<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A historian puts us closer to understanding the real Vikings
Review: A dynamic revision of the "Myth of the Viking", placing one of history's great warrior cultures on a steady course towards academic analysis. The Viking Art of War might have been better titled, "Battle Customs and the Experience of the Norse Warrior." While this is not as catchy, "art of war" and "viking" are two unfortunate misnomers; one granting far too much insight into the execution of organized warfare, and the latter suggesting too much emphasis on the dubious profession of piracy. The book itself is an extremely valuable review of the Saga sources, catigorizing the variety of experiences of the norse warrior (on land, at sea, in raid or full scale battles) and clearly footnoting the specific saga(s) that lead Mr. Griffith to his conlcusions. Further, the superimposition of modern warfighting terminology is both insightful and novel. While I differed with some of his conclusions, on the whole I found that Mr. Griffith has presented an enthusiastic thesis for a period of history too long dominated by amateurs and fantasists eager to jump to conclusions and perpetuate aggravating Hollywood myths.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book, but not intentionally
Review: Although this is definitely a five-star book, it actually fails horribly at its objective, which is to piece together Viking battle plans and fighting abilities. There are two reasons for this:1. The author himself openly admits that there's essentially nothing to work with (as opposed to, say, well-documented Roman battles), as these things were generally never recorded during the Viking Age 2. The Vikings didn't have anything even remotely approaching a strategy, apart from sailing solid boats to likely hotspots for pillage. And once there, it was more trial & error than any kind of real plan. Even the "Great Army" was more of a hodgepodge of like-minded marauders than any kind of seriously coordinated force But then this book outdoes not only its own goal, but outshines every other Viking book I've ever read: it brings the Vikings to life. It brings these people right out of the exaggerated world of "Norse supermen" that so many people want them to have been, and leaves you instead with a powerful vision of real human beings living day-to-day life. People want to believe anything and everything about the Vikings, that they sailed all the way to Australia for no reason, or that they got all the way to the North American midwest, the kind of "theories" that anyone even jokingly educated knows to be ridiculous. The author chronicles and examines where the actual Vikings travelled and why, and the sometimes shocking rate of failure these people experienced, even as master sailors. For every successful pillage or new discovery, the Vikings lost several entire boatloads of people and supplies, and you begin to wonder just what kind of willpower could keep driving them to explore so much when they never really had to. By the end of the book you'll have a real feeling of awe for these people who did so much, because you'll see by what haphazard means they did such extraordinary things. I very highly recommend this "sleeper" of a book.
Rating: 
Summary: A Definite Miss
Review: The conclusions the author reaches are hardly substantiated by the historical record. While he writes intelligently, he does not know his subject very well. It is almost as if he were an expert in another area, but was forced to write a book outside his area of expertise. One of the few books I've read where I alternated at being mad about the ineptness of the historical conclusions drawn, and laughing at the absurdness of the same conclusions. Truly a miss.
Rating:
Summary: A Definite Miss
Review: The conclusions the author reaches are hardly substantiated by the historical record. While he writes intelligently, he does not know his subject very well. It is almost as if he were an expert in another area, but was forced to write a book outside his area of expertise. One of the few books I've read where I alternated at being mad about the ineptness of the historical conclusions drawn, and laughing at the absurdness of the same conclusions. Truly a miss.
Rating:
Summary: Biased, revisionist history, but interesting nonetheless
Review: The title of this book is misleading. I expected to find a detailed analysis of Viking warfare, but found a rather unprofessional rant on Scandinavian culture in the Viking Era. It is easy to see how a perception of history can be slanted, based upon the bias of the author. This insight is useful, however, in the review of latter-day protagonist saga writers or antagonist monks. Little more can be learned from this text.
Rating:
Summary: Worst of the "serious" books on the topic
Review: This book was written for a series on the ART OF WAR. In effect, it is a generic book on Vikings, derived from secondary source material. the best parts of the book are the discussions of source material at the very end. The author seems not to care about his subject enough to search for the correct verb, make the conclusions presented consistent with the facts provided, or thoroughly learn his subject. The editing of the some of the charts and tables is poor, the one on page 59 about Magyars "mopping up whatever enclaves have escaped the Viking assault from the sea." is laughable - almost certainly not the fault of the author. The sections on navigation, its hazards and ship building are shockingly bad. The phrasing in some of the sentences creates unintentional humor e.g. "for all their much- vaunted military muscle the Vikings managed to erase only one race permanently from the map of Europe- the Picts- and even then it was surely not out of any deliberate policy of genocide." The choice of the verb "managed" implies an effort at genocide and "even then...surely not" implies that they SHOULD have had such a policy. Again slipshod editing. Finally, the tone is more suited to a book on politics -and P. Griffith does demonstrate a mastery of polemics- a lot of "attitude" shows through which is often at variance with the information presented. A good editor could have helped. There are many good scholarly works on this subject, (Gwyn Jones and P. Sawyer for example), but this is not one of them.
<< 1 >>
| 
