Talk:Viking Age/Archive 3

Causes in lede?
From the lede: "many historical documents suggest that their invasion of other countries was retaliation in response to the encroachment upon tribal lands by Christian missionaries, and perhaps by the Saxon Wars prosecuted by Charlemagne and his kin to the south". I'm sure there exist scholars who endorse this, but I've absolutely never stumbled across mention of it in the sources I've read. It seems to me the three most common factors I've seen mainstream scholars postulate to maybe trigger the Viking Age are:

1. Advances in Norse seafaring ability

2. Increased portable wealth (silver) available in continental Europe

3. Diaspora caused by social upheaval caused by the processes of Scandinavian centralization

And that these combined with other pre-existing factors:

1. The usual Malthusian overpopulation

2. Warlike culture (Primogeniture, warlords, belief in Valhalla)

Does that sound reasonable for what makes the cut in the lede as some possible causes? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

More detailed causes should be in the body of the article. The Lede is supposed to summarize the body.

The additions seem reasonable to me, particularly the overpopulation which I have encountered in other sources. Please, remember to provide sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I hate these never resolved and never removed "fix this" warnings. The article has been combed and the only problem remaining seems to be the lede. The citations after the sentence that Mr Nelson comments on seem to cover a lot of ground, not just the possibility of Christian colonization (which, BTW, is time linked and was not spread equally across the whole VA and across all of Scandinavia.) I propose that the lede summarize the various ideas for causes and then say, "See longer discussion below." You can leave the refs or move them below if they are not there. Get rid of the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsnip13 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * A good lead should be a bit "teasing" summary of the article (and should hence not require inline references), as they already are to be given "further down". However before that is possible, must the article be as good as completed. This is far from the case today. I guess the different perspectives must be solved first. Stating the Vikinger Age begins in 792 and ends by 1066 is a very British perspective. And besides given too exactly. The Viking Age ought to have began before the first ones arrived to England. There are Runic inscriptions found as early as around 550, have I read. A better starting point, I think. While the large Jelling Stones (dated to 985) states Harald Bluetooth had Christened all Danish. (But for Norway may perhaps 1066 be better).

For what's important exists at least four perspectives in general - And they must be interpreted for us somehow. And there are also archeological matters to consider. In all - a difficult task. Boeing720 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) the Scandinavian (and at least from around 1100 AD exists written material, earler Runestones)
 * 2) from the West (England, Scotland, Ireland, Northern France)
 * 3) from the East (Russia, Constantinopel)
 * 4) travelers like Ansgar and Adam of Bremen

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Viking Age. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shetlandtourism.com/pages/history_%26_heritage.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gwp.enta.net/walhist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718171837/http://rodin.uca.es:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10498/7881/18385953.pdf?sequence=1 to http://rodin.uca.es:8081/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10498/7881/18385953.pdf?sequence=1

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) 15:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Template: Vikings
The use and topic and naming of Vikings is under discussion, see template talk:Vikings -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Imbalance
The first sections of the article are: - too many Indians & not enough of a chief (lead, that is). The material needs to be re-arranged to make the lead about 3-4 times longer, and the various background/overview etc sections much shorter. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * a really short lead
 * 1 Historical considerations
 * 2 Historical background
 * 3 Probable causes of Norse expansion
 * 4 Historic overview

A few details
Hi, just a few details ... I wonder about the wording in the lede, second section, where it is said that sometime between 800 and 1050, the Vikings "settled in Norway and Sweden" - I thought they came from there, not that they went there? Regarding the list of trading towns "in the Baltic", I would propose to include Skiringssal, and exclude Dorestad. Or at least mention that the coast of Frisia isn't in the Baltic. I would also propose to expand the sections on Viking activity in Germany (there's a link to the Rhineland campaign, but the Vikings also burned down Hamburg, for example) and France, which saw more action than just Normandy. Here's my amateur translation from the French Wiki: "... France had an open seafront; the Vikings regularly navigated the Seine, the Loire, the Garonne and the small coastal rivers. Monastic chronicles show that the Seine saw Scandinavian fleets in 841, 845, 851, 852 and 856. Some fleets chose to winter on a river island. The Vikings sailed up the Garonne, reached Toulouse in 844 and laid siege to Bordeaux in 845. Paris was besieged in 845, 856, 861 and finally in 885, the latter being the best documented. ...". Refs are on the FR page (but fear ye not - one of the books is in English). T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: There's also the leidang. Yes, the kogge, the caravel etc. were better suited for sea battle; but that didn't mean that the leidang disappeared, merely that the leidang stopped winning battles. It was out and about with King Haakon on his trip to Scotland in 1266; in fact, the last mention of it being called was in 1603. Already early on, Norwegians could opt out of leidang service by paying a fine, and this was soon converted into a regular tax - combined with the skipreide being given other administrative tasks, turning it into a royal revenue source probably contributed to preserving it as an institution way beyond its military usefulness. Refs in "Den Norske Leidangen", publ. by Sjøforsvarets Overkommando, 1952 (https://www.nb.no/items/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2008042500038?page=1) . T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.160.249 (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. You raise several issues in your post.


 * About settlement: Yes, you are of course right, that the Vikings came from Scandinavia, but I think the article was trying to explain that it was during the Viking Age that larger towns (or settlements) were founded. Building town structures and organizing in larger town communities was something new in this part of the world. In the preceding Iron Age settlements were much smaller and less organized. Fortied settlements did exist in the Scandinavian Iron Age (collectively called Borremose Fortifications) but they were much smaller than what constitute a town.


 * About France: yes indeed. I wrote/added wiki-content for that on the Danes article. Also bits and pieces in other Viking-related articles, but I can't list them from the top of my head. RhinoMind (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, if that is what the article is trying, it's doing a very poor job. But actually I think you may be wrong: If settlement was supposed to mean township, then it shouldn't include e.g. Iceland and Greenland. No, I think that "going somewhere" was what was meant. If so, perhaps the intention was to say that e.g. the Swedes extended their area to all of what is now Sweden (sort of), i.e. colonizing more of "their own country", in the same way that Germany extended its borders eastward, and Fance came to include previously autonomous regions like Aquitaine or Savoie or something. But then again, that could be better worded. "I meant to say .." - "Oh? Yes, well, then say that." (Tucholsky) =o) . T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, went ahead and tried a new version of the 2. para of the lede. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, regarding the sentence about consolidation ... it's actually weird that this is in the lede, as the article contains no section on events inside Scandinavia, be it during or after the Viking Age. Perhaps this, then, is a fruitful error, uncovering a needed supplement to the article. If I may make a modest proposal, perhaps the article might end with a section called "Legacy" which, for starters, could contain the passage about Norse loan words in English, and the list of towns they founded. To support the lede, one might have a brief sub-section on Viking Legacy inside Scandinavia as well as one outside (if such a thing is practical and practicable.) T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Baltic cities and leidang
Hi, quoting from the previous section ... the collapsible list of Baltic sea ports (" Trade emporia of the Viking Age (Baltic Sea) ") still lists Dorestad in Frisia, but I can't seem to find that line (or menu?) on the page when in edit mode. Hints - or helping hands - welcome. Also, if no one minds, I'd like to streamline the wording on the leidang; However, I don't know the policy regarding foreign language sources. It stands to reason that the Nordic countries will have extensive source materials on this subject which is not published in the Anglosphere. For the sake of discussion I could provide translations of the relevant sections here on the TP, if that is of interest or relevance. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Viking Rule
"Harold Harefoot became king of England after Cnut's death, and Viking rule of England ceased." Since Harefoot was Cnut's son, how is it that Viking rule of England ceased? Manannan67 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Viking Age in Estonia
Viking Age in Estonia is an official historical period. How should it be included in this article? A separate subheadline? Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. If you have good useable sources why not incorporate it in the article? Sorry for being late, but I guess this is still a relevant issue? RhinoMind (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , See Summary style. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Added Legacy section
Hi, and I probably did lots of newbie mistakes, like the font sizes of the subsections (Settlements and English Language). The text in the "Scandinavia" section is also very short ... I was considering including "Genetics" in the Legacy section, but I'm not sure if that is correct.
 * PS: I also removed Dorestad from the list of Baltic trading stations.
 * PPS: I also streamlined the wording in the leidang passage (under "Technology").
 * T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, the section "Legacy" is tagged as empty; from my POV that is mainly a typographical issue, as the following sections (History of Scandinavia, Colonies, English loanwords from Norse) were originally conceived as sub-headings - i.e. content - of the "Legacy" section, whereas now they appear as independent sections.  T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, alternatively, in order to avoid duplication, the content of the Legacy section could consist of a "See also" type link list, including e.g Viking Art and similar articles. Idk if there is a Viking Portal, or something similar, where one can find all Viking (legacy) related articles. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Historical backgorund and context
What's the difference between the historical background and historical context sections? If they are redundant I suggest to merge them into a single section. Forich (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd say that the "Context" section covers what would otherwise be called "image" or "reception", i.e. the status of Vikings in historiography. The "Background" section is a very meagre and school essay-like sketch of some geographical and cultural traits of Scandinavia. It should be expanded, worked into the "reasons for" section or simply eliminated. The third Historic section, "Overview", looks like a "Timeline". T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)