Celtic exploration of the Arctic Ocean and of the North Atlantic

[Phrossack]

Vikings probably founded Swansea? And this points to what?

That there was at least some Norse settlement in the British Isles.

Trade. (Not sure what Charles Martel has to do with that. Was he a trade monopolist?)

Charles pretty much completely conquered the Frisian kingdom. I'd heard before that supposedly the Frisians somehow obstructed the Vikings militarily, and that the fall of Frisia was followed by increased raiding activity. Not sure how true that is, but what did Frisian trade have to do with the Vikings?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Scandinavian settlement in England as illustrated by place-names:

 

[Domen]

Though this doesn't tell us much about the proportion of Scandinavian settlers in the total population.

But these areas as shown above are generally the same as the ones with high proportion of "Anglo-Saxon DNA".

So, as I suggested, it seems that markers of Danish ancestry are hard to distinguish from Anglo-Saxon.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Not sure I agree with that. These are Scandinavian names that got preserved in English. It won't put a figure on the proportion, I agree with that, but I think it tells you that in southern Northumbria/East Anglia/West Mercia, it was sizable. It tells you it was bigger than the Norman conquest of the same region at least, in an era where lordship had to be more intimate due to the relative lack of technologies of domination (e.g. castles). It also tells you that within England, Scandinavian settlement was regional. There was a region, that at least for a generation, had a warrior-farmer society that spoke Norse rather than English.

 

[Pangur Bán]

PS, in case anyone is not aware, the gap between western Mercia and East Anglia is due to terrain...the land was water/fen:

 

[Domen]

It won't put a figure on the proportion, I agree with that, but I think it tells you that in southern Northumbria/East Anglia/West Mercia, it was sizable.

To be able to estimate the proportion we would need to have all place-names and check what % of them are of Scandinavian origin.

Or all place-names which date back to that particular period, if you want to check the demography at that time (rather than modern mix).

Another thing is that a Scandinavian name of a settlement doesn't necessarily mean that exclusively Scandinavians lived there.

we would need to have all place-names and check what % of them are of Scandinavian origin.

Like for example in East Tyrol you have a lot of Slavic place-names, but a comparison shows that they are just 17% of all place-names.

In the Austrian region of East Tyrol 71% of place-names are Germanic, 17% are Slavic and 12% are Romance.

By contrast in Germany's island of Rügen, only ca. 21% of place-names are Germanic and ca. 79% are Slavic.

So if I was to guesstimate the % of Slavic ancestry, I would say that Germans of Rügen probably have more than Austrians of East Tyrol.

 

[Domen]

But place-names can be misleading in this respect, at least in individual cases (not necessarily in a statistical analysis).

For example New Orleans is a French place-name, but 60% of its population are people of Sub-Saharan African origin.

By contrast Chicago is a Native American place-name but only 0,5% (1/200) of its inhabitants are Native Americans.

 

[daft]

As much as Pagan Vikings had been renowned for raiding foreign lands, Christian Scandinavians in the 12th century themselves fell victim to raids by Pagan Slavs - who, for example, in October of 1134/1135 captured Roskilde in Denmark and a year later, in August of 1135/1136, the 4th largest town in Norway - Kungahälla (that raiding activity was among reasons why the Wendish Crusade was called by Pope in 1147).
Some reading about that:

http://www.lodose.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/013b-Bohus-Fortress-Kungahälla-Kungälv-eng.pdf



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kungahälla



Coming back to Celtic maritime exploits:

In 56 BC Roman fleet of Julius Caesar fought a naval battle against Celtic fleet near the southern coast of what later became Bretagne (in 56 BC that part of Bretagne was inhabited by a tribe known as the Weneted). In his "Gallic Wars", Caesar left a unique description of Celtic ships:

An excerpt from Book 3 of "Gallic Wars":



This description shows that Ancient Celts were good seafarers and that their ships were well-adapted to conditions in northern seas.

The naval battle in 56 BC took place in the Quiberon Bay, between 100 Roman galleys and 220 Celtic ships:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiberon_Bay

Rome won that one thanks to using a clever fighting technique and exploiting weak points of the enemy:

Thanks a lot Domen, mainly for pointing out, once again, that the Venedi, Western Slavic Tribes, were not just a mass of brainless barbarians but a people capable of successful naval raids upon the Viking themselves, something that Britons or Germans cannot claim (or the Greeks for that matter-but of course, his highness, Kyriakos, would claim otherwise)

Looks like the Celtic ships were superior to Roman ones as far as Sea/Ocean going is concerned, so to think they discovered Iceland, Greenland and perhaps even America, prior to the Vikings and long before Columbus is not far fetched at all.

 

[Pangur Bán]

@Domen, yes, England is a bit more secure than other places because you have Domesday doing an exhaustive survey [dating to 1086].

 

[Agent327]

Looks like the Celtic ships were superior to Roman ones as far as Sea/Ocean going is concerned, so to think they discovered Iceland, Greenland and perhaps even America, prior to the Vikings and long before Columbus is not far fetched at all.

That doesn't quite follow. Traversing the Channel isn't the same as having oceanfaring ships. Also, from the Gallic Wars it's clear that once Caesar built a (transport) fleet, he had no trouble crossing - save for the weather.

Another issue is of course, if the Celts had such marvelous ships, why were Viking raids and inroads virtually unopposed? One of the main reasons for the naval success of the Vikings was their superior ships. So, if there be any truth to this 'Celtic exploration' there should be Celtic ships comparable to the Viking ones. AFAIK these are still lacking in evidence.

That there was at least some Norse settlement in the British Isles.

I don't think that's in dispute.

Charles pretty much completely conquered the Frisian kingdom. I'd heard before that supposedly the Frisians somehow obstructed the Vikings militarily, and that the fall of Frisia was followed by increased raiding activity. Not sure how true that is, but what did Frisian trade have to do with the Vikings?

Regardless of Charles's conquests, the Frisians supplanted the Vikings as concerns sea trade. The Viking raiding was just one aspect of their trade, and there was a definite shift from raiding to outright conquest. So there is a definite possibility that their raiding/trading activity simply became unprofitable. There might of course be other causes as well.

 

[daft]

That doesn't quite follow. Traversing the Channel isn't the same as having oceanfaring ships. Also, from the Gallic Wars it's clear that once Caesar built a (transport) fleet, he had no trouble crossing - save for the weather.

Another issue is of course, if the Celts had such marvelous ships, why were Viking raids and inroads virtually unopposed? One of the main reasons for the naval success of the Vikings was their superior ships. So, if there be any truth to this 'Celtic exploration' there should be Celtic ships comparable to the Viking ones. AFAIK these are still lacking in evidence.

All right.
Were the Vikings the best/most inventive seafarers of history then?
Sounds like it.

 

[Domen]

Re Daft's post #28:

I'm glad that you appreciate the English text about the battle of Kungahälla that I linked.

There is also an actual book about that invasion of Denmark & Norway led by Duke Ratibor, but it's only in Polish.

The title is "Wielka Wyprawa Księcia Racibora", written by Artur Szrejter (it is part of the "Viking and Slavic Wars" series):

Spoiler :

something that Britons or Germans cannot claim

Irish people can, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Clontarf

But in their own territory, not in enemy lands.

BTW:

http://www.lodose.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/013b-Bohus-Fortress-Kungahälla-Kungälv-eng.pdf

"They also brought horses with them"

Those could be brought by transport vessels, similar to Scandinavian knarrs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knarr

 

[schlaufuchs]

All right.
Were the Vikings the best/most inventive seafarers of history then?
Sounds like it.

???

Inventive in what way? Best in what way?

The United States Navy dominates seas around the world in a way no nation has ever done previously. Their ability to project power whenever and wherever they want and with such speed is unparalleled. In that sense they are clearly superior to the "Vikings" who really shouldn't be described as a singular entity anyway.

 

[Agent327]

The United States Navy dominates seas around the world in a way no nation has ever done previously.

Well, except for the British in their heyday. But then they had an actual worldwide empire to protect.

 

[Flying Pig]

Even then, you can't really compare the speed and power with which the Americans can project force overseas with the British - if only because, to state the blindingly obvious, an aircraft carrier moves an awful lot faster than one of Nelson's frigates.

 

[Agent327]

Projecting power isn't quite same as controlling the seas - which the British did do, and quite effectively at that, since Nelson til the late 19th century. And speed has little to do with it: the US navy may project power wherever it wants (as long as it stays at sea), that doesn't imply it controls the seas. Russia can hold naval exercises in the Mediterranean (with some Chinese vessels partaking as well; does that mean that the US share their control of the seas with russia and China? Or does it mean the seas aren't controlled by any single navy?

 

[Masada]

Russia can hold naval exercises in the Mediterranean (with some Chinese vessels partaking as well; does that mean that the US share their control of the seas with russia and China? Or does it mean the seas aren't controlled by any single navy?

Yes, it does. Why? Because Russian fleet assets heading through the Dardanelles and Bosporus do so under the terms of the Montreux Convention (1936). The Montreux Convention contains a whole range of provisions which work to the disadvantage of Russia. Article 14 limits the aggregate tonnage of all warships that are allowed to pass through the Straits at one time. Article 12 allows that ships in excess of the 15 000 tonne limit, but stipulates that they are only allowed to be escorted by two destroyers and that all those ships must pass through singly. Those and a few other provisions mean that the Russian Black Sea fleet... during wartime must by Treaty pass through the Straits one at a time into the waiting guns of the United States Mediterranean fleet. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of Montreux in 1946 which triggered the Straits Crisis and drove Turkey into NATO and made the Soviet Black Sea fleet... even more useless. So to wit, the Russians in order to exercise their Black Sea assets in the Mediterranean have to tell a member of NATO 8 days in advance that they intend to transit the straits and must do so in single damned file. It's good evidence of just how weak the Russian hand is at sea. Compare and contrast this with say the Crimean War which took two Great Powers (and two medium powers) and the threat of Austria joining the war to bring Russia ambitions to force the Straits to heel. The United States checked Russia in 1946... on its own. China is a little different. But it has US allies encircling it at sea (South Korea, Japan and the Philippines) and Vietnam which is not a US ally but still not altogether hospitable to Chinese interests. Not to mention the disproportionate size of any hypothetical Coalition navy in war and so on.

 

[Cutlass]

Even then, you can't really compare the speed and power with which the Americans can project force overseas with the British - if only because, to state the blindingly obvious, an aircraft carrier moves an awful lot faster than one of Nelson's frigates.

Not to mention that Nelson's frigates could project power 3-4 miles from where they were actually located at any point in time. A carrier can do so at 1000+ miles.

 

[Agent327]

Yes, it does. Why? Because Russian fleet assets heading through the Dardanelles and Bosporus do so under the terms of the Montreux Convention (1936). The Montreux Convention contains a whole range of provisions which work to the disadvantage of Russia. Article 14 limits the aggregate tonnage of all warships that are allowed to pass through the Straits at one time. Article 12 allows that ships in excess of the 15 000 tonne limit, but stipulates that they are only allowed to be escorted by two destroyers and that all those ships must pass through singly. Those and a few other provisions mean that the Russian Black Sea fleet... during wartime must by Treaty pass through the Straits one at a time into the waiting guns of the United States Mediterranean fleet. The Soviet Union tried to get rid of Montreux in 1946 which triggered the Straits Crisis and drove Turkey into NATO and made the Soviet Black Sea fleet... even more useless. So to wit, the Russians in order to exercise their Black Sea assets in the Mediterranean have to tell a member of NATO 8 days in advance that they intend to transit the straits and must do so in single damned file. It's good evidence of just how weak the Russian hand is at sea. Compare and contrast this with say the Crimean War which took two Great Powers (and two medium powers) and the threat of Austria joining the war to bring Russia ambitions to force the Straits to heel. The United States checked Russia in 1946... on its own. China is a little different. But it has US allies encircling it at sea (South Korea, Japan and the Philippines) and Vietnam which is not a US ally but still not altogether hospitable to Chinese interests. Not to mention the disproportionate size of any hypothetical Coalition navy in war and so on.

So the useless Russian Black Sea fleet has trouble entering the Mediterranean. How is that even relevant? Russia has no vital interests in the Mediterranean to protect (ignoring it's pet project of Syria, which is basically reduced to being a failed state). Your menton of coalition forces already indicates that the US navy does not singlehandedly 'control the seas'. There's no doubt that the US has the most powerful fleet, but this in no way compares to the British erstwhile standard of maintaining a fleet larger than the next two combined. Could the US theoretically maintain a comparable fleet? Possibly it could. But unlike the British empire, the US do not need to. They can resort to NATO, or, in special cases, resort to "power projection". But the global situation is simply very different from that of the 19th century colonial empires. The US do not control vast overseas territories that need protection from possible threats. So even if, God forbid, US policy would suddenly turn from 'global poleman' to global control, that would, in practice, serve no real purpose.

Do I need to mention the Cuba crisis? Or nuclear subs? Having a powerful surface fleet in the 21st century is quite different from what is was in the heyday of colonialism.

 

[Masada]

So the useless Russian Black Sea fleet has trouble entering the Mediterranean. How is that even relevant?

You just said how Russia being able to exercise in the Mediterranean was a good example of how the US doesn't control the sea. I noted that the United States in-fact controls Russian access to the Mediterranean. You've made my point stronger by noting how that control renders the whole of the Russian Black Sea Fleet useless from a strategic point of view. Congratulations.

Russia has no vital interests in the Mediterranean to protect (ignoring it's pet project of Syria, which is basically reduced to being a failed state).

You do know what poisoning the well is right? Because saying, "Russia doesn't care about the Mediterranean because it has no vital interests there" and then noting at least one of its major interests before dismissing it in a single sentence is a good example of that. But let's think about this for a moment: does anyone here seriously think the Russians would not overturn Montreux if they could? What's stopping them? Hint: it ain't Turkey.

There's no doubt that the US has the most powerful fleet, but this in no way compares to the British erstwhile standard of maintaining a fleet larger than the next two combined. Could the US theoretically maintain a comparable fleet? Possibly it could.

I grant the US doesn't maintain an explicit commitment to a two-power standard. But that's kind of irrelevant given that in practice it has a buffer that's somewhat larger than that.

Consider aircraft carriers. The US has 10 aircraft carriers currently in service. This gives it the same number of carriers as the rest of the world combined. And I'm ignoring the fact that the US operates 9 "amphibious assault ships" that are as capable as most other countries carriers. The Wasp class, of which the US has 8, can carry 20 AV-8B Harrier II and displaces 40 000 tonnes (or thereabouts).

Now let's move to submarines... the US has 75 in service all of which are capable boats. I grant that 18 are boomers and can be excluded. Russia has 46 boats. China has 62. So it's not quite a two power standard in submarines. But the reason that Russia has so many boats and such a small surface fleet in relative terms... has to do with the inescapable fact that the Russian surface fleet was not going to survive long. The Soviets knew this and it helps to explain why something like the Kirov-class battle-cruiser exists. Hint: it's fast, doesn't need to refuel and packs an outsized punch. I don't know a huge amount about China boats but I do know that the diesels are fairly short ranged. The Type 039A would be able to operate in the East China Sea and reach just into the Sea of Japan from mainland bases but not that much more.

I could go on but I don't think I need to.

The US do not control vast overseas territories that need protection from possible threats. So even if, God forbid, US policy would suddenly turn from 'global poleman' to global control, that would, in practice, serve no real purpose.

No, it doesn't. But that doesn't stop the US from operating a fleet that operates all over the damned world. You're also wrong in claiming that the British used the RN to protect their overseas territories. What the British were interested in doing was ensuring that no other European power could stop the flow of trade to Great Britain itself. Not all of which came from the colonies. That explains why the Grand Fleet was so large and everything else was so small. The USN has exactly the same imperative as the RN i.e. to defend the sea lanes. It's less pressing but it's still there.

Do I need to mention the Cuba crisis?

The Cuban Missile Crisis... is a really good example of US sea control. Operation Anadyr had to be done in secret because the Russians knew that an overt operation would not work. And lo and behold, when the Russians were caught out... it all went to hell and the operation had to be given up. Amusingly, Operation Kama which a sub-operation of Anadyr and involved sending Russian boats to Cuba which was rather more overt than sending merchantmen... failed miserably. The Russian boats were picked up well before they reached Cuba and had to turn back.

Or nuclear subs?

What about them?

Having a powerful surface fleet in the 21st century is quite different from what is was in the heyday of colonialism.

Nope. They have the same basic function. "Destroy the other lot". There's a bunch of other stuff they can do now like reduce a country to ruins. Thanks carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles which is cool, I guess. But rather simpler to do once the enemy fleet is at the bottom of the ocean.