Hideouts, harbours and homes: Vikings

[Imperial Dave]

https://theconversation.com/hideouts-harbours-and-homes-how-vikings-may-have-owed-their-success-to-their-encampments-148550

hopefully of interest

[Jim Webster]

https://theconversation.com/hideouts-harbours-and-homes-how-vikings-may-have-owed-their-success-to-their-encampments-148550

hopefully of interest

An interesting article, one quibble I would have is with the phrase "evidence exists that they raised crops"
I have no doubt they did but not over winter!
I suspect that some of these 'winter camps' were settlements that lasted somewhat longer than a winter season

[Imperial Dave]

winter barley is planted in the autumn and harvested in the summer so it could be a reference to this...?

[Erpingham]

winter barley is planted in the autumn and harvested in the summer so it could be a reference to this...?

Which sort of confirms Jim's point.  It's more than just a layup till the weather improves in the spring.

[Imperial Dave]

Yes so the article probably ought to be a bit clearer on that point

[Mick Hession]

I suspect that some of these 'winter camps' were settlements that lasted somewhat longer than a winter season

Quite. The "longphort" phase of Dublin's history was from 841AD - 902AD

Cheers
Mick

[Jim Webster]

It begs the question how many of these did become towns and last for generations
It is something that deserves more research

[Erpingham]

It begs the question how many of these did become towns and last for generations
It is something that deserves more research

Interesting question.  Though we might note, in England, the Vikings could capture towns if they wanted a longer term base.  Pre-existing towns had a number of advantages over building from scratch (e.g. hinterlands and markets which you could exploit).

[Jim Webster]

It begs the question how many of these did become towns and last for generations
It is something that deserves more research

Interesting question.  Though we might note, in England, the Vikings could capture towns if they wanted a longer term base.  Pre-existing towns had a number of advantages over building from scratch (e.g. hinterlands and markets which you could exploit).

Perhaps they lacked good access to the sea (perhaps via navigable river) which wouldn't matter as much for non-Vikings. Indeed in a world of seaborne piracy priorities change. I remember reading that a lot of very early Greek settlements were initially inland to avoid raiders. A village near us that was technically visible from the sea had the houses built so they only had windows facing into the village, presenting blank walls to the sea so that they couldn't give a light that might draw Barbary Pirates and slavers

[Erpingham]

We need to remember that what appear to be very inland sites to us often had workable rivers in earlier times.  York, for example, was available for seafaring vessels.  Harold Godwinson met his fleet at Tadcaster in 1066.  Among the ports supplying ships to Edward III in 1345 was Doncaster.

[Mick Hession]

It begs the question how many of these did become towns and last for generations
It is something that deserves more research

In Ireland, which lacked native urban centres, their ultimate fate varied. Dublin developed into a significant town when the Norse returned in 917 but not on the exact site of the original longphort - the new location was just upstream on slightly higher ground and more defensible. The longphort at Woodstown was abandoned altogether and its residents founded a town a few miles downstream at Waterford. Limerick seems to have moved straight from longphort to town on the same site as did Wexford and Cork (probably: their early history is obscure). The more northerly longphoirt at Linn Duachaill (Meath), Strangford and Lough Neagh (both Ulster) were destroyed by the Ui Neill, the dynasties that provided most High Kings (a bit short-sighted of them as the lack of taxable towns in the north is often cited as a major factor in the North's relative poverty in medieval times). 

There's a pattern where those that thrived were both remote from any significant native power and at the boundaries between native kingdoms, allowing the Norse to play one neighbour off against another. 

Cheers
Mick

[Jim Webster]

There's a pattern where those that thrived were both remote from any significant native power and at the boundaries between native kingdoms, allowing the Norse to play one neighbour off against another. 

Cheers
Mick

Thanks for that Mick, it looks as if 'political geography' was every bit as significant as physical geography

[Mick Hession]

In a sense they complemented each other, larger rivers serving as both communication/attack routes and political boundaries