Talk:Viking expansion

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

Return to a perennial question[edit]

I find it hard to see how the parameters of this article are distinct from the parallel articles on Vikings and the Viking Age. Perhaps the difference should be that the Viking Expansion article discusses Scandinavian activities outside their homelands during the Viking Age, while the Viking Age article talks about the situation within Scandinavia itself. If so, the title of the latter needs to be changed to Viking Age Scandinavia, and the entire thing needs to be rewritten. At the same time, it is not clear why there should be a separate article that talks about the Vikings. There's a conceptual circularity here. It's the activities of Vikings that defines the notion of a Viking Age, whether in Scandinavia, or outside it. Yet the popularisation of the terms Viking and Viking Age, means that the noun Viking is now regularly applied to all Norse-speaking people who originated in Scandinavia in the whole period 700/750-1050/1100, and the related adjective is equally applied to all aspects of the culture connected with these people in the same period. The problem is then compounded by the additional presence of an article on Norsemen.

In general a consensus seems to have emerged that it's a good thing to have separate entries for the people and the history of their activities. But I would note that there is no similar distinction made on Wikipedia between 'Romans' and the history of their activities and cultural institutions in the articles on ancient Roman civilization and the Roman Empire. Personally, I think a great deal of muddle would be avoided by having a single article, so that the difficulties inherent in the use of noun and adjective Viking can be made absolutely clear, and an appropriate historical perspective developed in identifying who these people were. Otherwise the alternative articles (all of which are still marred by partisan, incomplete, or non-authoritative contributions) will continue to overlap, repeat one another, as new contributors add information to one without seeing that the others exist. The present articles either need to be massively re-edited, or else merged.

This comment is cross-posted on all three of the most relevant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dala-Freyr (talkcontribs) 10:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The best solution here might be to merge Viking Age and Viking expansion, since they are practically identical. The Viking article could then refer to these briefly (as it already does) but be developed by concentrating more on cultural matters than the strictly historical. So one could have more on social structure (law, the role of women, and slavery), houses and settlement types, production and exchange, weapons and warfare, religious belief and practice in the pagan period and the early Christian era, language, art (including skaldic poetry). This would mean the merged Viking Age / Viking expansion article could concentrate more on historical processes and events, from the causes of the Viking Age to the reasons for the cessation of these activities, and the two resulting articles would be mutually supportive rather than repetitive. But the pages on the [Viking Age]] and Viking expansion should definitely be merged.CubeDigit (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

why is there not a section on norman italy and particularly norman sicily, the most spectacular of the norman kingdoms ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vikings in Georgia[edit]

The notability of Vikings visiting Georgia doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article, but it would be a good addition to the Eastern Europe section of the Viking expansion article (especially if the offline source can be verified). Ahecht (TALK
) 14:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a good ideia. Ruddah (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's merge it. -- BCorr|Брайен 01:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Raid on Portland[edit]

The details of the raid on Portland at the end of the 8th century were cited to the Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, p. 3. but the details are not in my 1997 copy of the book, so I have revised. The citation was given as 3rd edition in 2001, but according to Worldcat there has only been one edition and the 2001 book is just a re-issue, so I have deleted 3rd ed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Viking expansion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)