The Vasa Ship

[lagspiller]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the 'designs' section or the 'repair' section. The ship sank 400 years ago, so repairs are definitely a big issue... but it went here cause the design was the major issue.

I visited Stockholm a good week ago and went looking for yachts. My first idea was to find anything Square Meter related - but dead of winter is not the right time for active boats. So next best was the Vasa Museum. Probably one of the most powerful warships of its time. A bit too powerful, it turned out. Very little underwater, too little ballast and too many cannon did it in before it cleared the harbor. Turned over on its maiden voyage and went down.

It was really dark in the museum, but I did manage to salvage some of my photos... like this one of the stern of the after-castle. Rising 14 meters over the waterline (about 50 ft) and heavily ornamented, it must have been a HUGELY unbalanced mass to control.
http://www.22kvm.net/vasa/bilder/images/vasa5_jpg.jpg
Here is my text - (misspellings due to late night work.)
The Vasa Ship - some photos and thoughts (http://www.22kvm.net/vasa/index.htm)

[ 02-28-2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

An excellent post.

Thank you very much, lagspiller.

What was the answer (for the Vasa), N/A's here?

More beam, more draft, and more ballast?

Or what?

Alan

[uncas]

Ah yes...visited the Vasa in '64.....What a ship!
Back then...well it was under restoration....with a constant water bath...
Sank in 1628...
The barrels holding the butter were found...still had butter in them...although a bit rancid, still edible....
The Queen of the Swedish fleet...
Have the book on its salvage and intial restoration...a good read...

[Paul Pless]

I read somewhere (WoodenBoat I think) that she sank in one of the most polluted harbors in all of Europe this contributed to her good condition as there was little bacteria available to attack her.

[lagspiller]

Yes. Good memory. 1628. And there was something about the lack of O2 preserving the hull. The parts that were protected by the mud are in very good shape.

I think the jury is still out regarding why it sank. Most seem to think it was improperly designed - built to intimidate. Far too much of the mass was far too highly placed. The center of gravity must have been very high. The Swedes I talked too think the lower gun ports were too low.

But I have also seen one modern designer claim it was just a ballast issue - that they should have had double what they were carrying. I read somewhere that they had reduced the amount to carry more marines. (Imagine that, a 'movable ballast' all running to the same side... good plan!)

The ship was surprisingly shallow to my eye. That must mean the beam was ok - but the topsides were ridiculously overdimentioned.
And the ornamentation was astounding.

Trivia - I finally learned where the nautical term "head" came from. The 'headboard' supporting the bowsprit was where the crew had its 'latrine'. Going to the head meant crawling out under the bowsprit for an important if dangerous job...

[ 02-28-2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[brian.cunningham]

Ah, the VASA http://www.vasamuseet.se/
the ship has come up on the forum before.

One of the most beautiful ships ever created smile.gif , also one of the worse cases of engineering. :(

The ship, as I understand, sunk because it was too top heavy.

EDIT
There's a great video of the raising of the ship, which btw was towed into the harbor on it's own keel! :eek:
http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/img/vasa/vasaytan.jpg
http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/img/vasa/vasadocx.jpg

April 24, 1961, 9:03 am, the media recorded a piece of ancient black oak breaking the surface of the water, followed by 2 rows of bulwark stanchions. The damaged super-structure had finally come into view. The threesome flotilla was moved to shallower water where Swedish-invented B-200L submersible equipment was deployed to pump out water from Vasa's hull faster than water was leaking into her. She began to rise, after 333 years of submergence. Flygt submersible pumps kept her afloat in harbor and sprayed her entirely with water for 2 weeks, 24 hrs a day, while underwater, frogmen corked any more leaks. Vasa had to make the last 100 yards into a narrow dock afloat on her own keel, as there was no room for the 2 pontoons. She was indeed afloat, if listing to port a bit and was gently hauled in. "The 6 year long adventure of winning back the Vasa was over" (Saunders 1962:70). Now the work of restoration and preservation could begin.http://www.abc.se/~m10354/publ/vasa.htm

[ 02-28-2006, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: brian.cunningham ]

[uncas]

lapspiller...I think it is a combination...why she sank...If you add the ballast problem to the two or three you mentioned...well ya gonna have a roll over or...well sinking...
I don't think it was only one problem...but a combination...that sank her...

[Tom Jackson]

She was one of the first warships to have two gun decks. I was able to go aboard her at the museum last August, because I was writing about her conservation issues (Currents, WB No. 187). One of the really surprising things about the ship is how much headroom there is on virtually all of the decks except the orlop -- on the order of 7' on the main gun deck. The hold is a truly cavernous space. If you've been aboard the gun deck of, say, the CONSTITUTION, you would really be shocked at this difference, as I was.

VASA's first builder died early in the project. The second builder altered her design to give her more beam, so he must have been aware of the problems, and there was testimony recorded at an inquest. The height of the sterncastles, while truly awesome, wasn't uncommon for the day. Excavations are going on now on KRONEN, built almost 30 years later, also with two gun decks--but she had a successful career at sea until lost in 1667 at the Battle of Oland. VASA was a spectacular failure in a transitional time.

VASA's rococo carvings are simply unbelievable. They were also painted in bright colors throughout -- the ship must have looked as gaudy as a circus wagon. The ornately shaped stern galleries are completely functionless, mere decorations. They were not officer's heads, as the quarter galleries on CONSTITUTION were.

She was carrying very little canvas when she sailed out of port--lowers only. The remains of five sails were found folded but in a heap in the sailmaker's cabin, and they are preserved, remarkably, on mylar backings, with their boltropes and buntline cringles largely intact. She heeled, taking water in the lower leeward gunports, which were open. It was all over very quickly, with the loss of some 50 odd souls. She had sailed all of about 1000 yards. One of the bodies found, a little guy, was in the whipstaff chamber. The whipstaff was found hard over. He must have been trying to save her by steering out of the heel.

There are so many things about this ship that are just astounding. The only existing whipstaff. The only existing spritsail from the age of the spritsail topsail. The ship's boat with handspike windlass intact. The carvings. Something like 97% of what you see is original material. As I mentioned in my column, it dawns on you when you're looking at her that this ship was launched five years after the first-folio publication of Shakespeare's plays.

I've been to a lot of maritime museums in my day, starting from a young age with my very indulgent family. I haven't been everywhere, by a long shot, but of everywhere I've been, the VASA is the single most impressive maritime artifact I've ever seen. When I stepped on the deck, and several times while going through the hull from admirals' cabin to bilges, I experienced a physical shudder of a type very difficult to describe. I was expecting that to happen at the Gokstad and Oseberg ships, and it did, a little -- but nothing like this. Part of it's the display. I found the ships in Oslo hard to grasp, a bit distant, even though the small boats from the Gokstad find were what made me a boatbuilder from the beginning. But VASA is beautifully exhibited--you can see her from a wonderful variety of angles. She reaches out and grabs you in a way I have never experienced before.

[ 03-01-2006, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Tom Jackson ]

[sv Lorelei]

Tom, I remember reading a National Geographic article a few years back on the building of the Vasa. There were a lot of changes that were made in the design after construction was begun so much so that one of the original designers quit (and the other died as you mentioned). I think she had been originally designed as a single decker and the second deck was added on the demand of the King, and to add insult to injury the size of the cannons was increased. The result was that the lower deck sat too low to start with, she was top heavy, and when she started to heel her lower gunports which shouldn't have been open, went under. By the way, that was far from the only ship that sank that way. It was a pretty common hazard that occasionally resulted in the loss of a ship.

Let's take a look. They couldn't ballast her more because they knew she sat too low. They couldn't raise the lower gun deck because it had already been built that way (okay, maybe they could have, but it would have been horrendously expensive). The bigger guns just added to the problem. I would have liked to have known what the captain's real opinion of his ship was before she sailed.

[Tom Jackson]

Yes, and MARY ROSE offers another example. She was oiginally 500 or so tons and ended up 700 after periodic refits and rearmament. She, too, flooded by the gunports and sank quickly, with huge loss of life. To my mind, it is impossible to look at a construction like VASA or MARY ROSE and say these builders didn't know what they were doing. The bilge stringers on VASA are something like 16" x 16" oak, an astonishing construction all done manually. My guess is that the builders were being pressured by shoreside supervisors with no experience and the dual political goals of creating the most impressive display and the heaviest armament -- a form of arms race that echoes still. The guys in the yard must have been shaking their heads in disbelief while they were putting these things together, and the sailors must have been clenching their jaws.

[uncas]

sailors must have been clenching their jaws.

I don't think they were signing up to sail on her!!!!

[Thorne]

I'd say they must have invented Focus Groups around 1540 or so....results of their influence are unmistakable!

;-0 )

[ 03-01-2006, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Thorne ]

[Paul Pless]

lagspiller, check your private messages

[outofthenorm]

As I understand the state of naval architecture of the period, the one thing that no-one had a solution for was figuring out the displacement, and hence the draft and LWL before the ship was launched. It was a fairly common experience for a ship to require "girdling" sometime after her trials. The girdle was a wide layer of planking added around the waterline to increase both beam and displacement. It often was used to raise the lower row of ports higher out of the water. Clearly they got it so wrong with the Vasa that she never made it that far. The guy credited with doing the first accurate displacement calculations was Sir Anthony Deane in about 1658. "Deane's Doctrine of Naval Architecture" was written in 1670 - and promptly made a state secret by the British gov't. The book wasn't widely published until 1981!

And so endeth tonight's history lesson. :D

- Norm

[ 03-01-2006, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: outofthenorm ]

[lagspiller]

Interesting stuff.
The comments about experiencing Gokstad & Oseberg ships as compared with the Vasa - well, we are different. I had the same feelings - but opposite ships. Vasa impressed me very much, but the Viking ships in Oslo beat everything I have ever seen. I doubt any ship will give me the same charge. I think maybe it depends on what you are coming from... we are still using boats so similar to those ships that seeing them was like being hit by a bolt of lightning.

But back to the topic:
As far as freeboard goes for the Vasa, it surprised me. I had heard the story about the lower gunports and expected to see them much closer to the waterline. There is a smaller boat (about 18-20 ft) on the lower floor in the museum to illustrate where the Vasa actually floated. By guess-timate from above, it was at least 3-4 meters up to the lower gunports. Beam also looked ok for the length... The height of the rest was astounding. Maybe that and a little gust of wind, under-ballast combined with a sudden ballast shift (it was all loose as far as I know) when things started to get out of hand were enough to do the ship in.

They don't let average joe on the ship, but they have built a copy of a gun deck. I am about 5'8'' and had to walk with a slight stoop. I've been on the Constitution and a few other less famous ships, but don't remember any details - so again, the difference in background experience changes the way we experience things. The sight of Constitution sailing into Boston harbor was a charge. The old whaling ship in Mystic was a charge (was it the Tucker if I surprise myself by remembering?) Vasa was very interesting, both as an engineering project, a mystery and a GRAND museum piece.

But the Viking ships simply knock me out. So simple, so elegant, so efficient. A unique design concept. They look fast and hungry today, 1000 years later. All you guys should make a pilgrimage if you haven't seen them. Do Roskilde, Oslo and Stockholm. Then you can die.

[ 03-04-2006, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[Tom Jackson]

Well, I completely agree about the Olso ships, and I didn't mean to disparage them at all. (I freely admit that I was very lucky in Stockholm.) I stayed at the Oslo museum for four hours, and I went back a second time in the same day.

I think the way the ships are displayed in Olso makes it somewhat harder to get a true sense of them, especially above the waterline. When you ascend to the upper viewing platform, your are too far away for anything but an overall view. I found close examination difficult. I also found it frustrating that you couldn't walk all the way around the small boats. It's hard to see, for example, the rudder fittings in any detail. The museum was also very crowded, which dimininshes the "cathedral" effect.

The small craft collection at the other museum, within walking distance (the name escapes me now), is also really impressive. There, you really can look at close details, and I was completely alone in that gallery when I was there.

Might as well also mention the Roskilde museum, which is wonderful. All three of those sites are spectacular, each in its own way. Scandinavia has a great deal to be proud about.

I did those three museums in three days. Roskilde all day Wednesday, overnight train Copenhagen to Oslo, viking ship museum all day Thursday, overnight train to Stockholm, Vasa Museum all day Friday, early morning Saturday train to Solvesborg for the beginning of the Blekinge Raid. Perfection!

[ 03-03-2006, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Tom Jackson ]

[martin schulz]

Tom!
That's why I recommend a trip to Flensburg. That's only about 2hrs away from Copenhagen and when it comes to the Museumboatyard the perfect place to have a look and "feel" at. And the boats are all traditional little fishing boats from around the Baltics.

By the way. When it comes to vikings everybody always thinks about Sweden or Denmark, but the oldest known settlement is the Haitabu settlement close to Flensburg. And those vikings who raided Britain were of course Angeln and Saxonians.

http://www.schloss-gottorf.de/haithabu/1.jpg

http://www.schloss-gottorf.de/haithabu/2.jpg

[ 03-07-2006, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

[martin schulz]

I must say I am a bit disappointed about some remarks here.

You guys tend to think in terms like viking = Denmark/Sweden/Norway. But those boundaries didn't exist when the viking-culture was at its height. Haithabu and Shlesvig is in Germany as is the Nydam-boat which is in the Gottorf-museum.

[Tom Jackson]

Germany is definitely on my "life list" also, Martin. Your pictures and accounts of the museum harbor have been even a further incentive!

[lagspiller]

Hå, hå, Martin.

I freely admit that Vikings and Germany are a new concept. Vikings, of course, did venture as far south as Turkey. But the idea that parts of Germany can be considered 'Viking' is new to me.
Please give details and sources...

While we are talking about disappointments... I admit to a minor disappointment in your disparaging of Norwegian for Danish sources in cultural heiratage... for example in Islandic history. I hope you have gone back in your books and checked your facts. Please excuse me if I sound rude, but history is a cultural phenomonen as much as a reality. Iceland is of course originally a Norwegian colony. The Danes were still ****ing around in Denmark, England and Germany while the Swedes were still still divided into 3 kingdoms those days. The 'Viking' that raided England were of course Norwegian (they took most of Scotland and England while King Knud of Denmark was supporting the English king in London. That didn't end until the Norwegians lost everything at Stamford Bridge). You even have a children's song from that time that still is well known... *London Bridge is falling down*, which is actually about the time Holy King Olav attacked London (which was then under Danish support from Danish King Knud) and tore down London Bridge with his Viking Ships. Hoards of Londoners were killed that day. They had come down onto the Castle London Bridge to mock King Olav and drowned in the Thames when the 'invincible' fortress bridge collapsed into the river. See the book by Icelandic skald 'Snorre' for more details.

For the most part Vikings from Western Norway were on the Norwegian side of that conflict. I don't know where they came from on the Danish side.

Then along came Wilhelm the Conqueror, grandson of Gange Rolf... founder of Normandie. Also a Norwegian 'refugee'... And also responsible for exporting a vast number of norwegian words to french - for example 'Equipment', which originally was the word for a crew in a viking ship. Many believe it is derived from the latin for 'horse', equus. But that is of course wrong. The word came to French with the Norwegian Vikings in Normandie.

Another word, 'matros' sounds French to us... but is originally Norwegian and re-imported to Norwegian from French after it died out here - it was originally exported to France in the time of Gange Rolf. Who, of course, is known in English as "Rollo".

Schlesvig-Holstein I don't know much about - except that it is really Danish. And should probably be given back.

[ 03-07-2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[martin schulz]

Originally posted by lagspiller:
Hå, hå, Martin.

I freely admit that Vikings and Germany are a new concept. Vikings, of course, did venture as far south as Turkey. But the idea that parts of Germany can be considered 'Viking' is new to me.
Please give details and sources...Hedeby was an important settlement in Viking Denmark, flourishing from the 8th to 11th centuries and located towards the southern end of the Jutland Peninsula. It developed as a trading centre at the head of a narrow, navigable inlet known today as the Schlei (Danish: Slien) which connects to the Baltic Sea. The location of Hedeby is favored because there is a short portage of less than 15 km to the Treene River which flows into the Eider with its North Sea estuary, making a convenient place where goods and Viking ships could be ported overland for an almost uninterrupted seaway between the Baltic and the North Sea and avoiding a dangerous circumnavigation of Jutland. Hedeby was the largest Nordic city during the Viking Age and used to be the oldest city in Denmark. Denmark lost the territory on which Hedeby was located to Austria and Prussia in 1864 in the Second War of Schleswig. As a result of these border movements, the site is now located in the province of Schleswig-Holstein in the extreme north of Germany. The name 'Hedeby' means the "town on the heath". Abandoned almost a thousand years ago, Hedeby is now by far the most important archeological site in Schleswig-Holstein. A museum was opened next to the site in 1985.


Originally posted by lagspiller:
The 'Viking' that raided England were of course Norwegian (they took most of Scotland and England while King Knud of Denmark was supporting the English king in London. That didn't end until the Norwegians lost everything at Stamford Bridge). Any Idea why British Counties are called Sussex (as in South Saxonia), Essex (East Saxonia) or East Anglia (as in Angles)? Coincidentally the area around here is called Angeln! So it is more than a wild guess that the Angeln and Saxons did their share in invading Britain.

Here is a british source:


As the Romans withdrew their troops to face threats closer to home, the Roman influence in Essex began to wane, and from the 4th century onwards archaeology shows us the increasing influence of Germanic peoples on aspects of life in certain areas. The East of England seems to have been settled by groups of people from this area, and historical accounts tell us of waves of Angles, Saxons and Jutes settling the island. Why this happened, and what happened to the Britons living in the areas settled by these newcomers, is still uncertain, though it seems clear that some came to Britain as mercenaries working for the British tribal leaders.

With them these settlers brought a different culture, with artistic styles, religion, burial practices, and even their own style of house building, and this would come to dominate the archaeology of the East of England, including Essex, for this period.

The Late Saxon period was marked by Viking raids and invasions. In 894 Alfred’s army destroyed the Viking camp and ships at Benfleet. Later Edward the Elder reclaimed Essex from the Danelaw, at the same time founding the burhs (fortified towns) at Colchester, Maldon and Witham. However, Viking attacks resumed towards the end of the 10th century, and in 991 the Battle of Maldon took place, when a defending army of Saxons was defeated and their leader, Earl Byrhtnoth, was killed. His death, and those of his loyal followers, was commemorated by a famous contemporary poem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/images/map_vsettlement1.gif
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/images/map_vsettlement2.gif

BBC source:

War or peace?

What happened when Viking raiders turned into Viking settlers and took land to farm? There is considerable debate and controversy even today about the nature of the relationship between the colonists and the local population in Britain and Ireland. The historical sources are clear that the relationship was hostile and that negotiation was by the sword. Most modern historians argue that the Norwegians who settled in Scotland and the Danes who settled in England simply took what they wanted by force, killing or enslaving anyone who got in their way.

But there is also the evidence of place names and archaeology, and they can be interpreted in more than one way. Place names are an invaluable source of information on the extent of Scandinavian influence, and their distribution mirrors the geographical spread of colonisation known from historical and archaeological evidence. In England, for instance, Scandinavian names are concentrated within the Danelaw, the area of northern and eastern England that was in Danish hands.

In Scotland, the most densely concentrated area of Scandinavian names is Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, where a Norwegian earldom was established. But we should not assume that density of place names equals numbers of colonists, or that the creation of place names can be dated precisely. Blanket replacement of native names, as in Orkney and Shetland, may have happened gradually rather than suddenly. Above all, we need to remember that the story is likely to have varied across Britain and Ireland, and that we should balance historical, linguistic and archaeological evidence within a local framework.

[ 03-15-2006, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

[martin schulz]

Wikipedia:


Bede states that the Angli before they came to Great Britain dwelt in a land called Angulus, and similar evidence is given by the Historia Brittonum. King Alfred the Great and the chronicler Æthelweard identified this place with the district which is now called Angeln in the province of Schleswig (Slesvig), though it may then have been of greater extent, and this identification agrees very well with the indications given by Bede. Full confirmation is afforded by English and Danish traditions relating to two kings named Wermund and Offa, from whom the Mercian royal family were descended, and whose exploits are connected with Angeln, Schleswig and Rendsburg. Danish tradition has preserved record of two governors of Schleswig, father and son, in their service, Frowinus (Freawine) and Wigo (Wig), from whom the royal family of Wessex claimed descent. During the 5th century the Angli invaded Great Britain, after which time their name does not recur on the continent except in the title of the code mentioned above.

The province of Schleswig has proved exceptionally rich in prehistoric antiquities which date apparently from the 4th and 5th centuries. Among the places where these have been found, special mention should be made of the large cremation cemetery at Borgstedterfeld, between Rendsburg and Eckernförde, which has yielded many urns and brooches closely resembling those found in heathen graves in England. Of still greater importance are the great deposits at Thorsbjaerg (in Angeln) and Nydam, which contained large quantities of arms, ornaments, articles of clothing, agricultural implements, &c., and in the latter case even ships. By the help of these discoveries we are able to reconstruct a fairly detailed picture of Angle civilization in the age preceding the invasion of Great Britain.
[edit]

Angle influence in Great Britain

According to sources such as the Venerable Bede, after the invasion of Great Britain the Angles split up and founded the kingdoms of the Nord Angelnen (Northumbria), Ost Angelnen (East Anglia), and the Mittlere Angelnen (Mercia). Thanks to the major influence of the Saxons, the tribes were collectively called Anglo-Saxons by the Normans. A region of the United Kingdom is still known by the name East Anglia.

The center of the Angle homeland in the north-eastern portion of the modern German bundesland of Schleswig-Holstein, itself on the Jutland Peninsula, is where the rest of that people stayed, a small peninsular form still called Angeln today and is formed as a triangle drawn roughly from modern Flensburg on the Flensburger Fjord to the City of Schleswig and then to Maasholm on the Schlei inlet.

In any case, this small and relatively easterly geographic localisation of the original Angeln tribal group has led to one of the Anglo-Saxon Invasion's enduring mysteries: how it is possible that the Anglo-Saxons were so frequently mentioned as colonisers of ancient Great Britain in all the ancient and medieval written sources, while evidence of the neighbouring and much more powerful Frisians' concurrent colonising activities in Great Britain has been so limited to discoveries in archeological science, and more often to logical deductions and inferences alone? Of course, ethnic Frisians are known to have inhabited the land directly in the path of any migration route from Angeln to Great Britain (except for the long and difficult route by sea around the northern tip of Denmark), and, in fact, they also inhabited lands between the ancient Saxon domain and Great Britain; yet they are rarely mentioned as having taken part in the vast migration.

[ 03-15-2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

[paladin]

and the vikings sailed the gulf of mexico and up the arkansas river as far north as present day Fort Smith and settled in modern day Oklahoma from webbers falls to shawnee Oklahoma, and had active farms between shawnee and stigler ....and vikings settled near Odessa Ukraine and were the prime people that bound the many separate warring chieftains into coherent government...hell I got relatives all over...

[martin schulz]

Please excuse me if I sound rude... ;)

but perhaps we should bear in mind that around 800-1000 there was no nationality like Norwegian, Swede, Dane or German.

There were different "viking" tribes. Some of those were Saxons, some Angles, some Slavs...whatever. Since Hedeby/Haithabu was a major city back then it is quite certain that tribes that settled in that area sailed over to Britain. Even nowadays there are two small villages called Süderstapel (South Pile)and Norderstapel (North Pile). That's were large piles of logs were stored when those tribes pushed their longboats those 13km across dry land to get from the river Schlei (Baltic-Sea connecting) to the river Treene (North-Sea connecting).

[ 03-15-2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

[paladin]

Martin...you never sound rude to me...I enjoy your grasp of the history. I spent nearly two years doing artwork/drawings for the museum in Reykjavik on the assembly/construction of viking longboats. I just wish my ability to read old norse was a heck of a lot better so that I could read more of the documents that were available. Most of the sagas lose a little something when translated..

[Hans Friedel]

Martin you are of course right

But the myth about a Northen masterrace (the Vikings)was born in Scandinawia late 1800.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geatish_society

They might seam funny and ridculus now but it was far from funny in Europe 1930.

Hans

[lagspiller]

Martin, not rude (and I am sorry if you were angered when I teased you a bit in an earlier post) but you do have a very German slant on your conception of viking history. That doesn't make it wrong or right. But you should be aware of that - as I discovered my slant after reading your Hedeby post. You sometimes leave out or give dominant roles to the wrong players... as you did in your ideas about the founding of Iceland in a previous discussion. Your information on Hedeby has been very good - it is good to get new viewpoints. I have enjoyed that.

The information about the the location of Hedeby and the short portage to the North Sea was especially interesting. It explains why Ottar chose that route on his trip to London. Portages (slep in Norwegian) were common, often used to avoid difficult or long sea passages... and another reason for the desing of viking ships. There are sleps over fairly high mountain passes here... and at least one "sea battle" was won on an inland lake when the viking king surprised his rival with a fantastic longship assault 200 km inland.

But your comments about viking tribes is incorrect. For Norway at least. Denmark I am quite sure... and Sweden's three competing royal lineages were also united under one rule well before the end of the viking period (thus the 3 crown symbol in Sweden - a remembrance of the first unified Sweden).

For Norway, we talk about 'small-king' in separate territories spread through the country. before 800... but they still identified themselves as a people, separate from Danes and Swedes. So those concepts must have existed prior to 800.

The Kingdom of Norway was finally consolidated under its first unified king in 872, Harald Haarfagre in the battle of Hafrsfjord when he defeated the kings of Vestland. The story goes that he took a vow as a young man never to cut his hair until the country was unified under his sword. He cut his hair in 872. After him followed Eirik Blodøks (Eirik Bloodaxe), Haakon den Gode (Haakon the Good, who created the first organised navy and made the first national laws), Eiriks sons (supported by the Danish king, sub-kings under Harald Blaatann "Bluetooth") Harald Graafell, Haakon Jarl, Olav Tryggvason, Eirik and Svein Ladejarl (supported by Danish Knut the Powerful - king over Scandinavia and England)and finally Olav Haraldsson .... who became St. Olav after his death in the battle of Stiklestad in 1030.

The list continues... Olav's son, Magnus den Gode claimed the throne of both Denmark and England (he didn't get it, but his claim was legit) but soon after lost his Norwegian throne to half-brother of St.Olav, Harald Hardraade... who also claimed the Danish throne 19 years later and went to war with the English king for that throne. He was finally defeated at Stamford bridge by the English king - who was defeated by the French in the Battle of Hastings two days later. A couple of Kings later, around 1095, under Magnus Berrfot's reign, Norway tried to add Sweden to the crown and twice tried to take England. He had better luck in Scotland and Ireland, put his sons in charge of Orkne islands and took Man og Sudrøyene himself. Technically, Isle of Man and Orkne are still Norwegian. Orkne because it was the dowry for a Norwegian princess who drowned on the way to her wedding and Isle of Man because it was put in hock with the Norwegian King by the English king who desperately needed money for his war with France... the money was never returned.

My point is that we are talking about well founded nations all through this period... not warring tribes. The kings of the Scandinavian region were players on equal terms with the other powers farther south. The political and military scene was very mixed - and it is hard to point out any single area as being dominant. It was a mass of crossing interests, deals and marriages and stayed that way up to the Plague.

You really should try to get a copy of Snorre. With your interest in history, I think you would enjoy it.

Edit to add:
Here is the English Wikipedia link to Snorre Sturlason. His history book is Heimskringla... link on this page: Snorri Sturluson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorri_Sturluson)

Snorri Sturluson (1178 – September 23, 1241) was an Icelandic historian, poet and politician. He was twice lawspeaker at the Icelandic parliament, the Alþingi. He was the author of the Younger Edda or Prose Edda, which is comprised of Gylfaginning ("the fooling of Gylfe"), a narrative of Norse mythology, the Skáldskaparmál, a book of poetic language, and the Háttatal, a list of verse forms. He was also the author of the Heimskringla, a history of the Norse kings that begins, in Ynglinga saga with the legendary history, and moves through to early medieval Scandinavian history. He is also thought to be the author of Egils Saga.
Snorri sailed the summer of 1218 from Iceland to Norway, by royal invitation. There he became well-acquainted with King Hákon Hákonarson, visited Skúli jarl during the winter, and in the summer of 1219, he met his Swedish colleague, the lawspeaker Eskil Magnusson (Bjälboätten) and his wife Kristina Nilsdotter Blake in Skara. They were both related to royal family and gave Snorri a nice insight into the history of Sweden.

Snorri became involved in an unsuccessful rebellion against Hákon Hákonarson, the King of Norway, which resulted in his assassination in his house at Reykholt in 1241 by Gissur Þorvaldsson, an agent of the king. Legend has it that Snorri's last words were: Eigi skal höggva! -- "Strike me not!". Here is a direct link to info on the The Heimskringla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimskringla) ...

The Heimskringla traces Odin and his followers from the East, from Asaland and Asgard, its chief city, to their settlement in Scandinavia. It narrates the contests of the kings, the establishment of the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the Viking expeditions and the conquests of England. There is solid historical reason to connect these nations and 'viking history' - at least if we believe original sources, like Snorre.

[ 03-16-2006, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[martin schulz]

Originally posted by lagspiller:
Martin, not rude (and I am sorry if you were angered when I teased you a bit in an earlier post) but you do have a very German slant on your conception of viking history.You do accuse me of "nationalising" viking history, which is understandable since viking-history is obviously a great part in Norway-history.

What I was trying to point out is that viking culture was not restricted to Norway alone. As places like Hedeby/Haithabu prove vikings have settled in different places around the Baltic Sea and have established sucessful systems almost everywhere - not only in Norway.

Since the oldnorse word "víkingr" means to plunder, to rob, I guess it is quite possible that "original" vikings from Norway were often confused with other tribes that either plundered together with vikings (like the Slavs did 890 when they raided Constantinople together with vikings), or essentially used the same methods.

But...
believe me I am not trying to prove that viking-history is an essential part in German history. Since Germany is an rather heterogeneous country which has only been unified perhaps 100 years ago german historians are worrying more about Germanic-tibes, Franks, Bavarians, Slavs, Saxons... than vikings. But since I live in Jutland and Jutland has always been either German or Danish and Jutlands-history is about Angles, Saxons, Jutes this history is part of the viking-history.

[martin schulz]

http://wiki.geist-soz.uni-karlsruhe.de/wicki.jpg

[lagspiller]

What I was trying to point out is that viking culture was not restricted to Norway alone. As places like Hedeby/Haithabu prove vikings have settled in different places around the Baltic Sea and have established sucessful systems almost everywhere This is how I see it too.

One little thing. There are at least three ideas about the origin of the term 'viking'. A raiding party is one. But probably the most accepted meaning matches better with the idea of successful settlements. It was commonly used as a verb - to go viking. A 'vik' is an inlet... a quiet harbor and a good place to settle & live. To go viking often meant creating a new settlement, farming. Of course, there was often some trouble with the 'natives', but probably most of the time (counted in years) the 'vikings' were good neighbors and were accepted - lots of trade and marriages... until some king comes along and chases these guys out of 'his' country.

We have kind of wandered off both the 'Vasa' topic and even boats in general. Maybe it is time to get back to a WoodenBoat theme?
(I am really glad for the discussion - the info about the Hedeby portage alone was worth the typing time)

[martin schulz]

Well, we are the only one left in this pub anyway. I don't think anybody will bother if we continue our "viking" discussion.

[Alan D. Hyde]

I'm just sipping my scotch, listening with interest... :D

Alan

[yorgie]

I've been enjoying the conversation too and even though I have Slesviger ancestry I thought I'd let the real 'Vikings' duke it out.

A question for Martin though.When Slesvig became Danish in the viking era did a distinctive low german population remain or did they later immigrate from elsewhere during the Hanseatic period?For example some of my German side came from Rostock but the Danish sides seem to have always been there.

Chris

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The greatest poem in Anglo-Saxon is "Beowulf", which seems to have been composed at the court of the East Angles, at Rendlesham, in Suffolk, near Woodbridge. Sutton Hoo, the ship burial site, is nearby. It was probably composed in the later sixth century AD. The Sutton Hoo ship burial site contained two large ship burials (one had been robbed) and a number of other royal graves. the un-robbed ship in Mound 1 was put there in the early seventh century, i.e. it was almost certainly the grave ship of King Raedwald of the East Angles.

The ship is similar in form to the later "Viking" ships and a half size replica sails extremely well (I've sailed and rowed in her).

Now, the odd thing is that "Beowulf" describes events that take place in Sweden and Norway, involving the Geats.

[lagspiller]

Let's put the timeline in order here - we started with Vasa - moved back to Viking era (750-1000) and are now back to 300-400. Now we are talking about tribes, and the traces get fuzzy. We know the first people came into my area about 10.000 years ago - artifacts turn up every spring went people start working in flowergardens around 50 meters over sealevel. Between then and about 500-600 there are accepted theories and new theories about who-what-where.

I Read Beowulf in university... and haven't thought much about it since. Maybe the clues in Beowulf are not as obvious as has been thought? I WAS going to tell about Thor Heyerdal's last theory and went looking for an English language website for that - and found this in the source (mentioned below) about Beowulf:


The Old English poem is only known in a version from the 10th century, but is supposed to origin from a Christian English court in the 8th century based on some old pagan legends from Nordic countries like Denmark and Sweden. Maybe the poem has put the Nordic historians on the wrong track obscuring the true connections.
See the source for the rest of the article.

Thor Heyerdal probably has mixed up a lot of the archeology with wild imaginations (he claimed Odin was a living historic person...), but he did make some astounding finds that match very well with better founded theory.

http://www.gedevasen.dk/Pict/Odinrutel.gif
There are very clear archeological and ethnological connections between Dacia - Sea of Asov region - and Scandinavia. There is at least as much evidence for as against that a people with roots in the lower Danube area who claimed scandinavia as their home were pressed out by the Huns, went north (perhaps 'again') around year 300-500 some time, and settled in Uppsala region of Sweden.... avoiding the Danes and Danish pennunsula. This quote from The Heruls (http://www.gedevasen.dk/heruleng.html#C13) (there is also an interesting alternative explanation about Beowulf there...

Were some of the Nordic kings and earls descendents of the Eastgermanic tribe, the Heruls ? This hypothesis has now and then been mentioned by scholars, as the Byzantine historian Procopius described these Heruls (written Heruli, Eruli or Eruloi) migrating from Southeastern Europe to Scandinavia around 510 AD. Archaeological finds show us that a new culture arose at exactly the same time in Scandinavia with Uppsala as the center – changing 2-3 generations later to the Vendel-culture in the surroundings of Uppsala. The migration of the royal family of the Heruls was initiated by a Herulian defeat in the Danubian-region, but the destination was hardly a coincidence as they obviously had knowledge of Scandinavia and a motive to go so far. Several other tracks of indices and the remarkable timing point in that direction, but the development shall neither be regarded as a total change of population, a long occupation nor a short visit by the Heruls. If the hypothesis is correct the migrating part of the Heruls were integrated in a people at the Scandinavian Peninsula, but their dynastic structure and military culture became indirectly an important element in the development of the culture of superior class in Scandinavia in the following centuries.

The myth of Odin narrated by Snorri Sturlusson in Ynglingesaga may contain remains of the missing Nordic legend of the Heruls, in which their royal ancestors were mixed up with the Asir of the Norse religion. Although manipulated and totally mixed up, works like Ynglingesaga, the fragmentary Skjoldungesaga, Gesta Danorum and Gesta Normannorum may contain elements of the continuation of the history of this vagrant royal family - as do Beowulf and Widsith. Here is short referance to Thor Heyerdal's last work (from the same source as above)


10.3. Maybe the Heruls first became worshippers of Wothan or Gaut at the Black Sea, but here they also met the Iranian influenced Alan/As-people (Chapter 2). Theoretically there may have been fights and a following religious influence between Heruls and Alans. Iranian influence is traced both in the Norse religion and in the military equipment in Vendel, but there might be other reasons. The name of the Asi could easily evoke associations to the Ases - and the tribe could have inspired to the Ases, but the name Ases probably derive from “ansu” (ancestral god). Also the Huns may have had such an influence on the Heruls.

The recent theory developed by Thor Heyerdahl (Jagten paa Odin, 2001) could have the same background. Thor Heyerdahl had in escavations at Asov and the surroundings found traces of a connection between the people living there in the 2nd century BC and the Scandinavian Vikings. He assumed Asov to be Asgaard, the old castle of Odin. He also assumed this was a direct connection before Christ, but this is contradicted by the strong archaeological indications of a change of religion coming to Scandinavia from south in the 6th century AD – unless the Asov-connection was carried through later by the Alans and Heruls. Heyerdal was primarly attacked by scholars because of the long span of years making archaeology useless, and because he had used the names too far. Gro Steinsland has probably correctly argued that Ases derive from the word Ansu (God/Ancestral god) existing much later than the time when Odin should have left with the Asi according to Heyerdahl. [Back]
Heyerdal claims Odin lead his followers north from Asov, up the volga, over murmansk and then southward following the ice-free coast of Norway. Pretty wild.
But the idea that the Heruls were a competing tribe to the Danes, and that it is this culture that brings the nomadic, raiding element usually associated with Vikings into the scandinavian culture is pretty well documented. By around 500-600 these cultures had melted together into the Scandinavian Viking civilizations we know so much about.

[ 03-18-2006, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: lagspiller ]

[ahp]

My Pierson ancestor came to the New World from Yorkshire about 1630. Any Vikings back there?

[werner]

for those who want to know if they have viking blood
ttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/national/13gene.html?ex=1271044800&en=d1863efe5b1944a3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Thanks, Lagspiller.

This passage interested me:


There is probably no doubt that the Danish myths in England were caused by a family link between the Danes and the Wuffingas in East Anglia (i.e Roar and his wife). However there are too many common signs to be caused by a single marriage, and they are too closely connected with the symbols of royal power to be caused by a trade connection though English glass is found in the Vendel-culture. If this was a general Germanic style we should expect finding all these signs at the Continent too. Therefore there should at least be other family-connections too.

Already in the 5th century we have big Jutish squareheaded fibulas and bracteats in Kent confirming the story of Bede - but not all his names and nationalities. The Vendel Era is later than the invasion of England and the kings of Uppsala have nearly always concentrated their actions in Sweden, the Baltic Area and Russia. Accordingly a jump to a country 1400 kilometres south-west of Uppsala sounds unrealistic in the period before the Viking ships got sails. In the beginning of the 6th century there were signs of retreat among the invaders of England, but the refugees joined the Francs - none are mentioned going north, and if so they would probably have settled in the "empty" Angel The Wuffings were the East Anglian ruling dynasty, hence the assumption that "Beowulf" was composed at their court.

I am very struck by the confident assertion that "the Viking ships got sails" (at quite a late date). This seems to me to be incredibly unlikely. It was once assumed that the Sutton Hoo ship was "a mere rowing boat" because no trace of a mast step was found, but this opinion was revised in a hurry when the replica was found to sail extremely well!

Is there real evidence for the Viking ships suddenly "getting sails"? Or is it a bit like the Sutton Hoo case?

[lagspiller]

Interesting question. I certainly don't know, but it might be worth playing with for a while... We are back pretty far in time, in cultures that didn't leave much of written/pictoral records. I think there is going to be a lot of guessing no matter what is claimed.

But at least we are working our way back to boats again!! :cool:

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes. But we can be fairly precise about the Wuffingas, because we do have written sources.

Uffa, the founder of the East Anglian dynasty, was Tyttli's father and Raedwald's grandfather, he had his seat at Ufford, and according to Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People the Wuffings had a royal hall at Rendlesham. Rendlesham, Ufford and Sutton Hoo are within four or five miles of my house here in Woodbridge. We also know from Bede that Raedwald hedged his bets - he maintained an altar to the Christian God and one to "devils" in his hall. His wife, who came from Kent, was Christian as were his children, so Raedwald was the last non-Christian Wuffing.

The dynasty became exinct a couple of centuries later with the death of King Edmund (Saint Edmund) at the hands of Vikings.