Books, TV shows, and even some notable museum displays paint a portrait of tall and powerful men with above average strength and skill at killing others. Are such portrayals accurate?
Great article — thanks for sharing these insights on Viking height with clear sourcing and context. One thing I’d like to add is a distinction that often gets blurred in modern usage: the term "Viking" originally referred not to all Scandinavians, but specifically to those who went on raids — i.e., víkingr in Old Norse. So while your article understandably discusses general Scandinavian populations, it’s worth noting that those who actually "went viking" were likely not representative of the domestic population in physical stature or strength.
The raiders — the ones who left the strongest impression on the people they encountered — were probably the physically elite of Norse society. They would have been stronger, more muscular, and more combat-trained than the average farmer or artisan buried in places like Iceland or Denmark. Wielding heavy weapons like two-handed axes and rowing longships over open seas required significant strength and endurance. These men were likely selected for — or self-selected into — raiding because of their physical capabilities.
This might help explain the historical accounts and enduring cultural perception of Vikings as towering, fearsome warriors, even if average skeletal remains suggest otherwise. Those doing the raiding weren’t average — and the fear and awe they inspired shaped much of how they were remembered.
Again, great work — and thank you for sparking such an engaging conversation on this topic.
I mention a consideration of the word 'Viking' in the article, acknowledging that, considering the nomenclature of the word, we arrive at different levels of satisfaction with the explanations. I've written another article about the origins and use of the word that attempts to disambiguate it. Although, given the current scholarship on the word (i.e. capital 'V' and lowercase 'v') and the debates surrounding it, I'm afraid my article, which I wrote almost ten years ago, is out of date. It's something we've brought up on the Vikingology Podcast.
Regarding your statement about how those who left home may have been the taller ones...I think it's an intriguing proposition and one worth exploring, but as of now, I am not convinced by the argument that those who went to rove were the "elite" compared to the people buried back at home. These were people driven by necessity and scarcity. Barrett's two papers on the six deterministic factors that may have caused the Viking Age speak to this, demonstrating that a youth bulge was likely responsible for the western diaspora. In a youth bulge occurring within a limited resource pool, we wouldn't expect all of them to be the elite. If they were, they wouldn't have left. Perhaps later in the Viking Age, the demographics changed such that larger, stronger men were the ones leaving home to rove. However, with the influx of wealth from abroad, we would also expect the ruling class at home to benefit and grow taller, and it is these people who were being buried (the grave site discussed by Winroth features a man buried under a runestone that explained that he had traveled far away and returned). I can see how an argument could be made that the apparent reduction in heights during the Viking Age could have resulted from taller men leaving home and getting themselves killed abroad, but we simply don't have the evidence to prove such a claim.
It's a tricky question, for sure, and, as with so many things related to the Vikings, we cannot say for certain. And that's what makes it fun! Thanks again for reading my article and joining the conversation 🙏
Great article — thanks for sharing these insights on Viking height with clear sourcing and context. One thing I’d like to add is a distinction that often gets blurred in modern usage: the term "Viking" originally referred not to all Scandinavians, but specifically to those who went on raids — i.e., víkingr in Old Norse. So while your article understandably discusses general Scandinavian populations, it’s worth noting that those who actually "went viking" were likely not representative of the domestic population in physical stature or strength.
The raiders — the ones who left the strongest impression on the people they encountered — were probably the physically elite of Norse society. They would have been stronger, more muscular, and more combat-trained than the average farmer or artisan buried in places like Iceland or Denmark. Wielding heavy weapons like two-handed axes and rowing longships over open seas required significant strength and endurance. These men were likely selected for — or self-selected into — raiding because of their physical capabilities.
This might help explain the historical accounts and enduring cultural perception of Vikings as towering, fearsome warriors, even if average skeletal remains suggest otherwise. Those doing the raiding weren’t average — and the fear and awe they inspired shaped much of how they were remembered.
Again, great work — and thank you for sparking such an engaging conversation on this topic.
Thanks for your comment 😊
I mention a consideration of the word 'Viking' in the article, acknowledging that, considering the nomenclature of the word, we arrive at different levels of satisfaction with the explanations. I've written another article about the origins and use of the word that attempts to disambiguate it. Although, given the current scholarship on the word (i.e. capital 'V' and lowercase 'v') and the debates surrounding it, I'm afraid my article, which I wrote almost ten years ago, is out of date. It's something we've brought up on the Vikingology Podcast.
Regarding your statement about how those who left home may have been the taller ones...I think it's an intriguing proposition and one worth exploring, but as of now, I am not convinced by the argument that those who went to rove were the "elite" compared to the people buried back at home. These were people driven by necessity and scarcity. Barrett's two papers on the six deterministic factors that may have caused the Viking Age speak to this, demonstrating that a youth bulge was likely responsible for the western diaspora. In a youth bulge occurring within a limited resource pool, we wouldn't expect all of them to be the elite. If they were, they wouldn't have left. Perhaps later in the Viking Age, the demographics changed such that larger, stronger men were the ones leaving home to rove. However, with the influx of wealth from abroad, we would also expect the ruling class at home to benefit and grow taller, and it is these people who were being buried (the grave site discussed by Winroth features a man buried under a runestone that explained that he had traveled far away and returned). I can see how an argument could be made that the apparent reduction in heights during the Viking Age could have resulted from taller men leaving home and getting themselves killed abroad, but we simply don't have the evidence to prove such a claim.
It's a tricky question, for sure, and, as with so many things related to the Vikings, we cannot say for certain. And that's what makes it fun! Thanks again for reading my article and joining the conversation 🙏