Talk:History of Norway

Organization of the article
Hello everyone. I think we should make the following changes to organization of the article:


 * The opening paragraph should be moved under a headline called "Etymology".
 * The opening paragraph should then be some sort of a brief summary of Norway's history, but more satisfying than the part of the main article on Norway (this article).

The reason for doing this is simply a part of my viewpoint on how an encyclopedia should be: Each article should have some sort of summary at the start contemplated by the following text which goes deeper in describing the subject. It makes things easier for everyone, I think.

What do you think?

cun 01:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One vote for etymology header and new summary.
 * It does rather look like the article grew organically rather than being organized (probably because it did). Here's one vote for the etymology header and a new summary. Williamborg 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

An interesting link: Where do Finns come from, not just about Finland.

The history presented is very much event-based, first this happened and than that happened and so on.. Would it be meaningful to    expand the article's view on history and include more about society in general, how this evolves, and how politics, economics and culture changes though time? It's not really helpful for anyone wanting to know anything about Norwegian history before WWII. The topic "Viking kings" is not too meaningful when its content includes the medieval period by the way.

Peer Review invitation
Greetings.

There is a peer review started on Peer review/Viking/archive1 and any interested party is invited to take part in reviewing the article. If you know the history of scandinavia, then please stop by and help the peer review of the artile Viking

Thank you for your time. -- Orbit One    [ Talk 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmoy???
For the record: The claim that the name Norway originates from the short strait by Karmoy, is at its best a SPECULATIVE thesis. The root word is more likely to mean "direction", and was applied to the entire coastline. There is no evidence for this claim!

--Sparviere 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was bold, and removed the speculative references to Karmøy. As Sparviere notes, this notion is far from generally accepted, and cannot be proved. --Barend 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

-way
I'm afraid that saying some sources is a bit too vague. I also doubt that the -way in Galloway, Kennoway or Galway derives from Old Norse is dubious at best. They all have original Irish/Gaelic names on which the English names are based. If someone suggests that the Celtic names are based on Old Norse, sources would be needed to support that claim JdeJ 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could anyone mention which sources suggest nor -ay is a viable etymology for Nóregr? It doesn't seem to make much sense. Island in old Norse is 'ey'. So that should make something like Nórey. Not Nóregr. I am very tempted to delete the whole sentence unless someone can come up with a source.--Barend 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has come up with a source, so I am deleting this highly dubious sentence. --Barend 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kingdoms
I would like to see some citations showing that Norway was divided into 'Kingdoms' per se before the 7th, or even the 9th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.166.181.194 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Its totally non-controversial statement. Sources like Snorre's Sagas, other Icelandic sagas give accounts of the division into petty kingdoms. --H@r@ld 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is non-controversial. The number of kingdoms, dating of some of them and some other details might be cloudy, but not that any existed.Inge 10:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a question of definition. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the word 'Kingdoms', as it implies that they were more organised than they actually were. Anyway, let me quote "Jernalderen i Norge" (The iron age in Norway) by Bergljot Solberg (Oslo, 2000, p. 278). The book is in Norwegian, so I'll try to translate. It is on the reading list for archaeology-students at the university of Bergen:
 * Det som kjennetegner den politiske situasjonen først på 800-tallet, er at landet var delt opp i en rekke småriker, hvert med sitt eller sine maktsentre. (...) Vi vet ikke hvor mange riker og maktsentre det var først på 800-tallet. På Vestlandet har arkeologen Bjørn Ringstad (1986) anslått at det var ni småriker i vikingtiden. Det er derfor neppe å ta for hardt i om vi regner med minst 20 i hele landet. Vi kan heller ikke nødvendigvis regne smårikene som "norske". Mye tyder på dansk overherredømme i Sørøst-Norge i hvert fall i deler av perioden.


 * The main feature of the political situation in the early 9th century, is that the country was divided into a number of small realms, each with its own centre, or centres, of power. (...) We do not know how many realms and centres of power there were in the early 9th century. Archaeologist Bjørn Ringstad (1986) has estimated that there were nine small realms in western Norway in the viking age. It is therefore probably not a stretch to estimate at least 20 in the whole country. We can also not necessarily define the small realms as "Norwegian". There are many indications of Danish overlordship in southeastern Norway for at least parts of the period.


 * On a side note, concernin Snorre and the other Icelandic sagas: They were written from about 1180 onwards - more than 300 years after the first unification of the kingdom. The further back in time, the less reliable they are as historical sources. For the 9th century and earlier, one must be very cautious in using them as historical sources - observe for instance how Heimskringla and Fagrskinna contradict each other in their accounts of Harald Fairhair's conquests. --Barend 19:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

help needed
there is much to copy here from the parralel Norwegian article. Acidburn24m 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I have added the NPOV tag to this article since it completely ignores the history of the Sami and Kven people. I believe there are two possible solutions to this problem: Labongo 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Add the history of these peoples to this article.
 * Rename the article to the History of the Norwegian people.
 * You are absolutely right. I would prefer solution #1, adding the histories of the peoples. 96T 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the #1 solution, but it requires more work. Currently the Sami history article needs to be improved before content is added to this article, but the Kven people has an OK description of the Kven history that could be added to this article.Labongo 12:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that an NPOV tag is inapropriate. The article is lacking an important piece of Norwegian history and needs to be expanded, but such a tag is to be used when the information already present in the article is POV.Inge 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think the tag is appropriate as a warning to readers that this article unintentionally represents a POV that the history of Norway is only about one ethnic group. But the important thing is that the article needs to be expanded to resolve this "dispute".Labongo 17:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Two smaller issues:
 * does the subsection "Post-war Social policy" have any significant historical information?
 * did the Norwegian King rule exclusively over Finnmark from 1000-1300AD?
 * Labongo 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to quibble over the NPOV tag, because I obviously agree that Kven and Sami history deserve attention. But I'm not sure it's the right tag, because the article doesn't suffer so much from bias as being incomplete. Which can be said about many other aspects of the article as well. For example, the first Norwegian town was not Tunsberg, but Kaupang; and there are other minor problems as well. --Leifern 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology
So, it's fairly settled what the English etymology of Norway is, but the Norwegian word forNorway is quite unrelated; Norge, coming from "Nor rige", that is, northern realm, realm of the northmen or even realm of Nor (mythical person) I'm no expert here, but if anyone knows anything, please add this as it is laughable not having the etymology for a nation's name in its own language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.254.184 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, no, Norge most definitely does not come from "Nor rige". The Old Norse form was Noregr, this is undisputed. "Norrige" is a Danish distortion of modern times. The etymology of Noregr is quite commonly explained in the same way as English "Norway" - Way to the north. They are not unrelated at all, they are the same.--Barend (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Article should be rewritten
This article could almost be used as a showcase for Wikipedia's inherent bias towards military and political history, as described by the historian Roy Rosenzweig in his article: ''[http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42 Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past]'' H@r@ld (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most scholarly and popular books about the history of Norway devout less than 5% to the events of WW2. In this article 25% covers WW2!
 * 500 years of Norwegian history, i.e. The Kalmar Union + The Oldenburg dynasty/union with Denmark + the inter war years + post WW2 time, doesn't receive any serious treatment.
 * The monarchy is get a lot of attention, whereas the living conditions for the people is barley mentioned.
 * A fairly unexceptional anecdotes concerning the treatment of German POW in the late 1940s get more coverage than the entire post-war period.
 * Social history? Economic history? Cultural history? Demographic history?


 * You raise interesting points, but on the whole I don't agree with you.


 * On the one hand, there is the problem that some periods get undue attention. The WWII-section is very long, I agree, and could probably do with a trimming, and moving parts into the specialised articles about Norway during WWII. But the main reason for the imbalance between different periods is that some sections haven't been written about yet. The period 1380-1814 needs more extensive work, and also the post-war period. The problem is, basically, that no one has got around to writing about those, while they have written about the middle ages and WWII. So it's not that the whole article needs a rewrite, it's these periods that need an extension, and I'm sure in time they will come. (I have myself been planning to write more about 1380-1536, but finding the time...)


 * On the other hand, the bias towards political and military history, and lack of social, cultural and demographic history, "living conditions for the people". I think you have a wrong expectation about what an encyclopedia-article should be. One cannot expect a thorough synthesis of all aspects of history in an encyclopedia, certainly not an open-source one. For that, read a history book. An encyclopedia should primarily be a place to look up facts. The articles should contain facts, such as years of important events, names of rulers and so on. And in cases where the facts are not hard and clear (as is most often the case in history), the article should ideally present the main alternative viewpoints. Social history, cultural history, the "living conditions for the people" don't lend themselves to NPOV-descriptions. You have to take a viewpoint in order to write history like that, you have to make choices, that sort of history doesn't contain many hard facts, and will inherantly be debatable and controversial. If you look in wikipedia for historical synthesis, you are looking in the wrong place - it's a bit like going to a steel mill and expecting to buy a car (if you get my metaphor).--Barend (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the 1970s, most academic historical scholarship has moved past political/military history towards emphasis on cultural history, social history and economic history. Socical history isn't inherently biased to NPOV anymore than political history. E.g. the current version of the article's discussion on the Black death: "After the Black Death Norway entered into a period of decline. The Royal line died out and the country entered into two unequal unions from 1396 until 1814". It fails to mention that perhaps 60% of the population died (!), instead, the article goes on discussing royal lineages etc.
 * The best English language reference work for a rewrite of this article is (still) probably Norway: A History from the Vikings to Our Own Times, written by five eminent history professors from the University of Bergen.
 * H@r@ld (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, don't agree with you here either. Academic historical scholarship (at least in Norway) pretty much lost interest in political/military history entirely in the 1940s at the latest if not in the inter-war years, not the 1970s. Now, however, political history is again on the rise in academia. I am sure you know, for instance, of Claus Krag's recent biography of King Sverre, something no historian would have dared to write in the 1960s. And people like Sverre Bagge are again emphasizing the role of individuals, and the political game between individuals, kings and other magnates, in shaping the country, as opposed to the dying marxist historiography which only emphasized impersonal economic and social forces. If you want to add to the article, please do, although paraphrasing or summarizing one single book probably isn't such a good idea. I would certainly have a look at the Cambridge History of Scandinavia as well, for instance. But the best is probably if people write about the period they know a lot about. No one can be expected to be an expert on the entire history of Norway.

British troops forcing German POWs to run across minefields
what the devil is this rubbish?

german POWs throughout Europe were used to clear ordnance

figures already indicate that, sadly, there was a high rate of injury or death

but in this article it purports that in Norway german POWs were forced by their 'british guards' (anyway why British? why not norwegians?? they ran norway after VE DAY) a la Rambo 3-style to run to certain deaths through minefields

what a load of pure BS..!!

the site that this revelation comes from is on a norwegian right-wing website (reference) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.93.132 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when was VG a right-wing website? I tried to dig up some info on Anders Chr. Gokstad, but I couldn't find anything. --85.166.48.224 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-historic age
First sentence in this section: "there were people in Norway as early as the 5th millennium BC (12,000 years ago)." These number don't match: 5th millennum BC (or BCE) was 7,000 years ago; 12,000 years ago was the 10th millennium BCE. Which is it? I'm guessing it's the latter, since the subhed includes "10,000 BC." Also, I believe "BC" & "CE" don't match, either. "BC" means "Before Christ," which matches with "AD" ("Anno Domini," "The Year of Our Lord"). "BCE" means "Before Common Era," & matches with "CE" ("Common Era"). I changed that in the subhead & text (to BC/AD, which seems to be the Wikipedia standard). Ctnelsen (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Border(s) in Northern Norway
It seems like Wikipedia has no description about when, why, and how, the final border between Norway, Sweden/Finland, and Russia were drawn. This seems like a major event that should be described in this article. Labongo (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Related to the above question. Does anyone know if the borders drawn onto the 1761 map (at the bottom of the page) are something added to the original at a later time? The coloring seems to be modern, but does it also apply to the borders? Labongo (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, there is actually a legend that shows that the borders were in the original document. Labongo (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Christina the Magnificent
I have never heard of the so-called "Christina the Magnificent" of Strandgaten in Bergen, and that her coming marked the end of the Norwegian national decline (which started because of the Black Death and subsequent union under Denmark). Those lines, early in the article, should be deleted. mhusoy (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

'''
 * )''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.169.153 (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nyota - translates Message
prepare.the anglo-sikh was kind. the indo-scythian is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.169.153 (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review Scream of Desperation
Hi,

A lot of this sounds like a machine translated holiday resort brochure reused in a term paper. You get the intention, and it's almost there, but not quite, neither wrt. language nor content.

"About 10,000 BC, following the retreat of the great inland ice sheets, the earliest inhabitants migrated north into the territory which is now Norway. They traveled steadily northwards along the coastal areas, warmed by the Gulf Stream, where life was more bearable."

Afaik _among some of the earliest_ settlers are found reindeer hunters from a culture centered in the area around present day Berlin. As the ice receded, they probably followed the reindeer wherever those went.

The coastal areas are not "warmed by the Gulf stream, making life more bearable" ... Between the GS and Norway there is first the Atlantic drift, and then there is the Coastal Stream, which originates in the Baltic, not Florida (still warmer than the North Atlantic, of course). Norway has high average temperatures and less temp. spread realtive to its latitude, that is true. This info could perhaps be placed with he first sentence. And perhaps combined with one sentence on Geology/Topography, which would explain or at least underpin that first sentence.

(Digression: In Norway people talk of North-Norway, West Norway (Vestlandet), East Norway (Oestlandet) and the South Land (Soerlandet). The latter is the fairly narrow and short strip of coastland in Aust-Agder (and some parts of Vest-Agder, in the interest of tourism). Genereally speaking, however, there is a South Norway (The "South Land", Eastern and Western Norway) and North Norway (Nordland, Troms, Finnmark), with the Trondelag as a sort of self-declared "Central Norway" or "Mid-Norway". This makes seem strange sentences like ...)

"... agricultural settlements appeared around the Oslofjord. Gradually, ... these .... spread into the southern areas of Norway - whilst the inhabitants of the northern regions continued to hunt and fish". Well, Oslo _is_ i the southern areas of Norway - relatively far south, actually. "... up throughout"? And for sure the inhabs of S-Nor continued to hunt and fish, as if their life depended on it, as their life depended on it.

Then, in the next paragraph, Norway makes the giant stride from the Neolithic straight to the Migration period. No bronze age? No pre-roman, roman iron age? Maraviglioso.

"The migration period caused the first chieftains to take control ..." This is just so .... There were probably chieftains a long time before the migration age (and clans, too). And the age doesn't _cause_ anything. At best, in an age, we can _see_ that X.

(This one's not for this page, but the history page claims rapid population increase in the middle ages while the viking related pages claim overpopulation as a factor that triggered the viking age. Go, as it were, figure.)

"In 1814 Norway was ceded from Denmark to Sweden and a constitution was passed. Norway declared its independence but was then occupied by Sweden, although the Parliament was allowed to continue to exist."

Here is a slightly streamlined version from the Wiki page on the S/N Union: "Following the 1814 Treaty of Kiel, Norway was to be ceded from Denmark to Sweden, but declared itself independent and adopted its own constitution. A brief war with Sweden resulted in the Convention of Moss on 14 August and the Norwegian Storting (parliament) electing Charles XIII of Sweden as King of Norway, while Norwy retained its own legislature, cabinet, administration, church, armed forces, and currency."

"In 1884 the king appointed Johan Sverdrup as prime minister, thus establishing parliamentarism." I don't like this one either, but ...: "During the 1884 constitutional crisis, the king was forced to appoint the parliamentary nominee Johan Sverdrup as prime minister, thus establishing parliamentarism."

"From the 1980s Norway started deregulation in many sectors and experienced a banking crisis."

"From the 1980s Norway started deregulation in many sectors. In two referendums, Norway has refused to join the European Union, while maintaining close ties to the EU via its membership in EFTA and thereby in the EEA." This one is perhaps broader in outlook?

Prehistory: "The immigration .... something. /.../ They were nomadic." Who? The Immigration? Must be a new band. "Increased ice receding from 8000 BC caused settlement along the entire coastline." Increased receding caused settlement? Is it just me who finds this awkward?

"The Stone Age consisted of the Komsa culture in Troms and Finnmark and the Fosna culture further south." Or: "The Komsa culture in Troms and Finnmark and the Fosna culture further south are evidence of Stone Age culture/settlements/habitation something"?

"The Nøstvet culture took over from the Fosna culture ca. 7000 BC,[Hi, guys!] which (who, the Fosna ?) adapted to a warmer climate which gave increased forestation and new mammals for hunting." Cool - or is it "uncool"? Adapting to a warmer climate gives new mammals, what with the massive breeder program.

"This period also saw the arrival of the Corded Ware culture, who brought new weapons, tools and the Indo-European language, from which the Norwegian language developed.[6]" Changing "who" to "which" would make this a lot less funny. Although IE language imported in Corded Ware still is.

The info on the linked page "Furhter info: Nordic Iron Age" consists of six lines of text, less than the section here.

" Trading with Romans also took place, largely furs and skins in exchange for luxury goods. Some Scandinavians also served as Roman mercenaries. " Really? Really?

" Some of the most powerful farmers became chieftains." "The role of chieftain passed to the powerful among the farmers." (""The role of chieftain was now taken up by the most powerful landlords."?)

"The chieftains' power increased during the Migration Period between 400 to 550 as other Germanic tribes migrated northwards and local farmers wanted protection." The Migration Age page states that Scandinavia was largely unaffected by the Migrations.

Viking Age:

" ... advanced navigation techniques ..." - not "improved" or "more advanced"?

"Vikings ... had a psychological advantage over Christians ... since they believed that being killed in combat would result in them going to Valhalla." And the Christians wouldn't go to Heaven? OK, ok ... but it's just such a sweeping psychological generalization.

"The lack of suitable farming land in Western Norway caused Norwegians to travel to the sparsely populated areas such as Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands and the Hebrides to colonize" - because there is such a massive abundance of suitable farming land in Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands and the Hebrides? I'd posit that Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands and the Hebrides were perfect places to export the way of life of Western Norway as a successful model. Those who sought land went to England (or, at least many of those who went to England and setteld there, sought land.) But that's my OR and all that.

" abolishing the rites in Norse mythology was first attempted by Olav Tryggvason.." a) How do you abolish the rites of a mythology? What does that even mean? b) Olav was perhaps the third king who was an xian (Ericus Sanguisecuris, Haakon the Good)

Olav V "... created an institution of priests." ???

"Many chieftains feared that the Christianization would rob them of power in lieu of their roles as heathen priests" In lieu? "Many chieftains feared that the Christianization would rob them of power instead of their roles as heathen priests"?

" In 1130 the civil war era broke out on the basis of unclear succession laws, which allowed all the king's sons to rule jointly." Sounds like they introduced some very confusing succession laws in 1130. Having all sons of a king to rule jointly must have been incredibly stressful all around. (And the "Succession law" link leads to the seven people in line for the throne of Norway after the present king Harald V. Precious little relevance. )

" The church inevitably had to take sides in the conflicts, with the civil was also becoming an issue regarding the church's influence of the king." ???

And with " many aristocrats lost the basis for their surplus" I think I'll leave off.

The article is a mix of bad language which partly creates, partly masks misinformation. Bold edits aren't enough, this requires someone who knows both English and History.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations are too confusing.
As far as I can tell, it references the same source 90% of the time with no original reference point (that I see). Am I overlooking it? If not, how could this even happen in the first place? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528014107/http://www.avinor.no/lufthavn/stavanger/omoss/70_Historikk to http://www.avinor.no/lufthavn/stavanger/omoss/70_Historikk
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5uv6grx5a?url=http://www.lillehammer.kommune.no/files/75261/ to http://www.lillehammer.kommune.no/links/113598

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gunboat battle near Alvøen Norway.jpg

Unlinked article
Hi, there exists a Wiki article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Norway_(872%E2%80%931397)". How about linking to it? Or ... the "History" section in the "Norway" article is more extensive than this page devoted solely to the history of Norway. Instead of fixing this one, it should perhaps just be deleted? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motstandsretten is a NO language page on the people's right to regicide if the king broke the law, given in para 75 of the Frostating law; in support of Olav II being killed at Stiklestad "in accordance with the law". T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)