Talk:Varangians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Varangians is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Middle Ages Icon This Article is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.

Contents

[edit] THE VARANGIANS: Who were they ?

Historians often mention the Varangians in connection with certain events on the eastern shores of the Baltic, and in Northern Russia. Let's look at some explanations from different perspectives. The term is generally thought to come from Swedish, but many Finnish researchers, such as Kuussaari, claim it has a Finnish origin.

One Finnish source identifies the Varangians as "Scandinavians", but in reality - more precicely - they were propably Fenno-Scandians. (Kuussaari, 1935) The Finns are conspicuous for their absence in both, the Swedish and Russian (Slavic or "Great" Russian) accounts. Varangians quite likely originally were Baltic Finns, distinguishable from Swedes by their Uralic language. They lived on the shores of Western Finland and Estonia/Livonia and the Baltic islands, and were later joined in their guard duties by the Swedes, who - among some others - were called Vikings.

(Kuussaari, 1935) This is called the "Riga, Åland, Gulf of Finland triangle." Vikings are often equated with Varangians, who came to consist of both Finns and Swedes, as the latter turned eastward and joined the Finns in the beginning of the second millennium. Varangians never invaded the British Isles - those invaders are called Vikings (the Finns are thought to have participated on those tours as well).

Russian accounts suggest that eventually there were more than one kind of Varangian. They knew of several types of Varangians, and they generalized the term to include Swedes, as the Finns became a part of the Swedish realm. A symbiotic relationship formed between the Finns and Swedes who helped to fend off the Slavs. The Finns and the Swedes got along well, and there is no written record of any significant fighting between the two cultures. The relationship, however, slowly turned rather parasitic in the beginning of the 1600's, since Sweden benefitted from the Finnish soldiers, but Finland - on the other hand - suffered.

When the Vikings went East, it was with and under the sanction of inhabitants of the Baltic shores - eg the Finnish Tavastians, Karelians and Ingerians. Originally they were, according to Kuussaari, Finnish soldier merchants, who had an excellent reputation as good guardsmen because they had to protect their western and eastern flanks. Unfortunately, the Varangian theory - which became to be taught in schools - was the Swedish version, which took away from the Finns their ancient heroic Kalevalan heritage.

During the "great migrations", these people developed into various warrior types such as Kaleva, Kolbias, "kalpamiehet", Karelian "kylfings", and others who had come to some type of mutual understanding regarding what territories each group controlled, and - above all - the organization of armies. They were merchant warriors that formed an alliance to protect against Viking raids from the west so that some warning system would be in place even during their long journeys. They were soldier traders who travelled all the way to the Volga to trade with the Bolgarians - and beyond.

They had developed elaborate early warning systems, based on relay shoreline fires, so that the minute a Viking or any other unfriendly ship appeared, the curl of smoke could be seen in fires, off into the distant Baltic. It was previously thought that these seafaring people had adopted the Viking ship as their means of transportation as they built excellent large ships with at least a hundred oarsmen.

However, the early Finns had Viking style ships of their own, and they were seafaring people already from earlier times, long before the Viking raids began to the eastern shores of the Baltic, as we can also clearly see from the ancient rock art found in Karelia. This rock art resembles similar early art found in Sweden. Mikkalai Kuussaari claims that the word Varangian comes from the Finnish word "vara/vartio", which in Finnish means "guard" and "vaara" means "danger" or "hill." Fires were lit on hills, which were part of their early warning system. This worked very effectively and the people in charge of the organization became known as Varangians. The Finnish epic Kalevala mentions these people, their activities and the vaaras - the fells - where they lit fires at. Place names with "vara" stems were located in the Varangians' domain. The prefix was extensively used in the coastal and island areas controlled by the Finnish tribes who had adopted spme Swedish seafaring ways, which included ships with oarsmen:

For example (In Finnish and - the closely related - Kven languages): Varangin vuono (the Varangian Bay - Varangerfjord in Norwegian, Varjag vuoda in Lapp (i.e. Sami); Varangin niemi (the Varangian Bay); Vargava, Varanka, Varanpää (Lokalahti); Also Vargata, Varjakka, Varkal, etc.

(Kuussaari, 1935) The term var, according to Thomsen, comes from the old Swedish word var (= faithful), but Kuussaari does not agree, that this meaning is connected with the word. The Vikings too were faithful. However, they never were referred to by that term. The var word is therefore connected with guarding. In the absence of hard facts to prove these assertions, one has to consider all possibilties, keeping in mind that the Finnish position in the North is always downplayed, while the Russian and the Swedish roles are magnified by royal historians.

Thus for instance, the Finnish language is often considered to have received words from the Germanics and Slavs, instead having been the donor. Dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=varangian - varangian \Va*ran"gi*an\ reveals one of the Northmen who founded a dynasty in Russia in the 9th century; also, one of the Northmen composing - at a later date - the imperial bodyguard at Constantinople.

Not everyone agrees therefore, that Varangians were Baltic Finns, and the search for the source of the word "Varangian" and "Viking" is continued by some scholars. Up to recently, a Swedish derivation of most related words has received acceptance. However, the term in some English dictionaries - for instance - is said to be from the old Norse word "Väring."

- - Due to an earlier wrongful deletion, the above article was reposted by user Art Dominique (t) on May 9, 2006, 18:18 - -

If someone actually wastes his time by reading the above rant, he might be interested to know that Art Dominique's main source (a book by E. Kuressaari published in 1935) represents the genre of national-chauvinistic pseudo-history. It has nothing to do with academic scholarship.--217.112.249.156 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Finnish Theory of Rurik and Varangians

The mere fact that this confusion exists amongst scholars, tells us that the Varangian term broadened so that no clear denotation could be made. The Vikings probably could not travel East without first having come to terms with the guardians of the Eastern Baltic shores. When the Vikings came to Russia, they came accompanied by the Finns who knew every river, forest and lake, and were excellent warriors, and guards. They also knew where all their ancient trading centers were located. When they met the Russians for the first time, it was natural that the Russians would refer to them as Varangians, and they soon came to realize that there were different kinds of Varangians.

The meaning of "Varangian" which is most pervasive, is that of guardianship. It was the Finns who had the reputation for being good guardsmen, while the Vikings had the reputation for being sea wanderers, traders and raiders (notice: Vanrangian guards, not Varangian sea-wolves; Varangian guards, not wanderers). That is the legacy of the excellent reputation for guarding that the Baltic Finns acquired in the ancient world, which merged with the term "Viking." Confusing ? Much of ancient history is, because everyone wanted credit for themselves at the expense of other ethnic groups; it is the duty of historians to dig down to the truth.

Much of ancient history unfortunately is merely ancient propaganda. Mongolians are said to be bad invaders. But were they worse than Russians or Romans? Were the Russian invaders gentle, while the Mongolians were fierce. Did they spare less people? Probably not, as everyone was cruel to their enemies in those days. We should read about history from as many sources as possible to avoid getting a historical bias. Still today the Russians lament the Mongolian raids, and the Finns lament the Russian raids. Can anyone claim they were better, including the Finns ? Who were worse off, the Russians under attack by Mongolians or the Uralic people under attack by the Slavs ? Could the results answer that: the destruction of the Uralic tribes; survival and increase of Slavic population.

Could the Varangian's world have been part of the ancient Kingdom of Finland mentioned in the Nordic sagas ? The Finns' heritage, the knowledge of their vast ancient kingdom - was it taken away by the new Swedish rulers and the Slavs from the south ? The Nordic Sagas and other independent sources of the time seem to indicate just that. When the Catholics brought their religion to Finland via Sweden, did they also change Finnish history ?

And the Slavic historians cannot - unfortunately - be trusted with even their own history, let alone that of another ethnic group, due to their documented omission and falsification of history to glorify themselves at the expense of other ethnic groups. Even today, a strange silence about the original people prevades the official descriptions of Russia. Very little is mentioned about even the people shown in official travel pictures, which obviously aren't Slavs, while they go to great lengths in describing the glories of Slavic (equated with Russian) culture.

Very few people are aware of the fact that the Slavs murdered most of the ethnic Finno-Ugric cultural heros, both in this century and in centuries gone by. Considering that the whole north, from the Ural Mountains to Norway, was populated by Finnish tribes, it seems odd that no great importance has been attributed to them in the Swedish or Russian literature. Something - of course - must be said. That little, unfortunately, is often lies, or a stretched truth. Thus, the Russians openly claim that the Finnish people were never in any high positions.

Russian history sources would never tell you for instance, that in the inauguration ceremony of the last Russian tzar, three of the seven generals of the tzar's personal body guard unit were actually Finnish, or that a couple of the last governors of Alaska during the Russian rule were Finnish. No Russian would be able to tell you that Finnish-Swedish Jaakko De la Gardie (he grew up in Finland, where he was brought up by his Finnish grandmother --> Finland was then part of the Swedish realm, a.k.a. Sweden-Finland)) marched his Finnish army of Finnish spldiers to Moscow, nor that De la Gardie also held his army of Finnish men (the army also included some merchant soldiers) in Novgorod for six long years.

Today the fascists in Russia claim that the North never even belonged to the Finns, and that the Slavs are the original people of the North. The Finns merely squatter. Clearly, a lot of work remains to be done to reveal the true nature of ancient Finnish civilization in the North, of which the Kalevala and the Nordic Sagas tell about.

When the Vikings eventually joined the Varangians (now they were Vikings, Varangians and Rus too) in their guard duties, about the time the slavs were setting up shop in the north, the Russians referred to them too as Varangians. Possibly others such as Angles who may have joined them. Vikings were never referred to as Varangians on their own raids to western Europe, which is natural, since they were Vikings, not Varangians. In Sweden, they were Vikings, but when they entered the Finnish realm, they too became Varangians.

The Finnish term "Varakko-ruotsit" (Varangian-Rus) refers to these seafaring Finnish people according to Kuussaari. The word (ros=row in old scandinavian) "ruotsi"in Finnish used to mean "rower," but later the word meant "Sweden." Some Swedish sources say that "Rus" comes from the word "Roslagen" which is a town in Sweden, and some say it came from a Swede called Ruser.

The "Varangians" established trading posts on the Volga and assisted the eastern Finns, and even the Slavs in the business of trade. Rurik and his accompanying Varangians camped around in the Finnish areas and in the north of Novgorod amongst the native Finnish-speaking population. We can be fairly sure that many of Rurik's men were Finns. The Varangian routes spread out through Russia to the Mediterranean. Eventually the Varangians became trusted guards of the Emperor in the Byzantine Empire.

Many Varangian trading posts were situated along the rivers such as the Neva and Volga, and the Lake Ladoga. All those areas were in the possession of the local Finns. The story is told that when Rurik defeated the strongest Slavic settlement, Novgorod, in A.D. 862, the Varangians became the rulers of northern Russia, with Finns assuming many of the leadership roles (according to Finnish history), especially north of Novgorod. As explained above, the Russian history denies that the Finns were ever in any leadership roles - what-so-ever - in Russia, but the truth is that the local Finns demanded Finnish speaking representatives. We must be careful in judging history from just one perspective. This area in some 14th century maps was still labelled Rurima (Rurikland or Rurinmaa in Finnish).

For political reasons, the Swedes and the Slavs tended (and continue to do so today) to downplay the role of the Finnish related people in the north. It is in no way "fanatical nationalism" to correct history - nor is it revisionism. It is simply the search for the truth. As in geneology, one must be prepared to find a horse thief or a murderer, or to stop digging. However, historians of Soviet Russia, the Kings of Sweden and the Czars were obliged to glorify their crowns and to erase the heroic deeds of the adversaries. This type of protected totalitarian history writing has attempted to present Finland as a place which was inhabited by savages before the Swedes.

The epic Finnish poetry of the Kalevala reveals, that the Finns had a high level of civilization for a long time before either the Swedes or the Russians came to their lands. Thus, it is not at all an accident that a number of non-Finnish historical sources discuss Finnish and Kven kings. Since the Finnish history was carried on in a rich oral tradition, it could not be destroyed in a fire, or robbed, and it is through this evidence that the Finns are able to contradict the later Swedish and Russian written accounts about the role and extent of the Finnish civilization in the north prior to Swedish rule. This is why any serious student of Finno-Ugric history must have a working knowledge of the Kalevala.

One thing is for certain: The Finnish traders traveled east long before they were joined by Swedes. Would it make sense that the Russians came into contact with Finnish "Varangians" or traders first, then both Swedish and Finnish when the Finns came under the Swedish kings in the second millennium ?This may be the reason Vikings were not called Varangians in Britain. Russians came into contact first with Finnish speakers, then Swedish speakers. Did the Russians change the name when the Swedes joined, or did they keep the original term ?

Under the Swedish rule, the Finns were obliged to serve in the Swedish (Sweden-Finland) army. Their strength was greatly reduced by the Swedish kings' ambitions far away from Finland, especially in Poland, and the disastrous march on Moscow that followed. During this time, while the door to the henhouse was open, Russia helped itself to Finland, Ingria, and Estonia. The Slavs had arrived on the shores of the Baltic while the Swedish army was destroyed on the same road Napoleon took years later. The Russians were now free to establish permanent cities closer and closer to Finnish northern and Baltic strongholds, especially St. Petersburg - on the Ingrian Finnish land.

- - Due to an earlier wrongful deletion, the above article was reposted by user Art Dominique (t) on May 9, 2006, 18:18 - -


[edit] The comments vandalized and removed from here by user mikka (t)

As we know, some of the Wikipedians participating in the discussion and commentating here lived still very recently - and some still live - under a tidily guarded totalitarian society.

Unfortunately, - used to the systems imposed and forced to them - a part of these people try now imposing the same totalitarian ways and their totalitarily forced ("taught") information to the world community in large.

Some of these people in question persistently refuse to even consider viewing anything but the distorted lessons taught to them in their totalitarily led school systems, under which much of the most important events of the world history were widely and commonly falsified to fit the needs of the totalitarian leaderships.

The Wikipedia user mikka (t) participates in this type of totalitarian behavior in Wikipedia, when the information he faces does not fit what he has previously believed or thought correct.

The discussion comments in the beginning of this page as of today - relating to who the Varangians were and to where they came from - present a very valid view point, and must be left untouched or vandalized by the Wikipedia user mikka (t).

Drow Ssap (t) - 15:27, March 15, 2006 -- revisited 19:01


After vandalism, above text reverted back by Art Dominique (t) at 18:29, March 15, 2006


[edit] Who lived in northeastern Scandinavia during the Viking age

In the "Varangians" article it appears stated in Wikipedia now that "the Varangians (Russian: Variags, Варяги) were Scandinavians who travelled eastwards, mainly from the northeastern parts of Scandinavia, in what are now Norway and Sweden".

That sentence tells part of the throught. We ought to let the Wikipedia readers also know who were the people living in northeastern Scandinavia at the time. Earlier, we could see Wikipedia informing its readers as to who (which peoples and/or tribes) lived in northeastern Scandinavia (where the Varangians "mainly came from") during the Viking age.

In Scandinavia and elsewhere there is a widely and commonly accepted understanding and consensus among historians and researchers regarding the undisputed fact that during the Viking age the people inhabiting the northeastern Scandinavian areas were Finns who were also known as Cwens in historical texts, and Samis, botht being members of the so called Fenno-Ugric family of peoples.

At the time, from the northwestern coastal areas of the Scandinavian Peninsula also the Norse were making advances up north towards the north-eastern coastal areas of the Scandinavian Peninsula. Similarly, from the east (south-east) the Finnish Karelians and Slavic groups - such as the Novgorodians - were making advances towards the area in question as well.

Please, allow this important fact remain in the text. We shall now make a reference to the text regarding the historical Cwenland area in northern and northeastern Scandinavia, part of which belongs to the modern day Republic of Finland, not only to the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden.


Argh, do not make a confusion. Varangian guards were mostly, or almost all, germanic scandinavians. The fact that Finnic-ugrians inhabited a much larger area in the past dos not come into that. If it causes such misunderstandings, the term northeast scandinavia should not be used in this thing. After all, what is notheastern scandinavia? a confusing thing. geograohucally, it now denotes some norrlandic regions of sweden and possibly norwegian finnmark. But thinkin about what it may have meant to medieval people (who apparently did not even know the word scandinavia, but may possibly have understood a concept of "northeastern territories of dane-norwego-gotic-sueco peoples"), they may have thought the Roslagen coast or something like that. Suedois 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] old talk

The following phrase removed

<-- said by whom? not in the mentioned chronicles --(these Slavic and Finnish tribes are said to have rebelled against a previous Scandinavian rule) -->

Varangians ARE the first mentioned rulers of Slavs, of hypothetically Scandinavian origin. It looks like the above statemnt resulted from a series of editorial "improvements". Mikkalai

Mikkalai, have you ever read the primary chronicle???? It explicitly says what YOU pretend it does NOT.--Wiglaf 12:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes I did read it. It does NOT say what I say it does not. Read for yourself.


Въ л4то 6367. Имаху дань Варязи из заморья на Чюди и на Слов4енехъ. Мери и на Вс4хъ и на Кривич4хъ.


Въ л4то 6370. Изъгнаша Варягы за море и не даша им дани. И почаша сами в собъ володати. И не б4 въ нихъ правды, и въста род на род, и быша в нихъ усобиц4, и воевати почаша сами на ся. И р4ша сами въ себъ:"поищемъ соб4 князя, иже бы влад4лъ нами и судилъ по праву." И идоша за море къ Варягомъ, к Руси, Сице бо ся зваху ти Варязи Русь, яко се друзии зовуться Свее, друзия же Урмане, Англяне, инии Г4те.

The text says only that initially Varangians collected contribution from slavic-fennic tribes, but neither they ruled nor lived there. (text says: varangians from over the sea). Of course, one can speculate differently, but it will be only speculation. Not to say that the chronicle itself is a third-hand source of these times.

So let's not translate it into our understanding, and say what it says: varangians robbed slavs, then were driven away, then were invited specifically to rule, and say it with the proper attribution, too.

If you have any other original source on this issue, you are velcome to quote. Mikkalai 17:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for Rus == Swedes, the Chronicle specifically says: "These varangians were called Rus, just as the other ones were called Swedes, still others were Germans, Angles or Goths. So that was their name." Mikkalai 18:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but "Swede" was not a simple concept in Viking age Scandinavia. There was the Swedish king, but he was the king of peope who usually only called themselves, Geats, närkingar (Nerike), västermän (Westmannia), södermän (Sudermannia), Gutar (Gotland, the Goths of the chronicle), and Ros-byggjar (Roslagen). If you want to have a look at the controversy of "Swede", look at Ancient Uppsala.--Wiglaf 18:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Exactly why do you consider this piece irrelevant? : "The Slavic inhabitants called these Swedes Rus'." Inform me, please.--Wiglaf 19:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for being imprecise. This detail better be confined to the Rus' article. Also, there are no Slavic sources from the 8th century to confirm your claim. Also, it is very likely that at these times the Ladoga area was inhabited by Fennic peoples, rather than Slavs. Mikkalai 20:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the Ladoga area was in most likelihood settled by Fenno-Ugric tribes before the Slavs. My question concerns why you removed a piece that was inserted 19:40, 10 Jun 2003, by Adam Bishop. I find it relevant and will put it back.--Wiglaf 20:29, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The phrase in question cannot be as a matter of fact with respect to this time frame. For these times for which documentation is scarse one must be very careful. Thre is too much misinformation and loosely grounded conjectures and extrapolations on this issue floating around already. Either you prove it, or it is out. Mikkalai 22:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, so after over a year, you demand conclusive proof for the veracity of a sentence. Since the text consequently needs some revision, I have moved a discussion on early Russian scholarship to the page where it belongs.--Wiglaf 05:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We don't have conclusive info about some things related to certain times. How would you like a phrase: "Varangians lived in Kiev in 7th century and were known as Rus"? Where is the burden of proof? there are well-known things, at least easily verifiable, and there are not so easily verifiable ones. I've never heard of someone conclusively claiming that slavs called someone Rus in 8th century or earlier. faldan?rustah?saint bertran?constantine? Which other early references are missing? If there are such, then most definitly they would be extremely important to be referred here as an important argument. Mikkalai 01:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We do have one source, the authors of the Primary Chronicle. Every time I read it, I am struck with the pride the author shows of being Slavic. Still, when he describes the "Rus'" he clearly states that they were Varangians (who he defines as Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon), and that they came from across the sea. He clearly states that the Rus' were Varangians and that the Varangians who settled in Eastern Europe were called "Rus'".--Wiglaf 15:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Now I seem to uderstand what our problem is. I am not arguing against that slavs called them Rus. I am arguing against the date. It is 860 in the chronicle, which is 9th century, not 8th (people got confused over centuries in this way all the time). Of course, one may reasonably extapolate that 60 years ago they were most probably called Rus as well. But we are talking about solid evidence here. Mikkalai 16:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry but what is solid evidence? There is rarely anything you can call solid evidence in academia. If everything written in Wikipedia was based on solid evidence, I don't believe that there would be many pages. What we can say is whether most scholars agree on this or that.--Wiglaf 20:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you better be sorry :-). The problem is not with evidence, but with interpretations thereof. In our case there is nothing, zilch, nada to interpret in the first place. Mikkalai 23:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is a source called the Primary Chronicle written for Slavs and by Slavs. In this text a Slav or Slavs call those Varangians "Rus". I call it a source, you call it "nothing, zilch, nada". We can agree to disagree.--Wiglaf 19:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sigh... You are not listening. (or you have a short attention span and comment only very last sentence in the discussion, out of context. Shall I recount the whole discussion each time I make a new comment?) I don't question the fact itself. Yes, YES, YES!!!, I do agree slavs called them Rus. I am questioning the date, the timestamp, the year when it was reportedly happening. We don't know about the 8th century. We know only it is reported for the 9th century. If you know any report related to 8th century that mentions the word Rus as used by slavs, please, don't withhold this information. Mikkalai 21:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Calm down. I agree with you. I thought you meant "ever".--Wiglaf 15:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We do know, however, of a non-Varangian Rus (Rhos) that populated the northern coast of Black Sea in 7th century, according to "Zhitias" of various Greek saints written by Greek chroniclers. Shakhmatov tried to get around this problem by trying to introduce the "early wave of Viking expansion" but had no archaelogical evidence or written accounts to support it.

Yeesh, if I knew three years ago, when I heard about Varangians for the first time, that they were so contentious a topic, I would never have bothered studying them :) Adam Bishop 05:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, in the West it is not a contentious subject. The main reason why I am interested in it is because my wife is Russian and has a phD in history. My mother-in-law is a professor of history at the Academy of Science in Moscow. Let's say that Rurik and Poltava are part of my life.
My wife says that the problem with the role of the Varangians in the creation of Kievan Rus' is that some people in the former Soviet Union feel that it is a "national defeat".--Wiglaf 17:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you call it pluralism instead? I smell double standard here: when two americans speak differently, it is democracy, when two Russians disagree, it is stupid brawl, and when a Russian disagrees with an American, it is WWIII. Mikkalai 23:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For the record: I don't doubt in validity of Normanist theory. History knows quite a few cases when a bunch of tough guys seize a power in a foreign land only to dissolve in the local population, possibly leaving some of nobility to remember their roots. And I see no particular glory in varangians but their skills to keep power in their hands. Mikkalai 00:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I quoted a RUSSIAN.--Wiglaf 19:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Is there, by any chance, a written source supporting Varangians was vikings? One source, a single place it is written that they were vikings? Dan Koehl 19:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head, there is the account of Liutprand that dicusses some Varangians returning home to Sweden from Constantinople, through Germany, and the German emperor imprisons them because he thinks they may be spies for the Danes (who were what we consider Vikings). Adam Bishop 06:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why were the varangian warriors considered so powerful and dangerous if they were "always defeated"? also by this time greek fire was no longer in use. the mythical status of these people had to come from somewhere, as did the desire for them as mercenaries.

Oh sorry, you misunderstood me. I did not at all speak about what people consider. This page is full at that, my children, under ten years of age, consider a lot of things. I asked for One source, a single place it is written that Varangians were vikings? You know, history, sources...?

Dan Koehl 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harald Harfagri

Recently an anon tried to replace Harald Hardraada by Harald Harfagri. The latter article (or a redirect?) seems missing. Can anyone fix the miss? Mikkalai 18:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I did it myself. Mikkalai 18:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The evolution of this article

I have had this article unwatched for a few months and I discovered that the Normanist version is given in the past tense and limited to 18th century Germans, whereas the anti-normanist version is given in the present tense. Moreover, non-existent Norse sagas are referred to. Mikkalai et al, can we start a serious discussion on why this is considered NPOV?--Wiglaf 22:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess that I will have to read every article about this matter now, to check what has happened.--Wiglaf 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess so. Why didn't you have it on your watchlist? Being a non-expert, I detected this substitution of Haralds by simply being naturally suspicious to anons. Much other stuff could have passed thru my eyes unnoticed. Mikkalai 00:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I unwatched because I was very tired of this controversy. I will have a look at the pages in due time.--Wiglaf 06:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source for term viking

No source has stated that vargian was vikings, see my question above. I remove the term viking. Dan Koehl 14:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC) if any queries Contact: Abishek email: abishek07@gmail.com

[edit] Greek fire

Why was Greek fire removed?--Wiglaf 20:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name Varangian

There is a geographical region in Northern Norway called Varanger. In Norwegian the people living around the White Sea have always been known as Varangians. These fact have been used by Norwegian national-romantics to claim the Varangians as Norwegians. Though this is obvioulsy not accurate, it seems plausible that the term Varangian stem from this area, rather than the glacial period mentioned in the article. --Tokle 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Do you have any sources on this etymology?--Wiglaf 17:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think Thor Heyerdahl mentions it in his book about the origins of norse mythology "Jakten på Odin" (The hunt for Odin). But I might be wrong. --Tokle 10:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There might be a possibly interesting connection to the modern, 'feringhee' of India, an 'farang' of Indo-China, both words denote a stranger(generally disparaging.)--Brendandh 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Brendan
Those probably come from "Frank" by way of Arabic "faranj" or "ifranj" or "ferengi". Adam Bishop 02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Silly me,quite right. However, it would have been nice to think of the intrepid chaps going up the Indus or Mekong!--Brendandh 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Chronicle

I wonder why Ghirlandajo does not bother to consult the Primary Chronicle before making accusations. Here is a quote in Russian:

В год 6367 (859). Варяги из заморья взимали дань с чуди, и со словен, и с мери, и с кривичей. А хазары брали с полян, и с северян, и с вятичей по серебряной монете и по белке от дыма.[1]

It clearly says that a large part of European Russia paid tribute to the Varangians before the famous invitation.--Wiglaf 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

How large is that part? Didn't most of East Slavic tribes pay tribute to Khazars and/or Magyars before, during, and, for a while, after the invitation? Goliath74 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

the map depicting tribes living in today's eastern europe has perhaps an error. slavic tribes are shown in the are of the carpatian mountains, nevertheless it is known that these mountains were inhabited largely by romanic people. i must stress that the area inhabited by romanic people was quite large thus not to be ignored.

I strongly disagree with the text by the map - neither Baltic tribes nor the so called Chudes were cultures in non-European Russia!
Please see also my comment on the discussion page of the map. 80.235.61.87 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Danes?

Danes are Scandinavians as well, so the sentence from the top of the article "this term also includes the people of Denmark and England" should probably be changed to "this term also includes the people of England".

The wording might be confusing at the moment...what it is trying to say is that the people the Varangians came into contact with didn't know or care how they divided themselves at home, and considered Scandinavians, Germans, and English one big group. The Varangians were actually Swedish, usually, but later also included Danes and English. Does that make any more sense? Adam Bishop 04:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

___

No it doesnt because today's South-Sweden was Denmark until about 1650 bc. So actually the Svear/Swedes was not Varangians, and properly not Vikings either.

[edit] About the map

Are the Slavs not a Non-varangian culture? Either a map should be changed or the capture. Goliath74 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to PVL

It would appear to a casual observer that the following paragraph: "In 862, the Finnic and Slavic tribes rebelled against the Varangian Rus, drove them overseas, but soon started to conflict with each other. The disorder prompted the tribes to invite the Varangian Rus "to come and rule them" and bring peace to the region. Led by Rurik and his brothers Truvor and Sineus, the invited Varangians (called Rus) settled around the town of Holmgard (Novgorod)." describes real events and people. It should be made clear that it is no more than an essay on the PVL. For example, there exists enough scholarship that suggests that Truvor and Sineus were not real people or if they were, their names were different. The paragraph needs to give credit to PVL, rather than appear as a reference to real events. Goliath74 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cwens/Cwenland

An anon contributor from 213.216.199.xxx continues pushing his theory without discussing and providing references. Until he starts discussing, his contributions will be reverted on sight. mikka (t) 20:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirlandajo's theories

Ghirlandajo reverted to a lead section where northeastern Scandinavia was the main source of Varangians. I would really love to see solid references for his theory that the Varangians were Fenno-Ugric.--Wiglaf 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I don't know what the fuck is going on in this page anymore, there seems to be a four-way edit war. Wiglaf, I am not insisting Varangians came from Norway, and this is not original research. If they didn't come from Norway, just remove it! Christ! Adam Bishop 07:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Read this: assume good faith.--Wiglaf 10:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Same to you :) Adam Bishop 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"Gentlemen! You're not supposed to fight in here...this is a WARROOM!" :) Please correct me if I'm wrong, here Mr. Bishop, but you were probably thinking of the Varangian Guard's most famous member, Harald Hardråda of Norway. He and his fellow Norges won much reknown (and booty) in the service of Constantinople. But Harald and his stout lads were the exception. Most of the Varangians appeared to be Swedes. The Norwegians tended to sail westwards. The Jomsvikings, who included members from all over, are sometimes misidentified as Varangians. So it is easy for confusion to reign on such matters...this period is not called the Dark Ages for nothing. I'm no expert...I could'nt read a Runestone if you paid me a million dollars (but I would certainly be willing to learn fast and try;). But let's have good faith all around, and a horn of Wiki Ale, ere we sail on our voyages. Peace Brothers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I suppose I may have been...or maybe it's not very useful to divide Norway and Sweden (and Denmark) 1000 years ago as if they are their modern identities. I apologize for being so abrasive, I am more frustrated with the Finnish/Cwenland person than anyone else in particular. This is happening quite a lot lately on other articles too, and I should probably take a break. Adam Bishop 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with you, except these divisions which took place 1000 years ago are the origins of their modern identities. We are prisoners of our pasts. I do agree about the Finno-Ugric part. I don't see how Ghirl came up with that. Might as well say the Varangians were Hungarians, it would make about as much sense. Sigh, I know what you mean... I might need a Wikibreak too. A dear friend of mine has just bid the project farewell plus I've got this Annoying twit stalker bitching me out over my FA. I really want to cry havoc and let slip a few choice words of the sort you've used here. But I think I'll have a beer and go to bed instead. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Wiglaf thinks that was Ghirlandajo, it was User:Carolina de la Gardie (and a bunch of IPs before that). Maybe something got confused in all the reverting that was going on. Adam Bishop 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I stopped to understand Wiglaf's accusations several months ago. Probably he needs a break from all the tough editing he makes latterly. --Ghirla | talk 17:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guard Loyalty Quote

Memory may fail me, but I think the quote "Alive they would have defended him...", at the end of the eighth paragraph in the Varangian Guard section, is from one of the Byzantium trilogy of books by John Julius Norwich. --TB 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedes, Norwegians and Danes

Does anyone dispute that there were a number of Norwegians an Danes among the Varangians? If you remove Danes and Norwegians because Scandinavia is already mentioned then you would have to remove Sweden as well. The text should reflect that most Varangians were probably from Sweden, but that many and some very notable Varangians were from Denmark and Norway as well. Inge 10:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All Scandinavians were a rather integral unit at the time meaning that since they spoke the same Old Norse they had no problems in organizing common activities. Scandinavians from areas of present-day Norway, Denmark, Scotland, England, Ireland, Iceland and Baltic countries surely took part in the trips. However, since more than 80% of all the eastern coin finds of that era are from areas of present-day Sweden indicating a commanding participance from those areas in the Varangian trips, that should not be down-played. --Drieakko 11:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Drieakko, please don't engage in original research. The "concentration of coins" may indicate the area of the intensive trade; it has nothing to do with ethnic origins of people whose participation in "eastern trade" is a moot point. Actually, the earliest and by far the largest "eastern coin finds" in Europe were discovered near Yaroslavl where I live. Does it mean that the Varangians were composed of the Slavs and Merya? --Ghirla -трёп- 13:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The Swedes should not be downplayed, but as you point out the Scandinavians were in many areas an integral unit. The coin finds are important, but should not be the sole deciding factor. Since the Swedes are mentioned spesifically and we know Norwegians and Danes were important elements among the Varangians they should not be downplayed either. Now they are. The disputed sentance should be reworded to reflect the leading Swedish element and that the Danes and Norwegians were important elements (much more so than "Scotland, England, Ireland, Iceland and Baltic countries")Inge 11:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that the article now mentions "Scandinavians" and "present areas of Sweden". There is no mention of "Swedes". For example, based on coin finds, Skåne seems to have been an important source of Varangians, but at that time its inhabitants considered themselves Danes whereas today it is a part of Sweden. I don't think that Varangians considered themselves especially "Swedish" even though they had close ties with areas that are today parts of Sweden. I listed non-Scandinavian areas just to point out that Scandinavians had spread outside of their core countries. --Drieakko 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine: correct my use of Swedes, Danes and so forth to areas in present day Sweden, Denmark and so forth. That was not precise enough of me, but have you heard the Norwegian term flisespikkeri? :) Inge 12:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, kindly provide reference that provides information of present areas of Norway and Denmark to have been remarkable sources of Varangian participants. I have not seen that claimed in any publication. --Drieakko 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Now a citation needed tag has been added to a fairly uncontroversial statement. Do you not agree that Varangians came from Sweden, Denmark and Norway? I agree that all articles should be well sourced, but this tagging seems to be some sort of tactic. If you two have a grudge please take it outside. Inge 13:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, there is no grudge whatsoever. Kindly avoid attempts to turn things personal. Like said, eastern Scandinavian activities are generally agreed to have emerged mainly from areas within borders of the present-day Sweden based on archaeological finds - basically all eastern artifacts that Varangians brought back home from their travels seem to have ended there. Individuals surely seem to have taken part in the trips from all Scandinavian communities. At that time Scandinavians lived in areas covering present-day southern and central Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, northern Germany, eastern England, coasts of Ireland, coasts of Scotland, Åland archipelago in Finland, Baltic coasts, Normandia in France and parts of Russia. As far as I see it, there is no need to emphasize present-day nation-states known as Norway and Denmark. --Drieakko 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to demonstrate using sources that Scandinavians living in Iceland, Normandy, or Shetland Islands could also be properly called "Varangians". Beit Or 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I will object to your statements that all eastern artifacts brought back by the Varangians have ended in Sweden. As with all archaelogical finds it is not straightforward to determine who put them there so we will have to look at the finds themselves. With regards to your coins I will have to point out that coins from the east were in common use in Norway during the Viking age. this link provides information on several kinds of Islamic coins found in Norway and states that about 700 such coins have been found so far. This link states that arabian along with german and anglo-saxon coins were the common currency in Norway before and long after the Norwegian kings started to mint their own. This more than suggests that people from Norway were heavily involved in eastern trade ie varangian activiaty. Inge 14:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Gotland alone has more than 100 000 eastern coins from Viking Era found there, which alone is much more than all other Scandinavian areas combined. Skåne has some 20 000, Uppland and Öland less than 10 000 coins found in each. The point here is that even though all Scandinavians took part in the Varangian trips, Varangians seem to have originated mainly from areas within present-day Sweden. --Drieakko 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And the text reflects that. Inge 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I continue being uncomfortable with the article listing present-day nation states as the source of Varangians. That does not reflect the situation one thousand years ago in a proper way. We could also then go saying that since Åland, today a part of Finland, surely was a source of many Varangians being an integral part of Svearike, then present-day Finland also was one of the sources of Varangians. That would again give a very incorrect impression. --Drieakko 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We have to take one step back here and think this through. We are writing in order to inform people on the Varangians. We may know and I believe it is common knowledge in general that the present Scandinavian states were very different in the Viking age. The politics, culture and demographics were different. But since the people of that time most likely distinguished among themselves groupings such as swedes, danes, norwegians and so forth and we have the descendants of those people in roughly what is today known as swedes, danes and norwegians. It is also known that kingdoms called Sweden, Norway and Denmark started to emerge during that time and even though the political system and state boundaries have changed we have today the sucessor states of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. When we know all this and may assume that it is common knowledge it is forgivable to in the very least in the name of convenience use the same terms without further explanation. If someone doesn't know this we are not to blame and such a person may find that information by clicking on the blue link to the respective countries. I believe it wouldn't be so bad if we just called them Norwegians, Danes and Swedes in stead of inhabitants of present day ... It is much worse if we because we are preoccupied with getting everything 100% authentic feel the need to define the words we use in every single context. History dealing with this time isn't an exact science. It is OK to use the word Norwegian both for a 10th century and a 21st century native or inhabitant of Norway. Your Finland example is good for proving your point, but using common sense in practice we both see why that won't be an issue.Inge 16:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to support Drieakko that modern states should go from the lead. Unless there is verifiable data proving that the Varangians issued from Sweden (why were they not called Swedes, then?), any nationalist-driven attempt to assign the Varangians to a modern state, at the expense of others, will be treated as original research and tendentious editing. It's like saying that Kievan Rus was a precursor state of Russia, rather than Ukraine and Belarus. Please be more tactful. Having finished my Greco-Scythian and chateauesque projects, I'm going to work full time on the Norse-Rus relations now. From what I have read, there is plenty of evidence connecting the Varangians with Norway and Denmark (Harald III and Rurik come to mind), but I'm not aware of any compelling evidence for their Swedish provenance, except the fact that much of the Norse trade was concentrated in this central land of the Norse world. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "area of present-day Sweden" and "Swedes" are two different things. Main purpose of Varangians was trade, and the money from the east remained mostly on the area today known as Sweden. And in there especially in Gotland which was in a favourable position to organize eastern activities independently from Viking Age kings. This is not a matter of Varangians being "Swedish" since the area today known as Sweden was not "Swedish" in the Viking Age. --Drieakko 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As a side note: there is no indisputable evidence of Rurik's place of birth. It is also not meaningful to use Viking Age upper class members to identify Varangian origins, since Scandinavian nobility of that time was largely related to each other regardless of their whereabouts. A "Danish" king could easily lead an army mostly of "Swedish" men. --Drieakko 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
None of my entries in this debate have been nationalist driven. If you think so please read them again and ask me to clarify the statements you have a problem with. None of us have tried to make the Varangians a precursor state of any kind. I made the point that (for example) using the term Norwegian for both the 10th century and 21st century inhabitants or natives of Norway is fairly uncontroversial. Using the terms Norwegians, Swedes and Danes does have the advantage of not connecting the people to a present day state. If you say present day Sweden/Norway/Denmark you are technically correct, but a casual reader will connect that with the present day state. As in even though the Varangians from Skåne most likely thought of themselves as Danes a reader will likely interpret present day Sweden as Swedes. But now that all mention of a more spesific origin has been removed the dispute is puy to rest, even though I think a reader would benefit from knowing the spesifics as well. Inge 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varangian Guard in Norse sagas

I'm concerned about the parenthetical bit of the following assertion:

Perhaps the most famous member of the Varangian Guard was the future king Harald Sigurdsson III of Norway, known as Harald Hardråde ("Hardreign", which means "ruthless").

I've recently made a study of Old English, a language closely related to Old Norse, and it seems to me that the name "Hardråde" should mean "stern council" or "hard council," not "hard reign" or "ruthless." The distinction between "hard council" and "hard reign" may seem to be splitting hairs (though the Harald Hardråde article backs me up), but I'm a bit more concerned about the "ruthless" interpretation. I'm afraid that may be going too far, from a language standpoint. I don't know if the word "ruthless" accurately describes the man or not, perhaps it does, but my concern is with the words themselves rather than with an interpretation of Harald's nature.

Now, I realize that, despite their close kinship, Old English is not Old Norse. That's why I wanted to solicit discussion here. It sounds wrong to me, but I'm not confident enough in my interpretation to be bold and just make the change. Can anyone else shed light on this for me? —CKA3KA (Skazka) 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Old Norse Hard-ráði as a man's name is a bahuvrihi meaning "having hard advice". What that implies, would have to be discussed. Perhaps "advised to do hard deeds" or "advising others to do hard deeds". Anthony Appleyard 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe "keeping a hard discipline". --Drieakko 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A literal meaning is better than something speculative, especially if the speculative is original research. Wikipedia:No_original_research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.255.7.177 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
If you just translate it "advice", you lose the second meaning "rule" and vice versa. Translation needs to reflect both, and there is no fully fitting English word. To just specifically mean "rule" Old Norse had another word [2]. That's why they usually leave it without translation. --Drieakko 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
And here is the [3] ráði etymology and meanings. --Drieakko 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hard-ráði's old Finnish translation "ankara" means someone who keeps hard discipline. Again, the Finnish word has no exact English translation either. --Drieakko 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Old Norse verb ráða and modern Scandinavian råda mean both "advise" and "rule", and it is the last meaning that fits a king best. It is my intuitive interpretation of Hårdråde that it means someone who rules with an iron fist.--Berig 22:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The English translation I am most familiar with is "Hard Ruler", and I believe I can provide citation for this if necessary. --Grimhelm 13:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The Russian translation used in academic sources is Суровый правитель, which means roughly the same. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Russian History

The Varangians (or Varyag) - NO relation to the Vikings - were invited in 862 to rule over the Rus'. After chasing away the Varangians, the Rus' fell to quarelling amongst themselves. At this time "they begged the Varangians to send someone to come rule over them". Three brothers, Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, came . Only Rurik ruled from Novgorod ("new city"), Sineus at Beloozero ("white lake") and Truvor at Izborsk. When, within a year, Sineus and Truvor died, Rurik consolidated his power at Novgorod. "And it was from this that the Rus' were born". Thence proceeded the Rurikid dynasty, which ruled until sometime in the 14th century.

With the moving of the capital to Kiev by Grand Prince Igor, trade commenced down the Dnieper River and along the Black Sea, leading to a trade treaty between the two in 905, which laid out provisioning, treatment and other aspects of trade. The treaty bade its signatories to swear "by God or Perun" to uphold the terms of the treaty. After campaigning by the Rus' in the modern day Balkans, the treaty was renewed in 945, largely a repeat of the prior treaty, but with some more favorable terms for the Rus'. With the arrival of the Princess Anna (renamed Olga after her marriage to Igor, came the first efforts to convert the Rus' to Christianity. Both her husband and older son (Sviatopolk?) resisted Olga attempts, but on the accession of Vladimir (the Saint), he converted and bade his subjects also to convert "or risk the Prince's displeasure". The various Grand Princes continued their campaigns against the steppe tribes (e.g. Derevlians, Pechenegs, etc.) with considerable success.

Novgorod and Pskov were notable for their early attempts at representative democracy - only landowners were permitted to vote, but all, including those from outlying townlands, were encouraged to participate. Also notable was the replacement of the system of wergeld (similar to the 'eye-for-an-eye system of law) for a more modern code. Chief among these was Iaroslav the Wise (reigned 1019-1054) and his sons. Rus' grew in size and influence though most of their trade remained with the Byzantines. In the late 11th century, the Russian Primary Chronicle, or the Tale of Bygone Years, as it is somtime called was begun. Some attribute full or patrial authorship to the monk Nestor, while others believe that was an amalgam of the many monks who labored to produce the Chronicle. The Chronicle went through three major contemporary redactions - the first by Sviatoslav the Accursed (for the murder of his brothers Boris and Gleb), then by Vladimir Monomakh (reigned 1113-1125)(named for his relation to the Byzantine Monomachus clan, in 1113, and finally sometime after Vladimir's death. Vladimir's redaction was given particular favor, owing to his great piety and generosity to the church.

Please note that the proper transliteration is 'tsar', not 'tzar'.

Though the above information is taken from the Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian Redaction, Samuel Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Medieval Academy of America), it is recalled from memory, as I do not have tge volume with me. There all, omissions, errors or other irregularities are mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiann Rua (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

"NO relation to the Vikings" needs some explanations from your side. "Viking" is a largely unhistorical Western word for Scandinavian looters and generally for all Scandinavian warriors during the same era that Varangians operated. Varangians are often called Vikings in publications. Also, "After chasing away the Varangians, the Rus' fell to quarelling amongst themselves" would indicate that Varangians and Rus' were originally different people, which was very unlikely the case. --Drieakko 05:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of "Varangian Guard in Norse sagas"

The new map presented in the section "Varangian Guard in Norse sagas" marks southwestern Finland as one of the main areas of Viking settlements. Kindly note that not a single Viking grave has been found from mainland Finland. Neither is there practically any evidence that Vikings would have even wasted their time trying to plunder Finland as there was not much to plunder compared to much more lucrative targets. --Drieakko 04:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is evidence of only one small Viking settlement in Newfoundland, so splating settlement color all over the area is nonsense. In Greenland, Norse people only lived on the west coast. There were no settlements on the east coast. I seriously doubt Vikings made any raids all the way east to Kola Peninsula and Novaya Zemlya, they just made a few plunders to Dvina delta in the White Sea. --Drieakko 15:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comment on Clarity

An observation from a non-expert ...

I see that there is a lot of debate in this discussion page on who precisely the Varangians were and were not. This debate seems to be traslating into a lack of clarity in the article that needs to be addressed. Parts of the article seem to loosely imply that "Viking" is another word for Varangian without explicitly stating this or clarifying. A similar relationship is implied without adequate clarification for the term "Rus". The article needs to be clearer about what these terms mean and, to the extent that there are debates about the origins of the peoples, elucidate the debates rather than watering down the descriptions. --Mcorazao 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/r/Talk%7EVarangians_249a.html"