Grave of headless Vikings discovered in England

That's funny, I never heard this neo-Nazi suspicion raised about other neo-pagans like the Druids gathering on the solstice at Stonehenge >

> but I'll take your word for it, and Saab's of course.

Absolute dribble. The long ship sailed to iceland, the americas, ireland, down france, across into what is now Russia and down the rivers to and out into the mediterranean in all sorts of weather. Recreations based on originals show they skimmed across the waves rather than riding in it, more like a surfboard than a ship. It enabled the long boat to be in waves that were large and faster than the boat. This makes a long boat very seaworthy even in the bad weather of the north atlantic. The sails were far more trimmable than was first thought and the oars added to its ability to steer. This plus tests comparing viking wet weather gear has found it slightly better than modern gear, but a lot heavier. It did have added advantage of where it involved sheep skins, they would dry from the inside out, rather than most material which dries from the outside in.

We might be at different vantage points. saab is promoting a new religion. As far as I know the nazis were not interested in druids as much as they were the Teutonic Knights, the Templars, hell they even managed to fit the ancient greeks into their cockabull story of aryan superiority, totally ignorant of the fact that the majority of the aryan invasion of Europe and India consisted of "dark caucasians" (for want of a better description). Pprobably the best people to look at in modern times for an Aryan would be Iran and north west india.

The druids at stonehenge in modern times are a far more harmless and peace loving lot than the nazis.

In 985, Erik Thorvaldsson (Erik Raudi, or Erik the Red) lead settlers from Iceland to Greenland to found his colony. One of them, Herjolf Bardsson, was a "retired" merchant--meaning he traded in Iceland, but no longer went to sea. His son Bjarni Herjolfsson went to sea, and brought the goods back to Iceland to be traded. Typically, he would "overwinter" one year in Norway, and then bring the goods back to Iceland, overwintering there before returning to Norway.

In the summer of 985, when he returned to Iceland, he found a message from his father that he (Herjolf) had gone out to Greenland, and giving him the latitude and the sailing instructions. Bjarni started out with most of the trade goods he had brought from Norway, and those members of his crew who were willing to stay with him. He was blown off course, though, and when he finally sailed free of bad weather, he found himself on a strange coast. We now know that he was on the coast of what we call Newfoundland. He sailed up the coast, and the coast of Labrador, and when he had reached the proper latitude, he turned east and sailed for Greenland, making landfall at Herjolfness, where his father had set up at the southern end of the new settlements.

About a dozen years later, Leif Erikkson bought Bjarni's ship from him, and got information from him about the lands he had seen in the summer of 985. So, about 997 (the date is disputed), Leif sailed almost directly to the coast of Newfoundland, and found what came to be known as Vinland the Good. Leaving aside all of the controversies about exactly where it was, and focusing only on the story i am presenting you, this lead to an expedition in about 1002. There had been a falling out between Leif and his father Erik, and Leif wouldn't give anyone information on where his Vinland was located. So, his brother Thorvald Eriksson, his bastard half-sister Fredis Eriksdottir with two Icelandic traders, and an Icelandic trader named Thorfinn Karlsefni sailed to the Labrador coast and then sailed south looking for Leif's Vinland.

The winter before, Thorfinn had brought a cargo to Greenland, and there he had met Gudrid Thorbjornirsdottir, a daughter of an old friend of Erik, who had come out to Greenland, and met and married Erik's son Thorstein. Gudrid and Thorstein had gone up the west coast of Greenland two years earlier to some land Thorstein had claimed there, but Thorstein died of disease over the winter, and Gudrid was now a widow, but the owner of valuable lands in Greenland. Thorfinn married her, and she accompanied him on the expedition to find Vinland. Their son was born in Newfoundland, and the settlement site (obviously not Leif's Vinland) has been found on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland, at Anse aux Meadows.

Once again, leaving aside the historical controversies, i thought you might enjoy reading a relatively reliable historical novel about Gudrid. It is entitled The Sea Road, by Margaret Elphinstone. I have some doubts about the saga sources she used, but by and large, she hews to the historical evidence about Gudrid, and there can be no doubt that Gudrid was real, and that she lived the life Miss Elphinstone has described for her, although Miss Elphinstone has certainly taken literary license, as one can expect from an historical novel.

You should be able to get it through your local library, and i'm sure you would enjoy it.

Once again, you demonstrate how little you know about history. It was not the long ships which sailed to Iceland, Greenland and the Americas. It was the knorrir and the karvs. I'm not surprised, though, at this evidence of just one more subject about which you are hopelessly ignorant, but want to pretend you know well.

EDIT: C.f., Westviking, Farley Mowat, Toronto and New York, 1965.

By the way, Stonehenge is nothing

nothing

to do with druids.

Except nowadays, where they gather there and arse around on the solstice.

But originally, no. Stonehenge was built long before the druids surfaced in merrie old England.

Anyone suggesting that your ancestors can't have been Vikings because your ancestors were Christian is simply displaying ignorance. Olaf Tryggvason was a notorious Viking, and yet he is also the man who forced

____________________________________________________________

Sentanta
I said following
I am a Swede with Danish and Norwegiean relatives. That is real a Viking decendent isn´t it.
I did not mention one word about Christianity did I?

The Vikings were so impressed by the beauty of the Christian Churches, the large buildings and art and maybee also the candles, so they became Christians.
This does not mean that they just turned 100%. Some did, others just included God and Jesus to the rest of the Nordic Gods and all seemed to get along just fine.
It took about 3-4 generations - almost 100 years - until the believers in Nordic Gods were fully Christians.

You don´t have to point out about Olaf Tryggvarson. I know about him.
But don´t mix him up with St. Olaf( Haraldson) who is respected by Catholics as well as Protestants. There are many St. Olaf churches even in Sweden and also St. Olaf is partron saint if I am not wrong.
There is a St. Olaf College in Northfield Minnesota even. Founded by Lutherans.

Lonus was in no way complaining about Christians - he came up with a good remark regarding the Vikings and my visit to Dublin

Yes, the Druids came much later - that's clear from the Arthurian legends, where Merlin is said to have been praying to the old Roman deities. Dublin castle is said to be built on an old stone circle as well. What were the builders of Stonehenge believe in, do you know?

From Mowat's Westviking:

The ships used by the western voyagers were trading vessels--knorrir as the type was called throughout the Scandinavian world. The knorr was a plebian [sic] relative of the aristocratic Viking longship, for both sprang from a common ancestry in the little clinker-built skiffs of the northern fiords . . .

Longships were fit to terrify entire populations of landsmen, and their dragon-beaks could be thrust into the most protected bays, and even far up rivers running into the very heart of alien lands. But they were quite unfit to face the violence of the open sea where the only terror they could engender was in the hearts of their own passengers and crews. Countless Hollywood films, historical novels and even staid histories notwithstanding, the longship was a seafaring man's abomination and was seldom voluntarily hazarded far from the comforting shelter of land except under conditions of dire necessity. Inordinately long and narrow and with almost no freeboard, the longship either broke her back or swamped if she met really heavy weather.

page 344, Apendix E, "Norse Sea-going Ships." Westviking, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto, 1965.

I don't think anybody knows that.

Good question...it is a grey area, but stonehenge seems to have involved birth, death and rebirth based on steller cycles and human lifes. There was a cemetary there, and it has been suggested the stone-henge was based on death, and the wood-henge was based on birth. The river also seems to have been involved.

Stone henge was built by neolithic people wereas the druids were the priests in the celtic culture, and we know of them from the iron age mainly. The disappearance of large numbers of the neolithic people of britain seems to have been brought about by climate, but nothing is certain. An interesting area.

Damn, youse a dumb bunny. The knorr (knorrir) and karvs ARE long ships. The name long ship or long boat is based on the ratio of their length and width. Once again, you demonstrate how little you know about history. I'm not surprised, though, at this evidence of just one more subject about which you are hopelessly ignorant, but want to pretend you know well.

Not even close ! The knorr was a trader and the raiding ship was known as a drakkar. This is going to come as a shock to you so I hope you are sitting down, long ship is modern english ! I hope that wasnt too hard on the old ticker....Long ship as a term encompases all ships made in the area that have a particular type of build and ratio.

No they're not, you demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about this subject. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to take the word of a foul-mouthed gobshite from Oz over that of an internationally recognized scholar like Mowat.

What a clown.

Right . . . you contradict Mowat, and we're supposed to accept the claims of some idiot from Oz who tries to play know it all on just about any thread he sees here? Get a clue . . .

Yes they are. You demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about this subject. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to take the word of a foul-mouthed gobshite from US ? You have read one book and google couldnt help so you are in a panic. Unfortunately for you **** for brains, you are on two thread topics now that I am very familiar with. Take your lumps, admit you are wrong and dont know what you are talking about and move on.

You read one book and you are an expert ? We're supposed to accept the claims of some idiot from US who tries to play know it all on just about any thread he sees here? Get a clue . . . Have you even noticed how you use a topic to rave on about the most removed subjects. You have turned a topic on a civil war photograph into a thread on Napoleon. Your posts are full of long winded surperfluous bullshit that can be got from google, just like you did. Why do you bother ? Because you are such a pathetic little dick you think that you are making yourself look big...the truth is rather obvious. Your knowledge is limited to a quick reference to google.

Mowat's book isn't the only book on the subject of the Norse and the sagas which i have read. It is simply the most well-research and convincing book on the subject that i've ever read. So far, as usual, you have provided zero sources for your claims.

I consider a discussion of Norse sailing vessels and their sagas to be very appropriate to a thread about Vikings. Maybe you could go down to the library and get someone to explain that to you.

As far as I can find out in Swedish we call all the ships in daily use Vikingaskepp. The longboats were used for war. They could take between 100 and 300 men, food and water. Sailed fast - like Norway to Schleswig Holstein in 5 days. Had to land about every 5th day to get fresh water and food. You certainly could sail a long distance along the Europeans coasts with a longship even if you had to stop every 5th day.
Another longship was called Knarr and took about 30 men, livestock and things to trade. These were used for trading and could be used for like going to Iceland and Greenland.
There were also other types.

Sentanta, why are you so arrogant when someone says something which you don´t agree on?

That's true, and I can't understand why schoolchildren are still told that Columbus discovered the Americas - the Vikings are known to have landed on the main continent, which Columbus never did, and to have done it many centuries before him. When do we correct that mistake in the history books?