This is an archive of past discussions about Norsemen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Not a bad start user:vikings but this article is far too POV at the moment.Unfortunately you need to temper you passion a little and try to stick to cold hard facts. Everything you state should be backed up by evidence, and you should write your article as if you were writing about people whome you neither particuly like or dislike. Hope this helps Theresa knott 14:55 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
thank you, Theresa, we are learning - we are happy to see that much more survived editorship than the last time we tried
Vikings 16:31 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what a major part of this article tries to say. Stuff that is truley "subjective" belongs on the discussion side, so I past it in below. // Rogper 22:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the year 1005 they sailed to America. They were never much interested in becoming the ruling force. The structure was patriarcatic, but they had a high respect of women and idolize or honoured the elderly. Many females had high positions and were very influential (Freydis - see Norse Saga). They were interested in good education.
On a Norse ship ("viking ship"), there was one captain (chief), elected from the crew: the strongest, smartest, wisest, once wildest, with lots of experience, lots of friends and political supporters, with fame on many oceans and shores, with all authority. In moments of danger and in battle he made the decisions and strategy, all crew followed without any questioning. In times of peace they stood in the back. All younger warriors were allowed to challenge and question the chief in the time between wars. All trusted him and he backed all to the outside.
If the majority of the crew asks him to step down he does so and falls back to the role as advisor and teacher.
Many companies of modern Norse countries are operated in the same way as the wooden ships, and some world-leading businesses evolved (Nokia, IKEA, Ericsson, Maersk) - again influencing, navigating, moving, communicating and educating on global scales.
In keeping with the naming conventions for articles, I'd like to propose through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process that this article be moved to "Norseman" and that it be converted to a redirect. The relevant Wikipedia Policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Thanks for considering this for discussion. I'll not nominate for moving until some time/input has passed here. Courtland 11:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to do this proposal as I think it is probably best as it stands .. one would more frequently refer to the group of Norsemen rather than a single Norseman. Courtland 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I fully support the creation of a redirect, but I think the two articles should be reworded (so they do not have so much overlap) and then merged (at the very least to acknowledge "Norsemen" within the article as a seperate term). It seems better to have one comprehensive article rather than two smaller articles, especially since Norsemen and Northmen are generally considered interchangeable. Markovich29221:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
is there any source for Vikings has been a common term for norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland.
What I refer to specifically is Vikings has been a common term for norsemen.
I belive there is not one single source, in the early medieval period, using the term viking as a common term for norse, so this statement should be removed.
I agree with Dan Koehl, the cited sentence above is somewhat misleading. The term "Viking" should be referred however, since it (regrettably, IMO) is the most popular term in modern usage. Proposal for rephrasing:
Since the 18th Century "Vikings" has been in popular use as a term for norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland.
Even if its popular to call all nortern people during vikinga age vikings, today by common people, its wrong.
If Wikipedia would state in articles populair beliefs, rather than prooven facts, it would not be a quality encyclopedia.
Here below I show several sources that does not support this "populair" view.
It seems like the english speaking encyclopedias in early 1900 were well defined on the word viking:
Websters (1903) definition:
Viking \Vi"king\, n. [Icel. v[imac]kingr, fr. v[imac]k a bay, inlet.] One belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen, who plundered the coasts of Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. [1913 Webster]
further on:
Note: Viking differs in meaning from sea king, with which it is frequently confounded. "The sea king was a man connected with a royal race, either of the small kings of the country, or of the Haarfager family, and who, by right, received the title of king as soon he took the command of men, although only of a single ship's crew, and without having any land or kingdom . . . Vikings were merely pirates, alternately peasants and pirates, deriving the name of viking from the vicks, wicks, or inlets, on the coast in which they harbored with their long ships or rowing galleys." --Laing. [1913 Webster]
Brewer's Dictionary:
Viking A pirate. So called from the vik or creek in which he lurked. The word is wholly unconnected with the word "king." There were sea-kings, sometimes, but erroneously, called "vikings," connected with royal blood, and having small dominions on the coast. These sea-kings were often vikingr or vikings, but the reverse is not true that every viking or pirate was a sea-king. (Icelandic vikingr, a pirate.).
Any of the Scandinavian people who raided the coasts of Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries.
Viking Age England" by Julian D. Richards, published in 2000 (pages 10-11):
Contemporary chroniclers called the raiders by many names, including heathens and pagans, as well as Northmen and Danes, but one of the names used to refer to them by the English was `Viking', and this is now used to describe not only the raiders, but also the period during which they carried out their attacks. These centuries, from the ninth to the eleventh, have become known, therefore, as the Viking Age. [...] In the icelandic sagas, víkingr came to be used as a noun to refer to a warrior, or pirate, víking was used to refer to an expedition. The majority of Scandinavians, therefore, were not Vikings; only those who went a-viking could really qualify for the description.
I therefore ask for written sources that viking was used as a term for norsemen in the history
Im pretty sure this is a misunderstanding, and todays habits are only some 20-30 years.
I disagree that we disagree, that is, (I think) I agree with you but I don't seem to have explained myself very well.
I agree with the definitions above, using viking as another term for norsemen is wrong
In the medieval sources I have studied, i.e. Irish annals, never uses the term Vikings. The monastic raiders are generally referred to as Gall (strangers) og Gennti (pagans), later also Gall-gaidel, understood as equivalent of [Norse-gaels]] (It is assumed that Gall in these sources always refer to people of norse origin.
I do not have the time to dig up references of when the term viking started being used in the general way it is used today, but that is not my point either. If it so pleases the good editors, I only want the article about norsemen to clarify that viking is not another word for norse, which I take it is Koehls interrest here too...? New Proposal for rephrasing:
The term "Vikings" is popularly used as a term for Scandinavians in general and norse settlers in Gerat Britain and Ireland in particular. In its original contaxt Viking denotes pirates, and should be used for norsemen only in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by them in Great Britain and Ireland.
If you still disagree, please give an alternative suggestion for what the wording of the article should be. Finnrind10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Confusing statement regarding connotation of profit
"The Slavs and the Byzantines also called them Varangians (ON: Væringjar, meaning sworn men or from Slavic варяги supposedly deriving from the root "вар" - "profit" as coming from North they would profit by trading goods and not producing them, which had a negative connotation in Slavic culture of that time)..."
I believe what is meant is that the failure to produce goods had a negative connotation. However, the wording also leaves open the conclusion that it was the production of goods that was deprecated. Could someone tell me what was intended here? --AlanUS (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Assessment
Some time ago I was asked to look this article over and I have now combed through it and made numerous edits. A few comments:
) Large sections of the body are totally unreferenced, which is a major issue that needs to be solved before this article moves any further forward.
) References should be removed from the lead, and the lead should be a simple summary of the body of the article (see WP:LEAD).
) Caveats are needed for a lot of these sources referred to (i.e. add "according to legend"). A problematic example is "Iceland was discovered by Naddoddr, one of the first settlers on the Faroe Islands, who was sailing from Norway to the Faroe Islands, but got lost and drifted to the east coast of Iceland". With this it would be wise to include the primary source from which the legend stems along with the secondary source discussing it in the footnote.
I think it may be a false alarm. The date of that website says 18 September, Alphasinus' edit seems to date to August. I checked a few other 'articles' on that site, and it seems that a few of them are pulled from other websites (for example, this [1] contains the exact same text as on this (undated) webpage [2]). Alphasinus may be a confirmed-sock with little credibility now, but I don't think that this is a case of him copying and pasting someone else's work, it looks to be the other way around.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What a luck, just the day I was read this article first and set a “copyvio?” In my cache and googles too, there is “Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:41:08 | European Peoples”. --Diwas (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 September 18. While I am also having difficulty with the date of the tagged source, Diwas points out that the section beginning "The tension between increasingly centralized groups and independent warrior societies may have furnished part of the impetus behind the Viking raids and the Scandinavian migrations to other parts of Europe that began in the late eighth century, as warriors sought to expand their territorial holdings and were unable to do so in neighboring lands. " is copied from the Encyclopedia of European Peoples, beginning on page 831. I can see this, in Google book, and it clearly predates the placement of the text here by several years. It would probably be safe to revert to the edit prior to the influx of this content, but content placed by this user seems rightly suspect, given that some of it is blatantly pasted. Since the article was not blanked, previously, I am extending the listing at the WP:CP board. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I just noticed the recent comment on Talk:Normans#Clean-up_needed, and have noticed that Alphasinus indeed has a history of copying and pasting large swathes of text off the net [3]. It must go deeper than these two articles. I remember he was edit warring with another editor over Varangians-type topics for instance.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Somehow somebody managed to destroy all edit history between April and October.
I cannot be bothered to do detective work on what exactly went wrong or who is to blame, but clearly the cause was some merge attempt gone disastrously wrong.
Behind the merge attempt there seems to be a "Scandinavians" article which treated "Scandinavians" as a contemporary "ethnic group".
Then somebody had the glorious idea to merge this already misguided article with the article on medieval Scandinavians to create an even more broken page.
Seeing as there are perfectly valid articles on Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, there is clearly no reason to write an article about ("Danes+Norwegians+Swedes"), even if these are summarized as "Scandinavians". The article about the modern concept of Scandinavia is, of course, to be found at Scandinavia. This page here is about medieval history during the 8th to 10th century. It is spectacularly misguided to water down an article about a medieval topic with modern demographics. --dab(𒁳)08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're talking about the revision deletion, I managed to do that, and it had nothing to do with the merger. See the logs: [4]. The content was deleted following the copyright problems board listing. It seems like the merger was proposed as uncontroversial: [5]. I have no idea why this would be seen as a desirable or uncontroversial merger, since the two articles don't seem to have had anything to do with each other. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Map Problem
Norse settlements in Sicily and in the south of Italy, who says that ? It is a joke ? There were some Norman adventurers and knights banished from Normandy that went there to make money and get power. They founded there principalities, became lord or king, but the Normans are not Norsemen and the Norman presence in Italy is not a settlement.Nortmannus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Exact numbers?
There is a table called "Distribution" in the article. According to that table there are 8,260,987 "Norsemen" in Sweden. In what way are they defined. There is no source for this. What is the definition? Citizenship? "Ethnic origin" is not registred in Sweden and many people have multiple origins. So it must be imposible to count such an exact figure. --Muniswede (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Citation Needed
The Old Frankish Nortmann "Northman" was Latinized as Normanni, famously in the prayer A furore normannorum libera nos domine ("From the fury of the Northmen release us, O Lord!"), attributed to monks of the English monasteries plundered by Viking raids in the 8th and 9th centuries,[citation needed]
I couldn't find any mention of the fact that the Norwegian word for Norwegian (people) is "Nordmenn" (pl) ie, "Northmen". With all the other talk of who calls who what, it seems relevant enough. - Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:80AA:82BA:3829:E152 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Map showing the "Norse settlements"
This map shows the very little knowledge of the WP map makers. The Normans are not Norsemen, they are a mixture of Gallo-Franks and Anglo-Scandinavians. In 1066 William the Conqueror set foot in England and during the 11th century Norman Barons set foot in the south of Italy and in Sicily, see Norman conquest of southern Italy, not the Norsemen, that is wrong !Nortmannus (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The Normans originated in the settlement of Rollo/Hrolf and his men in the area, and during the late Viking Age their conquests can be thought of as part of Norse expansion; the article on Norman conquest of southern Italy makes clear that the process of establishment of a Norman foothold there began well before the end of the Viking Age. The Norman Conquest of England has a better claim to be an exception, since the given reason was a legal claim of succession. I've recast the map caption to single out the Norman settlements as in some cases extending after the Viking Age, but they are not unrelated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The claim that the Normans are not Norsemen is just odd, I am afraid. ("Anglo-Scandinavians" has it the wrong way round - the Norman aristocracy became the English aristocracy after the Norman Conquest; they did not come from England! Accordingly, I will re-remove the "citation needed" on Sicily. I consider the passage about the derivation of the word "Norman" sufficient citation, since I have now provided an alternative to the prayer now thought apocryphal, one that also uses the word. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
>> 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) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Norse vs. Norsemen vs. Icelandic
"Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in [..] Iceland [..]". When I saw at Leif Erikson: "was a Norse[8] explorer" (note, "Norse" linked to "Norsemen"), I changed to "was an Icelandic[8] explorer (while his father was Norse)".
I note that the list of countries in the quote from this article doesn't include Norway (as probably the origin). When I read Norse I first thought it's a person from Norway. Is it appropriate to link Norse to Norsemen? At least I, read this "wrong".. Only when you hover over the link or actually press it do you see Norsemen, and while I did, I thought it meant men from Norway..
Maybe Norsemen (or Norse) is used to avoid having to say an "an Icelandic explorer" or "an Norwegian explorer" as both could get contested.
Note at Icelander I see: "2nd row: [..] Erik the Red", he seems clearly not born in Iceland (born in Norway), while his son Leif is.
In English - as opposed to Norwegian - "Norse" and "Norsemen" refer to all the people who spoke Old Norse. Some of the Icelandic settlers stayed there, but many also spent time viking and trading around, and although the kings were trying to establish the kind of firm concept of kingdom/country that we now think of as natural, things were still fairly fluid (Bjarni's life illustrates that). I'd say describing Leif as Norse is better, but there are nationalistic arguments on both sides. What isn't correct (in English) is to think of "Norse" as meaning "Norwegian". Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I realize the vikings didn't carry passports.. and (at Iceland) "the settlement of Iceland began in 874 CE when the Norwegian chieftain [..] In the following centuries, Scandinavians settled Iceland [..] From 1262 to 1918, Iceland was ruled by Norway and later Denmark. The country became independent in 1918 and a republic in 1944." When would you say someone is an Icelander? From this time, people from Norway who had kids in Iceland may have viewed them as from the home country (as Iceland only a "settlement")? Note, Leif's wife was born in Iceland and he met her there and based on that (and the Icelandic source, nr 8, next to Norse and others (didn't read all) I changed to Icelandic (is consistent with his father's article lead that says Leif is Icelandic). At Eric the Red: "is remembered in medieval and Icelandic saga sources as having founded the first Norse settlement in Greenland." comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
As I say, there are nationalist points on both sides. Iceland was settled by Norwegian chieftains who resented the king throwing his weight about. They set up a republic that was revived during WWII after centuries of first Norwegian and then Danish domination. The original Norwegian domination was entered into (semi-)voluntarily, depending who you talk to. Bjarni, and Snorri, regarded Norway as the home country. From the other point of view, Snorri was a traitor. Then there's the issue of Sweden, whose early kings are regarded as mythical by many modern historians ... and the Orkneys and the Faroes and the bunch in Ireland ... lumping them all together as "Norsemen" is traditional in English and avoids these problems of "Was it yet a modern country" and "Was it legitimate" and "Where was his allegiance - or was he just looking out for his kin and his fortune". (It also avoids misusing "Viking" as a nationality.) But one does have to realise the word sounds to a Norwegian as if it means "Norwegian", which is not what it means or even implies in English. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding In the early medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for Norsemen, as far as I have read, In the entire medieval period, Vikings was never a common term for Norsemen. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
But a lot of prime sources indicates that Vikings was a common term for pirates. The word pirate was never used in oldenglish, and when pirates were mentioned in latin sources, it was translated to vikings in oldenglish. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Leo the Elf
There is a lesser known figure in Norse religion known as Leo (symbol: Norse lion), he is often depicted wearing this insignia on the right bicep of his Kaftan, a silver winged helmet and pointed black leather shoes. He is known to have coined the term Islamian, but maintains the belief in Free will.
His weapons are a mace decorated in the Fibonacci number and a pointed shield decorated with three interlocking horns.
No, there's no such figure in Norse religion. This article is about real life Norsemen, not made-up modern figures/fiction. Thomas.W talk13:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages"
I think perhaps that that the wording "even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages" should be rephrased. Norway, Denmark and Sweden were certainly different states, but it is debatable if the people living there were "different sets of people" by the middle ages, well before the idea of nation states had emerged and at a time when regional identities were probably more important. In any case, "Norway" is not a people (Norwegians are). --Dijhndis (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Adam did NOT write this
The sentence:
In the early Medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for attacking Norsemen,[citation needed] especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering by Norsemen in the British Isles and Ireland. The Norse were also known as Ascomanni, ashmen, by the Germans,[1]Lochlanach (Norse) by the Gaels and Dene (Danes) by the Anglo-Saxons.
is really capturing, and proving this article is not written by people who read the prime sources. Please read what he really writes, and change the text! Dan Koehl (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Norsemen. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. The editor who requested the move has withdrawn the request. The move request also is no longer applicable as the target link has been developed into its own article. (non-admin closure) Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Update. This proposition is based upon this version of the article Norsemen. As noted in the sources used in that article, Norsemen is just the name commonly used for North Germanic people of the Viking Age. As per WP:NAD topics in Wikipedia should be grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by in various time periods. The culture and history of the North Germanic peoples in the Viking Age is already covered in the article Viking Age, and as the people themselves as covered at North Germanic peopls, a separate article titled Norsemen is redundant. Krakkos (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Contested. This will undoubtedly be contentious. I may even oppose it myself. I have no opinion as yet of your decision to rescope the article and that may be the best option. But regardless, "Norsemen" is a significant common name and there will need to be an article on Norsemen. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. These topics overlap but are not identical. North Germanic peoples would include various groups who (in some cases) headed south before Vikings and the Norse as we generally conceive them had differentiated. This is a complex topic like "Celtic" and all the different ways to divide that up. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The topics are indeed not identical. All Norsemen were North Germanic people, but not all North Germanic people were Norsemen. Norsemen were however not a sub-group of North Germanic people, but rather the name given to them for the Viking Age when they spoke Old Norse. As per WP:NAD, articles on Wikipedia should be grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. Krakkos (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Support as nominator. According to the scope of the present article, the article covers the people who spoke Old Norse during the Viking Age. If this article is supposed to be about the people and culture of the Viking Age only, then it's scope is identical to the Viking Age and should be merged with that article. And what are we to do about people who spoke the Proto-Norse language?. These people were the same people as the Norsemen (Old Norse speakers), Swedes, Danes, Geats, Gutes etc, but are not called Norsemen in the sources, but rather North Germanic tribes. Modern North Germanic speakers, generally referred to as Scandinavians, also belong to the same ethnolinguistic group. If we are to have an article on North Germanic speakers of the Viking Age then naturally we must have articles on North Germanic speakers of the pre-Viking Age and post-Viking Age periods. As per WP:NAD, Wikipedia groups things into what they are, not what they are called by in various periods. The most common name name which these people for all three periods is the name North Germanic peoples. This is thoroughly documented in reliable secondary sources used in the significantly improved version which was reverted. Krakkos (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: "Norsemen" is an established term in the English language, while "North Germanic people" is a term that is far less used, and could potentially also be seen as including other Germanic tribes/peoples than the ones in Scandinavia. This article is specifically about Scandinavians, and should stay that way. - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Norsemen is the common name only for North Germanic peoples of the Viking Age. It is never used for the North Germanic peoples of the pre-Viking Age or post-Viking Age period. Though the name might be the most the most commmon, it is only common, actually only used, for a specific period in history. This makes it and unprecise title for the scope of the article. Krakkos (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not imprecise for the intended scope of this article. If you want an article about North Germanic people in general, covering all North Germanic tribes and all time periods, then create one at North Germanic tribes, which is currently a redirect to this article, but do not make an undiscussed rewrite of an existing article that totally changes the scope of it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I admit that my method was a little to bold. An article North Germanic peoples has now been created. With the people themselves covered in North Germanic peoples and their medieval culture and history elaborated more in detail at Viking Age, a separate article on Norsemen should be redundant. Krakkos (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Peter D'Epiro: "The Northmen, Norsemen, or Norse were North Germanic peoples who settled in the Scandinavian countries of Noway, Sweden, and Denmark."[7]
John Cameron McLAughlin: "Some of the Vikings were Swedes, some Norwegian, and some Danes, but they were all North Germanic people who spoke much the same language and whose social and cultural patterns of behavior were very much alike."[8]
Philip Baldi: "The North Germanic peoples were quite expansive from the time of the Vikings."[9]
None of those support the absolute equation of "Norsemen" with "North Germanic peoples". The first (which is a really poor source - The Book of Firsts: 150 World-Changing Peoples and Events) just says the Norsemen were North Germanic peoples who settled in Norway, Sweden and Denmark - which does not mean that they were the ONLY North Germanic peoples. Same with the second - it does not exclude other North Germanic peoples and it's about Vikings. The third doesn't mention Norsemen either. Ealdgyth - Talk13:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Peter D'Epiro has a Ph.D in English (a subset of Germanic studies) from Yale and his book has been published by a major publisher (KnopfDoubleday). The source is certainly not "really poor".
What is shown in the two second sources is that North Germanic peoples and Norsemen are frequently equated with each other. Norsemen are not mentioned in these sources because North Germanic peoples and Norsemen are the same thing, only that the name Norsemen is the name given to them for the Viking Age period. You seem to be under the conviction that Norsemen were a subgroup of North Germanic peoples. This is an interesting theory. In that case, what North Germanic tribes of the Viking Age period were/are not considered Norsemen? Krakkos (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Someone with a degree in English writing a popular history book is not operating in their specialty. And I'm done debating - you can continue to think that the statements above show they are equated, I do not see that they support that. Ealdgyth - Talk13:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Move to a swift close as no move (and keeping this article as it is) since the proposer has created their desired version of the article, with less focus on the time period covered by this article, as North Germanic peoples, making a move no longer possible... - Tom | Thomas.W talk07:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw as per Thomas.W. Since an article titled North Germanic peoples exists now, moving this page to the very same title makes little sense. I still think an article titled Norsemen is problematic, but this move proposal is no longer a good solution to these problems. Krakkos (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Same here. I think these should be separate articles; North Germanic is a broader category, going way back into Classical Antiquity and arguably earlier. The Ancient Greeks and Romans identified a variety of tribes/groups in Denmark and further north, and invading southward from there, who cannot be positively identified with the later Norse/Vikings. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
North Germanic peoples is used in an ethnolinguistic sense. Not geographic. The East Germanic-speaking tribes that migrated south from Scandinavia, like the Burgundians and the Vandals, are not considered North Germanic in either the article nor the sources. Neither are the Jutes and the Angles, who spoke West Germanic languages and originally inhabited Denmark. This is specified in the North Germanic peoples version and should not be a point of confusion. North Germanic indeed is a broader category and it is encouraging that you also see the need for an article on North Germanic peoples. However, all Norsemen were North Germanic people. It's simply just a name for North Germanic people of a specific period (Viking Age). Having separate articles for Norsemen and North Germanic peoples makes as much sense as having separate articles for Hellenes and Greeks. Krakkos (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Frayae: I've added my reasoning at the above move discussion. I humbly ask you to carefully read (in particular what is mentioned in the sources) the North Germanic peoples version that you reverted. I hope you understand that it is very discouraging when content that one has spent a considerable amount of time to contribute is outright reverted like this. Krakkos (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I will put an initial comment here first before detailing the benefits of having an article on Norsemen. I consider these to be two seperate topics, each is independently notable. While I don't mind an article about North Germanic peoples, creating this should not be done at the expense of deleting the article on Norsemen. Any overlap of content can be dealt with editorially. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Map showing area of Norse settlements during the 8th to 11th centuries (which includes the Viking Age), including Norman conquests, some extending after this period (yellow). Trade and raid routes, often inseparable, are marked.
The map that's used in the article displays Norse settlements in Estonia. I'm not aware of any Norse settlements in Estonia during the Viking Era. Does anyone have sources for that? Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
As you can see on the page Frayae linked to there is archaeological evidence for a continuous Scandinavian presence in north-western Estonia from the early Iron Age until modern times, that is the areas where the Estonian Swedes lived until the mid 20th century. Or in other words, yes, there was a Scandinavian population in north-western Estonia not only during the Viking Age but continuously for more than 2.000 years... - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
"Field investigations using modern methodology have for the first time been conducted in order to introduce new material into the discussion. The results from the Nuckö peninsula and Enby village demonstrate a long period of settlement continuity. Settlement was initiated in the early Iron Age. In the late Viking Period and the early Middle Ages a period of expansion can be observed. Questions of ethnicity and continuity are explored, and it is suggested that the colonisation is best understood in the context of long-term contacts maintained across the Baltic Sea. The settlement is viewed as a spontaneous peasant colonisation. In the late Iron Age-early Middle Ages, there is probably a link to the settlement expansion observable in Scandinavia and in other parts of Europe. It is also quite conceivable that coastal populations from the western side of the Baltic Sea had utilised the special ecological niche associated with these coastal regions even earlier." Indeed. But that whole paper talks about the "Noarootsi" region in western mainland Estonia. Nothing about the islands. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
A single settlement at Nuckö, as you seem to want to interpret it as, wouldn't have survived, i.e. shown continuity, for more than 2,000 years, without the support of a larger community of the same people. - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue is that although there were Norse settlements in the area which is now Estonia, there were not any on Saaremaa Island, Hiiumaa and Muhu. Because these islands were instead the stronghold of a different group, specifically the Oeselians. This means the map which shows Norse (Scandinavian) settlement of these islands in the eighth century is wrong. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
PS: I don’t want to “interpret” anything. If there were norse settlements on Ösel then that would be great. I’ve just never heard of it and that would be a historical find. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
All sources say that the Oeselians used typical Scandinavian ships, fought alongside the Swedes against the Danes, etc etc, but not a single source says that Viking Age Oeselians were Finno-Ugric Estonians. Making such claims utter OR. - Tom | Thomas.W talk17:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Thomas, please read the first source on the Oeselians page. Or any of the following sources. We've been through this several times. All sources specifically say they were Estonian and none say they were Norse. Several ones also mention they spoke a different language. If they were indeed Norse, why is there a lack of sources that specifically say they were Norse, as exist for every other tribe of norsemen who wandered outside of Scandinavia? PS: Most sources say they fought against the folk living in Sweden, not alongside them. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And please read what I have written, there's not a single source, not even the one you pointed to, that says Viking Age Oeselians were Finno-Ugric-speaking Estonians, i.e. what is today called "ethnic Estonians", as you claim on Oeselians. In a historical context "Estonian" is just a geographical description of where the people in question lived, not a description of their ethnicity/language, since no one knows what language they spoke. - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
First off, your interpretation in itself is OR. These are modern academic sources that use the word "Estonian", and make no mention of "Norse". Second, here's the source for you again from Yale University, in addition to all the other sources: "Ólaf’s uncle Sigurd discovered Ólaf by chance and noted how Ólaf’s appearance was markedly different from the native Estonians." ... "The approach here is intentionally subjective, favoring the case of one side: those who spoke or understood the language of the Icelandic texts - the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the Danes. They are the protagonists of these tales; the people of the East are the foes to our heroes, and are therefore the villains in the narrative. But on taking a closer, more objective view, what else can we see? We can’t read the speech or musings of the Estonians, so their case can only be made through their actions and reactions according to the Norse texts. We see that they are at times Viking aggressors, but just as often they fall victim to Norse Viking aggression. They take slaves, but they are also taken in slavery. And aside from linguistic differences, what are the significant points of separation? We are reminded several times that there are physical differences between the Norse people and the Estonian people, but we aren’t clearly told what they are. The Norse are often depicted as fair or light, but the Estonians aren’t explicitly noted for having a dark complexion; next to nothing is stated about their appearance. We see a similar shared raiding culture, and a pursuit of resources. But the line between East and West is not distinct. It is possible to assert that the Austmarr itself, the Eastern Sea is the line of distinction. But no such line of distinction is drawn between Icelander, Faroese, and Norwegian, where it can be easily argued that the geography of water separates them far more than does the Swede or Dane from the Estonian. I would propose the idea that kinship binds, but that a binding agent to kinship is language, and the corpus of literature which both comes out of the language and defines the parameters of the language over time. In this way, the literary tradition gains central importance to defining kinship over a large span of geography. Minus the rich body of tales and heroic poetry maintained in the Old Icelandic, it is possible that the collective Norse kinship and the Baltic otherness might have been mitigated and blended into something more homogenous over time." Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And let's say we go with your idea of them not speaking a Finno-Ugric language (which they suddenly did in a source just a hundred year later). This still confirms that they were decidedly not Norse. I suppose you can always claim they were alien or native american if you'd like. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if you don't want to understand what others say, or simply can't understand what others say, but this is getting ridiculous... - Tom | Thomas.W talk19:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. You're insisting on your own interpretation of the sources which differ from what is specifically written in the sources. How many sources have you provided so far that specifically mention Oeselians to have been Norse? If there are no sources claiming they were Norse, then we can't talk about a Norse settlement on Ösel. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Blomsterhagens: The sagas etc that you base your claims on talk about "Vikingr frá Eisthland", which means "Vikings from Estonia", not "Estonian Vikings" as you seem to believe. And there's a huge difference in meaning between the two, since "Vikings from Estonia" uses Estonia as a geographical descriptor, i.e. referring to people from Estonia, without specifying their ethnicity, while "Estonian Vikings" can be interpreted as the Finno-Ugric Estonian people. As I have repeatedly tried to make you understand... - Tom | Thomas.W talk09:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you're not reading the references. Not once have the sagas been mentioned. Modern scholarly sources have been referenced. It's not your place to interpret the original sagas either. PS: The topic of the map being wrong has been brought up before by other editors. The map will be changed. I don't understand how you can refuse to understand a basic concept in wikipedia which is "no OR". There are 0 (!) sources about a Norse population in Ösel. It is completely OR until you come with sources. No sources, no discussion. There are ample sources for the opposite claim. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Your "modern scholarly sources" are based entirely on what sagas and other similar sources say, not archaeological evidence or anything like that. And it's entirely your own interpretation, i.e. original research, that they're saying that the "Vikings from Estonia" were the Finno-Ugric people that today is referred to as Estonians. An interpretation that in turn is based entirely on YOU not understanding that "Vikings from Estonia" does NOT mean "ethnically Estonian Vikings". As for there having been Scandinavians in Estonia during the Viking age I suggest you read the article about Vikings in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and look at the map there. - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I can add that referring to a person, or a group of people, as being "from Estonia" doesn't automatically mean that they're Finno-Ugric ethnic Estonians even today, since a large part of the population of modern-day Estonia aren't ethnic Estonians but Russians... - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
No sources, no comment. There are no sources that claim there was Norse inhabitat on Ösel. The map claims there was Norse inhabitat on Ösel. Hence the map is based on unsourced claims and will be changed. As Wikipedia itself isn't a source, so isn't Britannica. You should know that by now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And you will need clear support from other editors before removing it. This Estonian source about the Salme boat excavations states that there were Scandinavians living in Curonia (Courland) alreade before the Viking Age, and that the dead who were buried in the Salme boat burials (which were dated to ~750 AD), dead who were Scandinavians buried the Scandinavian way, might have been killed by other Scandinavians in Saaremaa. - Tom | Thomas.W talk13:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
No one until it has very been thoroughly discussed, since it's being used on many pages and several different Wikipedias. - Tom | Thomas.W talk13:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
If the map is being changed, the yellow 11th-century area in southern England is wrong. England briefly had Norse rulers - Cnut the Great and his sons, less than 25 years between them - but there was no large-scale or durable new settlement, apart from a few retainers. The Italian and North African yellows, and the size of the Russian orange area are very dubious as areas of "Scandinavian settlement" - the map title might be better as "Scandinavian settlement or control". I'd think an 10th or 11th-century person in most of the Russian area would be a good 200 miles or more from the nearest Norseman. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The map is not hard to change and has been changed several times throughout its history by different editors. It’s an editable SVG file that can be worked on in Illustrator. I would be doing the update. Each update should have its own discussion separately on the Discussion page of the image though. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Your sources do not claim what you are saying. The sources talk about contacts, not settlements. And please read about Salme ships before you mention them. They were visitors from mainland Sweden who were killed when they reached Ösel. I repeat - there are 0 sources about a Norse settlement on Ösel. When there are 0 sources, we do not "assume" or do OR on our own. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Nothing but POV WP:OR from you, as usual. The source about the Salme boat burials does not say that those who where killed were from the Swedish mainland, but rather suggests they were Scandinavian tax collectors from Curonia (which, as the source expressly states, had a resident Scandinavian population already before the Viking Age). The source also says that all arrowheads found, which included arrowheads that had pierced the boat and arrowheads that were lodged in the bones of those who were killed, were of typical Scandinavian types, which together with the typically Scandinavian burial strongly suggest they were killed by Scandinavians on Ösel. - Tom | Thomas.W talk09:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I will not start debating about Salme ships on a Norsemen page. The final archeological summary clearly states the men were from central Sweden. But that is not relevant. Have you found any sources that claim there was Norse settlement on Ösel? If not, there is nothing to discuss. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm yes, like the sources linked above and on the Oeselians page. Which you refuse to accept because you interpret them differently but I'm not going back into that discussion. I do not need to prove they were Finnic here. The map is claiming there was Norse inhabitat on Ösel. That is a direct claim. Sources are needed for that claim. There are no sources right now. Hence the map is unsourced. And I'm not the only editor here who's saying that. See the talk page of the image. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
No, none of those sources support your claim about them having been ethnic Finno-Ugric Estonians, it's just your own POV misinterpretation of what they say (such as you insisting on "Vikingr frá Esthland", i.e. "Vikings from Estonia", meaning "ethnic Estonian Vikings"...). Probably based on you not being able to understand what they say. - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
You're not being professional or polite anymore. First of all, this is not a "Finno Ugric" discussion here. The map claims there were Norse people living on Ösel. There are no sources for that. Hence for a "Norse settlements" map, Ösel will remain in an "unknown" status, because there are no sources. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Northern and Western Estonia were definitely part of the Scandinavian cultural space during the period under review (i.e. 450-1050AD)". A quote from Andres Tilvaur, archaeologist at Tartu University (link). - Tom | Thomas.W talk13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Contacts with the Germanic tribes occurred repeatedly in different periods up to historical times. It is thought that the Estonians, or more properly the inhabitants of the Proto-Balto-Finnic settlements in the Estonian area, had contacts with Germanic peoples as early as the Bronze Age. It is not impossible that at that time there were even temporary Germanic settlements on the Estonian shore... The Germanic influence is noticeable also in Estonian culture, although it has fused with local traditions. Among the Estonian folklorists, O. Loorits especially has emphasized the influence exercised by the Germanic peoples on the formation of the Estonians' ancient religious concept of the world and their spiritual world, and he feels that there must have been Germanic settlements on Estonian shores to cause such deep influences. Some other phenomena which can be linked with the Eastern Germanic peoples also suggest that Germanic settlements existed on Estonian shores at that time. First of all, a great number of Germanic words came into the Estonian language at that time. This word stock of foreign origin reflects in a characteristic way not only commercial relationships, seafaring, etc., but also closer connections between the Estonians and the Germanic peoples. Thus, for instance, it would be difficult to suppose that such words referring to the social life, as kuningas 'king', or as viirst (Finnish ruhtinas) 'prince', or as valitsema (Finnish hallita) 'to rule', or as kohut moistma (Finnish tuomita) 'to judge', or as vdim (Finnish valta) 'power', or as kihelkond 'parish' (from the word kihl 'pledge' cf. Finnish kihlakunta 'district'), would have been borrowed by the Proto-Finnic people if these people had not had some experience with the concepts behind the words. Such experiences presuppose, however, contacts between the people in one and the same territory either in the relationship of neighbors or subordinates. The terms such as soda 'war' and mook 'sword' which at this time were taken over from a Germanic language speak for the latter possibility. When evaluating the relations between nationalities at that time, we find that the words of Germanic origin which refer to the tilling of land are especially important, since they cannot be learned just through commercial ties. First, the Estonian word poW 'field' is of Germanic origin, as are also some names for grains, such as kaer 'oats' and rukis 'rye'. What is more important, the word ader 'plough' also belongs to this layer of foreign words (cf. Old Scandinavian ardr, Swedish order); and this in its turn makes the existence of the Germanic agricultural settlements in Estonia evident. This supposition gets a still firmer foundation if we also consider that the crook-plough of West Estonia and of the islands is of the same type as the ancient Germanic ploughs, the oldest representatives of which have been found in the Jutland peat bogs in Denmark. It is true that the connections of the Estonians with the Germanic peoples in the Roman Iron Age point mainly to the northern shore of Estonia, but it is not impossible that remains of Germanic settlements were at that time found also on the shore of West Estonia, especially in Saaremaa. There is no evidence to dispute the possibility that when the Eastern Germanic peoples were migrating to the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, the region around the mouth of the Vistula River, a part of them were crossing the sea from the Swedish coast to West Estonia. If we assume the existence of older Germanic settlements on Estonian soil, then it is most plausible to suppose that these settlements in the course of time have merged with the local Estonian population and have thus disappeared."
I suspect an RfC on the subject will be needed to resolve this at this point. Other uninvolved editors can form a consensus on exactly how the subject of vikings and Estonia should be treated. As this issue obviously affects a number of articles and files, I suggest holding the RfC on a central noticeboard. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with a RfC. It seems to be a single editor with whom these issues are happening. Thomas has yet to provide a source on Norse population on Ösel in the viking age. I love the source above and agree with it. It's also a great academic source in general. But the reference above is about the Bronze Age, which is 3000-1200BC. That is 1500-4000 years before the Viking Age. There are still no sources about the Viking Age. You would think that such a significant find as a norse settlement on Ösel would be written about somewhere. I would love to see a coherent case written by Thomas with sources added. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
You have been given multiple sources, but refuse to accept anyything that doesn't support your POV. On Wikipedia behaviour like that is called WP:IDHT and WP:TE, and usually leads to a block for POV-pushing... - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I am sure it does, if it were that clear cut. Both sides have presented multiple sources. No one has managed to coherently prove anything yet, there certainly isn't even the semblance of a consensus forming. I strongly recommend an RfC to sort this out before the entire affair descends further into everyone trying to have the other people blocked to win the argument. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Thomas: You linked one source above, which I agree with. It says that North Estonia and Western Estonia belonged to the Scandinavian cultural space during the viking time. Absolutely true. That source also says they were Estonian though. The source from Yale University mentions the same thing. It also says they spoke a different language from Norse and specifically says they were "Estonian". Your interpretation of "Estonian" is irrelevant. It is OR. Cultural sphere = Example = same way as Sweden today is in the "western" cultural sphere. It does not make Swedes English. The second source, added by Krakkos, talks about germanic peoples in the bronze age, which is great but it's 1500-4000 years before the viking time. It also says they assimilated into the local population. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The quote from Gustav Ränk covers the ethnic history of Estonia, not only in the Bronze Age, but through the Roman Iron Age. I suggest you read the source again. And by "Germanic" Ränk is referring to Norse/Scandinavian people.[14]Krakkos (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any lines about there being Germanic tribes on Ösel in the viking age. He specifically mentions the Bronze age, and that the germanic tribes then assimilated. Could you please copy-paste his claims here or paste a direct reference? Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
As i have pointed out numerous times already, Ränk also states that the Germanic settlements in coastal Estonia and Saremaa in the Bronze Age continued into the Roman Iron Age.[15] During the Viking Age, these areas were culturally connected to Gotland, central Sweden, south-western Finland and northern Curonia (where there were also a Scandinavian settlements); they had virtually nothing in common with the Estonian interior and the rest of the Baltic states. This did not change until the 11th or 12th centuries,[16] which is when the assimilation Ränk speaks of obviously ocurred. Krakkos (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting your own sources. He says "Is not impossible". How can you turn that around to "he claims"? Also, the Roman Iron Age ends at 400 AD. The Viking Age starts at 793 AD. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is being misrepresented. Ränk states that it is "evident" that there were Germanic settlements in coastal Estonia during the Roman Iron Age.[[17]Krakkos (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
He is talking about the bronze age there. And EVEN IF he talked about the roman iron age, it ended at 400AD. What do you think this source should accomplish? Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
For reference, here's one of the many: sources again from Yale University: "Ólaf’s uncle Sigurd discovered Ólaf by chance and noted how Ólaf’s appearance was markedly different from the native Estonians." ... "The approach here is intentionally subjective, favoring the case of one side: those who spoke or understood the language of the Icelandic texts - the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the Danes. They are the protagonists of these tales; the people of the East are the foes to our heroes, and are therefore the villains in the narrative. But on taking a closer, more objective view, what else can we see? We can’t read the speech or musings of the Estonians, so their case can only be made through their actions and reactions according to the Norse texts. We see that they are at times Viking aggressors, but just as often they fall victim to Norse Viking aggression. They take slaves, but they are also taken in slavery. And aside from linguistic differences, what are the significant points of separation? We are reminded several times that there are physical differences between the Norse people and the Estonian people, but we aren’t clearly told what they are. The Norse are often depicted as fair or light, but the Estonians aren’t explicitly noted for having a dark complexion; next to nothing is stated about their appearance. We see a similar shared raiding culture, and a pursuit of resources. But the line between East and West is not distinct. It is possible to assert that the Austmarr itself, the Eastern Sea is the line of distinction. But no such line of distinction is drawn between Icelander, Faroese, and Norwegian, where it can be easily argued that the geography of water separates them far more than does the Swede or Dane from the Estonian. I would propose the idea that kinship binds, but that a binding agent to kinship is language, and the corpus of literature which both comes out of the language and defines the parameters of the language over time. In this way, the literary tradition gains central importance to defining kinship over a large span of geography. Minus the rich body of tales and heroic poetry maintained in the Old Icelandic, it is possible that the collective Norse kinship and the Baltic otherness might have been mitigated and blended into something more homogenous over time." Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I try to summarise evidence presented on this talk page for Scandinavian settlement in Northern (10th century) and Western Estonia (8th century):
Work of Felicia Markus argues for early Swedish settlement: "The results from the Nuckö peninsula and Enby village demonstrate a long period of settlement continuity." Problem 1: This view is not widely accepted, other authors don't even discuss it or doubt it. Comment by Kersti Markus: "Felicia Markus argues about the Swedish settlement on Nuckö, Marika Mägi advocates rather for the concept of colonialism within shared cultural milieu, which means that the inhabitants of the island of Nuckö could have been the locals with long-term contacts with the Swedes." Problem 2: Even if we accept her claim, only Nuckö peninsula and Enby village can be marked on map.
"The Norse presence on Saaemaa is attested by the Salme ships" (as suggested above by 2 wikipedians). Problem: "presence" is not same as "settlement".
"Northern and Western Estonia were definitely part of the Scandinavian cultural space during the period under review (i.e. 450-1050AD)". A quote from Andres Tilvaur. Problem: "cultural space" is not same as "settlement".
"According to ... Gustav Ränk there were probably Germanic settlements in coastal Estonia since the Bronze Age, especially at Saaremaa". Problem 1: Ränk does not talk about time period of our map (8th to 11th century). Problem 2: Ränk wrote it long time ago and his work was probably outdated already then. He emigrated from Estonia in 1944 and since had limited access to new findings. Why turn to such remote source anyway? We have exhaustive modern academic works about Viking Age Estonia by scholars like Andres Tvauri, Valter Lang, Marika Mägi, Mauri Kiudsoo. If there really was some noteworthy evidence of Scandinavian settlement, one would expect it to be at least mentioned by those authors.
My conclusion: current map is wrong about Estonian territory. At best only Nuckö peninsula and Enby village can be counted as Scandinavian settlement area. --Minnekon (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think Minnekon's point that "presence" is not same as "settlement" important to note. From what I have read on the subject it is generally theorised that the Norse sailed over and fought an unknown group who were unlikely to have also been Norse, were killed and then buried. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There were Scandinavian settlements in Estonia during the Viking Age as described in the map. This included strategic areas along major rivers[18] and the coasts, including Ösel and Dagö.[19] These parts of Estonia were culturally connected to Scandinavia, and had virtually nothing in common with the interior parts of the country.[20] During the Viking Age, Old East Norse was spoken in coastal Finland and Estonia.[21] This should be reflected in the map. Krakkos (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
True, those sources claim it. I even found one more: de:Johan Callmer thinks coastal Estonia had Scandinavian-Finnic mixed population. But all those are written by authors (except maybe Callmer) who are not experts on Viking Age Estonia and it's not clear where they got their information. At the same time there are other and higher quality sources that don't claim existence of settlements. For example very detailed work by Andres Tvauri: writes about Scandinavian contacts and cultural impact, not settlements. Valter Lang textbook about Metal Age in Baltics: talks lot about ethnic groups, including Scandinavian settlement in Latvia, but not in Estonia. Marika Mägi has written probably most on Viking Age Estonia-Scandianavia relations, but I have not found her claiming existence of such settlements. Of course I have not read every page of every relevant author and there may be more support for Scandinavian settlement hypothesis, but so far the case for settlements in Estonia looks weak. --Minnekon (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Marika Mägi writes that Scandinavians were the dominant ethnic group in Viking Age coastal Estonia, and that Old Norse was the lingua franca there: "Coastal Estonia and the western and south-western coasts of Finland (including the Åland archipelago), as well as Livic areas in present-day Latvia, Karelia, and certain areas on the coast of the eastern end of the Finnish Gulf and Lake Ladoga, as well as Gotland and central Sweden, on the other hand, demonstrated an archaeologially very homogenous warrior culture, which can be observed as early as the 7th-8th centuries... Originally Scandinavian artefact types, ornament styles, grave forms, but presumably also attitued, stories, and legends, were taken over in these neighbouring coastal zones, adapted in local culture, and developed further locally... This was a multi-ethnic, mainly Eastern Scandinavian - Baltic-Finnic-based mileu, where however, the means of expression were borrowed from Sweden, and where self-identity probably relied greatly on Scandinavian values. The latter suggests that the lingua franca used in this mileu was presumably the eastern dialect of Old Norse, or perhaps a kind of pidgin Scandinavia based on Old Norse and Baltic Finnic."[22]
Exactly, that's what I found from Mägi too, emphasizes Scandinavian contacts and cultural elements, but nothing about settlements.--Minnekon (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
It emphasizes the presence of Scandinavian ethnic elements as dominant in multi-ethnic coastal Estonia. This obviously necessitates settlements. Krakkos (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Mägi is talking about areas in which "the means of expression were borrowed from Sweden".[23] Swedes cannot borrow the means of expressions from themselves, so she is obviously talking about the mentioned areas outside of Sweden, namely "coastal Estonia and the western and south-western coasts of Finland (including the Åland archipelago), as well as Livic areas in present-day Latvia, Karelia, and certain areas on the coast of the eastern end of the Finnish Gulf and Lake Ladoga".[24]Krakkos (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"This was a multiethnic, mainly Eastern Scandinavian – Baltic-Finnic-based milieu, where, however, the means of expression were borrowed from Sweden, and where self-identity probably relied greatly on Scandinavian values" - Remind me again how this sentence claims there was a Norse settlement on Ösel? Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Minnekon. Example: "Northern Europe" is also a wide region in which germanic languages form the majority. It does not mean germanic languages are the majority in Finland or Estonia. There are no sources where she talks about Estonia specifically. Which is what you need for your claim. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
A strong presence of Norse traders and Norse visitors is possible, even Norse integrating into the community is likely. This does not necessarily equate to Norse settlements. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
A territory cannot become ethnically "mainly Eastern Scandinavian" simply by the presence of traders and visitors. Krakkos (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Mägi is talking about areas in which "the means of expression were borrowed from Sweden".[25] Swedes cannot borrow the means of expressions from themselves, so she is obviously talking about the mentioned areas outside of Sweden, namely "coastal Estonia and the western and south-western coasts of Finland (including the Åland archipelago), as well as Livic areas in present-day Latvia, Karelia, and certain areas on the coast of the eastern end of the Finnish Gulf and Lake Ladoga".[26]Krakkos (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Minnekon. Example: "Northern Europe" is also a wide region in which germanic languages form the majority. It does not mean germanic languages are the majority in Finland or Estonia. There are no sources where she talks about Estonia specifically. Which is what you need for your claim. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I agree. You can not talk about settlements when there are no sources for settlements. And Krakkos I'm sorry but Marika Mägi does not claim there was a Norse settlement on Ösel. Or a "dominant ethnic group". Where does she say that? Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have already addressed both sources. Mägi does not talk about settlements. Graham-Campbell does, but it is relatively lower quality source, because Viking Age in Estonia is not his field of study, claim was made 38 years ago (danger of being outdated) and I can't see from given link what are his own sources. --Minnekon (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
It still leaves two points: 1) That source is 38 years old. Western researchers did not even have access to Estonia back then. 2) The source can't be verified. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
And Viking Age in Estonia is still not (and probably even can't be because much of relevant info is avalable only in Estonian) his main field of study unlike Mägi. I'm not doubting his overall knowledge.--Minnekon (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Addition 2: I suggest everyone interested in this discussion to read through the research paper by Andres Tvauri on the Estonian Viking Age. It also has people from University of Stockholm and University of Copenhagen in its editorial board. I believe we can all agree that what's written in the paper, is more credible than the interpretations of any editors in Wikipedia. It is up to date, in-depth and objective (not an opinion of a single researcher). Thank you Minnekon for the source! Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Addition 3: The source above is an exhaustive report on the Viking Age in Estonia (whoever is interested in improving the article by the way, is very welcome to help!). With people from uni. Stockholm and uni. Copenhagen in its editorial board. Why would there be no mention of a Norse settlement in Estonia in that report? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
At page 238 Andres Tvauri writes that the elite population of Viking Age coastal Estonia spoke Old Norse: "At least part of the coastal population in Estonia in the second half of the first millennium, probably members of the societal elite, commanded Old Norse." Krakkos (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but it looks like quote mining. Sentence does not refer to Nordic population in Estonia. Right before those words Tvauri explains why some locals know Norse language - because it was lingua franca of region. Many people in modern Estonia command English - it does not mean there are English settlements today. --Minnekon (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There was no internet, public education, television or MTV in Estonia during this time. It was an illiterate society. Old Norse could not have become a lingua franca there without the physical presence of Norse-speakers in the area. Krakkos (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The physical presence of Norse-speakers in the area is hopefully not in dispute, but there is no evidence that this presence included settlements or was anything more than Norse-speakers visiting for short periods to trade. They did not govern the area, it is more likely they operated trading posts. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Minnekon. What does language skill have to do with Norse settlements? The question remains - if you claim there were Norse settlements in Ösel, why were you unable to find a single reference to that claim in arguably the most in-depth report on Viking Age Estonia, with an international edit board? Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the Swedish archaeologist Gunilla Larsson at Uppsala University, Iron Age Scandinavians did not simply trade and raid in Estonia, but settled there as well. Ship burials in Estonia are not local emulations of Scandinavian tradition, but are remnants of Scandinavian settlers: "The traces of Swedish seafaring in Estonia consist of rivets in settlement layers and burials with rivets that may come from Scandinavian boats or local boats built within a Scandinavian tradition. One such site is Viltina... [The Viltina rivets] belong to ships of the Svear according to my analysis. Actual boat burials have been found in Proosa near Tallinn (Deemant 1975, 1976, 1977) and in Rebala (Bill 1994:60). At both sites the boats have had rivets of the type used among the Svear, with square shafts. At Proosa, which has also revealed other rich Scandinavian burials from the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the rivets found are either in an undated context, or in a context from the 1 1th or 12th century. The boat burials are evidence that the visits by Scandinavians were not just for raids or for conducting trade. Instead some Scandinavians settled here and buried their dead according to the tradition and customs from home, in boat burials."[31]Krakkos (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
1) What is "here"? Is the source about Ösel? Where is she talking about Ösel? The link you posted doesn't let me open the quote you pasted. Do you have a URL for that claim? 2) Is "some Scandinavians settled here" the same claim as "There was Scandinavian settlement"? 3) If there were Norse settlements in Ösel, why were you unable to find a single reference to that claim in arguably the most in-depth report on Viking Age Estonia, with an international edit board? Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to wade into this, but surely you can't be suggesting that "some Scandinavians settled here" has a substantially different meaning than "there was Scandinavian settlement". Scandinavians settling = settlement, by definition. Whether they were some sort of ruling class is another matter entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't really know how "settlement" is defined right now... Do you? Is one person enough? 10? 100? 1000? But yeah, if a trusted source says there was a Scandinavian settlement then I accept that source. It's not my job to question what is written in a quality source. It isn't clear right now what area / region the source is talking about though. There are some more sources that support a Norse settlement on Enby / Nuckö for example. But that's not Ösel though.Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ermenrich. Maybe best source in favor of settlement hypothesis so far presented here. Author says some settled, so there was at least some settlement. At the same time it remains controversial view (just one author supporting it) and is limited to Proosa site and 11th century (from the point of view of our map).--Minnekon (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Great! Seems we have a consensus on 11th century mainland North Estonia on the map :) The islands and the rest of the timeline are still an open topic then. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The islands are not an open topic, since there are sources that explicitly mention Scandinavian settlements on both Ösel and Dagö. Meaning that the map is correct as it is, and should not be changed. - Tom | Thomas.W talk13:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
I have to agree with Tom. There was certainly a consensus in the 80s and earlier that there was Norse settlement on Ösel. If this had been refused, there would some mention of a change of scholarly opinion on the matter. Just because every later source does not explicitly mention Ösel does not mean that they disagree with the notion. Ermenrich (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
So far I have seen here only one source (from 1979) making Ösel settlement claim, how can you possibly call it consensus? --Minnekon (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ermenrich, do you have an sources for the consensus in the 80s? The later sources, like this latest one, does not mention Norse settlement at all. Not just for Ösel, but for Estonia in general. How do you interpret this? And Thom - can you link those sources that mention Norse Viking Age settlement on Ösel? Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: the map should be changed anyway - not to mention the issues with great britain, it also says Chuds on the area for Estonia, which is not right. It's not a term that's used in common academic literature. I also don't understand why some areas are marked as countries there and others as "peoples". Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I get the impression that debating with you about this tends to go in circles, possibly because you've started this debate on three or four articles at once. Krakkos provided sources for Norse settlement in Estonia, including Ösel. You dismissed them as too old. There a now a recent source on Norse settlement in Estonia, you dismiss it for not mentioning Ösel. Obviously there is a consensus for both things, or you would be able to find sources explicitly saying this earlier opinion is wrong. Ermenrich (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, it's not consensus, if only some sources claim settlements existed. And some of those sources are, as I already explained above, relatively lower quality because they are old (WP:AGE MATTERS), they are by Western authors who did not have free access to new findings in Soviet Estonia, and they seem (I can't see full text) passing by mentions without explanation (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). So far I have seen just two good modern sources supporting idea of settlements: Felicia Markus (settlement on Nuckö peninsula and Enby village) and Gunilla Larsson (Proosa, 11th century). Now the question is if or how should map reflect claims with such limited support. --Minnekon (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing that source. I accept that source. You mentioned there was a "new source on Norse settlement in Estonia" - where? Do you mean be the one by Krakkos? It's a great source. I do not see it mentioning anything about a general "there were Norse settlements in Estonia" though. It mentions a specific place where Norse settlement might have occurred and I accept that source. That's mainland Estonia and 11th century. But the map says very specifically, that there was a Norse settlement on Ösel on the 8th century. Based on what sources? That seems like a very specific claim that needs a very specific source, no? How does a source apply to something that the map claims happened 300 years earlier? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Did you read the book, or did you only do a quick search for the words "Scandinavian settlement"? There are plenty of references to Scandinavians in it, from saying that part of the population spoke Old Norse to mentioning typically Scandinavian burials and the multitude of early Germanic (i.e. Scandinavian) words that were borrowed into Finnic (many of which are still present in Estonian), starting already during the Bronze Age. Words that, as mentioned in other sources, could only have been borrowed through direct contact over a long period of time... - Tom | Thomas.W talk14:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Author writes about Scandinavian cultural impact in Estonia. You think this impact can only be explained by settlements and want to add it to article. It is textbook case of original research and does not belong to Wikipedia. --Minnekon (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
What does language have to do with Scandinavian settlements? The source says very clearly, that some of the local Finnic people spoke Old Norse because there was heavy trade with Sweden. Did you find any mention of Scandinavian settlements? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Page 238: "The character of the oldest language contacts suggests that part of the communicating population was bi-lingual, and that the status of the speakers of Proto-Germanic was high (Strade 1992, 572). Kalevi Wiik, a Finnish linguist, concluded that the lingua franca on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea was the language of the Scandinavians both in the Bronze Age and the Viking Age (Wiik 2002, 239–242). Therefore, at least part of the coastal population in Estonia in the second half of the first millennium, probably members of the societal elite, commanded Old Norse. It might be added that sagas, too, do not mention any language-related problems when describing communication with the inhabitants of Estonia or other peoples along the East Way."Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There's even a separate chapter for this: Chapter 7, Land and people. Page 305. 21 pages of content. And on those 21 pages, nor in the rest of the book, there's no mention of Scandinavian/Norse settlements. Why? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's the source again for reference. I think in general people are mixing up language, cultural space and (ethnic) settlements here. Northwestern Estonia was clearly in the Scandinavian cultural space during that time, with some of the local Finnic population being bi-lingual in both their native tongue and Old Norse. There was heavy trade with Sweden, etc. And as the source claims, the societal customs also spread to Northwestern Estonia. Southeastern Estonia was in a different cultural space. I encourage anyone interested in the topic to read the source, it's a fascinating, organized summary of resources. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It's unclear what sources the proposed map is built on and who created it and if it's creative commons. Also, the proposed map contradicts with the other map already used on the Vikings page: Exploration and expansion routes of Norsemen. Since the validity of the previous map has been questioned already before this discussion and definitely during this discussion, I switched the map on the article with the same map as is used on the Vikings page until things reach a consensus. The map on the Vikings page is obviously not contested. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Wise I think. Although a more definitive and well sourced map as Krakkos suggest would be good, I don't yet have an opinion on the specific map he linked to, but the idea is good. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The two maps are not in any way interchangeable, but show two totally different things, the old map shows areas within Europe, including Eastern Europe, where there were Norse settlements and cultural influence, while the map you added showed the probable routes the Norsemen/vikings sailed/travelled, with a focus on travels towards Iceland and Greenland. It's like replacing an image of a Volvo with an image of a Ford. - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it shows the same things. Look on the explanation on the bottom left corner. "Heimatgebiete" = Native areas; Eroberungen und landnahmen" = Conquests and landings. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement. The previous Norse settlement map is inaccurate and until the proposed new map is created this map is a good compromise. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Frayae: There's is NOT a consensus that the old map is wrong, and should be replaced, and the maps do NOT show the same things. You are, knowingly or unknowingly, supporting nationalist POV against a long-standing general consensus among scholars. - Tom | Thomas.W talk13:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Frayae, I agree with the change. The validity of the old map has been questioned and there's no consensus for keeping it in the article. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: You accused someone of nationalism again. How do your own actions compare in the light of that definition? And which "long-standing consensus among scholars" are you talking about? The map on the Vikings page seems to be perfectly in line what academic sources say. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't personally see why this is so contentious, we have basically a dubious map with several errors and a clear way to get a better one. For the time being the problem map has been replaced with a different map on a similar topic. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Even if the norse settlements would not be a questioned topic, the old map still said "Chuds" for the area of Estonia which is incorrect. Not to mention the issues with England. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hi, short summary: Question: "Was there Norse habitat on the island of Ösel during the viking era?" Some editors like me and several others claim there are no sources for this. Some editors claim there was Norse habitat on the island of Ösel. The question is about updating the map in question (linked above and in the article), which currently claims there was Norse habitat, but does not include sources. The connected talk page with opinions is here. There is also a talk discussion thread on this talk page above. This is connected to the wider topic of "Who were the Oeselians?", who were also called "Vikings from Estonia". The main options have been either "we don't know" or "Estonians". But this is not the current question. The current question is - is there credible proof for Norse population on the island of Ösel in the viking era? If not, the color of Ösel should be changed on the map. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Viking age settlements or viking age norse settlements? Couldn’t verify by myself because the link didn’t give full access to the source Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@Blomsterhagens and Frayae: I've emailed you both, I can't attach the pdf from the email interface, so if you'd like a copy reply to it and I can send it along for you to review. I really don't think I know enough about this topic to interpret it myself. From my reading of it though, I don't think it provides evidence of settlement (by anyone) on Ösel specifically, but it specifically names Ösel as one of the islands included in the analysis: "[Zone 3] The main islands of the Baltic: Gotland, Öland, Åland, Bornholm, and Ösel" which makes me think they have remains from Ösel. Let me know if you need help getting access to any other sources. Wugapodes[thɑk][ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz]18:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
My first impression is that the trade in bearskins was quite developed, throughout Scandinavia and the Baltic, yet not mentioned on Wikipedia other than a single sentence on fur trade in the article on Vikings. Lindholm and Ljungkvist talk of a significant fur trade in the Baltic, and of furs imported to Sweden from Norway or from areas in the eastern Baltic region, i.e. the present Baltic states, Finland or Russia.
As far as settlements are concerned, I am not seeing much useful information related to the Eastern Baltic coast. Page 15 has a map which I think is plotting the sites studied, none of which extend beyond Scandinavia and Gotland. The same goes for the page 17 map. The Zone 3 they studied may have only been Gotland even though more islands were listed, or they may be citing another study which does include more details on Ösel. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Mägi et al., "Pre-Viking and early Viking Age sacrificial place at Viidumäe, west Saaremaa", details a sacrificial site on Osel that clearly has parallels with Scandinavian sites. The authors studiously avoid any ethnic labelling at all. Artefacts are of "Scandinavian" style; numerous things are described as "Viking Age"; but nothing whatsoever is called Norse, Estonian, Scandinavian, or Viking in an ethnic sense. (We do get "Estonian islands".) Perhaps the closest thing to an ethnic descriptor is: "the warriors buried in Salme ships were foreigners [from central Sweden]". And that's the closest I came to finding Norse settlement on Osel. There's plenty of evidence for trade, contact, raiding, but not of settlement (in secondary sources in English). Srnec (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This merge proposal was rejected by Johnbod. That's OK, I accept the rejection. May I just ask, though, what people(s) the rejected merge articles are referring to? Am I understanding it correctly that the sources deal with "Vikings" as WP:COMMONNAME for an ethnic group of which these childhood, trade, and coinage articles are about? Just trying to understand the WP:CONSENSUS of intepretation of available sources on the matter. Sorry for the inconvience if this is somehow against any rules to ask. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Vikings are not an ethnic group as such. They are most easily understood as Norsemen and others when outside Scandinavia, in a certain time period. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Norsemen → Norse people – Perhaps preferable synonym per WP:PRECISION, as non-gender specified in accordance with scope? This would be per consistency with all interwikilinks, some of which seems also to have chosen the non-gender specific synonym despite equivalent choices in other languages. PPEMES (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutral – I don't read the word as being gender specific (but then again I'm not a native English speaker, am aware that more English speakers perceive "-men" as meaning "male" than before). I've encountered the word "Norsemen" much more frequently (Google Ngram from 1950–2000) but can see from a Google search that "Norse people" is also becoming a popular choice. – Þjarkur(talk)20:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of Viking Age
I have examined a large number of sources on the Vikings and the Viking Age, and there appears to be little evidence of Norsemen being the common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of the Viking Age. Here are some examples:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary: "Vikings: Any of the Scandinavian seafaring pirates and traders who raided and settled in many parts of NW Europe in the 8th–11th centuries..."[33]
Charles Francis Keary in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1911): "The reason for using “viking” in a more generic sense than is warranted by the actual employment of the word in Old Norse literature rests on the fact that we have no other word by which to designate the early Scandinavian pirates of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th century... Historians of the north have distinguished as the “Viking Age” (Vikingertiden) the time when the Scandinavian folk first by their widespread piracies brought themselves forcibly into the notice of all the Christian peoples of western Europe."[34]
Alistair Campbell in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1973): "The term "Viking" is applied today to Scandinavians who left their homes intent on raiding or conquest, and their descendants, during a period extending roughly from a.d. 800 to 1050."[35]
Allen Mawer in The Vikings (1913): "Viking civilisation/ 6 the Viking age/ 'the Viking movement/ 'Viking in- fluence/ the word has come to have a wider significance and is used as a concise and convenient term for describing the whole of the civilisation, activity and influence of the Scandinavian peoples."[36]
E. V. Gordon in An Introduction to Old Norse (1962): "Norse was the language spoken by the North Germanic peoples (Scandinavians)"[37]
Anders Winroth in The Age of the Vikings (2014): "I reserve the term “Vikings” for those northerners who in the early Middle Ages raided, plundered, and battled in Europe, in accordance with how the word is used in medieval texts. Otherwise, I refer to the inhabitants of Scandinavia as Scandinavians. The language they spoke is called Old Norse, so I have sometimes used the term "Norsemen.""[38]
Peter Sawyer in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings (2001): "From the eighth century to the eleventh, Scandinavians, mostly Danes and Norwegians, figure prominently in the history of western Europe as raiders, conquerors, and colonists... Other Scandinavians, mainly Svear from what is now east Sweden, were active in eastern Europe in ways that were very similar to those of their contemporaries in western Europe... The peoples these Scandinavians encountered gave them a variety of names... In the ninth century it was only the English who, occasionally, called the invaders Vikings... Viking originally referred to the inhabitants of Viken, it could explain why the English, and only they, called Scandinavian pirates Vikings."[39]
Peter Sawyer in Scandinavians and the English in the Viking Age (1995): "The Viking period is, therefore, best defined as the period when Scandinavians played a large role in the British Isles and western Europe as raiders and conquerors. It is also the period in which Scandinavians settled in many of the areas they conquered, and in the Atlantic islands..."[40]
F. Donald Logan in The Vikings in History (2013): "It was from the northern European peninsulas that the Vikings came: from the Jutland peninsula and its easterly islands and from the Norwegian- Swedish peninsula and the Baltic islands offshore. The three lands from which they came - which we would now call Norway, Sweden and Denmark - cover vast areas... Important as it is to stress the separate settlements of the north, the isolation of thinly settled areas from one another, and the sense of localness of the peoples, it would be a gross error to think of the Scandinavians as having nothing in common save their northern lands. They were united by links stronger than those of politics and frequent human commerce: they shared a common language, a common art, and a common religion."
Katherine Holman in Historical Dictionary of the Vikings (2003): "The Vikings, those medieval Scandinavian warriors who launched ferocious and much-lamented attacks on western Europe, continue to evoke vivid images and lively public interest today... Viking is not merely another way of referring to a medieval Scandinavian. Technically, the word has a more specific meaning, and it was used (only infrequently by contemporaries of the Vikings) to refer to those Scandinavians, usually men, who attacked their contemporaries... The activities of these people led historians to name the period in which they undertook raiding, trading, and colonizing as the Viking Age."[41]
Jacqueline Simpson in The Viking World (1980): "Strictly speaking, therefore, the term Viking should only be applied to men actually engaged in these violent pursuits, and not to every contemporary Scandinavian farmer, merchant, settler or craftsman, nor even to warriors fighting in the dynastic wars of their lords or in their own private feuds."[42]
Neil Asher Silberman in The Oxford Companion to Archaeology (2012): "The “Viking Age” is traditionally defined as the period when Scandinavian raiders terrorized Europe"[43]
Judith Jesch in Women in the Viking Age (1991): "International contact is the key to the Viking Age. In Scandinavian history this period is distinct because large numbers of Scandinavian people left their homelands and voyaged abroad... The period is thus defined by the impact the Scandinavians had on the world around them."[44]
Angus A. Somerville & R. Andrew McDonald in The Viking Age (2014): "The Viking Age is generally considered to have begun in the late eighth century with the dramatic explosion of Scandinavian raiding parties onto the European stage."[45]
In fact, it seems like scholars generally use the term Norsemen only for Viking Age Norwegians:
Allen Mawer in the The Cambridge Medieval History (1922): "The term Viking... is now commonly applied to those Norsemen, Danes and Swedes who harried Europe from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, and in such phrases as "the Viking age," "Viking civilisation," is used in a still wider sense as a convenient term for Scandinavian civilisation at a particular stage in its development."[46]
Peter Sawyer in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings (2001): "In 875 Danes and Norsemen were competing..."[47]
Eric Christiansen in Norsemen in the Viking Age (2008): "Norse is a linguistic term which is sometimes applied to Norwegians and their colonies, but not to Danes or Swedes. Ditto for Norsemen."[48]
Given the ambiguous nature of the term Norsemen and its rare usage among scholars for the topic of this article, its usage as a title for this article is unfortunate. Krakkos (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Please note that replications of 19th century romantic distortions have persisted into scholarly language until rather recently. Wouldn't you agree that Wikipedia should be cautious about further replicating those misconceptions into the digital 21st century? Hence, just listing sources from the 20th century like above doesn't really take it to the bank, does it? Feel free to discuss it above but I see little more end result than free-floating word sallad. For starters, the arguments above are not reflecting the state of the Norse disambiguation page. If you insist on your arguments still, why don't you consider bringing them for evaluation in a proper article rename request of this Norsemen article? PPEMES (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me if I'm not impressed by another of Krakkos's exhaustive and exhausting selections of sources that support his side of the argument, omitting those that don't. Experience suggests an equally long list could be compiled pointing the other way. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Section Geography
I strongly suggest that the section:
"The British conception of the Vikings' origins was inaccurate. Those who plundered Britain lived in what is today Denmark, Scania, the western coast of Sweden and Norway (up to almost the 70th parallel) and along the Swedish Baltic coast up to around the 60th latitude and Lake Mälaren. They also came from the island of Gotland, Sweden. The border between the Norsemen and more southerly Germanic tribes, the Danevirke, today is located about 50 kilometres (31 mi) south of the Danish–German border. The southernmost living Vikings lived no further north than Newcastle upon Tyne, and travelled to Britain more from the east than from the north."
is removed, since it belongs in the article Viking, and its already enough with confusion between the terms Viking and Norse, so there is really no need to deepen the problem furthermore. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I added that all Scandinavian countries had an organized defence AGAINST vikings, mentioned on runestones, Knyttlingada and Heimskringla, Dan Koehl (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Dan Koehl, The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article. I would say that is the wrong place to add information. Can you find the right place in the body to add this fact. I’d also try to aim for the correct tone. —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The claim that Scandinavian countries had a defence against Vikings requires a reliable source, and would be very controversial in view of the confusion surrounding terminology. Viking is sometimes taken to mean Scandinavians who invaded and traded with other countries and sometimes all Scandinavians in the period. Norsemen is sometimes a synonym for Vikings, but many historians use the word Norse to mean Norwegian and distinguish between Norse and Danish Vikings. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This is true @Dudley Miles:, although a paradox that so few contributors to this article seem to have even looked once into prime sources. The truth is
from Old Sweden, (Svitjod) is the word viking mentioned only on sex rune stones, with five where the word is used as name for persons, while in the sixth case, on a rune stone "Brostenen" (sv:Brostenen Swedish rune stone number U 617 in Upplands-Bro Municipality) a high ranked man with the name Assur, is mentioned as watcher AGAINST vikings,
The word Viking, has never been used to describe any etnical Scandinavian group of people, and has never, in any source, been geographically specified to people of any kind, from Scandinavia.
Sweden: since it was mentioned the first times in the Oldenglish translation of Exodux, the term Viking was used for the children of Ruben, when they were comitting piracy in the red Sea.
Denmark: King Harald Blåtands (Harald Bluetooth) appointed a landeværnsmandEjvind to organize the protection of Denmark against vikings. Sorce: John H Lind, Populismens triumf – Vikingerne en nationalromantisk fiktion (The Triumph of Populism – the Vikings, a National Romantic Fiction), Arkæologisk Forum. No 36, 2017, page 11–15, and also king Erik Ejegod ([[Eric I of Denmark) is mentioned as organising defence against vikings. Source: Knytlingasagan (Knýtlinga saga) 1919-25:169
Norway: Harald I of NorwayAt last, Harald was forced to make an expedition to the West, to clear the islands and the Scottish mainland of some Vikings who tried to hide there.. (the original text says in english translation:
Norway: 1)King Harald heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.
Norway: 2) When Sigurd the Crusader led a sea crusade from Norway to Jersusalem, his fleet was attacked by morish Arabic pirates from the coast of Spain, and those Arab pirates were mentioned as Vikings in the sagas, while the Norwegisn crusaders were not.
I object very much that uneducated people call my ancestors for pirates, instead of using the correct term, Northmen, for the ethnical group.
2.Vikings, as any pirate, can not be labelled as tradesmen, (or any civil profession) because tradesmen doesnt perform piracy: Egil Skallagrimsson writes about Björn farman: 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.) It also gives a false impression of the iron age Scandinavian culture and heritage, which with the label Northmen open doors to a much more diversified insight in the culture, while the word viking, whereven and whenev it is mentioned comes together with myth, fals history and simplifying of a larger picture.
I strongly believe that he word, and the article Viking should reflect the historical persons who were really vikings, and not my forefathers. Its time that also in the english language, the word Viking gets a modern definition, and not belong in the same box as Nigger, Nazi, and other terms that people has used uncorrectly for groups of people. I am a scandinavian, and so were my Northmen ancestors in Scandinavia between 800 and 1066. Most probably, only a very few percent of those Norse people were actually vikings, and its very wrong to refer to them as such, just becasue its fun, or "we did like that a long time" (less than 50 years) etc.
I want biased POV articles like Viking to become NPOV; so that you can read about true, documented Vikings, on the page about vikings, and not read myths, fantasies, or a lot of stuff that refer to norse people in general. For some time, the article Norseman was even redirected to viking article, which was not correct, it was a joke, and such things should never occur in an encycopedia: Viking is an oldenglish word that means pirat, and the latin word piratae is directly translated to viking in numerous documents, during medevial time. I argue that the article Viking, should supply information about vikings and not about a late misinterpreted ideas about who Vikings were, or any fantasies people may have. I object to that article viking expands the original meaning, including more or less every Norseman during viking time; (people of north Germanic descent, people of the Norse culture, scandinavians, scandinavian kings, tradesmen, settlers, founder of cities, explorers of America), since viking has only one meaning: it means pirat. A pirat can be from just anywhere. And a Norseman, or scandinavian person during medevial time who didnt perform piracy should not be refered to as a viking.
Vikings, as any pirate, could origin from anywhere: The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus.
Oh, please, not all this again. This is the English Wikipedia, and we deal with the meanings words have in English, not other languages. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Im sorry @Johnbod and Philoserf:, but history from thousands of years will always present a challenge for those with a bias, and regardless language version, Wikipedia should not involve in Historical revisionism, and all articles, however written in English language, should represent a worldwide view of the subject, and furthermore, reflect a modern scholar view, and not what an uneducated person, who never bothered to read prime sources, think about a subject. Arguments against this, should no tbe based on opinions, but on verified sources, to provide NPOVDan Koehl (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
