Talk:Vikings

Archives

Talk:Viking/archive 1

Talk:Viking/archive 2

/archive 3

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 (talk • contributions) 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)

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)

"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 (ᛏ) 13:36, 23 November 2006 (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)

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 (ᛏ) 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 (ᛏ) 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)

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)

Brad Einarsen 02:40, 5 May 2007 (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 (𒁳) 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)

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 (𒁳) 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 (𒁳) 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.).

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.

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)

slaves

slaves are called rice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.145.108.158 (talk) 18:50, 23 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)

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)

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.

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.

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)