What did the Vikings do for us?

[caldrail]

To be honest with you, linguistics don't really cut it with me either - I am sure Doc will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think our language owes far more to Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Latin than it does to Norse - but I stand to be corrected.

No, correction is not necessary

 

Of all the cultures that have shaped England (and I'm being specific to England here), which would you say has been the most important and lasting?

The saxons. They thoroughly colonised and opened england up, they made it their own. They managed to preserve their culture under Norman dominion (which is medievalised viking! Norman is a contraction of 'Northmen'). The vikings gave a different blend to english life and to be honest, roman ways were largely dropped after the withdrawal and survive only through the church and establishment careers.

 

One might say that if the Vikings introduced superior naval power (as Pertinax said - and I can see no reason to disagree with this), that may be their most crucial contribution, as we are an island, and I suppose even to this day our Navy remains our 'Senior Service'.

Not true at all. Alfred the Great had an english navy with which to secure his coasts against viking incursion, which definitely did the job. Granted their vessels may not have been as adaptable as norse versions but then the saxons weren't afraid of sailing (even if they kept closer to shore). Our modern 'Senior Service' arises because of our island status and the need to protect the coasts even if not technically at war due to piracy (Alfred did good work against pirates too - yes, even the saxons suffered that blight). Standing armies were uncommon earlier in our history because its expensive to pay them in peacetime to sit around and bully civilians for something to do. If I remember right, the regimental system emerges from the english civil war, whilst a standing navy was in place much earlier to deal with threats from spain and holland.

Edited September 19, 2007 by caldrail

[docoflove1974]

The Vikings created many of the modern kingdoms of Europe. England and France were influenced by the Vikings through the Normans. Russia was founded by the Vikings, the Rus. All of the Scandanavian kingdoms were the remainders of the Vikings

 

Really? This doesn't make sense linguistically, but that doesn't mean as much. What sources do you have for this?

 

I'll leave Viking influence on England to other people (not my specialty). If you read the rest of the thread it is discussed, even linguistically by The Augusta and by sonic.

 

Linguistically, Viking influence in Scandanavia is very obvious .

 

Oh crud...I meant to specify further. I know about the Viking/Scandinavian link...I forgot to edit that part out of the text that I quoted from you. My apologies.

 

As far as the Viking creation of Russia goes (this is one of my specialities), Russia was founded by a Sweedish tribe, Rus'. They sailed down the Russian rivers and traded with the Byzantines, the Volga Bulgars, and with the Moslems. The main source would be the Russian Primary Chronicle (Povest Vremenik Let). Linguistically, Old Norse and Russian are very different, but keep in mind that over the past thousand years or so the Russians have had many influences: Byzantine Greeks, Tatars, Turkic tribes, Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, French, so on and so forth.

 

Beside the RPC, the best source I can point you towards is The Varangians of Byzantium by Sigfus Blondal.

 

This I really did not know. Thanks for the source...I'll look into this since, like I said, the linguistic side of that equation doesn't quite line up. The Balto-Slavic group and the Germanic group, while both Indo-European, are considered to be from very different waves of migration--the Germanic being quite early, and the Balto-Slavic coming quite a bit later. However, I should note, there is much controversy in that statement, but I do believe that much to be true. As to dates...that's where most of the controversy lies, and I won't pass along much of it.

[Gaius Octavius]

Did the Vikings leave their print on art, architecture, engineering, etc., i.e. physical things?

 

Is Danelaw connected to the Vikings?

 

Somewhere on UNRV there was a post about a genetic survey of Brits to determine how much Viking blood is in modern Brits. I don't remember for sure, but it wasn't very much.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Somewhere on UNRV there was a post about a genetic survey of Brits to determine how much Viking blood is in modern Brits. I don't remember for sure, but it wasn't very much.

 

Salve, GO!

 

Maybe you were talking about this one.

[Gaius Octavius]

Somewhere on UNRV there was a post about a genetic survey of Brits to determine how much Viking blood is in modern Brits. I don't remember for sure, but it wasn't very much.

 

Salve, GO!

 

Maybe you were talking about this one.

 

No, it wasn't that but it may help. The one I am thinking of had a link to a newspaper article about a recent survey.

[caldrail]

Did the Vikings leave their print on art, architecture, engineering, etc., i.e. physical things?

Inevitably there are subtle vivking influence especially in regions they settled, yet I should point out that the saxons were a hardy lot and not given to giving up their own culture easily. In england, or rather the danelaw area, it would be likely that you see a certain amount of blending. The viking settlers eventually intermarry with saxon neighbours, their own cultural influences watered down. Still there, just in the background.

 

Is Danelaw connected to the Vikings?

Yes. After Alfred the Great finally beat the crap out of them, Guthrum (the viking leader) agreed to be baptised and live in peace, and was granted the north of england as their territory. That was named Danelaw.

[Kosmo]

There was no big difference between those who lived in England and those who came as vikings. They were both german speaking coming from Danemark and neighbouring areas and they could understand eachother. Their culture was similiar. The viking ships are seen as a development of saxon ones. As Tolkien proved in his analysis of "Beowulf" saxons in England were very interested about what happened in Jutland.

It is all a part of a long germanic invasion that started after the romans left and ended when normands got a good grip on the country.

I believe that Alfred the Great was a little blowned by jingoistic propaganda. The only difference beetwen saxons and vikings was that saxons had joined, not long ago and not fully, the catholic church. The line beetwen those people was much blurry than we imagine today. After all England did not existed yet when vikings first came and the land was divided between germanics (angli, jutes, saxons etc) post roman britons and migrators from Ireland.

When vikings baptised there was no real identification possible.

[Ursus]

This seems basically a linguists' argument at this point. Aside from possible contributions to language, did the Vikings do anything worthwhile for ye olde brits and Western Civilization? They burned a couple monastaries, stole and sold the valuables, and thus helped spur the international economy - but vandalism and piracy don't go down in my book as major cultural accomplishments.

[ASCLEPIADES]

This seems basically a linguists' argument at this point. Aside from possible contributions to language, did the Vikings do anything worthwhile for ye olde brits and Western Civilization? They burned a couple monastaries, stole and sold the valuables, and thus helped spur the international economy - but vandalism and piracy don't go down in my book as major cultural accomplishments.

Salve, U!

 

Firstly, Sonic gave an extensive answer to that question in the post # 8 of this thread.

 

That said, from where I am I would think their main contribution to universal history would be their advances in naval technology and navigation, as they affected directly the development of late medieval seamanship and, consequently, the post-Renaissance global expansion of Western European countries.

 

Here is a nice article on Scandinavian Longships from en.wikipedia.

 

Here is another nice article about the history of shipbuilding, this time from MSN Encarta.

Edited September 21, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

After all England did not existed yet when vikings first came and the land was divided between germanics (angli, jutes, saxons etc) post roman britons and migrators from Ireland.

 

i use england as a regional description, not as a nation state.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

Salve guys! My apologies if this had been posted before, but the 2000/2001 BBC documentary series 'The Blood Of The Vikings', along with Julian Richards' book , may come in handy. For the beginners in the domain is excellent. If I am not mistaking this should also provide the results of a genetic survey that was taken in Britain, but with emphasis on the Scottish isles of Shetland and Orkney. Here's a link

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve guys! My apologies if this had been posted before, but the 2000/2001 BBC documentary series 'The Blood Of The Vikings'

 

Gratiam habeo, TMP. It's better late than never.

 

Both studies are quite interesting, although their results were hardly surprising.

 

As usual, Genetics seems to provide very hard evidence.

[Gaius Octavius]

Weren't the Vikings the first Europeans to use a magnetic compass?

[Ursus]

So there were a few commercial and technological achievements of Viking piracy, which I've already acknowledged. And I'm also aware there is reasonable proof that Lief Ericson bumped into North America (or "Vinland" as they called it) 500 years before Columbus.

 

 

My opinion - which is nothing but my very rough opinion, and certainly not a scholarly statement - is that I'm not still not greatly impressed, however, with yonder northmen. I'm not sure if Augusta still considers them worthy of a shudder, but I can consider them worthy of a shrug.

[Centurion89]

So there were a few commercial and technological achievements of Viking piracy, which I've already acknowledged. And I'm also aware there is reasonable proof that Lief Ericson bumped into North America (or "Vinland" as they called it) 500 years before Columbus.

 

 

My opinion - which is nothing but my very rough opinion, and certainly not a scholarly statement - is that I'm not still not greatly impressed, however, with yonder northmen. I'm not sure if Augusta still considers them worthy of a shudder, but I can consider them worthy of a shrug.

 

Nobody looks at the vikings in there homeland. They were great farmers and inventers. They also were some of the best seamen who could navigate open waters and small riverways. They even went as far as raiding Paris!