Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 10th, 2017, 02:20 AM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,053

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
'Horse Vikings'? Germany?

Starting to lose me there my friend.
The early viking raids were purely seaborne and, back home, their horses were small but by the 10th century they had adapted to also fight territorial battles in places like Ireland and had introduced cavalry. At the Battle of Sulcoit in Ireland in 968 they were referred to as the Champions. By the 11th century, they had developed heavy cavalry which they used effectively at Hastings.

Click the image to open in full size.
authun is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 10th, 2017, 01:47 PM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,752

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
'Horse Vikings'? Germany?

Starting to lose me there my friend.
What I wrote is: the "horse vikings" - the Magyars.

I think that my meaning that they were horseback raiders who were the land based equivalent of the sea based viking raiders should be obvious. Thus they were the "vikings" of the land, on horseback. The land equivalent of vikings.

Anthun said:

Quote:
The early viking raids were purely seaborne and, back home, their horses were small but by the 10th century they had adapted to also fight territorial battles in places like Ireland and had introduced cavalry. At the Battle of Sulcoit in Ireland in 968 they were referred to as the Champions. By the 11th century, they had developed heavy cavalry which they used effectively at Hastings.
Since I posted:

Quote:
the "horse vikings" - the Magyars.
It should have been obvious I was writing about a non Scandinavian ethnic group. And since I named the ethnic group as:

Quote:
the Magyars
their identity is obvious. They raided south to the Balkans and west to western Europe plundering Germany, Italy, France and even Spain.

During this period Muslims also raided western Europe, including areas raided by vikings and Magyars. Muslim raiders sacked Rome in 846 and established emirates in Sicily and southern Italy.

One legend claims that King Conrad the Peaceful of Burgundy handled simultaneous Muslim and Magyar raids by getting them to fight each other and then attacking the survivors.

The Magyars stopped raiding western Europe after being defeated at the Battle of Lechfeld in 955.

Last edited by MAGolding; January 10th, 2017 at 02:17 PM.
MAGolding is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 11:15 PM   #23

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,880

It's not obvious. Obviously I know a little bit about the Magyars but I didn't see them as Vikings.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 11:45 PM   #24
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,053

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
It should have been obvious I was writing about a non Scandinavian ethnic group. And since I named the ethnic group as:
Attaching the label 'viking' to any group of raiders is not something I am familiar with. Who else does this? Your inclusion of the term Magyar was more puzzling than illuminating. Attacising, eg Comnena referring to Franks as Kelts for her audience Athens is well known. Just never heard it applied to Magyars.
authun is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 11:55 PM   #25

History Craft's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Romania
Posts: 1,636

I find the association of magyar and viking weird as well. Viking means ''sea attacker'', ''pirate'' and that's the first thing you think of when hearing ''viking'', that's the thing that allowed them to be such successful invaders, such effective raiders, their sea traveling abilities.

When you think magyar, you think bow, arrow and horse, another mechanism that allowed many invaders, raiders to be very successful.

Last edited by History Craft; January 11th, 2017 at 01:05 AM.
History Craft is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 02:26 AM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,087

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
It's not obvious. Obviously I know a little bit about the Magyars but I didn't see them as Vikings.
It was obvious in the context to me, because:
- "horse vikings" was in quotation marks, thus more of a poetic comparison rather than a serious label.
- it was followed by - the Magyars -, spelling out the ethnic group being referred to.
- in some Viking era raid maps they also show Magyar raids, sometimes even the Arab raids around the Mediterranean, so that narrative connection between those raiding groups was already established in my mind (https://ballandalus.files.wordpress....ury_europe.jpg)

Raiders on horseback rather than raiders on ships. Not Vikings as in Scandinavian sea-borne raiders, but vikings as raiders, in the looser context. Kinda like you could say "horse Anglo-Saxons" - the Rohirrim - when talking about The Lord of the Rings, while the literary Rohirrim themselves obviously are not the historical Anglo-Saxons (following JRR Tolkien's framing device of this having all happened thousands of years ago, and he simply translated the Rohirric speech into old Anglo-Saxon), and you would not associate cavalry-heavy armies with the historical Anglo-Saxons, quite the opposite (re: Battle of Hastings).

Anyway, just wanted to give a view from the other side of the 'obviousness' divide.
Whyte is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 06:05 AM   #27

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyte View Post
It was obvious in the context to me, because:
- "horse vikings" was in quotation marks, thus more of a poetic comparison rather than a serious label.
- it was followed by - the Magyars -, spelling out the ethnic group being referred to.
- in some Viking era raid maps they also show Magyar raids, sometimes even the Arab raids around the Mediterranean, so that narrative connection between those raiding groups was already established in my mind (https://ballandalus.files.wordpress....ury_europe.jpg)

Raiders on horseback rather than raiders on ships. Not Vikings as in Scandinavian sea-borne raiders, but vikings as raiders, in the looser context. Kinda like you could say "horse Anglo-Saxons" - the Rohirrim - when talking about The Lord of the Rings, while the literary Rohirrim themselves obviously are not the historical Anglo-Saxons (following JRR Tolkien's framing device of this having all happened thousands of years ago, and he simply translated the Rohirric speech into old Anglo-Saxon), and you would not associate cavalry-heavy armies with the historical Anglo-Saxons, quite the opposite (re: Battle of Hastings).

Anyway, just wanted to give a view from the other side of the 'obviousness' divide.
Thanks for clearing that up
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 03:32 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,752

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyte View Post
It was obvious in the context to me, because:
- "horse vikings" was in quotation marks, thus more of a poetic comparison rather than a serious label.
- it was followed by - the Magyars -, spelling out the ethnic group being referred to.
- in some Viking era raid maps they also show Magyar raids, sometimes even the Arab raids around the Mediterranean, so that narrative connection between those raiding groups was already established in my mind (https://ballandalus.files.wordpress....ury_europe.jpg)

Raiders on horseback rather than raiders on ships. Not Vikings as in Scandinavian sea-borne raiders, but vikings as raiders, in the looser context. Kinda like you could say "horse Anglo-Saxons" - the Rohirrim - when talking about The Lord of the Rings, while the literary Rohirrim themselves obviously are not the historical Anglo-Saxons (following JRR Tolkien's framing device of this having all happened thousands of years ago, and he simply translated the Rohirric speech into old Anglo-Saxon), and you would not associate cavalry-heavy armies with the historical Anglo-Saxons, quite the opposite (re: Battle of Hastings).

Anyway, just wanted to give a view from the other side of the 'obviousness' divide.
Thank you. I guess next time I'll have to think twice before using any kind of metaphor to emphasis that the Magyars were just as bad for Europe as the vikings until being defeated by Otto the Great. I suppose it is a good thing I didn't call them "the 10th century Mongol hordes" or "the medieval Assyrians".

Last edited by MAGolding; January 11th, 2017 at 03:35 PM.
MAGolding is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 11:36 PM   #29

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,880

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
Thank you. I guess next time I'll have to think twice before using any kind of metaphor to emphasis that the Magyars were just as bad for Europe as the vikings until being defeated by Otto the Great. I suppose it is a good thing I didn't call them "the 10th century Mongol hordes" or "the medieval Assyrians".
No offence!

My take on the Magyars is that they moved west in numbers large enough to defeat any forces in their way and were stopped at the Al Andalus side of the Spanish March by the border castles - Huescar, Graus, Monzon etc - then just after in the north by Otto the Great of course.

I don't think it says that much about the brilliance of the Spanish muslim castles (presumably the Magyars had taken a few castles along the way), more about overstretch - the further you go west more and more people will drop out and going beyond the Pyrenees was probably not supportable.

The Vikings, however, though with similar ruthlessness and table manners, relied on striking in raiding parties (small or large) where there was no standing army to outnumber them. Relied on the other side not knowing where they were going to strike. Once these places had standing armies and navies to move quickly it became more difficult (Franks, Cordoba)

Ultimately they just relied on migrating to other countries - Scotland, England, Ireland, Normandy etc - and becoming part of the landscape.

Another possibility with the Magyars is that maybe they could hardly ever take castles, they just ravaged the countryside and moved on - which again can only last so long and your rear areas will be picked off bit by bit. Prior to the age of cannon, taking even a small castle, if well-proportioned, was no easy task even for the largest army, without proper siege catapults, scaling towers or the ability to build them.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 12th, 2017, 12:32 AM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,087

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Another possibility with the Magyars is that maybe they could hardly ever take castles, they just ravaged the countryside and moved on - which again can only last so long and your rear areas will be picked off bit by bit. Prior to the age of cannon, taking even a small castle, if well-proportioned, was no easy task even for the largest army, without proper siege catapults, scaling towers or the ability to build them.
While Wikipedia is what it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungar...ions_of_Europe
in the timeline section, it mentions also occupying, burning and destroying towns and cities, too. In other cases, only the surroundings of the cities are mentioned. Probably it depended a lot on the situation.

I can see why towns and cities (if not too well fortified) would be tempting targets for raiders: loot! However, castles tend to be heavily fortified and better manned, and might even be light on the loot. So it would be easy to see why raiders would prefer to bypass them, since they will be living off the land anyway and are confident in smashing any army on the open field.

What is clear is that these were plundering expeditions, mainly, not about territorial conquest. Latter-day huns, if you will allow the poetic comparison. Extorting the surrounding kingdoms to pay tribute or else.

EDIT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brenta

"After this victory the whole Italian Kingdom lied on the mercy of the Hungarians. With no Italian army to oppose them, the Hungarians decided to spend the mild winter in Italy, continuing to attack monasteries, castles and cities, trying to conquer them, like they did before they had started to be chased by Berengar's army."

So looks like they were able and willing to besiege.

Last edited by Whyte; January 12th, 2017 at 12:43 AM.
Whyte is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
attack, beach, danmark, frankia, german, vikings, village, west



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why didn't Napoleon attack St. Petersburg(the capital of Russian Empire)? Mrbsct War and Military History 4 April 15th, 2015 08:19 AM
Why didn't Germany attack Switzerland? Watson War and Military History 27 May 15th, 2013 04:55 PM
Why didn't some of the european powers attack the 13 colonies right after the AR? randomdude123 American History 33 March 12th, 2013 03:36 AM
Why didn't West Germany have a army? ND4 European History 3 August 13th, 2011 10:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.