Yes the term “Viking” is a modern adaptation of noble savages and is mostly myth.
The Saxon’s called them the Dene and the Slaves and Arabs called them the Rus’, and the English tended to call them the Northmen or Danes but the story is probably much more complicated then that.
The common story about Rurik as an example, which is suppose to be the viking that helped unify Russian tribes as an example is problematic because genetically he appears to be an ethnic Finn of haplotype N1c1.
While physical artifacts like the The Gårdstånga Stone demonstrate that there were people called vikings most of the history is muddled by a lack of written accounts, a modern desire to trace linage to the Vikings and an inexact labeling of the groups in general.
This was a brutal period in this area of the world, but even the Anglo-Scandinavian which is used by academic papers in recent times is problematic due to the Finno-Ugric origin of the Rurikids.
Related to the OP, most books that are our there will be colored by these biases either in descriptions of the events or in a desire to connect one’s history to this group. Genetics is invalidating a lot of the previous claims, so if you want an accurate story you may just have to wait for a few years or be OK with the unfortunate reality that we may never have the full story.
The reason slavery was eventually banned in Europe was to prevent Christian slaves from being sold to non-christian aka Muslim groups. Sale of Christian slaves was restricted to non-Christian groups then the prohibition of slavery in general happened over time.
The Volga trade route between the Varangians and the Arabs, which directly relates to this.
To whoever would buy them, of course. E.g., slaves were taken from north/east Europe to sell to Persians and such. But many slaves were kept within the Norse communities. And they didn’t necessarily stay slaves all their lives. People could and did earn their freedom.
Actually just the opposite. The period from ~900-1300( dates variable depending who you talk to )was the Medieval Warm Period. The net result may have been much the same though. Instead of starvation forcing their hand, an abundance of food seems to have encouraged a population explosion instead. Expanding population that was resource limited in other ways, including socially, may have been a significant driver in overseas expansion/colonization. Something like lots of younger sons looking to establish themselves.
William the Conqueror was of Viking extraction and he ‘conquered’ the whole of Britain.
Though he spoke a dialect of French and grew up in Normandy, a fiefdom loyal to the French kingdom, William and other Normans descended from Scandinavian invaders. William’s great-great-great-grandfather, Rollo, pillaged northern France with fellow Viking raiders in the late ninth and early 10th centuries, eventually accepting his own territory (Normandy, named for the Norsemen who controlled it) in exchange for peace.
There was an entire Renaissance in Europe that was in large part funded by the sale of captured Slavs/Finns to Muslim Spain. This is another example where the Vikings are debased for doing similar, immoral actions as Charlemagne and the parties that are often depicted as being innocent victims. But that is because the Frankish view is the one we are presented, and the history is far more complex.
I did find this dissertation which will help show how overly simplified the common narrative is.
Themselves, mostly, but they sold to anyone else who wanted one.
Ibn Hawqal, an Arab geographer, described a Viking slave trade in 977 A.D. that extended across the Mediterranean from Spain to Egypt. Others recorded that slaves from northern Europe were funneled from Scandinavia through Russia to Byzantium and Baghdad. Slave trading was still common in Western Europe. Also, the modern word “thrall,” as in “to be enthralled,” descends from the Norse word for slave.
PS. It seems Christians were totally cool with trading slaves, unless those slaves were themselves Christian.
PSS. Ibn Hawqal was not the guy from the movie. That was Ibn Fadlan.
Others, of course, would end upsacrificedwhen their master died (possibly after having other horrific things done to them) so let’s not pretend the Norse (happy, DrDeth?) were all “social mobility and kittens”, yeah?
Also, one big source of thralls was the children of thralls, so they weren’t *that *mobile. It’s probable skilled craftsmen and debt slaves from within the community were much more likely to win freedom than menial labourers and foreigners.
Slavery often meant different things in different cultures; Roman slaves could have their own possessions and possibly end up buying their freedom. Slaves in the USA were basically like the furniture, no rights at all. Some slave classes were well educated. Slavery was sometims a concept, before the welfare state, that ensured everyone was taken care of.
I’m trying to imagine how many slaves could be transported any decent distance in those Viking longboats unless they could help with the rowing…?
Based on the fact that longships were often used as troop transports, written accounts seem to suggest they could take about 30 men in addition to the rowers, of which there were generally 13 to 16 per side depending on size of ship. Of course, a Viking leader would command several ships, so a raiding fleet would often hold hundreds of warriors and probably several dozen captives.
If you were a Roman house slave, like a tutor, you had rights and life might actually be better than a plebe subsisting on the grain allowance.
if you were working on a farm or in the mines, life was nasty, brutish and hell.
And see, you have found one of the big issues with Romand slavery vs American slavery. Altho of course the Romans did think they were better than the Germans or the Gauls, by no means did they think those peoples were subhuman. They were just unlucky. They lost a war, thus - slave. If you were freed or bought your freedom, you were OK.
In American slavery, the black slaves werent even considered fully human. Slavery was their lot. Even after getting freed they were looked down upon.
But thankfully short. See ? There’s always a silver lining !
Not sure that’s true however. By legal right, Roman (and Greek) slaves were unpeople. Items. Property. “A tool that speaks”, in the parlance of the time. Slaves had to carry a slate around their necks informing people of their status and who their master was. And though they could be freed, a freed slave was still considered to owe their life to their masters and were still required to do shit for them until the day either of them died, and that debt passed on to offspring too. The children of slaves were slaves, no question about it. And former slaves or descendants of slaves were treated kindasorta like the Japanese treat *bunrakumin - *there’s no actual law saying you’re lesser people, but you still very much are.
I do agree however that they didn’t think of it in racial terms at all however, and maybe that’s your point wrt the difference w/ American slavery.
No need for long-ships probably, as Prague used the the Danube, and Venice would have been easier over land for the Frankish slavers. IIRC cities that rose due to the slave trade like Cadiz were much later.
Prohibition of trade with Muslims and Pagans probably did force the sea route, but I would bet that small boats on the Volga were far more common when trade was blocked.
Unfortunately outside of economic historians the topic is taboo but the caravans of Slavic slaves through the Alps to Lyon is documented.
The trade of slaves was so common throughout Europe in the early Middle Ages that it is doubtful that the Vikings were a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of people who were sold through the normal economic channels.
History is not always written by the victors, and the Vikings/Norse are a good example. They conquered most of Britain, and even after the rise of Alfred they controlled half of modern England. Then they conquered the whole thing again. But they didn’t leave much of their own writing, and numerous copies of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle survived, so the history of Viking Britain was largely written by the losers (that is, the Saxons). Of course, after 1066 England was under Norman control, and so the history of that period was written by the Normans.
Everyone born in Rome itself was a citizen, unless a slave. And most of Italia.
Freedmen were former slaves who had gained their freedom. They were not automatically given citizenship and lacked some privileges such as running for executive magistracies. The children of freedmen and women were born as free citizens; for example, the father of the poet Horace was a freedman.