Slitherine

Ok, I like the bear-shirt explanation.

Thanks,

Larry Irons

montezuma wrote:I feel it should be noted that there is very little evidence for any but a handful of berserks. In general they formed part of the retinue of the great Viking leaders.

It would be extremely unlikely for an army to contain enough to make up a base/element/stand so they should not even be in the list at all. They are one of the great myths of wargaming.

regards
Paul

werd!

I agree heartily here. One of the great myths of wargaming indeed.

plewis66 wrote:

plewis66 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Re: Origin. IIRC Sark is old English for shirt as in Cutty Sark - Short Shirt - name of a famous ship. Therefore Bare Sark - Bare chested - no shirt. (Possibly)

phil

Exactly, ON serkr become OE sark (often written serc).

Actually, checking with www.etymonline.com suggests I was mistaken about berr (bare), and that it may instead be derived from ber (bear), and mean 'bearskin-shirted', and Wikipedia agrees.

I know this is a bit necrophilic but I ran across this research doing a search on another matter.

Berserk or Bärsärk literary means bear-shirt, that is correct, but the actual meaning is to become a bear. Like a shape shifter of sorts. Thus the berserk was seenas fighting like a bear. The bear was highly regarded in the Viking age, they symbolised several things but among others they were regarded as ferocious in combat (while hunted of course). A berserk had to, to maintain their status as highly regarded warriors in their society, be fanatical in combat and almost impervious to wounds. They could be classed as protected despite their lack of armour due to their hardiness – they kept on fighting until they died basically.

Regardning numbers ive heard all sorts and cant say either way. But the thue berserks had some hangarounds that had to behave in a similar way as the berserks to uphould thier status. They cold be insperational to thier fellows in arms, making them more fanatical though setting examples. Futher, they had an impact greater than thier numbers on their adversaries.

According to the research I've done, Fulgrim got it right with his shape-shifter bear-man explanation. They were also apparently very bad neighbors back home. (Murderous thugs and bullies). Also very doubtful there were enough of them to justify a battle group in FoG.

The Lewis chess piece berserks are great. I love the way they are gnawing on their shields. This has nothing to do with FoG. I just like them.

Damned if I can remember where, but I remember reading or watching something about berserkers and the suggestion that some elixirs with psychotropic properties may have been at work as well.

PyrrhicVictory wrote:Damned if I can remember where, but I remember reading or watching something about berserkers and the suggestion that some elixirs with psychotropic properties may have been at work as well.

Hmm, well, Amanita Muscaria was known at the time in the north, at least to the Lapps, who used it both as flykiller and hallucinogen. We won't talk about the part where they drank each other's pee...

PyrrhicVictory wrote:Damned if I can remember where, but I remember reading or watching something about berserkers and the suggestion that some elixirs with psychotropic properties may have been at work as well.

There are also theories that suggest 'berserkers', 'shield biters' and their ilk were mentally ill, psychotics, etc., or may even have been suffering from Paget's Disease; aside from the possibility that they use psychotropic drugs or just good old alcohol to work up a frenzy.

Given that most accounts only really talk about the berserkers attacking enemies, and not their firends or each other, i'm more inclined to think these chaps were able to work themsleves up into a frothing rage, perhaps through ritual activity before a battle. Given their close association with Odin, such religious fervour possibly gave them the ability to achive an alter state of consciousness ('battlemadness'?), and would account for their extreme violence, often savage attacks using 'teeth and claws', and (debateable) tendency to wear bear or wolf skins (classic tribal totemnic practice).

That said, there are accounts of war leaders setting their longships ashore to let their berserkers off to attack trees etc., just to 'get their rage out'...i think these are likely apocryphal accounts though - narrative devices of the sagas.

However, i'm inclined to think that the berserkers were sort of 'shamanic/divine-warriors', using ritual to adopt and express Odin's fury on the battlefield. But i'm no Norse scholar...

As for numbers? Well, there are certainly accounts that the berserkers were often kept in reserve, and used by warleaders to exploit a weakness that developed in the opponent's lines, so its possible that there were enough of these warriors to form a 'unit'.

Something worth remembering about numbers of course is that the sagas (the main primary source for these things) were stories (written in a time when story and history were synonymous of course) of derring do. Also, most 'Viking' activity was very small scale, with a handful of boats and perhaps only dozens or maybe a few hundred men involved.

Indeed an 'army' of the time could be only a few hundred men, and certainly no more than a few thousand at most. At the battle of Maldon 991AD, the Vikings had maybe 2000-3000 men and faced a 'small Saxon force', variously ascribed as between 200-1000 men. At Clontarf (1014AD), there were no more than 3000-4000 men per side, etc.

So its likely that a small number of berserkers would be enough to form a decent 'unit'.

As for the point that berserkers are 'wargamers myth'...so? Isn't it a wargame? A Viking tabletop army would be...i don't know...not quite the same without at least to possibility of a few frothing nutters in the mix wouldn't it?