Talk:Viking/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Rewrite to better explain difference in meaning of 'Viking' in history?

The current opening to this article seems rather centric on the modern view of the word. I haven't yet had time to do much more than skim this yet, but I think this should open with a clear explination of 'Viking' from both the current and historic view. Currently, the opening makes it sound like a group of people, and ignores the historic use as an act a person does. We wouldn't talk about farmers or blacksmiths as if they were all members of the same group of people. People would "Go Viking", take to ship during times of the year when they weren't needed on their farms, sail to somewhere else to raid and/or trade where they could. Some 'vikings' would go viking against other 'vikings' groups. When a 'viking' went back home he stopped being a viking and went back to whatever he did at home. Should we not compile a list of peoples who went viking and clearly awknowledge the different views on the term early on? --Talroth (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but isn't this at least partly a question of etymology? You seem to be thinking of 'viking' (uncapitalised) as part of a verb, e.g. 'to vike'. There may be some case for doing that, for all I know, but I've never heard of 'to vike'! Thing is, I'm thinking that this ending in '-ing' is actually an identifier? I'm only querying it, I don't actually know. It's just that, as you may well know, there is such an identifying ending in English, e.g. 'earthlings' (in sci-fi B movies): this is from an ending in Old English which is found in use at the time of the Vikings, e.g. 'ætheling', meaning e.g. 'son of a king, prince'. Maybe this identifier also exists in Old Norse, and is represented in 'viking'...? I'm not saying you may not have a point more generally, though. See also the second-next section. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

oh my god i can't believe it

well i was researching about my family last night and i saw a interisting fact: one of my forebeads was a viking during year 800, i can't belive it, how can my family tree be so far back in history, it was off course awesome to read it but my family have roots up in bocktrask ( translated to goatswamp ) how can that be? Since the vikings only lived in the central and south sweden. I don't expect any perfect answer but i would like to know your opinion : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteam (talkcontributions) 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

dude! wow that is like so totally off the hook awesome! words cannot adequately express how interisted we all are in your family tree. Dodiad (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Vikings did not come from just central and southern Sweden, but also all over Norway and Denmark, and later from Iceland. A lot of Vikings intermarried with the peoples they raided, especially in Britain, Ireland, and the Netherlands, which comprises a lot of the European descent demographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don’t really know how this works but I’ll try to make this short. If you haven’t noticed yet this whole page is about Vikings,how about readibng some about them? and try to post where your post actually has some link to the main subject of the section. Good for you that you are in some way vaguely related to a Viking. Vikings were a people that were spread out all over northern Europe and if it wasn’t for some political issues would have continued to spread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Viking_Expansion.svg [->ZehCorrector<-] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZehCorrector (talkcontribs) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


that just once again prove that vikingai were from Lithuania and not from Scandinavia89.240.13.175 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Viking term

Many of the Norwegian Vikings came from settlements inside various fjords on the south-west coast, the bottom end of a fjord is usually V-shaped and is called a vik, so a person who originates from a vik is called a viking, eventually all Scandinavians of this era were grouped under this term which also became capitalised.

I also question the use of fjord in this article referring to the Roskilde Fjord, as fjords are specific geological elements,deep cut valleys with (often steep) mountain walls on the sides, that have been overflowed by the sea after the glaciers of the last great ice age pulled back, there are no mountains in Denmark, thus there are no fjords in Denmark.--Fcf1 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary proposes this origin:
'ORIGIN from Old Norse víkingr, from vík ‘creek’ or Old English wīc camp, dwelling place."

Dawidbernard 13:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


The term 'viking' means "pirates" and wasn't really used much by the 'vikings' themselves. Cheers Osli73 09:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Roskilde Fjord is a name. If you say Roskilde it means the city of Roskilde. Scandinavian uses the word Fjord in a wider way than English. ovnis--80.203.130.176 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

a couple comments on the two statements above: although if they used to call themselves "Viking" is unknown to me but it has nothing to do with pirates. At the time the Vikings were superior in terms of ship-crafting, but they rarely, if it even occured, ever fought ship to ship, therefore the name "pirate" would be meaningless.

Roskilde is the oldest city in Denmark, this city has nothing to do with fjords whatsoever. The definition of the word “fjord”:(taken directly from the Norwegian Wikipedia, http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjord) The words basic meaning is: “where you cross over to the other side” and has the same origin as the word “Ferd” (in English: journey) and the English words “fare” and “ferry”. The word refers to the same as it would if you were speaking English. The only misunderstandings is when discussing some names of some lakes. “Fjord” is one of the few words that has been adopted by other languages (recently) and can be seen across the world (for example: the Scottish English word “firth”).

[->ZehCorrector<-] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZehCorrector (talkcontribs) 01:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)



78.151.173.120 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)In Lithuanian language Saga is Saka/sakme/sakai/sakmes from the word 'sekt' which means to tell stories...and Vikings or Variags (in russian) in Lithuanian language comes from the word 'vaikytis/varyt/vytis' and that means to drive/pursue/hunt/chase/be after...Pagan in Lithuanian language 'Pa-ganyti/pa-ginti' means to herd/depasture/drive...from the same word english have the word to hunt and one Empire was bearing the same name Huns meaning 'Ganiai/ganytojai'...moreover even the word to defent in Lithuanian language is the same 'ginti'...Moreover I have never heard that Vikings attacked or invaded Lithuania or Latvia...even no any kind of their settlings...and the language so similar...78.151.173.120 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the origin of the term 'viking' is disputed. It also did not come into common usage until much later - often were refered to by ethnicity, such as norsemen, northmen or danes. I think the term may be of English origin as well. Further east they were called 'Rus', which later became the term Russia. I can't varify this atm as my sources are not with me, but I shall when I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Variousvarious (talkcontribs) 09:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Viking raids"?

Ive changed the title of the section "Viking raids" to "Viking expansion", since the earlier title gives an impression of the viking only being pirates that plundered, and not trader, explorers and colonisers.

Its not perfect, if anyone can come up with something better, feel free to change it.

By the way, I added a section with explanations to the expansion and a small section on conquering.

--Screensaver 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Which, according to my opinion was very wrong, since vikings only made raids, the people you refer to that made expansions, were not vikings, or, did the expansions, but not as vikings!
E.g. saying that painters not only painted, but also made sculptures, is not relevant, even if a painter has made sculptures? When he did sculptures, he did it as sculpturer, not as a painter?
I also note that, yet another contributer, adds false information in an infected article, marked as NPOV, without givig any source at alla, but just simply change the article according to his belief, or opionion. I guess this is how this article evolved, and its a shame.
I once again, ask everyone for sources for what is written here. If every article on the wiki would be treated like this, it would end up very badly... Dan Koehl 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Dan has a point here, why change the title to noncommital "expansion" when the section does, in fact, treat "Viking raids"? dab () 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I see you think the term "viking" refers to a role or occupation. But isn't it rather established that "viking" more refers to the people. A viking is a viking even if he works on his farm or is trading. Magnus Andersson (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Vikings were also fishermen, farmers and founders of the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


In my opinion, it is a bit silly to call the Vikings "explorers". To me, this term denotes someone who travels to unknown parts of the world with the mission of 'exploring' new lands. The vikings were not explorers in that sense. Rather, they were seafarers, who, by chance, happened to come accross untill then unknown lands in the North Atlantic (Iceland, Greenland and, most likely, Newfoundland). Calling them explorers could confuse some readers about the nature of the Vikings voyages. I think this term/wording should be taken out. Any comments? Cheers Osli73 22:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments I assume it is OK that I remove the term explorers. Cheers Osli73 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus are "explorers", as are Petachiah of Ratisbon and ibn Batuta, but their motives were not "exploration" but rather mercantile and/or religious. Viking voyages were undertaken to gain wealth (through trading or by plunder) but the effect of those pursuits was that they discovered new lands and travelled to areas not frequented by other Europeans until centuries later. I think that certainly qualifies them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Motives are irrelevant. The point is that Columbus, Marco Polo, et al actively looked for new lands, sea routes, etc. "Pure" exploration as a motive, in fact, comes from well after the Age of Exploration.--71.37.39.39 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The vikings explored, every time they went up a new river, to see were it led, to see what's at the far end of the black sea, or what those sighted islands beyond greenland were about. They probably explored more than any other people at this time. Magnus Andersson (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Present definition of the word not verified

I still see no verification that viking means scandinavian people in british. I still men this is an misintrepreation, and that a majority think that viking and scandinavian are the same, is a myth, although well spread. Wikipedia should however, not spread myths, but true facts?

For those who belive that viking means scandinavian:

The swedish historican and book author Mats G. Larsson writes: "when Ingvar Vittfarne in the icelandic sagas was attacked by vikings on his way to Särkland, it probably refers to arabians, not scandinavians".

Now, how do you explain this? Was the scandinavian vikings arabians? Or, was the arabians scandinavian? How can the english wikipedia reach logic with its article, so it fulfills a goal of good information and facts for people who searches for facts, and not factoids?

Source:

^ 1999. Larsson, Mats G. Svitjod Resor till Sveriges ursprung. Atlantis. ISBN 91-7486-421-1. p192.

Dan Koehl 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

how often have we pointed out to you that there is a difference between 13th century Old Norse and 21st century English? The meaning of the term in 13th century Old Norse is undisputed. Really, no argument. We still have to allow for the meaning of the term in 21st century English, since, duh, this is en-wiki, not ON-wiki. You want evidence? (not that you haven't been shown evidence before). How about "Viking culture" getting 27,000 google hits? (hint, this term doesn't refer to the cultural commonalities between Norse and Arab pirates). I agree that the term should properly be "Viking Age culture", but there, the term "Viking Age" itself has led to an expansion of the semantic field of "Viking" dab () 13:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my dear Dab, I come up with written sources, naming one of the most important swedish experts on the topic, and you come up with the old factoids, arguments, using "we-terms" etc, since your vision of a wikipedia goes not on a scientific approach to the description of a term, but to the populistic. Still, your fight is in vaine, science is now cathing up. You still dont show any sources. Its Donald Duck research, what you do. The article ist still POV and a shame. Looks like a christmas tree that plague, with alot of warning signs, dont come near here. I welcome the day, when it reflects some prooven facts, and not factiods.

I am only one person, but its enough when the person comes with prooven written sources, which you dont. So as a real man, I dont need to be a "we" in rder to support my opinion.

Dan Koehl 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

relax Dan, it's all in your head. There isn't a dispute, Vikings were pirates, sure enough. But like the original pirates they grew into a notable political force, establishing entire states (the Danelaw, Rus, etc.) over time. There was an entire economy, at first based on piracy, and later on feudal tribute. And if you think about it, feudalism is really just glorified piracy anyway. I know from our previous meetings that you cannot listen to what I am saying, of course. But to Haukur, I agree that the article's emphasis should be on "raids". Of course, raiding, exploring, trading, and extorting Danegeld aren't mutually exclusive pursuits. Although Dan makes it sound as if they were. It just so happens that piracy was the single most profitable and prestigious pursuit in "Viking Age" Scandinavia. But I honestly wonder why Dan thinks the article looks "like a christmas tree that plague". The warning signs that were the result of your last visit to these shores are long gone, Dan, maybe you should refresh your browser cache? dab () 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say that I dont listen to you, you are wrong. But what I ask for is written sources that support your word, something you have during two years never shown. Im sorry, but YOUR WORDS are not a written source, in a debate on the word viking.

Presently the article mentions that vikings made trade routes and made peaceful trading. This is also wrong according to the written source, the saga of Egil Skallagrimssons it is clearly written: Björn was a big traveller, that sometimes went on viking, sometimes went on peceful tradejourneys. What the english wikipedia is telling, is nothing but a lie.

Just like when you say tht wikings established entire states. They did not establish a single one. They did not establish a single town. If you debate this, then give me sources?

The article may not be a christmas tree, but it contains 80% bullshit.

So may be it. The one who like bullshit may call it gold. But will never be. History is not a discipline that includes factiods. The englsih wikipedia article is 80% factiods, so be happy with this. Im the king of sweden, and my broter is napoleon. This is just as true as what is written in this article. be happy when creating such wonderful things for new generations to read. Enlighten people with bullshit. Defend myths, and do not show any single source.

But, please be honest to change the name for this Media to mythopedia. A word created by me at 18 december 2006.

Dan Koehl 02:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for th word feoudalism, Dab, I advice you to look into the latin and protgermanic name fäodum, and you will see that this word has nothing what so ever with pirates to do. The same goes for Charles the great who developed the (already exisiting) feudalism during medevial time, he was an enemy of pirates. Fäudom comes from the word for cattle, and has nothing to do with the bullshit in this article.


Dan Koehl 02:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Dbachmann is correct in saying that there is a difference between 12th century icelandic and present day English. Yes, at the time, the term "Viking" meant pirates. However, given that it has now taken on a different meaning this should be accepted also in this article. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to include a clear explanation in the intro about the differences in meaning. I also agree that the focus of the article should be on the effects of the Viking raids outside Scandinavia while the politics and culture of the period are best covered in other articles. CheersOsli73 22:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IF YOU ASK ME YOU SHOULD ALL STOP TRYING TO USE FANCY WORDS TO SHOW OFF AND LEARN HOW TO SPELL!!!!! WHAT DOES 'PROOVEN' MEAN? EH?!?!?! Bloody Hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.129.152 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan again, Regarding Ingvar Vittfarne being attacked by vikings. The vikings attacked other vikings; why go all the way to the Mediterranean if you can steal from other returning vikings. Remember the vikings had no christian morales, It was more about doing smart battle. People who can't plan ahead to defend their riches are simply too stupid to have them. It was also important that when you went out on your yearly voyages that you didn't leave your home too weakly defended since others easily could use the opportunity. Magnus Andersson (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

continuation: "One of the reasons for Vikings raids"

After these few days of reflexions on my preceding informations and to resume them, I add another important reason of the Vikings’ raids, whose sources are quoted in the preceding chapters. See file 3: « 782 the massacre of 4500 Saxons avenged by the Vikings » « the history truth, nothing else. » « One of the reasons for Vikings raids». Regards Thorgis 11:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for raids forced christianisation?

It is certianly the the most ridicoulus reason for the raids I have read anwhere.

That's because you don't read the right historians!Thorgis 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The bullshit

The swedish article slowly has a tendency to reflet fact and knowledge, leaving the english far behind. It would be nice and valuable, if someone would have the hart to try to lift this article to higher levels. Factiods are fun on the pub, boring on a encyklopedia.

Dan Koehl 23:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does this mean? Anyone? -- Rune Stone section needs help!

The following is currently in the Rune Stone section:

"Runic inscriptions are earlier since first nordic raids into Europe at the first times from christian age, this germanic tribes develop a scripture system as answer to the know characters in this times as greek or latin ones, the first runes were made carving in wood, boone and a few into metallic ornaments, so only a very little evidence we can found from this early times and consist from 24 characters to the viking times the number of characters were under 16 characters know as the Futhark system."

It kinda almost sorta looks like English, until you read it ;) Since I don't know what it is supposed to say I'm not fixing it - I know nothing about this subject. Can anyone with more clues than I have fix it? I suspect it might be good information added by someone not very strong in English. Fitzhugh 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ugh, you should remove stuff like this on sight. There isn't anything in it that hasn't long been discussed in English on Rune or Elder Futhark. dab (�) 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That's machine translation, surely. :-( Bishonen | talk 11:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
I would say that is very valuable information. Not being an expert in the subject matter, I dont want to attempt and correct the grammar. We really need an expert to do this. Anyone?

This is just a crude description of the FUTHARK runic magic and writing system favoured by the Northern Europeans from 600(?) to 1000 AD. I would prefer a simple link to the FUTHARK rune page. The only point of relevance might be that the Vikings (or, more accurately, the Norsemen who were "a-viking", it's a verb) left runic inscriptions wherever they travelled. Unfortunately, they tended to use bone or wood and these materials degrade quickly so few examples of runes are left. Brad Einarsen 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Informal writing

Guys, try to sound more formal. This article sounded like chatspeak before I got to it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.218.120.201 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Fake news

IMHO we should write again the article. In some points it is not supported by serious and academic sources and shows bulls written by nationalists. Honestly speaking, it is not reliable. For example, take a look at the map Viking expansion.png. It is wrong, there were no vikings in Sardinia island, in Corse etc. and doing a search, I found no info about raids. We should remove it. Jack 13:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's info on raids: Hvaðan komu víkingarnir og hvaða áhrif höfðu þeir í öðrum löndum? Of course, if you want to have full access to relevant sources, let alone be an expert, you're just going to have to learn Icelandic. --D. Webb 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

D.Webb, it is not necessary to learn Icelandic. As you can read, the article does not mention the island of Corse. There is no academic publication in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese language about a viking raid in Corse and Sardinia. Nothing. We should remove that fake pic. Jack 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were going further saying that there was no info on raids. --D. Webb 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that the references to Corsica and Sardinia may have been Norman conquests misattributed to the Vikings. Howerver, there is evidence that some vikings, such as Hastein, did raid around the Mediterranean. Mon Vier 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
are you kidding? In Sardinia there was no Norman raid or conquest or Norman appearance! Where are the sources? That map is a fake and you cannot mix history and Sci-Fi.Be serious, please.Jack 12:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Though I think some raids can be verified, whether or not they can be is basically inconsequential. There was trade - and trading and raiding was mixed as through all of early history. 194.144.79.21 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Egils saga

I once again remind about the important written source of the saga of Egil Skallagrimsson.

He clearly writes; Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum, which translates in english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman. As a written source it indicates that no viking were a tradesman, as viking.

I also remind you about the attack of arbic pirats in the middle sea, who are called vikings. Yes, also arbic people could be pirats, and therefore called vikings in the sagas.

There are however, no written sources stating that a viking was trading peacefully.

And you will never find it.

You can write in the article that vikings were traders that performed trading, but its not true, and not 1 source suports this.

Wikipedia or Mythipedia?

Dan Koehl 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Face the fact that in modern English "Vikings" refers to an ethnic group rather than exclusively to a particular industry it specialized in (according to you - pirating and nothing more). Oxford encyclopedia says:
"Viking: A member of the Scandinavian traders and pirates who ravaged much of northern Europe, and spread eastwards to Russia and Byzantium, between the 8th and 11th centuries. While their early expeditions were generally little more than raids in search of plunder, in later years they tended to end in conquest and colonization. Much of eastern England was occupied by the Vikings and eventually Canute, king of Denmark, succeeded to the English throne."
Oxford dictionary says:
"Viking noun any of the Scandinavian seafaring pirates and traders who raided and settled in many parts of NW Europe in the 8th–11th centuries. adjective of or relating to the Vikings or the period in which they lived. "
(possibly) in the days of yore "vikings" referred to pirates of any ethnic origin, but today it is associated with the Scandinavian seafaring people of the 8th through 11th centuries. Among those were pirares as well as traiders. I do hope we can agree on this.
Stop bashing Wikipedia for using today's meaning of words. It's enough to mention this discrepancy somewhere in the article instead of rewriting the whole lot to conform to long-gone vocabulary Dawidbernard 12:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor Regis Boyer

There are many sources that prove the vikings were not pirates, or raiders, or cruel warriors. For example, there is a French professor and historian, Regis Boyer who teachs and works at the Universite Sorbonne of Paris. Regis Boyer is an authority in his field. He wrote many books about this topic. The viking were educated and pacific traders, not raiders. From one of his books, Les Vikings Histoire et civilisation, we can read: "Présentation de l'éditeur: Régis Boyer démêle les confusions et les erreurs qui s'attachent au mythe du Viking cruel et sanguinaire. S'ils n'étaient pas les guerriers invincibles que l'on croyait". Régis Boyer, professeur émérite de l'université de Paris IV-Sorbonne. Jack 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If this professor is denying that Vikings went on raids, then that's his problem. He is clearly not right. Were the Vikings educated and cultured? Yes, probably. Does that mean they weren't raiders? No. --D. Webb 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if this professor could cite 1 single source, telling that a viking were a peaceful trader.

Its another thing that a man who had been viking, before , or later, were peacefully trading. This, however, does not make a viking a trader. Not 1 source support this, unless the Sorbonne sources does?

Dan Koehl 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article about Harald I of Norway is written: At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and Scottish mainland of Vikings.

  1. Should this be interpreted he cleared the island from people from Scandinavia?
  2. Or cleared the islands from traders?
  3. has any author of the article viking bothered to read the sagas, where the word viking is mentioned?

Dan Koehl 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are fighting a losing battle - the meaning of the word "viking" evolved through centuries and today it has a broader meaning that it possibly had before. In the passage you mention, it possibly refers to pirates and that's all; today "Vikings" refers to the Scandinavian people of that age, some of whom were pirates, other tradesmen etc. You can't change the way millions and millions of people understand this word today. Dawidbernard 13:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Haha. The word didnt evolve at all, it was misunderstood and misintrepreted. They dont understand the word at all. And they will not be able to understand any historical books, like when Harald Hårfager attacks the vikings and deports them to Iceland, if they believe that he was as viking. But those poor millions that never ever really was interested about vikings will not even care. Im trying to keep a dialogue with people who are interested in the world viking.

Theres only sixty years when I read a lot of shit about gypisies, and african people in old encyklopiedias. All bullshit, but in that time heavily defended by the people who wrote them. And millions of people around the world believed that gypsiees stole, and african people were very stupid. But that is not politically correct, and here on the wikipedia, it would not be NPOV.

This article is just the same, but its (still) politicall correct to misinterpret what and who a viking was.

BUT, its not NPOV.

regardless what you say, all lies and bullshit without proven written sources that is falsely stated as facts, is not NPOV. Even if million of people would say saddam is a very honest and nice guy, it would still not ne NPOV on the wikipedia.

So, regardless of million of laymen who belive in the 1800 national romantic myths about vikings, this article is full of bullshit, and myths from the last century. No modern archelogist would write something like this.

  1. Theres no meaning to give up trying to educate people, that are false. Othervise we could close all scools today.
  2. The article must, according to wikipedia rules, be NPOV. presently it isnt. Regardless what million people belive that wiking was.

Dan Koehl 16:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, an article about Vikings should not be about the word "Viking", but about the actual Vikings who once existed. Now, if the word has acquired a different meaning, or additional connotations, then that could be explaned briefly in a short section towards the end of the article. But the article should still focus on educating the reader about the actual Vikings, who they were, when and where they lived, and what they did. If anyone here wants to explane the modern usage of the word "Viking", then the English Wiktionary is the place for that, not Wikipedia. --D. Webb 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it, Dan Koehl. And it's very telling how you ignored my quotes from the Oxford Encyclopedia. Dawidbernard 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

David, this discussion page, and its archive, is very long. Its clearly an indication that something, is very very wrong. If theres different views on a subject, then borth should be presented, othervise the article is not NPOV.

Dan Koehl 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But it's mentioned in the article that the word had a different meaning. This is the English language Wikipedia and in today's English the word "Viking" means what it means. You can't rewrite the article according to medieval vocabulary. I'm Polish and in Polish "Viking" (spelt "Wiking") also refers to an ethnic group rather that to a particular occupation.
As for ";long discussions", I could pick an article and post all over again in its talk page and create one. Would this mean that something was wrong with the article? Not quite.
I believe it's enough to mention that the meaning of the word changed over time. It is mentioned. I believe this is the best and frankly the only viable solution. Dawidbernard 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that Wikipedia should have an article on Vikings - I mean the actual men who lived a 1000-1250 years ago? And say who they were and what they did? You see, Wikipedia explains things, not word usage; that's what Wiktionary is for. Current English usage just doesn't carry much weight. This article should be about the Norse raiders, they are what Wikipedia should be explaining to its readers. Current English usage, if it differs, could be explaned in a short paragraph at the end, if it must be mentioned. --D. Webb 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is enough, each and every article on the wikipedia should be NPOV. Which means different views and aspects should be exposed in a subject. This discussion page is very long, with avery long archive. Its a clear indication about the present situation. Something needs to be done.

Dan Koehl 12:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What NPOV do you mean? The article says that in the past the word had a different meaning. This is the best possible solution and as NPOV as possible in an article on the common meaning of the word. I have a sneaking suspicion that you try to use the Wikipedia policies to push through your agenda which is contradicting the language facts. You just can't get over the fact that you're not right. Sorry to say this, but that seems to be the case. And still you have not commented on the info from Oxford Encyclopedia and dictionary. Dawidbernard 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

David, more or less all Encyclopedias from 1903-2000 describes the flse illusion about the word. The describe very seldom wikings, and when they do, they dont give much info on vikings, but change into norse people in general during 800-1066 and describes them. What archeologists found and said, is more or less not described. Its like two wrlds, the word viking 1903-2000 and the true vikings apr 700-1066. But science is changing, theres a development. This article only repeats whats on the old shelfs, it doesnt describe the new era when science once again focus on the vikings. It gives only the old view. Thats why its not NPOV.

"The past" as you shortened it, was over 1000 years, compared to the last 100 years of humbug with the term, misused in almost 100% of encyklopedias. Its my opinion tht article should also reflect true facts about true vikings, not just describing the misundertandings and the myths from 1903 and tha national romantic era.

Dan Koehl 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're stuck. Let's agree to disagree then. I can only appreciate that you haven't tampered with the article and hope you'll keep it that way. Dawidbernard 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"At last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and Scottish mainland of Vikings." Her Vikings refers to Norwegian kings and noble men that fled to Scottland after Harald conquerd them and used the summer to plunder the Norwegian cost.


Listen all! Vikings were warriors, meaning it was people from Scandinavia with ill intensions. A Scandinavian farmer would NOT be considered a Viking. Oh and its spelled VIKING, NOT Wiking.

Stupid Kids

Ahem.... note the childish addition at the end here: Geographically, a "Viking Age" may be assigned not only to the Scandinavian lands (modern Denmark, Norway and Sweden), but also to territories under North Germanic dominance, mainly the Danelaw, which replaced the powerful English kingdom of Northumbria, Scotland, the Isle of Man, Russia and Ireland. Contemporary with the European Viking Age, the Byzantine Empire in the Balkans and Anatolia, heir to the Eastern Roman Empire, experienced the greatest period of stability (circa 800–1071) it would enjoy after the initial wave of Arab conquerors in the 7th century. Not to mention the gay indians and there leader jaxon

Since this page has been protected, would someone mind fixing this? Thanks. 72.48.36.141 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • bonk self* Nevermind, forgot to sign in... Pulsemeat 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Vikings with Viking Age

The articles Viking age and Vikings cover almost identical issues and should be merged. Any comments? Cheers Osli73 21:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that their respective scopes should be outlined more clearly. "Vikings" should deal with the raids and voyages, as well as with the romantic clichés, while "Viking Age" should deal with the archaeology and the historical period in general (not restricted to actual "Vikings", but all of Scandinavia, Britain and Ireland). dab (�) 10:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, yes, there are differences between Vikings and Viking Age and they could be made clearer. However, a couple of comments:

  1. I see little reason to describe the Vikings and their raids in one article and the history of the times and their culture in another.
  2. Better just have one article called Vikings which describes both the raids, the archeology and the events surrounding them
  3. The Viking Age is a historical period in Scandinavian history. In the case of Sweden, the history of whom I'm most familiar, the Viking Age actually has very little to do with raids on England and the like and mainly to do with the early creation of a Swedish state. So, in my mind an article called the Viking Age focusing on the effects of the Vikings on England, France and continental European coutries is wrong. I'm not certain that the period in question is called the Viking Age in French or general European history. However, in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian history it is.

I hope I was able to bring some clarity in my reasons for merging Viking Age into Vikings. Regards Osli73 15:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rune stones = Christian

Should it be mentioned in the Rune stone section that the vast majority of the Rune stones (at least in Sweden) are 'Christian' (with a cross, Christian prayer or other recognizably Christian mark) as opposed to 'pagan'? I think it should. Cheers Osli73 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanations of the expansion

In hist book "Svitjod : resor till Sveriges ursprung" (1998) about the Svear, Mats G. Larsson argues that one possible reason for the increase in overseas voyages is that political cohesion at home meant that young men seeking fame and fortune began travelling more abroad rather than raid neighbours in Scandinavia (although these, of course, continued). Should we mention this as on of the possible explanations? Cheers Osli73 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

23-Feb-2007: I have changed the "Viking" article, at the top lede section, to mention the Etymology portion with a direct link. When I first read the article, I thought perhaps that the word "Viking" had a specific old meaning (such as with "Mississippi"), but now I realize the complex derivation of the word is extensive enough to require an entire sub-section to explain "Viking" beyond the top lede paragraphs. Thus, the issue is focused now, at the top, by a direct link to "Etymology of Viking". -Wikid77 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lede summary

23-Feb-2007: The top lede section has been somewhat wordy. I've read in Talk that some believe the article covers too many facets of Viking activities, and that would contribute excessive information in the lede. However, just shortening the top sentences a little could reduce the clutter, and get to the Table of Contents sooner. For example, in stating the Vikings & Saxons were enemies, let's omit the 11 extra words ("the Saxons and Vikings were unable to co-exist with one another"). I think just state each idea clearly, but only once. Excessive detail in the top section might indicate a POV stress to push some idea early, with extra details. -Wikid77 10:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Regards Osli73 11:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

23-Feb-2007: I suppose this article invites revisions with "English as a second language" so it needs frequent checking to clean up use of commas/periods, spelling, grammar, and typical word order. -Wikid77 10:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous comments

I find this previous comment highly relevant:

Don't you think that Wikipedia should have an article on Vikings - I mean the actual men who lived a 1000-1250 years ago? And say who they were and what they did? You see, Wikipedia explains things, not word usage; that's what Wiktionary is for. Current English usage just doesn't carry much weight. This article should be about the Norse raiders, they are what Wikipedia should be explaining to its readers. Current English usage, if it differs, could be explaned in a short paragraph at the end, if it must be mentioned. --D. Webb 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The anserr is very simple, it seems to be NO. Still, an interesting question.

I wonder how many percent of the visitors of the page, that would be higly intersted to learn about vikings, instead of misinterpretions of the word?

I mean, in the end, how many people on this earth are very interested in learning wrong things, reglrdless if they have been repeated 100 years? I wonder how many....I guess a few. Strange though, to dedicate an article for them, instead of making an NPOV article that reflects facts, naming sources, and repairing the errors during thenationalromantism.

Dan Koehl 14:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

that's precisely what the article is doing. Point out where the article contains any mistaken claims (as opposed to reporting on mistaken claims), and we'll fix them. dab (�) 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When you write we, are you refering to some royal ancestry, a split personality, or may it be possible that you are trying to manipulate a reader into the impression that you belong to some sort of group, and I dont. (like look he is alone, and we are five, so its easy to see who is right here...) or may it be more options to when a person in a dialogue refer to himself as we?

Dan Koehl 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Errors

  1. The sagas state that the Vikings built settlements and were skilled craftsmen and traders. later, further down: During three centuries, Vikings appeared along the coasts and rivers of Europe, as traders, but also as raiders, and even like Turgesius, as settlers.

-Not one single saga state this. It has been repeated often, but it is simply not true, and you will not find one single source mentioning a viking biulding a settlement or being a trader.

Contrary, repeating myself, I mention Snorri Sturluson as written source: (from Egils saga: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum In english: Björn was a great traveller, sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.

Dan Koehl 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should have been refered to archeological data, that show signs of "viking" settlements and trade in these area, and not "the sagas".

And by the way, doesn`t the text you refer to here Dan Koehl, point out tradesman...?! This spesific saga then... ehmm.. mentions trade does it not?

My suggestion to this "problem" is simply to leave out the frace "but also", and just a comma to seperate "traders, raiders,"

And didn`t the sagas about for instance Eirik Blodøks, and Leiv Eirikson, tell the story of building of settlements in Greenland, and Vinland?

Snorre have also been critized for not beeing a too polite source, especially regarding pre-christian norse culture, religion, actions. Because... Snorre was a christian, AND he was under strict christian senscorship in a difficult time, where the church was doing it`s best efforts on keeping these "savages" on "the right path". These are factors that must be taken into consideration.

Snorre have also been widely critized as a source, due to the fact that all his writings are based on sources that are no longer available (his own runetranslations, oral sources etc), blablabla.. I`m tired, need to sleep :)

Good luck with the article!

  1. Snorri may of course be critized as source, still he is to my knowledge the only source discussing viking and trademans, and he does it as very clearly as two different activities, clearly differing from each other. If no other source state that they were identical, whats the point of claiming that? = If no source claim that viking and tradesman were the same thing, why give such a definition priority over an exisiting source claiming they were different?
  2. As far as I know no whatsoever archeological data, show signs of viking settlements, but they show scandinavian settlements. As far as I know, archeological data does not claim one single viking settlement at all? (but of course numerous scandinavian settlements)
  3. Yes the saga mention the term trader, as something Björn was sometimes, and viking as he was sometimes, it does not claim that he was viking and tradesman at the same time, but on different occasions. The saga tells very clearly that the two ws not the same. If Im travveling often, sometimes with train, and sometimes with car, this doesnt mean that trains are cars, but contrary, they are two different things, with which Im travelling.
  4. I cant really see in what sense christianity comes in, when Snorri tells what Björn was, and did.
  5. After four years of discussion; not one single prime source confirms that viking and tradesman were the same activity. Thats probably why the both words exist?

Dan Koehl 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore They reached south to North Africa and east to Russia and Constantinople, as looters, traders, or mercenaries. has no confirming prime sources. The only prime source discussing vikings and trading activities (See above ), clearly says they were different. No written prime source says that vikings were traders. So the traders, with scandinvaian origin, why should they be labeleled as vikings, if they were not? If nooen comes up with a conforming source that part should be deleted, or moved to norse or scandinavians. I gather that mercanieries probably refer to the varangians, yet another term with its own meaning, which is not identical with viking. (Dont forget that some varangians were british...)

Dan Koehl 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore Vikings under Leif Ericcson, heir to Erik the Red, reached North America, with putative expeditions to present-day Canada in the 10th century. lacks any confirming written sources. Nowhere is Leif ~Eriksson mentioned as viking? And the hungarian (Turk) and/or german on the ship were certainly not vikings...not one single person on the ship, as far as I understand, has been labelled as vikings in written prime sources. Why should we call them vikings if they were not?

Dan Koehl 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

It seems like the english speaking encyclopedias in early 1900 were well defined on the word viking:

Websters (1903) definition:

Viking \Vi"king\, n. [Icel. v[imac]kingr, fr. v[imac]k a bay, inlet.] One belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen, who plundered the coasts of Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. [1913 Webster]

vidare:

Note: Viking differs in meaning from sea king, with which it is frequently confounded. "The sea king was a man connected with a royal race, either of the small kings of the country, or of the Haarfager family, and who, by right, received the title of king as soon he took the command of men, although only of a single ship's crew, and without having any land or kingdom . . . Vikings were merely pirates, alternately peasants and pirates, deriving the name of viking from the vicks, wicks, or inlets, on the coast in which they harbored with their long ships or rowing galleys." --Laing. [1913 Webster]

Brewer's Dictionary:

Viking A pirate. So called from the vik or creek in which he lurked. The word is wholly unconnected with the word "king." There were sea-kings, sometimes, but erroneously, called "vikings," connected with royal blood, and having small dominions on the coast. These sea-kings were often vikingr or vikings, but the reverse is not true that every viking or pirate was a sea-king. (Icelandic vikingr, a pirate.).

www.amazon.com/s/102-9251277-2004937?ie=UTF8&keywords=brewer%20dictionary&tag=elephantconsulta&index=books&link%5Fcode=qs source

WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University:

Any of the Scandinavian people who raided the coasts of Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries.

Viking Age England" by Julian D. Richards, published in 2000 (pages 10-11):

Contemporary chroniclers called the raiders by many names, including heathens and pagans, as well as Northmen and Danes, but one of the names used to refer to them by the English was `Viking', and this is now used to describe not only the raiders, but also the period during which they carried out their attacks. These centuries, from the ninth to the eleventh, have become known, therefore, as the Viking Age. [...] In the icelandic sagas, víkingr came to be used as a noun to refer to a warrior, or pirate, víking was used to refer to an expedition. The majority of Scandinavians, therefore, were not Vikings; only those who went a-viking could really qualify for the description.

www.amazon.com/s/102-9251277-2004937?ie=UTF8&keywords=Viking%20Age%20England%20Julian%20D.%20Richards&tag=elephantconsulta&index=books&link%5Fcode=qs source

Merriam Websters

(Merriam-Webster is America's foremost publisher of language-related reference works. The company publishes a diverse array of print and electronic products, including Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition—America's best-selling desk dictionary—and Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. The first Merriam-Webster dictionary was issued on September 24, 1847. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is based on the print version of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.)

1 a : one of the pirate Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries b not capitalized : SEA ROVER 2 : SCANDINAVIAN

source

Searover (Merriam Websters): = one that roves the sea; specifically : PIRATE

Dan Koehl 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

People of Novgorod

The "people of Novgorod" the The Viking Age section describes were themselves vikings (see Viking_Age#Historic_overview) so this section does not make sense. → Aethralis 10:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference to a 9th Century Novgorod Republic does not make any sense, however I suspect the Viking Age article is at fault in regard to your statement. - Rushyo

Misconception on height

The "height" chapter under pop. misconceptions start out saying they were known for being tall, but actually were short compared to the modern, information age humans. Then the section is stating the ranking (and known/feared) vikings actually were tall, and then the section states the vikings were taller compared to the average population at the times.

How is the misconception the vikings were taller than the people of today? The tellings are the vikings were taller than other civilizations at the time they lived, and as the section states, they were. If that wasn't enough, the known and "feared" vikings were even taller and they were probably the only ones who made the legends. This is not a misconception nor a contemorary myth, it's part myth and part truth. Should be described as so, it's more factual history than popular culture, even if it represents the warriors over the general viking population. Btd-no 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"A myth about a glorious and brave past was needed to give the Swedes the courage to retake Finland, which had been lost in 1809 during the war between Sweden and Russia."

^^gives impression that Sweden recaptured Finland, which did not happen. Should be deleted?

Insertion of 'Britain & Ireland'

Hi, under the 'Viking Expansion' section heading, I have changed the 'British Isles' heading to 'Britain & Ireland' - same geographic entity, but using the discription more agreeable to many Irish Wikipedia users. I'm from Dublin and my city was founded by the Vikings in 988, so I hope I have a right to make this change! Kind regards, Pconlon 23:04, 3 June 2007 (GMT)

lol @ non-brits w pretanic ancesztors \ btw buy a book yer city was burned in 988 not built

brittish isles

Well i dont think its right to write brittain and irland instead of the brittish isles since thats what the area is called. I know with this remark i might step on som irish toes but that somthing i can live with(and so shoud they) You cant just change a name of a area just because it doesnt suit you.

W.T.F.?! The term 'British Isles' (spelt with one 't' incidentally) is very controversial - and hence generally avoided - in Ireland. You should read Wikipedia's own 'British Isles' article on the subject. 'You can't just change the name of an area' - are you totally insensitive?! Where have you been living? I have now set up separate sections for the islands of Britain and Ireland and changed the first sentence of the introduction, simply replacing 'British Isles' with 'Britain' and 'Ireland'. This does not harm the article in any way and ensures that no one is unnecessarily offended. If you are interested in understanding the sensitivities that many of us from the Republic of Ireland have toward the 'British Isles' term, you could do far worse than watch the recent Cannes Film Festival award-winning film 'The Wind That Shakes the Barley' (excellent drama about the Irish War for Independence). I hope we're not going to have a long running dispute on this. Also, it is customary for Wikipedia users to sign and attribute their comments in the standard way. Pconlon 13:07, 12 June 2007 (GMT)

Im neither insensitive or what ever you try to claim I am.

The rest of the world use the word British Isles so there for i belive its correct. Since english isnt my native language i find it stupid of you to comment about that.

I know very well about the history in ireland and let me remind you that a significant part of the green island belongs to Great Brittain.

so one again British isles are correct

And its neither up to ireland or the irish people to rename places just because it dont suit them.

and by the way i have lived a few years in Ireland Galway to be exact and all my Irish frinds dont mind the geografical term Brittish Isles, they even say its the correct term for the place.

Just because its called British isles dont make you Britts does it?

I have heard about that film and from what i heard it wasnt that good. People that have seen it said it was very bias but since i havent seen it i coudnt say for myself.

(Whoever you are, I've moved your comments from below and put them in unchanged above, so that this discussion remains on the same readable thread). You're entitled to your view...can't say it holds water, but there it is. Btw, the referenced film has been commended for it's historical accuracy - I'd recommend seeing it. Pconlon 23:36, 18 June 2007 (GMT)


"I know very well about the history in ireland and let me remind you that a significant part of the green island belongs to Great Brittain." lol @ more moronz, no it belong s to UK, not former isle of albion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.218.218 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC) "Just because its called British isles dont make you Britts does it?"

lol conlon is real brit, more'n angleterre mixes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.218.218 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be under the en:Category:Piracy?

See Talk:Wokou#Are wokou pirates?The similarity pattern between Wokou,Viking,and Sea People,onshore raids.--Ksyrie 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment added to article

Added in this edit:

THIS PART:

The word Viking appears on several rune stones found in Scandinavia. In the Icelanders' sagas, víking refers to an overseas expedition (Old Norse farar i vikingr "to go on an expedition"), and víkingr, to a sea-man or warrior taking part in such an expedition.

IS DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING! THERE ARE TWO OLD NORSE WORD, THE ORIGINAL "VIKING" (FEMININUM)PROBABLY DERIVED FROM "VIKA" ("TURN", see http://www.abc.se/~pa/publ/vik-oar.htm and http://www.abc.se/~pa/publ/vikshift.htm !) AND "VIKINGR" (MASCULINUM), WHO IS THE PERSON PERFORMING THE "VIKING" ACTIVITY! THEREFORE THE RUNE STONE SAYS "FARAR I VIKING"!!

Please write in English sentence case. I will take a look at the websites you cited. Graham87 09:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The first source seems reliable and interesting - it could be incorporated into the article. I'll leave it to someone who knows more about the topic and how to integrate it into the current text. Graham87 09:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

I've noticed a lot of biased language (coupled with dubious facts) in this article. For example, under "Savage marauders" in the "Popular misconceptions" section, we have the following passage: "In Ireland, where the Vikings are most famous for attacking monasteries, there were only 430 known attacks during this 300-year period." First of all, it uses the word "only," implying that this is a small number of attacks for this period. Well, that's more than one attack per year. I have no real frame of reference here, so to me (and quite possibly the average reader) that still sounds like a hell of a lot. Secondly, this is just recorded attacks. Written records are sketchy during this period. There were certainly many more attacks than 430. Finally, and worst of all IMO, there's no citation. If you're going to be throwing around such specific statistics, the least you could do is give us a source. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time or the knowledge to give this article the attention it really needs, but I thought it was worth mentioning for those who do.--71.37.39.39 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


The word or part of word - "by"

I have a question. I live in Denmark, on the island Bornholm in the Baltic Sea. I have studied the middle age and times before that for a long time. We always hear, the the viking's attack on Lindisfarne was the beginning of the viking age. (Saxo Grammaticus, one of the most important sources to Danish history, (some of Norway was a part of Denmark at that time, other parts of Denmark today wasn't) didn't use the word viking, because he wrote in Latin, and the word he used could mean pirate).But when did the city Whitby (North of Scarborough) get its name? There was a synode in 664 in Whitby abbey, and that was long before the viking age. Whitby used to be "Streaneashalch" but do you have sources to, when Whitby did get the name Whitby? Answers could be mailed to jeskildsen (at) gain.dk -- thank you in advance. Jan Eskildsen

Dawidbernard writes: There are no mountains in Denmark, thus there are no fjords in Denmark." This is crab and nothing else but crab. Well, nonsense. We have a lot of fjords in Denmark, and for us is does not mean, that there are aslo mountains. A fjord is like a cut into the land, nothing else. Were vikings tall? Well, we know that the king Valdemar I the Great was appr. 190 cm and his friend (they grew up together) Esbern Snare was between 180 and 190. Jan Eskildsen

Viking weaponry

Hi, dropping by from RC patrol to point out that a good-faith but inexperienced addition of a Viking weaponry section, here was just deleted as unsourced. That it was, but weaponry certainly seems to be a significant feature, at least archaeologically, and there doesn't seem to be any data on it. I'll leave it up to you history buffs to decide whether such a section should be added, and whether the edit has useful content. Thanks. --Kizor 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a history buff but I watch this article for vandalism. It turns out that we already had an article on Viking Age arms and armour but it wasn't linked from either Viking or Viking age. I've fixed that and copied the lead section from Viking Age arms and armour to here - it's not sourced either but it's much more well-written and comprehensive than the edit I reverted. Graham87 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs more pictures!!

It's not like there isn't a bunch of viking pictures out there. And not only of berserks axe in hand, but schemas of drakkar, floorplan of houses, jewellry, artifacts... go get them. --victor falk 10:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that you can edit! Yes you! If something annoys you, you can change it! Yes, you! Cop 663 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What a mess!

Something very bad seems to have happened to this article since the beginning of this month. A succession of vandals have altered the text and messed up the references. I'm tentatively rolling back to the version at the end of October. I'll restore other valid changes after this point later - ideally I'd revert more carefully, but it's a real mess out there. --Plumbago 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, let's clean up this article. Regards, AlphaEta T / C 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work cleaning up more of the mess! I've now just tidied up cited sources that listed only a weblink, so that they're at least a little more descriptive of their source. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I wonder if Vandals actually ever vandalized viking information before this article was created.71.238.71.180 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


This article needs some serious work. This revisionist history ignores the many, many sources for Viking violence and terror in the British Isles. Stop trying to hippify the Vikings for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.69.88 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

legend

Books about Vikings often quote a priest "Lord, protect us from the fury of the Northmen" as if it were from the historical record. I believe that may have been a concoction of somebody a century ago trying to romanticize the Viking Age. I don't have the reference for that right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.65.17 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The burning and pillage at Lindisfarne mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.69.88 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Crap again

I cite (and comment) the intro:

Viking refers to a member of the Scandinavian seafaring traders,

-No, in not one single source is the word viking refering to a trader.

warriors and pirates who raided and colonized

-No, in not one single source is a documented viking refered to as being a colonizer of anything.

    • There is plenty about colonisation on the University History courses SGGH speak! 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

wide areas of Europe from the late 8th to the 11th century. These Norsemen

This text should be on norsemen, norsemen and vikings were never, in any written old source the same. The word viking however was even used in some sources though, for arabian pirats, which makes it very clear its not a term for an etnic geographical community.

(literally, men from the north) used their famed longships to travel as far east as Constantinople and the Volga River in Russia, and as far west as Newfoundland.

-No, in not one single source is a documented viking refered to as being on a ship to Nwe Foundland. Especially not the german and hungarian members of those ships.

This period of Viking expansion is commonly referred to as the Viking Age of Scandinavian History.

-There was no viking expansion, it was a scandinavian expansion. The scandinavian expansion itself, actually had trouble from vikings, and for examplae king Harald fairy hair deported vikings from scottisch shores to Iceland, in order to develop the scandinavian expansion in peace.

To mimic your own rude manner, no the vast majority of Scandinavians who left and arrived at Iceland left due to a shortage of land (due to the heritage system awarded each successive generation smaller areas) and the taxes levied by Harold Finehair. We would all appreciate it if you reign your tone in somewhat. Thank you.

Read the german article, and its intro, to get a clue how this english article could be written, if it really provided facts, and not 1900 myths about the term viking.

Dan Koehl (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You say there were Germans and Hungarians on the ships that sailed to Newfoundland around the year 1000? Do you have sources? Krastain (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Kensington Runestone section

Historians don't even believe this one and believe it's fake, witch it most likely is. Maybe we should delete it or just put it under a new category of doubtful evidence. --CrazyTOMM (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is genuine or not is not even the question here, because even those who believe in it claim it is from the 14th century. The viking age lasted from the 8th to the 11th century, so the Kensington runestone has nothing at all to with vikings, however you look it. I deleted it.--Barend (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

did they visit New York City or Manhattan?

I have always thought this, but I can't prove it on google. Isn't it true? There is some scant evidence maybe overblown? I can't believe it is so hard to find lit on this theory. Can anyone debunk or explain this visitation they made to New York at some point? They being vikings. --Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.169.31 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The southernmost limit of the Norse exploration the Atlantic coast of North America has not been established, and probably never will, but there is absolutely no evidence that they made it as far south as Manhattan. -- Nidator T / C 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the movies, books, and music?

I noticed that there is no popular culture section to this article. I've seen plenty of movies, read plenty of books, and heard many songs (Immigrant Song, lol) that is relevent to Viking lore. Anyone wanna help me accomplish this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Six string brad (talkcontribs) 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the "In fiction" subsection of the "Historical opinion and cultural legacy" section. Graham87 04:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake Map

The map is absolutely fake. There were no viking raids in Sardinia. Show sources, please, or eliminate it. Zappering 16:24, 15 February 2008

Which map? There are several, and I couldn't find one with a reference to Sardinia, unless I overlooked it somehow. --GoodDamon 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

I rewrote the Etymology section, although I noted that the article was locked, so I post it here instead: (the bold marked text are changed/added)

The word Viking comes from the Old Norse word "viking" (pl "vikingr"), lit. "one who comes from the fjord(s)", or "one who comes from a fjord". "Vik", means a narrow bay, creek, fjord or inlet. The ending -ing or -ung is often used to denote people of a certain clan or a certain heritage, Ex Scylfing, Wulfing, Folkung etc. By the end of the Viking period, the term both referred to pirates of robbers operating by sea, known as "vikingr" in West Norse, and was used as a term for sea-born warfare and harrying in the West Norse "viking." These names were common mainly in Scandinavia itself, however, and many other terms were used in the wider world. These included heatens, northmen, the people from the north, the Danes, rus, or the "foreigners." These terms, however, were used for the Viking peoples as a whole, and thus never accounted for the variation between those that originated from different areas of Scandinavia

Which bay or bays are denoted

Up until Jordanes (ca 550) the world in the north is almost always described as consisting of one or several islands. Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela among others describes it this way. Jordanes is the first to describe that the biggest island "Scandza" is actually a peninsula. and that the "German Sea" is actually a bay. In a world where most knowledge is spread via the spoken word rather than via books and maps, a paradigm shift for a simple description was probably inevitable. This could mean that the northeners were met as people coming from "the bay" rather than people coming from "one of the islands". This in turn could mean that the northeners started to present themselves as "being from the bay" or when talking to themselves in their own language: "Vikingr".

Several other hypotheses to which bay is referred to exist, for example Kattegatt, the Oslo bay, the Norwegian fjords.

Magnus Andersson (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis that "northeners started to present themselves as "being from the bay", etc, in their own language "Vikingr", is obviously wrong. The word "vikingr" in Old Norse meant a robber, not a person coming from a specific geographic area. This explanation is impossible.--Barend (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that when the word "viking" is used with the meaning of robber it is a Kenning, in the same way as one could use the words "whale road" when one meant the sea. Magnus Andersson (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Why use the kenning "viking", well if one compares to modern teenagers, when they talk about what they're goning to do friday night, they don't talk about knocking down people on the town, they rather invent creative new words that doesn't shock the surroundings as much. However Barend (and others) might have a point, the kenning might have been used so often that in the late vikingage it actually meant pirate. Magnus Andersson (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. As I'm seeing it, the problem for the guy trying to talk about "real" vikings is... Language is a PURELY human-constructed phenomenon. It is completely arbitrary; so the 'facts' are that a word is defined in large part BY its standard usage. Trying to revert already-complete transitions for no significant reason is only prompting MORE linguistic variation, where words and definitions are changing which is really not a good thing for anyone who wants to "preserve" language. -Garbeld —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.141.57 (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Languages might be arbitrary, but they don't evolve arbitrary. The evolution is ruled by psychosocial factors/phenomenons of those who speak the language. Magnus Andersson (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

good job

keep up the good work guys this info is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO useful for my friggen viking assignment i didnt know that they were this interestin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.144.107 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo/editing error in section on Scotland?

Starting at the third sentence, it reads "Pictish slaughtered Eoganan, king of the Picts, and his brother, the vassal king of the Scots. They also killed many members of the Pictish aristocracy." I would have thought the 1st sentence in this quote should begin with "Vikings" rather than "Pictish" but I thought I should check rather than changing it. Cheers, Pandar (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence originally started with "they" per this edit. I've changed it back to "they". Graham87 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some notes to "Talk:Viking/Archive 1"

If you have no idea of what the headline means go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Viking/archive_1

I am sorry but I am not too familiar with Wikipedia yet so I do not know any other way to comment on that article without editing it, therefore I started this thread. (BTW: I created this account 9 min ago^^)

I have spotted some major and some major issues I want to "enlighten" xD First: "It is widely assumed that the Vikings lived to plunder, but in truth, they only did so towards the religious institutions (and royals who relied on them for influence over the peasantry) which spoke of hatred and dismissal towards their heathenry. For instance, they needed to trade and settle with the Christians," and so on...

There are some correct parts here; the problem is that it is described too narrow-mindedly. There were many different Viking kings ruling different parts of Scandinavia. If I am not too far off here I think there was 13 kingdoms in Norway alone before they were gathered under one rule (sadly I can’t remember everything from my history lessons :)), only four and a half million people inhabitants Norway Today. [Back to the point again:] Every King had his own set of laws, traditions and regulations that varied mostly by the environmental situation in the kingdom, therefore some kingdoms were more dependent on plundering than others, although there weren’t too many warrior kingdoms among the Vikings as most of them were either farmers or traders.

Saying Vikings were only a bunch of plunderers and thieves would be like saying that all Americans weigh over a quarter of a ton each (250kg, metric system). As I said were Vikings mostly farmers and traders, the Vikings relied on their crops and animals as their main source of food, the Vikings understood that plundering had a great risk of death and the family back home would probably starve and become poor if their "man of the house" died. And since this is not very preferable the general population of the Vikings traded with other Vikings or with other civilizations.

The reason to whom to plunder was most likely just the easiest and closest target to the village or the current camp during a plundering campaign. That the Vikings picked only those who opposed them is completely fictional. An example to this are some scripts recovered from a church in England describing a “horde of demons rushing from their boat killing, burning, raping and pillaging” the local townspeople.

Second: “The vikings who were desperate enough to try raiding Islamic mosques at Córdoba, Spain ended up regretting it or dying” This is just a random sentence without any actual facts to back it up, the coasts of Spain were frequently raided but the Vikings never really went on any significant campaign deeper into Spain.

03:15 13. April 2008 well, thats it for today folks! ill be back again and will continue this (currently) one-way discussion^^

[->ZehCorrector<-] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZehCorrector (talkcontribs) 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protected

{{editprotected}} Per this diff, I will add Category:Barbarians. The page is only semi-protected so you can edit it soon - semi-protected pages can be edited by accounts which are older than 4 days. Graham87 15:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply at Refdesk

As a summary, I've put this reply to question of Vikings as barbarians at the refdesk. It might have information that can be absorbed into the section "Common misconceptions" — or maybe under an archaeology section? (needs refs o'coss) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vikings were certainly not the barbaric peoples you think they are. Firstly, the term "vikings" is misleading because it means "raiders" and was assigned by Christan cultures looking at what (at the time) was a Pagan society (though Christianity did spread to places like Iceland in AD 999). The Vikings were in fact both raiders, traders and settlers. There are written sources from as late as the 1400s which write on the 793 raid on Lindesfarne or the raid on Portland, Dorset somewhere between 786-802. However in the latter, the inhabitants were expecting the Vikings to trade, nor raid, so that suggests they traded too. Furthermore, a camp excavated at Repton on the River Trent showed both weapons and scales and other trading equipment, and many Vikings were buried with scales as well as weapons, showing that they traded as well as raided. They were often merchants, trading ivory from Greenland and Iceland and they were farmers, they farmed crops and sheep and cattle. The entire of Iceland was made up of a commonwealth of small Viking farmships. They obviously settled as well, Viking settlements existed in Iceland, Greenland and Vinland (northern Americas). The idea of them being barbaric murdering raiders is a creation by Christian Europe, abhorring the idea of a few raiders sacking a Church in northern England, and (when they did adopt Christianity) taking the Church's tax money for themselves. This is a simplification of the reason, but undoubtedly the idea that Vikings were murderous barbarians isn't true. They even had far greater equality between the sexes than Christian Europe did at the time!" SGGH speak! 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

cloths

did the viking's wear leather sandles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.200.159 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also posted at the humanities reference desk here[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Clothing notes from ref desk:

They used to wear shoes, according to this and this. What makes you think they wore sandals? --Dr Dima (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vikings mostly lived in climates that are cool or downright cold for most of the year. Sandals would not have been very sensible and therefore wouldn't have been worn much. Some Vikings were basically merchants, and some of those traded along the Mediterranean or Black Seas in warmer climates. No doubt one of those Vikings wore sandals at some point, but they were probably an exception. Marco polo (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an interesting article on the net, here, discussing the extent to which the Varangians (Vikings) in Byzantine Empire have switched from their traditional clothes and footwear to the local ones. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fail

Failed article. So now the vikings were peaceful traders? LORDS save us from the wrath of the Hippies. This is the most disapointing long standing article I have EVER seen on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.69.88 (talkcontribs) 23:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Viking ignorant that I am, failed to spot the invader-denial and the whitewashing. ~:-P Julia Rossi (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Double Fail

Here here, unlock this sham of an article so it can be mended sir! Factual history does not pander to political correctness, nor does it conform to the desires and needs of tiny but vocal, ill-informed people specialisng in wooly thinking. The Vikings are of huge import in western europe, fix this article now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.130.168 (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not locked, it is semi-protected so that only 'established users' can edit it. This is normally done to protect an article from 'drive-by vandals' who either are deliberately trying to damage an article or who have no idea what Wikipedia policies and guidelines expect from editors. I notice that neither you nor the editor above have any specific changes you want (and the word 'raided' is in the first sentence). If you don't want to edit it yourself, add some comments about what should be changed -- with some reliable, verifiable sources please. Doug Weller (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, this article has a troubled history. Thanks to Dan, I suppose, who felt very strongly about the accusations of piracy. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In a way, I don't see what all the fuss is about - e.g., under "Viking expansion", the first sentence introduces Vikings in a predominantly violent manner, then the first example, under "British Isles", speaks of murder by Vikings, and warfare, before mentioning other aspects in the final paragraph. But - there is a sentence in the intro which might be slightly less than clear, and could lead to the sort of misapprehensions that have been expressed. This reads:

Once seen through the classical mindset of the "barbaric North", the historical image of the Vikings, although still under the shadow of traditional views, now shows the Vikings as aspirational, adventurous peoples, with ingenuity in ship and town construction, and a proficiency as seafarers and traders to match.

IMHO, it's not the best written sentence I've seen, it does carry a whiff of enthusiasm, and I think it presently reads in such a manner that a reader might well respond in the way that has been observed; though, from what I've seen of the rest of the article, any failure of comprehension thereafter would be the reader's alone. Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean by offering the following alternative:

While Vikings are traditionally seen as no more than violent, acquisitive heathens, the consensus among modern historians is that they can also be seen as aspirational, adventurous peoples, with ingenuity in ship and town construction, and a proficiency as seafarers and traders to match.

That's only a suggestion, but I think it's pretty accurate, and a reader would struggle to find it "revisionist", or whatever the precise accusation might be.
While I'm here, I've noticed a few things in the article that I think ought to be changed - e.g. the statement that 'Alfred of Wessex managed to keep the Vikings out of his county'. Apart from a typo (i.e. "county", for "country"), this isn't true: rather, Alfred managed to repel the Vikings from his kingdom, from a position where he himself had been reduced to hiding in marshes. If you'll bear with me, I might have a go at fixing that, and a few other, similar things. I have no intention of altering any of the existing information in the article, except in that sort of manner. Nortonius (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

but I do not think it is true that Vikings were "traditionally seen as no more than violent, acquisitive heathens". They were, much rather, traditionally seen as noble-savages types, fearless heroic warriors with a paganism that emphasizes honour, loyalty, bravery and what have you. Nothing could be further from the mark than a phrase involving "no more than", they were positively hyped as superhuman by the Romanticist Viking revival. By contrast, the "modern consensus" is more down-to-earth, while admitting the central position of the warrior ethos remarking that they were also perfectly regular chaps engaging in trade and craft. This isn't a debunking of an "uncivilized dirty barbarian" image but much rather that of a romantic "heroic noble Conan-the-barbarian warrior-poet" one. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - I did say, that sentence was 'only a suggestion', though I'm not sure that it's WP's role to de-bunk anything: maybe that's where the 'whiff of enthusiasm' comes in...? I think, overall, the traditional view of Vikings is as treacherous, bloodthirsty savages, as per the section "Historical opinion and cultural legacy": not much room for the "noble savage" in there. The "noble savage" element is rather "modern" than "traditional" I think, and it is discussed in the article, already - perhaps just add mention of it to the suggested alternative text, e.g.:

While Vikings have traditionally been seen as no more than violent, acquisitive heathens, in more modern times they have sometimes been portrayed in a more heroic light. However, the consensus among modern historians is that they can also be seen as aspirational, adventurous peoples, with ingenuity in ship and town construction, and a proficiency as seafarers and traders to match.

Anyway, really, my original point was about the direction taken by that existing sentence, as a possible source of the (obviously nonsensical) misapprehensions expressed above, regarding the nature of the article. Do you see what I mean about that? I'm not sure you addressed that, unless I just need you to be clearer. Or, would you like to suggest a possible alternative of your own? Anybody...? Nortonius (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

just as a note, your suggestions are of course arguable -- do feel free to implement them directly, they can still be modified or discussed later (it's a wiki). Perhaps the lead should follow the sequence (1) summarize modern consensus on the historical topic, and only then (2) mention quaint cliches of barbarism and/or heroism, linking to Viking revival. After all, the point of the introduction is to summarize the topic itself, not the historical development of how the topic has been treated in literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point about "sequence" - since you mention it, clearly I've introduced a chronological perspective into my suggested alternative text; but it's a historical article, and it seems broadly to follow a chronological sequence already. But, maybe then I'll just paste that latest attempt at an alternative text into the article, over the existing sentence, and then folks can play around with it as they see appropriate. Nortonius (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
there is a difference between history and history of historiography. The chronological sequence should be 8th to 11 centuries, not "Viking Age in the 18th century", "Viking Age in the 19th century", "Viking Age in the 20th century" and finally "current views of the Viking Age". For that, we have Viking revival. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Umm - yes, of course! I'm just saying I don't really see the problem - and, I said I'd 'just paste that latest … alternative text, …and then folks can play around with it as they see appropriate.' Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New map available

An outline of Danelaw England: the area of the Danelaw is coloured blue

The map image presently used in this article for the Danelaw in England is from a bit of a sloppy scan, and is fairly low resolution. I've just uploaded this image: it's a scan of a slightly older map, but it's pinpointed at the same date (878 AD), it gives essentially the same boundaries (but not quite), it's much more detailed, and it offers a much higher resolution. You might want to use it instead of the existing image. Nortonius (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Savage marauder section in "Popular misconceptions" - clean up needed!

The Savage marauders section has absolutely no references, making some sort of vague point that the Vikings lived in a brutal period, and were not the worse... this section needs references and should not be in the Popular misconception chapter. In the 1930 anti-Semitism and eugenics was common in almost all European countries, but we don’t put the Nazi's policies and actions under the heading "popular misconceptions" - because, well everybody did it to some degree (in fact, such arguments would be called apologist). I am all for a comment on the fact that the Viking’s image has been retrospectively exaggerated (for which it is quite easy to find reliable sources), but this section really needs some cleanup!!--SasiSasi (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section, mainly because it was entirely unreferenced. The rape and pillage section contains some referenced material on how the Viking image was shaped over time. The RandP section could do with some (ref) extension. I have pasted the text of the of the deleted section below. If someone can find references we can move bits of it back into the article.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

“Despite images of Viking marauders who live for plunder and warfare, the heart of Viking society was reciprocity, on both a personal, social level and on a broader political level.[citation needed] The Vikings lived in a time when numerous societies were engaged in many violent acts, and the doings of the Vikings put into context are not as savage as they seem. Others of the time period were much more savage than the Vikings [citation needed], such as the Frankish king, Charlemagne, who cut off the heads of 4,500 Saxons for practicing paganism (Bloody Verdict of Verden) in one day. Most Vikings were traders, although some did plunder, often monasteries around Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, as they had a lot of valuables in gold and silver.[citation needed] As monasteries were centers of learning and writing, their experiences were much more likely to enter the historical record. However, considerable literature in the monasteries would have been destroyed during the plunderings.[citation needed] One of the Vikings' largest profit-centers was the slave trade; any group that acts as slave-takers is likely to be viewed with disdain by their victims. During the period of the Vikings, slavery was common throughout Northern Europe, and the fact that many slaves were captured persons was irrelevant in law. A person from Poland could be captured and later sold in England, for example. Slavery was common amongst the Scandinavians themselves, as well.[citation needed] In the 300-year period where Vikings were most active, there were approximately 347 recorded attacks that spread from the British Isles to Morocco, Portugal, and Turkey. In Ireland, where the Vikings are most famous for attacking monasteries, there were 430 known attacks during this 300-year period.[citation needed]

To my knowledge only one source name vikings and tradesmen, and thos source very definite separate them; in the book of Egil Skallagrimsson you can read: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður.

english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.

The meaning "Most Vikings were traders, although some did plunder" does not really reflect the medevial sources, and it must confuse the reader who reads facts about for example Birka in Sweden, where tradesmen had an organized defence against vikings.

Everyone who can read german, can get a lot of intelligent thoughts from the german article, which describes vikings, and not scandinavians that people believe were vikings.

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Map - Image:Viking Expansion.svg

This map, which in the article is used to illustrate Scandinavian expansion, is wrong about North Norway: Even in relatively early Scandinavian iron age (400 A.D), norse farmers were living north of the arctic circle, at least as far north as Harstad. There is a well documented excavation of two iron age farms on Andøya. Interestingly, this excavation has shown that these two farms, on the west coast of Andøya, with the same climatic conditions, were harvesting nature in different ways: While one farm relied mostly on farming products (milk, meat, etc - but also some fish), the other seems to have relied heavily on fish and other marine resources, including sea birds eggs. Orcaborealis (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Its wrong about Sweden also. Sweden were never ruled by any vikings, the swedish kingdom is mentioned already by Tacitus, and during the middle ages swedens defence against vikings is documented. Its therefore very wrong to say that Sweden was viking territory, when it was not, but instead very much defended against vikings.

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

R1a Haplogroup

There is NO documented evidence that R haplotype was a predominant haplotype in Vikings, Norse, or Danes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.198.57 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's way off. This map is a better source[2]. The R1A haplotype is more Eurasian than Scandinavian. Type I is more centered on Scandinavia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that it is the I1 Haplogroup, rather than the R1a, which is associated with Scandinavian populations. I've added some material back into that section to correct this (and used the refs from current [[Haplogroup I1 (Y-DNA) article. CactusWriter | needles 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Common misconceptions section

Disagree with this edit: changing the Common misconceptions section to Legends and Myths. Misconceptions is more specific to what the section is about. Legends and myths makes one think of mythology, and things saga related, not something the section is about. The section is about common misconceptions of vikings, so there is no need for the name change.--Celtus (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure we need this section at all. It debunks "misconceptions", but it never establishes them as "common" or notable in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
...mmm... I am not having the answer here but whether or not a misconception is common is a statement in itself, I never heard of Vikings being smelly... maybe there is a diplomatic way by integrating the cup and helmet section under "Culture", the article could do with a section on Viking culture (demographics, grafts, trade and farming activities etc). Or, the helmet and skull sections could be moved into the "Historical opinion and cultural legacy" section. The Uncleanliness section is missing sources for some quite substantial statements, so in theory it should be removed.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

also, the "rape and pillage" section is dubiously titled and probably not h2-worthy. We need to clean up the ToC. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I will reinstate the rape and pillage section as the title is not dubious (this is a common English phrase when referring to Vikings), and its referenced, as well as balanced. See "Savage marauder section in "Popular misconceptions" - clean up needed!" discussion. It surely needs some work, but at least it has references! The lack of references is a serious quality issue.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this extremely dubious section again, and it should stay that way as it stands. The references given either contain no mention of the misconception of "rape and pillage" (Roesdahl (1998:9-22) was cited, yet here she mentions nothing remotely related...) or are just random, questionable websites. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Mate, I think you go a personal problem with the subject. There are lots of dubious claims in this article without any ref, but you don’t remove them. Could it be that you only remove what you don’t like??

regarding ref, I did not add the Roesdahl ref, however, if you check out the following ref, which is in the article [3] - the one you say is just a "random questionable websites". Similarly this source >Heredity - Human migration: Reappraising the Viking Image</ref>, an academic yournal, wriotten by an academic (1Department of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland).....

Please explain your text removal with reference to wikipedia policy, and allow other editors to add their opinion.

I have pasted the section below, maybe we can get some further opinions. Also, nobody is saying that the section should stay like this, it can/should be extended and edited. This is Wikipedia, and I am very sorry to break it to you, you are not the Viking article gate keeper. --SasiSasi (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rape and pillage"

"The Ravager" by John Charles Dollman

The Vikings are today famed for their popular "rape and pillage" image.[1][2] Viking settlements on the British Isles are thought to have been primarily male enterprises, with a lesser role for Viking females. A cemetery on the Isle of Man for example includes mainly male Norse burials, with females from the local indigenous population. British Isles women are mentioned in old texts on the founding of Iceland, indicating that the Viking explorers had acquired wives and concubines from the British Isles. Genetic studies of the Shetland population indicates that Viking family units were the norm among the migrants to these areas. Genetic studies of the population in Iceland and the Western Isles/Isle of Skye show that Viking settlements were established mainly by unattached male Vikings who subsequently "acquired" women from among the local populations. This may be explained in terms of physical distance to new settlements from the Scandinavian homeland; closer settlements were more suitable for family migration while frontier settlements further north and west were left for groups of lone male colonizers.[3] Some historians dispute the Vikings' "rape and pillage" image, arguing that exaggeration and distortion in later medieval texts created an image of treacherous and brutal Northmen.[4]

article deterioration

the amount of vandalism to this article even in spite of permanent semi-protection is appalling. We lost the entire Etymology section some time in December 2007 and nobody noticed. Not sure what can be done about it. More eyes are definitely needed. --dab (𒁳) 20:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we lost the "Etymology" section on December 12, 2007, also known as "PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME". Just prior to the "slaughter", I had removed some redundant material from the section (the paragraph about Varangians, for instance), but I have absolutely no idea if the redundancy still remains. I loathe the prospect of re-tooling this article! AlphaEta 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It's the old story of two (slightly) different IPs vandalizing the same article at the same time. The recent changes patrol rollbacked the second vandalistic edit but missed the first one. Haukur (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, the Ole Vandalism Bunt. AlphaEta 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why it should be named after a short lived vandalism attempt as mentioned by AlphaEta. Anyway some vandalism is hardly a reason to remove the section altogether.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Still can't see why it justifies removing an entire section because of vandalism. Should think some users has never heard of "restore".--Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? No-one's arguing that the removal was a good thing, it was just an accident. Haukur (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well alright then, just sounded like excuses.--Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The etymology section has a habit of disappearing. I took almost everything off my watchlist in October 2007 and have been slowly putting it all back on. ;) Graham87 02:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is generally very low quality because of constant drive-by editing and other problems that afflict articles. I gave it up a long time ago.--Berig (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

it's getting better though. I think this can become a decent article yet, the raw material is all here now. But it definitely needs to remain semiprotected indefinitely. --dab (𒁳) 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think this nonsense about acquisitive heathens-heroic light-and traders to match would need to go? Since when is there a consensus anyway? So I'd remove the following opinionated text all together, it just doesn't add any value to the article: While Vikings have traditionally been seen as no more than violent, acquisitive heathens,[dubious – discuss] in more modern times they have sometimes been portrayed in a more heroic light. The consensus among modern historians is that they can be seen as aspirational, adventurous people, with ingenuity in ship and town construction, and a proficiency as seafarers and traders to match.[2]

--Termer (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- the acquisitive heathens sentence is a definite "what-the-hell?" line. It needs to be struck -- and then rewritten. Considering that half of the article is devoted to historical opinion, cultural legacy, and popular misconception, the introduction should include a couple of concise sentences that summarize what readers can expect to find in those sections. I think that was the original intent of those two failed sentences. And, on a side note, due to the recent yeoman work by dab, the article is showing much improvement. The efforts to bring this back up to quality are appreciated. CactusWriter | needles 10:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
the irony being, of course, that the yeomen here work for the Vikings and those raiding and pillaging the article against them :-) --dab (𒁳) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

citation for decline in Mediterranean trade

This article wants a scholarly reference for the decline in trade in the Med. around the time of the fall of the Roman empire: SeeHenri Pirenne, Medieval Cities: their Originas and the Revival of Trade(Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 1952) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassaraba (talkcontribs) 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Captions?

Most of the captions under the pctures dont make sence especialy the one that says the "gods approved of pink" that is a false statemant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.15.244 (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Wouldnt it be more NPOV to note that british persons believe that vikings were also peaceful traders, although they were not, instead of letting english persons interpretation define the world, and prolong the misunderstanding?

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to widely-held misperceptions, when inserted in Wikipedia articles, are generally best presented as reports of newly published interpretations by historians, rather than as personal counter-essays. A citation of the most relevant corrective published article would improve the balance of this one.--Wetman 17:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
How about Egil Skallagrimsson: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. I belive Egil is one the very few sources that mention trading and viking activities, and he very clearly make a difference between them. (At the bottom of the page about Egil you may read the different translations) Dan Koehl (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Leif Eriksson

The article states: Vikings under Leif Eriksson, but it has to be reminded that on article pages describing Leif Eriksson in danish, english, german, norwegian and swedish, Leif is not refered to as viking, his father Erik the Red is also not refered to as viking in any of those languages. Leif himself was not a viking, and as far as I know, noone in the crew was vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick search on Google Books and Google Scholar shows a number of sources referring to both of them as Vikings. If you have sources saying they weren't Vikings, we could perhaps say, with sources, that there is a disgreement. dougweller (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Play with words. No historical sources Ive read, name those two as vikings, or involved in viking activities. Harald fairhead cleared a lot of shores of islands between england and norway from vikings, but Leif and Erik was not among those vikings. No womena were ever named vikings as far as I know, yet maybe 50% on the boats were women, adn at least 2 persons from Scotland. Ev some others from central europe. The voyage was not as such, a viking (femininum icelandic vikingr). Reg the substantive viking (maskulinum icandic víkingr) The only written prime source that describes what a viking was, is Adam of Bremen with the words: Aurum ibi plurimum, quod raptu congeritur piratico. Ipsi enim piratae, quos illi Wichingos as appellant, nostri Ascomannos regi Danico tributum solvunt. . Which you may probaby find a very clear translation for... How SOME english speaking people today interpretes the word today, is irrelevent in thise circumstance, because it was not words that travelled over the sea it was people, and they were obviously NOT named as vikings? as far as I can find in the sources, although other were, during this time. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and they use the term Vikings. I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but it's not relevant to Wikipedia. dougweller (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry, german wikipedia is also, indeed wikipedia. The parts down below (written in german) from the german article does not confirm your opinion, it refers to modern reliable sources, not old romantism. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

German article

The german article about vikings has developed a lot, and is now more and more precise. I believe it would be valuable for all english speaking persons to be able to read the intro, and I therefore kindly ask someone to translate the lines below into english: ( and I want to remind you its only 1,5 year back when german article was a naive and unhistoric, as the presrent english one. Omni mutantor!

Der Begriff Wikinger bezeichnet Angehörige von kriegerischen, zur See fahrenden germanischen Völkern des Nord- und Ostseeraumes in der so genannten Wikingerzeit. Dieser Artikel behandelt die Menschen, die von ihren Zeitgenossen als Wikinger bezeichnet wurden. Die Ereignisgeschichte im Zusammenhang mit den Wikingern wird im Artikel Wikingerzeit behandelt.

In der zeitgenössischen Wahrnehmung stellten die Wikinger nur einen sehr kleinen Teil der skandinavischen Bevölkerung dar. Dabei können zwei Gruppen unterschieden werden: Die einen betrieben den ufernahen Raub zeitweise und nur in einem frühen Lebensabschnitt. Es waren junge Männer, die aus der heimatlichen Gebundenheit an Kult und Sippe ausbrachen und Ruhm, Reichtum und Abenteuer in der Ferne suchten. Später ließen sie sich wie ihre Vorfahren nieder und betrieben die in ihrer Gegend übliche Wirtschaft. Von ihnen berichten die Sagas (Altnordische Literatur) und die Runensteine. Für die anderen wurde der ufernahe Raub zum einzigen Lebensinhalt. Ihnen begegnet man in den fränkischen und angelsächsischen Annalen und Chroniken. Sie kehrten bald nicht mehr in die Heimat zurück, waren in die heimatliche Gesellschaft nicht mehr integrierbar und wurden dort als Verbrecher bekämpft.

Dan Koehl (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arqueology on Viking page.

It was suggested to be made into a new article, but antropologically it is correct to have arqueology as part of the history of a culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrodilg (talkcontribs) 23:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Viking=Varangian

RE:Dbachmann I am afraid this is inaccurate. There were no "Russians" at the time, and as the article already points out, The term Varangians was introduced to designate a function

Please take a look at the number of sources that are very clear about it. In modern languages Viking=Varangian. "No Russians at the time" and "The term Varangians was introduced to designate a function" may have relevance in historical context and have a place in the Etymology section perhaps. But Wikipedia is a modern encyclopedia that doesn't and shouldn't define anything what it might have meant about 1000 years ago. Today the meaning of the name "Varangian" is nothing more or less than Viking, Encyclopaedia Britannica says so Viking (Varangian) Oleg Viking (Varangian) Rurik and so do the number of sources I provided [4] [5] for the article. More is on the way in case needed. I haven't quite yet figured out what is going on with the "twin brothers": Vikings and Varangians on Wikipedia yet? the only difference between the names, the name Viking is know in the West and Varangian in the East all the way to Greece. That's all there is to it. So I personally consider Varangians WP:CFORK and do not understand the motivations behind it having 2 articles on Wikipedia that are on the same subject.--Termer (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see no response from Dbachmann after removing sourced facts from this article [6]. I just cite a number of sources backing up the facts above, and in case alternative perspectives pr WP:RS are not going to be provided, I'm afraid the fact needs to go back to the article in order to end this misleading Viking vs. Varangain WP:CFORK on Wikipedia.

--Termer (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Termer, what is your problem? The term Varangian is already satisfactorily explained in the article body. If you choose to mention it in the WP:LEAD, at least make sure to get it right, and compliant with the information in the article body. Also note that "sourced information" isn't in any way a free pass to stuffing material into the lead. Sourced information must be pertinent to the topic in order to be included in the article body, and it must be even more crucial to make it to the lead. Your point is that Norse explorers in an Eastern European context are preferably referred to as "Varangians" inj English. Then why the hell don't you put it that way instead of presenting a flawed claim of "known to the Greeks and Russians", and then lashing out at me for pointing out your flaws? I know what a Varangian is, ok? I am not opposed to mentioning them in the lead. But I expect you to either get it correct and in proper encyclopedic style yourself, or else ask for assistance. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realize where I remember you from, our exchange at Talk:Mordvins, which started out on a rather similar note, but which ended up ok and constructively. Your intentions are good, but your phrasings tend to end up somewhat misguided. You should listen to criticism and modify your points accordingly, and your contributions will be useful. Now I could just insert a properly phrased mention of the Varangians for you, but I do not feel I am compelled to do that. Please try to get it right, and if challenged, try to get it right on your second or third try. As for Varangian being a WP:CFORK of this one: it is not. It is at best a valid WP:SS sub-article to this one. As for your mistaken claim that the modern(!) Russian term for "Viking" is "Varangian", you may want to carefully review ru:Викинги vs. ru:Варяги, especially the leads there, and especially Ряд источников сближают понятия «варяги» со скандинавскими викингами, с XII века на Руси лексема «варяги» заменяется псевдоэтнонимом «немцы», which really makes your point for you, properly. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why do you keep taking things personally dab? I'm lashing out at you? I think the main problem we're having once again is that you spend an half of your time talking about me instead of getting straight to the point. So I hope that next time you don't start up your posts with "what is your problem" and we always going to start up and end up ok and constructively.

Now to the points.

  • instead of presenting a flawed claim of "known to the Greeks and Russians". What is flawed about it? All the way from Russia to Greece Vikings have been know as "Varangians". And I don't say so, the sources do.
  • you may want to carefully review ru:Викинги vs. ru:Варяги -Sorry, Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. And I don't read Russian, so in case you can, please refer to any secondary published sources that claim anything different that I've cited above.
  • It is at best a valid WP:SS sub-article to this one -it would be if this article had a section Varangians "Eastern Vikings" that would have a link to relevant main article.
  • Now I could just insert a properly phrased mention of the Varangians for you- You must be kidding me, once again, it's not about me or you but about the quality of Wikipedia. You are not here to serve me and I'm not here to please you. Please concentrate on improving Wikiedia instead of commenting on your colleagues like doing favors for me. I don't see anything wrong with what the sources say and the way I inserted the fact into the article Viking (known to the Russians and Greeks as "Varangians") because that's the way I learned it also in my History class once. In case you are aware of any other alternative or "proper" interpretations of the subject matter according to any other sources out there, please do not hesitate to spell it out.
  • Your point is that Norse explorers in an Eastern European context are preferably referred to as "Varangians" inj English. Not exactly. First of all "an Eastern European" is a stretchy term. the names Vikings vs. Varangians go mostly with the historic borders of the Western and Orthodox churches or another way to put it, the split of Roman Empire. Meaning all Lutheran and Catholic countries in Eastern Europe still know the Vikings but the Orthodox countries including Greece have known the Varangians. In modern times both names have crossed over the cultural boundaries and the result is that we are having 2 parallel articles on Wikipedia. And how to solve this is not up to me. Just addressing the question.--Termer (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--Termer (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

if this is about "you", then because you refuse to pay attention. "Varangian" is an English noun. What you are doing is take a soundbite from some book out of context, and end up with the claim that All the way from Russia to Greece Vikings have been know as "Varangians". What does this even mean? When? Is "Russia" equal to the Russian Federation? Or to the Kievan Rus' or what? Is "Greece" equal to the Greek Republic? To the entire Byzantine Empire or what? How does that sentence translate to the "Russians and Greeks" of the statement you are defending? Does "Russia" equal "Russians"? Are these people with Russian passports, or people speaking the Russian language? Again, when? You may be interested in the fact that the Russian language proper appears around the 15th century. Will Old East Slavonic do? I agree that I am not here to serve you, so I cannot help wondering why I am having this conversation. You are right that there are terminological difficulties:

  • vikingr used to mean "pirate, raider" only, but in modern times came to be used for "medieval Norse populations" more generally. The article is already fully aware of this, and it might help reading it.
  • Βάραγγοι used to mean "Byzantine palace guard", but in the modern period, English "Varangians" came to mean "Vikings who went eastwards and southwards through what is now Russia, Belarus and Ukraine mainly in the 9th and 10th centuries". The Varangian article is also fully aware of this.

Thus, the Varangian article is both about the Varangian guard, and about "Vikings who went eastwards and southwards through what is now Russia, Belarus and Ukraine mainly in the 9th and 10th centuries", while this article is about "Vikings" in general. Yes, this is somewhat complicated. No, it doesn't need to be "solved" becaus it already has been solved. Yes, Varangians may be linked from the lead of this article, no problem. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Still personal? I don't pay attention? You questions show that you never bothered to read much of that above where your questions were addressed, and I don't mind repeating myself:
-the names Vikings vs. Varangians go mostly with the historic borders of the Western and Orthodox churches or another way to put it, the split of Roman Empire. Meaning all Lutheran and Catholic countries in Eastern Europe still know the Vikings but the Orthodox countries including Greece have known the Varangians. In modern times both names have crossed over the cultural boundaries and the result is that we are having 2 parallel articles on Wikipedia.
That is essentially not that different what you were saying English "Varangians" came to mean "Vikings who went eastwards and southwards through what is now Russia, Belarus and Ukraine mainly in the 9th and 10th centuries".
And yes, I have addressed that question in Varangians article, before it there was no connection with Vikings whatsoever. And since I've written large junks of the Etymology section of Viking here, I have no need to read it once again.
I think both articles, especially this one needs to point it out much more clearly, who exactly were Varangians: simply the Vikings who traveled eastwards + it has been the traditional name for Vikings in Orthodox countries in general.--Termer (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FAIRY TALES

Erik (Yrikas) in Lithuanian language means A ROWER. Erikson means the son of a rower. Leif Eriksson (laivo yriko sunus) means a son of a boat rower. Ragnavold (Raganvaldys) means a man who rules or controls whitches, Olaf (Alavas) means a man who is strong like a tin, Viking (Vikingas) means a traveler, Bark (Barkas) means a port (In Lithuania we have a city Jur-Barkas meaning the port of the sea), Barbar (variu varis or Varvar) means a man who goes somewhere (or just a traveler) from this word comes and a name for Variags (Vikings in russian language), Saga (saka) in Lithuanian language sakau means I say (sakyti=to say, pasaka=fairy tale)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...you just do not know Lithuanian history...read runes on the stones in North America...that is why they had R1a Haplogroup and that is why they fighted with scandinavians, that is why they never attacked Lithuania, that is why they didn't stop in Lithuania while were traveling to Kiev...that is why they were tall and strong like Lithuanians. Igor (Ingauris) in Lithuanian language means the man in a fur...the Europe's dark ages will end soon...Europa (Juro-pa or Pa-Jure) in Lithuanian language means the land surrounded by seas...

moreover Greenland (Grœnlendinga saga=GRYNAI LEDINGA SAKA/SAKME) in Lithuanian language means a BARREN/SHEER ICE!!!!!!!!!

Vinland Sagas (Vien ledo) means a sheer/only ice (vien and gryn are sinonims in Lithuanian language, 'y' pronounces as 'ee')!!! Actualy 'gryn' means more 'ice without a snow' and 'vien' means 'entirely covered by ice'

SCANDINAVIA in Lithuanian language means the land at which coasts the ships are sinking/drowning (SKANDINA=DROWN/SINK)

Egils saga is generally referred to as "Egla" by Icelandic scholars. EGLA in Lithuanian language means a christmas tree, but I think it is about EIGULYS which in Lithuanian language means a man who travels (eiti=to go, eiga=course/run) usualy the man who fosters/guard the forest.

Bandamanna saga (banda mana) in Lithuanian language means the band/group of mine (or simply my family).

Landnáma (Lednamai) in Lithuanian language means the ice houses.

Iceland (Isledo) in Lithuanian language means 'consists of the ice'.

It seems that the first travelers-vikings were Lithuanians which highly influenced Norse and English languages (and it seems that whole American Empires including Inca...and India that explains all this mess about Buda statue found in one of their graves...and even early sanskrit occurence in India and later in Persia...and even Phenicians...all Phenician cities are of Lithuanian origin, like and Crete Minoen civilization, all those words and dieties in Crete are of Lithuanian origin).

For example the word Vik (for a fiord) could originate from the word Vikingas and not the otherwise!!! It's probably and is so.

and I just looked at only few sagas and information about Vikings, almost all those words I could decode using Lithuanian language89.240.13.175 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original "research" or fringe theories. I do give you credit for choosing an apt title for your nonsense though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).