Wikipedia

Talk:Vikings/Archive 10

< Talk:Vikings
Latest comment: 10 years ago by RhinoMind in topic Visby and Gotland trade centre? - The economic engine of the entire culture?
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Proposal: Merger of Norsemen into existing article Vikings

Latest comment: 10 years ago40 comments10 people in discussion
The result of this merge discussion was : no merge. --John (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have changed the links in the merge tags on Norsemen and Vikings to point to this section since the other section was a totally irrelevant discussion about proposed redirects for Norseman and Northmen, not a discussion about a proposed merger between Norsemen and Vikings. Which is a new discussion starting from scratch... Thomas.W talk 13:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Voting

  • Strong oppose. Vikings were just a subset of Norsemen, and you don't merge an article about a larger entity into an article about a subset of that entity. If anything Vikings should be merged into Norsemen. Thomas.W talk 13:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir's discussion

  • Oppose. As recognized above, scholars still make a distinction between the profession of raiding (vikings) and the Scandinavian peoples, most of whom did not raid even during the Viking Age, and who existed before that era. Even though the distinction has been blurred in popular history, as reflected in the now general capitalization of "Viking" (something with which I must say I disagree) it's still a useful distinction for talking about early medieval Norse culture—including what the raiders did after they came back from the raids (farm and/or trade) and activities that are not so clearly raiding, such as acting as mercenaries in Byzantium or founding colonies in Normandy, North America, Sicily, and the Rus' settlements. We need a broader article about the people(s) as a whole. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Most people use Viking, to mean the people (as do plenty of the scholars). Even the farmers, who never left their lands. Thus your argument is invalid.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I suppose you're also in favour of changing the name of Americans to Cowboys. Because lots of ignorant people around the world refer to Americans as cowboys. Thomas.W talk 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not the same situation. I am a Dane living in Denmark in 2014 and therefore I am also Norse. Norse is such a loose term, and it is not tied to any specific period of history. It is a term tied to geography. ZarlanTheGreen (and myself) has explained this many many times in several posts. So what about Northmen then? Well it is a better descriptive term, but it is also quite vague. It was used rather loosely in the Viking Age and then only to describe the pagan of Scandinavia. Vikings is used by todays scholars to describe the Norse people in the Viking Age and that has nothing to do with their individual activities or where they chose to settle. How the term Viking has been used through the ages and in the Viking Age itself is of etymological interest only. RhinoMind (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I quite honestly can't see what that has to do with merging Norsemen into Vikings, which is what this discussion/vote is about. If anything it supports the continued existence of an article named Norsemen, covering a larger time period than just the Viking Age, that is the direct opposite of your vote below. Thomas.W talk 12:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. My "support" was quite vague, as I explained there. Maybe I shouldn't have voted altogether, but when the situation is putting the use of the word Viking to mean the Norse people in the Viking Age at stake, I would try to defend it. Or rather just put things right. I acknowledge there is controversy on the use of the word, but this needs to be reflected in the Etymology section, and should not be used to tear down an article. RhinoMind (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
My post above is relevant here though, because Yngvadottir is making the mistake of narrowing the use of the term Viking, to only mean Vikings who went on raids. This is not the issue of this section at all, I know, but I just need to counter and correct this error. I agree with her, that a much better article on "The Norse" would do good though. RhinoMind (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@RhinoMind: From my point of view, I'm not making a mistake; I disagree with you on the issue. "Vikings" correctly refers to those who went on raids, and I see others have found scholarly citations in support of that usage. For why I believe we should preserve the distinction, see above. Further, I think you may be confusing "Norsemen" with "Nordic", as in Nordic countries. In English, "Norsemen" is overwhelmingly used for the early medieval Scandinavians (those who spoke (Old) Norse), and "Nordic" or "Scandinavian" for the moderns. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: Hi (and thanks for teaching me about this "ping" code :-) Well for a start, this should hopefully not degrade to a debate about any of ours personal point of view, but should be concerned with how things are in scholarly circles on a broad scale. I assume you agree. Secondly: That viking meant the viking activity of going on raids in the Viking Age, might well be another etymological myth, as Dan actually pointed out in one of his posts. Noone has given any proper source, that this is what viking meant in the Viking Age. But let us just assume this is what viking meant in the Viking Age. We need to reflect what Viking means today though and this is different. You may well have stumbled across a few (in particular historians) who a reserving the word Viking for those who went on raids, but they are challenging the consensus. It would be great if this controversy was explained in the etymology section, but noone has cared for it apparently. Let us move this discussion to its proper place from now on shall we: "Viking was an activity, not a people". Thirdly: Yes All these words and their meaning is confusing me, and I have learned that I am certainly not alone! :-) There is a difference between Norse, Northmen, Nordic, etc. (actually I am not sure Norsemen is a real word. I am suspecting it is a mix of Norse and Northmen, but that is even another discussion). RhinoMind (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

MjolnirPants' discussion

  • Oppose Since we're we're getting new voices in, I'd like to say that I feel that Viking is the activity and Norsemen are the people. Even in the quote I provided in the above section in which a historian acknowledges the dual meanings of the word, he mentions that using the term to refer exclusively to the raiders/traders/explorers is technically correct. I'd rather be technically correct than technically incorrect, especially when the potential for confusion is minimized, that way. Yes, I understand that I proposed the merger, but I did so in order to facilitate compromise that the other party still refuses to agree to. Since the compromise doesn't please the opposing party, I'd just as soon establish a consensus on the meaning of the terms, and edit the articles appropriately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
What you propose is an intentional violation of Wikipedia policy. (see WP:COMMONNAME)
Viking is the term that most use for the people, even among scholars. "Norsemen", however, is a rather obscure term.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you really going to be as argumentative as you can while claiming it's actually me? (That's not what 'irony' means, by the way). Why not put your arguments into your vote, where they belong? Besides, we've been over this already. I've given you quite a few more examples of common use referring to the activity and those who engaged in it than you have given me of common use referring to the Norse people of the Viking Age. Besides, I proposed the merger to begin with, and you claimed that you didn't accept it. As you yourself pointed out, dictionaries are descriptive, and they all define the word to mean those who engaged in the activity.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen's discussion

Nope, they do not mean the same thing. "Viking" is the name for a part-time activity that some of the Norse people, but far from all, engaged in. That distiction is often blurred in movies, computer games etc, but what ignorant people call it can not be allowed to dictate what the name of an article on WP should be. Thomas.W talk 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If you look one section above, you will see where I quoted a noted historian on the subject of the naming controversy. While he acknowledges that there is widespread use of the word to refer to the people as a whole, he also points out that this is in error and notably, avoids all use of the term himself. This suggests strongly that there is no clear consensus, and that this historian (and perhaps others) are quite clear that the word refers to the those who engage in the activity. Combine that with the number of common usages of the term to refer to those who engaged in the activity I've previously provided you, and it becomes quite clear that Wikipedia could go either way, based on WP:COMMONNAME. Since, according to policy, there are two valid options, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't choose the one which is technically correct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The determining factor in such a distinction should be reliable sources. There is ample scholarship on this subject and no need to turn to alternative sources like travel sites or TV shows. In addition, our policy should not be couched on a single scholar making an obscure argument. That argument may be noted and the controversy described, but common usage in reliable sources should dictate our overall policy. If the terms are to be treated as the same, there should be ample support in solid scholarly work. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Laszlo. The foundation of Wikipedia articles should be as scholarly as possible, not as pop-cultural as possible. Given that this article debunks the popular misconception of Viking Age horned helmets, or the allegedly barbarian culture of the pagan Norse, there is no reason to perpetuate others. Thus far, the intro at least does not even acknowledge the technically correct meaning and treats "Vikings" as an ethnic group as a matter of course. The list of well-known Vikings and Norsemen, curiously and inconsistently, does acknowledge the technical meaning indirectly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

RhinoMind's discussion

  • Oppose (changing my former 'Support', see below) My 'support' text: I could accept things as they are now, with a separate article about Northmen. I don't see it as a problem. the only problems are: 1) That the term "Northmen" is not well-defined and you cannot write a whole article based on a single text from Adam of Bremen. 2) The articles Viking and Northmen do not link well. All that said, if anything needs to merge, I strongly support merging the article of Northmen into the article of Vikings. The use and meaning of the term Northmen could be described in the section on Etymology and no information would be lost. In this regard, I support the merging. But MjolnirPants at the same time announced that a new and separate article on Viking piracy should be created. Why is this not mentioned here? I oppose this suggestion, as I see no need to separate this issue from an article on Vikings. I could live with it, but it is unsound. All in all I have voted for a support, but I feel this whole situation, is very odd. RhinoMind (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: You seem to confuse Northmen and Norsemen (i.e. the Norse people). "Northmen" is an uncommon term, and thus just a redirect, while "Norsemen", or "Norse people", is the proper term for the Germanic people, speaking Old Norse (and before that Proto-Norse), who have lived in Scandinavia since long before the Viking Age, and whose descendants still live there. The Viking raids and other activities away from their homelands, such as trading in foreign ports and lands, were only conducted by some of the Norse people, while the rest of the Norse stayed at home and managed their farms etc. And even for those who went on raids and trading journeys it was only a part-time activity. Thomas.W talk 12:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am sorry for my mixed up use of Northmen, Norse and Norsemen. I was going to edit it, but now it seems to late. Having said that, I am glad you also have realized, that Norse is a quite broad term, that is not tied specifically to the Viking Age. And therefore not specifically to the Vikings. There is no such thing as "The Norse Age", just as there is no such age as "The Scandinavian Age". RhinoMind (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
changing my support to oppose. I am sorry for the confusion of my voting here, but please let me explain. I made the stupid mistake of thinking the merging article was titled "Northmen" and I believe that the term Northmen could well be described n the etymology section on this article. Well, the correct title is clearly "Norsemen" and this is a different situation, as Norse is a loose term, that also describes the people of Northern Europe (specifically Scandinavia) in other ages than just the Viking Age. This issue is elaborated on elsewhere on this page. Norsemen is thus a broader term than Vikings and merging would not be correct. I am sorry. I could have edited this whole section out, but now the confusion is here to see for all. RhinoMind (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
RhinoMind (talk · contribs), would you mind going into some detail as to why you don't believe that viking raids don't deserve their own article? From where I sit, I don't see any reason not to. I'm not trying to instigate an argument, I'm just failing to understand this point of view, and hoping you could explain it in a way that lets me get it. I try to make an effort to let myself be swayed by convincing arguments, and while I haven't budged much yet (at least on insisting that there should be two articles, reflecting the culture and the raiding), that doesn't mean I wont. From what I've seen on this talk page, you are one of the more level-headed and thoughtful participants, and I believe that if anyone here can change my mind, it would be you.
P.S. The creation of a second article hasn't been brought up here (by me, at least) because I figured it could wait until we decided on whether or not to merge these. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A second article about what? There already is an article about Norsemen, even though it could need some expansion, and also perhaps a move to a better name, such as Norse people (which today is a disambiguation page). So I can't see what other article would be needed. Thomas.W talk 14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  Please read the discussion above, everything past your last post there is relevant. See this post for the second article me and Rhino are referring to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I exactly agree with you here Thomas. Norse people is a much better choice than Norsemen, which unfortunately sounds like Northmen. RhinoMind (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi MjolnirPants. I am glad to take the discussion, but am also noting that this is exactly why this vote and entire subject is getting out of hand. Too many subjects are discussed simultaneously and many of them already have their own sections above. Ok, I am not against an article of this sort per se, but when I read your and several other peoples posts, it comes clear, that there is an urge to separate the activity of going viking (whatever that have meant through the ages), from the Norse people during the Viking Age. This is not acceptable and this is another danger lurking right there. Let me present a clear example: When archaeologists engage in excavations, they sometimes unearth artifacts that can be dated to the Viking Age and which belonged to or where created by the Norse peolpe during this Age. These artifact are automatically archived as Viking artifacts. To archaeologists of today, 'Vikings' where the Norse peolpe during the Viking Age. Exactly as the this article says. Yes (perhaps) viking was thought of as a specific activity in the Viking Age itself, but this is not how the term Vikings are used today by scholars in the field. Yes, it is a controversial subject, as some (in particular British historians) are starting to reserve the use of Vikings to the raiders, for various obscure reasons (IMO). I suggest this specific part of the discussion be carried out in the section "Viking was an activity, not a people" above. I hope I gave a proper answer. RhinoMind (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
So, to make sure I understand this correctly: You don't believe that there should be a separate article on the raiders because the word viking is used to describe the culture as a whole during that time period? (I feel compelled to point out that reserving the term for the raiders and explorers is not a recent phenomenon, but an academic one which -apparently- has in the past few decades, fallen out of favor.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Hi. 1. What cannot be accepted is to separate the act of raids, exploration and the like from the Norse people during the Viking Age. For many reasons, some of which is presented on this talk page. It was important activities to their culture, the development of their society - maybe their survival even - and how we understand this culture and these times today, however few engaged in the violent parts of it. To separate this from the Norse during the viking Age (ie. what we call Vikings today) is not acceptable. Having stated that, an article on the meaning on the word viking, the act of going viking (some used to lie in viking) throughout history and its relation to piracy etc., could perhaps do some good. I would support such an effort. IMO the article could explain the etymological aspects of the word, its origin, how it was used, who it was reserved for, etc. etc.. Maybe this was exactly how you imagined it? I was just worried, that it would imply a clean-cut separation of the act of Viking from the article here on the Vikings.
2. About the last part of your comment. Yes, the meaning of the word and concept of Viking changes with time and is constantly challenged. It would be great to describe these varying views in this article (and source them), but instead people have just put all their energy into complaining here on the talk page :-). Bad management in my eyes. Actually my idea was, that it was gaining favor to reserve 'viking' for those who raided (ie. the opposite of what you describe)? Anyway, the confusion just shows, that it would be great to state that there is, was (and will be) controversy on how to apply the word Viking, depending on the context and circumstances. I could explain a lot more about why I believe there is controversy, but it would be rather lengthy. I can try to give a short example though: In previous times, history (and archaeology) was almost exclusively interested in describing the extremes: the extremely wealthy, the extremely powerful, the dramatic, issues that fuelled the imagination or supported who was in power at the time of the description. Interest in the everyday life and "ordinary people", was almost non-existing. This changed from the 1960ies onwards and since these days, we have gained more and more insight into what life was like for the majority of people in the Viking Age fx.. The term Viking was continued to be used, even for the large majority, who perhaps never was engaged directly in the activity. This is the source of this specific controversy, summed up in very compressed form.
PS. Thanks for the link. It would actually work as a source of what I am trying to get across. I might add though, that the Swedes was perhaps not "the saints of the Viking Age" as it is often believed. They were pretty brutal in the Baltic states, as evidenced by the recently excavated Salme ships and Grobiņa fx.. RhinoMind (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Rhino. I'm going to go point by point for clarity. I think we're of a very like mind on this, so I'll try not to be too verbose (though I can't help myself sometimes).
Having stated that, an article on the meaning on the word viking, the act of going viking (some used to lie in viking) throughout history and its relation to piracy etc., could perhaps do some good. I would support such an effort. IMO the article could explain the etymological aspects of the word, its origin, how it was used, who it was reserved for, etc. etc.. Maybe this was exactly how you imagined it?
That is not far off the mark. What I envisioned when I spoke of a separate article was a top-level section in the main article on the Norse people (whatever it's called) about their practice of traveling far and wide for a variety of reasons, and to have this section start with a Main Article: Vikings (seafarers) link, that would give much more information. I do not see a division between the Norse and going Viking in nay means. In fact, if you look at my most recent response to Dan below, you can see where I criticized him for minimizing the importance of going viking. I agree completely that going viking was very important to the Norse during the Viking age. I'm simply asserting that it was important enough to them (and to the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Near East) to deserve its own article.
Yes, the meaning of the word and concept of Viking changes with time and is constantly challenged. It would be great to describe these varying views in this article (and source them), but instead people have just put all their energy into complaining here on the talk page :-). Bad management in my eyes
I agree completely. I've made a new section to try to trim the fat from these discussions, but so far I have no takers. Perhaps you'd be willing to go down to that section and seed the pot, so to speak?
This is the source of this specific controversy, summed up in very compressed form.
I would tend to agree with that as well. I wish we could get more agreement on the subject. One thing I would like to point out. If you carefully read that link, the author (a noted historian and expert) says that the term properly refers to either piracy and raiding or "...the activities of the Scandinavians outside their own country in that period." I think that's an important distinction that I have always held, but that I may have failed to convey previously. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dan Koehl's discussion

  • Strong oppose, since all sources stat the word viking as old english translation from the latin word pirate, or more specifically, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus. 1. In all sources from medevial time to 1900, starting with the oldest source,(Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english.) which names Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia as a viking, during his two years of piracy, until this last century, vikingr and viking never refered to any ethnical group, but to a time limited activity, based on robbery and piracy. It was often in the primes sources refered to people of Norsemen origin, but not limited to that, the oldest source mentions a macedonian viking, one source mentions vikings of arabic origin, and other mentions slavic paople from present baltic countries and Poland, why no certain language, ethnical or cultural association can be connected to the activity described as vikingr in the prime source, it was simply the oldenglish term for piracy, giving no geographical connection to the pirats. 2. Norsemen, on the other hand did belong to an ethnical group, connected by speaking the Norse language. This group, norsemen, were like any other ethnical group consisting of many professions and activities, where piracy, and going on viking, was among the less common activity. Most probably, most norse never, ever left their home countries, only a few, and then mostly in ledang, which should also not be connected to viking. 3. It should also be remembered that sources never claim that viking was a peaceful trade activity, because trade and viking was not the same: : Egil Skallagrimsson: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman. 4. Its much more educational to let the article vikings deal with true vikings, and not misunderstandings, or abuse of the term. Likevise, its much more educational to develop the article about norsemen, without focusing on less then 1% of their activities. 5. As a scandinavian, I object to that all my Scandinavian ancestors, although belonging to "Norseman" and "Northmen" during the Viking Age, are on the english wikipedia described as vikings, when most probably 99% of Northmen were not, and reliable sources claim that at least most Swedes were defending their country against vikings.. Whatever ignorant public has tried to transfer the original meaning of viking during the last 20 years, viking and Norsemen did not mean the same. Its not allowed to call all german nazis, on the wikipedia, or call all americans cowboys, even if it may be a widespread habit during shorter or longer time. It should, for the same reason, not be allowed to call all scandinavians vikings. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Very well Dan, but The Norse was also around in the Nordic Iron Age for example. So what should we call The Norse in the Viking Age, if not Vikings? Try argue with an archaeologist btw :-). And may I add, that even in the Nordic Iron Age, Swedes attacked Eastern Jutland right where I live now. Many times! Examples: Illerup Ådal, Hedelisker near da:Løgten, Alken Enge. I do not hold any grudge (that would be pretty dumb), but it shows that piracy or the act of going viking was infecting Scandinavia itself and spared noone. It was not an activity some random psychopaths suddenly thought up and went abroad to act out. Not at all. As I have already suggested, I really hope you will write up a proper article on The Norse. RhinoMind (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@RhinoMind:, I did not have to argue with archelogists, the ones I have been in contact with, agree with me, on the point stated above. This includes also two Swedish authorities on Viking time, professor Björn Ambrosiani and Fredrik Svanberg. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:Ok great, I see you are engaged in the right places then. Try ask them, what they would prefer to call the Norse during the Viking Age then. It would be interesting to hear. Anyway, we have been through a lot of this before in other sections. I dont necessarily disagree with your post here - neither your sourced info or your views -, I was just alarmed about your apparent frustration about the staining of your/our ancestors, by calling them Vikings. I wouldn't bother. RhinoMind (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Dan Koehl (talk · contribs), I have seen multiple sources which explicitly state that the word 'vikings' does not descend from any Old English word. I have never seen a source which disagrees. To respond to your claims point by points.....
  1. The Old English word 'wicingas' is explicitly not linked to the modern word 'viking', see here for illustration of this. There was no Old English word "viking'. What you are proposing is not only original research and synthesis, but it is also an easily identifiable fringe theory that would gain no traction were it proposed by an actual historian, let alone some random wikipedian. Apologies if I come across as overly harsh, but that's the simple truth.
  2. While technically correct, it is obfuscating and misleading to claim that raiding was one of the least common activities. Bear in mind that this was a culture that glorified warfare to the point of having a separate afterlife for those who fell in battle.
  3. The way the term was used a thousand years ago is -as agreed by all here but you- a moot point. It is the way it is used today that matters.
  4. I agree completely.
  5. First off, I myself am of Norwegian heritage and I find your sentiments lacking in relevance (though common to those with whom I spoke of the subject during a vacation to Norway). It doesn't matter whether it is offensive to you, me or anyone else that the term is used in a specific manner, today. Secondly, the term is used by historians, as the best sources we have found all agree that the use of the term to refer to Norse people during the viking age has its roots in academia as much as in the public consciousness. Your remarks about the 'ignorant public' are not only off base, but belittling to a number of experts. We should all bear in mind that all of us here are amateurs, and none of us historians or acknowledged experts on the subject. We should behave in accordance with that knowledge. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments

As a quick comment, it might be useful if someone were to summarise, in a strawman fashion, what the articles currently are around this topic, what articles would exist after the changes, and (roughly) what their content would be. As far as I can see, the debate is around:

If it's helpful, the typical "entry" article for a new reader is the Vikings article, with 8,000 hits a day; the Viking Age gets around 1,500 and Norsemen 650 or so.

As noted, I'd personally certainly find it easier to discuss a change if someone were to present a rough "before and after" strawman picture of how some of this might look, particularly from a reader's perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As things stand, the article Norsemen is a shorter version of the Vikings article, with some different references. The other articles (the majority of which are redirects) are just fine. I don't think anyone has a problem with the terms "Viking Arms and Armor" or "Viking Art", but even if we are going to refactor those articles to get to some consistent naming, we need to make a decision here what we will consider "Viking" to mean. Right now we're voting on a merger of Norsemen into Vikings, but that draws some fairly clear lines about what we all think the word means. If the merger goes through, we can then ensure that using "viking" as synonymous with "Norse" in other articles is done. If the merger fails (my own preference), we can then work to ensure that other articles use "Norse" to refer to the culture, and reserve "viking" for the raiders/traders/explorers, with a special exception made for the Viking Age. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional Information

I went through the links presented by both Zarlan and myself, and laid them out in a table, for reference. I tried to be as objective as possible, and the majority of links still draw a distinction.

Link Stance Type Summary
http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-term-viking Controversial but Distinct Scholarly This link comments on the controversy about the word 'viking', but does draw a distinction between it and other ethnic/regional identifiers.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab86 Distinct Scholarly This link uses the word 'vikings' in reference to raiders/explorers/traders, and uses ethnic/regional names when referring to specific groups.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/raids.htm Distinct Scholarly (amateur) This link uses the word 'vikings' only to refer to the raiders/explorers/traders, and uses ethnic/regional names when referring to the culture in general.
http://natmus.dk/en/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/the-people/ Synonymous Scholarly This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the culture as a whole.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/vikings/who_were_the_vikings/ Distinct Popular This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the raider/explorers/traders.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-vikings Distinct* Popular This link uses the word distinctly in the opening paragraph, but also refers to 'viking women' (here meaning 'Norse women' and then re-affirms the distinction in the last paragraph.
http://www.livescience.com/32087-viking-history-facts-myths.html Distinct Popular This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the raiders/explorers/traders and makes a point of defining the term as meaning just that.
http://www.vikingdenmark.com/what-is-a-viking.html Synonymous* Popular This link uses the word 'vikings' to refer to the culture, but also points out that it still means 'pirate' in modern Scandinavian languages and uses the word in both senses.
http://www.visitnorway.com/us/about-norway/history/the-vikings/ Distinct* Popular This link defines the word 'vikings' to refer to pirates, but also uses the word in both senses.

There are six links that draw a distinction between the ethnic group and the raiders/traders/explorers, two that consider the terms synonymous, and one that comments on the popularity of synonymous use, but nonetheless draws a distinction. I excluded the 5 dictionary definitions I provided (they all give the primary definition as being Norse pirates), because they were unanimous. I also left out the three dictionary definitions Zarlan provided (They all define the word 'Norse') because they also imply unanimity by not defining the word in reference to vikings. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A worrying development...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can see, that there is a development towards dividing the Vikings - and what English speaking cultures refers to as "The Norse" - into Danes and Swedes (and maybe other tribes and North Germanic peoples, from the Nordic Iron Age?). This is troubled waters. Let me explain why in short:

One of the "achievements" of The Viking Age was, that it homogenized the cultures of Scandinavia. In fact, the cultures were primarily homogenized up until the beginning of The Viking Age, and the Vikings/The Norse took of from this new unity and similarity and centralized both economic and military power throughout this era. In the Nordic Iron Age, there were a lot of local internal skirmishes in Scandinavia, between various clans and peoples, but with an increasing centralization of power and military might, social and economical organization and various technological achievements as well, what later became the Royal Family of Denmark, arose and settled around Lejre and Roskilde on Zealand and much of these internal clashes ceased. This was the reality in Scandinavia in The Viking Age. It was no longer Danes, Swedes, etc. that inhabited Scandinavia, it was a different and much more homogeneous and centralized culture. There were no Denmark, there were no Sweden and there were no Norway in those days, these nations and names first emerged after the Viking Age ended.

I dare to say that this situation explains why that in Scandinavia, the people of The Viking Age is known as Vikings and not as Danes, Swedes or Norse for that matter. Whatever the reason is, I strongly advice to consider how the words Danes, Swedes, Danish, Swedish is used in this article, in addition to the words Denmark, Sweden and Norway of course.

I have not had the time to change the specific wording in the article, like the image-text of the first picture fx., but for future editors: Beware! or should I say: Be aware? :-)

RhinoMind (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference section

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is this actually meant to be further reading or were all of these used in writing the article as one would expect reading WP:FNNR? Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not all of them were used as references, and those not cited one way or the other have been moved to a Further reading section. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Have you bothered to check the history of this page? It might have featured in deleted material? I dont know if that's important, but just wanted to make a note of it. RhinoMind (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to the possibility that publications now placed in /Further reading/ could be WP:GENREF, but I find it sligthly hairsplitting as long as they are still there. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 04:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

>> Posted on both the "Norsemen" and "Vikings" Talk pages: As an increasingly steady contributor to Viking / Norse articles on Wikipedia, I've been intrigued to read the Talk pages for some of the more critical articles. As time passes, I'm convinced of the need for reorganisation across a number of these.

Starting with the Norsemen / Viking 'divide', for example, I'm aware there has been discussion recently as to the merits of merging these two articles. Some consensus apparently arose against a merger, for the moment at least, BUT since then nothing (or next to nothing) has been done to reorganise the articles in the manner which reflects that particular consensus. The 'Vikings' article, focusing on the raiding / piratical aspect of the word - distinct from the modern, generalised ethnic marker in English language texts - still retains much that would be better placed in a "Norsemen" / "Norse" article, not least the socio-economic descriptions of late 1st millennium Scandinavian society and economy. Such reorganisation would be the logical outcome of that consensus. Rather, it seems that the central argument to date has been over the semantics of the 'Viking / Norse divide', but with little or no responsibility then taken for rearranging the content. I would, moreover, consider it imperative - in the interests of clarity - to make more explicit the links between the two articles in their opening paragraph(s) and / or disambiguation links. A general reader, or researching student, looking up "Vikings" for example, needs to have it made clear that the Wikipedia article with that title will focus on the raider / piratical aspect of Norse culture, with the general article on the ethnic group from which the Vikings originated, the 'Northmen' / 'Norse', possessing its own much wider, more generalised article. I think the creation of a specialised "Viking" / "Northmen" / "Norse" template might assist with this potentially confusing overlap. The casual, beginning reader for example, might find it rather perplexing that we can have "Norse mythology", but also a specific article on "Viking art" - the links and boundaries between these established terms in scholarship are clear for those in the know, but could be rather confusing for the uninitiated.

Most worryingly, we seem to have a series of articles that duplicate the same material and / or present similar ideas in multiple sections. I'm already on record for questioning the organisation of the Viking Age article, for example.

I'm interested to hear what others think on this matter... This is a call for further discussion on these matters, rather than an attempt to provide solid answers. Anyone? Paul James Cowie (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have supplied much of the recent new info on this page, mainly concerning the Everyday Life of the Vikings.
As you say, this is not a new discussion, and it would not be right to dismiss the thorough previous debates. However I will try to make a few points that seems to fit well in here: 1. In Scandinavia there is no word for Norse. Scandinavian people of the Viking Age are simply termed Vikings. This is important to know and it is also explained on the page Northmen. 2. The word Viking has (outside scholarly circles) and in everyday language, a rather brutal, negative and hostile meaning. Probably because of the experienced Viking raids long time ago. A bit like the word Vandal. This is not completely fair, but the reasons are discussed in many places so I am not going to list them here. Hence the word Norse is normally used in English speaking cultures outside Scandinavia, Iceland, Faeroe Islands and Greenland to describe the people of the Vikings so to speak. To separate the piracy and violence from the culture and the people for one reason. 3. I endorse starting a page on "The Norse", as I have already stated several times, but I am not going to do it, as I haven't found enough credibility of the term Norse in the sources to do so. 4. The term Northmen is different from the term Norse and as long as the page Northmen is the only alternative to Vikings, I do not approve moving any information there or any information here from there.
Ok, just a few words on this issue. RhinoMind (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks RhinoMind, for sharing your thoughts. I find it interesting that in Scandinavia there is no term for 'Norse' and that people of the Viking Age are simply called 'Vikings' - that's always been my impression when visiting Scandinavia also. As regards your second point - "The word Viking has (outside scholarly circles) and in everyday language, a rather brutal, negative and hostile meaning" - I'm positive that 'Viking' is nowhere near as negative a term as you might think, beyond a relative handful of (politically correct?) scholars and commentators. After 10 centuries, I think most people are over the raids, people are quite fond of even the 'negative' Viking image, and 'Viking' appears in a huge variety of published sources and other contexts in a neutral or positive manner (children's books, educational syllabi, the British Museum exhibition, etc). Rightly or wrongly (and as a 'Viking' and Norwegian descendant I'm aware of all the arguments), it is also the term that most English-speaking people would use when referring to Norse people of the Viking Age - and even beyond! It makes me wonder how we got to this recent consensus regarding the 'Norse' / 'Viking' divide at all.... I maintain that we need to be clearer in disambiguating and explaining articles within Wikipedia that treat this subject area. Any other thoughts? Paul James Cowie (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello. About the disambiguation: I have proposed in discussions above, to elaborate much more on the Etymology section on this page. It would be a perfect place to explain more about this messy (but real) divide and also to explain about the origins and meanings of the word "Viking" itself. People have just been complaining though, while there is plenty of room to really do something about this confusion. Besides, the Norse/Viking "problem" is also similar to problems we encounter on other subject here on Wikipedia. Indians - the natives of the Americas - for example. Maybe we can get some useful inspiration from there? Just a thought. On the general level, I believe that this issue tickles a soft spot of Wikipedia itself: Is Wikipedia a British English project? Is Wikipedia an American project? Is Wikipedia a truly international project that just happens to use English as preferred language? I think I know the answer, but finds the conflict very interesting and we can see how this can express itself here on the Vikings page as an example. This might be a bit different and general discussion, but thought I would mention it. On "Viking-hate" (a new word there :-)): I am totally with you on this issue, but believe me some people are still offended and upset about the brutalities that happened 1000 years ago. No kidding. The Vikings were pretty brutal, I am not dismissing that at all, but it is no less than a few months ago, when Britians on a serious level wanted official apologies from Denmark for what Viking invaders did in Britain.[1][2] Funny thing is, that many Brits are as much "Viking" as any Danish person in Denmark nowadays, due to the extent of the Danelaw fx.. Some people in Scandinavia (Swedish Dan Koehl who have posted a lot above fx.), are also offended when their ancestors are referred to as Vikings, because they associate the word with ruthless brutalities and they dont want and dont think their ancestors were ever part of that - which might very well be true. However, there isn't any other proper word to use in Scandinavia, other than Viking apparently. Maybe something comes up, but every scholarly text from Scandinavia is using Viking in the way I explained, just look at the references. The word Norse might also be worth to investigate here. Because actually it is a more general term, than just "the people of Scandinavia in the Viking Age". Norse culture also extends to the Nordic Iron Age fx., where Norse religion was also prevalent, although in a different form. And as I see it, Norse is just a term describing the "people of Scandinavia", without being specific about what Age and at what time. I am Norse, as I am Danish for example.
Happy to discuss. RhinoMind (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding language usage, WP:COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." While noting variations in usage in Scandanavian languages may be appropriate in discussion, English language WP employs terms as used in English language sources. Also, WP:ENGVAR sets forth issues to consider regarding English variants; British English would clearly be most appropriate here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Laszlo. What is your point? RhinoMind (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm addressing your comments regarding which variant of English language is relevant. Also pointing out that English language WP is guided by how terms are used in English language sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I think you misunderstood my message then, with all respect. I wasn't talking about concrete choice of language, but more "(cultural) angle of view" so to speak. I believe my example with Indians was an illustrative one. Wikipedia is in need of adopting a universal view of the subjects it describes, even though the language of choice is English. It is a sheer necessity. I dont know if that is the case already, but it is an interesting issue to discuss nevertheless and I was just casually doing that. Btw. (on Vikings specifically): The scholarly texts coming out of Scandinavia itself on "the Scandinavians of the Viking Age", are to a large degree written in English as well. Maybe that was stating the obvious, but thought I would state it anyway. RhinoMind (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Literature review

Some time ago I set aside several links to sources, but I haven't had time to read much of them. I'll post a few of them here, and perhaps others will probe more deeply than I have. These are preview versions, but with extensive passages. My skimming does suggest support for the divide described above by User:Pjamescowie. These sources tend to distinguish "Vikings" as those who went abroad to raid or settle from "Scandanavians" as those who stayed behind, or for the origins of the Vikings. They also provide ample illustration that the term Vikings no longer carries a predominantly negative connotation in recent scholarship. I encourage others to review these sources more carefully, but I'll make a couple of notes here.

  • F. Donald Logan, The Vikings in History (2005): In the preface to the Third Edition, Logan notes the explosion of scholarship in the twenty years since the first edition, and thus he provides a more finely tuned discussion of his terminology, just as we are discussing doing. He directly states that he is applying the term Vikings to those who went abroad. He notes that more recent scholarship applies the term to those who stayed behind as well, but he asserts that those people would have identified themselves as Danes or Norse or Swedes, but not as Vikings. At any rate that is how he uses the term in his well-known work, and thus provides support for us to apply a similar divide here.
  • The Cambridge History of Scandinavia, Issue 1 (Knut Helle, ed., 2003): This is a dense and extensive work that I have barely cracked. I would note that it usefully divides its discussion of Vikings into chapters on Viking Expansion and Viking Culture. No matter how we end up splitting the pages, this approach should be followed. Right now we have a hodge-podge that buries the Viking Age history within the cultural discussion. (The Culture chapter is partially the work of Roesdahl, who was an early source of this page, so the chapter has some familiar language.) The chapter on Viking Expansion also appears to distinguish the Vikings as those who went abroad, applying the term Scandanavian to their origins and to those who stayed behind. Again, a deeper reading is needed.
After some further reading: This work has chapters written by a number of different scholars, and a quick search shows that many appear to use the term 'Norse' as a synonym of Scandanavian. I don't see any discussion of the term itself, but I've only read through the chapters on the Viking period so far. This link to the search shows numerous instances of Norse, though, often in relation to language, but also referring broadly to the people of Scandanavia and the culture they brought to their settlements. The chapters on language and other cultural issues (see here) may have further discussion of those issues. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Angelo Forte, Richard D. Oram, Frederik Pedersen, Viking Empires (2005): Here again we see a distinction between Scandanavian kingdoms and dynasties and Vikings, which it states "should be understood as referring to a Scandanavian who participated in the settlement - peaceful or violent - of northern Europe and the Atlantic islands..." (p.4).

All these sources use "Scandanavians" as a general term, leaving open whether we might extrapolate "Scandanavians of the 8th to 11th centuries" to Norse or Norsemen or Northmen (though all those terms appear in these sources). As throughout, more detailed review of these sources would be welcome. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick short comment. We dont know, and will probably never know, how the Scandinavians of the Viking Age, (living in Scandinavia) identified themselves in their own time. Because there are not many sources on it (any?), because they probably identified themselves primarily by their home town and local area more than anything. We can guess in all eternity, scholars or not. But it doesn't matter much really. Applying the term Viking to "the Scandinavians of the Viking Age" is a later habit. And what is most important is what Viking means today, and not 500 or 1000 years ago. These things can (and should) be discussed under Etymology. In this respect scientists of today have a somewhat free choice on how to use the word Viking, and many have apparently settled for it meaning "the Scandinavians during the Viking Age", unless they specifically says otherwise in their specific texts. Just saying. Will be back with more on other issues. RhinoMind (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, we are guided by current secondary sources interpreting these terms. It is not our position to guess at anything; doing so would be WP:OR. We apply the terms as they are used by scholars in reliable sources. Too much of the discussion here focuses on the opinions and sensibilities of editors, when the guidance we need to seek is that of reliable sources. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well guessing has never been reliable, so at least guessings should not be presented as solid facts. But I hear you, and when most scholars has settled for something, then that is the consensus. I cannot argue with that. RhinoMind (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Laszlo: Do these scholars explain why they make these distinctions between Scandinavian at home and Scandinavians that went abroad? Or is it simply out of necessity? I mean when you study Vikings, you would definitely need to narrow down from the start, which specific Vikings you will study, and of course if you study Vikings in settlements (York or Dublin fx.,) you cannot automatically transfer and generalized the outcome of this research and knowledge to each and every Viking everywhere (or each and every Scandinavian living anywhere, if the word Scandinavian is preferred). I think the distinction you talk about is just out of necessity and not an argument for what Viking means or not means in general. RhinoMind (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I have linked these works above. They are extensive and include discussion of the use of terms being applied. I cannot copy and paste from these links, and I don't have time to retype extensive passages of discussion. I urge you to read them yourself. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok then. But I just urge future readers to bear my remark in mind, because it is a very common (if not trivial) procedure in science. RhinoMind (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Although everyone pronounces "Viking" as if it rhymes with "liking" I read somewhere that the correct pronounciation is actually with a short "i" - i.e. it rhymes with "licking". Muzilon (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes this is true. In modern Danish, Swedish and Norwegian Viking is pronounced like that and perhaps also in other languages? This is probably because it is derived from the word "Vik", which is still used in Norwegian and Swedish. Anyway, it is a common case, that words have different pronunciations in different languages and we are following the (British) English language here on the English WP. RhinoMind (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the correct pronounciation does not rhyme with licking, it's a long "i", not a short one, so the proper pronounciation is "Vee-king" (which to a Scandinavian-speaker is obvious from the spelling; to rhyme with licking it would have to be spelled vicking/vikking). Thomas.W talk 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (Trust me, I'm fluent in Swedish and also have a good knowledge of both Danish and Norwegian...)
We are not talking proper pronunciation here. I believe this is a settled issue, how this is properly pronounced in the English language. Having said that, I can't see that Vee-king does not rhyme with licking. Are you trying to explain, that Vee-king rhymes with seeking perhaps (in Swedish)? To me that's much closer to licking that liking. RhinoMind (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (I am fluent in Danish and have adequate knowledge of Swedish and Norwegian (nothing to be proud of, but not ignorant))
The pronounciation is much closer to seeking than licking. And vee-king does not rhyme with licking since it has a long "i" and a very brief pause in the middle (marked by the dash), unlike both seeking and licking. You could probably get closer to the proper pronounciation if you use IPA symbols, but "vee-king" (or perhaps "vea-king"; compare "seeking" and "Sea-King") is probably as good as you can get it without IPA. Thomas.W talk 20:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on the Swedish pronunciation of Viking. I covered the Danish pronunciation, which is in line with Muzilon's post. How is it in the Norwegian language? and Icelandic? Anyone knows? RhinoMind (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Visby and Gotland trade centre? - The economic engine of the entire culture?

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

Visiting Gotlands Fornsal/Gotlands museum in Visby, the local historical museum, makes a totally different impression than this article, which looks to be about raiders in Saxon England?

I added a section on the trade and I dont see this page focusing one-sidede on "raiders in England". I would appreciate more info of the kind you are also calling for though. the problem though, seems to be lack of proper archaeological evidence for the postulated trade centres on Gotland. When archaeologist have looked, there were surprisingly little evidence for it, even though several sources are pointing to this particular place as a large international trading hub. It doesn't mean it wasn't a trading center of the kind imagined, but it is hard to write much about it in an encyclopedia, when the hard evidence is still missing. The lack of sufficient evidence is interesting in itself and people are researching this. Hopefully something will come up in the future for us to write about. RhinoMind (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Btw. Remember that when visiting various "Viking Museums" practising Living history, they are not necessarily historically accurate in relation to the specific site they are placed in. They often picks from various places and reconstruct them at their own site. Its not wrong to do that, but it can give some false impressions of course. Not all sites are like that, but many are. RhinoMind (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well you are right about museums and my view of the talk page is to find good comments and people that finds the right references if not there. I think history is a matter of weighting basic information in a world full of old very effeicient political propaganda, a hard isse. I did not collect refernces when I was there and Wikipedia did not exst at that time. I think what I wrote would be good being thougt over for some tadys and see if any other have any good comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Zzalpha (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I ask myself what is proven truth and like to read comments. Arab dirhams just don't appear in masisve scale from nothing, so not the Vikings. The Gotland Museum explaination is the only I have heard that makes sense in the way it explains how the Vikings were orgaised, funded and who the paying cumstomer (the French King minted silver and wanted the dirhams) were. Nothing happens without and having a topic without is just nonsense.

Zzalpha (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the main impacts in Gotlands Fornsal are the massive quantetees Arab silver dirhams found in Gotland soil (the soil = Viking bank deposits), and so many more than else in Scandinavia. At first, having the perspectives of the present article all the dirhams comes as a complete surprise before getting the obvious story told. Why are there dirhams in Gotland, never heard of them before? And dirhams just don't appears of no reasons in the soil?

The key to establish Visby as the grand Market (place) is explained as, being the establishment of the transport hub in Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga and the Volga trade route to present northern Iran at the southern coast of the Caspian sea rather than the Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks looks to have been the main slightly greyer main business engine of that time. The Volga trade route brought Arab silver dirhams and the use of them was they were demanded in Western Europe for re-coinage. The number of Byzantine coins are far fewer and the only also found in gold (paid usually for soldiers in the Imperial Varangian Guard).

In short the trade with Constantinople was far less than with the Arabs/Persians in northern present Iran. But there are many more Icelandic tails and rune stone tails about the soldiers of the Imperial guard and robberies in the West than the dull main trade with the Arbas/Persians. However we can read Runestone stories like Ingvar the Far-Travelled and scouting alternative routes to Persia could be a motive?

The basic story is that Scandinavians living around the Baltic sea and especially in Lake Mälaren and Roslagen area in particular got the message, get the silver and you can buy whatever you need. In general a farming population where the young had business adventure opportunities by this setup. Western Scandinavians and aliens (Germans, Dutch, English and French) also got the message, bring the demanded goods and you get paid in silver by weight. And Visby in Gotland Island was the trade centre for this international trade setup. This was a very profitable trade that engaged in business the entire culture of the Viking age, directly or indirectly including the Slavic people in today Russia and Ukraine.

One factor was choking the trade from time to time, the ability to pass the rivers over the steppe. Mainly the Khazars might make troubles or other tribes, which in fact slowly ended the trade at the end, before the 1300ies it became impossible. The second factor was competition, how well or rather bad the ability getting the silver trade working in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Viking age could be seen in parallel with the investments in the early industrial age in the 1800-hundreds or East India Company where more and more daring projects grow from more wealth and opportunities, kind of pure capitalism with profit shareing among shareholders in high risk good payback projects. Something started as raids in bad times for the main trade business, ends up in large scale projects like the establishment of the Danelaw, the establishment of Normandy in the style of MM enterprise in catch 22. And developed in the shape of the Normans later are still like private enterprises and so Cnut the Greats and William the Conquerors project could be seen as almost private enterprise projects. Also manpower was in increasing supply because of very good agricultural conditions in Scandinavia at the time with a massive increase in population until climate and business opportunities became worse in the early 1300 hundreds. Visby as a business hub dies and finally conquered by the Danes.

Either I am completely lost in this view, or this article is written like from the perspectives of the monetary Lindisfarne from when the Vikings showed up. Certainly If I am not wrong and there are alternative explanations of the Arab silver dirhams found in Gotland, I believe this article should have an other introduction. And the business engine should be presented. I think it would be very interesting to read some good comments here? I mean something like the Vikings just do not suddenly appear from nothing and so do not Arab dirhams?

Zzalpha (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned in a comment of mine above, there is already a section up on the trade and it also directs to the main article of the trading routes you are talking about. The section is also touching on the "business engine". The silver was used as a bullion currency within Scandinavia, as there were no formal monetary currency. the Arab silver was also melted and turned into jewellery and al kinds of utensils. Silver hoards have been found in many places. RhinoMind (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
About the Lindisfarne "obsession". It is just a formally adopted date and not much more than that and I dont think the article are overemphasising it. It is important though, for various reasons. There have been an extensive debate here on the talk page about "The Norse" and I am in favour of creating such a page. Partly because it could put the Vikings in a broader perspective both historically and culturally, since the Norse culture and the Norse religion not the least was also around in the Nordic Iron Age leading up to the Viking age. Let me remind everyone, that The Viking Age is to a large degree a product of the mind, something we have created to better understand what, when and why stuff happened. There is increasing ~evidence, that Vikings were quite active in the Baltic much earlier than Lindisfarne, like the Salme ships are revealing for example. Read the article by Andrew Curry from last summer, referred on the WP page there. This is all relatively new stuff and I am sure something interesting will come out of the research in the near future. RhinoMind (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that Lindisfarne can't be the core of Vikings but the the silverflow from Arabs/nothern Persia to France over the trade market in Visby in the Gotland Island, can. The silver trade is the engine that made Vikings possible and about nothing else. And the silver was not mainly the local businesss but exported mainly to France for French re-coinage. That is how the western part of the Viking world is connected to the core engine. And it is from this everything else runs up. But from a Viking perspective (not having any state or government) it all was a series of high risk well paid risk investments and not a structured general plan. Each project my be very well planned and each projects business ideas be based on the previous projects and wealth that came out of them. The point is the entire Vikings appearnce can't be understood without seeing them as such indívidual risk captial investment with a large number of shareholders. History aughtors never has such perspective and history is corrupted by lach of perspective and empathy for the situation. Snorri Sturluson lived for instance in the 13th century and at that time sociaty looked very different (the Norwegian king just taken over even Iceland). Zzalpha (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Lindisfarne is the wrong startpoint, the true stratpoint is the establishment of Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga and the Volga trade route to present northern Iran. Lindisfarne come later and is a smaller private enterprise risk project that starts a series of risk projects in Great Britain, by showing good results and lower risks than feared. The reason Lindisfarne is taking place is that there were most likly a choking situation in silver supply in Visby (the Russian plans). Lindisfarne can't be a startingpoint of the Vikings topic for anyone else but for a British history writers. I think the article should start with explaining in short words the silver trade backbone of the Viking culture and Lindisfarne could start a chapter over Vikings in Britain. Lindisfarne is a result of Visby that is the result of Aldeigjuborg/Staraya Ladoga and the Volga trade route and they all form the Vikings topic. Think about describing The East India Company starting as some evil English people beating up and robbing Indians in Dehli? You woulden't, because it starts in Calcutta and Bombay and is almost all about business and trade at the beginning? Zzalpha (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are right (ie. I agree with you :-), but Lindisfarne is just a somewhat arbitrary starting point. And we need starting points, when structuring history, athough they should not always be taken too seriously. However Lindisfarne was the first time the Viking entered written history and it was also a starting point for major raids to follow, so it is not completely random. RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
A personal comment: I think that you might be in the process of realising, that one should always look behind the façade to glimpse the real truth. We can read a ton of books, but we first begin to understand, when we look behind the written word and start to think for ourselves and connect the dots. Connecting the dots is so interesting! However, we cannot state that the way we personally connect the dots, is the only way or the only truth. This is how many fights have started! :-) RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

To be remarked, the political history of Vikings is an entire different issue because the Viking enterprises were private business by a common Scandinavian culture. The introduction of the Papal Catholic Church lead to a (previously in practice imposisble) solution for powerful people to become kings with the support of the Pope and the Catholic Church in support, in exchange of papal power sharing. Something that in fact also made Viking private "business" enterprises more or less impossible, because the king has such exclusive rights. If Christianity was spread to meet Viking raids or to establish the Pope and Catholic Church in virgin lands before the Patriarch and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople (like the later Northern Crusades race in the Baltic states and Finland) is a completely different issue. Zzalpha (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. What's your point here exactly? Is anything wrong IYO on the page? Can you be more precise about your point in relation to the page here? RhinoMind (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The point is that we normally see states making wars or political/economical projects, but the Vikings were private enterprises (like a large number of East India Companies operating simutainiously and after each other) and not governmental and should be explaind that way. Politically there was a huge change in Scandinavia by the introduction of the Catholic church and the Kingdoms that made such things like the Vikings imposisble, but it is not the main Viking topic, that is private business. This difference is hard to see if us living in todays world. We can't judge them from our perspectives today or those some hundred years after them in an entirely different political situation. Zzalpha (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. What's your point here exactly? Is anything wrong IYO on the page? Can you be more precise about your point in relation to the page here? RhinoMind (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The point is that Vikings were quite obviously well organised and should be seen as they were from their perspectives, making risk investments made on pure business perspective like risk capitalsists today. We can't judge them as being a state or a nation. Zzalpha (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zzalpha: No exactly. That is why the nations of Denmark, Sweden and Norway first came into existence, after the Viking Age. In fact it was this process, that ended the Viking Age as you also discuss. And as you also points out, the process is closely connected with the christening of Scandinavia and the catholic religion, etc.. I dont see, that the page says anything else? RhinoMind (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vikings/Archive_10&oldid=1091485159"