impression if you spend your time in church libraries, so scholars concluded that he must have been on campaign.

He was one of Absalons clerks, I believe, and Absalon did go on campaign with the king, so couldn't he have heard stuff from Absalon? Anyway, no expert on Saxo, so he could well have served for all I know.

 

[Barsoom]

Ah. And yeah, looking it up it seems all the ancient sagas were written from the 1100s onwards. So doesn't seem to include the missionary works after all.

Also, especially the youngest ancient sagas are most likely purr fiction, but the older ones in particular seems to be based on older sources and have at least some accuracy.
One for instance talks about wars between the Goths and the Huns between the mid 100s to mid 400s AD, and uses names that are known from elsewhere.

Eh, the sagas aren't very consistent, so it's hard to know which bits to trust. When we already have another source, consistency between them is a positive indication, provided of course that they are independent sources. If, say, your Icelandic scribe had access to a copy of Jordanes, there's always a chance that he decided to use that information to add some verisimilitude to his sagas. It seems the experts think that's unlikely, though, so they reckon that e.g. Hervarar Saga's Grything and Tyrving are interesting as independent confirmation of the names of Gothic tribal formations. Then again, it seems the scribe had heard about a number of battles between Huns and Goths and got them a little confused; some of the details fit with the Battle of the Cataulanian Fields, some with Nedao (both ca. 450 AD), and some perhaps with the one it's supposed to be about, the Goths' defeat ca. 300 AD in what's now Ukraine. In short, reliable info on one element doesn't mean other parts are equally reliable.

Which neatly brings us back to OP. It seems to me that the reconstruction there extends trust too widely. The sagas are definitely an interesting source for the Norse exploration of North America, no question there. But how far can you take them? Some elements have proved reliable, certainly, but then OP goes on to treat every detail as equally informative. That's fine as an experiment, or as a guide to where to look for archeological evidence. Take those travel times, where he takes the best recorded time and applies it to pretty much every journey recorded in the sagas. Well, perhaps some were that fast but most likely the average distance over time was much lower. At best the procedure gets you a maximum reach but I think it's much more probable that the places described are much closer to Greenland than the maximum. And the details of the description of the coastline may be not that accurate at all. "They could have reached so and so far" - that's one thing - "and they describe a river mouth thusly" - that's another thing entirely, maybe from a different source, maybe from the scribe's imagination - "therefore let's look at those details near the maximum reach" - nah, that takes it altogether too far.

 

[HistoryDude]

Ehm, they did. A lot. Iceland was extremely bloody. In fact Snorri himself was murderer in one of the feuds, iirc.
And it was all that infighting that meany that Iceland lots her independence and got back under the Norwegian crown around 1272.

AFAIK he wrote it
And it's not an ancient saga.
Also, the old edda is a collection of sagas. And the new edda aside from listing lots of kennings also tells parts of various sagas.

My bad about the civil war thing. I was aware that Norway conquered it but didn’t realize internal warfare was why… which is weird because I knew about feuds involving Snorri.

I know that it’s not a legendary saga. I was noting that it might be evidence that he knew how to write sagas… The Icelandic Sagas were mostly anonymous.

The Eddas are Eddic poetry, not sagas. They’re technically different types of works.

Copying stuff definitely happened. That particular saga (Volsungs) is a terrible example, by the way, since it references the Nibelunglied… The issue is that the Nibelunglied obviously takes place in the late 400s, and the Saga of the Volsungs (as evidenced by further information from the Tale of Ragnar Lothbrok) takes place in the early 800s. I did got a story idea that I might use from that, though - Zombie Attila the Hun!

 

[Wagonlitz]

The Eddas are Eddic poetry, not sagas. They’re technically different types of works.

Isn't the old edda a collection of old saga stories?

That particular saga (Volsungs) is a terrible example

When did I bring it up as an example? Or was it the one you thouht I meant for the Goths thing? If so then it wasn't.
The one I meant is called hervors or something. Can't recall teh full name.

and the Saga of the Volsungs (as evidenced by further information from the Tale of Ragnar Lothbrok)

Ragnar Lodbrog references Volsungs?

 

[Barsoom]

Isn't the old edda a collection of old saga stories?

When did I bring it up as an example? Or was it the one you thouht I meant for the Goths thing? If so then it wasn't.
The one I meant is called hervors or something. Can't recall teh full name.

It's literally 2 posts up from the one you were writing. Hervarar Saga.

Ragnar Lodbrog references Volsungs?

Can't remember if he's in by name, but Aslaug is. She's born around the time of Atli/Attila (ca. 450 AD) in the Volsunga Saga and marries Ragnar (ca. 800 AD*) in the Tale of Ragnar Lodbrok. (* There's not enough evidence to be sure whether Ragnar was a historical figure or an imaginary one; if he was historical, events in the tale put him in the early 9th century.) The two legendary sagas are in a single document, so the scribe either didn't see the discrepancy or he didn't think it was important to get the chronology right.