Talk:Vikings/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BSoren17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope of the article

The previous thread is now long. There needs to be an agreement on which groups of vikings are covered by this article. I note that broadly speaking there are three groups. The Norse vikings, the Finnic vikings and the Russ vikings. At the moment the article is only about Norse vikings. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I support the idea of bringing in the three main groups. But whatever it is that we bring in, has to be balanced in academic literature, showing the academic thought and differences of opinion on both sides. For example for the Viking Rus' as is called in academia, there are two opposing sides: The normanist theory (that they descended from norsemen) and the anti-normanist theory (that they did not descend from norsemen). There is also a new and third theory which states that "They were a "multi-ethnic, multilingual and non-territorial community of sea nomads and trading settlements" that contained numerous Norsemen—but equally Slavs, Balts, and Finns.". Another option is to keep the Vikings page as an umbrella term for all three and then linking to each individual group separately: Norsemen, Oeselians and Rus' people. Blomsterhagens (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

: And I support the principle that, as an Encyclopedia, we should stick to the simple facts; rather than trying to mangle semantics in order to shoehorn entire cultural groups into definitions that do not apply to them. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to answer a comment when it's just a rant and not a specific claim. Who said facts in encyclopaedia should be "simple"? The entire essence of world history is that it's complex and nuanced. Blomsterhagens (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A simple question: If the Oeselians were ethnically not Norse, but were called Vikings by the Norse Vikings and lived the same lifestyle, then how would you handle that situation on this page? What is your solution? Blomsterhagens (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Pls read and give an opinion...I am sure we can all agree the source is solid.Lars Elenius; Christina Allard; Camilla Sandström (2016). Indigenous Rights in Modern Landscapes: Nordic Conservation Regimes in Global Context. Taylor & Francis. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-317-05968-4.

--Moxy (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Expand the scope on a purely geographical basis as the groups were largely assimilated with each other? That is to say that they were for the most part the same group, even if they were under different nation banners. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems, however, that you now discuss subjects which belong in the article Norsemen? I think in either case, a serious development of the page Norsemen would make the questionable present lack of focus in the article Viking even more clear. I dont know any other article on Wikipedia, where two articles includes the same content, becasue one of the articles is clearly about that subject, and the other article reflects a misiformed minority who thinks that the article covers the same subject as the first one.... Dan Koehl (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

My main gripe is with 1) The fact that the article makes it look like only Norsemen were vikings, which is not true. 2) It talks about Norse lifestyle and the activity of "viking" interchangeably, which is also not correct. Most norsemen were not Vikings, but most Vikings were Norsemen. Not all Vikings were Norsemen. So this article should focus on the activity of "Viking" without an ethnic bias, and the Norse lifestyle should belong under Norsemen Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I am also uncomfortable with this article going into detail on lifestyle, since the viking subject would be better focused on exploration, raiding and trade routes. With note to settlements established by vikings, but not too much detail on the home life of the people themselves. I think given the current direction of the conversation it would be best to focus less on the ethnicity issue in this article, as that subject is better defined in other more detailed articles where the multiple interpretations of ethno-linguistic groupings are still in contention. The key point is not to destroy what is still a high level overview article by getting into too much detail. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh! I don't think this will happen. It has always appealed to Scandinavians here, but not to the native English-speakers. You should bear in mind the relative views of these articles. This is where English-speaking young people come to help with their homework, and learn more about what they see on tv. They don't go to Norsemen, and anything removed to there almost might as well be deleted as far as 80% of readers are concerned. As regards the ethnic issue, a short section dealing with non-Norse peoples, very carefully referenced, would be fine, but care must be taken over WP:UNDUE. Alliances between native Irish clans and Norsemen are probably among the most important elements as far as the now-English-speaking world is concerned, but I haven't noticed any mention of these in this pretty much all-Scandinavian discussion. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What about starting from the lead then. "Vikings were Norse seafarers...." < that claim is factually wrong. Most Vikings were Norse, yes. But not all. At the very least, the Oeselians should be mentioned somewhere. The claim of there being a lot of young people who need to be taught about the Viking history is exactly the reason why this article should reflect reality. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I could live with "were seafarers, mainly Norsemen speaking the Old Norse language, ...." More detail is not needed at this point. Very little indeed is really known about detailed Viking demography. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That's an OK change. As long as Oeselians can also be mentioned somewhere below in a short section, carefully referenced, as you said. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Blomsterhagens: You're still claiming that Viking Age Oeselians were ethnic Estonians (per the modern-day definition of Estonians, that is a Finno-Ugric people) even though there is absolutely no support in reliable sources for that claim, all that is known is that the Oeselians were a historic people, described in the 13th Century as being Estonians, using a geographic descriptor. Nothing is known about the ethnicity, language etc of Viking Age, i.e. 8th-10th Century, Oeselians, other than that they lived on Ösel, and your WP:OR does not belong here. As has been pointed out to you during a previous POV-spree there's also no reason to mention Ösel when serveral other places where Vikings are known to have lived aren't mentioned. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The sagas call their homeland "Estland", but we don't need to concern ourselves with whether the Viking Age Oeselians were ethnic Estonians, only to note that some vikings were Finnic. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: We do NOT know that some Vikings were Finnic, all we know is that sagas use the geographical names Finland and Estland/Estonia to describe were they lived, but we do not know what their ethnicity was. You can't automatically assume that the people who live in a certain area today also lived in that area a thousand years ago! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Modern academic sources say they were Estonian and spoke a language different from Old Norse. If modern academic sources use the word "Estonian", then it's not the job of wiki editors to decipher to meaning to anything else than what the standard meaning is. But "Finnic" is also fine, as Oeselians fall under that group. Scandinavian does not work though. Finnic tribes living in Ösel can in no way be considered Scandinavian. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do would be to simply make use of the North Germanic peoples article, use a generic geographical descriptor, and be done with the matter of ethnic groups entirely. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to minimize edit conflicts

Generalisation is acceptable. I think that minor changes should be considered. As the following: — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Vikings (Old English: wicing—"pirate", Danish and Bokmål: vikinger; Swedish and Nynorsk: vikingar; Icelandic: víkingar, from Old Norse) were Scandinavian seafarers, mainly speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Northern European homelands across wide areas of northern, central, eastern and western Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries. And explored westwards to Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland. The term is also commonly extended in modern English and other vernaculars to the inhabitants of Norse home communities during what has become known as the Viking Age. This period of Nordic military, mercantile and demographic expansion constitutes an important element in the early medieval history of Scandinavia, Estonia, the British Isles, France, Kievan Rus' and Sicily.

Notes

References

Ösel is not in Scandinavia. Scandinavia will not work. Oeselians can in no way be considered "Scandinavian". What Johnbod proposed is good. And Thomas.W - there are sources listed above which categorically say they are Estonian. I don't know if you're not reading those texts or just refusing to acknowledge it. If modern academic sources say they were Estonian, then there is nothing to argue. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I'm fine with that draft. But I'm not up on the Oeselians question, nor the Rus one. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How is "Scandinavian" better than Norse? It would only work if Oeselians were somehow considered "Scandinavian", which I don't understand how it can be possible. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x2 That text isn't acceptable, for multiple reasons, one reason being that nothing is known about the ethnicity of Viking Age Oeselians (no matter how many times Blomsterhagens says so), the other reason being that there's nothing to support that there were Rus' people other than Norsemen who went "Viking", i.e. nothing to support that the ethnicities they ruled over also did it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We can ignore Rus' for now. There's a general academic consensus that Rus' were of Norse origin. When it comes to the Oeselians, that is not the case. Academic sources specifically say they were Estonian and spoke a different language from Old Norse. It is not your place to decipher what "Estonian" could or could not have meant. That is OR. If academic papers from the 21st century use the word "Estonian", then that's the way it is to be used. I find it amusing how I keep linking academic sources and you keep saying that there are no sources. Feels like a George Orwell novel. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I will come up with another draft to take those concerns into account. I feel it is important to represent all groups including the Russ, while still being consistent with the English usage of the word viking and mainstream academic thought. This isn't easy, but I feel it is possible. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As Johnbod proposed, "Vikings were seafarers, mainly Norsemen speaking the Old Norse language" is a completely fine lead. @Thomas.W let's say I agree with what you are saying, although sources say otherwise, that the ethnicity of Oeselians is not known. Even in that case, you cannot say that "Vikings were Norse". Because there are groups of "unknown ethnicity" who were also called "vikings" by the "norse vikings". Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• New: — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Vikings (Old English: wicing—"pirate", Danish and Bokmål: vikinger; Swedish and Nynorsk: vikingar; Icelandic: víkingar, from Old Norse) were Northern European seafarers, mainly speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Northern European homelands across wide areas of northern, central, eastern and western Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries. And explored westwards to Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland. The term is also commonly extended in modern English and other vernaculars to the inhabitants of Norse home communities during what has become known as the Viking Age. This period of Nordic military, mercantile and demographic expansion constitutes an important element in the early medieval history of Scandinavia, Estonia, the British Isles, France, Kievan Rus' and Sicily.

Notes

References

"Mainly north germanic people from the communities of Oeselians, Finnic peoples...." - there is no support to the claim that there were "north germanic people" in the Oeselian community. Oeselians were Finnic. To avoid making errors and conflicts, it's best to avoid mentioning ethnicities other than the Norsemen in the lead in general. "Vikings were seafarers, mainly Norsemen speaking the Old Norse language" << Is completely fine. The rest can be written about in below sections. Edit: "Northern European seafarers" is also good, yes. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the lead section of the article. I think the next step is to find a suitable place to put additional information in the body of the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Since the lead is supposed to reflect, and summarize, the most important things that are said in the article, and not introduce things that aren't mentioned in the main body, it should be done the other way around: first propose changes to the body of the article, and if supported by others add it there, then summarize in the lead... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

What Frayae did was correct. The lead is now factually correct. The previous statement was factually incorrect. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This is true, all that was achieved is a some rewording. No groups were introduced into the lead, although I did initially propose that as an option. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to ethnic diversity, here's one more source in addition to all the others regarding the topic from the University of Liverpool. Although granted, this is published as a regular article and not as a scientific paper. "An analysis of skeletons at sites linked to Vikings using the latest scientific techniques points to a mix of Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian peoples without clear ethnic distinctions in rank or gender." Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The recent changes that have been made to the lead are not correct at all. A lead is supposed to identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The current lead identifies all seafarers in Northern Europe as the topic, while the topic of the body is strictly Norse seafarers. The body of the article makes no references at all to alleged non-Norse Vikings. Introducing such claims in the first sentence of the lead is not a summary of the body of the article with appropriate weight. Usage of the phrase "Northern European seafarers" is also contradicted by the source which is used to back it up,[2] so there is an element of misrepresentation of sources here. These changes should be reverted. Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Thomas.W for the reversion to the earlier version of the opening sentence. But we could do without the list of compass points. We currently have "across wide areas of northern, central, eastern and western Europe", then mention Sicily at the end of the paragraph, which is southern. The opening sentence is a summary, and this should simply say "across wide areas of Europe". Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The continuation of the previous change was to add a mention of the Oeselians somewhere in the article, who were called Vikings by the "Norse" Vikings but were of, for the sake of the argument, "of unknown identity". There is a long list of discussion with sources above. For example this article from the university of liverpool. The lead is factually correct. What is missing is a mention of the Oeselians or "unknown ethnicities" somewhere in the body. You're welcome to propose something. Can't change a factually correct lead into an inaccurate lead just because there's not enough body copy. If a short description of "other ethnicities" is added in the body, the lead is also proportional, as it clearly states most vikings were Norse. Another source is here. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Excerpt from the source above: "The word ‘viking’ is itself used by different scholars to mean different things. Its use in Modern English stems from the early 19th century and it was broadly used to describe people of Scandinavian cultural identity active in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries.". And from the source provided by Thomas W. : "Northern and Western Estonia were definitely part of the Scandinavian cultural space during the period under review (i.e. 450-1050AD)"}}. A quote from Andres Tilvaur, archaeologist at Tartu University (link). Not drawing lines from ethnicity, which is too narrow, but from cultural spaces, seems to be the most exact. Or another definition, again from the source, is : "Others regard ‘Viking’(with or without a capital ‘v’) as a cultural label to describe the spread of Scandinavian influence circa 780–1050." Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The book about the Viking Age in Finland also mentions Viking ethnicity on page 303: "It should not be assumed that such adventurers and entrepreneurs were exclusively ethnic Norsemen.". Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Blomsterhagens:, I think I may have an idea how to proceed with the problems surrounding those this articles. Please mail me. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Viking vs viking. Or is it viking instead. No ... it is most certainly viking. Or is it?

Reading the discussions here and discussions in the archives, I notice that there isn't even a consensus about what "Viking" is supposed to mean. Most of the disagreements seem to stem from each party arguing from the grounds of their definition. The problem we have here is that the word "Viking" has obtained several meanings.

Meanings

• normie Viking - (I have no idea how else to call it - please suggest smth that is more appropriate) How normal people and popular culture tends to view Vikings.
• romantic Viking - This Viking originates from the era where historians preferred to write about their ancestor's history in a very idealistic light.
• academic Viking - This is the Viking that majority of academic sources usually refer to as Vikings. For that Viking, there is a distinction made between Vikings and Norsemen. Vikings are considered as a specific subset of Norsemen.
• linguist Viking - This Viking is nothing more than a regular pirate. The word being just an archaic version of the same concept as "pirate" before the word "pirate" took hold in the English language.
• latecomer Viking - This Viking is really late to Viking discussion compared to the other Vikings. This Viking has a wider domain than the academic Viking. This Viking isn't a subset of Norseman, but a subset of Maritime activity in Northern Europe during pagan times up to a time when the last seafaring pagans were Christianised. This subset of Maritime activity is characterized as an opportunistic trading and raiding inside a common cultural area and using Old Norse as lingua franca.

I hope I represented all those domains (that Vikings have come to mean) in a fair way. These are all the contexts that I could distil from discussions from here and from the archives. If you think I misrepresented any of them, let me know, this list is meant as an accurate documentation of things a Viking is considered to be in the discussions here.

We need to address this conflict of meanings if we want this article to ever become not crap.

Considerations to formulate solutions

• Wictionary - This breakdown of meanings should probably be added in some shape or form into Wictionary. (Is what Wictionary is for?)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Wikipedia is not the place to argue about definitions. Thus, we do not get to argue which of these meanings is correct and enforce the correct definition on the subject. If "Viking" is used in these differing contexts then these are all valid subjects.
• NPOV - We represent facts here not opinions. As is written in the META-Wiki "widely held or widely respected points of view are not necessarily all-encompassing". There indeed are limits to this. However, the latecomer Viking has certainly passed this threshold. This is evident in the recent academic materials sometimes using "Viking" in a broader meaning than the academic Viking would like to permit.
• know the audience - One of the rules of Wikipedia tells that it is not primarily aimed at experts. I am mentioning this since this rule makes "normie Viking" a valid concern. A normie should be able to come searching for info about the Old Norse by searching "Vikings". While, academically, this is not correct, Wikipedia should cater to this misconception in some way.
• cite, cite, cite - This Wikipedia principle is in contradiction with the know your audience part in our situation. You can't really cite normie Vikings. If the source about Vikings is citable, it is most probably in an academic context. And academic Viking and normie Viking are significantly different in their being.
• Chimera Article - The article in its current state is a Chimera Article. Chimera article is an article which tries to write about two different subjects at once intentionally. In this case, this article contains info about the culture of Norsemen while it could be a separate article itself. While the motivation for it to stay is noble(to facilitate the normie Viking), this inclusion makes the clarity worse for those who know that Norsemen and Vikings are different. Also, let us harbour good faith in "normies" and rather assume that they don't know about this distinction due to lack of interest than lack of intelligence.

Proposed Solutions

• normie Viking - it is clear that a normie Viking and other Vikings cannot really exist in the same article. The sections about Northmen make up a majority of the article. This article could just be renamed into Northmen and intro summary could be reworded to reflect the change and a subtopic should be created which would address normies who land here searching for those Vikings.
• romantic Viking - I don't know how these kinds of things are handled in Wikipedia.
• academic Viking - let this be the true Viking. The academic sources have adopted it pretty widely and its not Wikipedias responsibility to redefine stuff. Same could be said about normie Viking. However, by separating Norsemen from Viking topic into a separate Norsemen article, we could serve both without both meanings stepping too much on each other's toes. academic Viking article can just dedicate a paragraph on the normie Viking with a summary of Northmen and providing a link to Northmen article.
• linguist Viking - shouldn't information about words and their history belong to Wiktionary?
• latecomer Viking - This concept of a Viking is a new way to use the word. In my opinion, this is due to a more suitable term for this subject not being coined yet. The latecomer Viking is not inherently at odds with the academic Viking. Academic Viking can perfectly exist as a subset of latecomer Viking. So, I think that latecomer Viking needs its own article. However, I am not too sure it should be named anything "Viking". Also, as wikipedia editors, I don't think its in our authority to coin any new terms. Thus, we need a generic title for the subject. The subject would be about the maritime stuff of the pagan peoples around the Viking Era. It should include the maritime activities of Rus, pagans around the Baltic Sea and pagan Scandinavian maritime activities. I think we can agree that there was some sort of unified maritime culture present in these Northern areas. Vikings would be mentioned in that article as a summary and directed to a Vikings page.

Comments on my take on the current article division?

In the meanwhile, I will employ the BOLD principle and will start implementing these solutions for this article, starting from least controversial edits first. Vana-Tamme (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Vana-Tamme: I recommend not going boldly into editing this without first noting the extensive debate on this subject here and in the archives, at Talk:Norsemen, Talk:North Germanic peoples, and at Viking Age. This issue is not new and no agreed complete solution has emerged yet despite many years of consideration. The current consensus is that this article is about Norse Vikings as defined by 20th century English academic standards. If you change this without getting consensus first it could be a problem. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vana-Tamme: All these different definitions and meanings of the term "Viking" is already contained in and explained in the article as is. I can't see any problem. RhinoMind (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Norse

The use of 'Norse' as a synonym for Viking is controversial and better avoided. Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use Norse as a synonym for Norwegian. E.g. 1. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 329 suggests that the Danish Vikings of York offered to submit to Æthelflæd in 918 to get her protection against Norse raiders from Ireland. 2. Barbara Yorke in Wessex in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 107-8 describes the raiders on Portland in the 790s as Norse because they came from Norway, not Denmark. 3. Bolland and Haycock in The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook, p. 249, "Dublin was taken and fortified by Norsemen between 837 and 842 and was taken in turn by the Danes in 852." 4. N. J.Higham in The Kingdom of Northumbria, p. 173, says that the raid on Lindisfarne in 789 was probably the work of Norse rather than Danish warriors. 5. Tim Clarkson in Strathclyde and the Anglo-Saxons in the Viking Age, p. 6, says "In this book, Norwegian Vikings are referred to by the conventional term 'Norse', while those who colonised Ireland are distinguished as 'Hiberno-Norse'."

I suggest deleting references to Vikings as Norse and adding to the lead from the main text the important clarification "Generally speaking, the Norwegians expanded to the north and west to places such as Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, and Greenland; the Danes to England and France, settling in the Danelaw (northern/eastern England) and Normandy; and the Swedes to the east, founding Kievan Rus'." This is broadly correct, although there are of course exceptions such as the Norwegian settlements of north-west England. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Good and interesting points, but... I would like to add that the geographical areas of Denmark and Norway was often ruled by the same king during the Viking Age. Parts of Sweden too. And the people inhabiting these places had a most homogeneous culture during that time as well. I am not sure the term Norse could be used as a synonym for Norwegian in every context. RhinoMind (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence they wore horned helmets

This article deserves to be congratulated for saying that there is no evidence that the Vikings wore horned helmets. It could say that this was an invention of nineteenth century opera (I heard this said on BBC Radio Four tonight, November 21 2018). Vorbee (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Except that it would be inaccurate. The characters in Der Ring des Nibelungen (the aforementioned opera) were not Vikings. They belong to a Germanic/Norse legend that predates the Viking era. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I read in a book somewhere that the idea of horned helmets is an English invention, or rather a melding of English (Germanic), Scandinavian (Jute), and Brittonic (Celtic) beliefs. The Brits had a lot of druidic beliefs, in which the natural world was all magical, and many of their gods took the form of plants or animals. One of their gods, for example, had the body and face of a man but hooves like a goat and horns like a deer. This figure (a benevolent god in druidic religions) became the English conceptualization of the "devil" when the Catholics took over and their old religion became pagan. (No account of Lucifer in the Bible has him with horns and hooves, but rather he's described as a beautiful angel.) In many druidic celebrations, hats or "helms" with horns on them were common (often fashioned of the entire head of a deer, skull-cap of a bull, or some other animal). It's not surprising this would subconsciously get woven into other facets of their belief system. (Likely applied to Germanic/Norse gods at first, as some Brits began to adopt them, and later by association to the Vikings.)

Such melding of beliefs is very common. In Ireland, their gods were reduced --literally-- to become leprechauns. It's an interesting theory. I'll dig up the ref when I have a little more time, but that may take a while. Zaereth (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oeselians / Estonian / Finnic vikings

While Norsemen constituted the larger population of the vikings, also Oeselians and Curonians were represented in the time and played an important role. The current article seems to be focused almost solely on the Norsemen. How can we best add some text on Oeselians and Curonians, without breaking the flow of content on Norsemen? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Oeselians and Curonians are Finno-Baltic cultures, ethno-linguistically in the Uralic group of peoples; whereas the Norse are of Germanic origins. They are much closer related to the Huns than the Vikings. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Finno-Baltic cultures". Estonians are Finnic people, while Curonians were Baltic people. None of them are related to the Huns. You are being ridiculously bigoted in your stereotypes. H2ppyme (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing bigoted or stereotypical about what I said. Read the Wikipedia articles on Finnic peoples which includes Finnish, Karelian and and Estonian cultures; and the Finno-Ugric languages which includes Finnish, Estonian, and Hungarian. The fact that these groups have common origins is scientifically evident. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You literally said "They are much closer related to the Huns than the Vikings." H2ppyme (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? The entire point is that vikings were not only norsemen. Have you actually read the sources? Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have read the sources, and they do not support your assertion. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Support what exactly? The sources clearly say that Oeselians were vikings. What exactly is your point? Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is that you need to provide reliable sources to support your assertions. Most of the sources you listed are not RS and/or completely irrelevant. Only one states that there were Vikings in Estonia; however it does not say that they were Oeselians. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So instead of renaming Oeselians to Estonians, you just blanket revert everything? Sorry if I don’t see any professionalism in that action. I’ll recheck the references but it’s not like the academic research is short on sources here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=estonian+vikings&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just follow the rules and provide you sources. Then there will be no issue. Have a nice day.

• Vikings were per definition Germanic Scandinavians speaking the Old Norse language, making Oeselians, Curonians and all other peoples who weren't Germanic Scandinavians speaking the Old Norse language totally irrelevant for this article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly, per this article, whose first sentence has "...were Norse seafarers, mainly speaking the Old Norse language,..." - one wonders what the others spoke. His point is that the Oeselians and Curonians were often also fierce pagan maritime raiders, with a pretty similar "Viking" lifestyle, which seems to be the case, though I've no idea if they settled overseas, went as far as the Vikings, or mixed and mingled with them. How much the surrounding people took careful note of exactly who it was slaughtering them, we also can't be sure of. It might be worth adding a sourced para. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Nope. The lead of this article states that Vikings were "Norse seafarers", and Norse refers to (and redirects to) Norsemen, an article that describes the Norse as "Germanic people who inhabited Scandinavia and spoke what is now called the Old Norse language". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So the lead is wrong then? Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If we go by the strict definition, yes, but many Norse men who settled outside Scandinavia married local women and got children who became bilingual, speaking both Old Norse and local languages, but continued the lifestyle of their fathers, from whatever area they grew up in (the Scandinavians who settled in Normandy, Ireland, Scotland and elsewhere were mainly men, as can be seen from DNA tests made in the Faroe Islands, showing that the local population almost exclusively descend from Scandinavia on the male side, but to a large extent from Ireland on the female side, lots of people in Iceland also descend from Ireland or Scotland on the female side...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert, as my interest has always been the origins of the English language rather than Norse, but I've heard of Danish Vikings, so I'm not sure that language or country is the main criteria, nor is a seafaring/raider lifestyle. I was always under the impression that the link is they descended from the Proto-Germanic race, carrying with them their religion and beliefs, and had languages with strong retention of that Proto-Germanic language.

Danish is a North Germanic language like Old Norse was, and is descended from it, and Danish, Danes and Denmark are pretty much universally considered a Scandinavian language, people and country (despite the country not actually on the geographical Scandinavian peninsula but to the south/southwest of it). So yes, there were "Danish viking"/vikings in what we would now consider Denmark, without that having any relevance to the discussion at hand of whether other peoples (language branch in parentheses) like the Oeselians (Finnic?), Curonians (Baltic), Saxons (West Germanic), Angles (I think West Germanic too), Frisians (West Germanic), or Jutes (???). The Jutes are probably the most qualifying for "vikings" of those, being thought to originate in modern northern Jutland (in Denmark); their language is apparently unknown, could have been either West Germanic or a Proto-Norse language. But it's worth noting that Denmark also has plenty of territory besides the Jutland peninsula, and historically controlled much of what is now southern Sweden. None of the other seafaring raiders/invaders etc. mentioned as "possibly also vikings" seem to have spoken a North Germanic/Norse language, and their geographic origin also doesn't match what is traditionally thought of as "the Viking homeland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesihvone (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

For example, the Angles and Saxons and other Germanic invaders of Old England were virtually indistinguishable to the Vikings. Those strong German and Scandinavian roots are still strong in English today. In example, over half of the most common words we use in English every day are Scandinavian in origin. Even the days of the week are named not after Roman gods, but Germanic gods and characters (eg: Sun day, Moon day, Tue's day, Odin's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, and Surtur day.) The English didn't start to refer to Germanic cultures as raiders or Vikings until Middle English, after the French and second Roman influences to the language and culture. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a Non sequitur argument. Being in some ways similar to a Viking does not make you a viking. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Could we just stick to sources please? If academic literature says Estonians / specifically Oeselians were vikings - which is what other (norse) vikings called them at the time - then what exactly is the counterargument here? Blomsterhagens (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Estonians were not Vikings by the English language definition of "Viking", i.e. Norse seafarers (a definition that is also the common Scandinavian definition of it), period. And thus do not belong here, even if you manage to find a source that claims they were (see WP:FRINGE). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I dont follow your logic. What source says that vikings can only be norse? Those same norse vikings themselves used the term “Estonian vikings”. And the literature on this is ample. They even fought together with vikings from the swedish lands in the battle of Bråvalla. Apparently the vikings from 1200 years ago were less xenophobic than some wiki editors here. Blomsterhagens (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Blomsterhagens (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And by accusing your "opponents" of being xenophobic you lost the discussion. The vast majority of English language sources describe Vikings as being Norse seafarers, so that's what we go by. Period. I strongly suggest you read WP:FRINGE that I linked to above, since that page describes how we, i.e. the English language Wikipedia, deal with sources who present a non-mainstream view, such as the source you found about "Estonian Vikings". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed update to the intro / lead to the article

Vikings (Old English: wicing—"pirate", Danish and Bokmål: vikinger; Swedish and Nynorsk: vikingar; Icelandic: víkingar, from Old Norse) were Northern European seafarers, mainly Norsemen speaking the Old Norse language, but by some sources also Oeselians, who raided and traded from their Northern European homelands across wide areas of northern, central, eastern and western Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.

References

More sources:

Estonian Vikings capturing Olaf Tryggvason Víkingar frá Eistlandi: Austmarr in the Old Icelandic Sagas Using the term "vikings" in it's wider meaning, one can in full confidence also talk about the Estonian Vikings - Käsmu Sea Museum Víkingr frá Esthland Freygeirr's son being named Eistr ("Estonian)

If those sources exist, what exactly should then be done about them? According to Wiki rules: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view."

Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The reference says "Estonian Vikings", which are ethnic Norse inhabitants of Estonia. It is an unspported WP:POV assumption on your part that these Vikings are Oeselians. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no knowledge of any Norse population in Estonia during the Viking Age. The reference is clearly about ethnic Estonian vikings. H2ppyme (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. We don't go by a "wider definition" of Viking but by the common English language definition of it, as given in the lead of one of the sources you linked to, Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Viking, also called Norseman or Northman, member of the Scandinavian seafaring warriors who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the 9th to the 11th century and whose disruptive influence profoundly affected European history. These pagan Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish warriors ...". Clearly stating that Vikings were Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, not Estonians... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you go by wiki rules. This also means giving weight to significant minority views, no matter what you personally think about it. And you have not even addressed any of the sources. If you read about Viking revival then it's no wonder why it's so heavily tilted towards the Norse culture, when the revival was connected to 19th century Norwegian nationalism. Norsemen formed indeed most of the quantity of "vikings" - who defined themselves as sea pirates by the way and saw no nationalistic boundaries between who can be pirate and who can't. But the fact that norsemen constituted most of the vikings and than the revival started from norwegian nationalism, does not give you the right to deny perfectly valid sources about other regions. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The claim about there having been "Estonian Vikings" in the sense of Vikings that were ethnic Estonians, which is what you seem to claim, is an utterly fringe view, not a "significant minority view". And a misinterpretation of the sources that has already been pointed out to you by other editors here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so let's not argue about the ethnic interpretation of "Vikings from Estonia". (If you read enough literature on Oeselians, you'll understand that these were Finnic tribes, not north germanic. "Ethnic Estonians" did not exist back then. "Ethnic Estonians" is another 19th century nationalistic idea which has no relevance to this topic. The Finnic tribes and Norse tribes most definitely had some mixing though.) Ethnic topics aside - The sources are clear on the fact that "Vikings from Estonia" are mentioned numerous times. We can ignore giving the mentions ethnic meaning. Now what are we going to do about this? Even if they were Norse, Oeselians and Saaremaa are still completely ignored by the article. Lots of good info on this talk page from 10 years ago as well. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

They are not ignored, they are simply not relevant to the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On what grounds? Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Danes", "Norwegians" and "Swedes" refer to members of the Germanic tribes by those names, wherever they lived, and isn't limited to people living in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Members of those tribes lived in many parts of Europe during the Viking age, from Greenland to modern day Russia, including in large numbers in Normandy, Ireland and Scotland, so why do you feel that Ösel deserves special mention? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

1) Because the Salme boat burials are one of the most important ship finds ever thanks to the ships being dated very early into the viking era and because of the amount of people buried ; Source 2; 2) Because Northern Estonia was one of the most important viking trade routes. Ref And to come back to the previous topic - I've found 0 sources that say vikingr fra esthland were norse. And many sources that say they were from Ösel. And no sources ever mention that people inhabiting Ösel were norse. Can you? See the Norwegian wikipedia : "Den greske geografen Klaudios Ptolemaios i hans Geographia på midten av 200-tallet nevner oeselianere som blant de folk som bodde langs Østersjøkysten.[12] Oeselianere sammen med kuronianere blir også nevnt norrøne sagaer og i Snorre Sturlasons Heimskringla som «vikinger fra Estland» (Víkingr frá Esthland). Det er 9 referanser til Estland (inkludert til Adalysla) i sistnevnte verk,[13], og 3 referanser til estere.[14] Allerede i Snorres Ynglingesaga nevnes den estlandske øya Saaremaa (Øsel) som på norrønt ble kalt Eysysla og fastlandet rett over ble kalt for Adalsysla.[15]" Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Also this line: "Estland har framstått som et av de rikeste områdene i den østlige Østersjøen ved arkeologiske funn av mynter fra 1000- og 1100-tallet. De tidligste myntsamlinger som er avdekket i Estland er arabiske dirham fra 700-tallet. De største myntsamlinger fra vikingtiden har vært avdekket i Maidla og Kose. Ut av 1500 mynter som er dokumentert i kataloger har 1000 vært angelsaksiske, hvilket tyder på at danegeld i angelsaksiske England fant seg veg til Estland på antagelig fredelige vilkår som handel med dansker og svensker.[24]" - I can translate this to english but I assume I'm speaking to people who can read this. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Estonia having been "one of the wealthiest areas along the eastern side of the Baltic Sea" during the Viking Age, where people, according to the source, traded with Scandinavians, still doesn't explain why Ösel should be mentioned in this article, which is about Vikings, not mediaeval trade routes. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest you read the sources you link to before posting here, because the Salme boat burial is unique only in an Estonian perspective (or to quote your source: " The first Salme boat dates back to the end of the 7th – to the beginning of the 8th century, and since no such material has been found in Estonia before, the only parallels in the arheozoological material can be found in the similar findings from the neighbouring countries"; underscore added by me to emphasize that part of the text), and the "Estonian Vikings" being ethnic Estonians is purely WP:OR, using backwards logic. To support your theory you need reliable sources expressly saying that they were ethnic Estonians, a claim that is not supported by the sources not expressly saying they were Norse (since all "Vikings" by definition were Norse, there's no need to say "Norse Vikings"...). So stop wasting our time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong here. First, the Salme find changed the timeline of the Viking history. "The burials are “the most significant Viking discovery of the last hundred years,” ; Second, "A víkingr was someone who went on expeditions, usually abroad, usually by sea, and usually in a group with other víkingar (the plural). Víkingr did not imply any particular ethnicity and it was a fairly neutral term, which could be used of one’s own group or another group. The activity of víking is not specified further, either. It could certainly include raiding, but was not restricted to that." Source 1 ; Source 2' ; "A víkingr (the masculine) would then originally have been a participant on a sea journey characterised by the shifting of rowers. In that case, the word Viking was not originally connected to Scandinavian seafarers but assumed this meaning when the Scandinavians begun to dominate the seas.[20]" << from the etymology of the article in question. And you can stop being patronizing as well. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

From the Norsemen page: "The word Vikings: Vikinger in Danish and Norwegian Bokmål, and Vikingar in Swedish and Norwegian Nynorsk is not used as a word for Norsemen by natives, as "Viking" is the name for a specific activity/occupation (a "raid"), and not a demographic group. The Vikings were simply people (of any ethnicity, or origin) partaking in the raid (known as "going viking").[9]" Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So feel free to talk about Norse Vikings, but if there are sources about Finnic Vikings as well, then those should be covered. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no talk about Finnic Vikings, only about Vikings in Finland and Estonia, areas that had been partly colonized by Germanic Scandinavians already long before the Viking era (not long ago large typically Scandinavian settlements were unearthed in Southwestern Finland, dating to the Proto-Norse era, i.e. ~200-800 AD). As for the Salme boat burials they might be of interest in a discussion about when the Viking Age started, but they do not in any way support your claim about there having been ethnic Estonian Vikings... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but there haven`t been any finds of typical Scandinavian settlements from South-West Finland before 12-13th Century.Velivieras (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, there have, and you know it (how far up along the coast "South-West Finland" stretches might be up for discussion, though...). You and I have even had a brief discussion about it here on en-WP. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In Western Satakunta area there are possible traces of somekind of Germanic influence in early Iron Age e.g. in couple of place names (e.g. Harjavalta) and the name Satakunta can be seen to mean the same than Hundare in Swedish, but it is a long way from there to say that there has been Scandinavian settlements in some point of history. New DNA results are expect to be published soon from that region also. I`ll infrom you when they are published. But now, end of off-topic. Velivieras (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So - if I can find academic sources that you agree with which prove that Vikingr fra Esthland were ethnically Finnic people, what happens then? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you start a new discussion here, with sources and all, and if a majority of other editors here find the sources convincing, and support adding it to the article, an appropriate mention of it will be added to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

King Philip II of Macedon had no affilation to Norse people at all, neither the arabic pirates defined as vikings, in the story of Sigurd the Crusader. The article reflects a pseudoscience trying to back up the idea that Viking were some sort of etnical group (Norse) which they wernt, the word Viking was just a translation for the word pirate, before northern Europe started to use that term. Like @Blomsterhagens: state above, theres not one single source backing up the claim that the word Viking described "a demographic group" even if some people have belived this for the past 50 years or so, a short time compared to when the word was used by Orosius todescribe the tempororaily activities for a greek king. All this amatour approach gives the article viking an obfuscated character, far away from the clear, describing encyclopedia. Its time to take a step forward with this article. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles on anything related to Scandinavia are currently being plagued by an Estonian editor who is intent on wasting people's time to the maximum extent possible by forcing them to engage in endless, endless debates on his various Estonian nationalist WP:FRINGE theories that Estonians must be fully included in any concept related specifically to Scandinavia, despite the fact that Scandinavians are linguistically more closely related to Indians than to Estonians. Thomas.W has said all that needs to be said about Blomsterhagens' usual nonsense. The term Vikings, in the English language, refers to Norse seafarers/raiders of a certain historical period, not seafarers/raiders of any nationality. When Vikings/Norsemen sometimes spoke other languages than Norse (such as French), it was because Norsemen had colonised e.g. areas of France and intermarried with the local population; this doesn't mean that entirely separate groups in Eastern Europe, unrelated to Norsemen, were also "Vikings." --Gaduse (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

These are fringe views only because historiography has barely touched the subject. The evidence is rather clear though. There were "vikings from Estonia" as a term used by Norse sources themselves for people, who lived the same raiding lifestyle and used the same kind of fast ships. Estonia does not have any Norse population from that era, so it's erroneous to claim that these were Norse vikings from Estonia. Your entire premise here is just ridiculously narrow-minded. H2ppyme (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Some scholars have discussed viking ethnicity in more length:

Interpretations of the Viking Age through a nationalist framework have had a dominant place in historiography. Nevertheless it can be argued that the ethnic and cultural make up of the vikings was multi-faceted and multi-layered. The success of vikings as a phenomenon was linked to their ability to adapt and change according to local circumstances. At the same time they maintained a trans-national network through claims to common Scandinavian ancestry

— Clare Downham, lecturer, Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool.

Currently, it states in the lead that "Vikings were Norse seafarers". How about something like "Vikings were seafarers of Norse ancestry", which is more in line with what is written in academia? Or, "Vikings were seafarers who belonged in the Scandinavian cultural sphere." Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Are they still not generally referred to as Norsemen despite slowly having started to blend into other cultures? I'm not sure, I feel the suggested changes are slightly more ambiguous. There are of course no clear delineations, but I had thought this "Norseman" label was just sort of a modern convention. – Þjarkur (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The way I understand it, is that some academics would claim that after a couple generations of mixing with locals in a new habitat (like the british isles), the people referred to as vikings were not ethnically norse anymore or at least did not define themselves so. But they maintained their connection with the rest of the scandinavian cultural sphere / the viking world through claims of norse origins and the use of old norse as the lingua franca or the "trade language". As we know, "viking" was not used as an ethnic term back then by the people nowadays called "vikings".Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Was Norse a national identity? The paper does not mention Norse, seems to be speaking of Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes.
I don't feel the quote from Downham adds much to the article, her article mainly states "They sort of blended into the surrounding culture" and "It is debated if a Norwegian identity existed at the time". Could this be summarized differently? – Þjarkur (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The term Norse is commonly used by historians of Anglo-Saxon England to mean Norwegian Vikings, who invaded England mainly from their base in Dublin, as opposed to Danish Vikings. For example, in her edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Dorothy Whitelock refers to "all who live in Northumbria, both English and Danish, Norsemen and others" (p. 68). Michael Swanton in his edition has "English and Danish and Norwegians" (p. 104) and Sean Miller in his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Edward the Elder at [3]], has "English and Danish and Norse". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this would support the idea that "Norse" is too limiting to be used in the lead? What about something like "Vikings were seafarers of Scandinavian ancestry"? The article can't say ""Vikings were Scandinavian seafarers" either, because that would exclude the vikings on the british isles & elsewhere outside of Scandinavia. "Scandinavian ancestry/descent" or "Scandinavian cultural sphere" might be an all-encompassing, suitable term which would not go against academic sources. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Vikings were seafarers originating in Scandinavia" might work. I still had though modern English [4][5][6] used "Norse" generally like "norrænir menn". – Þjarkur (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The distinction between Danes and Norse seems to be a usage of historians rather than general usage. It is criticised by Clare Downham in an article at [7]. However I think the key point is that Wikipedia articles need to take account of historians' usage and not treat Norse as a generally accepted synonym for Viking. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. So to summarize, would "Vikings were seafarers of Scandinavian origin" be an acceptable compromise for the lead? Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that is too restrictive. It does not cover, for example, the Swedish Vikings who travelled mainly along rivers and reached Constantinople. How about "Vikings were Scandinavian seafarers, warriors, traders and explorers, mainly speaking the Old Norse language, who, between the late 8th and late 11th centuries, expanded from their Northern European homelands to raid and settle across wide areas of Europe and northern Atlantic islands." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Vikings were Scandinavian seafarers" would take us back to the original issue, as Downham has epressed. "Scandinavian" in this sense would imply ethnicity. But vikings on the british isles who were five or ten generations removed from their "scandinavian" ancestors would have not been "scandinavian" in the ethnic sense. They were still regarded as vikings though, because as is expressed by Downham, they laid claim to common scandinavian ancestry and belonged to the scandinavian cultural sphere. In this sense, "originating from Scandinavia" is a more correct term. What was common for all "vikings" was the belonging in the common Scandinavian cultural sphere. It is not the same as ethnicity though. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

So how about "Vikings were seafarers, warriors, traders and explorers, of Scandinavian origin, who, between the late 8th and late 11th centuries, expanded from their Northern European homelands to raid and settle across wide areas of Europe and northern Atlantic islands." I have deleted mainly speaking Old Norse as that may not apply under your definition. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That works well. Old Norse should maybe be kept in the lead in some form, because Old Norse was the "lingua franca" / trade language in the scandinavian cultural sphere. So even if the native language of some "vikings" was something else, many would have most likely spoken Old Norse as the second language for conducting trade. And of course Old Norse was the native language of the vikings who actually lived in Scandinavia. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Dates

Suggest adding AD or CE to dates... Some might wonder if Vikings are older and were perhaps contemporaries of ancient Greeks Howard.noble323 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Some" who? Mediatech492 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

The word "pendant" is misspelled in one of the photo captions ("silver pednant, Viking age, Sweden") 2601:183:8680:4877:9DF2:EA54:813A:EE3C (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Kpgjhpjm 04:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Viking motives

It seems interesting to me that, in the section about the Viking's motives for expansion, there seems to be a lot of focus on farming and on women or other titillating theories, but nothing about prospecting. In nearly every archeology dig I've ever heard of, there is evidence of mining and smelting operations, even as far as mainland Canada. It is well known that during this time metals, and especially iron, production was a booming business in Scandinavia, especially over in Sweden where iron-ore was abundant. It is also well-known that, since the beginning of the Bronze Age, England was fought over and conquered by people whose main interest was controlling the Cornish tin mines (practically the only major source of tin in Europe at the time; a primary ingredient of bronze). In fact, many English words such as "welding" come from Sweden and Norway. If a person wanted to make a good living for themselves in those days, farming was a great choice, but if they wanted to become rich, then mining was the key. I've seen much about the Viking mining and smelting habits in books on archeology and metallurgy, so I figure there must be some sources out there that theorize upon that as a possible motive. (Personally, I'd think it would be their primary motive.) I'll look around, but if anyone knows of any off hand, it would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice OR, but Cornwall, with the Scottish Highlands, was one of the few parts of Britain the Vikings left alone (by then it was pretty poor). The areas they targeted in Britain were pretty clearly those with treasure to rob, and after that those with good farmland. I don't think there is evidence at all that "England was fought over and conquered by people whose main interest was controlling the Cornish tin mines" - the Romans got theirs mostly from Spain apparently, and seem only to have extended rather tentatively into Cornwall. See our rather patchy Mining in Cornwall and Devon. I don't know of any evidence of Viking interest in mining in Britain or Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, true. I should have phrased it better. The Romans had more interest in controlling trade routes than anything else. That's why I ask on the talk page, because someone may know much more about it than I. (My main interest is in the ancient metallurgy than anything else. ) Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any evidence of tin mining in Cornwall in the post-Roman period. Mining in Cornwall and Devon only mentions very limited evidence of mining in Devon. BTW the Battle of Hingston Down in 838 was fought by an alliance of Vikings and Cornish against Wessex. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

No. My mistake in poor phrasing. By the Viking Age we're well into the Iron Age, and the price of tin is no longer higher than gold. (Far less by that time, in fact.) Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Charlemagne pagan revenge theory

The section stating that Viking raids started because pagans wanted revenge on Charlemagne has always struck me as rather, well odd. It seems like the sort of thing that an angry neo-pagan might write, it's sourced improperly, and most of the supporting sources are in French for some reason. Furthermore, it's introduced as a "common theory", but of the sources cited to it, four appear to be improperly cited scholarly sources (they look like the titles may have actually been in French and machine-translated into English)

1. Rudolf Simek, "the emergence of the viking age: circumstances and conditions", "The vikings first Europeans VIII–XI century—the new discoveries of archaeology", other, 2005, pp. 24–25
2. Bruno Dumézil, master of Conference at Paris X-Nanterre, Normalien, aggregated history, author of conversion and freedom in the barbarian kingdoms. 5th–8th centuries (Fayard, 2005).
3. "the Vikings" R. Boyer history, myths, dictionary, Robert Laffont several 2008, p. 96 ISBN 978-2-221-10631-0
4. Dictionnaire d'histoire de France, Perrin, Alain Decaux and André Castelot, 1981, pp. 184–85. ISBN 2-7242-3080-9.

One is a bibliography that presumably does not list theories:

1. François-Xavier Dillmann, "Viking civilisation and culture. A bibliography of French-language", Caen, Centre for research on the countries of the North and Northwest, University of Caen, 1975, p. 19, and "Les Vikings: the Scandinavian and European 800–1200", 22nd exhibition of art from the Council of Europe, 1992, p. 26

Two are citations to medieval primary sources:

1. "Franques Royal Annals" cited in Sawyer, History of the Vikings, p. 20
2. "History of the Kings of Norway" by Snorri Sturlusson translated by Professor of History François-Xavier Dillmann, Gallimard ISBN 2-07-073211-8 pp. 15–16, 18, 24, 33–34, 38

Of these sources, the bibliography and primary sources should not be cited to support a theory of modern scholarship. The Dumezil citation is such that I'm not sure exactly what's being cited - if it's just some remark he made we can't use it. I can't verify the remarks made by Boyer or the Dictionnaire de France.

The best source appears to be Simek, but I can only find it cited online to things that have copied this article. Can anyone verify that he says any such thing? I think regardless, this theory does not count as common unless we can actually find someone saying that it is.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is also an issue at Viking expansion, which at least has one scholar arguing against it.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

From what i was able to find through a quick google search, this theory is sometimes referred to as the "pagan reaction hypothesis"[8][9]. A leading proponent of this "influential and controversial" theory is Bjørn Myhre.[10] Krakkos (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Well, the book of Simek is hardly to access. But I look at the article, were this book is cited, "What caused the Viking Age?". Many possible theories are listed there and, among them: "Alternatively, it has been argued that the expansionistic military and ecclesiastical policies (including early missions into Scandinavia) of the Christian kingdoms of Western Europe may have inspired an ideologically driven reaction among the pagan elites of the north."--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! It's unfortunate that we don't have full access to all of these (though I could get it most likely if I tried - I don't have a lot of time though). It seems to me that we should certainly rewrite this section to at least reflect the theory being controversial/associated with an individual.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the article of Myhre, B. (1993) and here "What caused the Viking Age?" by Barret, 2008. Yes, I think it is necessary to reformulate the section. As I see it, the main focus is not on "revenge", but on the influence of the culture of advanced Christian states.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References