By 2026 standards? Not exactly…
In 926, the Vikings were arguably superior in terms of social egalitarianism, hygiene, ship design, and a range of other factors that explain their success.
Viewed through modern eyes, however, there are some things that are hard to stomach—though this applied not only to the Vikings but to almost all societies of that era.
Let’s start with slavery. The Vikings called their bondsmen thralls, but the word “slave” actually derives from the fact that most of the slaves the Vikings sold in the Byzantine Empire were of Slavic descent—originating from present-day Russia and Ukraine. Slaves were also taken from Ireland, England, Scotland, the Baltic states, and even neighboring villages.
Some were free citizens who had been enslaved, while others were already owned by someone else—making their capture, in effect, slave theft.
Without having invented concepts like ethnicity, nationality, or religious discrimination, they took slaves from everywhere.
The slave trade of the period reached industrial proportions, and the Vikings were major suppliers across Europe. The city of Dublin was actually founded by Vikings as a slave market.
Viking hygiene was extremely high compared to that of other Northern Europeans. This resulted in lower child mortality and significantly higher survival rates after battles—simply because they washed their wounds.
At the same time, the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described them as filthy from a Muslim perspective (Muslims are required to wash at least five times a day). By modern standards, most Vikings would likely have benefited from an extra bath, a change of clothes, and a toothbrush.
The ship design was superior. A Viking ship could sail across the Atlantic, navigate up a river, be carried over a waterfall, be beached while a monastery was being plundered, and be halfway back to Jutland before anyone could summon help.
They sailed down Russian rivers and across the world’s oceans, traveling from the Mediterranean to Iceland, Greenland, and Canada. Their maneuverability was unsurpassed, though comfort was abysmal; most people today would likely prefer a ship with shelter, a galley, and cabins for a long voyage.
Egalitarianism was more prevalent than elsewhere in the world. Women could own property, be single mothers without facing stigma, and participate on equal terms with men in battles, legal proceedings, and religious ceremonies. In fact, most religious rituals were the exclusive domain of women.
If we compare the status of women in the year 926 with that of 1626, Viking Age women were significantly better off. However, comparing 926 with 2026 reveals many areas and situations where women lacked true equality.
Nor should we delude ourselves into thinking that Viking society was “classless.” It was anything but. Although, in principle, everyone was heard in the longhouse before decisions were made, there is no doubt that some were more—much more—equal than others.
And we must remember that a town consisted of both free citizens and thralls. Thralls were not included in the egalitarianism for which the Vikings are praised.
Finally, this list brings us to raiding and warfare. Every group engaged in these activities at the time, but for a period, the Vikings were simply more skilled at it than anyone else. If a local king wanted to expand his territory, finding warriors was not difficult. After all, their payment was the right to plunder, enslave, and rape the local population upon victory.
Routine raids—devoid of political motivation—on villages, churches, and monasteries were commonplace. The tactic involved creating a bloodbath characterized by slow, humiliating executions, arson, and mass rape, while allowing a few victims to escape and spread the word.
This meant that the next time the raiders appeared at the gates, villagers were willing to pay “protection money” to be spared—the so-called Danegeld.
Pure mafia tactics.
Some of the captives were merely hostages who could be sold back to their families immediately, saving the raiders the trouble of dragging them across the sea in chains to be sold as slaves.
They might travel to a foreign town to trade, discover it was poorly defended, and return later to plunder it.
If no raids or wars were on the horizon, some would enlist as mercenaries for local kings.
Vikings allied with other Vikings against English kings, allied with English kings against other Vikings, sold fellow Vikings into slavery in Constantinople, and switched religions and “nationalities” back and forth multiple times throughout their lives.
There were no moral scruples whatsoever—none at all—if there was a profit to be made.
Anything for silver!
That kind of cynicism is hard to find among modern Vikings. Fortunately. If one is sufficiently “woke,” one might debate whether Vikings are still too cynical and ruthless.
Outside Scandinavia, it is not difficult to find people who consider Danes to be barbarians—when we publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, stage a public autopsy of a giraffe at the zoo for schoolchildren to watch, swim naked in Copenhagen’s inner harbor, drink alcohol on the S-train, feature naked people in children’s TV programs, and so on.
At least we are now so “woke” that we no longer plunder monasteries and take the monks as slaves.