Monks recorded who attacked their monasteries, and an entire age acquired its villain. Yet in 782 Charlemagne, on his own court's testimony, had 4,500 Saxons killed on the River Aller, in 817 Irish monastic communities fought a pitched battle against each other, and the two best-known mass graves of Viking Age England probably hold Scandinavian victims. None of this washes the Norse clean: taking and selling people was part of their business, and skeletons from Norway show a startling number of weapon injuries. This article sets the evidence side by side and says plainly which question it cannot answer.
"More brutal than others" sounds like a measurement, and a measurement is exactly what we lack. To make one, we would need comparable figures for Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Slavs and Scandinavians: how many people died by violence, who killed them, in what circumstances. No such series exists for the ninth and tenth centuries. Nor do I know of any study that sets skeletal samples from all these societies against one another on uniform criteria.
Something more modest can be tested, and it helps to split the big word into parts. Brutality can mean four things: how often violence happened, what methods were used, whom it struck and how large and organised it was. Each has evidence, though not all of it points the same way. In methods, the Vikings hardly stand out. In targets, they struck their contemporaries as shocking because they went after churches with no religious hesitation at all. In taking captives, they really were a driving force. And in scale, the highest figure handed down for a single mass execution in this comparison belongs to a Christian king.
The word itself matters too. "Viking" here means people from Scandinavia engaged in raiding and war, an activity and not the name of a people. Why the label does not fit a farmer in Jutland is explained at greater length in What was typically Viking?
Nearly everything we read about the raids of the eighth and ninth centuries was written by clerics. The authors of annals and letters belonged to the group hit hardest, since monasteries often lay unprotected and held portable wealth. The man writing in such a house was victim, witness and interpreter in one person.
Alcuin of York is the best-known example. After the attack on Lindisfarne in 793 he wrote horrified letters, by then a close associate of Charlemagne, reading the event as God's punishment for the sins of the Northumbrians. His horror was real. But those letters are pastoral admonition, not an incident report. They say little that is reliable about the number of dead and a good deal about the worries of their author.
The other side is almost entirely missing. Runestones name the fallen and their voyages, skaldic verses praise warriors in set images, and the Icelandic sagas were written centuries later. We have no Scandinavian account from the period itself of how a raid looked to the attackers. Judgement on what the Norse did therefore comes almost entirely from those they harmed.
From the 1960s onward Peter Sawyer drew the conclusion that church sources had overstated the scale of the raids. In his essay on the Irish Sea he argues that chroniclers looked above all at attacks on churches, while the aims were thoroughly secular: churches served as stores for goods and cattle, and the point was plunder and tribute, not hatred of Christianity. This correction changed the field. It remains an interpretation, though, and did not become the last word. Partisan sources do not automatically lie. It only means that tone and framing cannot be read as a measurement.
It gets revealing when one source reports on both kinds of attacker. The Annals of Ulster, an Irish yearbook continued over generations, do precisely that. Under 817 they record a battle in which Cathal son of Dúnlang and the monastic community of Tech Munna (Taghmon) defeated the community of Ferna (Ferns); four hundred are said to have died. Under 833 they list several cases at once. Cellach son of Bran routed the community of Cell Dara (Kildare) in its own monastery, with many killed. King Feidlimid of Caisel had members of the community of Clonmacnoise put to death and burned its church lands to the very door of the church, and treated Durrow the same way. In the same year's entry, with no change of tone, "heathens" plunder Cluain Dolcáin and burn Druim Inasclainn.
The archaeologist A. T. Lucas counted such notices systematically in an essay of 1967. According to Liz FitzPatrick's summary in History Ireland, he arrived at 309 plunderings of church sites between 600 and 1163; about half were the work of the Irish, and in 19 cases Irish and Norse acted together. Lucas's result is often quoted in shortened form, so a caveat is in order. His period begins long before the first Vikings, attested in Ireland in 795. If the Norse accounted for a large share of the plunderings in a much shorter span, that does point to a real break. Lucas's figures do not disprove Viking violence. They disprove the picture of peaceful monasteries first disturbed from outside.
The annals also show alliances. Clare Downham points out that political alliances between Irish and Vikings are recorded from the 840s. How Irish kings still used Norse allies in their politics emerges from the article on Clontarf 1014.
The hardest comparison comes from the very realm whose scholars lamented the Vikings. After a Saxon rising and the defeat of a Frankish army in the Süntel hills, Charlemagne returned in 782. The Royal Frankish Annals, the court chronicle of the Carolingians, report that the Saxons handed over the chief culprits and that 4,500 were put to death. The revised version, the so-called Annals of Einhard, gives more detail: at the king's command all were beheaded in one day on the Aller at Verden. The Latin word is decollati.
What is certain is only what the court tells us. No grave with these dead is known, and no independent detailed parallel source exists. Opinions differ. Martin Lintzel considered the number exaggerated, and Matthias Becher reckons with far fewer executions plus deportations. Bernard Bachrach, by contrast, finds 4,500 plausible against the number of men of fighting age in the region. The old rescue idea, that a scribe confused decollare ("behead") with delocare ("relocate"), is no longer tenable; Alessandro Barbero finds none of these exculpations credible. Janet Nelson, in her review, recalls that counts as well as Charlemagne's chamberlain and marshal had fallen at the Süntel, and points with Barbero to Old Testament precedents.
That is where the value of the comparison lies. Even if the number is too high, we see a mass killing of defenceless men, ordered by a Christian ruler and recorded by his own historiography without lament. Alcuin, shattered by Lindisfarne, belonged to Charlemagne's circle. He did object to the forced baptism of the Saxons, but standards still varied with perpetrator and victim. Violence in God's name after a broken oath could count as just punishment; violence by heathens against the holy was sacrilege. For more on the war itself, see the articles on the Saxons and on Widukind.
Verden was the most glaring moment of a long process. From 772 to 804 Charlemagne waged war in Saxony with interruptions. It began with the destruction of the Irminsul sanctuary. Monastic chroniclers held attacks on cult places against the Vikings as a special crime; the Frankish king opened his war with one.
The Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, the Saxon law traditionally dated to the 780s, makes it plainer still. Yitzhak Hen, by contrast, dates it to around 795. It laid down the death penalty for, among other things, attacks on churches and hiding to escape baptism. In 797 a further capitulary softened these provisions. Mass removals followed: for 804 the Royal Frankish Annals say that Charlemagne removed all Saxons living beyond the Elbe and in Wihmuodi, with their land going to the allied Obotrites. Einhard, Charlemagne's biographer, supplies the figure: ten thousand people from both banks of the Elbe, with their wives and children.
"Never was there a war more prolonged nor more cruel than this, nor one that required greater efforts on the part of the Frankish peoples. For the Saxons, like most of the races that inhabit Germany, are by nature fierce, devoted to the worship of demons and hostile to our religion, and they think it no dishonour to confound and transgress the laws of God and man."Einhard, Life of Charlemagne, ch. 7, in A. J. Grant (ed.), Early Lives of Charlemagne (1905)
A Carolingian openly admits the cruelty of the war and in the same breath lays its cause on the enemy: fierce by nature, pagan, lawless. The same pattern shapes the laments about the Norse. To describe enemies as savage is also to explain why one may treat them harshly. How Charlemagne's army was organised is covered in the article on the Carolingian military.
Archaeology supplies counter-evidence that surprises many people. In June 2009 Oxford Archaeology, working ahead of road construction on Ridgeway Hill near Weymouth in Dorset, uncovered a pit. Early reports spoke of 54 bodies and 51 skulls. The full analysis arrives at fewer: 46 to 52 men and adolescents, and probably 47 skulls. The heads lay apart, mostly at the southern edge of the pit, and the bodies had apparently been thrown in without care. Three radiocarbon dates give a calibrated mean range of 970 to 1025.
The monograph Given to the Ground (Louise Loe, Angela Boyle, Helen Webb, David Score and others, 2014) counts at least 112 blows to the skulls and neck vertebrae of 39 men; it often took several attempts. Convincing traces of earlier combat are absent. The authors read hand injuries on five men as more likely defensive. Isotope analysis of teeth from 31 men depicts a mixed group with childhoods in colder regions outside Britain: above all Scandinavia, including its Arctic and sub-Arctic areas, with northern Iceland, the Baltic and Russia also possible.
Who killed them is not recorded. The authors consider it very likely that these were Vikings executed by the English, while also discussing other options, such as mercenaries in English service killed by Vikings, or hostages. That apparently not all the heads were buried has fed speculation that they were put on display. The authors see no conclusive evidence for it.
A year earlier, in 2008, Thames Valley Archaeological Services under Sean Wallis came upon the ditch of a Neolithic henge, a ring-shaped earthwork, on the grounds of St John's College in Oxford. It held the remains of 37 people (somewhat fewer on some counts), mostly men aged 16 to 25, strong and tall for their time. Archaeology Magazine lists 27 broken or cracked skulls, stab marks on the backs and pelvises of 20 bodies, one completed and five attempted decapitations, and charring on some bones. The osteologist Ceri Falys read this as an attack on people in flight, not men in hand-to-hand combat; according to Wallis, defensive wounds are absent. The magazine gives a date of about 960 to 1020; Mark Pollard's team, on three radiocarbon dates, thought the tenth century more likely.
The link to the St Brice's Day massacre of 1002, when according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle King Æthelred ordered all the Danish men in England killed, is tempting but unproven. Wallis finds it convincing. Pollard, who assessed the isotopes, himself calls the results "somewhat ambiguous" and considers the execution of a captured raiding party more likely than the killing of Oxford residents of Danish descent. The details are in the separate article on the St Brice's Day massacre. For our question one observation is enough: a royal charter of 1004 expressly justifies the decree and likens the Danes to weeds among wheat. Here it is a Christian court that endorses the violence and finds a biblical image for it.
Neither grave proves innocence, however. Young warriors from Scandinavia were often the very men plundering English coasts. The years before 1002 were marked by raids and tribute payments, as the article on Danegeld and Maldon describes. All that can be shown is that popular memory hands out the roles too simply: the best-known mass graves of this period in England result from violence against Scandinavians.
Skeletons are harder to bribe than monks, though not necessarily representative. The most interesting recent work comes from Jan Bill, David Jacobson, Susanne Nagel and Lisa Mariann Strand (Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2024), who compare Norway and Denmark. Of 30 Norwegian skeletons from 27 burials, 18 showed weapon trauma, or 60 per cent. Eleven died violently and ten carried healed injuries. The figures were 72 per cent of men and 42 per cent of women. In the Danish comparison, 82 skeletons with preserved crania from Pia Bennike's 1985 study, there were only six such cases, and five of them were executions: four decapitations and one hanging.
The authors explain the gap sociologically. In Denmark, with its large earthworks and titles on runestones, a stronger central power drew violence to itself; in Norway it stayed between individuals. Weapon density fits this: over 3,000 swords of the Late Iron Age and Viking period are known from Norway, some 80 from Danish graves. Grave goods, though, also reflect custom and status.
The authors name further limits themselves. The samples are small. The Norwegian material was selected for an aDNA project, southern and western Norway and the far north are missing, and cremations naturally do not appear at all. The Danish data come from an older, purely visual assessment. The unfree are probably underrepresented in both series. And fatal wounds that miss the bone remain invisible.
Two conclusions hold all the same. First, "the Vikings" had no single profile of violence. The gap between two neighbouring regions undercuts any generalisation about national character. Second, the Norwegians in this sample lived dangerously, women included. Anyone declaring the Vikings peaceful traders has to get past these numbers. Whether Frankish or Anglo-Saxon villagers lived more or less dangerously, the study cannot say, because it has no such control group.
The heaviest finding is one that often gets lost in debates about swords and skulls. For 821 the Annals of Ulster note that "heathens" plundered Étar (Howth, near Dublin) and carried off a great number of women into captivity. Under 836 they report many dead and prisoners in southern Brega. The archaeologist Ben Raffield describes slaving as a major activity of raiding and trading groups of the time and reckons with thousands taken. He interprets iron collars and shackles from trading places such as Dublin, Birka and Hedeby as restraints for people. Exact figures do not exist, and markets are hard to prove, since captive people leave few traces.
Here too the comparison brings context rather than acquittal. Slavery was no Norse invention. St Patrick came to Ireland as a captive. Clare Downham lists further routes into unfreedom in Ireland: capture in war, debt, the sale of children in famine. Irish kings themselves took captives as war booty in the tenth and eleventh centuries, probably for the markets of the port towns too. Domesday Book in 1086 records about ten per cent of England's population as unfree, though servus does not mean the same thing in every case. The trade also ran in and around the Frankish realm: the agreement between Lothar I and Venice in 840 banned the purchase of Christian slaves in the empire, which presupposes the trade. And Verdun on the Meuse, not to be confused with Verden on the Aller, was named by tenth-century writers such as Liutprand of Cremona as a place where slaves were castrated for export; I know this claim only at second hand.
A difference remains. Downham finds no evidence of large-scale slave raiding in Ireland in the century before the first attacks. The Norse joined overseas raiding to long-distance outlets, and this brought a new insecurity to coastal regions. The life of St Findan from the late ninth century shows it in miniature: a Leinster noble sets out to ransom his abducted sister, is seized himself, gets free, is captured again later with the help of an Irish conspirator, and finally escapes from Orkney. How the system worked and who sustained it is covered in the article on slavery in the Viking Age.
That leaves method. People who think Viking violence was especially inventive usually have the blood eagle in mind. But the blood eagle tradition rests on one skaldic verse and later tales, and archaeological evidence is lacking. The skull cups go back to a mistranslation, and we know the berserkers mainly from sagas, hardly from battle reports.
Well-attested cruelty exists on both sides of the Channel. In 1014, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Cnut put his father's hostages ashore at Sandwich after cutting off their hands, ears and noses. Yet the same Chronicle reports without excitement that King Æthelred had Ælfgar blinded in 993 and Wulfheah and Ufegeat in 1006. Later, as a Christian king, Cnut put mutilation into his law code. Two legal cultures, one tool; see also the article on Cnut the Great. In the cruelty of their means, the Norse do not stand out among their contemporaries.
For all these comparisons, there are reasons why contemporaries were so frightened. The following points are interpretations, not measurements. First, surprise: ships carried attackers to places thought remote and safe. The Great Army later stayed over winter in the land, which changed the scale once again. Second, foreignness: an Irish king burning a monastery belonged to the same Church and the same web of penance, settlement and kinship. Heathen strangers stood outside it. Third, the business model: from the 830s Vikings in Ireland seized high-ranking people, usually kings or bishops, for ransom; some were killed at the ships. Anyone captured had a price.
None of this makes the perpetrators a different kind of being. It does explain why the lament was so loud.
This answer is shorter. The evidence does not show unkempt hordes: combs are among the commonest finds of the Viking Age, and tweezers and ear-spoons turn up in graves. As for lice and intestinal worms, they fared like everyone else. The cliché of the filthy barbarian does not survive the finds, but super-cleanliness is just as overstated. The details are in the article on Viking combs, baths and hygiene.
Were the Vikings more brutal than the Franks? This cannot be firmly established. Comparable data for a ranking do not exist. The largest single killing reported in this comparison, however, concerns Charlemagne, not a Viking fleet.
Why are they still seen as especially cruel? Mainly because clerics wrote about them, men who were among those affected and who saw the attackers as heathens. Later sagas and modern fiction reinforced the picture.
Who lay in the mass graves at Ridgeway Hill and Oxford? Mostly young men, and at Ridgeway Hill only men. Isotope values point to origins outside Britain, less clearly at Oxford. Who killed them is not recorded; English perpetrators are the usual assumption.
Were the Vikings slave traders? Yes, as annals and Arabic reports attest well, even though numbers are lacking. They were not alone in this, but their overseas raiding changed conditions on many coasts.
Were the Vikings dirty? Going by the finds, no: combs and grooming tools are plentiful. They still had parasites, as their neighbours did.
What was typically Viking? · Lindisfarne 793 · Slavery in the Viking Age · The blood eagle myth · The St Brice's Day massacre of 1002 · The Saxons · Widukind · Viking hygiene
Typically Viking? · Viking Body Care · The blood eagle · Slavery among the Vikings · The Lindisfarne Raid of 793.
Few periods of European history have been shaped by cinema as much as the Viking Age. Most people meet their first …
Read more →The famous "Viking prayer" – "Lo, there do I see my father …" – is not a prayer handed down from the Vikings. It was …
Read more →A Cheruscan boy raised by Varus like a son, a chieftain’s daughter who steals a Roman eagle, and a childhood friend who …
Read more →