4 ms·

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 el

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.
mkempe 12y ago
Rubbish. Normans [1] were the direct product of Viking conquest and settlement -- one of many instances in which the Vikings essentially did not lose. Would you similarly claim that the Varangians [2] were somehow not Vikings? or were "losers"? [1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/418283/Norman http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/418283/Norman [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

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.

mkempe 12y ago

Rubbish. Normans [1] were the direct product of Viking conquest and settlement -- one of many instances in which the Vikings essentially did not lose. Would you similarly claim that the Varangians [2] were somehow not Vikings? or were "losers"? [1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/418283/Norman http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/418283/Norman [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians