There seem to be a common misconception among the commenters that ponies=small and weak. Pony is simply referring to a horse that's lower than 148cm in height at the withers (at least in sweden). Such an animal could range from 200-400kg. 400kg horse is not a small nor weak horse, small compared to a dressage horse sure. I am not a good rider and weigh 90ish kg. A strong "pony" can carry me without problem, and if I actually took time to become a better rider I would be less of a burden. Then there is also variation within breeds, horses are individuals, they are different sizes and can carry different sizes of riders. Not all icelandic horses are suited for heavy people, but might be very nice as a packing animal. No one uses that argument against the mongols, "Their horses were small and not suited for warfare", they are even smaller than an icelandic horse. Then the icelandic horse surely was not the only breed, there are runestones with horses that have a standing mane, which icelandic horses do not have. The vikings also traveled far so they would know about different breeds of horses. /Boyfriend to someone has a horse, and I am someone who has actually been around horses.
Thank you for this comment. I was hoping someone would bring this up! I live in Iceland, and the horses are very strong and can carry riders up to 110kg (242lb). It is typical for riders here to bring several horses on long riding trips and switch horses frequently through the day. The rider leads the spare horses on a rope alongside the horse he is riding. When there are groups of riders taking a trip together, the spare horses run free as a herd along with the rides and their horses. Icelandic horses learn from a young age to follow the herd. I wouldn't be surprised if this tradition of using spare horses on a riding trip goes back to Viking times in Iceland. The country does have huge stretches of wide and open terrain that worked well for travel on horseback, so Iceland developed a strong horseback riding tradition. Even though there are areas that are rugged and rocky, Icelandic horses have evolved to become very surefooted and can navigate through terrain that would be hard for other horses to handle. Also, in general horses in the Middle Ages were much smaller compared to horses today. The average war horses horses used by Normans were about 14 - 15 hands, which would be considered a small horse today. But they would have been large and terrifying to people back then. It is also interesting you brought up the amazing Mongolian war horses. There are some theories that Icelandic horses might be related to or even have ancestry from Mongolian horses.
There are indications that Swedes in central Sweden did use horses in combat. Don't remember which, but theres a mention by a roman that the Swedes were good with horses. There are also saga materials that mentions horses used in combat. Two kings called Erik and Alrek rode against eachother and hit with clubs, but this story was probably inspired by another tale. Then theres the flight of Rolfr Kraki who flees on horseback from king Adils and drops the gold on him. As Adils is picking up the gold Rolfr turns around and ends up wounding Adils as I recall
What I’m getting from your video is that Vikings may have sometimes fought on horseback, but it wasn’t something that they specifically TRAINED to do. They didn’t have “knights”, people who specialized in fighting on horseback and spent a LOT of time training how to do so.
You forget the picture stones from Gotland and rockcarvings in Sweden where you can see people in Scandinavia fighting from horseback, even before the viking age. The cavalry was most likely not as prevalent as in England or France but definitely existed within Scandinavia at least.
Hello Hilbert. I have commented before that being from Yorkshire, my first choice for an ancient wargame army was Viking. With no cavalry in the army list I soon had to find something else to represent my university. Late Romans were a way to make sure I got points, followed by Macedonians. I settled on Abyssinian. Like Vikings they had fanatics, though Christian ones, with similar infantry. The added cavalry made for balance, but the potential for fanatics on elephants was irresistible. Imagine Erik Bloodaxe on a mammoth! I will leave that for the fantasy wargamers.
Small etymological bonus point, the word 'hross' for horse survives in Sweden with the term "russ" used to refer to the Gotland pony (aka Gotlandsruss) which, much like the Icelandic horse, is believed to be descended from Iron- and Viking Age breeds.
I find it interesting to hear words that I have only ever encountered previously in print. Hilbert, you seem to make quite an effort with pronunciations and I appreciate it.
I’m aware that the Norwegian fjord horse (which the Swedish Dala horse) is based off of was already prominent in Norway during the Viking Age. I’m no horse enthusiast but I’m well aware of how well revered that breed is in the equine community. A gentle jack of all trades horse so to speak.
I believe the Anglo saxon Christian conversations of Vikings is underplayed history. Folk forget in the danelaw Guthrum was baptised. He remained loyal to Alfred to the end.
dud, no joke, I love you. Your pronunciation is just amazing, in any of your videos, is it Jabbhat al-nusra or Asatru. It just comforts my ear like the sang of an angel.
Probably not. But if they did. The leader was expected to leave the cavalry and be on the front line when war begun. Like the Anglo saxonv kings. This tradition carried on with the Anglo-Norman's with Henry 1st. Who would leave the cavalry to lead from the very front. This is documented behaviour for Henry 1st and Anglo-Saxon Kings.
Denmark was one of the main suppliers of heavy war-horses in the 12th century and onwards (for example for crusades in the Baltic). I am not familiar with war-horse breeding in the "viking-period", yet breeding traditions probably go back to this time. Anyways, this isn't my field of expertise; I accidentally came over it in "Martyrs, Total War, and Heavenly Horses: Scandinavia as Centre and Periphery in the Expansion of Medieval Christendom" by Kurt Villands Jensen (an article in "Medieval Christianity in the North").
In brief, early Vikings only used horses as beast of burdon since it was hard to fit horses on longboats. Later in 900s- 1000s they used horses on the mainland for farming and eventually battle during late middle oeriod. 😊
In the viking age all horses looked like Icelandic horses of today. More like pony's than horses. The modern horse is something of the last few hundred years. The Frisian horse in its current form is a product of (in)breeding of the last 100 yrs. In the 19th century Frisian horses where more robust and smaller. Not the fancy posh horse of today. Also keep in mind that stirrup and bridels are rather modern and wouldn't be around during the viking raids. So part of the question asked isn't at order at all. I think cows and cattle are used way more than horses during the period spoken of.
Not true. Within breeds of horses there is still variation. Also the fjord horse of norway would have been present, and you can see the standing mane in art. Horses are like people, they come in different sizes. A large fjord horse is a horse and not pony sized. Also strong "pony" can still be 300-400kg of muscle. Stirrups have been found in scandinavia dated to 8th century. would have been known and the vikings traveled, and since they did that they would have brough it back. The bridle and tack dates to before the saddle even and would surely have been used by all Scandinavians
@@koffski93 You need a lot of horses to have a cavalry though, and since the tactics the Norse had were successful they didn't really need cavalry. In Scandinavia the main means of travel was on water due to lots of woods inland and higher sea levels than today. So you wouldn't have a lot of horses available, no matter their size. If the average horse isn't very big, (or hefty rather than fast) you need even more horses to pick out the large ones. And then you need tactics, and there are rarely large changes to tactics unless you have major defeats. Even the Romans didn't have native cavalry for the longest time. So it's not a matter of there not existing any horse that could be used but rather combining factors not really fruitful for a cavalry culture.
@@Darkurge666 valid points, but what he said is still not correct. No one uses those arguments when talking about the mongols, they had even smaller horses. I am swedish. Sweden is very hilly,ä except parts of skåne and småland and some parts of norrland where nobody lives. So swedens geography does not lend itself to cavalry movements and combat and availability of grasslands to graze would have been limited. My point is that the Scandinavian horse breeds would have been the least of their problems, like the points you brought up.
An immensely interesting video. Cavalry have always been one of my favorite unit types. And as a Norse pagan myself, it's always nice to gain more knowledge on my ancestors(as sometimes it difficult to track things down for the common man). I think the Norse not using cavalry as much in contemporary form is logical, the breeds at home were small, logistics didn't support it at the time, and they were expensive on many levels. I think if the Norse had had the opportunity to grow their relationship with the Rus, or the Irish, or if the Jomsviking Brotherhood had expanded their Outpost, they'd have had a better situation in which to develop proper cavalry.
If you are a Germanic/Nordic Heathen, I hope you know of Robert Sass on youtube and his Aldsidu Saxon Heathenry. Also on youtube is Norse Magic and Beliefs. Both are historical reconstructionist Heathens who cite all their sources for all teachings and are the most knowledgeable I've found to date.
You mention that horses weren't being milked and that does make me wonder...why not? I know at least that the Mongolians and other Steppe peoples were very famously able to get milk from mares and were even able to make their most famous (and infamous) alcohol from it that lead to the downfall of various later khans. So why was milking mares only common among steppe peoples rather than much more universal around the world?
I wonder if it’s more dangerous than milking a cow. Horses are taller and also will deliver fatal kicks in defense if something spooks or irritates them. Plus it’s probably less productive than a dairy cow that’s been bred specifically to increase milk production.
regarding to the word hross, in gotland there is a native pony called gotlands-russ. The birkagrave was a real horsegrave with two horses, saddle, reins, asiatic style compositebows, cumanstyle quivers, which hints for a steppe warrior horsemounted archery style of combat, which makes the use for the ponies in battle possible, just look at the mongol ponies, and the icelandic pony is actually a very good pony to ride even for a full grown person. not only as a beast of burden, becourse when using smaller and lighter horses mounted archery is employed, becourse obviously you dont attack head on with a light cavalry
14:49 The Icelandic horse is *better* to ride on then most other breeds actually. But definitely not suited for heavy cavalery. That said, they're not unsuited for warfare. They're actually not too dissimilar to the mongol horses.
Wow, je Oud Noors uitspraak is spot-on! Ook hoe je de '-r' aan woord-einden uitspreekt komt overeen met hoe taalkundigen hedendaags de uitspraak van de '*-az'-suffix van het Oergermaans reconstrueren. Of tenminste, de medeklinker tussen de 'z' en de 'r', die meer naar de 'r' neigt in Noordse taken en meer naar de 's' neigt hiero.
Great video! I think you’re pretty much spot on! Horses were primarily for quick transport, not for fighting! And when they were used for fighting as well, it were probably in smaller groups than the kind of cavalry charges seen much later on with plated knights!
There is of course Rollo the Ganger (Gangerolf in modern Norwegian), named so, as some tell, because his legs were so long he appeared to be walking when he was on horseback (gange in Norwegian means walk). This was surely a bit of an exaggeration, but if he were riding a small Nordic horse this might not be so far fetched. Another explanation for his name is that he was so tall that no horse could carry him, so he was relegated to walking. So either way - "Rollo the Walker". Of course his name says nothing about if vikings fought on horseback, but it does seem notable to me that the Viking who led his mean to Nomandy, (and whose ancestors became Norman heavy cavalry) was noted for something related to horses. Rollo was the great great great grandfather fo William the Conquerer.
its complex in short yes, in the west they seemed to have been used less but in the east it seems they had far more cavalry or at least used horses a lot more.
So in other words, if I remember my jersey archeology courses correctly; not an actual organizers cavalry class among the Norse but more of mounted nobelmen/retainers/hirdmen that would alter between fighting on foot or on horseback depending on the situation:)
I think it makes sense not to fight on horse for people who live or come from a land were horses are a bit of a luxury. In battle your horse may die and if that so happen it's a huge economical loss. Better to use them for work, transport and carrying stuff than for fighting.
After Europe got their asses (no pun intended) handed to them by the Huns, you would've thought they'd learn to fight fire with fire and train in horseback archery warfare to prepare for future attacks/defenses. Maybe the Germanic peoples of Scandinavia never got the memo of what the Huns did to their southern relatives via horseback.
Europe didn’t get their asses handed to them by the huns.. and the terrain is not suited towards that warfare… whcuh is why it developed in the steppe and not in Central Europe
The king and the cavalry were not one. The king was expected to fight on foot, from the front. Battle of Tinchebray is just one example. The Anglo saxons were known for there horsemanship before they arrived.
Clearly the Vikings could have had a cavalry but the leaders had to lead from the front, axe and sword in hand. The viking helmet is rare and crudely made. Alas if it saves your life would you care. The Anglo saxons celebrated horsemanship. Many learned the skill as youngsters.
Did anyone used to play an old online game called Utopia? It had kingdoms on different islands so it originally included boats for going to different islands but the Avian (flying) race didn't need them. After a couple of years, they removed boats and replaced them with horses. You didn't need anything to go to other islands anymore but horses could enhance your attacking power instead.
Normans. Mongols. Nubians. Anytime a people uses alot of cavalry, somebody jots that down. I feel like if Vikings did use cavalry there would be much much more evidence of that and we wouldnt hafto go sluething for possible examples. Especially this early ot would be fairly notable like when the mongols rose centuries later even it was like whoa horse archers cuz that shit was not common and very noteworthy. if the vikings did it way earkier it would be the same.
Vikings had horses. Their horses were whatever you had for them. If Vikings were coming to your area, they were surely going to be horse mounted with whatever horses you had available for them.
On the Bayeaux tapestry the Norman horses seem to be very small. In Scandinavia there is arqueological evidense that their horses were rather small (like Hilbert noted in the video). That could suggest that the tapestry does show the real size of the horses used. [Edit: It just strikes me that the Vikings founded what became modern Russia who still use small horses, or now: Small tanks. Slava Ukraini !]
Good luck moving out lumber from the forest without horses. Work was the primary motivation for keeping horses in Europe. More so than riding or warfare. That is where you get all your pony and draft breeds.
“Three times nine girls, but one girl rode ahead”. Who is that “one girl” supposed to be? Is that meant to be Freya, or a high-ranking Valkyrie like Sigrun?
I Neeeed to ask you questions about Frisian culture,... and if you know any Latin or anyone who can read it!!! Cause I have this theory... And it involves Frisians who were not necessarily Vikings but may have co-lived with some at some points.
Given this period is 3-4 centuries after 'ancient history its clear you are not very clever or educated. The fact you rely in youtube for history is embarassing. The fact you find this Dutch bloke reading Wikipedia whilst putting on dodgy accents suggests you are just lazy and easily impressed. Please stop voting and never breed.
Placing the Vikings all in one basket. Is just, the wrong thing to do. This makes learning the history more difficult then need be. Sadly many history threads are lost by doing so. Alas, it so academic wide.
How many takes does it typically take for you to record the foreign pronunciations you use in your videos? I feel like it would take me years to just breeze through them the way you do.
The Vikings and Anglo-Saxon’s absolutely used Calvary. Was it their main way of fighting ? No. Only nobles could afford horses. Depending on what tactics the battle called for. They would usually line up and form a shield wall with small contingents of Calvary to guard the flanks. This is another misconception of History
"You can't really milk a horse"
Angry throatsinging echo from the east
Btw I love this throat singing guy Batzorig it's mesmerizing and oddly satisfying.
There seem to be a common misconception among the commenters that ponies=small and weak. Pony is simply referring to a horse that's lower than 148cm in height at the withers (at least in sweden). Such an animal could range from 200-400kg. 400kg horse is not a small nor weak horse, small compared to a dressage horse sure. I am not a good rider and weigh 90ish kg. A strong "pony" can carry me without problem, and if I actually took time to become a better rider I would be less of a burden. Then there is also variation within breeds, horses are individuals, they are different sizes and can carry different sizes of riders. Not all icelandic horses are suited for heavy people, but might be very nice as a packing animal.
No one uses that argument against the mongols, "Their horses were small and not suited for warfare", they are even smaller than an icelandic horse. Then the icelandic horse surely was not the only breed, there are runestones with horses that have a standing mane, which icelandic horses do not have.
The vikings also traveled far so they would know about different breeds of horses.
/Boyfriend to someone has a horse, and I am someone who has actually been around horses.
The Connemara pony’s ancestor was likely used during warfare
Thank you for this comment. I was hoping someone would bring this up! I live in Iceland, and the horses are very strong and can carry riders up to 110kg (242lb). It is typical for riders here to bring several horses on long riding trips and switch horses frequently through the day. The rider leads the spare horses on a rope alongside the horse he is riding. When there are groups of riders taking a trip together, the spare horses run free as a herd along with the rides and their horses. Icelandic horses learn from a young age to follow the herd. I wouldn't be surprised if this tradition of using spare horses on a riding trip goes back to Viking times in Iceland. The country does have huge stretches of wide and open terrain that worked well for travel on horseback, so Iceland developed a strong horseback riding tradition. Even though there are areas that are rugged and rocky, Icelandic horses have evolved to become very surefooted and can navigate through terrain that would be hard for other horses to handle. Also, in general horses in the Middle Ages were much smaller compared to horses today. The average war horses horses used by Normans were about 14 - 15 hands, which would be considered a small horse today. But they would have been large and terrifying to people back then. It is also interesting you brought up the amazing Mongolian war horses. There are some theories that Icelandic horses might be related to or even have ancestry from Mongolian horses.
There are indications that Swedes in central Sweden did use horses in combat. Don't remember which, but theres a mention by a roman that the Swedes were good with horses. There are also saga materials that mentions horses used in combat. Two kings called Erik and Alrek rode against eachother and hit with clubs, but this story was probably inspired by another tale. Then theres the flight of Rolfr Kraki who flees on horseback from king Adils and drops the gold on him. As Adils is picking up the gold Rolfr turns around and ends up wounding Adils as I recall
These horses are no match for Skyrim’s mountain horses.
I would love to hear about the Norman Knights!
What I’m getting from your video is that Vikings may have sometimes fought on horseback, but it wasn’t something that they specifically TRAINED to do. They didn’t have “knights”, people who specialized in fighting on horseback and spent a LOT of time training how to do so.
on top of that, if you owned a horse you were probably ich so no one wanted to put their expensive horses on the line in battle
You forget the picture stones from Gotland and rockcarvings in Sweden where you can see people in Scandinavia fighting from horseback, even before the viking age.
The cavalry was most likely not as prevalent as in England or France but definitely existed within Scandinavia at least.
So Age of Empires 2 actually seemed to have gotten it pretty accurate. They have cavalry, just bad cavalry.
it makes me believe horse back fighting was a home turf thing rather than a Viking voyage thing, since the horse makes logistics harder
@@theprinceofawesomeness
oh definitely, the horses that where used elsewhere would have to be horses from the place they went to
Hello Hilbert. I have commented before that being from Yorkshire, my first choice for an ancient wargame army was Viking. With no cavalry in the army list I soon had to find something else to represent my university. Late Romans were a way to make sure I got points, followed by Macedonians. I settled on Abyssinian. Like Vikings they had fanatics, though Christian ones, with similar infantry. The added cavalry made for balance, but the potential for fanatics on elephants was irresistible. Imagine Erik Bloodaxe on a mammoth! I will leave that for the fantasy wargamers.
Small etymological bonus point, the word 'hross' for horse survives in Sweden with the term "russ" used to refer to the Gotland pony (aka Gotlandsruss) which, much like the Icelandic horse, is believed to be descended from Iron- and Viking Age breeds.
"Ross" is a southern German/Austrian/Swiss German word for horse to this day.
I find it interesting to hear words that I have only ever encountered previously in print. Hilbert, you seem to make quite an effort with pronunciations and I appreciate it.
It’s time for a video on the Old Saxons and the wars with Charlemagne.
Horses for norses
5:35 Hilbert your phone going off made me think myn went off lol
5:36 Samsung sound effect caught me off guard lol
I’m aware that the Norwegian fjord horse (which the Swedish Dala horse) is based off of was already prominent in Norway during the Viking Age. I’m no horse enthusiast but I’m well aware of how well revered that breed is in the equine community. A gentle jack of all trades horse so to speak.
Awesome. Excellent channel. Brilliant content. Well said. Spot on.
Nicely presented. Beautifully smooth readings in ON, OE and Latin, and props to your Gaelige pronunciation.
Very nice! Love the Middle Ages and the Viking age!
I believe the Anglo saxon Christian conversations of Vikings is underplayed history.
Folk forget in the danelaw Guthrum was baptised. He remained loyal to Alfred to the end.
dud, no joke, I love you. Your pronunciation is just amazing, in any of your videos, is it Jabbhat al-nusra or Asatru. It just comforts my ear like the sang of an angel.
5:37 lovely little notification there
Probably not. But if they did. The leader was expected to leave the cavalry and be on the front line when war begun.
Like the Anglo saxonv kings. This tradition carried on with the Anglo-Norman's with Henry 1st. Who would leave the cavalry to lead from the very front.
This is documented behaviour for Henry 1st and Anglo-Saxon Kings.
You have my full respect for keeping up with the war in Ukraine, doing 5min shorts and these ordinary nuanced videos. Great work!
Brilliant video sir. Now we need a Video on Viking use of bows or rather the lack thereof.
Definitely had this question myself after seeing the raid scene in The Northman, thanks for getting to the bottom of it!
Love these videos!🇮🇸🇮🇸
my favourite history channel getting a sponsorship from Daddy Snow & HistoryHit? Hell yeah
What about the Swedes/Rus that went east? Some cavalry would not be wasted there.
German also has the same word for horse as dutch just with a different spelling Ross.
yeah, it's almost as if all Germanic languages are somehow connected, isn't it?
Very good video the early middle age is for chads. You should do one on Frankish Cavalry.
Yes imo Early Medieval is more interesting the High Medieval
Denmark was one of the main suppliers of heavy war-horses in the 12th century and onwards (for example for crusades in the Baltic). I am not familiar with war-horse breeding in the "viking-period", yet breeding traditions probably go back to this time.
Anyways, this isn't my field of expertise; I accidentally came over it in "Martyrs, Total War, and Heavenly Horses: Scandinavia as Centre and Periphery in the Expansion of Medieval Christendom" by Kurt Villands Jensen (an article in "Medieval Christianity in the North").
Thanks for the source, of what you say.
For i moment i thought you were using a game of a total war saga as a reference XD
@@giacomomorandini6770 Lol - if only TW games had such strategic depth...
In brief, early Vikings only used horses as beast of burdon since it was hard to fit horses on longboats. Later in 900s- 1000s they used horses on the mainland for farming and eventually battle during late middle oeriod. 😊
Hestavig should IMO be translated into horse war, even today the old word for war survives in modern Swedish as envig (duel, literally one man war)
In the viking age all horses looked like Icelandic horses of today.
More like pony's than horses.
The modern horse is something of the last few hundred years.
The Frisian horse in its current form is a product of (in)breeding of the last 100 yrs. In the 19th century Frisian horses where more robust and smaller. Not the fancy posh horse of today.
Also keep in mind that stirrup and bridels are rather modern and wouldn't be around during the viking raids.
So part of the question asked isn't at order at all.
I think cows and cattle are used way more than horses during the period spoken of.
Not true. Within breeds of horses there is still variation. Also the fjord horse of norway would have been present, and you can see the standing mane in art. Horses are like people, they come in different sizes. A large fjord horse is a horse and not pony sized. Also strong "pony" can still be 300-400kg of muscle.
Stirrups have been found in scandinavia dated to 8th century. would have been known and the vikings traveled, and since they did that they would have brough it back.
The bridle and tack dates to before the saddle even and would surely have been used by all Scandinavians
@@koffski93 You need a lot of horses to have a cavalry though, and since the tactics the Norse had were successful they didn't really need cavalry. In Scandinavia the main means of travel was on water due to lots of woods inland and higher sea levels than today. So you wouldn't have a lot of horses available, no matter their size. If the average horse isn't very big, (or hefty rather than fast) you need even more horses to pick out the large ones. And then you need tactics, and there are rarely large changes to tactics unless you have major defeats. Even the Romans didn't have native cavalry for the longest time. So it's not a matter of there not existing any horse that could be used but rather combining factors not really fruitful for a cavalry culture.
@@Darkurge666 valid points, but what he said is still not correct. No one uses those arguments when talking about the mongols, they had even smaller horses.
I am swedish. Sweden is very hilly,ä except parts of skåne and småland and some parts of norrland where nobody lives. So swedens geography does not lend itself to cavalry movements and combat and availability of grasslands to graze would have been limited.
My point is that the Scandinavian horse breeds would have been the least of their problems, like the points you brought up.
The heavy armour calvary horse of the medieval ages were actually quite small
An immensely interesting video. Cavalry have always been one of my favorite unit types. And as a Norse pagan myself, it's always nice to gain more knowledge on my ancestors(as sometimes it difficult to track things down for the common man). I think the Norse not using cavalry as much in contemporary form is logical, the breeds at home were small, logistics didn't support it at the time, and they were expensive on many levels. I think if the Norse had had the opportunity to grow their relationship with the Rus, or the Irish, or if the Jomsviking Brotherhood had expanded their Outpost, they'd have had a better situation in which to develop proper cavalry.
If you are a Germanic/Nordic Heathen, I hope you know of Robert Sass on youtube and his Aldsidu Saxon Heathenry. Also on youtube is Norse Magic and Beliefs. Both are historical reconstructionist Heathens who cite all their sources for all teachings and are the most knowledgeable I've found to date.
@@HroduuulfSonOfHrodger I'm not aware of them actually. I follow Jackson Crawford and Survive the Jive though.
You mention that horses weren't being milked and that does make me wonder...why not? I know at least that the Mongolians and other Steppe peoples were very famously able to get milk from mares and were even able to make their most famous (and infamous) alcohol from it that lead to the downfall of various later khans. So why was milking mares only common among steppe peoples rather than much more universal around the world?
I wonder if it’s more dangerous than milking a cow. Horses are taller and also will deliver fatal kicks in defense if something spooks or irritates them. Plus it’s probably less productive than a dairy cow that’s been bred specifically to increase milk production.
Because the horse foal need that milk.
@@CourtneySchwartz More people are killed by cattle than by sharks every year
steppe didnt have much choice unlike rest of world
5:35 mute your phone 🤣
nice find. made me laugh!
regarding to the word hross, in gotland there is a native pony called gotlands-russ. The birkagrave was a real horsegrave with two horses, saddle, reins, asiatic style compositebows, cumanstyle quivers, which hints for a steppe warrior horsemounted archery style of combat, which makes the use for the ponies in battle possible, just look at the mongol ponies, and the icelandic pony is actually a very good pony to ride even for a full grown person. not only as a beast of burden, becourse when using smaller and lighter horses mounted archery is employed, becourse obviously you dont attack head on with a light cavalry
Normans are basically mounted vikings, that's kind of cool
14:49
The Icelandic horse is *better* to ride on then most other breeds actually.
But definitely not suited for heavy cavalery.
That said, they're not unsuited for warfare.
They're actually not too dissimilar to the mongol horses.
Wow, je Oud Noors uitspraak is spot-on!
Ook hoe je de '-r' aan woord-einden uitspreekt komt overeen met hoe taalkundigen hedendaags de uitspraak van de '*-az'-suffix van het Oergermaans reconstrueren.
Of tenminste, de medeklinker tussen de 'z' en de 'r', die meer naar de 'r' neigt in Noordse taken en meer naar de 's' neigt hiero.
Great video!
I think you’re pretty much spot on!
Horses were primarily for quick transport, not for fighting!
And when they were used for fighting as well, it were probably in smaller groups than the kind of cavalry charges seen much later on with plated knights!
Mate, I'll be silly, but just wanna thank you for showing me you can put the flag in name. Thank you!
@@svensvensson1085
You’re very welcome Sven!
Ireland was similar not suitable for heavy calvary
Great video
There is of course Rollo the Ganger (Gangerolf in modern Norwegian), named so, as some tell, because his legs were so long he appeared to be walking when he was on horseback (gange in Norwegian means walk). This was surely a bit of an exaggeration, but if he were riding a small Nordic horse this might not be so far fetched. Another explanation for his name is that he was so tall that no horse could carry him, so he was relegated to walking. So either way - "Rollo the Walker".
Of course his name says nothing about if vikings fought on horseback, but it does seem notable to me that the Viking who led his mean to Nomandy, (and whose ancestors became Norman heavy cavalry) was noted for something related to horses. Rollo was the great great great grandfather fo William the Conquerer.
Befittingly, the only human cavalry units for the Norse in AoM are the Jarl and the Raiding Cavalry.
its complex in short yes, in the west they seemed to have been used less but in the east it seems they had far more cavalry or at least used horses a lot more.
the rus had a lot of cavalry.
very educational.
So in other words, if I remember my jersey archeology courses correctly; not an actual organizers cavalry class among the Norse but more of mounted nobelmen/retainers/hirdmen that would alter between fighting on foot or on horseback depending on the situation:)
I think it makes sense not to fight on horse for people who live or come from a land were horses are a bit of a luxury. In battle your horse may die and if that so happen it's a huge economical loss. Better to use them for work, transport and carrying stuff than for fighting.
I do not think horses were a luxury. Most rural households/farms had one or access to one.
After Europe got their asses (no pun intended) handed to them by the Huns, you would've thought they'd learn to fight fire with fire and train in horseback archery warfare to prepare for future attacks/defenses. Maybe the Germanic peoples of Scandinavia never got the memo of what the Huns did to their southern relatives via horseback.
Europe didn’t get their asses handed to them by the huns.. and the terrain is not suited towards that warfare… whcuh is why it developed in the steppe and not in Central Europe
If I remember correctly The coastal town in North Norfolk of Holkham actually gets its name from the landing site of the Great Heathen Army
Fascinating topic! May I recommend the Viking stories, myths, legends and folktales on the Northworthy Sagas and Stories channel here on RUclips. ⚔️
5:36 you got a text/notification on your phone :)
The king and the cavalry were not one. The king was expected to fight on foot, from the front.
Battle of Tinchebray is just one example.
The Anglo saxons were known for there horsemanship before they arrived.
Clearly the Vikings could have had a cavalry but the leaders had to lead from the front, axe and sword in hand.
The viking helmet is rare and crudely made. Alas if it saves your life would you care.
The Anglo saxons celebrated horsemanship. Many learned the skill as youngsters.
If you've seen Icelandic horses, you'd know why the idea of fighting on them is entertaining. 😜
To say horses were a luxury in Viking Scandinavia is like saying tractors or trucks are a luxury today. Horses were a common necessity.
The Normans weren't norwegian. They were a mix of Danes, Swedes and Norwegian, with the majority and their leader being Danish.
Did anyone used to play an old online game called Utopia? It had kingdoms on different islands so it originally included boats for going to different islands but the Avian (flying) race didn't need them. After a couple of years, they removed boats and replaced them with horses. You didn't need anything to go to other islands anymore but horses could enhance your attacking power instead.
Thank you
Ah- the Normans(Northmen) were frenchified vikings. They adapted to the available military tech....... and did rather well.
Hilbert is just flexing his ability to read and pronounce old Norse… great video btw
Normans. Mongols. Nubians. Anytime a people uses alot of cavalry, somebody jots that down. I feel like if Vikings did use cavalry there would be much much more evidence of that and we wouldnt hafto go sluething for possible examples. Especially this early ot would be fairly notable like when the mongols rose centuries later even it was like whoa horse archers cuz that shit was not common and very noteworthy. if the vikings did it way earkier it would be the same.
Vikings had horses. Their horses were whatever you had for them. If Vikings were coming to your area, they were surely going to be horse mounted with whatever horses you had available for them.
Islandic horses are typical for Island, there where other horses on the mainland.
5:36 Phone rings
On the Bayeaux tapestry the Norman horses seem to be very small. In Scandinavia there is arqueological evidense that their horses were rather small (like Hilbert noted in the video). That could suggest that the tapestry does show the real size of the horses used. [Edit: It just strikes me that the Vikings founded what became modern Russia who still use small horses, or now: Small tanks. Slava Ukraini !]
Good luck moving out lumber from the forest without horses. Work was the primary motivation for keeping horses in Europe. More so than riding or warfare. That is where you get all your pony and draft breeds.
If you consider the Normans Vikings then yeah
great, now was there any Norse words for someone fighting on a horse? been doing research for this for a specific project i'm working on
“Three times nine girls, but one girl rode ahead”. Who is that “one girl” supposed to be? Is that meant to be Freya, or a high-ranking Valkyrie like Sigrun?
"we aren't milking horses" you might not.... *grinning in Hungarian*
the climate and terrain of scandinavia isn't particularly well suites for cavalry
Could you do a video about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the baltic tribes?
5:37 You got a text
Of course not! Vikings were warm and tender-hearted people, they'd never take adorable little ponies into battle!
(The history of corsica) please ❤️
don't use Dan Snow. Oh God!
did the norse also used livestocks for trading
Valhǫll is pronounced Valhaall, or valhåll in modern norwegian. the old Norse ǫ does NOT follow the modern change to ø and is pronounced like an å.
I learnt modern Icelandic pronunciation at university and therefore use that when pronouncing Old Norse.
@@historywithhilbert gotcha, still technically wrong but you knowing modern Icelandic explains it
unsubscribed. After listening again. But alas it will not stop me listening. You see Hilbert has the means to the very best source material.
Please visit Micahistory 2, it would mean a lot!
I Neeeed to ask you questions about Frisian culture,... and if you know any Latin or anyone who can read it!!! Cause I have this theory... And it involves Frisians who were not necessarily Vikings but may have co-lived with some at some points.
Finally something on ancient history again. Was getting tired of the whole modern history Stuff.
Given this period is 3-4 centuries after 'ancient history its clear you are not very clever or educated. The fact you rely in youtube for history is embarassing. The fact you find this Dutch bloke reading Wikipedia whilst putting on dodgy accents suggests you are just lazy and easily impressed. Please stop voting and never breed.
Placing the Vikings all in one basket. Is just, the wrong thing to do. This makes learning the history more difficult then need be. Sadly many history threads are lost by doing so. Alas, it so academic wide.
for the most part they didn't
Betteridge's law of headlines: any headline that ends in a questionmark can be answered with the word "no."
@@digitalbrentable true
Very good video but gods damn how are you able to pronounce those words
Looking through the comments section there seems to be lots of factual things wrong with this video. So I think I'll skip watching it.
Its because every true northerner knows the power of hestekuk already
How many takes does it typically take for you to record the foreign pronunciations you use in your videos? I feel like it would take me years to just breeze through them the way you do.
"Lets see what the ancient word for horse is. That's right it's horse but how an asshole says it."
"norse horse"
Neat
They did. At least in Assassin's Creed Valhalla.
The ultimate source for history lmao
The sagas were written in 1200 this era
And is not a history
A lot of fantasy
Proven
The Vikings and Anglo-Saxon’s absolutely used Calvary. Was it their main way of fighting ? No. Only nobles could afford horses. Depending on what tactics the battle called for. They would usually line up and form a shield wall with small contingents of Calvary to guard the flanks. This is another misconception of History
🤠👍🏿
The normans were vikings as were the Rus. Both had cavalry.
They were both descended from Scandinavian peoples but by the time they became what we would call Normans or Rus had hybridized with local cultures.
They did. The Normans are famous for their Cavalry.
Noice