'Raiding (like the Vikings or the Mongols used to do) is actually about establishing trade routes and favorable trade conditions. It's done via the sacking of cities' - prof. Timothy Snyder in 'Making of Modern Ukraine' podcast (ep. 5). Could the historians here explaing this more in depth?

by appleflash

Was the objective to establish actual exchange rates, like say 10 pieces of copper for a bear pelt? Were the subjugated people required to deliver and sell a given quantity of these goods? Why trade at all, rather than just demand a quantity of goods in tribute?

y_sengaku

There are several possibly interrelated elements within OP's question, so I'm afraid that my following answer will not cover all of them.

First of all, Snyder only discusses the character and significance of the raids by the Vikings, or Rus' (primarily in the 9th century) here (Podcast no. 5) in my understanding, so I'll exclude the discussion about the punitive raids by the Mongols in later period altogether from my answer. You can also check what he says in (34:55-around 37:10): https://youtu.be/36XiKhamtQo?t=2095

In this context, "cities" that they attacked in the middle of the 9th century primarily means nothing but Constantinople, rather than the market towns around the Caspian Sea (that they also sometimes tried to raid in course of the 10th century according to Arabic texts, though I'm not sure whether Snyder also incorporates them in his lecture) or fortifications alongside Russian waterways. It goes without saying that it would be very difficult to get success on repeated tributes taking from such a well-fortified city like Constantionple, and generally speaking, the Rus' (Vikings) in the East failed in occupying the important market/ trading places themselves at least in longer terms.

Then, what means "favorable trading conditions" here?

While the degree of historical authenticity has been disputed (I suppose that majority of scholars, including prominent Russian and Ukrainian ones like Oleksiy Tolochko, now regard the early part of this work primarily as an origin myth of the Rus' elites), Russian Primary Chronicle (or sometimes called Tales of bygone years and compiled in the early 12th century) narrates the alleged Rus' raid in Constantinople in 907 under the leadership of Oleg/ Igor and their initial demand in successive negotiations, in addition to that of tribute:

  • "[The Russes proposed the following terms:] 'The Russes who come hither shall receive as much grain as they require. Whosoever come as merchants shall receive supplies for six months, including bread, wine, meat, fish, and fruit. Baths shall be prepared for them in any volume they require. When the Russes return homeward, they shall receive from your Emperor food, anchors, cordage, and sails and whatever else is needed for the journey'."
  • "The Greeks accepted these stipulations, and the Emperors and all the courtiers declared: 'If Russes come hither without merchandise, they shall receive no provisions. Your prince shall personally lay injunction upon such Russes as journey hither that they shall do no violence in the towns and throughout our territory. Such Russes as arrive here shall dwell in the St. Mamas quarter. Our government will send officers to record their names, and they shall then receive their monthly allowance, first the natives of Kiev, then those from Chernigov, Pereyaslavl', and the other cities. They shall not enter the city save through one gate, unarmed and fifty at a time, escorted by an agent of the Emperor. They may conduct business according to their requirements without payment of taxes' (Year 6145/ 907 AD. Cited translation in English is taken from: Cross & Sherbowitz-Swtzor trans. 1953: 63f.)

Put it simply, as Snyder (late in his podcast no.5) as well as Ozawa suggest (Ozawa 2015: 134-37), these stipulations aim to settle the conditions of visiting Viking merchants' status (conditional protection) rather than the trade rate itself. Only if the visiting Rus' had not committed violence both before entering Constantinople and during their stay and stayed as a small band within the assigned quarter with registration, the trade and such a well treatment by the imperial officials would be guaranteed.

The text of Primary Chronicle also inserts two more such Byzantine-Rus treaty allegedly concluded in 912 CE and 945 CE (Cross & Sherbowitz-Swtzor trans. 1953: 65-69, 73-77), with expanded contents like the treatment of ship wrecks and ransom of illegally slaved peoples.

Is it enough to offer supplementary context to the podcast?

Recommended Readings:

  • Hansen, Valerie. The Year 1000: When explorers Connected the World - and Globalization Began. London: Viking- Penguin, 2020, Chap. 4 ("European Slaves", pp. 81-111).
  • Rotman, Youval. Slaveries of the First Millennium. Leeds: Arc Humanities, 2011): very unfortunately tells little about the Vikings, but it offers some basic economic backgrounds on why slave trade in global scale was lucrative business in (European) Early Middle Ages.

Relevant Previous Posts [answered by me, /u/y_sengaku]:

References:

+++

  • Franklin, Simon & Jonathan Shepard. The Emergence of Rus' 750-1200. London: Longman, 1996.
  • Ozawa, Minoru. "Negotiating Viking Merchants: Based on the analysis of Rus-Byzantine trading treaties in the 10th century (Orig. title: Koeki suru Vaikingu Shonin)." In: Trading Sphere around the North and Baltic Seas (Hokkai -Baruto Kai no Shogo Sekai), ed. Shiba Toshio & Tamaki Toshiaki, pp. 113-48. Tokyo: Yu Shokan, 2015. (in Japanese)
  • Sverrir Jakobsson. The Varangians in God's Holy Fire. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2020.