I'm having trouble with this statement, anyone help?

Dave Womble · Post by **Dave Womble** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:42 pm

I recently got a childrens book on the Vikings to share with my boys....its ages 9-12 (my boys are 3 and 5, but hey, can never start em too early right?). Its called The Real Vikings, by Melvin and Gilda Berger. It's published by National Geographic.

Very nice photos and drawings, the layout is nice..its a good primer for the appropriate age. However, I stumbled accross something that irked me a bit....in the section on arms and armour and battle, they make a claim that: "Many vikings charged into battle with no more protection than many layers of animal hides sewn to their long tunics..." I have issues with that, because nowhere in my research have I come accross any instances of that except in regards to the Berserkers in their bear and wolf skins..and its implied those were more a uniform/costume/status symbol than protective gear.

A brief mention of reindeer hide armour is also made in the Kalevala (Finnish epic) and Heimskringla I believe. Other than that, I've found no instances of what these 2 authors describe, and I'd like to know what source theyre using...I'm currently trying to get contact info for them by the publisher.

I havnt read all the Sagas, so perhaps I missed something, but I just dont buy it. Anyone else have any comments?

Dave

mercenary · Post by **mercenary** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:49 pm

Yes, I have comments. I've studied this quite a lot, maybe not as much as you though, and the only mention was this: (and this was an encyclopÃƒÂ¦dia) "Many raiders ... wore a sort of armor made from thick layers of animal hides, perhaps with bone sewn into them for added protection."

I haven't seen any archeological evidence for this anywhere. The same source goes on to say: "Viking warriors also wore cone-shaped helmets made of leather. Only Viking leaders wore metal helmets and coats of mail (metal armor)."

I know that this fact has not been proven; it is only one hypothesis given because of the scant evidence showing what the poorer people wore.

Dave Womble · Post by **Dave Womble** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:55 pm

See, thats the thing...where are they getting that from? I've never seen leather caps worn as armour...only as clothing. We have caps and shoes that have survived...but not hardened or reinforced leather defensive garments.

I have like 20+ books on the vikings, and not a one mentioned anything like that. Where is the encyclopedia getting its info from, thats what I'd like to know. Same with those authors I mentioned.

How old was that encyclopedia?

Dave

Matthew Amt · Post by **Matthew Amt** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:55 am

Sounds like what I call "parrot syndrome", the same information being copied by one modern source from another, time and again, until it is considered "well known". Things like this often carry down from Victorian sources that would interpret ANYthing in artwork as "leather", apparently not believing that those brutish ancients could have that much metal.

Combine that with the layman's apparently instinctive aversion to the fact that MANY cultures considered a spear and a shield very adequate equipment for going to war--Modern folks are just certain that they HAD to wear SOMETHING protective! ("Uh, how about LEATHER! Yeah, that's it, leather is really neato in the movies, and CHEAP, yeah, that's it...")

Top that off with the backwards idea of "You can't prove that they didn't", and, well, there you go!

Geez, I sound cynical today! Didn't mean to, must be tired. Have a nice day!

Matthew

Egfroth · Post by **Egfroth** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:29 pm

What he said.

Too many careless authors who know nothing of the subject they're writing about, so they parrot what someone else has written without bothering to check it.

Disregard, or better still, write a letter to the author and/or publisher pointing out (politely, if you like) that they are helping spread a misconception, and citing your evidence. They MIGHT listen, but don't hold your breath. I've just been reading a thread on a different forum with academics complaining about the inability to correct editors putting anachronistic illustrations into books on the Middle Ages - including those ghastly Victorian "reconstructions" - because they don't have to pay for permission to use them . . .

Mike F · Post by **Mike F** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:40 pm

So . . . The chieftains having maille was correct though, right? That's the only period armor I know of for the Norse. Then again, it's a wide period. (The Isle of Mann was Norse until the early 14th century, I believe)

Dave Womble · Post by **Dave Womble** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:18 pm

Yes, mail was worn by higher status vikings throughout the Viking Age and beyond.

Most vikings were unarmoured except for a shield. Helmets would have been interspersed among them as well, but shields are pretty much the only universal defense.

I'd love to find evidence of leather or hide defenses, or GASP lamellar or scale defenses, but so far, nothing but a vague mention of reindeer hide shirts...however, in the context theyre described, their defensive properties are derived from the spells and enchantments layed on them by Lapp sorcerers, and not from any intrinsic properties.

One thing I wondered about though, is there's mention of ropes used for ships made out of walrus hide...I wonder if anything defensive was ever fashioned out of the hides or fibers. There's also lots of evidence of whalebone artifacts, many of them such as boards for smoothing wrinkles out of clothes are made into flat boards...I have no idea how tough the material is, but I've wondered if anything defensive was ever fashioned out of whale/walrus bone. There's whale/walrus bone lamellar plates from the Tlingit and other Pacific Northwest Indians.......

Dave