Documental: Warriors, Viking Terror

Interesting documental about vikings and how they fight.
I like specially Maldon Battle description, and like they used danish Axe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paZBkbKM77g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beSDGVcmmdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQmqHYi5-zo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzNr1iAJQS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLHFLEfSSYc

Good documentary.

Although, bit off-topic, it is a bit strange the heavy emphasis on Norway over for example Denmark. On Olav Tryggvarsson rather than Knut the Great. I wonder why that is always the case in american productions.

Also a bit fail the map over viking raids that showed Constantinople being raided by Vikings rounding Gibraltar (rather than arriving via Russian rivers), and I will never understand what makes the letter Ö/Ø so damn hard to pronounce for english speakers ^^

Yeah, well, americans are licking the Norwegians' asses in the hopes of getting cheaper oil.

I didn't watch the documentary, but if they showed víkings travelling to Constantinople via Gibraltar they probably forgot to tell that the nations we now know as Great Britan, Russia and America are based on vikings.

UnholyNighmare said:

I didn't watch the documentary, but if they showed víkings travelling to Constantinople via Gibraltar they probably forgot to tell that the nations we now know as Great Britan, Russia and America are based on vikings.

Click to expand...

"Based on" is a bit generous. Russia was founded by norsemen, in two waves (Rus Khaganate and the Kievan Rus), and GB saw some norse settlement that endured outside of the shortlived conquest of England. But between the influence of natives and later invaders...

And in the case of the Americas, a couple of expeditions does not nations make.

I'm thinking a bit deeper. Anyhow, my view is kinda biased but whatever, here goes:
Normandy was awarded to vikings by the french king. Not much later they invaded southern Italy. Even later (1066, as y'all know) they went to the british isles. England -> GB and the USA is really just a branch that broke free from GB. It might be noted that by 1066 the norman kings spoke french and that the blood might have been mixed with native normans (i'm quite sure the inhabitants of Brittany/Normandy came from southern Denmark (Juteland?) in Roman times or something like that). Britain would probably not have been united in some time without interference from mainland Europe and so, all the countries and conquests that they brag about can be said to have roots in the vikings' systems and politics.

You're quite wrong about britanny - the local population is heavily celtic in origin. The toponimy (names of the towns and villages) show little to no nordic influence there. There was a migration during the roman empire's collapse, but they were other celts from england (aka Great Britanny - guess where french britanny names comes from), not nordics.

Also keep in mind that the viking-style politics where rather forcibly kicked down by Guillaume when he invaded, reaplcing most of the saxon lords by normans ones to implement a more centralized system similar to what had evolved on the continent with and addition of leftover roman concepts. Though I'd grant you that by 1066 the king's power was a far cry from absolute. The political system that enabled the colonial expansion (1500+) was also very different from what it had been four centuries earlier.

Is it worth pointing out that the "Normans" who invaded Britain were so "Norman" that the Englisc, who called Danes Danes and Norwegians Northmen, called them, guess what? French. In fact, almost everyone elese who encounters the "Normans" can't tell the difference between them and the French.

They spoke French, their culture was French, they were part of the French "kingdom" (such as it was) and their family connections were almost entirely French by the 11th century - none of the Dukes were married into Scandinavian families. Therefore basically, apart from a national origin myth which justified a certain independence from the crown, they were French. Not Vikings. At all.

UnholyNighmare said:

I'm thinking a bit deeper. Anyhow, my view is kinda biased but whatever, here goes:
Normandy was awarded to vikings by the french king. Not much later they invaded southern Italy. Even later (1066, as y'all know) they went to the british isles. England -> GB and the USA is really just a branch that broke free from GB.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit wary of thinking of Normans as Norsemen, sure they originated from the warriors that followed Gånge Hrolf in his conquest of Normandy. But they brought with them nothing in the way of Scandinavian social order or laws, they converted to christianity, they intermarried with the local elites and took up the local dialects, even going so far as using latinized patronyms (Fitz orginating from the latin Filis = son). 

UnholyNighmare said:

It might be noted that by 1066 the norman kings spoke french and that the blood might have been mixed with native normans (i'm quite sure the inhabitants of Brittany/Normandy came from southern Denmark (Juteland?) in Roman times or something like that).

Click to expand...

Doesn't ring a bell tbh. can't think of any pre-roman population that has been suggested to come from Denmark/Jylland, some Cimbrians might have marched thru on their way south but that's pretty much it. Otherwise we have Frisians, Goths and Franks post Roman Empire but I don't think that was what you were going for.   

UnholyNighmare said:

Britain would probably not have been united in some time without interference from mainland Europe and so, all the countries and conquests that they brag about can be said to have roots in the vikings' systems and politics.

Click to expand...

Britain do have a social heritage similar to that of Scandinavian societies, but I would argue that is the result of the more pervasive influence of the Angles, Saxons, Frisians and Jutes (Jutes did come from southern Denmark) with very similar customs and organization. If anything the Norman invasion actually took them further from the Scandinavian societies by smashing old political institutions such as the Witangemot, removing the national militia (with the Fyrd having a cousin in the Leiðung system that was used by Norse Kings in their attempts to subdue England), in introducing Frankish style feudalism with all the laws and the political ideology that go with it and putting the church firmly under the rule of the Pope.

UnholyNighmare said:

I'm thinking a bit deeper. Anyhow, my view is kinda biased but whatever, here goes:
Normandy was awarded to vikings by the french king. Not much later they invaded southern Italy. Even later (1066, as y'all know) they went to the British isles. England -> GB and the USA is really just a branch that broke free from GB. It might be noted that by 1066 the norman kings spoke french and that the blood might have been mixed with native normans (I'm quite sure the inhabitants of Brittany/Normandy came from southern Denmark (Juteland?) in Roman times or something like that). Britain would probably not have been united in some time without interference from mainland Europe and so, all the countries and conquests that they brag about can be said to have roots in the vikings' systems and politics.

Click to expand...

Are you truly suggesting that without Scandinavian intervention the English or as you say "British" would never have achieved an empire or conquests? Such a statement is nonsense, yes the common cause amongst English nobles concerning Viking raids led to a considerable amount of unity but the Kingdom of Wessex already had achieved dominance via trade and victory in war against other states of the Heptarchy. This would clearly lead to the unification of many kingdoms despite the circumstances. Finally the Angles were obviously Scandinavian, racially and culturally they were the same people as those we call 'Vikings' either from Denmark or Norway and so to say one party is more productive than another due to geography is bizarre.

Don't criticise British admiration of our historic accomplishments merely because your nation can't compete.

Gasket said:

Are you truly suggesting that without Scandinavian intervention the English or as you say "British" would never have achieved an empire or conquests? Such a statement is nonsense, yes the common cause amongst English nobles concerning Viking raids led to a considerable amount of unity but the Kingdom of Wessex already had achieved dominance via trade and victory in war against other states of the Heptarchy. This would clearly lead to the unification of many kingdoms despite the circumstances.

Click to expand...

Their dominance at the opening of the "Viking Age" was hardly equivalent to the unification of England - it was no more likely to last than the Mercian dominance of the previous century or the Northumbrian overlordship of the century before that. What enabled England to be united probably was the opposition to a "foreign" people - the Danes. Before that there is very little idea of "Englishness" outside of the scholarly writing of Bede and a few other monks. Frequently in history we see it takes an outside threat to give people any real sense of ethnic identity - it gives them an "other" to identify themselves against. It was the Vikings that enabled the creation of "Alba" out of Pictland and Dal Riada in much the same way - by destroying rival dynasties and providing a common enemy to define yourself against.

Gasket said:

Finally the Angles were obviously Scandinavian, racially and culturally they were the same people as those we call 'Vikings' either from Denmark or Norway and so to say one party is more productive than another due to geography is bizarre.

Click to expand...

This is highly debateable - the Angles, or more precisely by the Viking Age the "Englisc" were no more Scandinavian than the Normans of 1066 - and they certainly weren't the same people as the 'Vikings' - after all, the main feature of any ethnic identity is self identification, and they were quite clear in differentiating themselves from the Danes and the Heathens (as they called them, never Vikings).

All this said, the original post is rather bizarre - saying that the British "systems and politics" have their roots in the Vikings simply because the English kingdom came about through united opposition to the Vikings. It's a bit like saying the Americans should give all credit for their acheivements to the British, since without fighting against us they would never have had a country in the first place...

Since the lot of you are mainly saying the same things I won't bother quoting y'all.
Okay, we'll start off with the Brittany issue. So, I remember reading a wiki article (yes, wiki is not always to be trusted ) about migrations and  I think that the inhabitants of Brittany actually hailed from Germany. If you guys all agree on that they were Celtic I might have been wrong.
Then the Normandy issue: Normans may have been referred to as Franks, but you know what? Franks were a Germanic people and as were the Nords, so it doesn't matter.
I don't think Normandy ever was a part of France during those times. As far as I'm concerned France was kinda split at back then until, what, Charlemagne?
And of course, there are differences between Normans, Angles and danes/norwegians. But then again, we could divide the vikings into two groups: The Eastern Kingdoms (or whatever you wanna call them), and The Western ones. The eastern ones would be inhabited by Swedes, Götes (dunno the english word for them, sorry) and Gotlanders. The Western would be Norwegians and Danes. These could be split into even smaller factions if you like, but that'd pretty much destroy the concept 'viking'.

I think Manu pretty much answers Gasket's post. I also think that the warring kingdoms would have taken too long of a time to unite. There was always someone who looked liked he was winning - only to be defeated again. And it's not hard competing against the brittish, unless you're counting military conquests or cricket (which India beated you in already. Ha)

And finally, I don't think America should give it's credit to the British (all the credit is negative anyways so I recommend not accepting it if offered ), but I see America as a product, a daughter, to the British Empire.

This post was hastily made, I hope it replied to all of you. If not, I apologize. Looks like you gotta remind me if I missed something.

I said that it was perhaps the universal fear of Viking invasion that enabled Anglo-Saxon nobles to somewhat unite, for at least a time being. Additionally whilst I partially agree with your definition of ethnicity I cannot accept that there is significant biological difference between the Englisc and the peoples of Norway and Sweden. Of course cultures were unique but all Germanic cultures shared significant similarities obviously. To see the English and Scandinavians as two separate peoples is fine, but a great percentage of English people share Scandinavian ancestry and this is why I feel that it is more than pathetic to claim that one is better than another or simply dependant on the other party.

At least we agree on that they're all Germanic, and not Celtic

Well, I dunno - the Bretons are supposedly descended from Britons and spoke a Celtic language. Most of the so called "Franks" were probably Romanized Gauls in origin, and they spoke a romance language derived from Latin not a Germanic one, and their culture, while partly Germanic in origin, was also in large part derived from Roman institutions.

I think my main objection to a lot of what people say comes from the fact that I think the fact that these people are "genetically" related is pretty meaningless. Maybe there is no significant biological difference between people in England and people in Scandinavia (there's really no SIGNIFICANT biological difference between any two groups of humans). Ethnicity comes down in the most part to people's own perception of themselves.

UnholyNighmare said:

I don't think Normandy ever was a part of France during those times. As far as I'm concerned France was kinda split at back then until, what, Charlemagne?

Click to expand...

Normandy didn't exist until around 100 years after Charlemagne anyway.

In this series the American Revolutionaries were put among other iconic warriors of history. Is this really the best Viking documentary around ?

UnholyNighmare said:

Then the Normandy issue: Normans may have been referred to as Franks, but you know what? Franks were a Germanic people and as were the Nords, so it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

It does if we are talking political organization, culture and genetics or just one of them. Franks invaded Gaul in the 5th century, displacing the Goths who had ruled the area before them. Many roman aristocratic familes endured the change of rule this time around aswell. In the comming centuries the Franks continued to adhere to ancient germanic customs and laws, such as Gavelkind type inheritance which resulted in massive political fragmentation and incessant infighting during the Merovingian period. However Frankish customs and political organization changed greatly in the centuries leading up to the Viking invasions. Feudal society originated in the lands of the Franks as slaves and freemen merged into a new class of serfs and the manor became the fundamental political and military unit.

By the time of Gånge Hrolf Franks had intermarried heavily with old roman families, they were speaking a Langue d'oil, and they would not have understood very much of Germanic traditions or social organization.

UnholyNighmare said:

I don't think Normandy ever was a part of France during those times. As far as I'm concerned France was kinda split at back then until, what, Charlemagne?

Click to expand...

Charlemagne died about a decade after the sacking of Lindisfarne (almost a century before Gånge Hrolf aka Rollo conquored Normandy).

And Normandy was most definitly a part of France, it was infact given to Hrolf as a part of a peace treaty between him and the French King Charles the Simple, in return of this rather large concession Hrolf had to swear fealty to the King and baptize himself. By that time Normandy had been suffering raids for a long time and before Hrolf the French King had tried to outsource the protection of the area to the Breton King Salomon by giving him land in the area.

UnholyNighmare said:

And of course, there are differences between Normans, Angles and danes/norwegians. But then again, we could divide the vikings into two groups: The Eastern Kingdoms (or whatever you wanna call them), and The Western ones

Click to expand...

One could, but it wouldn't be based on much apart from where they prefered to raid and conquor (Swedes generally going east and the others generally going west). Scandinavians were rather homogenous and even had a sort of proto-nationality encompassing all the norse peoples, "Norrön". That is a far cry from the difference between for example Swedes and Franks which was already then quite big.

UnholyNighmare said:

Götes (dunno the english word for them, sorry)

Click to expand...

Götar = Geats =)

UnholyNighmare said:

These could be split into even smaller factions if you like, but that'd pretty much destroy the concept 'viking'.

Click to expand...

Well Viking is a rather abstract and strange concept anyway, Vikingu being the Norse name for seaborn raiders rather than an ethnonym (Finns, Slavs and Balts were also called Vikingu, and qite a few runesones tells of people who gave their life fighting these damned Vikings that plagued our coasts). More interesting is that the Norse peoples self identified as Norröner apart from being Norwegians, Swedes, Geats, Jutes, Danes or Helsings or whatever, and were identified as a common race of Northmen by foriegn peoples aswell.

Genetic map of Europe, might be of interest to those arguing who's related to who:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21358

So it seems Brits have most in common with the Irish, Norwegians, Danes and Dutch.  Other extremes are the southern Italians and the Poles.  Can't really count the Fins as they seem to be complete aliens 

Anyone studying history will quickly come to the conclusion that related culture has a far greater impact than related genetics of course, and as there's no scientific way to prove that please do feel free to keep arguing.  Especially the deranged chap trying to claim Viking kudos for the UK, USA and Russia 

Bert Preast said:

Genetic map of Europe, might be of interest to those arguing who's related to who:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21358

So it seems Brits have most in common with the Irish, Norwegians, Danes and Dutch.  Other extremes are the southern Italians and the Poles.  Can't really count the Fins as they seem to be complete aliens 

Anyone studying history will quickly come to the conclusion that related culture has a far greater impact than related genetics of course, and as there's no scientific way to prove that please do feel free to keep arguing.  Especially the deranged chap trying to claim Viking kudos for the UK, USA and Russia 

Click to expand...

That is very interesting, I have always advocated that European peoples were consistent in terms of most genetic material, however, whilst I knew Finland was an anomaly I did not believe Italy to be the same but only in Sicily and the south in general.

Okay, another quick post.

First, the genetic map. Just a note. I find it interesting that Hungarians and Finns are so far apart, especially since they're both Finno-Ugric. Of course, it's like 800 (?) or so years since the Hungarians came, so maybe it has changed during this period.

And as for Aurgelmir and Spongly; I'm not a historian, and I haven't backed up my claims before posting (which I usually do), I am simply interested in history. The Charlemagne thingy was my bad, sorry. I got mixed up in the games' timeline and the ~250 years vikings are said to have existed. I also contradicted myself by saying that Normandy was given to vikings by a French king and then saying France wasn't united
With such detailed information that you have provided I'm quite sure you've got it all right. I'll come back and post later if I find something to complain about in your posts.

UnholyNighmare said:

Okay, another quick post.

First, the genetic map. Just a note. I find it interesting that Hungarians and Finns are so far apart, especially since they're both Finno-Ugric. Of course, it's like 800 (?) or so years since the Hungarians came, so maybe it has changed during this period.

Click to expand...

Thing is that Finno-Ugric is a langage group and just like there is quite some genetic differences between Hindu speakers and Swedish speakers (both belonging to the Indo-European group). There is some difference between different groups belonging to the Finno-Ugric group which contains such very diverse peoples such as the Nganasan (similar in apperance to neighbouring Altai peoples such as Yakuts and Mongols), the Finns (who look Scandinavian enough), and the Hungarians.

Langauage groups doesn't really correlate well with genetics cuz while language was probably propagated by conquest it is likely that such conquests quite often brought little in terms of genetic influence to subjugated populations and/or that the conquering population acquired a related genome on the way to their destination. Like say a Turcic people would have conquored their way to Sweden from Ukraine via Germany within a span of 400 years, the number of individuals involved would consitute a rather small portion of Swedish population to begin with and while passing thru all the countries on the way (countries increasingly like Sweden genetically) and mixing with their peoples the genetic influence would at the end be negligeble but the language might be adopted.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TNYwfThz81I/AAAAAAAAC10/Jaq1P436tSQ/s1600/1ips07-Nganasan.jpg <- picture of a Nganasan

UnholyNighmare said:

And as for Aurgelmir and Spongly; I'm not a historian, and I haven't backed up my claims before posting (which I usually do), I am simply interested in history. The Charlemagne thingy was my bad, sorry. I got mixed up in the games' timeline and the ~250 years vikings are said to have existed. I also contradicted myself by saying that Normandy was given to vikings by a French king and then saying France wasn't united
With such detailed information that you have provided I'm quite sure you've got it all right. I'll come back and post later if I find something to complain about in your posts.

Click to expand...

Do that =)