All language subtitles for The.Last.Journey.Of.The.Vikings.S01E01_English

This is a story about the people who
came sailing across the ocean.

It's a story about a long and
perilous journey of upheaval.

Which came to change populations, and

influence politics, trade, culture,
religion and entire societies.

It's a story about the Vikings...
and how they transformed the world.

For most people, the Vikings are seen
only as plunderers and pirates.

But is that the whole truth?

The process of converting Scandinavia
to Christianity is a long story.

They were skilled tradesmen, in part
because of their ability to travel.

They're going abroad
to take what they seek.

In this series, we will dig deeper
and gain more insight

into who the Vikings really were.

And the truth turns out
to be surprising.

THE LAST JOURNEY OF THE VIKINGS

In the late eighth century,

the Vikings started appearing
along the coast of Europe.

With their longboats adorned
with dragon heads

and loaded with well-armed warriors,

the Vikings soon became infamous for
their swift and brutal raids.

Initially, they mainly targeted
monasteries,

pillaging them for gold and silver.

The monks whose only weapon
was their Christian faith,

were an easy prey, and would seldom
be spared the wrath of the Norsemen.

Over the years,
the Vikings' strategy changed.

They weren't only brutal warriors,
but also skilled diplomats.

Not afraid to mix
with powerful rulers

who wanted to create a new Europe.

In fact, the Vikings would reshape
several European countries.

One of these was Francia.

A kingdom that we will come back
to over the course of this series.

But why did
the Scandinavians set sail

across the seas and become pirates?

In order to answer this,

we must go back to a time before
the Vikings' journey into Europe...

to sixth century Scandinavia.

THE EMIGRANTS

The sixth century is
a really interesting time.

Not just for the Nordic countries,
for the whole of Europe in general.

It's the period following the
collapse of the Roman Western Empire.

And characterised to a great extent
by political instability and turmoil,

conflict, and also large scale
human migrations, and

it's that aspect of the period
that lends its name

to how we characterise this time,

which is often as
the migration period.

We need to keep in mind that
Scandinavia at the time

was an essentially rural region where
communities lived

from the exploitation of natural
resources and agriculture.

The resources needed for
survival existed.

But still, for some reason, the
people of Scandinavia migrated.

There are very many
various political, social

factors that would contribute
to all of this, but

there is a suggestion now that
part of this might be linked to

some kind of climatic event
that takes place around

the mid sixth century.

What has been suggested is that,
either in the 530s, around 536,

or over a slightly longer period of
time, between the 530s and the 550s,

what we're looking at is a series of
one or more volcanic events.

These eruptions spewed out ash
into the atmosphere

and the ash lingered
for several years.

This led to a dimmed sun,

colder summers,
or frost in the middle of summer.

This caused crop failures
several years of bad harvests.

And in the early medieval world,

a couple of bad years of harvest

would be enough to really enforce
some quite dramatic changes.

First, the animals die for lack of
food, and then the people die.

And in 541 and
a few years afterwards,

we don't really know how many died,
but we assume

maybe between a third of,
or half of the population,

both down in Europe and
up here in Scandinavia.

This creates terrible change
for those who survive it.

How do we know that the climate
crisis actually happened?

What evidence do we have?

That climate disaster is rather
well documented

in contemporary written sources
in the Mediterranean

and other regions of
the northern hemisphere.

We have descriptions of a veil of
dust that was covering

the sky and the sun.

They couldn't see the sun
for a few months.

It's there, but it's dim.
It's not giving out heat.

It's not even creating shadows
during the day.

The sun, essentially, isn't doing
what it's supposed to do.

Now, we also have
scientific evidence.

For example, in ice cores
from Greenland.

We can see a
layer of volcanic dust that we

can link to that event.

We can also see it in the way
trees grew during that time.

The research was
conducted in Ireland.

They managed to measure the growth
of the trees for those years.

Trees normally grow each year.

For the years 536 and 537,

we can see that the growth was
negligible or even non-existent.

We can also see the
archaeological remains,

as many villages were abandoned.
Large farms that people left behind,

no one lived there anymore.

It also seems that large areas

of agricultural land
are returning to forest

and, on top of this, there is some
quite dramatic evidence

for violence.

As we can tell from the
archaeological evidence,

we see certain settlements that
seem to have been attacked.

Sometimes burnt down.

And the main, key bit of evidence
that leads us to believe that

these were attacks, not accidents,
is that in some of these places,

people are left unburied
within the burnt houses.

It is believed that,
around the year 580,

more than one million people may have
lived in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Of these, perhaps 300,000 or 400,000

would suffer an early death
because of the climate crisis.

It seems that powerful landowners

used the climate crisis to brutally
seize even more land and resources

from rival villages and families.

It could be said that the power
struggles that took place

during these years transformed
the society's ruling class.

After the immediate crisis,

it's more then 50 years before
the dust in the atmosphere clears,

and the temperature
returns to normal.

Soon the population starts
to grow again, however,

Scandinavian society has changed.

So, of course if such a climate
disaster happened,

the agricultural production was
limited for several years,

which caused famines that
affected those populations.

It doesn't necessarily
mean that populations

in their entirety disappeared.

But they were deeply
affected when it came to

having access to natural resources.

This is what we connect to
that new organisation of territories

with abandoned villages.

That's where most of the
agricultural production was set.

The survivors of these catastrophes
grew up in a brand new world

that was less crowded,
there weren't as many people.

There were plenty of abandoned
farms and villages.

Basically, you have large tracts of
land that can then be snapped up,

essentially by those who are seeking
to preserve their lives and status.

It was fairly crowded prior to
these natural disasters.

All arable land was already
held by someone.

Suddenly there was
room to grow again.

It seems to be
much more hierarchical,

in which power is, to a great extent,

based on the ownership of land
and territory.

So, if we are looking at a time where

we're seeing increased
social stratification,

that's going to make the social
and economic differences

between different social classes,
if you want, become more apparent.

It may be time where we see an
intensification of slavery or

dependency of the lower classes
on the aristocracy,

and, as a result, that gives the
aristocracy the means and the power

to consolidate their hold
on the landscape.

But, as well as this, we also have
increasingly stratified societies,

and people's roles might
become more defined. Of course,

Scandinavia,
like other medieval societies,

they're essentially
subsistence societies, they...

people need to produce what they need
to live, so agricultural practices

are incredibly important, as are all
kinds of production processes

that take place within the household
to produce what people need

to live out their daily lives.

The warrior ideal became more
important during this time.

So the ideal man was
a strong warrior.

He needed to be honourable. He had to
honour his family and his lineage.

He had to be a strong fighter and
take care of the weak in society.

And now, when the warrior ideal is
upheld to an even greater extent...

powerful leaders start to emerge.

Leaders who will play important roles
in what lies ahead.

Societies are becoming
increasingly militarised.

Warfare becomes
a really prominent theme

in material culture of the period.

Leading to a time where we have the
highest status of boat burials

in places like Vadstena in Sweden.
These beautiful, ornate pieces

of arms and armour speaking to
a militarised aristocracy

who are engaging in endemic,
perhaps smaller scale conflict.

But this becomes an essential aspect
of elite power at the time.

The women of the time
lived relatively good lives.

It's easy to believe that women
were viewed as inferior

because men held
such dominant positions,

but their society had clearly defined
roles for men and women.

Women were essential for
society to function.

Marriages were a large part of
it. When a couple married,

their lands were merged,

but women's main responsibility was
to ensure that homes and households,

fields, cattle and so on
were taken care of,

especially when the men weren't home.

When a man and a woman married, the
woman was given a large dowry.

If they divorced,
which was possible at the time,

the woman was granted the dowry
as her own property.

So even if they divorced,
she would have been fine.

And if she remarried, even more
assets would have been merged.

Women served a particularly important
role as crafts specialists,

especially in the process
of textile production,

which, during the Viking age, would
have ranged from producing everything

from, in addition to the everyday
items the family needed

to survive, their clothes, for
example, but also travelling clothes.

So in this, they're in a very
important place in the organisation

and the ability of communities to
engage in travel and warfare.

It's an issue about the Middle Ages
that has been debated.

Did they have a concept of childhood
that was similar to ours?

At what age did they become adults?

And what were the children's roles?

I think that in the Viking society,

based on the very few pieces of
information we have,

the concept was rather different from
ours when it comes to childhood.

We have found toys from
the Viking Age, wooden toys.

Little horses and boats,
wooden swords and the like.

So there was of course
a time for playing,

but it was also a society

where learning happened
as part of domestic life.

It's quite possible that in many
ways, they were simply perceived

from quite an early age
as just small adults.

In that they would
take on the same roles

as their family members before them,
their extended kinship networks,

and the communities that they lived
within, so they would take part in

agricultural practices, in cleaning
and learning to cook and produce

certain craft items.

These roles, as they were learned,

would probably vary across society.
Especially for higher status children

there might have been an element
of training in warfare,

to become a professional or at least
semi-professional fighter.

And looking at what's
happening in the period,

that would be
quite an important skill.

And, of course, we can expect that
a lot of parents were

deeply attached to their kids,

but I also believe that in many cases
there was a sort of detachment,

especially during the first years.

This is what we notice
in the burial grounds.

Children burials were relatively rare

from early childhood to adolescence.

They are not very present.

Much less present than they should be
considering the infant mortality

estimations we can expect for a
society like this one.

So it's possible that child deaths

were treated in a different way.

Maybe they were buried
in a different way,

not necessarily with the adults.

Apart from this,
I think we can expect,

as in many societies
in Europe at the time,

that childhood was
a time for learning.

And from quite,
what we would call a young age,

perhaps in the mid-teens, children
living in the Viking age might have

actually started to participate
in overseas travel

and, perhaps, raiding.

And this would be part of their
continuing education, as it were,

in warfare and travel.

After the climate crisis,
in this new society,

the role of the sea becomes
increasingly important,

and the people of Scandinavia strive
to travel further and further out,

in search of a better life.

To do this, they need ships
suitable for long journeys.

The Scandinavian people
have known about

shipbuilding techniques
for a long time,

but in the past they have
mainly built rowing boats.

In the 600s, however, in the wake
of the climate crisis,

they learn how to build a new
type of ship. Sailing vessels.

You needed three things to cross
the sea in these large ships:

You had to master the technology
to construct the ships,

a social structure that enabled
the construction of ships,

and you needed people
to crew the ships.

Despite having known about
sailing vessels earlier,

through their contacts with
the Roman Empire,

the Scandinavians didn't copy this,

but, instead, built their own type of
ship, one more suited to their needs.

It was a ship that could
be operated by a small crew,

and had a keel that allowed
beating to windward.

This would prove to be very useful
to the Vikings in the future.

Even though the men built
the actual ships,

the women in Scandinavian society
also played a vital part.

One of the most important elements in
navigation during the Viking Age

is the sail.

The fabrication of the sail itself
requires a lot of work.

The women were tasked
with creating the sails.

From harvesting the wool,
combing the wool,

spinning the wool, and finally
weaving it together.

The sails could also
have contained linen.

It's hundreds of hours of work
for several people.

So the sail in itself is probably one
of the most expensive products

when it comes to building a boat.

Each ship would go through a
number of sails during its lifespan.

Eventually they wore out.

Experimental archaeology is showing
that just to produce or to spin

and weave the wool needed for a
single sail would take someone

working on their own years
of full time work.

What this implies is that there had
to be a level of production

among these societies that actually
in all likelihood far exceeded

the kind of standard
subsistence demands

that were made on them during
everyday life.

After months of hard work,
the new vessels are finished.

Sails have been made, and the first
expeditions are being organised.

We don't have much textual evidence
from the beginning of the Viking Age,

we know more about the end of
the Viking Age.

We see that these expeditions
were prepared collectively.

It was often a group of people,

partners in their undertaking.

We often see it in runic
inscriptions.

Particularly in Sweden, where those
men, who pooled resources

to prepare an expedition or
often to build a ship,

used to call each other "fellag".

It is a word we know in
English as "fellow",

so the partner in this expedition.

And also in those runic inscriptions,
we find the expression,

"to leave for a Viking",

which means going on
an expedition by sea.

It can have different
characteristics,

it can be a commercial or
military expedition.

They don't necessarily differentiate
between the two in the language.

But, generally speaking, this is what
they focus on. It's a group decision

to gather resources to build a ship
and to go on an expedition together.

In order for this structure to
function and for people to have

enough free time to work exclusively
on the construction of ships,

their society must have had an
abundance of resources to ensure that

workers were given food and
housing during construction.

This required a large structure,

perhaps a chieftain,
a wealthy farmer,

or a king that made sure
the ships were built.

But as well as this, you need a crew.

You need someone to operate these
vessels and, when you reach your

destination, to do
what it is you need to do.

We're not quite sure exactly who
participated in these raids.

It could have been almost anyone,
to some extent.

Certainly, I think it's possible that
members of the aristocracy,

for whom an element
of their power depended

on being able to project
a kind of marshal identity.

They might have certainly chosen
to undertake raiding,

taking with them the professional
warriors of their household.

But in addition to this,
if you need to think about

equipping a ship with thirty to forty
or perhaps more individuals,

you might take members of
the local farming community,

so, essentially, we might refer to
them as part time Vikings,

for whom their daily life was
consumed by agricultural work

and, again, subsistence.

But during certain seasons of the
year, there might be the opportunity

to increase your status
and your wealth

by joining one of these expeditions.

And, especially during the early
Viking age, the period where

we see the first raids, I think it's
likely that these ventures were

organised probably more at a
community level.

With relatively small numbers of
people and small numbers of ships,

which is why we see them generally
attacking quite small targets.

With their new ships, the
Scandinavians could finally set sail

across the seas in search
of fortune and a better life.

They were now able to reach more
distant places than ever before.

The first Viking attacks
to be referenced

took place in Western Europe,

in the late eighth century.

Those first Viking attacks take place
mostly on the British islands,

on the coastal areas and tend to
mostly target monasteries.

The monks are blissfully unaware of
what's about to happen.

As the sailing vessels swiftly
approach from the sea.

Raiding the shores, the Vikings prove
just how efficient their ships are.

This is where the ingenious Viking
ships came into use.

They were easily
manoeuvred and fast.

Perhaps they arrived at night and
rowed rapidly and silently.

They could pull the ships onto the
shore, which meant they could

disembark practically anywhere
and then quickly withdraw.

Obviously, monasteries are quite
exposed to this kind of attacks

since they are defenceless and they
hold a lot of portable wealth.

Liturgical objects, books, etc.

Those were made out
of valuable materials,

noble metals, such as silver or gold.

Those are easy to steal.

And they are also easy to turn
into something else.

The most famous Viking raid was
the raid of Lindisfarne,

off the eastern coast of England
in June 793.

A large number of ships practically
sneaked up to the island.

There was a monastery on the
island and the monks believed

themselves to be safe because
they lived on an island that could

only be reached for a brief period
of the day when the tide was low.

Suddenly these Vikings appeared.

They came running with their axes,
hair flowing in the wind, shouting.

The poor monks were completely caught
off guard and many were killed.

The monastery's treasures
were looted.

It is said that they managed to hide
some of the important items,

but most of the monastery
was plundered.

The Vikings brought the loot to their
ships and considered it a success.

This particular raid is so famous
because it was documented

shortly after by one of the surviving
monks who could tell their tale.

He described these terrifying
heathens that came by sea,

almost like monsters, and just looted
and plundered without any respect

for the holy church, or the monks,
or Christianity as a whole.

They simply helped themselves
to things, killed and then withdrew.

The Anglo-Saxon chronicle
especially is quite silent

on what's taking place at this time.

In fact, it was believed for many
years that there was a kind of

pause after the initial raids before
we move into the later ninth century.

But there has been some, what I feel
is really quite convincing,

recent research which has taken into
account a number of charters

concerning Anglo-Saxon Kent,
the southeast of England.

an area where we don't read of
any early Viking attacks.

And, actually, what this research has
shown is that

even in the 790s and early 800s,
the aristocracy and

monasteries are being tasked with
insuring that

they are properly prepared
against people described

as pagans. And in this period,
I'm not sure who else

we would think these people are,
aside from Viking raiders.

And they are told, for example, to
make sure that they

continue to maintain fortifications,
to construct and maintain bridges...

Also actively engage these people

when they encounter them
in the field.

It's quite striking that we
read of none of this

in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

And it's been suggested that,

actually the historical record has
essentially been,

for want of a better word,
whitewashed.

'Cause it's not until slightly later
into the second quarter

of the ninth century that we start to
see a real surge in Viking raiding.

The Vikings had often been
described as pirates.

Violent pillagers who
spread fear and terror

as they set out along the coasts
of Europe in their long ships.

But is the word "pirate" a fitting
description for the Vikings?

When we look at the available
sources from Western Europe,

we see Viking raiders and
raiding parties being

portrayed as incredibly brutal

and unsophisticated groups.

All the clichés of burning
monasteries and killing monks...

But it's quite clear that

even to engage in
this kind of overseas raiding,

a great deal of organisation is
needed both of materials and people.

Pirates are marauders living on their
ships and are considered lawless.

They do not belong to any
social structure.

They do not abide by
any social norms.

The Vikings, on the other hand,
came from a solid social cohesion.

They had their homeland,
their farms, their chieftains.

They were backed by a
strong social structure.

There are quite important
differences,

since Viking expeditions

weren't only about attacking
and plundering others.

They could also be
trade-oriented expeditions.

What is also included in
the Viking phenomenon

is an expansion in a
colonising goal.

Their final goal is to settle.

It's not only about
plundering in the short term.

They simply found a new way
to build wealth.

Plunder by disembarking, looting, and
withdrawing using their ships.

This was considered to be

part of the social
norms for them.

They may have been considered outlaws
in the countries they attacked,

but the Vikings themselves
viewed it as completely normal.

It all depends on how we
define the term "pirate".

If we define it as an armed gang in
possession of a ship

and using it to attack and plunder
other people, cities or other ships,

in this case, yes,
the term fits quite well.

If the Viking phenomenon is
defined in a very simplistic way.

So I think when we're talking about
the early Viking raids,

the term "piracy" is
actually quite apt.

But perhaps not quite in the way
we would understand it today.

I think certainly in Scandinavia
these people would not have been

perceived as acting outside
of the law in any way.

They're not committing violence
among their home communities.

They're going abroad
to take what they seek.

What we're looking at here is fairly
indiscriminate seaborne raiding.

These are groups that are
operating independently,

engaging in opportunistic raiding
in search of plunder

without a sense of
overall strategy.

These very much seem to be at this
time opportunistic seasonal raids.

That doesn't mean they're not
well-organised

and they're not well-planned.

But I think what this kind of model
of seaborne raiding fits into,

it does kind of fit very
well with what we would,

in the modern day, call piracy.

It's really quite interesting to look
at how these groups organise

themselves and how they operate,

especially as we move into
the later ninth century in Europe

where we have lots of
individual Viking groups

which range in size from
a single ship's crew

to a much larger number of ships
coming together

and operating together for
short periods of time

in pursuit of mutual goals.

Before quite suddenly splitting up
to literally sail off

in opposite directions in
pursuit of plunder elsewhere.

And so I think in doing this and
trying to not directly compare,

but to construct analogies
between these groups,

I think that offers quite a
lot to how we understand

these Viking groups and
what they're doing overseas.

It was not uncommon that men
failed to make it home.

Widows raised stones to honour
their husbands

who departed on raids
and never made it back.

The widows would have inherited
their husbands' farms

and possessions and emerged as
significant power-brokers

in society.

When the men were travelling, the
women took responsibility in society.

This required a social structure
that's grounded by women,

to ensure society could function
without the men.

Early on, the Vikings had good
fortune as pillagers,

and they were soon looking for new
areas to plunder for wealth.

But when they start attacking the
coasts of the Frankish Empire,

they suddenly face resistance unlike
any found on the British Isles.

For the ruling emperor here has no
plans of surrendering

his Christian lands
to the pagan pirates.

His name is Charlemagne.

A great climate crisis
in the 6th century

was one factor that
changed Scandinavia,

leading to long-term transformation
of societies and territories...

which provided them the
opportunity further out,

and reach easily plundered
targets, such as monasteries.

They had now become Vikings.

During the 9th century, the Vikings
try to advance into Francia,

something that greatly increases the
violent conflicts between

the Northern pagans
and the Christian Francians,

and sets off a rivalry
between two kings.

When the Vikings begin
attacking Francia,

Charlemagne is determined
not to let plundering pirates

into his country.

And the Francian defences work;

the raiding Vikings are held back at
the coast. At least initially.

But due to tumultuous and
unexpected events in Denmark

as well as in Francia,

the Vikings will finally be able to
travel up the rivers

and further inland.

And soon, great cities
like Paris are under attack.

Subtitles: Lily Ray
www.plint.com