Talk:Viking/Archive 4

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

summary of archived disputes

What is not known by many is these attacks were initiated as a result of certain actions by Charlemagne, the king of the Franks, in the year 772 A.D., when he chopped down Irminsûl, the holy column of the Saxons. Initially the Scandinavians attacked(retaliated) all the cloisters and burned all the churches in Scandinavia

There are many problems with this, First is the fact that the saxons are not conisdered one of the groups of people listed as “viking” Second, Three proment mideavelist C. Warren Hollister, Judith M Bennett, and John Haywood do not mention the destruction of the holy column in any of their books as a possible reason for the beginning of the viking period. They do not even agree among themselves as to what started the raids. Third is the statement that all the cloisters and churches in scandinavia were burned, it is my understanding that the converstion of the scandinavian people didn’t begin until after the Viking period.

I am removing this paragraph unless I see some sources on these statements.

Yeah since the burning of all the churches in Scandinavia in 772 would have been very easy. Scandinavians wasn't even Christians, they believed in Asatro/Asatru, and no missionaries got a foothold in the region until Harald Bluetooth converted. Sneaking Viper 00:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The Saxon people are consided to be "Viking" because they are descendents from Scandinavian people, at the time of the establishment of the Danelaw. Additionally, Ireland was also inhabited by Vikings, from the trading city of Jorvik, which is present-day York. 03:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is some disagreement as to the definition of "Viking" in English:

  1. it can be used to refer to a 8th-11th century Scandinavian raider or pirate, exclusively.
  2. it can be applied to 8th-11th century Scandinavian members of naval expeditions, i.e. both peaceful traders/explorers and warlike raiders/pirates
  3. it can be used as an adjective, denoting anything connected with Viking Age Scandinavia, i.e. extending to the entire 8th-11h century Scandinavian culture
  • some people have been objecting to usage (1) (User:Sjc), because to people familiar with usage (3), it seemed to suggest that all/most Scandinavians were pirates. (see archive 1)
  • others have been objecting to usage (3), because they are familiar with usage (1), and understand the adjective 'viking' applied to the Scandinavian culture to imply that all/most Scandinavians were pirates. This is the position reflected on User:Dan Koehl/viking (see archive 2)

Note therefore, that nobody has actually been of the opinion that Scandinavians were mostly pirates at any time, although there has been some disagreement as to the importance of the raids to Scandinavian economy. But because such allegations were perceived, it has been difficult to confine the dispute to the actual definition of the term.

No solution has been found, and the page is still listed on WP:RfC.

The problem has no easy solution. Usage (1), or arguably (2) are undisputed the historical Scandinavian use of the word. The English meaning is intricately connected with the romantic notions that accompanied the word's introduction into the English language. Usage (3) is now undeniably widespread, although recent, and in contradiction to the correct etymological use. The ultimate aim of the article must be to explain these complications. In other articles, the word viking should be used as sparingly as possible, because obviously different people connect different notions with the term. It is advisable to use Viking Age instead whenever possible, because that term seems to be unambiguous (e.g. instead of a viking town say a Viking Age town). dab () 12:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Viking-hater Dan is now in charge of this page after spamming the others with his clearly biased views, wonderful.

well, the intro has been re-npoved. feel free to fix the rest. dab () 15:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The word "Viking" can be used to describe the raiders of the time-period, the Scandinavians of the time-period, since most were raidersm, or the traders that traveled extenively throughout Europe.

have you even read the above summary? this precise question was under prolongued discussion. What you say is just one side of the dispute. dab () 17:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear anonymous contributor. Please consider the arguments summarized at Wikipedia:Why create an account? --Johan Magnus 17:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised at the etymology you present here:

'The etymology of "viking" is somewhat unclear. One path might be from the Old Norse word vík, meaning "bay", "creek" or "inlet", and the suffix -ing, meaning "coming from" or "belonging to". Thus, viking would be an activity in creeks, or "creeking". A vikingr is a person engaged in such activity. Later on, the term viking became synonymous with "naval expedition, raid", and a vikingr was a member of such expeditions.'

You are of course aware of the fact that the Oslofjord area is called 'Viken' (the bay)? Any person coming from Viken could be termed a Viking. The same goes for many other place-names here. A person from Malvik would be termed a Malviking. A person who is "creeking" (whatever activity that may be) seems like a very unlikely explanation for a person who understands scandinavian. Among historians in Scandinavia one can find the explanation to be at first meaning it a person from Viken. Either the Viken people's activities as pirates OR other scandinavians raiding Viken may have been the origin of the word Viking, in the meaning and usage as in 'going in viking'; i.e. raiding. --SWA 15:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, we pretty much say so in the etymology section. As you say yourself, a vik is a bay, so that a viking may be anybody from any bay, not necessarily Oslofjord. As for "creeking", the -ing may be misleading. I don't think the idea here is that viking is a verbal noun. Anyway, the suggestion is not my own of course. Apparently, "in viking" meant "on a naval expedition" and not "in a bay dweller". However, I don't know the earliest attestation of the word. In Egils saga,

Þat mælti mín móðir,
at mér skyldi kaupa
fley ok fagrar árar,
fara á brott með víkingum,

"travel with vikings" obviously already means "travel with pirates". I think that "going in viking" in the sense of "going into creeks [to kill people and take all their stuff]" is the suggestion intended by the "creeking" part, i.e. "let's go creeking" meaning "let's go raiding". Maybe we need to rephrase the "creeking" bit, though. dab () 15:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speking , mlowa nasza sążnista

"{ 4 J Fiorda sine fiolners mine shram skal Dranga jeż povdarz skine pozte'aż tjagna.

5 ligatures quasi mongolian characters

6 Liódin Lcióde bródar bliód, lcjreina lcina kiozte prziódiń szfróda groóda goóda zdżreinir meina bozte

botton 3 x kucki az herbu Kucki

7 Dannmerkur od girzfa Sweini Skancjiż wwji? ???? ???? Sżceżni Szsocngż ogj Sjaraldi Szoncji (szongi) Słczraldżżżir kongżżicr

8 Armańs'o. Szcżprziodarc

9 na dole XX Sczżicdir

10 steżirńs Skip'ci Szogczlandi|Szocjczlandi

11 szriStni kam ci Pśćlan'ljaSżi tżil Svidprziódar til Wramahś ocjverid lcar med bonżim (next page) ???..??? SceSctżir

12 ... Prażitcjidżir Merdzi/or pa (z)villdżi egnżi czd ljczń Wlżczdżimżer(ż<>i mier) ci SeŻtażia (ta strona sfatygowana#209)~ Scl ??celti; vid sphożi/ćżim' eźcj'a kaz/clrz samcziż|? ; Sżjżiż skallt adołhdrżi/c,

Sopvó/łs/lldżi vitia Lchjincjad|Lchjingad ScjeŚta rlho/cina ocjpsra' scśżier verdżżorc ??? alzdid ;sckalltżic koma nafniminu/Sc , undir Skżriż łoćj Spokżipostni Zrzeme..Spot żićn WiCHceSrpaSzin zcerda|werda iż ołdrżi/c/un Sło/ś/nżidUżu'n... (page 84)

13 CjeGżjeSzsuj Zi Scallu arżdzirc zcliw żi ?racendeScemi (?głożidh?) BżiSkżipin niź Slri

????? Barnadi wwiZczovś końu/łs/sza zjższć' Bżiskżipniżm (ostatnie i 2".") zovie 

leska Biskupiń mzecti ... ..Bonda ż włsiżdaróSce.. ..sóndecz Scjandcj'eżincj'żiń łocjca ws ??? ... wwssondi gifti gośł' (m jak ń) Dottżżir/c ??? sx|h/cjo.

14 SacjaszszaS'żji Lijcozchron Ocj Sjańs SrjĆcjżizirzsń czirs'te ctapitule bo zirciar tejsa socj,u ad'htriarjan'dć ljes'z konci'z ljetid,ljsz^ rciede pssu v tm^ tracrte cjrc'ick'landS erc ps'elop'onsjus lJc'it v tm^sjalt z pszeiżże nalspcjzazcjży żcorcj Ctorinto pelopinsjus


15 jam Hasrcvandalzżzir ż Polpilszczelandzi

what on earth is this? If no explanation follows, I will remove it. dab () 16:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's excerpts from pages from Iceland. There are pages on web, tens of thousands. I think may be illustrative to this discursus, to look, to see, what deceased have to say. I think this little fragments do not infringement possible copyright, anyway those pages are scanned by government grants and do not have any copyright notices, also authors do not seem to hold copyright they passed away centuries ago.
  • Do you agree?
If you get interest in particular word i can provide a reference pointer. Intellact 20:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Joy. I knew it was new.
I don't get it at all. dab ()
Unless a clearer explanation is given I'll suggest a removal of the paragraph. Celcius 07:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

cut from "Sagas"

I cut the following from the "Sagas" section, which I assume is supposed to be about accounts in particular Norse sagas, as opposed to actual "historical sources". dab () 12:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Their ruthlessness and courage in battle is well documented by contemporary chroniclers, and they were feared along the western coast of France and in Britain. It is the effectiveness of these tactics that earned them their formidable reputation as raiders and pirates, but the chroniclers paid little attention to other aspects of Viking culture. This is further accentuated by the absence of contemporary primary source documentation from within the Viking communities themselves, and little documentary evidence is available until later, when Christian sources begin to contribute. It is only over time, as historians and archaeologists have begun to challenge the one-sided descriptions of the chroniclers, that a more balanced picture of the Norsemen has begun to become apparent. The most famous "Viking settlement", Jomsborg, is today regarded as legendary by historians; it was probably nothing more than a village of Slavic pirates.

Norsemen page

There is a page on Norsemen. Should similarly-named redirects here point there instead (Norseman, Norse Men, Norse people)? Or should the Norsemen page be merged into this one and point here instead? —Mulad (talk) July 1, 2005 21:01 (UTC)

As I see it, leave it be. The first sentence of the Norsemen article states:
"Norsemen (the Norse) is the indigenous or ancient name for the people of Scandinavia, including (but not limited to) the Vikings."
So I see no reason to merge it, or let it redirect to vikings, seeing as they weren't necessarily the same, only related. - Jacen Aratan 1 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Copyvio in Icelandic Sagas section

The section Icelandic Sagas was copied wholesale from here: [1].

I will post a copyvio notice and delete the offending text. Econrad 03:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Upholding Controversial Discrepencies

User:Dan Koehl/viking and User_talk:Wiglaf#Franks_and_Scandinavians. TheUnforgiven 15:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting Bold

Having read through the talk and related articles I'm bold but trepidatious.

I think I have a perspective that may help bring some order to this article. I wandered in because I saw a note that said it needs some cleanup. From the Talk I can understand why few would want to touch it.

I'm going to make some notes here because I need to put some ideas down to put my own mind in order. Given the debates I choose to place these notes here so that those who might edit my edits will have some idea of my reasoning.

I have read and studied the subject of Northern European History for many years both academically and personally. I do not hold a degree in it, except if you count a minor in History.

I note with interest that in the debate there are many who weigh in who are from Scandinavian countries and see that there is a different perspective on the subject, which I hadn't considered.

Those cultural perspectives are of interest.

My cultural perspective is that of a US citizen from the middle North of the United States. I am presently writing in Minnesota which means I live amongst many ethnic Swedes, Norwegians, a few Danes and some Finns. "Viking" in the English usages where I live (and the following statements have only my experience as witness) has the following definitions.

1) "The Vikings" -- noun, plural -- A) professional football team which gets to the Super Bowl periodically but never wins and wants to increase my taxes so they can have a new place to play, and B) the cultural group from which came the "real first discoverer" of America, that was the "Dark Ages" so there weren't really "real" countries back then so although they were from places like Sweden, Norway and Danemark, because things were kind of mixed up and folks were moving around some, they kind of got all over, and since they aren't from any *place* in particular, but had some things in common, we lump them together into "Vikings" which means "ethinic Scandinavians from before about 1200 before the current maps were drawn and countries established".

2) "The Viking" -- singular -- which would be Lief Erickson, who "discovered America", but doesn't get a holiday like Christopher Columbus for reasons no one quite understands (except that "Liefia" and "Erika" just don't seem as catchy as names for a land mass as "America": so Lief gets the credit, Columbus gets the holiday and Amerigo Vespucci gets to name it and no one remembers who he was).

Welcome to the midwest of the US where we *did* grow up laying Vikings and Indians as much as Cowboys and Indians. (And this may prompt some additions or links for the "Viking Mythology" section because I can take you to a "museum" in Minnesota here where there is "evidence" that Vikings "discovered" Minnesota.)

Now, more seriously.

"Viking" is a term in Modern English that has a meaning distinct from the various Norse words of similar spelling. That term is related to 1)B) above.

There is an identifiable period of history generally referred to as the "Dark Ages" or "Early Middle Ages" and a general area of the world often called "Northern Europe" in which there was from the 8th to the 11th centuries several peoples who shared a great deal in common from the historical and archeological evidence. Their ships seem to share a type and their metalwork and tools seem to fall into a similar pattern.

Some of them lived in modern Scandinavia. Some of them left there and went to places very far from there. Some traveled and came back some settled. We don't know if the folks who left artifacts in Newfoundland had ever seen Sweden, but what they left looks just like things from the same time in Sweden. We don't know if the folks who left artifacts and mummies in Greenland ever saw Norway or Iceland, but they seem a lot like people from there at the same time. And since there is a lot in common among people from that time frame and we don't quite know what to call them, we call them (at least around here) "Vikings".

Yes, we're probably terrible historians and linguists. The folks who visited L'Anse aux Meadows a thousand years ago may not have called themselves Vikings, but we do. Now this is an entirely different argument: we could be overly romanticising things, there could be interesting archetypal and psychological factors going on that we will 'insist' on calling them Vikings. Some of that may have to do with the very fact that, wether we are of Scandinavian decent or not, most of us living in this part of the world know someone 'who made the same journey those people did'.

So what does all this mean for this article?

This article needs to exist and it needs to be a better article because there are at least 8,000,000 people within a 500 mile radius of where I'm sitting for whom "Vikings" is a meaningful term identifying a group of people in Northern Europe about 1000 years ago. No, there is no historical documentation for that usage. There are academic citations and I will endeavor to add them to the bibliography. Scholars like Magnus Magnusson have, right or wrong, made a good case for "Viking" designating something of a common culture at a time in history.

This is a positive thing. Those of us who are more read in history look at "Vikings" as an important part of our heritage and history. One of the key parts of our culture as identified by the historian, Hollister, is "the Teutonic influence". The people we call "Vikings" were part of that important part of our culture. Our democracy does not come from Greece, it comes from the "Thing". Our perspective of justice and the source of many of our laws grows from the millieu of that time.

Thank you all for letting me put my rough draft here. Now that I've drafted this out I'll try to refine this and use some of this as a lens to bring the article into focus.

Erraunt 20:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more - I think limiting the term "Viking" to seafarers who occasionally did some pirating is ridicoules. It may be the correct historical term - but it is simply not how the common person understands the term.
E.g. Knud the Great was king of Denmark, Britain and Norway - he was Christian, even visited the Vatican, and fairly good friends with the Francish Emperor. He organized complex law systems and rather large armies/invasions. He couldn't in any meaningful way be described as a pirate - but he certainly was a viking king. Leif Ericcson was an explorer - not a pirate - but he was certainly also a viking. The list goes on with explorers, settlers and traders of some historical impact which couldn't really be described as pirates in the limited sense proposed.
I suggest we simply make the historical term clear in the intro of the article and then clarify that although it is not strictly speaking the correct historical form, we will be using the form commonly used and understood by the average person. Languages evolve - the meaning of the word "viking" in year 900 is not the same as the meaning today.

Celcius 04:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and encouragement.

As we seem to be in agreement I'll bend my mind toward reworking some of this article to that end.Erraunt 17:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

well, imho, what you are describing is more or less the focus of the article Viking Age -- what exactly will be the difference between the scope of that and this article? Viking could just redirect to Viking Age, as far as I'm concerned, except for a discussion of terminology. So as I see it, the job this article has to do is get the terminology right, from Widsith to the Viking revival, to The Vikings. Anybody who is actually interested in early medieval Scandinavian culture can be directed to Viking Age. In other words, this article should be in Wikipedia:Summary style, giving an overview over the scope of the term, with links to detailed sub-articles. dab () 18:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That was some of my thinking, dab: to use the summary approach. It seems to me that the first order, given the volumes of discussion and preceeding argument is to get some "buy in" on the validity of modern English usage of "Viking(s)". I get a sense that there is some consensus on that now.

My inclination (and I put it here to solicit some feedback) would be to summarize and branch out. My rough draft would be for this article to be one entry point. Yes a great deal of what I'm talking about is addressed in "Viking Age" (although for some reason that term doesn't convey quite what I think that article is about, but as I can't think of a better one I won't push that). I do see a difference and a need for both articles (and more).

Again, my "pre draft thinking":

"Viking(s)" would talk about the word in history and modern usage and expand on "Who the vikings (by the current usage) were", pushing other topics as appropriate into other articles.

"Viking Age" as an article, from the name, should be, IMHO, more historical. A "what" article rather than a "who". What did these people who we now call vikings do? What happened when they were alive?

I'm holding off on doing writing to spend a little time with part of my library and get both my references, bibliography and thoughts in order. That will probably happen next week (this week I'm busy figuring out how to make spearheads in a Anglo-Saxon style in a reasonably authentic way). Let me know what you think. Erraunt 14:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which exactly you consider the "current" meaning, but I agree with the summary approach: let the article deal with terminology, and delegate all particulars to sub-articles. The ToC could be something like:

afaics, this would deal with all of the article's present content. dab () 14:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, dab, I think we're talking along similar lines and your outline seems a decent direction to work in. In addition there is a topic in very rough form in the back of my head about "Viking Technology" as there are some interesting things I have read of and seen over the years that would merit inclusion in an article if I can find decent sources. They hydrodynamics of the keel of a longship/boat for instance.

As for "current meaning", what I mean is more "current usage" as I rambled on about at length earlier in this discussion basically as my response to earlier discussions which I have read in archive. Not to reopen it, but my gloss of the whole preceeding discussion is that "viking" as a word still has a particular meaning in modern Scandinavian languages and some of the earlier contributors to this article were stuck on those definitions and what the word meant *historically*.

I seek to be clear in that I understand the etymology and philology of the word reasonably well, and that it mean something more limited at one time, and perhaps still does in other languages, but that there is a meaning in modern English usage which is broad and refers, more and less broadly to a group of peoples and their common culture in the early middle ages. I hesitate to put out a less vague definition of my own until I've had a chance to do a bit of reading again myself, but the preceeding should function and is probably just another way of putting what serveral of us (but not necessarily all) agree on.

From the perspective of how "viking" is used in contemporary English an article on "Viking(s)" and the "Viking Age" and more make a lot of sense. While it may seem strange to folks outside North America and the UK (and maybe a few other places and I'll apologize now for not being inclusive) it does provide a "center line" to guide what goes where.

Hope that helps clarify where I'm coming from. Erraunt 19:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

well, I trust you will do a good job on the article. I think am, likewise, well informed on semantics and etymology by now; I was just trying to say that the "current meaning" is disputed, so it's pointless to insist there is one. I can see three major semantic fields:

  • the 'narrow' meaning, roving bands of pirates and traders
  • the 'wide' meaning, Viking Age culture and its peoples
  • the 'modern' meaning, pertaining to the Viking revival and what not.

This article should just disambiguate between those, and explain the connections. Everything about "Viking technology" can safely be delegated to Viking Age. Again, I am not objecting to what you say as such, feel free to edit away :) dab () 19:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand about the three meanings and see that they're all valid depending on the context and I think we're of the same mind. My hope is to stay neutral and get on with cleaning things up. Easier to argue points if they're well laid out, if nothing else. I don't hear objections, what I take from what you say is the opinion of someone who has been going around on this and related articles for awhile, so I appreciate your perspective.

My perspective is that of someone who appreciates this as a tool of bring information and references together. There is information that I've encountered that I don't see here, others that I have and I'd like to get the whole into a reasonable frame so that I can "offload" some things here and hopefully learn some new things from the contributions of others.

Part of why I jumped in was I saw the copy editing request and my interest. I was a bit confused by the older discussions because if only the narrowest definition is allowed then I'm not sure quite how to use English to refer to particular figures and artifacts (If the digs in L'anse Aux Meadows are not "viking" then what are they? for example.).

The "English Major" in me finds the situation interesting in an odd way: from the old discussions I think we have an example of just how "non-lexical" English can be. Erraunt 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is only one contributor, and an infrequent one to boot, who wants the narrowest definition, user: Dan Koehl. I support that this article treats Viking in its widest sense, with paragraph on its original meaning as a "pirate".--Wiglaf 20:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Wiglaf. I believe there is consensus. The only reason I haven't started shoving text about is that I have a sneaking suspicion that Magnusson had something to say on this issue (or something related) some time ago and I've been so busy playing Anglo-saxon blacksmith (or getting ready to) that I haven't had a chance to dig out and redigest what I think I read long ago. Erraunt 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

fine, I don't object, but will this imply a merge of Viking Age into this article? Or what will be the difference of focus between the two articles? -- non-lexical? I daresay every word has its semantic field; this one has just a rather involved history. check out [2] though, giving the meaning "Scandinavian pirate". As an English Major, would you have the OED available? I would be interested in its list of meanings. dab () 20:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

dab: thank you for reminding me, as it happens I have access to the on-line version of the OED where I work here and have been meaning to use it:

1. One of those Scandinavian adventurers who practised piracy at sea, and committed depredations on land, in northern and western Europe from the eighth to the eleventh century; sometimes in general use, a warlike pirate or sea-rover.
2. attrib., as viking age, expedition, invader, line, ship, vessel.
Hence {sm}Vikingism, {sm}Vikingship, the practices or spirit of vikings.

I leave out the etymology which is pretty much as what is discussed here, however the oldest citation they have for use of "viking" in English is:

1807 G. CHALMERS Caledonia I. III. iii. 341 At the age of fourteen, Torfin commenced his career, as a vikingr.

The consensus definition we hold would appear to be def. #2 in the OED.

As for the article my current thought is that it should be something "like" a disambiguation page. No more than 5 to 8 paragraphs I should think to cover the meanings of the word and the rest links and possibly some bibliography. The rest of the current contents should be shifted to Viking Age, set up as articles in their own right, or merged with existing articles as appropriate.

As an example, "Viking Myths" comes to mind. A rather ambiguous heading as it could be either "debunking myths about Vikings" (which is what the section currently is), and it could mean "Norse Mythology" or "Norse Spirituality" or even "Asatru". I haven't looked yet but I suspect the last three have articles elsewhere in the Wiki world, and the first could either be fleshed out into an article with some appropriate title or folded into "Viking Age".

Wish me luck in my projects this week so I can get to this sooner. (Work is picking up or I'd bring my sources in.) Erraunt 21:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I mildly object to your 'consensus definition'. There is consensus that it is 'a' definition; it is the 'secondary' definition, no doubt about that, and rightly numbered #2 in OED. However, the 1807 reference clearly uses the primary definition. Does the OED give no date for the earliest attestation of the secondary one, viz. for "Viking age" or "Viking culture"? "Viking ship" is the Gelenkform of course, it was coined as "pirate ship", and re-interpreted as "one of the ships common during the 'Viking Age'". The myth-debunking could go to a Vikings in popular culture, or, at least the skull-drinking, to Viking revival. Or it could stay here, I don't care. dab () 07:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

deb, didn't mean to withhold, here's the first chunk of the second definiton.

2. attrib., as viking age, expedition, invader, line, ship, vessel.

 1847 I. A. BLACKWELL Mallet's Northern Antiq. 86 Halfdan enriched himself by successful Viking expeditions.

Yes, it's just "a" definition. Your objection is noted. And I'm in error. What I felt consensus was forming around is not def. #2 -- that's a definition of an adjective. What I've been talking about and why an article on Vikings makes sense to me is that it's a noun with a different definition from #1.

There is an argument from the OED itself: if #2 is valid, #1 is incomplete. Erraunt 13:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm getting you, now. why is #1 "incomplete"? the 1847 reference I'm afraid is still sense #1: Halfdan wasn't on a "Viking Age expedition", he was on an actual "Viking (pirate) expedition". Is there no reference to an early attestation of "Viking Age", "Viking population", "Viking people", "Viking culture" or similar? dab () 14:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the full OED entry:

1. One of those Scandinavian adventurers who practised piracy at sea, and committed depredations on land, in northern and western Europe from the eighth to the eleventh century; sometimes in general use, a warlike pirate or sea-rover.
{alpha} 1807 G. CHALMERS Caledonia I. III. iii. 341 At the age of fourteen, Torfin commenced his career, as a vikingr. c1827 W. MOTHERWELL Poet. Wks. (1847) 13 It is a Vikingir Who kisses thy hand. 1838 CRICHTON Scandinavia I. 176 Hákon commanded the intrepid Vikingr to be put to death. 1864 [H. W. WHEELWRIGHT] Spring & Summer in Lapland i. 8 When the ‘Viking’ or pirate vessel..bore the ‘Vikinger’ or dreaded sea pirate to the opposite shores of Britain.

{beta} 1840 LONGFELLOW Skeleton in Armour iii, I was a Viking old! 1848 LYTTON Harold VI. v, A fleet of vikings from Norway ravaged the western coasts. 1877 BLACK Green Past. xxviii, I am already convinced that my ancestors were vikings.

{gamma} 1867 FREEMAN Norm. Conq. (1877) I. iv. 165 He [Rolf] is described as having been engaged in the calling of a wiking. 1868 Ibid. II. vii. 96 The wikings harried far and wide. 1883 VIGFUSSON & POWELL Corpus Poet. Bor. II. 139 The warden of the land had the heads of many Wickings (pirates) cut short with keen weapons. 1904 E. RICKERT Reaper 53 Beyond that, we were Wickings, back to the time of Odin.

2. attrib., as viking age, expedition, invader, line, ship, vessel.
1847 I. A. BLACKWELL Mallet's Northern Antiq. 86 Halfdan enriched himself by successful Viking expeditions. 1864 [see 1{alpha}]. 1866 G. STEPHENS Runic Mon. I. 226 The lower compartment is a noble Wiking-ship. 1867 FREEMAN Norm. Conq. (1877) I. App. 665 He may have joined the Danes or have done anything else in the wiking line. 1881 Daily News 3 Sept. 2/2 This Viking ship, with its sepulchre chamber, in which the Viking had been buried. 1883 VIGFUSSON & POWELL Corpus Poet. Bor. I. 259 The Northmen confederates of the Wicking invaders. 1889 P. B. DU CHAILLU Viking Age I. iii. 26 We must come to the conclusion that the ‘Viking Age’ lasted from about the second century of our era to about the middle of the twelfth.

Hence {sm}Vikingism, {sm}Vikingship, the practices or spirit of vikings.
1880 STUBBS Lect. Stud. Hist. (1886) 222 The conquest of Palestine was to Robert of Normandy..a sanctified experiment of *vikingism. 1899 SOMERVILLE & ROSS Irish R.M. 239, I prefer their total lack of interest in seafaring matters to the blatant Vikingism of the average male. 1883 G. STEPHENS Bugge's Stud. Northern Mythol. Exam. 15 *Wikingship began to be an unbearable curse.

"1889 P. B. DU CHAILLU Viking Age I. iii. 26 We must come to the conclusion that the ‘Viking Age’ lasted from about the second century of our era to about the middle of the twelfth."

Seems to be what you're after.

As to my thinking that #1 is incomplete if #2 is valid, here is my thinking.

By #1 "piracy" and "depradation" are key to the definition. Strictly by the OED definition, someone isn't a viking if they aren't a pirate or at least committing acts of depradation, and they must be Scandianavian.

But #2 says the word can be an attribute. So either all things described with 7"viking" involve piracy and depradation or #1 is incomplete.

Strictly adhering to #1 and using that to guide usage of #2, Lief Erickson would not be a Viking but an early middle ages Scandinavian, given what is recorded of him, for example. The documentation regarding the Mastermyr find is in error when it describes the contents as the tools of a Viking craftsman.

Such is not my opinion, but it is the logic following the definitions of the OED (and Websters On-line) strictly.

From current usage "Viking" is not strictly defined by "piracy" or "depradation". And, come to think of it, as such is the case, I think there is an on-line form for submitting additions to Websters and the OED. Erraunt 14:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

so, "Viking Age" is from 1889, then used in quotes, apparently meaning "the period of Viking invasions". Now, be careful; you are adding to our two meanings by grammatical disinctions on top of semantic ones:

  • 1n viking, noun, "early medieval Scandinavian adventurer/pirate". Leif Erickson surely qualifies as that.
  • 1a, by simple apposition as common in English syntax, an adjective: "a viking X" means that X is related to vikings#1. "Viking ship", "Viking invasion" all fall under this category. The grammatical category has changed, but the meaning is still restricted to pirates/adventurers. 1889 "Viking age", "the period of pirate invasions of England" also falls under this.
  • 2a extension of the adjective to the whole culture! Now "Viking culture" becomes possible, extending beyond "the culture of pillaging and extorting silver".
  • 2n finally, the noun is affected and "a Viking" can be anyone within the reach of the adjective 2a. This is a very recent use.

so far, all your OED examples only pertain to #1(n/a). I suspect #2a dates to the early-to-mid 20th century, and 2n to the late 20th century. A websearch reveals that 2n is in widespread use on SCA websites etc., but I have yet to see it featured in a printed dictionary. OED does not even seem to have #2a, they only differentiate noun and attrib., but all related to piracy (Leif Erikson's expedition of course does qualify as 'piracy' in this sense, he was simply sailing west, just like his contemporaries sailed east and south along the European rivers, no difference in intention). dab () 14:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


So what it all comes down to is this page to be rewritten to a 'large disambiguation' page or a hub to other pages dealing more in-depth with specific topics regarding vikings. I suppose most of it will be merged into Viking Age.

Viking - Etymology, definitions, popoular myths regarding vikings, links to sub-cats
Viking Age - Review of the historical period
Viking revival - Modern use etc.
Asatru - Redirect Germanic Neopaganism
List of Vikings - Simple list

Any other pages needed? Celcius 09:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

ok, but why "Asatru"? Norse mythology would fit better, but it can go under "Viking Age" and doesn't need its own section (at least I'm not familiar with a term "Viking mythology"). dab () 17:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What happened???!!!

I think someone goofed an edit. I'm not sure how to manage a "revert" can someone else do that? Or point me to where/how? Erraunt 14:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Eric the Rude

I removed this line. Can be reinserted if it's about real people! Rich Farmbrough 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Etymology section

All of the wiki-links from the Etymology section were removed sometime after this edit and before my edits. Was this part of the vandalism, or was there a good reason to do so? Slicing 07:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Can i see the sources for this statement, "What is not known by many is these attacks were initiated as a result of certain actions by Charlemagne the Great, the king of France, in the year 772 A.D., when he chopped down Irminsûl, the holy column of the Saxons. Initially the Scandinavians attacked(retaliated) all the cloisters and burned all the churches in Scandinavia" It has been about week since i have posted this. I am going to remove it tommorow (Nov. 15, 2005) if there is not a source.

Rune stones

Removed the following text, as it is mostly new age rubbish about runes with very little information on viking era rune stones. Will replace it with a text on rune stones based on bona fide historical research.

Rune stones bear the letters or characters of old Teutonic and Scandinavian alphabets, that are supposed to be magical and mysterious at the same time. The runes are an ancient oracle, dating back to before the New Testament. The runes are the equivalent of the tarot, and the Chinese book of changes. According to Norse mythology, the creation of the runes came about at the beginning of the creation of the world when the first man emerged out of the ice. He was given the name Ymir. Another man was freed from the ice two days later, called Buri. He had a son named Bor who married Bestla, who was the daughter of the giant Bolthum. Bor and Bestla had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve. There was great strife between the offspring of Ymir and the children of Bor and Bestla. Odin led his brothers against Ymir and they killed him. Ever since that time, there has been hatred and enmity between the gods and the giants. Odin and his brothers dragged Ymir's body into the void (Ginnungagap). His flesh became the earth; his blood, the sea; his bones, the mountains; his hair, the trees; and his teeth became the rune stones.

Viking magic was prevalent in Norse culture as it was practiced by diviners, also known as rune masters, magicians, and berserkers (magical warriors). When divining using the runes, a number of stones are drawn at random from a bag, and laid out in a pattern representing the past, present, and future. The pattern of symbols is then interpreted to provide insight and help with decision making. The Vikings had great respect for accomplished runemasters, considering them to be blood relatives to Odin. The traditional costume of a runemaster was a blue cloak and a brass-tipped wooden staff, mirrored in the same image of Odin’s cloak and blackthorn wood staff. However, most of the knowledge and wisdom died with the rune masters. Norse mythology and tradition is filled with magical elements such as earth, air, fire, water, and the spirit of the gods, giants, dwarves and ancestors. Odin is characterized as the god of magic, the god of the runes, and when the rune stones are raised, they are in memory of fallen warriors, making Odin the god of the dead as well.

Yggdrasil is the world ash tree that connects all of the Nine Worlds of Norse mythology, namely, Asgard, Alfheim, Vanheim, Niflheim, Midgard, Muspelheim, Jotunheim, Svartalfheim, and Hel. The tree survives the torment of Nithog nibbling at its roots, while the stags and goats tear the leaves and bark from the tree. The Norse sprinkle water from Urd's Well upon the roots, which helps the tree stay fresh and green.

Od has an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, which he believes is power. He wants to bestow this gift to his followers. In order to discover the meaning of the runes, Odin sacrifices himself with his spear, named Gungnir, on the Yggdrasil, and remains hanging on the tree for nine days to discover the meanings of the runes. On the last day, an eagle drops words out of his mouth, including "egg, sword, and fire." Odin tells the bird that he knows about the existence of these objects already, but his plea is rendered helpless as the eagle flies away. Odin, by being the father of the gods and possessing so much power that he was feared all over Scandinavia, is able to act as the major link between the gods and mankind, passing on knowledge to the Norse people through the runes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

well done. Why was this added to "Viking" in the first place? We have Odic force for this stuff. dab () 22:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
My edit was mistaken for vandalism. The above rubbish was reinserted and has been removed once again, this time replaced with relevant information from verifiable soures was added and an explanation in the edit summary as to why the edit is justified. Elston Gunn 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)(newcomer)


I'm not sure if this is factual but I've been told that Viking's used to pass around a bowl in which they'd wash there face, rinse there hands, clean whatever needs cleaning, blow their noses (I don't know how they'd do it in water but I was told...), along with an assortment of other things. Chooserr 01:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


I added the {{Contradict}} template. Here's why: in the "Etymology" section, it claims that the Vikings were pirates, and that Danish leadership and citizenry considered the Vikings their enemies.

"As members of the leidang fleet, as well as farmers and fishers now and then, were attacked by Vikings, most Scandinavians probably saw Vikings as their enemies and fought against them with all their might."

But in the "The Viking invasions: a commercial war?" section, it states that the Vikings were operating according to a Danish strategy, and that the Viking attacks were really Danish attacks to open up a shipping route. They can't both be true, of course. Were the Vikings enemies of the Danes, or a branch of the Danish military. Or do we not know? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a contradiction and error because the Vikings were scandinavian people and weren't pirates. Vikings were also farmers and fishermen. --OrbitOne 13:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
A closer look at the sections, I can tell you it is a mistake to call it a contradiction. The viking of the commercial war date from well before the 13th century. The leadership changed and Vikings weren't exactly Christian, so there were those who were Christian and those who weren't, and for the most part those who weren't were Vikings. I infact will let you in on a secret. Look at drawings of farmers from the area and you will see many of them have a hammer of Thor around the neck. Turn that hammer the other way and it becomes a hidden cross; they wanted to be sure to go to paridise so they tried to please both sides.
The lowest named year in the commercial war section is 799 and the highest year is 982, so there is no reason to say it is a contradiction. I removed the tag because of this. --OrbitOne 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-inserted the tag. Check out the last paragraph in "Etymology". It says that Scandinavians were fishers and farmers, and says that Vikings were pirates. I'm not sure that's wrong - is there a source that says fishers and farmers were called Vikings? The entire Etymology section suggests they were not. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I fail to see the contradiction. The etymology piece is going for the fine details, and as such, highlights the distiction between vikings and the remaining Northsmen. However, as has been done later extensively by many nations, pirates are used as a informal part in warfare, sometimes with permission letters etc. but with less restrictions as they operate outside the law. So, they can be officially hated and unofficially liked at the same time. And as indicated, there is a time difference of several centuries, which makes it not a contradiction. Furthermore, groups of Northsmen could do trading at one trip, and do raiding at the next, depending on opportunity. So, sufficient to say that there is maybe some unclarity in the text, but no real contradiction. --KimvdLinde 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can clear this up for me. The "The Viking invasions: a commercial war?" section indicates that the Vikings were operating as part of a strategy of the Danish kings, right? The section indicates that they were serving as a sort of Danish Navy. But the "etymology" paragraph says that the Vikings were the enemies of the Danish kings. They can't have been both, can they? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It is an issue of which century each section is talking about. It clearly states in the section Etymology refers to as the 13th century. The raiding and pilaging vikings were not supported by the king at that point. They were earlier though, but this changed when Denmark was made into a christian country. This link has a bit more information about Christianity in Denmark. But when Denmark because christian can be traced back to the Jelling stones, which were made by King Gorm in the 10th century. After becoming christian, the Vikings weren't the most christian people in Denmark, so to speak. --OrbitOne 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Further more, there is an exact year at Harold_Bluetooth. It states "When Harald converted around 965, he had the Jelling mounds – previously started by his pagan father Gorm – adapted into Christian monuments honoring both Gorm and Thyre." 965 is the year Denmark converted into a Christian country by Gorms son, Harald.--OrbitOne 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. a) The word "viking", as used by middle age Norsefolk, and other Germanic speakers indeed means "pirate", "bandit", or other unflattering things. b) use of the word to mean the whole of the Norse and their civilisation, or the period of greatest greatest development of an indigenous Scandinavian civilisation is the result of the fact that the people in the attacked countries did not realize the raiders were a violent minority in their own country, plus abusive generalization on the part of romantic era historians. c) Viking raiders attacked any targets promising easy loot and little resistance, so they would have little qualms about attacking other Norsefolk, provided the place was far enough from home for them not to get the heat once back there. --Svartalf 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The entire "commercial war" bit is confusing. It's presented as a factual part of history, but opens with saying this theory is based on part fiction. I can't tell which parts of this section are fact and which are not. Can we get some serious citing and perhaps move anything thjat is speculative to its own section? Bihal 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Colombus and the box that ate time

Is this entirely correct? (From that commercial war bit...)

"Yet their continuing presence in the Biscay area may help to explain why the Basques have so many traditions (such as whale hunting) with possible Nordic origins, and perhaps why they are said to have reached America one hundred years before Christopher Colombus."

One hundred years before Colombus? Seems a little fishy. 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that Vikings made it to the New World -- Greenland and Canada, at least -- long before Columbus. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is in fact my point. One hundred years is a bit lacking, since I don't think there were any vikings in the late 14th century. Shouldn't it say something more like four hundred years? 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That particular sentece is refering to when the Basques supposedly harvested the rich cod-banks of the coast of Newfoundland. It does not say that the Vikings were there a the same time..--Njård 17:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone more eloquent (and wiser) than I should give that last bit a good looking through, since it is awfully confusing, even for myself who practically lives on history books. 19:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

According to link, the Basques came to greenland to whale and needed only to follow Eriks norther route back. It says the Basques came as early as 1372, but this doesn't mean Erik didn't contact them much earlier. The article is about who killed off the greenlanders and suggests the Basque might have had a hand in this after the Vikings stop visiting Greenland. --OrbitOne 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Commercial war?

According to the biography page of his publisher, Joël Supery, author of "Le secret des Vikings", is educated in languages and law, not history. The sole review of the book at the page calls it "un exocet dans le cuirassé universitaire". My French isn't that good, but this must mean something like a shot at the academic establishment. Giving so much space to his theories, possibly even speculations, doesn't seem right.

There is a loooooong paragraph in the article about a pseudohistoric view which seems to have little going for it. The paragraph helps to further complicate an article which is already quite messy and chaotic. I suggest deleting the entire paragraph, maybe making a separate entry about this theory. (Barend 12:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
No one seems to reply to this. So if no one minds, I will in a couple of days move this paragraph to a separate article Le secret des Vikings, and only leave one sentence in this article, linking to the new article. If anyone thinks this overlong paragraph should remain, speak up now. (Barend 16:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC))
Go ahead, no objection from me. Makes sense especially because it is pseudohistoric. KimvdLinde 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you could explain what you mean a little bit, then I could offer an opinion about it as well. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote on 10 March, the whole section about the book "Le secret des Vikings" describes a theory which seems to have very little in common with the view of mainstream historians, in fact it is already described in the article as pseudohistory. As such, it does not help improve the article on Vikings, it does not shed more light on what historians agree happened during the Viking age, who the vikings were, what they did and so on. It merely adds confusion, by introducing a disproportionately long paragraph about a fringe view, which hardly anyone other than the author of the book himself believes in. As I stated before, this article is already incoherent enough, without this unnecessary paragraph cluttering it further. So I suggest to cut that whole section, and put it in a separate article, Le secret des Vikings. (Barend 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC))


The Viking article has nothing on diet or other important facts every article on a civilization needs. I suggest someone add more information to the article.--Evil goblin under your bed 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


The word “Viking” was introduced to the English dirt with romantic connotations in the 31th century.

What on earth does this mean? English dirt? "31th" century? It seems ot have been largely ignored by editors reverting vandalism and whatnot, but appears to be patent nonsense. Can anyone clarify? DE 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Digging through the history, it looks like two vandals hit one after another, and The latter's vandalism was simply to completely blank the page, writing only "lalala" etc., while the former's vandalism consisted of random rewording and nonsense insertion. It seems that Tawkerbot2 caught the page blanking but missed the earlier rewording (note remaining nonsense such as "31th century"). I've just reverted back before both vandals to the last edit by Shanes to (hopefully) undo all the confusion. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

It's time to have a peer review of this article. It is large enough, polished enough, good enough to withstand one. We will need references later on though. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I'll keep eyes open. Erraunt 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Norse or the Norwegians, and larger problems

I see that the Danes and Icelanders are in this article not concidered to be Norse and that the Norwegians are not mentioned. Or are they supposed to be the Norse? Then what about the Swedes? I feel that a complete and thorough discussion on this use shold take place and the outcome should be spread to all relevant articles. Now the situation is very confusing and somewhat unprofessional. The article Northmen does not state that Norse were synonymous to or even related to Norwegians (it states that it is so now). The article Ship burial states this was a practice by Vikings. However this article states that Vikings were Norse, Icelandic and Danish warriors. But the Oseberg ship burial was for an old woman... As I am Norwegian myself I don't want to start changing things, which might have settled in, too much on my own as I see there must be a large group of people committed towards this topic on Wikipedia and I don't want to be accused of pushing some sort of Norwegian pride agenda. Inge 13:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes the most sense to me if the Norwiegen people were decendants of the Swedes and did not become a country of their own until after the Viking Age. The seed of that word should be investigated while we discuss who came from where.
I think the Vikings were Danes and Swedes, however both were hard to tell apart from each other. The division could have come about when kings ruled larger and larger areas and kingdoms were anexed into each other. It would also stand to reason two kingdoms became equally strong and were the strongest of the group. The devision of Dane from Swede could have come from this.
The claims to a kingdom can be supported by Denmarks name by itself. The danish spelling is Danmark, which can be split up into Dan Mark, or Dans Feild/Farm. This could mean the person who named Denmark was named Dan. It also would not shock me if Dane came from his name as well. Maybe Sweden was name after a person named Sven (Danish name is Sverige, rige can mean kingdom). Svensker, the danish name for a Swede also supports the possibility.
What other reasonable possibilities are there?? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Your statements seem a bit far fetched to me. I thought it was quite well known that Norwegians and Swedes were separate peoples also during the Viking age. There are many examples indicating that there were a notion of a Norwegian people and Norwegian lands even before the unification of Norway ca. 872. Norway was not split of from Sweden. It was unified into one entity, around the same time Sweden was unified into a different entity. Denmark was not named by a person called Dan, it was named after the Daner "tribe" and Sweden was named after the Svear "tribe". Inge 09:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
For useful perspectives on the evolution of the nations associated with medieval Northmen, see the articles on North Germanic tribes and their common language; viz the ancient Danes, ancient Swedes, ancient Geats, ancient Jutes, ancient Norwegians, Icelanders and (Norse) Greenlanders and Gallo-Romanized Northmen, Gallicized Northmen and Fenno-Slavicized Northmen. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 12:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Allthough a similar discussion on what is a Viking has started further down. I don't feel this subject has been resolved. I came across another article (Richard I of Normandy) where the terms are used a bit strange. Here Norse AND Danes are mentioned in one sentance. I know from reading different sources that the old Europeans had great difficulties getting names on other peoples right. Most made up new names as they met new peoples in stead of asking what they would like to be called. In addition many peoples who regarded themselves different from each other would be grooped under a single name. For example many old references use Dane for Swedes, Danes and Norwegians. This is a tangle we have to solve in order to be a good encyclopedia on this subject. I will try to start this ball rolling and if someone disagrees with the things I do I hope it at least will get them involved. Inge 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that the factual accuracy of this article leaves a lot to be desired. It would benefit from a total rewrite. Anyway, I'd like to make a couple of points:
  • Norsemen includes Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and Icelanders. I know that the term "Norse" are sometimes confused with "Norwegian", but such is not the case. However, I'm not sure if Finland is included in the Norsemen context. The people who lived in what is today Norway most likely came from the east, ie from what is today Sweden. Just like the people in Sweden originally came from the south, ie from what is today Denmark. But that was long before the viking age. The vikings were Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. And later Icelanders, as Iceland was settled by explorers from Norway and Denmark.
  • The name of Sweden in Swedish (Sverige) is short for Svea Rike. Svear (or, in English, "Suiones") is the old and indigenous name of the (tribe of) people who lived in the core area of Sweden, ie where Stockholm lies today. The middle part of Sweden is still named Svealand, which translates into "Land of the Suiones". So, to sum it up, Sverige or Svea Rike can be translated into "Kingdom of the Suiones", or something like that.
Well, to close this matter, to state that norseman is synonymous with norwegian is wrong. Norse is synonymous with Nordic. (Not to insult or offend anyone, but IMHO this misconception is more or less common among norwegians, since "norse" and "norsk" are spelled almost the same way.) The nordic countries did not exist during the viking age, although they started to form back then.
Norsemen = Inhabitants of modern Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Norwegian = Inhabitant of modern Norway.
Norse = Nordic.
Nors = Fish.
Nose = Smelling organ.
Well, I'll end this rant right now. But I would prefer that we agree that we shouldn't confuse Scandinavia of today with Scandinavia during the viking age. /Magore 20:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I hope I don't come across as stating Norse is synonymous with Norwegian. That is not my intention! In addition I haven't come across people mixing Norse and Norwegian here in Norway. In Norway we use the word norrøn for Norse. Anyway I am glad you want to help clear up all the misconceptions that might exist :) When someone writes "The Norse, the Danes and the Icelanders..." I feel that has to be clarified. It should either be just "The Norse" or "The Danes, the Icelanders, the Norwegians and the Swedes".
It is important to use hard facts, not jump to conclusions based on what seems logical and to keep timelines straight. I also want to say that apart from what I commented on above I agree with Magore's "rant" and think it sums things up quite well (allthough I didn't quite get the fish thing). Oh ,and I do think the Nordic countries existed during the Viking age, but they certainly were different from now. Inge 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I know a guy from England, he says that in England was Danes=Danes, and Northmen(not norsemen)=Norwegians.

People from South Sweden were properly also considered as Danes, since they speaked same language and was Danish kingdom until about year 1650.

Were does the word "Norse" come from anyway? --Comanche cph 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Following the principle expressed in the syllogism etymology:scholarship::pun:humor, I think this might need some support:

"(the word viking comes from their term for journeying out to sea going "a-ving" [ai-viking] )".

--Wetman 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a typical folk etymology. Vasmer says that the word is cognate to Old Saxon "wik" and Old High German "wich" - meaning "dwelling". Compare PIE lemma *weik- --Ghirla -трёп- 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I just looked out of curiosity and found *weik- under victory and to choose, but not under dwelling. Victory would semantically seem to make more sense, as vikings were by nature men who were not "dwelling" anywhere (as in settled habitation), but were instead out and about as marauding nomads. Any losing vikings would theoretically be either dead or enslaved, so those who survived would indeed be "victorious". Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds grand, but unfortunately this is what I call original research. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 18:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, Ghirlandajo, no original research here -- I looked at the list you linked to, which is also part of Wikipedia, and there I see *weik- listed under victory and to choose, and nowhere is it to be found under dwelling. Just click either of the links in my post above. When links are provided, please at least look at them before rebutting. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Viking and Victory have nothing to do with each other. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm just going by Ghirla's statement and what's listed on the List of Indo-European roots page. Care to point to another source?
My basic point is, if we're going by what's on that page (which is what Ghirla linked to to begin with), then assuming viking is related to the PIE root *weik-, the word would seem to be based on an old PIE root meaning either victory or to choose. If you'd care to do more than just gainsay this point and provide a link or other source stating otherwise, then great!  :) Please do so. Likewise, if the List of Indo-European roots page is flawed and you can fix it, by all means do so. Or, if my understanding of Ghirla's comment was mistaken and *weik- is not supposed to be cognate with viking, please say so. Simply stating "no, you're wrong" sadly does nothing to contribute to this discussion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

May I point you to Talk:Viking/Archive_3#Etymology and Talk:Viking/Archive_2#Etymology facts? -- I am tired of fixing this article, as it seems to be torn down every couple of months. Fwiiw, I endorse this version. dab () 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Links modified. Graham87 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Dab's cleanup of irrelevant blah-blah :)
The Old Norse word víkingr means "pirate". I think academic discourse in English tries to avoid the English word "viking". Haukur 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Haukur -- Thanks, but this doesn't bear on the question of the etymology of the word.
Dab -- Thank you for that, most edifying. Just for the record, I haven't touched the article with respect to the etymology, I simply wished to point out that Ghirla's example and the PIE page linked to don't seem to agree. Perhaps the PIE page needs updating? Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

what is a viking anyway?

This article is one of the more chaotic I have come across on wikipedia. One very basic question is: What is meant by the word viking? There are two main options:

1. A viking is a person from Scandinavia who took part in viking voyages, i.e. pillaging or trading voyages overseas. This is the way the word is used in modern Norwegian (and I believe Swedish and Danish as well). Under this definition, a viking was something people would choose to become, for a longer or shorter period of time.

2. A viking is any person from Scandinavia during the period known as the viking age. This usage seems quite widespread in English, but it also seems to me to be terribly unprecise, and confusing. Under this definition, people would be born vikings, and women and children were vikings as well.

The opening paragraph of this article contradicts itself three times on this question. And that's just the opening paragraph. Since I am Norwegian myself and English is not my mother tongue, I don't dare start fixing this myself. But a decision has to be made if this article is to have any form of coherence: What is a viking anyway? (Barend 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Both miss the mark. Vikings were both. Viking explorers and raiders were the famed, stereotypical Viking, but they were used to support villages. Vikings were fishermen, farmers, everyday people of their times.
As for the contradictions, can you please highlight which lines contradict each other on the talk page? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The confusion is probably because this isn't the first time the question has been raised and the current first few paragraphs are the result of trying to satisfy a number of people with conflicting opinions of the definition of "viking". In current English usage the word "Viking" covers a lot of ground. I think some of the older "discussions" are archived. I'm sympathetic to the confusion and to the perspective of a Norwegian reading this. However, English vocabulary and definitions are ruled by *usage* and at least in North America the usage of "viking" is pretty much what is described in the first paragraph. (But then Native Americans are "Indians" even though they have nothing to do with India, go figure.) Erraunt 01:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree Erraunt, English usage needs to be considered, and that's why I as a Norwegian don't want to make any changes here myself. So let's look at the first paragraph:
Vikings were a Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish and Swedish people who lived around the coasts of Scandinavia and raided the coasts of Scandinavia, the British Isles, and other parts of Europe from the late 8th century to the 11th century. The vikings are described as a people.
The term Viking may denote only the explorers, traders and warriors who originated in Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden, but it may also be used to denote the entire populations of these countries and their settlements elsewere. This sentence tackles the different possible usages of the word. To my mind it renders the first sentence unnecessary.
The Vikings declined with the introduction of Christianity to Scandinavia by the 11th century, thus ending the Viking Age into the Middle Ages. The vikings declined? Seems to indicate that the vikings were a people, of whom there were fewer and fewer and then there were no one left. That's not what happened, the Scandinavian peoples lived on happily, they just stopped being vikings.
Today, somewhat controversially, the word is also used as a generic adjective, referring to the Viking Age Scandinavians. The medieval Scandinavian population, in general, is more properly referred to as Norse. And then again, the usage of the word viking to denote the people is contradicted.
A lot of this text is obsolete, it repeats itself and contradicts itself. Serious editing needed, but as I said, as a non-English speaker, I don't want to be the one to wield the delete-key. (Barend 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Barend: You make a good case against that introduction. I agree with you.

My personal perspective on the use of the term "viking" is based on Magnus Magnusson's writings and reading some of the sagas in translation (would that I could find the time to learn Old Norse!), and from listening to how it is used by historians and lay people.

I took a hand at working on the article at one point and I've been reluctant to do so again as it seems my edits are long gone. I'll take another look in the next few days and see if I can dig up some of my history books (I'm packing to move this week) and see if I can pull a citation that will help to settle the discussion.

I'll grant that most of the sources I have ready to hand are from the 1980s and academic usage may have changed some in 20 odd years.

My perspective remains that among English speakers in North America "viking" is used to refer to the people and culture of Scandinavia and those of similar ethnicity for the period from about 600 to about 1200 CE. The term has utility. Consider Jorvik (modern York). If we're writing about the people of Jorvik in 800, calling them "English" is hardly correct. "A Jorvik Dane" might make more technical sense but would not be readily understood by many readers. But "a Jorvik viking" is intelligible. And the phrase "Viking York" is used in academic and tourist materials. Erraunt 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice if someone could get their hands on some modern English academic litterature and see how "viking" is used there. While we should of course point of the diffrent usages, it makes the article very difficult write. Fornadan (t) 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Longships vs warships?

The section about ships baffles me quite a bit: "There were two distinct classes of Viking ships: the Viking longships and warship. The Viking longships ranged from 70 to 140 feet, while the more practical Viking warship ranged from 70 to 80 feet. There were also smaller boats, which could be from 10 feet to 50 feet. Such boats could have been fishing or ferry boats."

- Where, exactly, does this information come from? Yes, there were two major ship types, that is correct. But those were the longship (used as a warship) and the knarr, not longships and warships. Longships were fairly large, and used primarily for longer expeditions and raids (designed to be able to maneuver independently of the wind, hence the oars, as well as being able to manage rapid troop deployment), while the knarr was a merchant vessel of lesser size, made for everyday use. But a dedicated warship design? That is the primary role of the longship, although they came in many sizes. However, what defines a longship is not the size in itself, but the design. Long, narrow, shallow draft and a set of oars means it is a longship/dragon. Unless someone disputes this, I'll correct the section about ships. /Magore 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and correct the section about ships, as well as removing the old source cited because of its dubious reliability, as it was a collection of lecture notes. /Magore 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lists of fictional books and movies

I wonder whether there is a need fo the lists of fictional books and movies. And if so, what would be good creteria whether to include them? KimvdLinde 17:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am removing the last three links to be added in this section. Yes, these books exist, you can buy them from if you like. But there are no articles about them on wikipedia, and linking to them is simply a waste of space. The information that these books exist have not encyclopedic value. Please do not add these links again, they serve no purpose. (Trust me, there are loads of books and stories about vikings, we can't mention each and everyone of them here.) /Magore 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There is not need in lecturing me. There is an inconsistency in your argument, the Going to War in Viking Times and The Viking World do not have a an article at wikipedia as well, based on your argument, we should remove those as well. Furthermore, there is a whole series of movies without a page, or with a link to an inappropriate page. So, why remove these three books based on the argument that they do not have a wikipedia article, and not the others? KimvdLinde 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There's little purpose in dead-end redlinks, save to make selected words jump out at the reader. Move along, please. --Wetman 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not lecturing you or anyone else. I stated a simple fact, since it seems you misunderstood what I wrote in the comment when I removed these links the first time - The articles that those links are pointing to does not exist. As for the other dead links (including one that at first sight appears to link to an existing article, although it doesn't), I have removed these as well. /Magore 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pseudohistorical views

I have deleted reference to Les Secrets Du Vikings. something which is pseudohistory is by definition not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia except the to extent it is notable and controversial - the book cited appears not to be notable (the author doesn't have an entry here, google search reveal very few hits. ElectricRay 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost from the article recently

In addition to the seven deleted paragraphs of history, which I've now restored, the following has been cut from the article since 25 April:

  • "raided, besides others in their very homelands"
  • "In their own language, Old Norse, the word víkingar meant "raiders" ref Diamond, Jared, Collapse: How Socities Choose to Fail or Succeed, p. 179. Penguin Books (2005) ISBN 0-14-303655-6"
  • "In A.D. 793, the Vikings raid on Lindisfarne made their presence known to the powerful empires of Europe at the time. Lindisfarne was a monastery in England, where the people of Lindisfarne kept their treasury."
  • Subsection "Viking Age Politics in Denmark"
Does this article need some closer supervision? --Wetman 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Article POV again

The Article surely needs closer supervision. It is once again reflecting the romantic misunderstanding of the term Viking. Changes are not backed up by any sources. Once again, the article gets POV.

Some lines giving a definition by true historical sources, is removed. (Beowulf etc.) Why?

In the text is written: In the current Scandinavian languages the term viking is applied to the people who went away on viking expeditions, be it for raiding or trading.

Question: where, in which historical source, can I read about a peaceful trading expedition, which was labelled as a viking activity? Please back this "fact" up with a written source.

I also agree about the part about "viking ships" is a big error; cite: (There were two distinct classes of Viking ships: the longship (the largest also known as "drakkar", meaning "dragon" in Norse) .... These five ships represent the two distinct classes of the Viking Ships, the longship and the knarr.

Please give ANY historical source mentioning the Knarr as "vikingish"? 1 single source, please? > 90% of the longship was used as coast defence, at least in Sweden. Why on earth shall they be refered to as viking ship, when they were used AGAINST vikings? Please give 1 historical source using the term "viking ship". This term araised during the 60`s as an advertisment trick for "viking museums", and has no historical value at all.

Once again, please clean this article from errors, how beatiful it may seem. If Wikipedia would treat facts about anything like this, it would be a place to avoid for school pupils.

Dan Koehl 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:
  • One of the meanings of viking (or rather "gå i viking") is to go away, to go on an expedition somewhere. Many runestones mention norsemen who went away (or died while) on expedition, "i viking". They don't mention if the aim of the expedition is raiding or trading. It could be both.
  • Remember that this article reflects the outside/international view on vikings, and not the one that we are used to in Scandinavia. Here, at least in Sweden, efforts have been made to "clean up" the history a bit, to separate the romanticism and fiction from the historical facts. But to most non-scandinavians, all norsemen were vikings, since they only had contact with norsemen on expedition, i viking. Thus longships and knarrs were labeled viking ships. And both knarrs and longships were used on these expeditions.
Today, "viking" is an internationally accepted name or label for the people of Scandinavia during from the 8th to 11th century. No, I don't agree on that one, in my opinion, the term "norseman" would be a lot more suitable. (In Sweden, we still use the term "indians" for native americans.) But to change that, we need to reach a consensus for this article. Then we need to rewrite about any history book ever published that deals with Scandinavia a millennia ago. /Magore 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Magore, you wrote: "They don't mention if the aim of the expedition is raiding or trading. It could be both."

-Yes, it could. the expedition could also be to collect information about nuclear power stations. But wahtever we guess, or speculate, there is no single source in the whole world, mentioning trading as viking activity, (do you know one) so why should this article invent one? Dan Koehl 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"No single source in the whole world", exactly what do you base that statement on? What about the travels to Baghdad, Byzantium/Constantinople and Novgorod? Or the expedition to Vinland? First of all, the word "viking" can mean many different things. According to some claims, it denotes the pirates who raided the coasts of Europe a millennia ago, and was given to them by those unfortunate enough to be raided. Others claim that it is about the activity, to go away on an expedition to gain wealth, "ge sig/gå i viking". You don't seem to agree with the latter, but that doesn't mean that it's incorrect. Second, it seems like you're trying to fit these expeditions into a modern context, ie where you would travel from point A to point B, do some raiding or trading, and then return home with the loot/commodities. But that was not the case. These expeditions lasted for years. And during that time, a number of different things could be done. Raiding in one place didn't mean that trading was out of the question in other places. The exact means could vary from day to day, so to speak. And that was the way it had to be. These expeditions would simply not be possible without that kind of flexibility and adaptability, since those who went away could not possibly know what they would be up against in advance. /Magore 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Not any of those sources uses the term Viking. This article is about the term viking. Dan Koehl 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its almost funny. All those people wanting to call alla scandinavians (including documented viking watchers, farmers, priests, women, children, people afriad of sailing etc) vikings, (although, on good standards, probably less then 1% of scandinavians ever performed any viking activity) wat do you then want to call vikings? viking-vikings? true vikings?

I haven't called farmers, priests or whatever vikings. And this article starts with the line "The term Viking is used to denote the ship-borne explorers, traders and warriors who originated in Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden and raided the coasts of the British Isles, France and other parts of Europe from the late 8th century to the 11th century". So exactly what is the problem? Aside from the fact that merchants (who had to be a hardy bunch, just like the pirates) are mentioned, which you don't seem to like? /Magore 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, why changing the meaning of the word, using it as term on people who already have name for their etnical group, and leaving a gap for term of the people who actually were vikings...?

Im trying to get the intelligence with this.

Dan Koehl 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

wow, Dan is back. You made a big mess of the article last time around, let's not go over this again. The article is perfectly aware of the meaning of the term, and you would do much better investing your time in adding content than in this futile debate. dab () 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would, and I could, if the article reflected vikings. Presently 70% reflect non-vikings, which would be more suitable to write about on pages describing middle-age scandinavians.

I can not describe pagans on a page describing christians, ven though the heder clearly reads pagans. Same as here. In the end this will just be apage about what people belive vikings were, or what thy want that vikings were. This is inventing historory, not describing history. if it was a page about indians, the article would easily be classified NPOV. Presently, theres more people that wants the article to describe myths about vikings, rather than describing the term.

Under such circumstances theres no need for facts about vikings here, noone wants them. This SHOULD apearently describe false interpretations of vikings, and as aconsequence, swedens trade town Birka, could be described as a viking town, although, sorces mantion clearly how it was protected against vikings. As long as this will be the intention, the page will be of low quality as a hisitorical source, and my contributions will only be confusing for the average reader, who eventually, is not interested in facts, but rather wants to read non-facts, ficition, myths and phantasies.

So be it. Invent your vikings, and close your eyes and ears for the true vikings, which could here be described. Luckily, nothing else on wikipedia applies to this stupid way of presenting knowledge.

Dan Koehl 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I'm not writing this to be rude, but rather to make you think your actions over before carrying them out. Although it might be possible that you are right in your assumption that you are the only enlightened editor contributing to an encyclopedia otherwise run by total ignorants, I really doubt that such is the case. My guess is that the problem is your own assumptions that the meaning of certain words or terms are the same in all languages. To be more specific, you assume that the word "viking" means exactly the same in English as it does in for example Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, etc. Based upon that assumption, you jump to the conclusion that most of what is written in this article is wrong, and that it is your duty to straighten things out and bring order out of chaos. But what if you are wrong in your assumptions? Are you going to change the meaning that this certain word has in the English language? To get the entire english-speaking part of this worlds population to use the word/term "viking" only when referring to pirates of iron-age Scandinavia, instead of the entire society, as is the case today? Well, I can't stop you if you're set on doing that. But I would humbly ask you to start with your crusade somewhere else, and not mess this article up just because it doesn't correspond to your personal view on things. Ie, you should change the meaning of this word first. Then, when you're done with teaching every english-speaking individual on this planet that "vikings" were pirates and nothing else, please tell us and we'll change this article so that it corresponds with the meaning the word "viking" has in the English language. OK? /M.O (u) (t) 16:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding knorr as a "vikingish" ship:

Það mælti mín móðir,
at mér skyldi kaupa
fley ok fagrar árar,
fara á brott með víkingum,
standa upp í stafni,
stýra dýrum knerri,
halda svá til hafnar,
höggva mann ok annan

It seems to me, Dan, that "knorr" and "viking" are awfully close in this poem of Egil's from Egils saga, close enough in fact to show that it was thought of as "vikingish" to use your word. --D. Webb 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of 'Games'

Books and Movies are the most relevent depiction of vikings popular culture. Games do not depict a descriptive or defining idea of Vikings and it borders game advertisment. This is why I deleted the subsection 'Games' from 'Vikings in Popular Culture'. It is at best a non-notable section. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 20:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what about Nazism etc. That should be deleted to. --Comanche cph 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for doing that. That the nazis abused norse symbols and mythology is a historical fact, and should be mentioned in this article. /Magore 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not about historical fact. I mean Nazi's are not Vikings, and has nothing to do with the history of Vikings. The article "viking age" is about historical fact, not this. The viking usage in modern cultures could be as much "computer games" as those Nazis who use viking symbols.

Therefore i see no reason to delete "computer games". --Comanche cph 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The section about nazism stays, the section about games stay out. This is about notability and importance, a context in which the clarification of vikings vs nazis are way more important than what computer games are about vikings or viking-themes. /M.O (u) (t) 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It actually is because Games was non-notable. Vikings Vrs Nazis on the other hand is notable.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 23:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists of computer-game references, when hived off as Vikings in computer games or whatever, are quickly identified by Wikipedians as cruft and voted for speedy deletion: QED. --Wetman 09:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this should be taken up in the village pump? Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Should_articles_reference_games.3F_Pull_the_Plugs. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Finland vikings

The Finns are a Norse people, but have they any connections with the Vikings proper? 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are they? As far as I know, the finnish language aren't even remotely related to Norse. Not like Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic, languages that all have their roots in Norse. Perhaps you confuse Norse with Nordic? Finland is one of the Nordic countries, but not a part of Scandinavia. But Finland does have a viking heritage, like many other countries around the Baltic sea. /M.O (u) (t) 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To /M.O (u. -That's correct. But it seems like the wikipedia term of Scandinavia is including Finland, that's why these confusions comes. --Comanche cph 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia includes Finland but the Finns are not a "Norse" people. --Wetman 09:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, technically, Scandinavia includes only two countries, Norway and Sweden. Scandinavia, you see, is the peninsula on which lie, Norway and Sweden. --D. Webb 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A valid point. But the cultural scandinavia does include Denmark, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

--OrbitOne [[[User

And I call into question the validity of your opinion. The statement Denmark is part of Scandinavia is grossly incorrect and good reason to call into question any opinion you have on geography. The Penisula of Scandinavia is that body of land which looks a little bit like a penis. There is no land connection with Denmark, so Denmark is not part of the Penisula of Scandinavia.
Denmark is geographicly part of mainland Europe. To put a little more light of what includes geographical Scandinavia, Finland too, in part, is part of Scandinavia Geographicly. The Kjolen Mountains, which do continue into Finland, define Geographical Europe's norther boarder.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Scandinavia" and the strictly geographic word "Scandinavian Peninsula" ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Scandinavia has nothing to do with land connection. In old days seafaring was faster and people in Norway live on south and west coast, most people in Sweden live in south and on the west coast. How many people do you think live in north Sweden and North Norway?? (Almost nothing) Finland has nothing to do with Scandinavia. It's a typical mistake by foreigners who don't no much about this region. And it's only Jutland who has land connection to Germany. The capital of Denmark is on Zealand. But what you say doesn't make sense anyway. Because then in your POV should we also count Russia to Scandinavia. Since it border Norway and Finland -(you wanna include as Scandinavia). Now when we have Russia, why not include China to!

Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Sometimes Iceland is included because of close connection to Denmark and Norway, speaks north germanic and since it got independent from Scandinavia for only 50 years ago. But Finland as Scandinavia is wrong. Finland is Nordic country not Scandinavian. --Comanche cph 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia includes Sweden, Norway and Denmark, as well as Iceland, to some extend. Greenland is - although it belongs to Denmark - not included. To include Finland isn't all wrong, since Finland was earlier part of Sweden, thus part of Scandinavia. Same thing with Iceland. Besides, this is not about your personal opinions, but what is common practice in the English language. In English, "Scandinavia" and "Nordic" has the same meaning, and this is the english version of Wikipedia. Thus, your personal opinions has no validity, if they come into conflict with what is to be considered common knowledge and common practice in the english context. /M.O (u) (t) 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See there you got it wrong. Because the British and Americans use it as Nordic countries. Because they don't know much about this region. The correct Scandinavia will always be Den Swe Nor. No matter how much the British (or the Finnish) wanna include Finland, witch has nothing to do with Scandinavia other than it border to north sweden, where no people live. --Comanche cph 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that it is hard to stay civil when discussing things with you. Let me clarify what I mean - "Scandinavia" is a name used to denote the Nordic region in english. As such, we cannot question the validity of this denotation. The brittish and american could call this region "The Big Kahuna Cheese" or "Shoestring Universe", and we still couldn't question it, if these names was to be accepted in the english language as denotations for what the people in the nordic countries refer to as the Nordic. Do you understand? /M.O (u) (t) 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this. I am Danish and Denmark is geographicly part of Europe. I am a Dane, so I should know better than a Brit or American. Not only that, I am a scientist and it is agreed between geologists, the experts in land masses not matter what you say, that Scandinavia is geographicly Sweden, Norway and parts of Finland.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is relevant for this page because.....? Fornadan (t) 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, but Comanche cph will not allow any other version other than his own version without screaming out offensive blurbs (Fjeldabe), make alleged personal attacks, claim other users are nationalists or will simply violate 3R. Although he is welcomed to the discussion, we do wish he would adhear to the practices common to good wiki editors.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that the Finnish language is not closely related to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, and Icelandic, but the Finns are Scandinavians (I'm not talking about the Scandinavian Peninsula; I think this confusion has started because some are unwilling to concede that Scandinavia is not limited to the geographical region bearing the same name; think of it like the broader Germanic peoples/languages, which extend beyond geographical Germany). I've understood it to be that Scandinavian is more or less interchangeable with Nordic (though perhaps not "Norse", which was the phrase I insensitively used in asking the question), and I'm assuming that Norse refers to the linguistic commonalities. Anyway, that's not really important in answering the question, which was whether or not the Finns are descendants of Viking peoples. 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are all making this way too difficult! It depends on the context: Scandinavian Peninsula (Geography)= Norway/Sweden/silver of Finland
Norse/Nordic (culture/language) = Nor/Sw/Denmark/Iceland/Faroe Islands and (to a much lesser extent) Greenland
Nordic (Geo-Political - e.g., Nordic Council) = Nor/Sw/Denmark/Iceland/Faroe Islands/Greenland/Finland
Scandinavian (nations, in English only) = Nor/Sw/De/Finland
Scandinavian (language, nations {other than English}) = Nor/Sw/De
Nordic (Physical Anthrology) - not relevant here
Finnish is a non-IE language; Finnish and Sami peoples are not orginally related to the Scandinavian-speaking peoples and were not typically to be found amongst the vikings (just crack open any saga and note the lack of Finns and Sami). Thor Templin 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Thorht

Popular culture (music)

No mention of the various viking inspired metal bands? There is even an entire "black metal" subgenre called Viking Metal --Steerpike 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

that is modern historical revisionism, where they are rebelling against society by going back to pre-christian history, as they see Christianity as evil. In no way do they (Death Metal bands) have any direct connection with Vikings except that they use them as a motif. I would like to direct you to the documentary Metal: A Headbanger's journey which deals with this idea.
also, on another note on music: I did not see anything on whether Vikings actually made music, or where they not advanced enough? If they did make music, has any of it survived to today?
--Jadger 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Is it not sort of like the Goliath thing? Surely the fact that they were shorter than the modern average can't be used as evidence to say they "weren't tall", because weren't folks in general shorter back in the day? elvenscout742 00:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The benchmark would have to be their contemporaries, not modern heights. Even 100 years ago the average person was much smaller than today. That paragraph is way off the mark as a result. flux.books 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Almost everyone back then was short compared to modern men. What the reader wants to know is whether they were towering in comparison to other people of the time.CB319 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

um, once again, by "Vikings" do we mean the general population of Scandinavia at the time, or the people "going viking" in particular? It would seem to stand to reason that the most successful pirates would be selected towards physical strength, so that a study of people's height back in Scandinavia would tell us very little about the average height of the men Ibn Fadlan would be likely to encounter at the Volga. In any case, if you mention "a number of modern studies" and quote such exact numbers, you have to name the study, or the information is worthles. dab () 09:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutley modern heights are far taller than they were 1000 years ago. If there average male height was 5'9" as stated in the article, that was far taller than the average height of Southern Europeans which during that time ranged from 5'2" - 5'5" from various history books I have scoured. There are also numerous accounts from Southerners describing 'big men with big swords". Not only was there a comparable height difference, as there still is today amongst those descended from Northern tribes, but apparently their physical stature was considerable as well. I think that part of the article needs to be reworked. Rapunzel In Van 06:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


The illustration captioned "Renewed Interest in Viking Age" shows four people sitting on a bench. Has there been a substitution here? This article shows the strains of combattive editing and vandalism. --Wetman 23:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the picture and placed it here:
Renewed Interest in Viking Age
qp10qp 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


It has been over and over again stated that scandinavians and vikings are about just the same in the english langauge, as a motivation why this article describes scandinavians, and not vikings.

The text reads:

The term Viking commonly denotes the ship-borne explorers, traders, and warriors of the Norsemen who originated in Scandinavia...[]...It may also be used to denote the entire populations of Viking Age Scandinavia and their settlements elsewhere.

I now want to ask, can this be verified?

Especially since some finnish, and some frisians, and some baltic people were vikings, its simply sounds so stupid, because they were never scandinavians....

I do know what some encyklopedias write, but Im asking for an englsih source older than hundred years, that confirm the text above? my guess is that this "tradition" to "commonly" see scandinavians and vikings as a synonyme, is less than fifty years old, a product of uneducated people who believd in myths.

As with everything else on wikipedia, "facts" may be asked for verification.

Question number 1: can this be verified?

Question number 2:

2. When did scandinavians, according to this english language logic, become vikings? Year 800? or before?

3. When did scandinavians stop to be vikings, and may, in english langauge be described as scandinavians again? After year 1066, or later?

4. If "the entire populations of Viking Age Scandinavia" can be verified as vikings, what does english people call populations of Viking Age Scandinavia that really were vikings?

5. Normal scandinavians during 800-1066, just normal norse people, being definitely not vikings, belonging to the ledung, (maybe 95% of the scandinavian population) that fought against vikings, were they also vikings? Does english speaking people then really call anti-vikings vikings, and can this be verified as an old tradition?

6. What do you call true vikings, (sometimes really also described with the word vikings in written sources), that came from non-scandinavian regions like finnish, friesland, polish, and baltic regions, regions which does not belong to svandinavia, people that doesn not belong to norse peoples. Those people were really vikings, what do you call those vikings?


Dan Koehl 16:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Background and reasons

Why I engafe a lot in this topic, is because of interest in true vikings. Its also obvious that here is something wrong. Its always dangerous when people argue for "as all know" etc. Good examples are Champagne which "everyone" uses worng i daily chat, and the leanght of empereor Napoleon, who "everyone" knows he was short.

In germany, scandinavian are often refered to as "Elks" (german for Moose). Everyone knows what a Elk is, when refering to people in germany. But, napoleon was of avrage body size, and only Champagne is described on the article Champagne. And on the english wikipedia, the article :deElk describes moose, not scandinavian people.

WHY should this page different? Why should people continue to get misleading information instead of correct? WHY is this so important for people who promplty wants to describe Norse people on the article viking

I cant understand this...Why should an article on Wikipedia describe Misconceptions about a term, rather than the correct explanation?


Dan Koehl 11:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Champagne is a disambiguation page. Are you saying this page should be one too? This article does focus on "Vikings proper", i.e. not the Scandinavian populace in general but the ship-borne "merchant-warriors" in particular. If you want to write an ethnographic article about the Early Medieval population of Scandinavia, you are very welcome to do that at the proper article, Norsemen. dab () 12:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess its rather clear that I was refering to the Beverege. Where its written: While the term "champagne" is often used by makers of sparkling wine in other parts of the world, it should properly (and legally in several countries) be used to refer only to the wines made in the Champagne region.

Why should the term viking be threted othervise than champagne? E.g, Why should an article on Wikipedia describe misconceptions about the term viking, rather than the term viking, ut not with Champagne? Dan Koehl 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most present sources


Decolonizing the Viking Age, Volume 1

By Fredrik Svanberg December 2003 Almqvist & Wiksell International ISBN: 91-22-02006-3

This volume argues that the Scandinavian "Viking Age" can be seen as a system of knowledge constructed in the late 19th century and in its basic structures maintained up to the present day. This system of knowledge was heavily influenced by the nationalistic and evolutionary ideas of its time of making and may be described as a colonialism of the past. The book follows the making of the Viking Age from the start, through the most influential academic studies of the 20th century and up to the most authoritative recent works. A deconstruction of its main ideas is then suggested. In the second half of the book, a study of south-east Scandinavia is presented. This study is based upon discussions of "Old Norse" semantics of cultural landscapes, temporality and of the important connection between collective death rituals and the community of large groups of people. The results of this study are found to be incompatible with the knowledge structures of the "Viking Age" and of reaching beyond the Viking Age are suggested. This book is the first part of a dissertation in archaeology in two parts. The second volume is an archaeological work that creates the empirical foundation for the study of south-east Scandinavia found in the second part of the present volume.

For those who speak swedish: (from Fran

Arkeologen Fredrik Svanberg skrev: Glöm vikingatiden som den beskrivs i skolböcker och uppslagsverk. Det menar arkeologen Fredrik Svanberg i en ny doktorsavhandling. Han har gått igenom och analyserat allt arkeologiskt material som grävts fram från vikingatidens begravningsplatser i södra Sverige och på danska Bornholm. Och han konstaterar att vikingar och vikingatiden, som vi känner den, är en konstruktion.


Kåre Fagerström, arkeolog och fil dr i antikens kultur och samhällsliv skrev: Ordet viking förekommer på någon enstaka runsten och hos Snorre Sturlasson på 1200-talet, och ordet används då nedsättande om muslimska pirater. Vikingen som begrepp har ifrågasatts av många, var och en utifrån sina egna utgångspunkter, och en som prövat på det dekonstruktivistiska angreppssättet och en imperialistisk infallsvinkel är Fredrik Svanberg, som i sin avhandling "Decolonizing the Viking Age" till yttermera visso återanvänder illustrationer från Henry Morton Stanleys Afrikaexpeditioner. Effekten av illustrationer av upptäcktsfärder till Kongo till en avhandling om vikingar är slående - i förstone verkar kombinationen paradoxal, sedan förstår man.


Men om det nu inte fanns något som vi kan kalla "viking" eller ens "vikingatid", hur ska vi då ställa oss till termerna i dag?

Eller med andra ord: Finns det skäl att dekonstruera ordets moderna historia?

Till att börja med kan man fråga sig i vilka sammanhang de används och vilka som kämpar "för vikingens överlevnad". Vi ser då att det handlar om huliganer, om nynazister, om rollspelare, om museifolk och om turistmänniskor. Det är alltså ett brokigt sällskap, där de olika grupperna knappast vill förknippas med de andra. Så låt oss bortse från huliganer och nynazister, som huvudsakligen ser vikingen som en slagskämpe. Återstår rollspelare, turistfolk och museimänniskor. Alla dessa har delvis sammanhängande intressen av att vidmakthålla vikingen. För turistindustrin är vikingen en lockande och inkomstbringande symbol.

Vikingen som begrepp är ju faktiskt inte enbart slagskämpe, utan också en samhällsbyggare som grundade Ryssland och Island, koloniserade och styrde stora delar av England samt grundade mer kortlivade samhällen på Grönland och i Amerika. Det är ett rikt arv som förknippas med vikingen. Skall vi bara kasta bort det?

Ja, tycks Fredrik Svanberg säga, och han pekar på vikingens kluvna arv och på att själva begreppet är ohistoriskt. Museimänniskorna har ju till uppgift att undervisa om den sammansatta historia som träder fram ur historiens dimmor om man tittar ända tillbaka till vikingatiden. Svanberg trycker på just detta: bilden är så komplex och rymmer så mycket att det inte berättigar oss att tala om en tid, ett folk eller en epok.

Vad som framgår av uppräkningen av de grupper som "tjänar" på att vikingen hålls vid liv är att de alla har ett ekonomiskt intresse. Turistnäringen säljer platser och resor tillsammans med souvenirer, museifolket tjänar på att folk söker sig till museer och utgrävningsplatser och rollspelarna har ju också en del att sälja, det finns ju vikingabyar med en hel del hantverk till avsalu och så vidare.

Och kanske är det så enkelt att det gamla motivet bakom vikingakulten - att rättfärdiga en väpnad imperialism - numera har ersatts av ett ekonomiskt motiv. Samtidigt står huliganer och nynassar i kulisserna och gnisslar tänder för att de snälla krafterna snott deras idoler - och det är kanske inte helt fel?

with best wishes,

Dan Koehl 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles


WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't be alarmed if this article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

--Ling.Nut 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reg etnic groups, appearently the early sources describes anglosaxians with the term vikings when they raid other anglosaxians. Should then anglosaxians be regarded as a type of scandinavians, or is scandinavians a type of anglosaxians, according to the english definiton of the term viking? (that old source is english, as far as I know.) Dan Koehl 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vikings in Cornwall

I've removed the following text Cornwall was never absorbed into Wessex the Vikings in a sense stopped Cornwall from becoming Saxonised.

As Cornwall did become Saxonised, I've amended the passage to include

The Britons of Cornwall allied with the Vikings in an unavailing attempt to expel the Saxons from Cornwall in 838.[1]

And I've removed the whole Cornwall section on the grounds of bewildering inaccuracy; here it is for the scrutiny of editors:

The Vikings sailed into history around the same time that the Anglo-Saxons of Wessex were threatening the Celts of Cornwall and Devon. The Vikings probably had some contact with the Cornish via the tin trade, a trade in which Cornwall had a monopoly of the European market, as the Vikings were traders as well as warriors. Possibly as a result of good relations between the two, the Cornish and Danish Vikings joined forces in order to repell any Anglo-Saxon attacks on Cornwall (which the Saxons called "West Wales"). In 722, King Ine of Wessex invaded Cornwall with a huge Saxon army, but unknown to him, a combined Cornish and Viking army was waiting. King Ine arrived somewhere around the Camel estuary (possibly near modern day Padstow), but his Saxon army was literally torn to shreds thanks to the Celtic/Norse alliance, and King Ine fled the battle-field, most of his Saxon army either dead or taken hostage (to be sold into slavery) by the Vikings. This crucial battle kept Cornwall seperate from Wessex for at least 200 years. As a reward for their victory, the Vikings may have been given settlements in Cornwall, such as Falmouth, as well as a constant supply on tin, a commodity which the Vikings greatly admired. Another policy of Cornish/Vikings alliance was for the Vikings to constantly attack, burn, pillage and weaken Wessex, which they did with regularity, a policy to undermine Wessex as a military unit. This alliance of Cornish and Vikings kept Wessex out of Cornwall, and ultimately it would be French-speaking Vikings, a.k.a the Normans, who ultimately conquered the Saxons of Wessex, although the Normans and Cornish formulated some sort of deal that kept Cornwall as a distinct entity right throughout the Middle Ages -- the Stannary laws.

These are my reasons:

The earliest date for a Viking raid on Britain, as the article indicates, is 787. So the idea that Vikings, as such, were helping the Cornish fight against King Ine in 722 is invalid (any help given would have been by Norse traders, Danes, or whatever). In any case, although the Cornish finally halted the Wessex advance and defeated Ine, they lost half their territory in that war and so it can hardly have been considered a success.

The passage states that the final Cornish victory kept Cornwall separate from Wessex for at least 200 hundred years; but Cornwall was conquered by the Saxons under Egbert in 814 and thereby lost its independence. It's true that a Viking force assisted Cornish attempts to repel the Saxons in 838, but the combined force was defeated by the Saxons and the Vikings fled.

The passage suggests that the Cornish lost their independence to the Normans; quite untrue, for the reasons above.

The passage stretches the definition of Viking by calling the Normans "French-speaking Vikings". They may have descended from Rollo, but Normans are not called Vikings

The passage suggests that, after the conquest, the Normans did a deal with the Cornish by agreeing the stannary laws. But the first stannary charter was granted in 1201, 135 years after the Norman conquest.

The passage suggests that in the time of the Vikings, the Cornish had a monopoly of the European tin trade, but this is unlikely as tin was produced in Spain as well as other places. Anyway, we have no facts about this because Cornish tin is unmentioned in historical records between 616 and 1198.

NB: In a separate passage, the article mentions that the people of Falmouth are proud of their Viking connections. I doubt that but I've left it in for the moment until I can check it. I come from North Cornwall and cannot speak for the people of Falmouth, but no-one round my way is proud of their Viking connections because we didn't know that we had any.

qp10qp 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added "in 838" to the sentence about a Cornish/Viking alliance to make it clear that this is the only documented instance; and I have added the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a primary source in reference (1). I have deleted the reference to Falmouth.Crococolana 16:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A pussling sentance

The section on the British isles states: The Viking presence dwindled until 1066, when the Danes lost their final battle with the English. The year 1066 is most commonly associated with the Battle of Stamford Bridge which is regarded as ending the Viking age. The battle at Stamford was between the English and the Norwegians. Did the Danes have a similar experience with the English in the same year as the Norwegians? Or was it impossible for the Danes to remain after the Norwegians were beaten? I suspect this sentance originates from a misunderstanding and just needs a rewrite, but if it is true I think my questions are relevant. Inge 10:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

782 the massacre of 4500 Saxons avenged by the Vikings

Hello everybody! Sorry for my “poor English” I’m only a 21st century Viking and I don’t know very well your nice language! I congratulate you for your file about Vikings! It’s very complete! I would like to propose you information. For us Vikings from today, we think that June 8th 793 (or 787) is not the starting point for Viking raid. The Vikings are not a spontaneous generation of avid and sanguinary barbarians in 793, but they had legitimate reasons to retort against the violent exactions of Christian crimes (Charlemagne). The Vikings passed from the statute of explorers, tradesmen to that of pirates mainly because of dogmatic harassing monotheist of which they were the object. I would find equitable for their memory to explain one of the reasons of their strandhöggs (commandos). Moreover they first attack against the Christian sites, and it is not only because they were more vulnerable and that the Church held a quarter of the richness, but also because that constituted the symbol of destruction of their people and culture. One of the reasons of the vindication of my North Ancestors: in year 782 Godfred Danish King which came to assistance of the Saxon chief Widukind. Charlemagne impose “the law of the iron of God” or “the baptism or the massacre” and he massacres 4500 Saxons and off-sets (deportation) 12000 women and children who refused the baptism, Christians destructed the Holly Tree Irminsul! Widukind, Saxon chief require of the assistance of Danish king Godfred to avenge his people for the bloody verdict of Verden. Godfred accepted because Christians attacked Danish too (Dannevirke fortifications) and the sister of Godfred married Widukind. Vikings and all Pagan people were furious for the massacre of Saxons and the destruction of Holly Places, they knew that the Christians were very powerful and would not stop in Saxony! Here is also an important economic reason! Vikings wanted to protect their business, the Godfred kingdom was a very famous place to trade! The Vikings didn’t want that the Danish’s counters fall in the hands of Christians! Moreover in 808 Hedeby became the largest commercial counter of Scandinavia! It was vital to protect it! The Vikings chiefs saw progression of Christianity and wars destroyed the businesses! This economic reason contributed to enter it in war of the Vikings against the Christians. All the pagan ones rebelled against the terrible exactions of Charlemagne. In fact the Lindisfarne attack caused a considerable agitation in the Christian clerks, because the Christian clerks were the victims and they were the only writers! It’s why one spoke much about it! That’s the reason why we use to take this symbolic date of the June 8th , 793 to decide first attack Viking, by a Norwegian named Thorgis (perhaps one of my ancestors!) but the Scandinavians fight Christians for more than ten years ago, defending their people, their beliefs and their shopping centres! “Pappars” were also very virulent against Vikings to convert them and “put salt in their mouths” The attack of Lindisfarne is not a starting point but a symbol for Christians of Vikings crimes ! 793 is the starting point from a Christian point of view, it cannot be a starting point from a Viking point of view! One cannot limit the Vikings to horrible assassinating pirates of the Priests, there were multiple reasons with their violence! 782 is an important date to understand why the Vikings make raids. Obviously you can choose if you want to present my information according to a language encyclopaedic than I do not control yet rather well! Vikings salutations!Thorgis 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid your 'information' is pure neopagan fantasy. dab () 22:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the history truth, nothing else.

Hello Dab! Thank you for the interest which you carries in my article. These infos are not erroneous even if the words are strong “deportations” it acts well of that alas! After some research: terms employed by the encyclopaedia “All Universe” (Hachette edition album n°5 page 1110) precise: “Charles decided to devote to a terrible massacre and it made slice the head, the same day, with 4500 Saxon (...) Guerrillas, repressions, and deportations in mass began again and were completed only into 804” Another source, in particular in the book of Jean Mabire(famous Historien) “the Vikings” (the Anchor Marine editions ISBN 2-905970-49-9 in 2004.) Besides he begins its work with this historical fact (an782) Page 9 chapter 1 the long title “Ten years after the massacre of pagan Saxons by Charlemagne, the monks undergo in Lindisfarne the fury of Norman” the page 13 where it makes speak Widukind: “All mine were exterminated to the last prisoner. Four thousand five hundred noble warriors perished. The old men, the women, the children, all those which did not carry weapons, were off-set out of foreign ground where misery and the contempt wait.” Page 14 of the same book: Widukind requires of the assistance of Danish king Godfred “ account of the massacres and of the exiles, imaginations (...) of old hatreds are poked (...) With the iron of God must answer the iron of Odin strikes (...) Revenge! “ Page 15: “During more than two centuries, the Northmen or Norman, will make pay with the abbeys and in the cities of Occident the Charlemagne crime ” There is also page 16 where have to read the following title: “The massacre of Lindisfarne avenges the crime for Verden” “Lindisfarne will pay for Verden”

There is besides a memorial for this massacre of Verden where thousand large steles are set up. For this crime against the Saxon ones. One qualified Charlemagne of “butcher” and his wife who led to the crime Fastrade de Franconie “the cruel one”.

There are several other sources of which: The Zwiki encyclopaedia, (that I did not know, sorry for the advertizing!), this specifies: “The following year, a rising general carried out by the chief Saxon Widukind leads to the franque defeat, Charlemagne makes decapitate several thousands of Saxons prisoners in Verden and orders the deportation of several clans towards the kingdom of the Frank ones." I hope that these sources will be sufficient to understand why the Vikings attacked Christians. Many other historien know those informations.You can consult also the page for “Widukind” and “Charlemagne” Cordial greetings Vikings;) Thorgis 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thorgis, I have discussed with Dab for almost two years, hes one of those who dress in some brown bags and join historical reenactment, he likes Factoids about vikings and the 1800 century romantic stuff. He also seems to belive he owns this article about wikings, or, that he is chosen by someone to take decisions about the article. If he annoys you with unpoliteness or likewise, my advice is, just ignore him, and let him play. I look forward to more of your input. Please continue. Dan Koehl 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons for Vikings raids.

Thank you Dan for your kind message. Precisely I should like to ask you a question: I am fond of history, specialized since my youth on the Vikings. I should like to bring some elements on this topic, but unfortunately I rather badly write English, I can’t allow myself to intervene directly on the article. So I prefer to write my infos and my sources on the discussion page. Could somebody see what could interest the article? My first subject explains why the Vikings make war against the Christian world. I think that it's important to know it! I thank you for your assistance and contact me if you have needs for my knowledge on this topic, I would make my best to help you and find sources. In a friendly wayThorgis 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you copy the relevant passages from books onto this talk page in their original language, giving precise author, publisher, ISBN, page references. Then someone can translate them into English and paraphrase or quote them, if there is consensus, in the article.qp10qp 19:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

external link

I wanted to add a link to an article about the Viking Fire Festival, Up-Helly-Aa, which is held in Shetland in Scotland every January, but it was removed as inappropriate. This is the link: http:// ukirelandtravel. article.cfm/shetland_s_viking_fire_festival

I didn't write the article but it was written by two Scottish travel writers who attended Up-Helly-Aa and wrote about its Viking origins. I apologise if I've breached the rules but it did seem to me to be the kind of article that people interested in the Vikings might want to read, adding something to the topic.



Add a citation to a reliable source if it is factual then. SparrowsWing 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could, but its something I got of the Military channel. I'm not an archeologist, I just read about the Byzantines in my spare time. Would citing the Military channel be breaching any copyright rules and stuff?

If you know that as a fact, then try finding a factual website saying the same thing, and citing it instead. ChadyWady|Talk 13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • ^ Halliday.F.E. A History of Cornwall, Duckworth, 1959 (2000 edition), ISBN 1-84232-123-4, p102.