Did the Vikings have an empire???

[amirsan]

Did the vikings have an empire, or did they just plunder and run???? Also, how did they fall? They were soo powerful, how did thier power fall?

I am just curious.

 

[pawpaw]

well they seized chunks of scotland,ireland ,england ,france and russia. it wasn't an empire in the sense that 1 ruler controlled it all but their influence was wide spread

 

[Loaf Warden]

The Vikings never had a single, cohesive empire. Vikings were seafaring warriors who came out of the Scandinavian countries for trade and for plunder. They did plunder, of course, but that aspect of medieval Scandinavian culture has been somewhat over-emphasized. They were also traders and settlers. They founded Iceland, which was one of the world's first true republics, and Iceland in turn colonized Greenland and, briefly, a land in North America they called Vinland. No one person or dynasty ever ruled over all this territory (though some tried). The attempts to colonize Vinland failed largely because the Natives drove them out, and the settlements in Greenland gradually died out due to an increasingly harsh environment.

 

[Hurricane]

Also much forgotten in our western-emphasised history is that the Vikings travelled extensively east- and southwards. They had active contacts with the Turks, and the leader Rus founded in Novgorod what later would become Russia.

 

[Drewcifer]

They didn't really fall, over time they embraced Christianity and were absorbed into the mainstream of medieval European culture. Towards the end of their run as powerful, ruthless barbarian plunderers they began to understand that while the rest of Europe feared them they also looked down on them as a backwards and uncouth people. This bothered some of the more sophisticated of the Viking chieftains who desired to be accepted into the more cultured world they had seen in their travels to the Mediterranean and Byzantium. Over time some converted to Christianity and forced their people to as well. It was a generational process and it took time for the new religion to take hold and temper the previously violent instincts and cuture of the Viking chieftains. For example Olaf Trygvesson was the Viking king who is credited with christianizing Norway in 1000 AD. He was no deciple of peace and love; he developed a method of capital punishment for chiefs who wouldn't convert that was known as the blood eagle. The offender's ribcage was severed along the back in the shape of butterfly wings starting at the spine, the lungs were then pulled out through the severed ribs and they died in this manner. This was not exactly Christianity as described in the New Testament but where Olaf conquered monks from the Holy Roman Empire travelled behind with official protection to teach the more accepted forms of Christianity. Within decades the level of brutality in Scandinavia was reduced to one comperable with the rest of medieval Europe. The pagan norsemen became a people who were no longer outsider invaders but rather integrated members of Christian Europe and it's society.

 

[Xen]

"embraced" is the wrong for it in every sense- christian europe refused to trad even basic neccesisties with the vikings until they were forced converted to christianity

 

[Drewcifer]

Originally posted by Xen
"embraced" is the wrong for it in every sense- christian europe refused to trad even basic neccesisties with the vikings until they were forced converted to christianity

Actually the Vikings had extensive trade networks, especially down through Russia to Constantinople. Viking burial sites are full of goods from Byzantium that were procured by trade rather than looting. Dublin was founded by the Vikings to trade with the local celts. What they could not trade for they could take from the Franks, British and Saxons by force of arms. They were not compelled to convert by outside economic or military pressures.

 

[Djingis Khan]

Also keep in mind that the Vikings were not an ethnic group. A Viking was a nordic see-faring warrior, whereas their ethnic background was something else - like there were Daner (Danes), Götar, Svear, Gutar, Norrmän (Norwegians) and others

/DK M

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by Drewcifer
Actually the Vikings had extensive trade networks, especially down through Russia to Constantinople. Viking burial sites are full of goods from Byzantium that were procured by trade rather than looting. Dublin was founded by the Vikings to trade with the local celts. What they could not trade for they could take from the Franks, British and Saxons by force of arms. They were not compelled to convert by outside economic or military pressures.

There's been large treasures found in Sweden with Arab silver coins. Most of these where probably aquired in trade. The Swedish vikings went through Russia by boat, following the rivers, and pushing the boats on rollers at the hard places.

And the vikings didn't have one empire, much like Scandinavia isn't one country.

 

[privatehudson]

From what I've read on the vikings, the countries kingdoms were first merged properly under one Monarchy for any legnth of time in 1389, when all 3 nations combined to form the kingdom of Danemark, but by 1448 Sweeden left the union. Of course by those dates their "empire" basically consisted of the Shetland and Orkneys, with Iceland and Greenland also, and they lost the shetlands and orkneys during that period.

One other thing of note is that it was Vikings who settled in Normandy after they invaded france. The french king bought them off by giving them that land, and they in return promised to protect Paris from raids (the seine flows out of Normandy, so any viking attack coming up the Seine would hit the normans first).

That's what makes 1066 and the fight for the english crown of interest, you get 3 contenders: (appologies for bad spelling)

Harald Hadrada: Viking king, descendant of canute, hardbitten and vetran soldier
Harald Godwin (I think): England's top lord of the time, though his ancestry also lay with vikings also
William of Normandy: Bastard duke of the Norman area, promised Godwin's backing for the throne when the old king died. Normans of course are former vikings....

Therefore in 1066 you have 3 bunches of viking descendants all slugging it out to see who gets to take the crown of england

Politics huh?

Anyways from what I can gather, their colonies in America were short lived and failed to take root properly. They colonised Greenland and Iceland, at various times in their history owned England or large areas of it, savaged Ireland and Scotland, took Normandy and so on. As has been stated though, none of this was under one king or ruler, it was mostly sporadic.

One last thing to add, the vikings also helped found Kiev along with Novograd, and also set up base on the black sea at a place called Tmutorokan which I think is somewhere near to sevastopol.

 

[amirsan]

well thanks for the info guys, this is a meaty debate, I like it.

 

[Djingis Khan]

From what I've read on the vikings, the countries kingdoms were first merged properly under one Monarchy for any legnth of time in 1389, when all 3 nations combined to form the kingdom of Danemark, but by 1448 Sweeden left the union.

In 1389 there were no Vikings...
And Sweden left the Kalmar union in 1523, when it collapsed

/DK M

 

[Hawkster]

In England much of the viking take over was due to settlement rather than purely millitary conquest. Also after several battles a deal between the vikings and the anglo-saxon sides lead to a division of the country - in the north the Danelaw under viking control and the in the south the Wessex/Mercia lands (the boundaries as established pretty much by Alfred the Great).

And as privatehudson says - the Norman conquest was very much a complete 'viking' take over. Harold who was defeated by William in 1066 had just defeated a viking invasion force in the north and had to high tail it south to meet william in time for the battle. So with William being of viking decent the norman conquest could be viewed as the final 'viking' take over of England.

 

[privatehudson]

In 1389 there were no Vikings...

I'm aware of that, I was referring to the first occaision the countries merged to any great degree. As for sweden, oh well, write to Penguin and tell them their atlas of medieval warfare is innacurate

 

[ss3goku]

Almost all of the Viking kindoms converted to Lutherism after the Protestant Reformation. There is also another nation forgotten, it's technically not a Viking nation, but it works: Lapland.

 

[Inhalaattori]

"In 1389 there were no Vikings..."

That is questinoable. What is a Viking? Modern Swedes, Norvegians and most of all people of Iceland are in many ways descendants of Vikings.

Many think that viking stopped being viking when they adopted Christianity.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"In 1389 there were no Vikings..."

That is questinoable. What is a Viking? Modern Swedes, Norvegians and most of all people of Iceland are in many ways descendants of Vikings.

Many think that viking stopped being viking when they adopted Christianity.

I would argue that they stopped being Vikings when they stopped going 'a-viking'. Strictly speaking, the Vikings were the guys who got on the ships and went to raid other lands. I'm sure most modern Scandinavians are descended from Vikings, but unless they have the habit of getting on ships and attacking settlements for plunder, they themselves are not Vikings. By 1389 the raids had long since stopped, and the lands of Scandinavia had settled down to become normal European nations. (There were still wars, of course, but these were fought by soldiers rather than raiders.) So I would say that they were no longer Vikings.

(I myself am primarily of Swedish blood, so when I'm talking about my ethnicity, I'll often call myself a 'Viking'. But that doesn't mean I'm literally a Viking. I'm not a Viking; I'm an office worker. )

 

[Djingis Khan]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"In 1389 there were no Vikings..."

That is questinoable. What is a Viking? Modern Swedes, Norvegians and most of all people of Iceland are in many ways descendants of Vikings.

Many think that viking stopped being viking when they adopted Christianity.

No it's not questionable. There's a strict definition of who was a Viking. As I previously tried to explain, the Vikings were Not an ethnic group but a kind of sea-faring raider. It was rather a kind of proffesion, not an ethnecity or nationality. The nordic term was "go in Viking". Far from every scandinavian was a Viking, so it's doubtful that most modern scandinavians (including myself) are descendants of Vikings, though I guess we in general are descendants from the different ethnic groups that produced the Vikings, like the Gutar, Götar, Svear, Däner (Danes), Norrmän (Norwegians) and others.

The Viking raids ended in the 11th century, so by then the Vikings were gone, since no one "Went in Viking" anymore. Instead the warriors of scandinavia was formed into armies under the kings. But it's wrong to say that the Vinkings stopped their operations because they became Christians; there were in fact lots of christian Vikings in the 11th century shortly before the raids decreased and halted.

/DK M

 

[Djingis Khan]

Originally posted by privatehudson


I'm aware of that, I was referring to the first occaision the countries merged to any great degree. As for sweden, oh well, write to Penguin and tell them their atlas of medieval warfare is innacurate

I guess they're refering to the first accession of king Karl Knutsson Bonde, who became king in 1448 and openly opposed the union and wanted to leave it. But the danes wouldn't tolerate that, so a series of wars was fought between the danish and union-hostile swedes, and union-friendly swedes fighting for the danish. So occasionally, the king decleared Sweden as a nation free from the union, but later someone else would proclame it still to be a part of it. But one can say it definitely ended in 1523 by the Swedish rebellion under Gösta Eriksson (Gustav Vasa) against the Danish king Kristian II

/DK M