No. No no no no no no. I'm not sure where to start here. If he's an Odinist/Ásatrú, good for him, but that doesn't give him special qualification in historical discourse.

"Vikings'" portrayal of norsemen as unaware of England's existence in the 8th/9th century is just outrageous. Even in their OWN SETTING it's impossible; the monk that Loðbrók brings back speaks their language because he traveled there. They're clearly in contact, and yet no one believes that England exists? I'm going to try and avoid going on a rant about that show, but they take SO much license with history that they don't even need to.

People had already sailed to England from Norden in the past, namely to conquer it under the leadership of Hengist and Horsa.

As far as invading only for farmland? I guess you could describe Harald Hardrata's invasion that way, but his death in the initial battle at Stamford Bridge is the traditional end of the viking age, so I'm guessing that's not what your friend is referring to. That's the only formal, full-scale invasion that springs to mind.

Your friend is more likely to be referring to the many viking raids that went on from the 9th-11th centuries. The vikings certainly did end up settling in some numbers. If they hadn't, there would have been no Danelaw. However, to describe them as invading ONLY for farmland is ridiculous. That leaves little room to explain the fact that raiders brought back slaves and huge amounts of material wealth.

I'm not super great at answering questions at length, so please ask any followup questions you have.

In terms of their motives for invasion, they were simple, money. Sweden and Norway were more than fertile enough to support the Viking population and then some and so the invasion certainly was not the act of a starving people looking to feed themselves.

These pages:

http://archaeology.about.com/od/vterms/qt/viking_age.htm http://archaeology.about.com/od/vikings/qt/viking_raid.htm http://www.englandandenglishhistory.com/anglo-saxon-history/the-viking-invasions-of-england-793-ad-to-900-ad-

Gives a decent accounting of their early raiding behavior which clearly indicates wealth motivation.

When tactics were switched to full on invasion the motivation remained the same. The Viking invasion was one of conquest and so, to a certain extent, yes, they invaded to acquire land, much of which would have been used for farming. However just because they wished to utilize the land for farming does not mean that they intended to establish peaceful farming colonies. One of the most profitable uses of fertile land was farming for cash crops or livestock and if local populace could be utilized to perform this work while paying the profits into Viking coffers, so much the better.

The Vikings had a method of agriculture called Landnam which allowed them to make very efficient use of fertile soil.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/lterms/qt/landnam.htm

Did Vikings develop the land they conquered in England using this system? Absolutely. But again, the motivation was wealth. The fields of Britain became the equivalent of the cotton plantations in the Southern US, an agricultural area being utilized as an economic power-house by a military power. And just like the territory used for those plantations, it was taken at the point of a sword.

Agriculture and mining were and to a certain extent are, the basis for all wealth and so yes, the Vikings invaded to acquire farmland but it was not crops they were looking to grow, it was the Gold and Silver they could get with those crops.