4 ms·

History was written by the winners, as Christians WON most of the battles. Vikings principal weapon was surprise. Their objective was not winning battles but l

History was written by the winners, as Christians WON most of the battles. Vikings principal weapon was surprise. Their objective was not winning battles but loot and pillage as much as they could before withdrawal. Their idea was not to invade and conquer populations that were stronger than them if they had time for responding the attack. If they found resistance they simply changed their objective to some weaker population. E.g First time Vikings attacked the north coast of what now is Spain they surprised people there. They won in some cases and withdraw. Years later they tried again, but people were prepared and Vikings lost hard. The same happened on what is now UK coast, first time the surprised and won over the people living there. Next time they lost.

arethuza 12y ago
"Next time they lost." I don't think that's quite accurate - a few parts of what is now the UK were colonized by Vikings and their descendants for hundreds of years. Places like Orkney and Shetland are very proud of their Viking heritage - e.g. the Up Helly Aa festival in Shetland: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25917694 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shet... Then, of course, there are that lot of Vikings who settled in what is now France and went on to do quite well for themselves...
- vidarh 12y ago
  Most of England was conquered by vikings at one time or another before the Norman invasion. First Danelaw expanded from 865 onwards. The viking rule over parts of England continued until England was united in 954. But they only stayed away for less than 60 years. In 1013 Denmark conquered England again, lost it in 1014, and reconquered it in 1016. King Cnut (Canute) the Great then ruled over Denmark, Norway, parts of Sweden, and the vast majority of England, from 1016 to 1035, followed by his sons, and it was first the death of the second of his sons to hold the English crown that brought England, very temporarily, back under English rule in 1066. The majority of the first couple of centuries of a united England was under the rule of descendants of viking invaders.
vidarh 12y ago
Here [1] is a map outlining Viking expansion / settlemenets. Note England, coast of Ireland, Normandy, Southern Italy, the Baltics, Russia. Of these, you may argue that South/South-Western England and Southern Italy was Normans, who, while they had substantial viking ancestry were not all of Scandinavian origin, but the idea that they did not invade and conquer and settle is nonsense. Certainly they did carry out attacks where the intent was just to pillage too, but they went much further. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#mediaviewer/File:Viking_Expansion.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#mediaviewer/File:Viking...
- Htsthbjig 12y ago
  In your own map you see they did not conquer much. The places they settled(vikings) were unpopulated and tremendously cold. They settled there because nobody else wanted to live there. Those places were very poor, nothing compared with France or Italian, Spanish peninsulas. Places like the South of Spain Sicily or Egypt which food outcome could sustain dozens of times the native population. Scandinavia could be rich today, but before industrial revolution was very very poor. The former commentary talking as History written by those who "lost" is non sense. In all the green areas of your map, the Vikings eventually lost. I know nationalism exist today in Scandinavia, like in the rest of countries. They have quality of life today and could idealize how the past was, but Vikings lived a very hard life at the time, and were not that important. And yes, Normans were not vikings.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    I find it amusing that you keep dragging out Spain, and now Sicily when your earlier comment started with: > History was written by the winners, as Christians WON most of the battles. You do realize that Spain, Sicily and Egypt was under Arab during the viking age? And while you may disagree with including the Normans with vikings, they certainly started out with a large contingent of vikings taking substantial parts of Normandy. I also don't see how poverty is at all relevant to the discussion. As for idolizing the viking age, I see more of that from outside of Scandinavia, than within. For starters this idea that the defining aspect of the vikings were raids. The vast majority of Scandinavians during the viking age were farmers and fishermen. And the majority of shipping was trading. Some fringe nationalist segments use viking symbolism, but the vast majority Scandinavian nationalists couldn't care less about the viking age.
d0mine 12y ago
Vikings founded Kievan Rus' according to some sources. Ukraine, Belarus, Russia are the modern countries.

arethuza 12y ago

"Next time they lost." I don't think that's quite accurate - a few parts of what is now the UK were colonized by Vikings and their descendants for hundreds of years. Places like Orkney and Shetland are very proud of their Viking heritage - e.g. the Up Helly Aa festival in Shetland: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25917694 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shet... Then, of course, there are that lot of Vikings who settled in what is now France and went on to do quite well for themselves...

vidarh 12y ago
Most of England was conquered by vikings at one time or another before the Norman invasion. First Danelaw expanded from 865 onwards. The viking rule over parts of England continued until England was united in 954. But they only stayed away for less than 60 years. In 1013 Denmark conquered England again, lost it in 1014, and reconquered it in 1016. King Cnut (Canute) the Great then ruled over Denmark, Norway, parts of Sweden, and the vast majority of England, from 1016 to 1035, followed by his sons, and it was first the death of the second of his sons to hold the English crown that brought England, very temporarily, back under English rule in 1066. The majority of the first couple of centuries of a united England was under the rule of descendants of viking invaders.

vidarh 12y ago

Here [1] is a map outlining Viking expansion / settlemenets. Note England, coast of Ireland, Normandy, Southern Italy, the Baltics, Russia. Of these, you may argue that South/South-Western England and Southern Italy was Normans, who, while they had substantial viking ancestry were not all of Scandinavian origin, but the idea that they did not invade and conquer and settle is nonsense. Certainly they did carry out attacks where the intent was just to pillage too, but they went much further. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#mediaviewer/File:Viking_Expansion.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#mediaviewer/File:Viking...

Htsthbjig 12y ago
In your own map you see they did not conquer much. The places they settled(vikings) were unpopulated and tremendously cold. They settled there because nobody else wanted to live there. Those places were very poor, nothing compared with France or Italian, Spanish peninsulas. Places like the South of Spain Sicily or Egypt which food outcome could sustain dozens of times the native population. Scandinavia could be rich today, but before industrial revolution was very very poor. The former commentary talking as History written by those who "lost" is non sense. In all the green areas of your map, the Vikings eventually lost. I know nationalism exist today in Scandinavia, like in the rest of countries. They have quality of life today and could idealize how the past was, but Vikings lived a very hard life at the time, and were not that important. And yes, Normans were not vikings.
- vidarh 12y ago
  I find it amusing that you keep dragging out Spain, and now Sicily when your earlier comment started with: > History was written by the winners, as Christians WON most of the battles. You do realize that Spain, Sicily and Egypt was under Arab during the viking age? And while you may disagree with including the Normans with vikings, they certainly started out with a large contingent of vikings taking substantial parts of Normandy. I also don't see how poverty is at all relevant to the discussion. As for idolizing the viking age, I see more of that from outside of Scandinavia, than within. For starters this idea that the defining aspect of the vikings were raids. The vast majority of Scandinavians during the viking age were farmers and fishermen. And the majority of shipping was trading. Some fringe nationalist segments use viking symbolism, but the vast majority Scandinavian nationalists couldn't care less about the viking age.

d0mine 12y ago

Vikings founded Kievan Rus' according to some sources. Ukraine, Belarus, Russia are the modern countries.