AFAIK the origin of the word "viking" hasn't been determined with any degree of accuracy yet.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
¿¿¿??? Tell me about this, please.
The only battle between vikings and arabs that I know was in Sevilla 844 A.C., and the whole viking fleet was destroyed by the Abd al-rahman II army.
"In the battle of Tablada the vikings suffered a terrible defeat. More than 1500 of them died in the battle, and 400 were taken as prisoners, tortured and their heads exposed in the zoco of Sevilla building a piramid from were the al-muecin called the muslims to the pray.
A small group that scape from the massacre converted to the Islam."
Agree.
When surprise of first raids disappeared and Arabs build a fleet, scandinavians were each time defeated (in naval battles, viking were really ineffective it seems). A solid centralized government as Arabic Spain couldn't be easily attacked by some little expeditions.
And Runic Stones of Gotland tell us of a great travel of Swedes on the "East Road", during 11th century, in an attempt to take control of silver trade (who seems to decline in this period). It seems to have been a very great operation (I will search more information in my old notes), but seems to have finished in a total disaster. I don't know if they were able to arrive in muslim territories, but after all, what could they have done...
In great military actions, scandinavians only win significant success againt western christians and slavonics (not really in future Russia - situation was really particular - but on baltic states - i.e. expedition of Olaf Trygvasson) - because this peoples were in a confuse political situation, and unable to resist efficiently.
Why the vikings were so efficient?
They attacked places were few could expect, the longboats were flat, so they could sail into every river, without big problems. When the vikings attacked, it came so sudden that no greater resistance could be made.
The reason why they lost down in Spain was because it was Swedish vikings...
They attacked places were few could expect, the longboats were flat, so they could sail into every river, without big problems. When the vikings attacked, it came so sudden that no greater resistance could be made.
The reason why they lost down in Spain was because it was Swedish vikings...
Sevilla CF 1 -0 Gotteborg IKEA
That’s right.
In a very old book, it is written:
“The norsemen (machus in the old writings) were defeated and the rest walked about near of Carmona and Morón (villages of Seville province); then they were captured by general Muhamad ben Rustum, and after muslim conversion, they lived in the villages dedicated as cheesemakers”
Maybe the origin of Havarti cheese is from Spain ???????
Maybe the origin of certain blonde people in Spain ????? (they are descendents of japanese samurais in Seville too, after a mission of a shogun in the 1630)
That’s right.
In a very old book, it is written:
“The norsemen (machus in the old writings) were defeated and the rest walked about near of Carmona and Morón (villages of Seville province); then they were captured by general Muhamad ben Rustum, and after muslim conversion, they lived in the villages dedicated as cheesemakers”
Maybe the origin of Havarti cheese is from Spain ???????
Maybe the origin of certain blonde people in Spain ????? (they are descendents of japanese samurais in Seville too, after a mission of a shogun in the 1630)
The expedition of Ingvar vittfarne (the wide-traveller). They sailed down the Russian rivers to Kiev, where they stayed for three years. Afterwards, they continued down the Dniepr to the Black sea, sailed East and down the Rioni river, and over the Caspian sea to Särkland (the Scandinavian name of these lands). Runestones tell us they reached as far as the Khorazm desert by the Aral sea, where they met stiff resistance. They looted large treasuries, but on the way home epidemics struck and only 12 boats reached the Black sea again.
From there on nobody knows what happened them, but many runestons are made to honour those who died in this expedition.
About Arabic armies. I think von Fersen meant the raids down to the Caspian sea, but to be honest, I don't know whether Arabs populated that area during the Viking Age.
Last edited:
But they got independent around 930-1030, about the same time Leif Eriksson discovers America. That means he was borned as a norwegian, wich means norwegian blood
I can go to america and make myself an american citizen, but I will still be norwegian in my blood.Oh, and Hardråde was Norwegian right? I've read just now that he was the half-brother of the norwegian King, Olav II the holy.
Any pages about him?
Iceland didn't "get" independence around 930-1000, it was never under Norwegian or any other control. The people who settled there beginning in the 9th century settled in no man's land, and a republic was formed (exactly the same happened to Jamtland BTW, some Norwegians fled to the uncontrolled Iceland, others to the uncontrolled Jamtland and established republics in both places).
"Nice Vikings?"
That's no worse than here in Wisconsin, they are teaching kids that the Berlin Wall was built to keep the west from availing themselves of the advantages of communism. Of course, Wisconsin has the most members of the American Communist Party, most of them live in Madison.
Also, the American Civil War wasn't about slavery.
And WWII was a capitolist plot to get out of the great depression.
And in Vietnam, the Communists were the 'good guys' and the US forces were mercenaries sent to back up a corrupt colonial regime. (my father would beg to differ (four tours, five purple hearts, two silver stars, countless DSMs, DFC, three bronze stars and the vietnamese medal of valor w/palms))(so would my grandfather (two tours, two purple hearts, a bronze star and a DFC))
And the Saddam is 'misunderstood' .
And that Stalin was a great leader of his people and that the 'purges' of his people and officer corps are just rumors created by malcontents in the great communist state.
And that Castro was legally elected Dictator. (when there's only one canidate, there's only one person to vote for)
And that France is a great military power. (Hah!)
That's no worse than here in Wisconsin, they are teaching kids that the Berlin Wall was built to keep the west from availing themselves of the advantages of communism. Of course, Wisconsin has the most members of the American Communist Party, most of them live in Madison.
Also, the American Civil War wasn't about slavery.
And WWII was a capitolist plot to get out of the great depression.
And in Vietnam, the Communists were the 'good guys' and the US forces were mercenaries sent to back up a corrupt colonial regime. (my father would beg to differ (four tours, five purple hearts, two silver stars, countless DSMs, DFC, three bronze stars and the vietnamese medal of valor w/palms))(so would my grandfather (two tours, two purple hearts, a bronze star and a DFC))
And the Saddam is 'misunderstood' .
And that Stalin was a great leader of his people and that the 'purges' of his people and officer corps are just rumors created by malcontents in the great communist state.
And that Castro was legally elected Dictator. (when there's only one canidate, there's only one person to vote for)
And that France is a great military power. (Hah!)
Originally posted by Mormegil
Why the vikings were so efficient?
They attacked places were few could expect, the longboats were flat, so they could sail into every river, without big problems. When the vikings attacked, it came so sudden that no greater resistance could be made.
The reason why they lost down in Spain was because it was Swedish vikings...
Actually it was the tides that made them sudden. Waiting a bit away from the river mouth, then riding the tide and morning winds upriver meant that the vikings would arrive at the city or town upstreams before any warnings from outposts downstream would have time to appear.
Since the mediterranean doesn't have tides enough to do this then defenders there will have time to prepare and make a fair fight, which was uneconomical. from the viking pow
Add to this that there are ship-worms in the med that would happily consume hulls, a fact that surprised the víkings, and you get why there were so few (one or two) raids in the med.
I havn't said anything about arab armies...
I have commented on ship burning and slave killing mainly.
Terribly sorry, it was not you who made that post I was referring to. My bad [memory].
But still full-blooded Norwegians.
A group of Norwegians settle on Iceland, and after a while one of them says: "I'm bored. let's make a republic! Who wants to be the president?"
I can go to the south pole and create a republic. (Thought they will probably not allow me to do it
) I will still be norwegian.There were Swedish expeditions to the Caspian in the 10th century, including a fleet in 943. At that time the vikings captured the town of Berdaa (sp?) and were driven out after a siege. I don't know if they came by way of the Volga or the route used by Ingvar 100 years later though.
Ethnicaly yes, judically no.Originally posted by Mormegil
...I can go to the south pole and create a republic. (Thought they will probably not allow me to do it
Aeh... Alright I'm happy enough about ethnicaly...
I've heard something about Vikings sieging Constantinople and Paris. Weren't they paid off?
I've heard something about Vikings sieging Constantinople and Paris. Weren't they paid off?
Originally posted by Mormegil
Aeh... Alright I'm happy enough about ethnicaly...
I've heard something about Vikings sieging Constantinople and Paris. Weren't they paid off?
The first Constantinople siege ended with the emperor giving the Scandinavians tribute and a generous trading partnership. The second attack however, the Vikings were fought off with Greek fire, and went to plunder the countryside outside the city instead, looting churches and monasteries.
The siege of Paris ended with Charles the Simple (called the Silly in the Scandinavian contries...) giving Normandy as a duchy to Gange-Hrolf in 911. We all now how this story developed.
Originally posted by Mormegil
Aeh... Alright I'm happy enough about ethnicaly...
Your grandchildren however, will be South-Polians, and if they would then discover the north pole they would do so as southpolians and not as Norwegians, right?
There were numerous "sieges" of Paris. The most famous are :
First in 845. "Nordmann" leader was, but it's without doubt a legend, Ragnar Lodbrok. No real consequence although.
In 882. Chronicles of Abbon tell us story of the siege, but with the classical overestimation, due to terror and church' point of view. For Abbon, Nordmann attacked with more than 2000 navies, enormous armies of barbarians looted all the country. And Paris, with only some hundreds warriors, resisted...
As always, vikings go away after a big ransom (Danegeld).
In 911, no siege. Only a threat. A group of Danish, led by Hrolf (but, for some sagas, Hrolf himself was norvegian - maybe error of the sagnamenn, but I can't be sure), take control of Seine's mouth, established winter positions and systematicly expand their action in the country.
A normal kingdom, with solid political structure, would have easily destroyed this threat. But nothing was simple in a feodal kingdom, and the only solution was to cede a territory.
Not really.
Of course, first settlement was norwegian (estimation of 40000 settlers during 9th and 10th centuries, a very great number for medieval times).
But with this main group comes quickly a large population of slaves, coming from Ireland and Scotland.
Different populations quickly mixed, so Iceland cannot be only considered as an extension of Norway : ethnically, politicaly, socially, it's different, sometimes largely.
To come back to ethnic problems only, genealogies (a subject that sagnamenn loved) of main heroes of Iceland frequently refer to Irish ancestors.
So your remark is not justified. Icelanders, since 10th century, keep large links with Norway, but can not be considered as Norwegians.
To conclude, one of saga's explanation for settlement of Iceland was exile of nobles after tyrannic rule of Harald Harfagri, first king of all Norway, in fall of 9th century. So political link was broken, and only restored (by strength) in 13th century.