Berserkers

[xzyx]

I'm not sure if you guys already know, or if there's alreay a post about this, but the bersekers as we know them- blood thirsty warriors who charge halk naked at the enemy lines- are just a myth. If you want proofs, jus tread the 4-book serie "Saxon Chronicles" (or something like that) from Bernard Cornwell. It is historically accurate, and right in the first book "The Last Kingdom" (I'm translating so it might be slightly different) he states that those warriors never existed. Nevertheless, they would be an interesting, tough ahistorical, unit to have in the game. I'm not saying you should remove them, but that they never existed.

[beikon]

Here are some things from Wikipedia.

In 1015 Jarl Eiríkr Hákonarson of Norway outlawed berserkers. Grágás, the medieval Icelandic law-code, sentenced berserker warriors to outlawry. By the 1100s, organized berserker warbands had disappeared.

King Harald Fairhair's use of berserker "shock troops" broadened his sphere of influence. Other Scandinavian kings used berserkers as part of their army of hirdmen and sometimes ranked them as equivalent to a royal bodyguard. It may be that some of those warriors only adopted the organization or rituals of berserk warbands or used the name as a deterrent or claim of their ferocity.


Vendel era bronze plate found on Öland

The bad thing about RTW that berserkers didn't existed on that period of time so it's kinda lame having berserkers in that game.

That bronze plate and about those two kings of Norway are enough proof for me to believe that berserkers exsisted.

I've read history from the 14century (1300-1399) and it tells about berserker and here is about Icelandic hero named Egill Skallagrímsson and I've seen his grave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egill_Skallagr%C3%ADmsson

I'd rather believe on a book from the 14century writen by Icelandic man then a book from the 20/21century writen by some English/American man.

Though one man states something didn't exsist it dosen't mean that he is right.
Bernard Cornwell would need to read so many books and find so many artifacts and gather so much info before he can state something didn't exsist.

[GatorMarine1833]

I agree here with beikon, there are too many stories, chronicles, tales, writings and various sources that mention berserkers as being real to say that they were myth.

There are stories that also are implied to be berserkers, though they aren't necessarily defined as such. For example King Olaf Trygvasson (SP?) had men on his ship that were so ferocious and worked up into such a bloodthirsty rage that once the enemy ships (this is a sea battle) neared them they forgot they were fighting and sea and charged at them. Incidentally they fell into the sea and drowned.

There's also the lone berserker who held Stamford Bridge single-handedly while his comrades made ready to face the Anglo-Saxons.

Harald Hardrada is also said to have a group of berserkers amongst his men when he invaded England.

There's also a document (can't recall what it was from) that mentions a viking man who had 8 sons, but was extremely unlucky because they all grew up to be berserkers.

[beikon]

Yea that berserker on Stamford Bridge, saw it on history channel where they played the fight and told the history of this battle and such, amazing battle.

[xzyx]

ehr...dude please don't tell me you actually trust wikipedia more than cornwell, right? I mean...I could have written that and faked that drawing if I wanted too...it just needs to look real, but not necessarily be real to be accepted into wikipedia...history channel is *usually* correct, tough

[beikon]

Well, I trust wikipedia more then a one man that I don't know which is and it's not all from wikipedia, I'm from Iceland and I know about Icelandic history and sometimes it is good to lay down in the sofa and watch the history channel.

Berserkers sometimes hurted themselves to get angry and Egill had Pagets's disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paget%27s_disease_of_bone) this is true from wikipedia because I've read the book about Egill, so Egill could get angry with this injury and if you tell that berserkers didn't exsist then you're telling Egill Skallagrímsson didn't exsist, I've seen Egill's grave so who could be right Bernard or Egill's grave?

When I hurt myself or someone dose hurt me I do get angry and I want revenge, I want to kill, I've needed to take drugs that my doctor put me on to make me calm, so there is a proof in men mind that berserkers exsisted.

I don't get it why you believe on Bernard more then others history teachers and people that have an hobby for history and who work with history.

I could just say Jesus never exsisted because his flesh, bones and ashes was never found, I don't think many people would be happy with that do ya?

[Kjartan The Wolf]

ummm, xzyx, don't tell me that you acctually trust everything Cornwell says.
Ive got his book "The Last Kingdom" right here infront of me and ive read his endnotes about berserkers behaving like lunatic nudist who run into battle like madmen being a myth.... Well then yes that would have to be a myth because I have never read anything from the old sources that suggest that berserkers fought tottally nude, wtf??

Berserker is said to either mean bear shirt (men who fight in bearskin) or bare shirt (bare of shirt or armor) even so, bare shirt does not imply the total nakedness that Cornwell is suggesting.
I think Cornwell is confusing berserkers with ancient celts who did rush into battle like madmen tottally nude. In the same paragraph Cornwell also claims that the tourture known as the "spread eagle" is also a myth. Well first off the tourture was called the blood eagle not the spread eagle so I think he is also wrong and thinking about something else there too. How he thinks he can make such a sweeping unfounded statement as claiming that no berserkers ever exsisted is beyond me.

As has already been said there is just too much mention of the berserkers in the sagas and the eddas to say something as ridiculous as "oh they're just a myth". Thats like saying that Jesus was just a man myth, made up from scratch by some storytellers. They both obviously have some real origins. For example, a chess set from just after the time period of the vikings was found on the isle of man that portrays berserkers biting at the shield rim as they are so often described doing before battle. That picture above that you claim anybody could just draw is acttually from a real grave however it is from quite a bit before the Viking period.

about the battle of stamford bridge, I dont know if you know this but it was actually the Norsemen's enemies the Saxons who documented the Viking warrior holding the bridge alone. The Saxons obviously thought that this warriors' berserk like behavior was significant enough to mark down in their own historic records, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles- if you want to look it up at its source.

There is alot of hype around the berserkers that if taken litterally by modern day people like this Cornwell and his sheep, well then yes, you would think berserkers were mythological. For example berskers are described as being immune to the bite of steel and fire, some can take the form of a bear in the mist of battle, they have the strength of 10 men, and so on. You have to understand the norse poetic verse to understand these seemingly mythological berserker attributes. When a runestone in Sweden says "Helgi traveled to the east with Ingvar where they fed raven and wolf" it doesn't mean that they litterally fed some birds it just means they killed men in the east. The Norse poets/skalds were just useing poetic phrases like these to potray the great battle prowess of the real berserker warriors of the time.

Some people will also make retarded statements like "oh, well, there isn't any archaeological evidence" ...Ya think??? what kind of evidence would they be looking for? A double handed Axe with a runic inscription saying "this belongs to berserker!". What might be interesting for some of you reading this, is that they have found skeletons of norse males all killed young who had filed teeth modification, the first known of its kind in europe http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1554761.htm This could be some form of warrior initiation, perhaps berserker.

As was also stated earlier the berserkers and their warrior rituals were eventually outlawed. I don't think when a king outlaws a practice in his country that the men outlawed are mythological. Seems more like a real problem, real warriors, and a real historic event to me.
The berserkers did exsist, they were a very select group of radical pagan warriors devoted to Odin that inspired alot of hype because they were overly violent in a violent age and kicked ass on the battlefield. They were also violent off the battlefield, most berserkers are described as killers and muraders who terrorized the people. when christianity came towards the end of the Viking period the people were so afraid of the old pagan berserkers and their violent reputation that all the christians cried and sucked thumb until the king finally decieded to ban the "heathen" practice. Ofcoarse the memory of the once fearsome heathen berserker warriors lived on long after they were gone and their secrets lost. Their imaige ended up on the chess set found on the isle of man and we can only speculate now as to why they were such a fearsome force to be reckoned with by even the Vikings themselves.

So xzyx, stop being such a little sheep who listens to every unfounded statement a shepard makes claiming that berserkers didn't exsist when you know nothing of the history or culture yourself. Go out, be a wolf and find your own information before you come post in here on a Viking mod forum and make yourself look like an ass.

[beikon]

I read they used wolf fur not bear fur, it would be really hard to kill a bear at that age of time.

[gowski]

I have heard they mainly used wolf, bear being much more rare and, I speculate, more prestigious. One interesting and funny story was how the berserkers would be so worked up and ready for battle while at sea that they often landed the ships so the berserkers could get off to go fight rocks and trees to calm themselves down. Now, in my opinion, you can't make that kind of stuff up!

[mocker]

Screw History Channel with a mighty fork of screwing.

[beikon]

Well, I like history channel, and I was getting alot of Icelandic books who are about time of vikings and their gods.

[xzyx]

lol at my edition of the book (in portuguese) they translated it to him saying they actually didn't exist...by the way, never trust wikipedia---I got a D once for trusting it...and once I searched it and it said micronesia was part of G-8...anyway cornwell is *usually* either correct or he corrects himself in the historical notes. History channel is a good source also, and so is discovery channel...but wikipedia is as good as any anonymous site on the internet...can be right but can also be wrong and should not be taken as reliable

[xzyx]

I have heard they mainly used wolf, bear being much more rare and, I speculate, more prestigious. One interesting and funny story was how the berserkers would be so worked up and ready for battle while at sea that they often landed the ships so the berserkers could get off to go fight rocks and trees to calm themselves down. Now, in my opinion, you can't make that kind of stuff up!

always remember that famous Napoleon Bonarparte quote: "History is a set of lies agreed upon", and making that up would be easier than you thought...

P.S: sorry for the double post...Im still a newbie at how do you do these things like quoting or editing

[GatorMarine1833]

OK, so if history is easy to make up, why believe One man's statement (a historical novelist at that, not even a dedicated professional historian or archeologist), who isn't even particularly known as a major expert on that subject, over the statements of hundreds of people, primary sources, skalds, tales, epics, poems, pieces of art, chronicles, and modern professional historians and archaeologists? There's no reason to hold one novelists opinion over everyone who actually existed in that time and everyone who studies that time period professionally.

Wikipedia is fine, as long as it isn't your ONLY source. Wikipedia is being used here as the easiest source to access that corroborates the dozens of sources everyone else in this thread has either seen or read.

I'm not trying to argue or insult here, but honestly, explain to me your logic here because it makes no sense to me.

PS: To gowski - Harald Hardrada's berserkers were said to have worn wolf skins, but others have been said to have bear skins. I don't recall whose champion this was, but the one who supposedly turned into a bear that was impervious to harm in the midst of battle wore bear skin.

[Kjartan The Wolf]

Listen, cornwell is wrong on this topic and its that simple. His description of berserkers fighting in the nude is totally wrong and not supported by any of the norse sources. This suggest that cornwell really is baseing his statement off of what he thinks he knows about berserkers or what he has heard about berserkers or he is just pulling info out of his arse, just like he did with his description of the blood eagle or his "spread eagle", the battle of ethandun, and so on throughout the series. He really is not the expert in this field he is an author of a semi historical book series and that should be your first clue.

You can be assured im not doing my reasearch on Wiki and what really annoys me with your reasoning is well basically it isn’t reasoning. If berserkers are so hard to believe in then what about ancient Celtic and German warriors who had a very similar warrior ideology to the Vikings? They had radical warriors aswell who fought totally naked, covered their bodies in woad, and fought like madmen, and this is accepted as fact because it was the Romans who wrote about them and not Scandinavians. (like Roman historians are somehow a better source then old Norse skalds)

My last point- are berserkers really that hard to believe in for you considering the Vikings warrior religion and culture, it was a pretty much a cult of violence that taught death in battle. Can you imagine an extremist? *cough* Berserker ahem. The sagas even tell us that Berserkers were Odins choosen men and that their battle fury was his gift to them (some kind of drug perhaps?) The berserker trait seemed to possibly run in the family as there are accounts of whole families of which practiced the "berserkergangr"

So anyways, they did exsist and there is no reason to think otherwise so please bring some evidence or atleast give us some good reasoning as to why these old norse historians would just make up such a thing from thin air....

[Orokil]

Let's get this straight: Berserkers did exist. You can't beleive eveything a historian says, because half of them disagree with the other half.

On that topic, you may not believe me, but according to a lot sources, most berserkers took a species of mushroom from scandinavia that made them berserk, hence the name berserker.
If you think about it, berserkers are drugged warriors.
If you dont believe me, I have a Norwegian friend who was taught that in her class.

[Sigurd Fåvnesbane]

Let's get this straight: Berserkers did exist. You can't beleive eveything a historian says, because half of them disagree with the other half.

On that topic, you may not believe me, but according to a lot sources, most berserkers took a species of mushroom from scandinavia that made them berserk, hence the name berserker.
If you think about it, berserkers are drugged warriors.
If you dont believe me, I have a Norwegian friend who was taught that in her class.

Actually thats not true. The did not use mushrooms to drug themselves. They tested it on a relativly healthy man. First to see his fighting skills without drugs, then his fighting skills with mushrooms plus mead. And his skills lowered itself signifigantly. No one knows exactly what produced the berserkergang, but some thinks it was some kind of a disease. Because most of the berserkers are described as butt-ugly and, as in Egill Skallagrimmsons case he had a heavy deformed skull (Skalla=skull, Grim=not very pretty ) He suffered from a skull disease were his skull just grows out of shape or something. Wich maybe would have lead to a heavy pressure on his brain from times to times and could have created an enourmus fury in form of berserkergang. It was also berserker-families just like a disease. It is a higher percent of you getting that disease as your father and his father above him again.

Read about the princess of the byzantine empire. She became an "historian" and made some detailed texts about the varangians. She said that before they went in battle they danced a mysteriously and religious dance wich lead to- maybe the berserkergang.

And some believe they got the spirit of a wolf or a bear after drinking one of those animals' blood.


This is what I have heard... No drugs! Lotsa bad english, but I have been on LAN all night so thats a nice excuse

[mocker]

Let's get this straight: Berserkers did exist. You can't beleive eveything a historian says, because half of them disagree with the other half.

So far, so good.

On that topic, you may not believe me, but according to a lot sources, most berserkers took a species of mushroom from scandinavia that made them
berserk, hence the name berserker.

No, that's a myth. Sigurd explained it quiet well. I'd guess a hormone defect would explain the aggression, deformities, and increased strength/endurdance.

The name however, is quite the opposite. "Going berserk" derives from the berserks themselves, and translates roughly to "bear coat". Whether the berserks fought clad in bear hides or just fought with the fierce spirit of the bear can be discussed at lengths.

[Herr Lindstrom]

Agreed. I believe in Berserkers. I even think there's a few "Modern Berserkers" out there somewhere... probably fighting in afghanistan (Danes, hint hint)

[mocker]

Agreed. I believe in Berserkers. I even think there's a few "Modern Berserkers" out there somewhere... probably fighting in afghanistan (Danes, hint hint)

That explains why there's no peace on the horizon.