Talk:Vikings/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BSoren17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Viking culture

This article defines Vikings as the medieval raiders and traders. The large section on the culture of the Vikings is about the culture of all Scandinavians of the Viking Age, not just the raiders and traders. I think the culture section should therefore be transferred to Viking Age article, which currently contains little information on the subject. Krakkos (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the people's culture being misplaced on this article that would otherwise deal with the acts of raiding and trading. However, I would instead suggest the culture section be moved to the Norsemen article that seem to deal with the people during the Viking Age. I think that the article Viking Age should remain focused on their impact and expansion. Skoskav~enwiki (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have an opinion on the suggested move, but I would like to raise attention to some basic facts in relation to this issue.

1 There has never been an ethnic group, or people, by the name "Norsemen". The people of Scandinavia in the late Iron Age, prior to the Viking Age, were known as Danes, Swedes, Geats, Gutes and a large number of independent tribes (or "people") throughout Norway, although they were all low in number. This carried on to some extent into the Viking Age.

2 In Scandinavia, the Viking Age also marks the emergence of a quite homogeneous culture throughout Scandinavia as a whole, ie. common language, religion, cultural habits, trading systems, common rulership by various kings, inter-marriages. During the Viking Age, it is more meaningful to talk about a common Scandinavian culture, than the more diverse tribal cultures of the preceding Iron Age. There is just no consensus on what to call Scandinavians in this period. In the Anglosaxon culture, the term "Norse" is commonly used, probably derived from the word Norsemen. In Scandinavian culture, and also in Anglosaxon culture to some extent, the term "Vikings" is commonly used, in which case it looks beyond the raiding aspects and includes culture and ethnicity. In this respect "Vikings" simply means the people of Scandinavia in the Viking Age. This meaning of the term "Vikings" is used is countless books about the Vikings.

3 There is already some descriptions of the scandinavian culture during the Viking Age in this article: North Germanic peoples. Read the History section, and in particular the "Ancient history" section. The article could be improved.

4 I think it serves this article well to include some kind of information about the culture of the Vikings. Because they carried their culture with them when they settled in foreign lands. Because it explains that those strangers, and raiders, who was viewed as "Vikings" by foreign cultures, actually had their own culture. They didn't came out of nowhere, and they were not without culture.

RhinoMind (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The term "Norse" comes from the Proto-Germanic word nord, meaning "North". In particular, the suffix "d" in Germanic and "t" or "th" in English denotes it as a noun. "Norway" quite literally means, thus, "Northland". The suffix "s" or "se" is a Scandinavian addition to English to denote a plural noun, so "Norse" and "Norsemen" simply became English words meaning "people from the north" or "Northerners". The term never really referred to a specific country or land until fairly recently. During the Migration Period the whole concept of a country-state was a newly-forming idea. Prior to that, it was mostly just the city-states/empires of the south and tribes in the north. Lands with names like Illyria instead of countries called Greece. Prior to the Viking Age the Scandinavians were typically knows collectively as Jutes, as being a separate culture (however related) from the Germanic.

The Vikings had a rich culture which they brought with them. Aside from being just raiders, they were also settlers in many cases, and invaders. Their marks left on cultures such as the English/British persist to this day. (Christmas is a good example, which we still celebrate as the Viking holiday of the Yule. Decorating trees with baubles, exchanging gifts, singing carols and drinking nog around the fire. Getting up early to find presents left by elves... Viking traditions one and all. Even Santa Clause is more a representation of Baldur than Saint Nick.) II think we should have info on their culture, because so much of it has influenced the way our modern culture developed. Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

1. I'm not so sure if this is correct. The beginning sentences and references of Norsemen and North Germanic peoples makes a case for them being an ethnolinguistic group during the Early Middle Ages.

2. I find it amusing however that Talk:Norsemen#The_common_name_for_the_Old_Norse-speaking_peoples_of_Viking_Age lists an overwhelming amount of sources supporting "Scandinavians" rather than "Norsemen," while the North Germanic peoples#Viking Age section -- which uses the most consecutive references I've ever seen in a wiki article -- is adamant that its "Norsemen" rather than "Vikings": These seafaring traders, settlers and warriors are commonly referred to as Vikings.[16][36][68][69][70][71][72] The North Germanic peoples of the Viking Age as a whole are sometimes referred to as Norsemen.[5][15][17][73][74][33][12][37][36][71][38][75][39][18][34]

3. Well, the North Germanic people article does cover 5,000 years of history, perhaps making it unreasonable to wedge in something so detailed as the Vikings#Culture section?

4. This isn't a fact, and I disagree. The article Piracy in the Caribbean works well without going into cultural aspects such as English literature, farming, and everyday life. That's an article whose structure I think this Vikings article could borrow from.

Skoskav~enwiki (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick reply.

add 2 Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

add 3 Good point

add 4 This doesn't work. Vikings settled large swaths of land and in that process brought their culture with them. It was so distinct that it changed local cultures to an extent that is noticeable even today. To boil the term "Vikings" down to simple piracy is too ignorant. I think you should re-read the whole article. Preferably also a couple of scholarly books about Vikings. No offense, but there a gaping holes in your reason about this subject, and I have to point it out.

Having thought more about this culture issue, I have changed my mind on the move suggestion. I now have an opinion: I don't think it should be moved, so it would be an oppose from me. I think I have explained my reasons in my former posts. RhinoMind (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A solution could be to improve the Norsemen article with a culture section? Given that scholarly books about Norsemen culture is available of course. I don't know if such books exists. In contrast, books about Vikings and their culture are more than plentiful. RhinoMind (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

2. I hope I wasn't contradicting myself. It was mostly meant as a mildly humorous counter-observation that there were a ton of references nearby suggesting both "Scandinavian" and "Norsemen" being correct terms for the peoples, and definitely not "Vikings." But it also re-affirms what you said about there not being a clear consensus. I probably could have formulated my rhetoric more clearly though.

4. You seem to be asserting that the term "Vikings" exclusively has a very specific definition, one which goes against the points I'm making in 1. and 2. Many sources though (especially in pop-sci) seem to not clearly explain and define their term of choice for the peoples, and simply pick the cool one (Vikings).

Skoskav~enwiki (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

RhinoMind - I'm sorry that i framed my suggestion unclearly. I agree with you that this article should include information on the culture of the Vikings. However, the cultural content of this article is about all Viking Age people, and is therefore in my opinion better suited to the article Viking Age. As it stands now, this article contains more information about Viking recreational activites, literature, marital relations, dress, dietary habits, social structure etc. than about raiding, trading and colonization. My suggestion is to transfer this content to Viking Age, while at the same time maintaining a summary style presentation of Viking culture in this article. Krakkos (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand what you mean by "all Viking Age people"? The article only describe the Vikings culture. Or the Northmen/Norse peoples culture as you might prefer to call them. Although the inhabitants of Scandinavia in the Viking Age probably were divided and identified themselves in various tribes (I don't really know, it's a guess) they had a common culture, common language, common technology, common religion, common art, etc. and that is what is called Viking culture. It doesn't make much sense to subdivide further into local tribal habits, because even if they might have existed, they were by all means negligible (counting out the sami and inuit). RhinoMind (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by "all Viking Age people" i mean all the Norse/Scandinavian/North Germanic peoples, who were inhabitants of Scandinavia during the Viking Age. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Krakkos. Back again. The Viking Age was a very short period of history. If someone wants to learn more about the ethnic tribes and cultures in Scandinavia before the Middle Ages, we have articles on the tribal Danes, the tribal Swedes, Gutes, Geats and such. These tribes are not confined to the very short Viking Age, but are traced back to well into the Iron Age, and with a much longer history. However, we do miss articles on the Iron Age Germanic tribes of Norway, as far as I know. RhinoMind (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: No, we have the article Norsemen for that. PPEMES (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone of Northmen/Norse peoples can be considered a Viking, that's the point. It's like writing about Caribbean pirates, as if they were living as governor of Port Royal. Although they all lived in the Golden Age of Piracy.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We've been over this hundreds of times (see arhives) - yes in English "everyone of Northmen/Norse peoples can be considered a Viking", at least outside Scandinavia, over a certain period. And, yes, that includes women. And I oppose Krakkos's suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The article lede is very clear about the distinction between Viking, Norse and Scandinavian. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

In the article now: "Viking society was divided into the three socio-economic classes: Thralls, Karls and Jarls". Is it a Viking or a Scandinavian society? It seems to me that the Viking society was divided into such strata as a dreng, hold, foringi and sea-king (this is just one of the theories).--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the answer is, yes. You're question assumes an either/or, when both and neither are also possibilities. It's like asking, "Is the movie a Western or American?"

In fact, there are many analogies between Viking and Western culture. Both formed after a period of migration, and were sort of the last hold-outs of a way of life that, while once commonplace, was fading from existence. During the Migration Period, there were no countries called Sweden or Norway, but the roots of the concept were beginning to form. In the east, the production of iron and steel was beginning to produce an economic boom, as well as timber and copper production, while in the west things were still a bit out of touch with "modern" developments. It's during this time that people began sailing off for new lands I the hopes of finding better opportunities. Swedes more often headed east while the Norse more often than not went west.

It's after the Migration Period that you begin to see the formation of kingdoms and countries, and suddenly this idea of free migration is seen as invasions. It was around the beginning of the Viking Age that the local provinces in Scandinavia began to unite into what would eventually become a kingdom. It was also during this time that the Swedes began to become famous for their steel and iron, which was valued across Europe for its use in swords, knives and cutlery. (In fact, it even became a form of currency in the form of billets called "osmunds".) Business continued to boom over in Sweden due to it's special steel and it's capitalistic economy, until by the 17--19th century it was the world's largest producer of iron and steel. But as business boomed there, over in Norway people were still searching for their own riches and some were still clinging to that raid and invade way of life that had gone out of style everywhere else. The actual countries of Sweden and Norway didn't really begin to form until near the end of the Viking Age. Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@User:Nicoljaus The Thrall, Karl and Jarl strata is backed up by many sources and evidence. The titles you name, are just that: titles. Drenge just means "henchmen" for example. RhinoMind (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry guys, there’s absolutely no time for this discussion. I will try again to explain my point of view. The Vikings were a special society, which differed sharply from the usual society of Scandinavia at that time, although these Viking communities were formed for the most part of these Scandinavians. But the article prefers to talk about ordinary Scandinavian residents, rather than the Vikings themselves. Yes, I know about the broad interpretation of the term “Viking”, but, nevertheless, first of all “Viking” is a participant in a long sea voyage, partly a merchant, partly a warrior who is ready to fight and risk his life in remote lands. The Scandinavians, passing into this society, were torn off from their ordinary life.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, from you engaging in discussing it, it seems there is plenty of time. Anyway, some Vikings were veteran professionals who didn't do much else in their life than warring, guarding and soldiering. But they were very few. Most Vikings who went abroad on raids and to war were ordinary people. Common people were obliged to assist their kings in war or followed in promise of great loot or fertile lands. For some of them it was even a seasonal thing. Please read some of the literature on Vikings, there is plenty of solid literature suggestions in the article already. RhinoMind (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If it had been agreed hundreds of times that "everyone of Northmen/Norse peoples can be considered a Viking" then this article and Norsemen would have been merged by now. Scholars and dictionaries clearly distinguish between Vikings and the ethnic group to which they belonged:

• Alistair Campbell in Encyclopædia Britannica: "The term "Viking" is applied today to Scandinavians who left their homes intent on raiding or conquest, and their descendants, during a period extending roughly from a.d. 800 to 1050."[1]
• Allen Mawer in The Vikings: "The term 'Viking'... came to be used more especially of those warriors who left their homes in Scandinavia and made raids on the chief European countries. This is the narrow, and technically the only correct use of the term 'Viking,' but in such expressions as 'Viking civilisation,' 'the Viking age,' 'the Viking movement,' 'Viking influence,' the word has come to have a wider significance and is used as a concise and convenient term for describing the whole of the civilisation, activity and influence of the Scandinavian peoples, at a particular period in their history, and to apply the term 'Viking' in its narrower sense to these movements would be as misleading as to write an account of the age of Elizabeth and label it 'The Buccaneers."[2]
• Allen Mawer in The Cambridge Medieval History: The term Viking... is now commonly applied to those Norsemen, Danes and Swedes who harried Europe from the eighth to the eleventh centuries..."[3]
• Katherine Holman in Historical Dictionary of the Vikings: "Viking is not merely another way of referring to a medieval Scandinavian. Technically, the word has a more specific meaning, and it was used (only infrequently by contemporaries of the Vikings) to refer to those Scandinavians, usually men, who attacked their contemporaries..."[4]
• Jacqueline Simpson in The Viking World: "Strictly speaking, therefore, the term Viking should only be applied to men actually engaged in these violent pursuits, and not to every contemporary Scandinavian..."[5]
• Oxford Dictionaries: "Vikings: Any of the Scandinavian seafaring pirates and traders who raided and settled in many parts of NW Europe in the 8th–11th centuries..."[6]
• Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "Viking... Any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries."[7]
• COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary: "The Vikings were people who sailed from Scandinavia and attacked villages in most parts of north-western Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries."[8]
• Collins English Dictionary: "Viking... [A]ny of the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes who raided by sea most of N and W Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries, later often settling, as in parts of Britain."[9]
• Webster's New World Dictionary, 4th Edition: "Viking... [A]ny of the Scandinavian sea rovers and pirates who ravaged the coasts of Europe from the 8th to the 10th cent."[10]

The lead has already been adapted to these sources. It is about time that the body be adapted as well. As the culture section of this article deals with the culture of the Viking Age in general, and not just actual Vikings, the culture section should be moved to Viking Age, while a summary style description of Viking culture should remain here. This will leave room for this article to strengthen its focus on the actual topic, namely raiding, trading, exploration and fighting. Krakkos (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Alarichall, Ermenrich, Bloodofox, Hrodvarsson, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, SmokeyJoe, Dudley Miles and Agricolae, who have been involved in related discussions, per WP:APPNOTE. Krakkos (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the dictionary excerpts. Very true. It would be like American culture speaking about how Thanksgiving would be "Navy SEAL culture". In other other words, an absurd sentence. Yet, in fact, it would probably be more fitting to speak of American culture as Navy SEAL culture that to be speak of Norse culture as Viking culture, since the Navy SEALs arguably has s more official status among the American people than Vikings (or Norse people who "went Viking") had among Norse people.

A Navy SEAL hamburger, anyone? Ketchup is Navy SEAL culture. What large scyscrapers the Navy SEALs built in the Navy SEAL village of New York during the Navy SEAL Age! PPEMES (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Navy SEALs don't settle large parts of the world. They don't engage in slave trade and support American economy and society. Navy SEAL is ethnically diverse. As much as I can follow you on stating that "Viking" is an overused trope, not everything about Vikings can be waved aside as trope-stuff.

Also, Vikings were not professionals like Navy SEALS. Most Vikings were ordinary people, in the sense that warring and raiding was only occasional engagements. They would still need to make a living, supporting their families and service their home communities. Yes, they trained for war, yes they learned tactics, and so forth, but it was not the only thing in their life. RhinoMind (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In summary: They were Norse people. "Vikings", in the sense that you use it, is largely a 19th century romanticist concept. If only it stopped there. However people come around all the time wanting to apply that 19th concept as a misnomer for the Norse people during the late Iron Age. PPEMES (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

""Vikings", in the sense that you use it, is largely a 19th century romanticist concept." Whoa whoa, whoa, just wait a minute. The accusations and insinuations are getting pretty thick here.

First of, what do you even mean by ""Vikings", in the sense that you use it"?

Secondly, I have said or mentioned nothing that isn't backed up by substantial scholarly literature on this subject. You could try to read the book "The Vikings" by Else Roesdahl if you need relevant directions. It was originally published in 1976, but has been continuously updated with a 3rd edition coming out in 2018.

Would be nice if people commenting on this tried to read a serious book or two before exposing their ignorance. RhinoMind (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

On Viking armies: If anybody is interested in the make-up of Viking armies, an enlightening example can be found in the death of King Knud (Canute IV of Denmark). He was assembling an army for invading England, but the soldiers got fed up with him. Eventually the king fled, but was later killed by the angry Karls in a wooden church in Odense, Denmark. This is a remarkable story for many reasons, one of them being the specific information about the army make-up. Large armies of Vikings like this, was mostly known as leding and was conscription-based. Professional Viking warriors did also exist. The Hird were the personal soldiers and bodyguards of kings, individually referred to as Housecarls. Others sold their services to foreign lands, as the Varangian Guard. And a few were Jarls who were in constant Viking, often against the Franks in Frisia and what is now known as France (see Roric and Rollo fx). RhinoMind (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We could describe the Navy SEALs (of the American people) similarly. Still, when we talk about American culture, we don't strangely talk of "Navy SEAL culture". Why would we? Well, we shouldn't. And for the same reasons we ought not to say "vikings" when we talk about Norse people and Norse culture etc. So the question remains, why does anything about Norse people has to be referred as "Viking" (pirate)? The irony of this misuse becomes especially clear when many a Norse was opposed to vikings (=pirates).

That said, yes, I am aware that the critical inspection of this misnomer is a surprisingly recent issue in contemporary historiographical research. Thus you will find plenty of rather recent yet dated reproductions of this misuse, where Norse people as a whole are referred to as "vikings" (as if this would be some kind of appropriate synonym as ethnic demarker). PPEMES (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"... why does anything about Norse people has to be referred as "Viking" ... " Well, it doesn't. Who says that? The term Norse is not confined to the Viking Age period. You are just talking to yourself and some imaginary opponent. RhinoMind (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright. PPEMES (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

I was reading the article and by chance I happened to put my mouse over the "Baltic Sea" hyperlink, and the quick preview showed some really weird text: "The Baltic butt is a straight booty" (clearly not actual text from the article when you click on it). I don't know if this is an easter egg or a meme I didn't know of but I thought it was worth commenting on if it had slipped everyone's sight. I never edited anything on Wikipedia so I'm sorry if I'm making a mistake with the request. Even weirder, I sent a screenshot to my girlfriend and she didn't get the same Quick Preview, she got the right "glance" at the article, I'm using Mozilla on a Mac PC, she was using Chrome on a Windows PC. I tried it on Chrome and I still got the same "booty" preview. I don't know what else could be causing the difference.

FedeFigini (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

​This was the result of vandalism to the article Baltic Sea which was reverted quickly. Those quick preview things sometimes lag behind though in updating their cache – Thjarkur (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much! --FedeFigini (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Norsemen

The article starts "Vikings were Norsemen". Historians of Anglo-Saxon England generally use the term Norse differently, distinguishing between Norse (Norwegian) Vikings and Danish Vikings. To avoid confusion, I suggest changing the start to "Vikings were Scandinavians". Dudley Miles (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The term Norsemen is ambiguous, and Scandinavian is by far the most common term for the Old Norse-speaking peoples in English-language scholarship. See also Talk:Norsemen#The common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of Viking Age. Krakkos (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia strive to not link to article subjects with other names for no good reasons. If you insist on your arguments, please consider presenting them in a formal article rename request on Talk:Norsemen. Until, per WP:NOPIPE, we will have to contend with the stable article name also in references to it. PPEMES (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been extensively discussed. See Talk:Norsemen#The common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of Viking Age. I successfully proposed a move from Norse to Viking at Template talk:Viking activity in the British Isles#Requested move 25 November 2019. It would make no sense to propose a move of Norsemen. That article already discusses the different uses of the term and there is no suitable alternative title. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Oh. Thanks for the information. This is news to me. This misconception of conflating Norse with Viking seems to have gone berserk on the articles topic. I don't really know where to start. I will see if there is anything I can do to help. PPEMES (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it frankly - all the possible terms have problems, and mean different things to different people, and changes have to be made very carefully, with a good deal of understanding of the issues. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles:, @Johnbod: I have address the issue at Talk:Norsemen#The_common_name_for_the_Old_Norse-speaking_peoples_of_Viking_Age. PPEMES (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You know, this whole discussion is about semantics, right? This all seems to me like some kind of attempt to "fix" the English language, because we're no longer using the words "correctly". We can't do that. And I don't mean that we shouldn't, but that it is not even close to being within our power. Language (all languages) change over time, and we simply have to use them as they are. "Gear" no longer means "habits and mannerisms", "deer" no longer refers to any wild animal, and "hund" no longer refers to all breeds of dog ... and "dog" didn't exist at all. Today, "pirates" are people who commandeer ships at sea, copy and sell copyrighted music and movies, or steal cable TV, and "Vikings" are not only raiders and pillagers, but also settlers who migrated from Scandinavia (oftentimes both, as settling a land often meant driving out or killing those who were already living there). For more info on the specific Viking settlements (several thousand in Britain alone) and how those had a huge effect on the language, I'd suggest A History of the English Language by Elly van Gelderen.

The language changes as it may, usually in illogical and often unpredictable ways. No dictionary or encyclopedia has ever been able to control, influence, or stop that change. If they could, we'd still be speaking Old English today. Society as a whole determines that change, and nothing is ever going to stop it. Encyclopedias and dictionaries just have to try and keep up. It's no different from people at alloy wheel or alloy steel trying to rename the article "because steel is an alloy too". Steel wasn't scientifically considered an alloy until about 100 years ago, and it took about 50 years after that for the general public to catch up. The language may never catch up. More likely it will evolve unpredictably as it always has, and we'll just have to deal with that when the time comes. We're not here to right the great wrongs. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The arguments that you present could just as well be used against your standpoint. And there are plenty of sources, old and new, that oppose your interpretation. Furthermore, coincidently, the "huge effect on the language" that you mention was not "Viking language", but Old Norse. Hint, anyone? PPEMES (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Variations. Take the word "weld", for example. This word comes from the Old Swedish word valla. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's volley right back on that ball. "Valla" comes from Old Norse vǫllʀ (equivalent to "field", "pasture"). Hence... Norse. PPEMES (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

Gaudi9223 has just made a long series of edits without any edit summaries, some of which involve major changes to existing content. Can he/she perhaps explain the rationale behind these edits, and can someone verify them, particularly where content has been removed?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I corrected grammatical errors (of which there were many) as well as included better pictures describing the viking voyages as the ones previously used were outdated. I also included a better description with more sources for the Runestones and other minor tweaks. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gaudi9223: One of the new references is to Zilmer, but there isn't enough information for readers to track down the source. Please could it be added to the bibliography? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a similar problem with the next two references, by any chance has the text been copied from another Wikipedia article? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gaudi9223: Do you have the missing bibliographic details? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Swedish

please change ((Swedish)) to ((Sweden|Swedish)) 2601:541:4500:1760:7D1C:1475:DECB:B077 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Question: I'm assuming this is a wikilink change. There are multiple "Swedish" words. Please specify the "Swedish" you want this changed to by describing what it's in between. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

i like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.166.229 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Viking Dating

Scandinavian men and women have among the highest life expectancy in the world and fertility rates among European countries second only to Ireland. Although Scandinavia has an aging population, it has no shortage of young adults starting families. Scandinavian men and women have developed dating practices that are outwardly progressive while remaining humble in spirit. With a recent influx of asylum seeking immigrants that has altered the homogeneity somewhat, Modern day Viking men and women are open to outsiders in the dating world, as long as they are not subject to archaic traditions and values. Class stratification is rare in Scandinavian social interaction and the culture instills the notion that mates should be chosen based on compatibility and with goals of equal partnership. While marriage remains popular, Scandinavia has seen cultural acceptance of unmarried cohabitation and alternative lifestyles. Scandinavian singles are demographically well-educated, humble and egalitarian in their beliefs. According to Statistics, 70 percent of Scandinavians use the Internet daily. They enjoy the resources that the modern world of dating provides, including Internet matching sites, singles clubs and nightlife in cities such as Stockholm, Copenhagen, Reykjavik, Helsinki and Oslo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingnomads (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Hi my name is professor Johanneson and I believe that a lot of the information is highly incorrect. Professor Johanneson (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Oseberg ship head post.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vikings Arkeologisk museum Stavanger, Norway 2015-05-27.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horten havn Karljohansvern Norwegian Navy fleet 1902 ship models harbour diorama. Eidsvold og Tordenskiold panserskip, Æger kanonbåt 2. kl., Kong Sverre losjiskip, Viking KB1. Armed Forces Museum (Forsvarsmuseet) Oslo 202.jpg|nomination page]]. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

In the introduction, please remove "modern Skandinavian descendants" and add "modern Scandinavian descendants" in its place. 64.203.187.108 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@64.203.187.108:,  Done (although its an error what is written there, but at least now with correct spelling, so thanks. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nature-article

Vikings weren't necessarily blond. Or Scandinavian.. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That article must refer to Norse people, not pirates. Pirates can have any type of hair color. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Adam von Bremen is wrongly cited

Adam von Bremen is wrongly cited in the article, which claims he said vikings were Scandinvian, which is not true; this the original text: Aurum ibi plurimum, quod raptu congeritur piratico. Ipsi enim piratae, quos illi Wichingos as appellant, nostri Ascomannos regi Danico tributum solvunt. What he says, ist that the local people, most probably Norse people living close to the vikings, call those pirates vikings, while we call them askomen. The present text is not true, its desinformation. In reality, we dont have a clue of the origin of the vikings Adam writes about. Adam also adds, with surprice, that the viking paid tax to the danish king. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, where are you getting your translation, because that's not what he says. The full quote in context is: "Ab ortu quidem respicit promontorium Sconiae, vbi est ciuitas Lundona. Aurum ibi plurimum, quod raptu congeritur piratico. Ipsi enim piratae, quos illi Wichingos as appellant, nostri Ascomannos, regi Danico tributum solvunt, vt liceat eis praedam exercere a Barbaris, qui circa hoc mare plurimi abundant."

My Latin is a bit rusty, but literally translated that reads: "Sconia promontory rising from the sea, where is the city of London. The gold is there for the most part, against the pirates, that rape that take the spoil. For they themselves show of the pirates, who they thought were Wicing as they call it, and our men Ascomannos, the Danish king paying tribute, so that it is lawful for them to prey upon the Barbarians, those who behave thus in great abundance in the sea."

More directly translated, what he says is that following a course along the Sconian peninsula lies the city of London where there is much gold guarded against the pirates, who they (Londoners) call Viking, and our men call Askomen. The Danish king paying mercenaries to hunt the Vikings." Now my Latin may be a bit rusty, but if nothing else I am fairly certain that the "locals" he's referring to are the English. Zaereth (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

My Latin is even worse, but I do own a translation into Swedish. "Lundona" is Lund, not London. The quote above is a bit misleading since the sentence beginning "Aurum" marks a new chapter. "There" refers to Zealand (Sjælland), which Adam is in the process of describing;Scania and Lund are just places right next to it. The translation I have says that the gold is gathered through piracy, and it clearly says that the pirates are locally called vikings, and that they are countrymen with the Danes. It does not make it clear whether "vikings" is a general word for "pirate", or just the word used for these specific pirates and no one else, or something in between.

Andejons (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing about Latin that makes it so difficult to translate accurately unless you speak it fluently. Syntax means very little in Latin, far from how important it is in determining the meaning of a word in Swedish or English. You can't just go to a Latin/English dictionary and look it up. Latin relies on a huge variety of prefixes and suffixes to do the job of things like articles and prepositions in English (which is more Scandinavian than anything else, even closer to Swedish than English is to French). To make things more complicated, any word can often have a slew of meanings depending on context. Latin relies very highly on context to determine the meaning of a word; much more than syntax.

For example, Libralces could easily translate as "book moose" or "free moose", but when put into context the only definition that makes sense is "source moose", meaning the earliest known species.

I don't see where in the original Latin it says anything about locals. I'm pretty sure Collect speaks Latin fluently. Perhaps he could chime in a give us his version, out of talk page curiosity, but I think this is all a very good example of why we Wikipedians shouldn't be translating this stuff ourselves, and then drawing our own conclusions from it. That should all come from reliable sources, and conclusions attributed to those sources. Zaereth (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Just to be clear: the part about "countrymen" comes in the sentence following the quote above. And it all comes from Adam's book 4, chapters 5 and 6.

Andejons (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and that missing context makes a huge difference. For example, if I were to literally translate the first clause of the above, "ab ortu quidem respicit promontorium Sconiae", I get "from rising indeed respect promontory Sconia" (or more technically the plural "Sconii"). But then again, when you put "ab ortu" together like that, it often means "east" (where the sun rises). In this context, however, that wouldn't make sense. In this context, respicit (respect), which I took a bit of liberty in translating as "the sea", more accurately translates as "the course", as in the direction of a ship's travel. So instead of just translating it we have to also interpret it, and that's where it becomes very tricky, because while syntax can be summed up with a bunch of rules you can put in a book about grammar, context is far more subjective.

I checked around the net, which is where I found that quote, but haven't found any reliably sourced translations into English. So, until we do, I think it's best that we don't do it ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So why does the text claim the term generally referred to Scandinavian pirates or raiders when this is not what Adam wrote? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't write it, so I'm assuming it came from a reliable source. Have you tried checking the sources following that info? (It may not necessarily be at the end of the sentence; perhaps at the end of the paragraph or section.) I haven't yet dug that deep, but that's where I'd begin. Without a reliable translation into English, in the full context, I'm not 100% sure who he's referring to, which was my point.

For example, "tributum solvunt", used with a neutral suffix like that, seems quite clear to me not to be referring to taxes paid to the King, in this context, but I would be more inclined to translate that as the King paying "hard cash" or "coins", or more loosely, a "bounty". But that all depends on the rest of the context. I would much rather see this come from a reliable source.

My advice is, check out the sources and see what they say. If it is not in there anywhere, then you have some good grounds for removing it or correcting it. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from this page with the latin text of Adam's Gesta, he only uses "wichingos" (or any word containing "wich" or "vich" except for "Sleswich") in the one passage we discussed above, so the construction with "generally" is probably wrong. Whether one can use the passage to say that Adam can support a claim that "wichingos" were used for Scandinavian pirates in general is another matter.

(Also, Scania is to the east of Zeeland; so that seems like the correct interpretation to me).

Andejons (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, I can see where at first glance "east" might seem to be the better term, but that doesn't really make sense within the context of the sentence. What we have is, if I translate that as literally as possible, "Rising from indeed the course is the tall mountain jutting out into the water called the Sconii." If I replace "rising from" with "east", then I'm left with the adverb "quidem" (indeed, certainly, at least, etc.) describing another adverb, ab ortu (east). In the sentence, it makes more sense to use it as a verb (rising), then the adverb makes more sense in describing it. Do you see what I mean? Then, since what we're talking about here is basically one of the mountains surrounding a fjord, it also makes more sense to use it as "rising from". I read that as giving a direction, as if saying, "follow a course in the direction that this mountain points..., or rather, "begin a course with respect to this mountain..."

But, like I said, I'm not fluent in Latin, and the previous sentences (which I don't have access to) may make a huge difference in how this one should be read. In Latin, it's all about context.

My knowledge of Latin comes mostly from, believe it or not, the study of the English language. I'm fascinated by the etymology and the history of the language, which is really a hodge-podge mixture of about 6 different languages. Everybody wanted a piece of England, so if you can read English then parsing through Swedish, French, German, and Latin is not really that difficult. If you really want to understand a people, first learn their language to understand how their minds worked, then understand their religion to know their hearts.

What's interesting to me is that the word "Viking" as used in English is often attributed to the word "wic", which is defined as "an encampment" or "a place", but the real meaning of this word is a lot more subtle than that. More often as it's used it means something more of a "gathering place" or "a coven". When used in the form "wicca", it means "witch", which at the time was a term used for anyone who were still worshiping pagan gods, usually Celtic gods like Cernunnos, which eventually became the Catholic-English vision of "the devil". But, regardless of whether or not one has anything to do with the other, the history of the word makes no difference upon how it is used in the English language today. Language constantly changes, and it is what it is, so we just have to work within those constraints, and go with what the sources say on the matter. Zaereth (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I did a lot more digging, and found a copy of the book. It's still in Latin, but I was right, in context that is giving a direction. It's just a fragment of the full sentence, But, basically this entire paragraph (or chapter) is describing the isle of Zealand in some detail, including size and location. It talks about the "straight of the Norsmen", and "Promontorium Sconiae", in this context, I'm pretty sure is referring to all of Scandinavia, rather than the state of Sconia, which is mentioned earlier in the paragraph with that exact spelling. And it is giving a direction to Lund as it relates to Zealand.

The next chapter, I believe, relates to the last chapter (paragraph) via context, which is how the full manuscript is laid out. That chapter starts out, "The gold is there for the most part...", but it's unclear to me whether "there" refers to Zealand or Lund. The king pays cash, giving license for them to prey upon the barbarians, who misuse that license and rape and sell the women while beheading the men without beating them, yada yada yada.

In historical writings, I can only find the term "Wichingos" used in one place, which is this very book. In this part of the world, and including England at that time, the word "wich" or "wic" were often used as a suffix for places and even townships of a very specific nature; meaning a "place where a craft occurs". Now "craft" in this context would typically refer to manufacture, such as refined metals like iron, weapons, ship building, textiles, etc., thus you see this as a suffix on the names of many townships. The term "Ascommanos" or "Askomen" I only found in a few places, which apparently translates as "men of the ash-built boats" (yes, that etymology came from a reliable source), but nothing that says really where they came from in specific.

Of course, all of this is merely to satisfy my own talk-page curiosity. Some reliable source needs to look at all the evidence and put all the pieces together, and give they're theory of where this word actually came from, so don't quote me on any of this. My main point when I started out is that with Latin, you really, really need that context to know what it's saying, so it was helpful to see that context. Latin is one of those languages where it's so easy to take things out of context and give it a different meaning. Zaereth (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The danish historican John H Lind delivers following translation: «These pirates, whom they call wichingi and we call Ascomanni, pay tribute to the Danish king in order to be allowedto plunder those barbarians who live in great numbers around this sea»

In one of more recent documents he starts with the introduction:

The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys* encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know about this interpretation. The term "Viking" as far as I can tell never appears in any Anglo-Saxon chronicals, and aside from the one use of the term "Wichingos" in Bremmen's book, I haven't found it in any Scandinavian or German works either.

I just finished reading many of the writings of King Alfred, in the original Old English. Alfred was very aware of the geography and the peoples of the world at his time. He writes of the Norsemen from Norway, and describes the land in great detail. The Swedes, the Finns, the Estonians, the Danes, the Saxons, the Angles, the Thuringians, the Jutes, and so on. The Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Latins, the Franks, the Palestinians, the Jews, the Ethiopians, the Persians, the Indians, and even the Chinese. He was aware of them all. People of this era were not as stupid as we, in our modern hubris, give them credit for.

In Alfred's time, he referred to, what we today call the Vikings in English, as either Northmen (Norsemen) or Danes. He was well aware of who these people were, and where they came from. In fact, most of his info about northern Europe came from a wealthy Norseman he called Ohthere (Norse: O'ttar the Dreadful), whom he greatly respected, for the man hated to tell Alfred of anything he had not seen with his own eyes. This man lived far north of all Northmen, and is credited by Alfred as being the first to keep domesticated deer, which they called "rein-deer".

Now the Northmen, as Alfred called them, were invaders from "Norway" (as Alfred called it). There is really no question of that. The Danes, on the other hand, we, today, typically assume were from Denmark. But the monk Asser, around the 8th century, gives a very different account of the Danes. Asser wrote a book about King Alfred, from which most of the info about the man himself comes.

According to Asser, the Danes were not from Denmark, per se, but were people who lived their entire lives at sea (presumably the "sea" around Denmark, Zealand, or surrounding areas). "Sea-kings", as he called them. These people were pirates (in the sense that they, more often than not, would attack and rob ships at sea) who only came ashore to plunder and pillage, but otherwise would spend their entire lives out at sea, or taking refuge in some harbor or fjord if the weather was really bad. They were basically a people without a country, or rather, their country was the sea. Asser said the Danes actually lived very much the way the Angles did 200 years prior. According to Asser, these Danes were both feared by the Scandinavians but were also romanticized, and Scandinavian nobles would often keep their first-born sons at home to rule the land but send their other sons to live with the Danes, to learn the art of fighting, seamanship, and pillaging (often at a very young age; about 12 or so). This description very much fits with Bremmen's description of the Wichingos or Ascommanos.

However you slice it, the term "Viking" is of fairly recent origin, in English at least, and the way the term is used today has little bearing on how it was used back then (if it was ever used back then). That's just the nature of language, and we have to work within the constraints of the language as it is used today. Zaereth (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is why I've always pictured the Vikings (in my own mind) as being likened to the 5th century version of the cowboys and gunslingers of the Old West (except the Old West in this case was the Old North), who were romanticized in the US back then and even to this day. It was a way of life that was once commonplace across northern Europe, but was going out of style as lands became countries and countries became nations. That was really the big cultural change going on at that time. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Víking not conjugated properly

I want to edit the sentence: "fara í víking" to: "fara í víkingu". The first one is correct, but it is masculine and the page mentions the feminine (víking) just before. I know it may be confusing that víking at the nominative is feminine, but if at the accusative, it's masculine, but it's how icelandic grammar works.

here two links to a dictionnary, only in icelandic though. masculine: feminine:

I know it is not exactly like old icelandic (where vikingur would be vikingr for example) but I reckon it's enough. Samuelzila (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

References

​The inflection pattern in question does not exist in modern Icelandic which is why it's not listed in your source. See these sources [11][12] verifying it as a feminine noun. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The runic inscriptions referred to have "i vikingu" so that is the correct form.--Berig (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Both exist, with certain sources giving "í víking(u)", but "í víking" is considerably more common in Old Icelandic sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--Berig (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Fara í víking (accusative); vera í víkingu (dative). Haukur (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Haukur! I have reverted my "grammar correction".--Berig (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sicily??

I removed mention of Sicily from intro. The Normans were not Vikings. --— Erik Jr. 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/ztyr9j6 go to this website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.43.185.67 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Intermixing with the slavs.

I think this part of the article is rather poor and justified only with the finding of an axe. Scandinavian languages of today show no nut few indogermanic relations. This axe could be part of a battle with slavic people in the baltic area. I think this article should rather consider the relationship between Vikings and the Rus of the Kiew area. To me that sounds like an unscientific, nationalist claim from Poland. The term viking has been abused far too long by nationalists in Europe.

2003:DD:4F0F:6400:34B7:9761:B8E9:AC32 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The section on the slavs is well referenced and does not appear to me to make excessive claims, but I agree that the article is very inadequate on the Rus. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree.--Berig (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not that again ....

Hi, sorry, yes, that again. Just asking: How would it sit with Wikipedians if, in the lede, the sentence "and the term 'Viking' also commonly includes the inhabitants of the Norse homelands", were expanded to read: "and /outside Scandinavia/ the term 'Viking' also commonly includes the inhabitants of the Norse homelands"? Kind of like American =/= cowboy. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That would seem self-evident, since this is the English Wikipedia. What we have here is one of those conundrums where we have to define a thing, because encyclopedias are about defining things, not words. (Dictionaries are about words.) So, we have to define this thing, but we have to do it using words, and not only that, we have to use common words that most anyone above grade 6 in school can understand. Therefore, we are limited by the constraints those words provide us. In modern English, the term "Viking" has a very specific meaning which may differ from the meaning of the word in other languages, even Scandinavian languages. In the literal sense, we use the word in a very English way, to refer to the raiders and invaders that attacked England back in the day. "Northmen" and "Danes" as King Alfred called them ... but mostly Northmen (Norsemen). In a non-literal sense (yes, it is possible to use a word figuratively), it is sometimes used to describe all Norwegians. Sort of like calling anyone from California "Hollywood", I know, but it does happen --even by Norwegians. (For example, the Sons of Norway Lodge right here in Anchorage call their banquet hall "Viking Hall".) In reality, there likely far more Viking blood running through English and Icelandic veins than there is in Norwegian.

The word must not have the same bad connotations in English as it does in Scandinavian languages. But then again, most English people are descended from those merry band of raiders to one degree or another. I'm proud to be a descendant of the Vikings (the true Vikings). There has always been a sort of nostalgic tie to those old Viking roots for the English and their offspring nations. Hell, we even named not one, but two of our football teams after them. (And you know what, I don't find it offensive to my heritage at all. Quite the opposite, kind of an honor I'd say.) I think people have to remember that this is the modern, English Wikipedia, and we have to define this as it is understood in English. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth:, "Vikings" does not really have bad connotations for Scandinavians in general. At least not in my experience.--Berig (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I might add, if it helps clear up any confusion, is that when people from Scandinavia come here complaining, us native-English speakers often find it baffling. With all the good and bad, it's all part of the learning and growing that we had to do as a society to get us from Roman times to what we have become today. This is all as much a part of English/British heritage as French, German, Roman, and the almost non-existent Briton. Even more so, considering over 50% of the most common English words spoken everyday are from Scandinavia. That's why this article is so huge. This is a huge part of where the English/British/Americans/etc... came from. Zaereth (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to refer to Scandinavian homelands rather than Norse ones. Historians of Anglo-Saxon England often use Norse to mean Norwegian, distinguishing between Norse and Danish Vikings. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Besides "Varangian" and "Rus", "Norse" is the word usually used for the Scandinavians who travelled and settled in Eastern Europe. I doubt there is a consensus that they were mainly Norwegian.--Berig (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That confirms my point, which is that Norse is a term used in different senses by different people. 'Scandinavian' is better in most contexts as it has a generally agreed meaning. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In King Alfred's time, these Scandinavian lands were already divided into what would become the countries we know today. Sweden, Lapland, Norway, etc... Alfred describes them all in great detail, and in fact, Alfred spends nearly two pages just describing Norway; that thin slice of land between the mountains and the sea. He spends these and several more pages solely dedicated to things described to him by a wealthy Norwegian named Ohthere; a man Alfred greatly respected. He called the Sewdish "Swedes", but the people from Norway weren't called Norwegians back then. The term used for Norwegians was Norþsmen (Nordsmen). The "th" sound didn't enter English until mid way through Middle English, and by then "Nordsmen " has become "Norsemen". When Alfred uses this term, there is not much room for doubt which Scandinavians he was referring to. Of course, that was then. The term Viking has since come to cover both Nords and Danes, and eventually to all Scandinavian raiders and migrates, except the Finns (whom Alfred was also very familiar with). The term "Norse" by itself has always been used more in the possessive, referring more to the language, customs, lands, weapons, and mannerisms, etc., more so than the people themselves. (And weapons are another thing the Vikings were known for. Because of the high manganese content in bog iron-ores, Swedish steel was some of the highest quality steel produced in pre-industrial Europe. Swedish steel was valued for making knives, swords, weapons and tools since pre-Migration Period times until 1760, when Huntsman developed his crucible steel. In fact, it was so valued that it was used as a form of currency across Europe. In medieval England, for example, because the characteristic rounded billets, called "osmunds" had a precise weight, they were directly convertible into English pounds (eg: dollars). That, and with all the timber and other resources, Sweden was sitting on a gold mine over on their side...) Zaereth (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys, thx for all the response. My suggestions is an attempt to address the issue of Norse/Norsemen vs. Vikings. Such labels invariably come from some field: Scandinavia is geographical/political; Norse refers to the Scan population/culture at a certain period in history; Denmark, Norway and Sweden are even closer tied to history/politics; Viking is also a term from history (/also as in "histories", i.e. literature). Furthermore, it's job description (but not an ethnonym). It's not an issue whether or not they were good or bad; that depends, as always, on which side of the sword you were.

So, when the "nice" historians write that the vikings were also farmers etc., that's wrong; the Norse were (mainly) farmers, the vikings were robbers. Of course any single man could pursue now this, now that occupation, bur rarely at the same time. ... well, you know what I mean. The point is that for non-Scandinavians, simply equating vikings and norsemen might be a useful shorthand, while in Scandinavia this is not all that customary, for a variety of reasons. And that difference was what my suggested edit was meant to reflect. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the Scandinavian take. English language usage is (still) different. See the archives at vast length. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thx, yes, and this is kind of my point. My edit would simply make this fact explicit. I don't see the harm in it. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any specific problem with it, per say. It just kinda seems self-evident to a native English-speaker, and readers often find it condescending when you tell them the perfectly obvious. Perhaps it might be useful to make that distinction so that we don't get so many complaints from Scandinavians who come here, although the reason for these complaints still baffles me to this day. When I visit things like Swedish or Norwegian tourist bureaus, museums, historical or even government sites, I find the word being used there much the same way as it is in English, as in, people seem proud of their connection to them. So, why is this not a case of the usual small number of complainers versus a big problem that needs addressing? That's what I don't understand. Why is it necessary? Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it might be self-evident for the native English speaker; however, I suspect that a lot more people use the English Wikipedia than only the native speakers. However, unless you think that EN Wiki is for native speakers only, that question is beside the point.

A more relevant question might be whether it is perfectly obvious to everyone out there that there is a distinction between "Norse/Norsemen" and "Vikings". The discussion about this distinction, btw, is not of my making, it is debated in several article talk pages, including, IIRC, the ones for this article, and the fact of anyone engaging in it being from Brazil or not has no bearing on the issue. AFAICS, most writers agree that there is a difference, the discussion is how much this needs to be emphasized. However, even if they were identical, an explication of the reason for having two names and what their meaning is might be elucidating; for details, pls consult "Über Sinn und Bedeutung" by Gottlob Frege.

The proposed edit is of course not _necessary_ - no more (and no less) than any other edit, really - but in my POV it is clarifying e.g. when orienting oneself on issues in Medieval Historiography (like "How much background in Scandinavian history does an article on Vikings need?"), the sources on which may vary from country to country, and as such the edit is an improvement, albeit a minuscule one. Of course I don't expect any massive enthusiasm and calls for edithons to achieve it, I'm just asking if anyone sees any harm in it; as one is supposed to, I have been led to believe, by various Wikipedia policies. Anyway, I see no harm in it. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither do I, but give it enough time and every single article will have someone complaining about the name.--Berig (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

:: I would like to point out that I intended an improvement, conceived it as an edit, and presented it as a question. There is no complaint here, and certainly not one about the article name. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want my theory, a fairly significant number of people who were parented more by computers and TV than real, human contact are now entering or approaching adulthood, having various personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder (BPD), to name but one. These more often than not stem from abandonment issues or other such problems very, very early in the developmental years. One of the classic symptoms of such problems are difficulties in developing normal relationships or the inability to take criticism of any form; good or bad; real or perceived. Combine that with the evils of political correctness, and this is what you get. People want to whitewash the past and eliminate any references to the bad things that happened. Here in the US, for example, a small number of people have complained that having a Native American as a Mascot for a football team is offensive. Ironically, these people are, more often than not, not even Native American! I grew up around far more Natives than white people, and all of my Native friends were not offended in the slightest. In fact, they saw it as a way of honoring Natives. (I mean, why should only white peoples be able to be mascots?) Whether something is offensive or not ultimately depends on how you feel about yourself. As Bruce Lee would say, 'All knowledge is really self-knowledge, therefore, all offense is self-offense'. People really need to get over themselves and stop trying to rewrite history. It has been done a million times in the past. Next comes the book burning, and we all know what happens after the books are burned. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't seem to find the original posting this is supposed to be a reply to. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion should be settled now. During the Viking Age, the Vikings were the main expression of North Germanic culture outside of Scandinavia, and they are the main expression of that culture in the historiography of, and about, the era. As for the term being "contentious" I disagree. Certain individuals may take offense (and that is true for anything), but they are not representative. Scandinavians occasionally refer to themselves informally as Vikings, and in my experience there are never any negative connotations when they do it. I would say it is rather used in positive ways, as in the well-known expression "one is a viking!"[13][14].--Berig (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In English, I've never known the term to have negative connotations. Rather the opposite, kinda bad-ass (which also is often considered a good thing, despite the name). The Vikings were renowned for being highly skilled warriors and very formidable opponents, yet often very joyful, even in battle. That would be like the Japanese being ashamed of Samurais. (And I know, not all Japanese people are Samurais.) You can't judge people of the past by the standards of the present, nor should we try to whitewash history to make ourselves feel better. The world was a very different place back then. This was a time when the Migration Period was coming to an end and the Middle Ages were beginning, but that didn't all happen overnight and this is a case where there is considerable overlap between the two. But if this is considered a bad thing to call someone in Scandinavia, that's not the fault of the English speaking world. Sounds like personal demons to me. We use the term differently, that's all. It's more often used in a good way in English, because it is a big part of our past. And they were kinda bad ass. Zaereth (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I repeat @Zaereth:, It is not a negative word in Scandinavia. In fact, it is comparable to calling a Japanese, a samurai.--Berig (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe you, and in fact was agreeing. (Perhaps my sarcasms failed to come across.) I've known many people from Scandinavia. No matter where you go, there are always people who will look hard for reasons to be offended. The question is, what are they really offended by? Zaereth (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we are in complete agreement :-).--Berig (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

All three of us, actually  :) T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To the IP, I'll just call you 84.208 if you don't mind. I'm going to reply down here, because all of the interstitial comments above can become quite a headache for others to read through, no offense intended. In case you're new, the common practice is to use indentations to help indicate who your replying to, but to put comments mostly at the bottom of a thread (there is more than one "thread" going on here, and now I'm starting a new one. It just helps people reading tthis to keep some semblance of a chronological order.

I can see you're not the usual unreasonable type that we often get here, but your own heading "Not that again...." was right on the money. This sort of thing has been discussed to death, and the archives are full of them. I didn't mean anything against you personally. It's just that it does get tiring.

Now that may have nothing to do with you specifically, as you did indeed come here with a specific problem and a specific solution, which I thank you for. If I may clarify my initial reply (before this all bloomed into tangents), what I mean is that your addition is simply redundant. No offense intended there, but the sentence begins, "In the countries they raided and settled..." That already says "outside Scandinavia", does it not? That's what I meant. I hope that helps, and I do thank you for trying to make a useful addition. I hope we didn't seem to hard on you personally. It just already says that, that's all. Zaereth (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth, yes, spot on, I missed that, thx for pointing it out. Mission (was already) accomplished, I rest my case, over and out, etc.. A nice wiki experience. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Article reflecting myths, not prime sources, or or modern scholars view

Its interesting to read about individual persons opinions, but they remain that, nothing less, and nothing more, and John H Lind writes in one of his late articles «Vikings» and the Viking Age:

The term ”Viking” appears in Anglo-Saxon or Norse sources in the so-called Viking Age. Here it simply denotes pirates, no more, no less. It had no geographic or ethnic connotations that linked it to Scandinavia or Scandinavians. By contrast, in these sources we find it used anywhere about anyone who to an Anglo-Saxon or a Scandiniavian appeared as a pirate. Therefore we find it used about Israelites crossing the Red Sea; Muslims in Galleys (in fact the only type of ship that based on a contemporary source may be labeled a “Viking ship”) encountering Norwegian crusaders in the Mediterranean; Caucasian pirates encountering the famous Swedish Ingvar-Expedition, and Estonian and Baltic pirates attacking Scandinavians in the Baltic Sea. Thus the term was never used to denote Scandinavians as such. Therefore, if we wish to maintain Viking-Age studies on a scholarly level, we must stop acting as an appendix to the tourist industry by using the term Viking as if it was synonymous with Scandinavian and Scandinavians.

As long as the article continue to look like it does, it will more reflects laymens populistic myths, rather than true knowledge.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WHY:

• is the article mentioning a lot of Scandinavians, who were not vikings and never mentioned as vikings in the prime sources, as well as a lot of general Scandinavian content that belong in the article Northmen, and instead not mentioning true vikings, mentioned exactly as vikings in the primes sources, like:
• The sons uf Ruben in Israel
• King Philipp II of Macedonia
• Ârabic pirates at the Balears, mentioned in prime sources as vikings, who attacked a fleet of Sigurd Jorsalafarer, and where the Norwegians, contrary to the arabs, are never mentioned as vikings?
• Caucasian pirates who in the sources are exactly mentioned as vikings, when they attack exploring Scandinavians, who are never in those sources mentioned as Vikings?
• baltic pirates, mentioned in prime sources as vikings, who attacked a fleet of Scandinavians, who never was mentioned as Vikings?

Is ONE, single person that this article describe, ever in the prime sources mentioned as a viking? I doubt...

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess the Northmen had the same fate as the Iroquis and Seminoles and Apache, who, although their stay in South Asia must be millennia ago (if ever), ended up as "Indians". In our case, I suspect that the problem is the solution: precisely in the division between function and origin. There is an actual "Age of Pirates", too, although they were Spanish, French, English, Dutch ... So, 793 to 1066 we have an earlier Age of Pirates, with pirates - and mainly "privateers" :) - from various countries, but who made their mark on history _as_ pirates, and were known _as_ pirates by their own name for pirates: Vikings.

According to even John Lind, the oldest sources for the word is from Scandinavian runestones, where it was applied by the vi ... various people of the time to e.g. kinsmen traveling. So at one time it was used by Scandinavians about themselves. In the Icelandic sources it had come to mean "fighter" (warrior + troublemaker), and in late medieval times "pirate". The use you are presenting seems to be from that last period. Apart from Viking figurines with horned helmets, I don't see the tourism industry as such a large culprit - Hollywood is much worse - and also not of consequence to the issues, unless you want to educate the world population to this distinction. As explained in the article cited below, now "viking" is a modern age convenient shorthand: https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-word-viking-really-mean-75647 . The famous "actual meaning" is unimportant, it is the meaning for the users which counts. John Lind says the same thing. Makes sense to me.

As a matter of interest, what do you suggest would be a better name than "Viking" and "Viking Age"? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess it is not quite clear if the viking activity or profession (víking) got its name from ethnic group (Scandinavians) or certain area (Viken) or the other way around. The Norwegian Wikipedia article focuses on viking as an activity (pirate/trader/warrior) and notes that the wider ethnic meaning emerged during the nationalistic period in the 19th century. — Erik Jr. 19:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Genetics and History

Does anyone mind editing this passage: "While spreading Norse culture to foreign lands, they simultaneously brought home slaves, concubines and foreign cultural influences to Scandinavia, profoundly influencing the genetic[14] and historical development of both."

This implies "genetic development" is a thing, which is usually a racist dogwhistle. In regards to the historical part, the term "development" is a bit loaded as well. I think the intention is better expressed as the following: "profoundly influencing the genetic diversity[14] and history of both."

I would do it myself, but I forget the details of my Wikipedia account from years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.224.54 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, fwiw, I agree. There seems to be a timeline here: there was an event (immigration and import), and this event was causative, resulting in changes that altered the course of history. While the source covers the occurrence of an event, the causative nature and the results of it qua causative seems a tad speculative. To speculate along, I'd say cultural imports changed the course of history more than the genetic makeup. So I would edit the genetics information, but also rewrite " .. profound..." to " ... possibly ...", or perhaps even better, give examples. But let's await more comments. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how "genetic development" is racist, but it does not seem right; "genetic composition" would be more accurate, but not needed as the comments about Viking settlements cover the point. I would just leave out "genetic and". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, well, genetics is a thing, obviously; it gets iffy when you try to connect it to culture. We used to have "political determinism" (Great Men), we got economic determinism, there's all kinds of environmental determinism (e.g. Jared Diamond); and after Spencer some went for biological determinism, all the rage 1850 - 8. May 1945; now some epigons search high and wide for a connection between "levels of civilization" and haplogroups :) . It wouldn't surprise me if there were some loonies out there who believe that the Vikings went gone because of miscegenation with too many for'n Frankish - or even worse, Welsch - thralls. Best avoid setting the tinfoil aglow. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean no offense by this, but you talk in riddles, so it's difficult to follow just what your getting at. At one point determinism was a very profound belief among scientists, and still is in many religious sects. Even Einstein believed in it, but since then quantum mechanics and chaos theory have pretty much eliminated the notion in scientific circles. If you believe Schrodinger's theories, then free will plays an extremely important role.

But I don't know what that has to do with anything. If talking genetics in terms of simply breeding as the cause for evolution, then I would say that the old Darwinian view of the subject is also an outdated one, and has been since the 1980s. While that does play a small role, environment plays a much larger, faster, and more dramatic role in creating genetic diversity than breeding. Where breeding does often play a large role in evolution it tends to occur when there is a lack of genetic diversity rather than the other way around (eg: inbreeding), as was fascinatingly demonstrated by the lava flows in Hawaii, where huge swaths of forest were burned, leaving small "islands" of untouched forest between the flows. The insect populations in these isolated areas begin evolving along different lines.

But there is nothing inherently racist about the study of genetics, and even it's effect on cultures (and visa versa). Race is actually a good thing, because it would be a boring world if everyone was the same, so the differences people have should be celebrated. We're all unique in our own special way.

I grew up in a different world, where racism was something from a far-away land that we learned about in school. White people were in the minority, and nearly all of my friends were Eskimos, many of whom still live the same way they have for tens of thousands of years, and racism is truly a foreign concept to them. I never encountered it for real until high-school, and it puzzled me, so I studied it, and am still studying it from a psychological standpoint. The one thing all racists have in common is fear. Fear of what they don't know. Fear of what they don't understand. Ultimately, fear of their own inadequacies. Likewise, some people see racism everywhere, even when it doesn't exist, and this is for the same reasons, and by the same token, is just another form of racism. As Freud would say, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Zaereth (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! And so we meet again ... No offense, but I don't talk in riddles; although I'll admit to a slightly elliptic style in order to conserve bandwidth. That said: I'm not talking about metaphysical determinism, but the classification of (mainly sociological) theories that try to explain human behaviour. To confirm that this is a thing, just look up economic or environmental determinism here on Wikipedia; that will solve most of the riddles, I hope (if not, have a go here). Since Biology stopped talking about "races" after they got the human genome sequenced, and now study haplogroups, some people of a certain bent are eagerly waiting for someone to discover that Haplogroup XYZ is indeed the Master Race and so has a right to colonialize, etc. I wouldn't know where to draw the line between biological determinism proper (I guess biology determines some tings) and racism, except the "I know it when I see it" rule. Based on that, '... mixing populations leading to a profoundly changed genetic development ...' looked like a candidate for closer examination, and on closer examination like a candidate for at least a rewrite, or even better, elimination, that's all. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Intermixing with the slavs, again

So they found some weapons and some rulers married slavic women and the the article concludes there was heavy intermixing with the slavs and denmark was a slavic melting pot. Then basically delivers no proof whatsoever after such big claims. That definitely has no scientific basis and it definitely isn't properly sourced. Should be removed. Like someone already mentioned it's clearly some polish nationalist trolls fantasy, but far from reality. It should be removed it would only help this articles historical accuracy.

There are some place names in Denmark that show Slavic colonization of the Danish islands, such as Kuditse, Tillitse, Binnitse, Korselitse and probably Kramnitse, so the Danes of the Viking Age were at least partly Slavic.--Berig (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's uncontroversial that there were groups of Slavic speakers all around the southern Baltic during the Viking Period. The nameless complainer won't find references to support his opinion even if he tries. And I say that as a native Swede living near Birka. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, in that there should be no controversy that people back in those days migrated and traded, intermixed and interbred, disputed over boundaries, and even robbed and pillaged each other on occasions. People didn't live in isolation back then, and really it was at a time when the Migration Period was coming to an end and the Middle Ages were just beginning. Sweden, for example, was already famous across Europe for their very special steel, which remained an extremely valuable and prized commodity all throughout Europe --from before the Migration Period until 1740-- specifically for the manufacture of tools and weapons. In fact, billets of Swedish steel (called "osmunds") were even used as a form of "international" currency. In England, for example, they were directly convertible into English pounds. This is because the extremely high manganese content in Scandinavian bog-ores produced an extremely pure metal, worth more than its weight in gold.

Of course, I study the history of steel, so I often look at it from that perspective. It's rather fascinating, really, how as technology spread, so did the different ideologies surrounding them. For example, steel technology developed in Turkey, and as it spread both east and west, it developed hand-in-hand with the ideologies in radially different ways. Whereas the notion of purity is central to European ideologies, in Asia ideology is built more around the idea of strength coming from a composite of two extremes, and this is evident in everything from religious concepts such as chi (yin and yang) to technologies such as Japanese swords and Mongolian bows. (Interestingly, you also see this effect where there is a spike in development, then secrecy and tradition cause a halt in growth, so advancements took place as it spreads outward to new communities, with the greatest advances occurring on two islands on opposite sides of Eurasia, as far from the origin as possible.)

When I look at what we have written in the article, it is speaking in terms of fact. It makes it sound like this woman in the grave, for example, is factually a Slavic woman, when in reality we don't know that. If you read the sources, you can see an entirely different tone, as in they admit what they don't know, give us facts about what they do, and their own theories about what they think is a plausible explanation to go along side the commonly held theory that this woman was a Viking warrior.

In reality, we don't know. The source itself says this is all based upon finding a Slavic weapon in the tomb, and while it may indicate a possibility that she was Slavic, that kind of evidence would never hold up in a court. (That's a figure of speech, meaning it doesn't prove anything.) And the sources are very clear about that. It could have been traded. It could have been a gift. Gifts were extremely common back then, as a way of bribing friendship and helping to avoid conflict, as this quote from Thrasamond of the Vandals to Theodoric the Ostrogoth demonstrates. While this weapon found in the grave gives rise to one possible theory, it is only one of many, and I think the article could do a better job of stating it as the author's theory rather than a fact in Wikivoice. In other words, try to make it read a little more like the sources do. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I agree, fwiw, that the section "Intermixing with the Slavs" should at lest be edited. A misquoted single source is not "extraordinary evidence" for the section's extraordinary claim. The source states “During the Middle Ages, this island was a melting pot of Slavic and Scandinavian elements”, "this island" being Langeland, but in the Wiki article this has been expanded to Denmark being a melting pot etc. Ragnvald a slavic name? ighly debatable. And since everyone is happy to have the Viking Age end in 1066, kings from 1140 and later do not count as vikings, no matter whom they married. The article should, as a minimum, reflect the source; and I also doubt that a single source like this can form the basis for the claims in the section. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)