Differences Between Hns And Vikings

848 Words4 Pages
During the ancient world the Huns and Vikings launched raids upon civilizations and had become labeled as immoral barbarians even up to the present day. However; due to the writer’s prejudice at the time, underlying motives of the attacks, and empire building that were a result the Vikings were undeserving of their title, while the Huns still remain as barbarians unable to leave a successful empire behind. The Huns and Vikings were both viewed as Antichrists, compassionless, and callous murders who devastated other civilizations for the sake of it. The Huns and Vikings had mutual similarities as well as differences in their methods. The Vikings existed from 800 AD to the 11th century, and the Huns between 1st century AD and 7th century. The two came from very different origins, the Vikings appeared…show more content…
The Viking’s underlying motives were expansion, plundering, and revenge against the Europeans. As the Viking population flourished, the Vikings expanded in places never explored before . They had a desire for revenge against the Europeans because of Charlemagne’s failed attempts to assimilate the Vikings into European civilization . “They brought to the British Isles vigorous new art forms, and vigorous new settlers; they founded and developed great market towns, they injected new forms of administration and justice that have left their mark to this day” . Ultimately what their most known for is that they colonized new trade routes across the known world along with the discovery of Iceland . The Huns on the other hand were pillagers and not empire builders. They obliterated a whole civilization for riches and gold . They were ruthless and slaughtered an entire Roman army . The Huns killed for the Romans in return for a payoff. Their leader Atilla wants bigger pay offs to assure the loyalty of fellow Huns

    More about Differences Between Hns And Vikings

      Open Document