The Viking Road To Byzantium

[bigdamnhero]

Looking for some help from my fellow history geeks. Not fantasy per se, but relevant.

 

In the 9th & 10th Century, the Vikings established a riverine/overland trade route from Scandinavia to Constantinople. Essentially they rowed up one of a couple of different rivers from the Baltic, dragged their ships overland, and sailed down the Dneiper to the Black Sea, and then on to Constantinople. I've seen it called the Viking road to Byzantium, the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks, or the high road to Miklagard* depending on the historian. I've found some really good information on the routes used, where the different portages were, what sort of goods were traded, and all that. But there's one thing I can't seem to find any good information on.

 

How long did the damn trip take?

 

None of the sources I found address the amount of time it took to traverse the route, or even hazard a guess. The only thing I've found so far is in Frans Bengtsson's novel The Long Ships,** part of which deals with a fictional trip down most of the route and back. But the author doesn't really mention dates or the passage of time except to note that they leave home on Midsummer's Day (ie late June) and arrive home on All Saints Day (Nov 1); so about 4 1/2 months round trip. That feels alright for a ballpark. But in the novel that time includes a lot of other stuff happening besides sailing, while conversely they don't go the whole way to Constantinople. Plus I'd prefer to have more than one data point, especially when the one I have is fictional.

 

Any ideas? I'm hoping someone hereabouts has done some research on this topic before, or can point me in the right direction.

 

 

* The Norse name for Constantinople. Because apparently the place didn't have enough different names already.

 

** BTW, if you have an interest in the Viking era and haven't read this book, go find it now. It was originally written in Swedish, but the English translation is very good and really captures the author's dry sense of humor IMO. (I can't speak for any other languages it might be translated into obviously.) Good read.

[bluesguy]

Love to help you out but I don't know... However...
 

what sort of goods were traded

Tell me more about this because I would love to know about this.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The stories I've read of it they took years, but only because they stopped and served various princes and potentates along the way.  It is a REALLY long trip, so it would have to be months, but I don't know exactly.

[womble]

According to Google Maps, the Daugova from Riga (Latvia) to Belarus is about 500km. The Dneipr from Orsha, Belarus to the Euxine is about 2000km. The portage between the two is about 80km as the crow flies, but the terrain is pretty wet-looking which might mean floating some of the way... Mouths of the Dneipr to Constantinople is 650km.

 

2kmh upstream, 10kmh downstream, 8 hours a day makes the 5000km riverine round trip take 2500/16 + 2500/80 ~ 160 + 32 days. 8 days each way for the portage, say, and 10 for the return crossing of the western Euxine. Plus however long it takes the particular Norseman to get to the Gulf of Riga from wherever he calls home. Call it 6 months without much in the way of distractions. Quicker to get there than back because of the larger downstream portion of that direction.

 

You might go faster than 10kmh downstream, but it would be risky in parts. You might go faster upstream with a favourable wind, but longships, being square rigged and shallow draught are not known for being able to sail even crosswind in the confines of  a river, so the winds would have to be just right to give the rowers a rest. The the Rhine-Danube route would be the longest way round though. And you could be stuck rowing, even on the open sea, if the wind was against you. You could travel longer each day, light permitting, but there has to be time set aside for foraging and mooring/camping.

 

That any use as a basis to work from?

[eepjr24]

According to Google Maps, the Daugova from Riga (Latvia) to Belarus is about 500km. The Dneipr from Orsha, Belarus to the Euxine is about 2000km. The portage between the two is about 80km as the crow flies, but the terrain is pretty wet-looking which might mean floating some of the way... Mouths of the Dneipr to Constantinople is 650km.

 

2kmh upstream, 10kmh downstream, 8 hours a day makes the 5000km riverine round trip take 2500/16 + 2500/80 ~ 160 + 32 days. 8 days each way for the portage, say, and 10 for the return crossing of the western Euxine. Plus however long it takes the particular Norseman to get to the Gulf of Riga from wherever he calls home. Call it 6 months without much in the way of distractions. Quicker to get there than back because of the larger downstream portion of that direction.

 

You might go faster than 10kmh downstream, but it would be risky in parts. You might go faster upstream with a favourable wind, but longships, being square rigged and shallow draught are not known for being able to sail even crosswind in the confines of  a river, so the winds would have to be just right to give the rowers a rest. The the Rhine-Danube route would be the longest way round though. And you could be stuck rowing, even on the open sea, if the wind was against you. You could travel longer each day, light permitting, but there has to be time set aside for foraging and mooring/camping.

 

That any use as a basis to work from?

I like most of that. I would quibble a little and go for 2 weeks on the portages, moving boats in mud is not any easier than dry land, maybe harder unless it is deep enough to actually float. 

 

I would probably go with 10 hour travel days as well but the distances per hour feel right. 

 

All of that assuming no hostile natives to deal with, I don't know enough about the route to gauge that bit.

 

- E

[Christopher R Taylor]

10 hours might be generous, for any extended time period without an army to march with or a really good reason to get there in a hurry.

[bigdamnhero]

Can I just say how much I love you guys? I posted the same question on my FB page, and all my gamer/historian buddies sent me a bunch of links to articles full of facts about the route, none of which even mentioned how long it took. So thank you for your helpfulness, and Womble you are my Favorite Person for today!

 

2 kmph upstream: is that assuming they're rowing, or just under wind? In Bengtsson's book they were under oar the whole way upriver. (Fictional yes, but obviously well-researched so I'm willing to give it some credit.)

 

10 kmph downstream: I usually hear 7-10 knots (13-19 kmph) cited as a decent cruising speed with a good wind/current. Is it slower here because of the confines of the river compared to open water? From the book, it also sounds like they did at least some rowing downstream too.

 

Me am infantry; me not know from boats.

 

Travel hours per day: 8 hours a day seems about right, particularly if you've been rowing all day. Maybe 10 if you've been under sail all day and have rations with you so you don't need to hunt/forage/trade/raid for dinner? But call it 8 for planning purposes.

 

The "Great Portage:" In the book, the area is described as dry ground with only a couple small lakes along the way. They were able to hire oxen from some farmers along the banks, so the portage took them 10 days.

 

There's also a second portage around around a series of nine rapids on the lower Dneiper south of the Samara River confluence. I've seen different estimates as to the length of this section, but it looks like it was 60-70 km total. So that would add several days to a week? (They didn't traverse this portion in the book.)

 

Hostile natives: the Kievan Rus was generally friendly to Norse traders, being of Norse descent themselves. The biggest danger seems to have been in the area around the rapids, where Pecheneg steppes nomads were a significant threat.

 

Trade goods: per Wikipedia:

The Trade Route from the Varangians to the Greeks was used to transport different kinds of merchandise. Wine, spices, jewelry, glass, expensive fabrics, icons, and books came from the Byzantine Empire. Volhyn traded spinning wheels and other items. Certain kinds of weapons and handicrafts came from Scandinavia. Northern Rus' offered timber, fur, honey, and wax, while the Baltic tribes traded amber.

Other sources I've read stress that Persian silk became a major status symbol for Norse women, while Norse weapons and furs were highly valued in Byzantium.

[bigdamnhero]

As an aside, someone on my FB page suggested it would have to have been quicker than the Western route by sea via Gibraltor, or they would've use that route instead. But it's only 3712 nautical miles from Copenhagen to Istanbul, which works out to 532 hours at 7 knots. Assuming 8 hours per day again, that's 66 days. I'm pretty sure the riverine/overland route couldn't have been quicker than that, and the deciding factor had more to do with no wanting to sail past several hostile states, such as the Muslim Caliphate in Cordova.

[Tholomyes]

Barbary Pirates were active in the western Mediterranean as early as the 9th century, so I'd reckon that might have something to do with it. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well the Vikings didn't set out to get to Byzantium, it was more a gradual progression of looking for work and plunder that ended up with them in that location as the emperor's special bodygard

[Lawnmower Boy]

According to Google Maps, the Daugova from Riga (Latvia) to Belarus is about 500km. The Dneipr from Orsha, Belarus to the Euxine is about 2000km. The portage between the two is about 80km as the crow flies, but the terrain is pretty wet-looking which might mean floating some of the way... Mouths of the Dneipr to Constantinople is 650km.

 

2kmh upstream, 10kmh downstream, 8 hours a day makes the 5000km riverine round trip take 2500/16 + 2500/80 ~ 160 + 32 days. 8 days each way for the portage, say, and 10 for the return crossing of the western Euxine. Plus however long it takes the particular Norseman to get to the Gulf of Riga from wherever he calls home. Call it 6 months without much in the way of distractions. Quicker to get there than back because of the larger downstream portion of that direction.

 

You might go faster than 10kmh downstream, but it would be risky in parts. You might go faster upstream with a favourable wind, but longships, being square rigged and shallow draught are not known for being able to sail even crosswind in the confines of  a river, so the winds would have to be just right to give the rowers a rest. The the Rhine-Danube route would be the longest way round though. And you could be stuck rowing, even on the open sea, if the wind was against you. You could travel longer each day, light permitting, but there has to be time set aside for foraging and mooring/camping.

 

That any use as a basis to work from?

This estimate might be a bit pessimistic. The York Factory Express was the annual Hudson's Bay connection between modern Churchill, Manitoba and Fort Vancouver, Washingtion. The Express was expected to travel the 4200 mile route in two-and-a-half-months, and, at a maximum, had a break-up-to-freeze window. Here's the Wikipedia article.

[womble]

From the article:

 

...An 1839 report cites the travel time as three months and ten days—almost 26 miles (40 km) per day on average

My riverine travel speed averages out at (2+10)/2 = 6 kmh which is 48km in an 8 hour day... Have I made an arithmetic boo-boo? My tired head isn't seeing it...

 

500km up the Daugova at 2kmh = 250hr ~32 days

2000 down the Dneipr at 10kmh = 200hr ~ 25 days

2000 up the Dneipr at 2kmh = 1000hr ~ 125 days

Average speed on the Dneipr = 4000/150 = 27km/d.

 

Ah. That's the difference. Average speed for the trip is not the same as for two separate hours. Silly womble. So yes, those guys were shifting a lot faster than my guesstimate.

 

Those boats are good analogues of the Drakken

 

So "3-6 months" for the Riga-Kherson round trip might be a good range for "busting a gut on a known route" at one extreme and "moseying along while finding the way" at the other... And then add in the inevitable distractions

[bigdamnhero]

So I came across one reference here: https://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/rus-ship.htm.

 

The comparison of the written sources data and the results of experiment shows that around five days were needed to sail with a fair good wind from middle Sweden to the Neva mouth. The travel to Staraya Ladoga took up 8-12 days, and to Novgorod the vessel could sail during 13-17 days. The voyage back from Novgorod to middle Sweden took up about 10-11 days with a fair good wind and voyage from Staraya Ladoga could last for a week.

I'm assuming there's a typo in the last line, and the author meant 10-11 days from Novgorod to Staraya Ladoga, and a week from there back to Sweden? If so that gives us a 26-34 days from Sweden to Novgorod, and 17-18 days for the return trip.

[Richgee]

I think the main reason you can't find any information on the time this journey took is because this is a route for trade to flow rather than a single journey to be undertaken by traders. The Norwegian and Swedish vikings perused a policy of aggressive expansion down in to these regions. As they went they built or took over strategic trade sites eventually pushing all the way to the black sea. Unless you were a mercenary/raiding group you would be unlikely to travel the full distance. Rather goods would make their way along the route being traded and passing through multiple hands before reaching the final destination.

 

If a party of mercenaries was to under take the full journey I think the river/sea travel times look good but the land crossings are very optimistic. Pulling a boat over land is no easy feat. You are days in preparation breaking down and emptying your vessel ready to move it. Cutting logs to draw it over, rending fat to grease the logs physically moving your whole life between camps. Covering more than 2-3 miles in a day seems very unlikely. There is a local historic example near my home where in order to clam a small chunk of Scotland a Viking king sailed up loch long(a sea loch) and had his men pull his boat cross country to loch lomond, then sailed down the river leven and back out to the firth of Clyde. accounts have them take a full day to pull the boat the 2.5 miles. Which was a feat considered heroic on their behalf.

[ghost-angel]

There's probably a lot of truth to the idea that a single merchant didn't take his goods all the way from point of origin to point of resolution. I mean, the biggest achievement of the modern diesel age is fast, cheap, good, transportation. We hit all three points on the Choose Two spectrum...

 

I'd imagine goods flowed in both directions as direct trades for each other, any given merchant going over a small section of any given route.

 

I know, at least according to a museum visit, on the Silk Road it was rare for a single trader to traverse the entire Silk Road himself. Major trade cities were so because they were positioned so that traders from both directions reached those points in close succession as much as anything else and could just transfer good across right there and then turn back with their new stuff and sell it for profit once home again.

[Richgee]

Your silk road analogy is spot on. Also their is no need to take your boat the full way even if it is your desire to go the whole distance. The Rus on the black sea built their own boats. So it would not be inconceivable that if the call went out for mercenaries to fight a campaign of raids/invasion that they would supply the boats. Allowing the mercenaries to sail south as far as they could on the north flowing river, beach their own boats leave them under guard and go cross country to a staging point where the Rus king would have brought transport boats to ferry the warriors to his fleet on the black sea coast.

 

Contemporary historic accounts have huge fleets of raiding ships attacking major cities on the black sea. Though you can never count on the numbers quoted to be accurate you can look for the lack of other evidence to support the notion of two separate sets of boats on the north and south flowing rivers.

 

There is distinct lack of evidence of the slip ways that would have been created to ease the passage of ships from one river system to the other. No doubt it was done up until the point where boats could be built on the south flowing river, but if it was a regular occurrence over the period of several hundred years the evidence would be there to show it. From my reading it would seem to be conspicuous by its absence.

[bigdamnhero]

Multiple sources I've read say that it was not uncommon for a single group of traders to make the entire round-trip voyage. Can't swear they're accurate, obviously, but everything I've read seems to think that was a normal thing. Remember this was before organized trade guilds were a thing, so if I'm a young viking looking to make some cash by trading with Byzantium, it's pretty much on me and my friends to do so. It certainly doesn't sound any crazier than sailing to Newfoundland in an open longship simply because Greenland has gotten too damn crowded.

[ghost-angel]

No, but if you're a young trader and you encounter another trade coming from the other direction with a bunch of goods you know you can turn around and sell at home for profit it also makes sense to trade out good right there, and go home saving yourself a bunch of time and money in the process.

 

On the other hand, if there are no major trade cities on the route then yes, you'd have to go all the way out to trade your goods. I'm less familiar with the Viking Road, but I do know that the Silk Road had a whole bunch of points along it that traders met at, exchanged goods (instead of money) and then turned around, shortening their trips considerably.

[bigdamnhero]

The only significant city on this trade route would've been Kiev. In theory I can see the overall cultural trade route working in stages, where traders from Scandenavia trade with Kiev, which in turn trades with Byzantium. But the sources I've read all make it sound like a series of individual voyages the whole distance. Plus these are Vikings we're talking about; it's not like any of them were ever in a hurry to get back home. Long water voyages was kindof their whole shtick.

[bigdamnhero]

As for the portage: the fictional example I gave above had them building a frame around the ship, putting wheels on the frame, and then hauling it like a wagon. No idea how accurate or common that was. It's not hard to imagine some enterprising farmer setting up a stand at the portage point selling lumber, wheels, and renting oxen.

[Old Man]

Levitation.

[Richgee]

Like it. It's about as realistic as your long ship not being in need of extensive repair after dragging its soft pine hull 80km cross country.

[bigdamnhero]

And yet, multiple historical sources treat long-distance portages as a perfectly normal thing, going back to the Frisians in the 6th Century. I'm not saying it was easy or fun, but from everything I've read it was extremely common.

[Richgee]

Apologies I was being alitle facetious. I fully accept that this journey was undertaken. It was an incredible feat of ingenuity and determination, by desperate men. My only issue is time frame. For a low fantasy Viking setting it makes a great back drop and well done for highlighting it. I still belive in reality it would take considerably longer than the maths would suggest.

[bigdamnhero]

Incidentally, I came across this great online lecture on merchants and commerce in the viking age. It's one of a larger series on the Viking Age, part of the Great Courses Online series. It's $20 a month to watch as many as you want, with a free first month trial. I've watched a couple so far and they're not bad. This one discusses the Norse trade networks, including the Dneiper route to Constantinople and the Volga route to the Caspian Sea. But once again it does not discuss length of trip. [Le Sigh] 

 

Another lecture in the same series talks about the Viking/Varangian attacks on Constantinople in the 9th & 10th Centuries. It describes those attacks as originating primarily from Kiev and vicinity, which would support the idea that those fleets were primarily built on the Dneiper rather than brought down from the Baltic.

 

But its worth noting that even if you start at Kiev, you still have to portage around the rapids further down. So obviously they had a way of doing so that wasn't time-and-effort-prohibitive. We're talking about hundreds if not thousands of trips over several centuries, and it was obviously faster than doing the same trip by land or they would've just done that, right?