Did the Vikings have an empire???

[Drewcifer]

Originally posted by Djingis Khan


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

I am not saying that christianity itself ended the Viking era. Rather, I am saying that the introduction of Christianity began a process that ended the Viking era by integrateing Scandinavia with the rest of Europe to a degree. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation.

 

[Xen]

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.

sorry for the long delay in replying... other threads beg of my attention

that may be true, but Dublin dosent do s*it for the icelanding Vikings needing large quantities of Timber dose it? sure the viking traded alot bith souther empreies like Byzantium, but for the most part, the vikings were the sellers, and the southerners the buyers- Vikings would have activiley bought needed goods from peoples like the Germans, who as well all know, were only to eager to spread the religion of christianity at the time by ANY means needed...

 

[Djingis Khan]

Originally posted by Drewcifer
I am not saying that christianity itself ended the Viking era. Rather, I am saying that the introduction of Christianity began a process that ended the Viking era by integrateing Scandinavia with the rest of Europe to a degree. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation.

No your analysis seem to be very correct

/DK M

 

[Rammstein]

Bringing life into an old old thread... to get an idea of what defines a viking, one could look at the word itself. Viking could be a derivative of either the word "vik" (bay - in this sense, to be viking would mean to be out on a journey to plunder and pillage) or wic (merchant village, from latin vicus, meaning village). In either case, it sums up the culture of the vikings pretty good - they could be very aggressive, but mostly they were merchants and explorers, reaching out from Scandinavia to become prosperous.

In any case, the word viking has been misused to encompass all inhabitants of the Scandinavian countries, which is false. The vikings ceased to exist when the extensive travels of Scandinavian merchants/plunderers ended. That would be around 1050 a.D.

 

[Verbose]

In any case, the word viking has been misused to encompass all inhabitants of the Scandinavian countries, which is false.

There is the case of the chronicle stating that Finnish vikings (probabaly reffering to the activity) sacked and burned Sigtuna in central Sweden in 1016. There seems to have been Finnish, Baltic and Slav "vikings".

 

[Verbose]

Dublin dosent do s*it for the icelanding Vikings needing large quantities of Timber dose it?

Most likely no. It was Norwegians doing the settling. Besides the Icelanders could just as easily have gotten their timber from Norway or Scotland (more Norwegian settlements). Actually, there seems to have been quite a bit of forests in Iceland when they first arrived (and a few Irish monks). Bit sensitive probabaly, since they deforested the place quickly.
Whatever the Icelanders needed probabaly wouldn't have given that kind of results anyway. They were just too insignificant. They may have turned out the most amazing litterature, but from the perspecitve of the other Scandinavians Iceland was pretty small fry. (Never heard of other Scandinavians going there, but plenty about Icelanders going the other way.) The fact that in their own litterature the Icelanders are always the most amazing heroes, best warriors and have the best lines, shouldn't fool us. There may have been a bit of compensation going on there.

sure the viking traded alot bith souther empreies like Byzantium, but for the most part, the vikings were the sellers, and the southerners the buyers-

Quite. One theory I've come across is that the east-west trade routes were disrupted by the Arab empire and rerouted through Scnadinavia. The Scandinavians had the good fortune to be able to set themselves up as the middle-men mainly moving goods eastwards and silver westwards. At least for a while. Part of the decline of their importance would come from the fact that the Mediterranean started functioning as the main trade route again, bringing all that wealth to the Italian medieval trading republics. (Mind you, this was one of the more clever marxist historians way of explaining things.)

the Germans, who as well all know, were only to eager to spread the religion of christianity at the time by ANY means needed...

As far as I know the German "drang nach Osten" ("Go East!", sort of) was later, 12th and 13th centuries. Even if it was technically the archbishopric of Bremen, that was charged with the conversion of these dangerous heathens, they mostly sat on their hands. The actual conversion was very much done by missionaries from England. (The names of early medieval martyrs give evidence of this.) Probabaly a sound policy of defense on their part. They didn't discriminate either, so the Swedes looking eastwards were actually brought around to the christian viewpoint by missionaries coming from the west. Without them Sweden might just as well have ended up as part of orthodox christendom. (I don't mean that would necessarily have been bad, but it would have been different.)

 

[Verbose]

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.

Sure, but the level "backwardness" may not have been quite so obvious. They certainly were backwards in the one respect medieval Europeans recognised, being heathens. On the other hand in England, the locals seem to have resented the Scandinavians because their own women were said to prefer them over the stout anglo saxon lads. The Scandinavians both washed and groomed themselves.

As far as their conversion to christianity you are spot on for Denmark and Norway. Sweden seems to have been different. This was the place were the old ways stuck for the longest. Possibly because the king may have been a religious figure, the kind of rainmaker-king Frazer's "The Golden Bough" deals with. The power was wielded by landowning nobles who doubled as religious funtionaries. Political and religious change may have been brought about by the rise of a new influential group in society who had made their money from trade and been exposed to all these new ideas abroad. I any case Sweden was later to coalesce into a unified kingdom and embrace christianity. The last pagan king was Blot Sven (Sven the Sacrificer) in the 1040's and the great temple in Uppsala wasn't burnt until the 1080's.
Iceland is really peculiar. They actually accepted christianity through a parliamentary decision. Some old oracle consulted the gods and came back with the startling news that White Christ was the way of the future. From then on Icelanders should accept the new religion, but at their own pace. Honest pagans were allowed to go on practising the old ways in their own homes as long as they liked. This made some of the christians impatient, and thus was born the fighting bishops of Iceland.
The "ecclesia militans", the fighting church, wasn't an empty concept here. These tough bishops would get their fighting skills honed in dozens of battles travelling the length and breadth of Iceland looking up homesteads were people still adhered to the old gods. They would challenge the master of the house to a duel (not to death, they were good christians, if a bit rough). If the master won, the bishop would go away, if he lost he'd allow himself and his household to be baptized. Since most of these people were farmers and the bishops more like prize fighters, they'd get the snot beaten out of them.

 

[Kafka2]

The high point of the Viking empire was under Cnut. He was King of England and Denmark, and was also Overlord of certain parts of Norway and Sweden. The Norse kings of Dublin and Man probably owed him a few favours too. Plus you could extend that authority over Iceland and Greenland too, though how effective that control was is questionable.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I get tired of pointing this out, but historically (up til the 19th century), the term Empire - like caliphate to Caliph, kingdom to king, duchy to duke, county to count, margravate to margrave - is a domain ruled by an Emperor. The Vikings were never unified under one king, never mind an Emperor.

 

[Rammstein]

The high point of the Viking empire was under Cnut. He was King of England and Denmark, and was also Overlord of certain parts of Norway and Sweden. The Norse kings of Dublin and Man probably owed him a few favours too. Plus you could extend that authority over Iceland and Greenland too, though how effective that control was is questionable.

Well... no, not really. There were great many men who claimed lordship over parts of Scandinavia, but there is really no way of knowing who they were for certain. The icelandic tales, which is one of very few sources on the subject (and highly unrealiable) give many names of kings, and one of them is sure to be Knut, a common name at the time. There are a few names that are mentioned in other sources as well (making them a bit more reliable). It is true that Danish kings ruled over England for a period of time, but to name just one who could hold an "empire" together is just plain wrong - the Scandinavians didn't have that kind of control on their home turf, much less so on far-off provinces.

Just to give a hint of the difficulties of knowing what happened in scandinavia at the time, you may want to consider the fact that nothing substantial was actually written down about people, places and events in what later became Sweden until the later parts of the 13th century. A great many names of kings and lords figure, and only a few of them is certain to have existed.

It is far more likely that Scandinavian territory and conquered lands and towns were ruled by a huge number of kings, or at least men who called themselves kings. There was never a great empire, because the vikings didn't constitute a civilization as such, it was just a culture - which is why there are no vikings in civ3, only Scandinavians (I like the fact that viking culture is limited to a UU, which is pretty much how it was...).

 

[Kafka2]

Well... no, not really. There were great many men who claimed lordship over parts of Scandinavia, but there is really no way of knowing who they were for certain. The icelandic tales, which is one of very few sources on the subject (and highly unrealiable) give many names of kings, and one of them is sure to be Knut, a common name at the time. There are a few names that are mentioned in other sources as well (making them a bit more reliable). It is true that Danish kings ruled over England for a period of time, but to name just one who could hold an "empire" together is just plain wrong - the Scandinavians didn't have that kind of control on their home turf, much less so on far-off provinces.

You have to bear in mind that while Scandinavian sources (written for entertainment) aren't very reliable, the Anglo-Saxon sources (written by anal-retentive monks as a chronicle of events) carry far more weight, and they indirectly cover Scandinavian history.

The problems about division of power across nations was certainly displayed under Harthacnut and Harald Harefoot, but not under Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut. They appear to have held things together- certainly enough for Cnut to bequeath kingdoms in Scandinavia and England.

 

[Evie]

I get tired of pointing this out, but historically (up til the 19th century), the term Empire - like caliphate to Caliph, kingdom to king, duchy to duke, county to count, margravate to margrave - is a domain ruled by an Emperor. The Vikings were never unified under one king, never mind an Emperor.

One could however make the counter-point that while the Vikings may not have called what THEY had an empire, it is not unreasonable for us 21st century individuals to apply the MODERN definition of terms (ie, empire in the sense of colonial empire) when trying to discuss things of the past - because these are the definition we are most familiar with and thus the definition most of us commonly understand.

 

[sabo]

The vikings are still alive, in fact in iceland they still use their sir names as paternal, so you can have 5 people in the family with 5 last names, about the only conquest the Vikings have left is the super bowl..

 

[Amenhotep7]

No. Almost. But if Harald Hardrada had not gotten so full of himself on that bridge outside of York, they would have.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

The vikings are still alive, in fact in iceland they still use their sir names as paternal, so you can have 5 people in the family with 5 last names, about the only conquest the Vikings have left is the super bowl..

haha, very very funny . The French once had a prayer that said something like "Oh, God! Save us from the power of the Norsemen!". In Ireland, the impact of the Vikings is still felt. I think Dublin is an originally Nordic word and in downtown Dublin there is a place called Dublinia, which is a museum where they show life in Ireland in the Viking era. They even have a vermin smell in the exhibit

 

[Rammstein]

You have to bear in mind that while Scandinavian sources (written for entertainment) aren't very reliable, the Anglo-Saxon sources (written by anal-retentive monks as a chronicle of events) carry far more weight, and they indirectly cover Scandinavian history.

The problems about division of power across nations was certainly displayed under Harthacnut and Harald Harefoot, but not under Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut. They appear to have held things together- certainly enough for Cnut to bequeath kingdoms in Scandinavia and England.

I wouldn't trust anything written about the vikings - not now, not then, no matter how anal retentive the authors were. No Scandinavian research on the subject can confirm anything substantial on names, places and events until much later. That's just the way it is. Those names you mention could be any mindless chieftain who claimed a piece of land. The chronicles do surely not cover Scandinavian history - unless these monks actually went here themselves.

 

[Rammstein]

One could however make the counter-point that while the Vikings may not have called what THEY had an empire, it is not unreasonable for us 21st century individuals to apply the MODERN definition of terms (ie, empire in the sense of colonial empire) when trying to discuss things of the past - because these are the definition we are most familiar with and thus the definition most of us commonly understand.

It won't matter. Since there was no formal centre from which power emanated, it cannot be called an empire.

 

[Combat Ingrid]

There is the case of the chronicle stating that Finnish vikings (probabaly reffering to the activity) sacked and burned Sigtuna in central Sweden in 1016. There seems to have been Finnish, Baltic and Slav "vikings".

Are you sure about the date?
I know Sigtuna was sacked at least once but the only occasion I know about was later.
Sweden (mainly the church) was expanding into Karelia in the 12th and 13th centuries.
The orthodox church (from Novgorod) was at the same time also expanding into this region.
The two finally met and got angry with each other
IIRC, Karelians supported ny Novgorod went on a raid to Sweden and sacked Sigtuna sometime in the end of the 12th century. I think they killed a bunch of religious leaders too while they were at it, to stop the future expansion of the church. I wouldn't call these people Vikings, though, if this is what you were referring to.

Sweden then went on crusade into Finland and Karelia, which probably made Novgorod more angry with us.
After that, Sweden and Russia kept fighting each other back and forth in that region until 1809, when we gave them the Finnishing blow by handing them Finland , but that's a different story.

 

[scoutsout]

Some of you guys are missing some pieces to the puzzle here... who captured York just prior to the Battle of Hastings? That's right, the Vikings. After Norman Invasion, the direct influence of the Vikings on England was lessened but many of the viking that came to raid coastal settlements in England actually stayed. Though subtle, English culture as we know it has some of its roots in Viking culture. It would be unfair to say that they were simply "assimilated". In the English language, the names of 4 of the 7 days of the week have their roots in Norse. Other English words that have Norse roots: knife, eggs, husband...

 

[Tallanas]

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

Sorry if this has been answered already... Not that I disagree with you particularly, but there are several reasonably eminent historians who maintain that Vikings survived into the Middle Ages at least in spirit. They make the point that what else were the Crusaders except descendents of post-settlement Viking peoples who then sailed off to the Holy Land for a damn good fight. I'd say that's sticking fairly closely to the Viking "spirit"

Then again, i remember quoting one such historian in an essay at uni, and my tutor was quick to point out that that is an old-fashioned point of view...


Tal