5 ms·

I wonder why there is no archeological evidence found. At least, there is none in the article

by usrnm 2y ago

trhway 2y ago
may be it is mixed-in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Goths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Goths "In the report made by Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq in 1595 on the Crimean Goths, he claims to not be able to determine whether the Germanic peoples of Crimea were Goths or Saxons;" and that - 10th century Vikings - all the way to the Black Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#/media/File:Viking_Expansion.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#/media/File:V... So discerning the specific, even that large, Saxons or Vikings arrival and settlement from all the others Saxon/Goth and Viking presence there may be not much possible. And politically today - on the orders of the Russian state the Russian historic science these days futilely tries to find evidence of pre-Viking statehood in the Rus as the real history of Rus state being founded by Vikings doesn't work well for the Russian nationalism, and having more Vikings (or Saxons) in the picture doesn't help that official goal, especially on the lands that Russian propaganda these days claims as "historically Russian" and with that claim being used as the pretext for the war that Russia is currently waging for those lands.
- paganel 2y ago
  It was normal for the Vikings/Scandinavian population to come to the Black Sea, it wasn't "al the way"/far, because in terms of river transport that was one of the fastest ways to travel over large continental distances. And thanks to the Dnieper and the smaller rivers North of the Pripyat Marshes that journey was nothing out of the ordinary for those populations. In the opposite direction (i.e. from South to North) there's this famous travel of Ahmad ibn Fadlan who wrote about the Vikings living on the Southern part of the Volga. > His account is most notable for providing a detailed description of the Volga Vikings, including eyewitness accounts of life as part of a trade caravan and witnessing a ship burial. I've read the French translation of his work (Voyage chez les Bulgares de la Volga [2]) and I have to say that it is quite interesting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_chez_les_Bulgares_de_la_Volga https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_chez_les_Bulgares_de_la...
  - trhway 2y ago
    >it wasn't "al the way"/far, because in terms of river transport that was one of the fastest ways to travel the map i linked to isn't "travel", it is "settlements". They settled as far as Black Sea and traveled even farther, like the South Volga you mentioned and even raided Iran shores of the Caspian Sea.
    - paganel 2y ago
      I sea now. I have very big doubts about the Vikings settling for good and, what it is more important, in big enough numbers as to “cause” the coloring of a big portion of the map North of the Black Sea around the 10th-11th century, for the simple reason that that was Khazar and then Pecheneg and then Cuman territory, i.e. mostly Turkic populations. As a matter of fact Azov itself is a Turkic toponym, as is Bakhmut. There were some Scandinavians there but in the middle of other, more numerous , populations
      - sklargh 2y ago
        I sea what you did there.
      - trhway 2y ago
        >I have very big doubts about the Vikings settling for good and, what it is more important, in big enough numbers as to “cause” the coloring of a big portion of the map North of the Black Sea around the 10th-11th century, for the simple reason that that was Khazar and then Pecheneg and then Cuman territory, i.e. mostly Turkic populations. There were not much people to start with (and 500 ships in a raid is a like 5000-10000+ warriors which is larger then many cities at the time), and you're mixing 2 types of populations - all those people were nomadic dry land people while Vikings were settling along their trading and raiding routes along rivers and sea shores. The Azov Sea and the Don river were on their route into Caspian Sea. Vikings even tried, yet failed, to settle further into Caucasus : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus%27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus... "The Rus' launched the first large-scale raid in 913. A fleet of 500 ships reached the southern shores of the Caspian Sea through the country of the Khazars. .... They sailed down the Dnieper River into the Black Sea, then into the Sea of Azov, then up the Don River past the Khazar city of Sarkel, and then by a portage reached the Volga, which led them into the Caspian Sea.[8]" "During the 943 expedition, the Rus' rowed up the Kura River, deep into the Caucasus, defeated the forces of Marzuban bin Muhammad,[11] and captured Bardha'a, the capital of Arran. The Rus' allowed the local people to retain their religion in exchange for recognition of their overlordship; it is possible that the Rus' intended to settle permanently there.[12] According to ibn Miskawaih, the local people broke the peace by stone-throwing and other abuse directed against the Rus', who then demanded that the inhabitants evacuate the city. This ultimatum was rejected, and the Rus' began killing people and holding many for ransom. The slaughter was briefly interrupted for negotiations, which soon broke down.[13] The Rus' stayed in Bardha'a for several months,[14] using it as a base for plundering the adjacent areas, and amassing substantial spoils.[15]"
- thriftwy 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - trhway 2y ago
    >descending from Poles or Bulgarians Russian nationalists would sooner commit suicide :) No, they go for those mythical strong, smart, just and great in all the other respects Eastern Slavs who lived in the forests of Eastern Russia, Belarus and Central Ukraine before coming of Vikings. A nationalistic history is always a mythology mixed with ideology and has nothing to do with historical science - and in this case all those supposedly great Slavs were in reality just a bunch of forest tribes who were brought by the Vikings into the light of civilization. That of course doesn't sit well with Russian nationalists rejection of the West and declaration of themselves a master [at least over Slavs and other nearby people] race.
    - thriftwy 2y ago
      > A nationalistic history is always a mythology For smaller nations. Larger nations receive too much scrutiny to get away with having fake history. Then again, they have more resources to try and tweak the history as a science...
nl 2y ago
There are maps (mentioned in the article), and accounts of the "Saxi" (which might have meant "the Saxons"). What other evidence would you expect to show what language the inhabitants spoke? Religious text (ie, almost all writing) would have been in Latin or Greek. Coins were shared across regions.
- usrnm 2y ago
  Are saying that archeology is a pseudoscience?
  - nl 2y ago
    No?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

I wonder why there is no archeological evidence found. At least, there is none in the article

by usrnm 2y ago

I wonder why there is no archeological evidence found. At least, there is none in the article

may be it is mixed-in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Goths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Goths "In the report made by Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq in 1595 on the Crimean Goths, he claims to not be able to determine whether the Germanic peoples of Crimea were Goths or Saxons;" and that - 10th century Vikings - all the way to the Black Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#/media/File:Viking_Expansion.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#/media/File:V... So discerning the specific, even that large, Saxons or Vikings arrival and settlement from all the others Saxon/Goth and Viking presence there may be not much possible. And politically today - on the orders of the Russian state the Russian historic science these days futilely tries to find evidence of pre-Viking statehood in the Rus as the real history of Rus state being founded by Vikings doesn't work well for the Russian nationalism, and having more Vikings (or Saxons) in the picture doesn't help that official goal, especially on the lands that Russian propaganda these days claims as "historically Russian" and with that claim being used as the pretext for the war that Russia is currently waging for those lands.

paganel 2y ago
It was normal for the Vikings/Scandinavian population to come to the Black Sea, it wasn't "al the way"/far, because in terms of river transport that was one of the fastest ways to travel over large continental distances. And thanks to the Dnieper and the smaller rivers North of the Pripyat Marshes that journey was nothing out of the ordinary for those populations. In the opposite direction (i.e. from South to North) there's this famous travel of Ahmad ibn Fadlan who wrote about the Vikings living on the Southern part of the Volga. > His account is most notable for providing a detailed description of the Volga Vikings, including eyewitness accounts of life as part of a trade caravan and witnessing a ship burial. I've read the French translation of his work (Voyage chez les Bulgares de la Volga [2]) and I have to say that it is quite interesting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_chez_les_Bulgares_de_la_Volga https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_chez_les_Bulgares_de_la...
- trhway 2y ago
  >it wasn't "al the way"/far, because in terms of river transport that was one of the fastest ways to travel the map i linked to isn't "travel", it is "settlements". They settled as far as Black Sea and traveled even farther, like the South Volga you mentioned and even raided Iran shores of the Caspian Sea.
  - paganel 2y ago
    I sea now. I have very big doubts about the Vikings settling for good and, what it is more important, in big enough numbers as to “cause” the coloring of a big portion of the map North of the Black Sea around the 10th-11th century, for the simple reason that that was Khazar and then Pecheneg and then Cuman territory, i.e. mostly Turkic populations. As a matter of fact Azov itself is a Turkic toponym, as is Bakhmut. There were some Scandinavians there but in the middle of other, more numerous , populations
    - sklargh 2y ago
      I sea what you did there.
    - trhway 2y ago
      >I have very big doubts about the Vikings settling for good and, what it is more important, in big enough numbers as to “cause” the coloring of a big portion of the map North of the Black Sea around the 10th-11th century, for the simple reason that that was Khazar and then Pecheneg and then Cuman territory, i.e. mostly Turkic populations. There were not much people to start with (and 500 ships in a raid is a like 5000-10000+ warriors which is larger then many cities at the time), and you're mixing 2 types of populations - all those people were nomadic dry land people while Vikings were settling along their trading and raiding routes along rivers and sea shores. The Azov Sea and the Don river were on their route into Caspian Sea. Vikings even tried, yet failed, to settle further into Caucasus : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus%27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_expeditions_of_the_Rus... "The Rus' launched the first large-scale raid in 913. A fleet of 500 ships reached the southern shores of the Caspian Sea through the country of the Khazars. .... They sailed down the Dnieper River into the Black Sea, then into the Sea of Azov, then up the Don River past the Khazar city of Sarkel, and then by a portage reached the Volga, which led them into the Caspian Sea.[8]" "During the 943 expedition, the Rus' rowed up the Kura River, deep into the Caucasus, defeated the forces of Marzuban bin Muhammad,[11] and captured Bardha'a, the capital of Arran. The Rus' allowed the local people to retain their religion in exchange for recognition of their overlordship; it is possible that the Rus' intended to settle permanently there.[12] According to ibn Miskawaih, the local people broke the peace by stone-throwing and other abuse directed against the Rus', who then demanded that the inhabitants evacuate the city. This ultimatum was rejected, and the Rus' began killing people and holding many for ransom. The slaughter was briefly interrupted for negotiations, which soon broke down.[13] The Rus' stayed in Bardha'a for several months,[14] using it as a base for plundering the adjacent areas, and amassing substantial spoils.[15]"
thriftwy 2y ago
[flagged]
- trhway 2y ago
  >descending from Poles or Bulgarians Russian nationalists would sooner commit suicide :) No, they go for those mythical strong, smart, just and great in all the other respects Eastern Slavs who lived in the forests of Eastern Russia, Belarus and Central Ukraine before coming of Vikings. A nationalistic history is always a mythology mixed with ideology and has nothing to do with historical science - and in this case all those supposedly great Slavs were in reality just a bunch of forest tribes who were brought by the Vikings into the light of civilization. That of course doesn't sit well with Russian nationalists rejection of the West and declaration of themselves a master [at least over Slavs and other nearby people] race.
  - thriftwy 2y ago
    > A nationalistic history is always a mythology For smaller nations. Larger nations receive too much scrutiny to get away with having fake history. Then again, they have more resources to try and tweak the history as a science...

nl 2y ago

There are maps (mentioned in the article), and accounts of the "Saxi" (which might have meant "the Saxons"). What other evidence would you expect to show what language the inhabitants spoke? Religious text (ie, almost all writing) would have been in Latin or Greek. Coins were shared across regions.

usrnm 2y ago
Are saying that archeology is a pseudoscience?
- nl 2y ago
  No?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]