The Vikings used much the same methods of navigation on their voyages across oceans:
But they also used a crude kind of compass, known as a “Leidarstein”:
Another type of compass used by the Vikings was the “shadow board”, the so-called sólskyggafjól:
They may also have used what was called “sunstones” to “see” the sun on cloudy days:
Looks like the Vikings really got around, at least judging from this “picture”:
I don’t think there’s much support for this before 1200 CE, at least from what I’ve seen. Otherwise why would the term hafvilla be found so often in the sagas?
“Even so, hafvilla is a word that appears often in the sagas. It means the loss of all sense of direction at sea, a state that could last for days or even weeks, even, we may suppose, to death.”
This is from The Conquest of the North Atlantic by G.J. Marcus which I read.
The early voyages into the deep waters of the Atlantic rank among the greatest feats of exploration. In tiny, fragile vessels the Irish monks searched for desolate places in the ocean in which to pursue their vocation; their successors, the Vikings, with their superb ship-building skills, created fast, sea-worthy craft which took them far out into the unknown, until they finally reached Greenland and America.
G.J. Marcus looks at the history of these expeditions not only as a historian, but also as a practical sailor. Besides the problem of what these early explorers actually achieved, he poses the even more fascinating question of how they did it, without compass, quadrant, or astrolabe
The Chinese were the first to use a crude “magnetic compass”:
The Vikings MAY have learnt about the use of “Leidarstein” (Leading stone, or Lodestone) from the Arabs, or they MAY have discovered the properties of magnetite independently.
In any case, it didn’t solve all problems of knowing direction in cloudy, foggy North Atlantic waters.
A piece of Magnetite floating on water was not a very accurate “compass” on a rolling and pitching boat, so it was still possible to go “hafvilla” on a crossing from Norway to Iceland, Greenland or Vinland.
The invention of gimbal to keep the compass bowl level didn’t happen before much later.
PS> For those who wants to know more about early exploration in the Arctic, here is the book “In Northern Mist” by Fridtjof Nansen, published in English in 1911:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40633/40633-h/40633-h.htm
It is/was available on Amazon:
There are runes carved into the stone of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul and Vikings were guards of the emperor in Constantinople. The Persians had advanced knowledge of astronomy from the 10th century and Vikings were trading maidens from Hungary etc to the arabs. I imagined they had a primitive arrangement with a lodestone.
This is what Nansen says in his book Northern Mists:
The lodestone, or compass, did not reach the Norwegians till the thirteenth century.[229] As to what means they had before[Pg 249] that time for finding their course at sea, Norse-Icelandic literature contains extremely scanty statements. We see that to them, as to the Phœnicians before them, the pole-star was the lodestar, and that they sometimes used birds—ravens—to find out the direction of land; but we also hear that when they met with fog or cloudy weather they drifted without knowing where they were, and sometimes went in the opposite direction to that they expected, as in Thorstein Ericson’s attempt to make Wineland from Greenland, where they arrived off Iceland instead of off America.
G.J Marcus: Hafvilla: A note on Norse Navigation
I bow to Nansen’s expertise.
Here is a newly discovered Viking ship “drawing” that has been found in Norway:
PS> No indication of any Leidarstein onboard though.
I’ve no doubt Scandinavians were at the forefront of venturing, after all, they and northern germans are credited with helping to end the roman empire.
being of Scandinavian decent I have to wonder how they ever ended up being so pacifist on the political front.
Maybe they finally took to their senses and realized that killing each other doesn’t solve any problems.
Living in harmony with each others and with nature is a much better way than war.
and less expensive
Yes indeed, a lot less expensive.
Just imagine the amount of good that could be done with the money saved from not needing to “defend” yourself against enemies (real or imagined).
Problems are NOT solved with weapons (or with tariffs) but with dialogue.
BTW; Since everybody claim they just need weapons for “defence”, who is the attacker(s)?
In my experience if you go out and try and apprehend someone that is up to no good within your Exclusive Economic Zone a policeman’s whistle doesn’t cut it. You need a gun conspicuous by its size on the front so the dialogue can start.
In wrong thread maybe?
No longer, they are in NATO now.
Teddy Roosevelt had it, “Talk softly and carry a big stick”.
The NORDIC countries may not be “pacifists” in the true sense of the word, but they are known as peacemakers, not warmongers.
Yes ALL have armed forces (except Iceland) In the present situation in the world the Nordic countries armed forces are especially active in the high north and arctic area:
They also take part in peacekeeping operations under UN mandate, as well as both NATO and EU maritime protective operations around the world.
Yes they are.
As of this year ALL Nordic countries are NATO members, with Sweden finally being willing to give up their longstanding neutrality and Turkey (the country, not the bird) finally giving up on blocking it’s membership acceptance.
Denmark, Iceland and Norway were among the original signatory nations.
Note; NATO is a mutual defensive organization, where ALL members agree to defend each other if attacked by an outside power (Article 5).
There are NO agreement to support other members in attacking, or in aggression against other nations.
PS> So far only USA has ever invoked Article 5.
Let us hope nobody will have to in the future.
I agree to a point. With the major powers the weapons are not just for defense but also offense. Why? There is a LOT of money to be made and the taxpayers pay for it to the detriment of their own well being. Germany’s ‘defensive’ build up in the 1930s was paid for by the German people. General Motors, Ford, BASF, Bayor among others were recipients. But history has shown that dialogue without potential threat doesn’t work…History has also shown that unlimited military spending and income inequality is the primary cause of a nations failure. Unfortunate that history is not taught as much as it used to be.
