Image talk:Vikings-Voyages.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sweden is marked as "Viking territory", which it never was. Sweden had an offensive appraoch against vikings, with te help of the ledung, an effective marine defence system against vikings, and except for an attack (by vikings from east?) on the capitol Sigtuna and during the union with Denmark and Norway, the swedish kingdom was never belonging to anything except sweden, and was never viking territory. It was during the viking age belonging to - sweden, and was a swedish territory. Never, ever, was it a viking territory. I hope this will be corrected soon. Dan Koehl 22:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, reliable sources and maps, please? Just ranting about it won't help. -Hmib 04:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure. I think its better with no map, rather than an incorrect one. This one is higly incorrect, it gives desinformation. There was, in fact no "viking territory" existing at all, just maybe Jomsborg for some time, and surely not in the swedish kingdom. Dan Koehl 23:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we need something to prove what you say. If you could find a reliable source about whether Sweden at the time was Viking or not, please share it with us here and I think whoever made the map would change it. -Hmib 04:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My Oxford Atlas of the Medieval World indicates the approximately the same territories as this map (including Sweden), but uses the label "the Norse world" rather than "Viking territories" — not an insignificant distinction. Perhaps that would be a less contentious label here. Otherwise, I'm a big fan of this map. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"The swedish kingdom" didn't exist by this time. And of course there were swedish vikings. The map's fairly correct from what I know. //Swedish Guest

Whether or not the Swedish kingdom existed at this time or not is POV. The oldest sources assert that it did, and modern historians have different opinions about how to define "Sweden", depending on their ideology.--Wiglaf 21:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is also strange, that the many archeological viking findings in southern parts of Finland are not drawn on the map. .--Prefixcaz 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly debateable what form any of the early Scandinavian kingdoms took, not to mention territorial limits. Sweden may not have been a unified kingdom but neither was Norway until Harald Finehair's reign, and even then scholars think his grip on the country's petty kings and hersir was tenuous at best. Certainly the map could be bettered labeled but it is not essentially inaccurate if you look at the colored areas not so much as being "Viking areas" but as areas from which Vikings departed on expeditions. After all, as it is, the map gives the impression that all Scandinavians were Vikings, which they most certainly were not. Viking was an occupation and an activity, not a people. Incidentally, my New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (1992) shows "Norse," "Swedes" and "Danes."--Hrafnkell Haraldsson 21:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Normans can't be considered Vikings. 2 Sweden was Swedish 3 Norwegian explorations are ill-represented 4 In response to Dan Koehl and others re Viking territory 5 Norway

[edit] Normans can't be considered Vikings.

In addition to the comments of Dan Koehl about Sweden and the correct usage of the term Viking, which is not synonim of "Medieval Scandinavian" but of "Scandinavian pirate", it's worth to mention that Normans, who are the ones represented by the routes going deep into the Mediterranean were not Vikings/Scandinavians anymore but they actually spoke French. I've seen maps +/- like this one before in history books but they are rather confusing. Even if we include Varangians (Swedes who adventured into Eastern Europe) as "Vikings", we can definitively not include the French-speaking Christian feudal warlords known as Normans as such. Therefore the lines that extend into the central and eastern Mediterranean, clearly the Norman expedition to Italy and their participation in the Crusades, along many other Europeans, shouldn't be in this map. --Sugaar 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"pirate" is a not an appropriate description. Piracy is defined as "Robbery committed at sea", and for their versatility Viking ships were not well-suited for sea battle and it hardly ever happened. "Sea raiders" would be a more appropriate term, mixed in with trade and towards the end of the period more permanent ambitions. Sea raids weren't unique for the Scandinavians or for the era, but they were characteristic. Indeed the lines into Central and Eastern Mediterranean are correct, but that is an implicit criticism of the map, as it doesn't separate between regular trade routes and the more unusual routes. But there is no way to classify the routes without being NPOV. Was the route into the White Sea an exploration or a trade route for instance? There is at least one celebrated case of a Christian raider going on a crusade to Jerusalem, enriching himself by raiding the locals en route, not too different from those Norman feudal warlords... jax-wp 05:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vikings were as much traders and explorers as they were raiders, I have no issue with this map but it could maybe be better named as the "Medieval Norse sphere of influence" or something like that. --Bjarki 17:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can take that of raider. But my main concern is that Normans can't be considered Scandinavians, even if they were by ancestry: they spoke French (and imposed it in England as official language), were mixed with French locals and were christianized. They were not anymore Scandinavians nor Vikings, nor even their period is what we usually call "the Viking Age". They never acted as Scandinavians but as Frenchmen. Even if you consider them linked they deserve to be separated (maybe with a different color, what could also be applied to Swedish Varangians and even to Norwegians, so we settle all differences with a single solution). --Sugaar 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, vikings traders? Please name 1 single historical sourse mentioning a viking as a trader? 1 single source?

Inventions like this, can never be intrepreted as sicentific history.

Dan Koehl 13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be to ignorant Koehl, if you look around you'll find the sources you ask for, here's a cute lil' read for you. http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/CITE/vikings_who.pdf -Knalb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.26.133 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden was Swedish

Regardless what you say, and how you interprete the word "viking" which so many wants to use, although the knowledge about the word is extremely low, Sweden was NEVER viking territory. It was a kingdom called Svithiod, translated to Sweden in english, and mentioned by Tacitus already 78 a.Kr. Long before the "viking age" the royal swedsih fleet was well known, also by roman historiacans. The MAIN funtion of this fleet was defence, of the coast and the country. The MAIN enemies were, belive it or not; Vikings. The fleet called ledung was used againts vikings, and on rune stones in Sweden are mentioned "this man, [name] was a famous viking guard." and likevise.

Only during the union with Norway nd Denmark, much later, was Sweden under a rule of another country/organisation/group, than its royal dynasty. To name sweden, during this time era "viking territory" is a childish way of interpreting history.

It is not me, who must show sources that Sweden belonged to Sweden bewteen 800 and 1066, but as you guess, this is rather simple, it is contrary the people who claim that the kingdom of Sweden was "viking territory" during this time, that must proove this with sources.

Something which is impossible, since Sweden was not ruled by wikings, and never was.

Please correct this error now. This in POV.

Dan Koehl 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian explorations are ill-represented

Additionally, Norwegian explorations to North America are poorly represented, I think, as the typical interpretation of Leifur's travels suggests that they touched land first at Baffin's Land. But guess this is just a limitation caused by the original satellite image. --Sugaar 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In response to Dan Koehl and others re Viking territory

It is correct that Sweden was not "ruled" by vikings, but neither was Denmark or Norway. The strongest king, at least in the late Viking Age, was the Danish one. Problem is, in modern English usage, vikings indicate people from Sweden (including Gotland), Denmark, Norway (including Iceland) during the Viking Age (circa 750-1060 AD [some say, 793-1066]), i.e. Scandinavians excluding Finns and Sami. A better word is Norsemen. These Norsemen spoke the same language, and had a strong feeling of cultural and ancestral kinship. They probably saw themselves as being firstly provincial (Scanians, Jutes, Helsings, etc.) and secondly Swedes (or Danes or Norwegians) and thirdly Norse. Being a Viking was a seasonal job, meaning that men left their homes around Scandinavia and raided or traded (which also could be against fellow Norsemen, hence the strong Swedish defence system of the ledung). Because of overpopulation and political turmoil in Scandinavia, entire families moved to the offshore areas their kinsmen had acquired (e.g. England, Finland, Latvia, Russia, Normandie, and Iceland).

It would stupid to say that there was no Swedish kingdom. We have proof there was one. The modern day debate is a bit silly, since it centers around that there was no Swedish state with powers over the entire Swedish domain. But it would be like saying that the Roman republic did not exist at 400 BC, just because they didn't rule the entire Italian mainland. The starting point for Sweden was a rather small area centered around Uppsala, but, as for Rome, the area of influence expanded over the centuries, engulfing other smaller kingdoms/chiefdoms. The debate is at what time the Göta kingdom (the other major kingdom on the south of the Scandinavian peninsula) was swallowed and digested. Beowulf places the "swallowing" at around 500 AD. The digestion may have taken longer time, and since the Viking Age states were not that strong, compared to the provinces (which all retained their own [but very similar] codes of laws, well into the 14th century) it was probably a slow process. On the other hand, assimilation was not needed, since the smaller old kingdoms was semi-independent as provinces, which was the major basis of identification. For example had Skåne (a large part of Denmark) its own kings at the beginning of the Viking Age. But this king, probably visely, accepted the Danish one as his overlord. It was probably the same between the Göta king/lord/earl and the Swedish king.

To build stronger states, the kings pushed for Christendom. Sweden became Christian somewhat slower than Norway and Denmark, which could be due to 1. a weaker state system, but also 2. the fact that Uppsala was the religious heathen centre for the entire Norse world.

In conclusion, the map is OK, since it shows us where the Vikings (in the popular, modern sense of the word) voyaged, and where they came from, and where they settled.

--Wahlin 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The text "territories of the vikings is wrong", since mots of the green colored areas were not at all controlled by vikings. Sweden, as one example, was never controlled by vikings.

The whole thing is childish misunderstandings of the term viking.

Lets turn it the other way around. I can back up with x sources that sweden belonged to sweden htroughout the viking age. As well as good sources about our effective defence against vikings.

Please mention 1 source claiming that sweden was invaded, or controlled by, vikings during this period????????? Dan Koehl 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, the point of this is to discuss theories, not hammer them. Please provide more sources to prove your point, or stop calling other 'childish' (because this is how it sounds) From the little I know on the subject, I think Wahlin's version is very good. - a little informed norseman

Sweden was never a viking territory. It was one of the countries with the most efficient defence against vikings. This is POV. Dan Koehl 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree that *any Vikings at all* came from what is now Sweden? The traditional literature in e.g. Denmark states that the vikings in what is now Russia / Ukraine predominantly came from Sweden, while the travellers to the British Isles and Normandy predominantly came from Norway and Denmark. Vikings visited Novgorod, Kiev and Constantinople, this has been proved beyond any doubt. In that case, where did these people come from if not the region closest to this area? Were they Danes or Norwegians? Bear in mind that the word "territory" has more than one meaning in English; it can both mean a "country" in the modern sense of the word, but it can also mean simply an area where these people lived (among people with other crafts / trades). A similar map of "carpenters in the world" would colour pretty much the whole planet. Trying to prove that no vikings at all existed in Sweden seems pretty far-fetched to me. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Valentin, which viking visited Novgrord? can you mention which historical written source you are refering to, since this might be a unique document?

Dan Koehl 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at this discussion and it seems to me that it stems mostly from the difference in meaning when anglophones use the word viking from when Scandinavians use the word. Scandinavians know that the vikings were some warriers who some of the time whent raiding on the coasts of Europe. The English meaning of the word is much wider and can cover all inhabitants of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and even the Northern Isles of Scotland, Normandy, and so on. Norway also had a Leidang to protect against viking raids and invasions from other countries and laws against going in viking against ones own country, but many Norwegians still whent to other countries and some even raided at home. My (limited)knowledge of Swedish viking history leads me to belive that was the case in Sweden as well. But my point is that any territory or activity connected to Scandinavia during the Viking age (ca between 793 and 1066 AD ) might be labelled viking by British/US people. Inge 13:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The English word does have a wider meaning than the corresponding Scandinavian equivalents. The bavnehøje of Denmark were part of a defensive system as well, and it would only be logical if the Svear and Götar took similar or other measures against attackers (vikings, Baltic raiders etc.) Having both an offensive and defensive capability is normal for both modern and ancient nations, and so such a system could easily have coexisted with raids from the same areas. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Inge's comment. The English work Viking (in its widest sense) includes not only the raiders from Scandinavian countries, but only the entirety of the Scandinavian kingdoms (including Norway, Denmark and Sweden), and also the various traders associated with these kingdoms. (See the last paragraph of Viking.) It appears that the Swedes in this thread use the term to refer solely to the Norse raiders who attacked Western Europe. However, I (as British) would also use the term "Viking" to refer to the Swedish traders in what is now Russia. It seems that the problem is not one of POV, but rather of translation. I am therefore going to remove the POV tag from this image. Bluap 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people use terms in wrong ways. Its questionable if Wikpedia should support this? Dan Koehl 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From this logical (??) point of view, I must ask, why should then sweden be marked as viking territory, while it had a documented organized fleet defence against vikings, while england is not marked as viking territory, although it is documented that it was invaded by what you refer to as vikings?

Logical?

Dan Koehl 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, replace the word "viking" with "Norsemen", and you will perhaps understand. English speaking people use "viking" for what we call "norsemen" or "vikingatida skandinaver". You repeat that the norsemen (called "vikings" by english speaking people) had defenses against pirates/raiders (called "vikings" by you), and it may be correct. But the way you put it, it sounds silly. Instead of insisting that Sweden never were ruled by vikings (which it was, if you by "vikings" mean "norsemen"), perhaps you should be trying to get the erronous word "viking" changed, or write something to clarify the issue? Here are some links you might want to read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/overview_vikings_01.shtml and http://www.usask.ca/education/ideas/tplan/sslp/vikings.htm 216.111.97.126 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norway

If the green colour is the homeland of the Vikings, then the map is incorrect wrt Norway. The Norse (Vikings) lived in the valleys inland north of Oslo (but not in the mountains), all along Trondheimsfjord - both the valleys south, east and north from the fjord, and they lived further north along the coast, even north to todays Tromsø; see Ottar from Hålogaland and Tore Hund which lived at Bjarkøy north of Harstad. Orcaborealis 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they lived in inner Nordfjord, Sognefjord and Hardangerfjord as well. Now the map only shows the outer parts of these fjords. Inge 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)