Talk:Vikings and the Old Norse

Structure of the article
Scandinavian history has been going on for thousands of years, but the Viking Age (AD 700-1050) draws most attention from travellers. How should we present the article's content? And how should we continue? We could have a Nordic Kingdoms article which presents Nordic history from Christianization (and the first stone buildings) until modern times, with Danish-Swedish rivalry as a main theme. /Yvwv (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Destination Viking Association
Should this link be included? http://www.destinationviking.com/ /Yvwv (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing sections
At Destination of the month I suggested some information was missing from the article. I think new sections could cover
 * The raids: what were they like, what areas were affected, why was northern Europe vulnerable (connections to general European history), ...
 * The British isles: Norse role in the local kingdoms; what were the Norse doing in Dublin and York; the Danelaw, ...
 * The Normands: background, role in Britain
 * Important role in the foundation of France: what role? (if through the Normands, then perhaps combined with above)
 * America: what in earth were the Norse doing over there? about Iceland (perhaps mainly a link to Iceland#History); links to L'Anse aux Meadows etc.
 * River routes, Black Sea and beyond
 * Influence in Russia (Novgorod etc.)
 * The Varangian Guard and other roles in the Mediterranean, Morocco (here I know too little to suggest whether this should be one section or many, or perhaps dealt with elsewhere)

--LPfi (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is already a lot of information on Wikipedia about that. But even there - with all those qualified editors engaged - it's a mumbo-jumbo in some cases and occassionally poorly referenced with some skewed and even false information in between. In light of that, I am not sure a project of covering and summarizing the same subjects here on Wikivoyage is doable. In fact I am quite sure engageing in it would add little more than noise and clutter without much help to travellers. RhinoMind (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You might be right in that we shouldn't be too ambiguous ambitious, but I think we should do more than hint at the things mentioned above. --LPfi (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe you meant to write "ambitious"? Anyway, I think we could perhaps select a "suggested reading" list? In this way we do not overload the more casual reader/traveller with info he can't use anyway and we present the interested reader/traveller with reviewed opportunities to go further and study more in depth on their own. What do you say? If you think it would be a good idea, I could perhaps help sort out some titles or at least provide some inspiration? RhinoMind (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If there are good, comprehensive, easily available works, we could have such a section (I think policy allows it under strict conditions, should be checked), but I still think we should tell something more about the Duchy of Normandy, the Kingdom of Dublin, Scandinavian York, the Danelaw and Novgorod and the Kievan Rus' than "[The Norse] settled e.g. in the British Isles and Normandy. The Norse came to play important roles in the foundation of great nations such as the Russian Empire, France and England", also to those reading just this page.


 * We want to get this topic guide to "effectively cover most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions". We may cover them quite shortly, but there is certainly material for short sections like those outlined above. Where there is uncertainty we can tell about the myths and note that modern research have not been able to confirm them, or that there are different interpretations. We want to activate the imagination of the readers, and them to be able to relate to the Viking settlements when visiting places like Dublin, York or Novgorod.


 * --LPfi (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, just go ahead with it. I would just suggest to keep the additions short. It could quickly grow out of proportion. RhinoMind (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should keep it reasonably short. I do not think I am going to do it any time soon (this was brought up because of the suggestion to feature the article on the main page), and I am no expert on the subject, so if anybody feels like, just do it. --LPfi (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Remember TTCF: Historical travel articles should mainly put destinations into context, and answer frequently asked questions. /Yvwv (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Norman invasion of England?
An entry on the Battle Abbey was deleted because the "very tenuous link with Vikings". Is the Norman invasion of England part of Viking and Old Norse history? If not, when did Normans cease to be Norse? /Yvwv (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that ships and weapons were largely the same as used before AD 1000, the invasion was made in the context of conflicts between people with strong connections to the Viking world, and the Bayeux tapestry is used in many books about Vikings. I think the connection is quite relevant, perhaps even because of the connection to later times. (A more exact link to the deletion would be Special:Diff/3117144). This of course partly depends on what story is in fact told at the site. --LPfi (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Started a destination section for the Normans. As long as there is no historical article for medieval France or similar, there is no suitable historical article for them. /Yvwv (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Including the Normans (that invaded England in 1066) as some kind of Vikings is a long stretch. But the history is connected, and 1066 is regarded as the end of the Viking age, perhaps because Harald Hardrada lost the battle at Stamford bridge only 2 weeks before the battle of Hastings.--Erik den yngre (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Christianization
"The Norse people are generally understood to have been the last Europeans to be Christianised." - The Baltic countries were perhaps christianised later? --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And the Sámi even later. Regardless, I don't see a problem with the sentence as is, since if something is "generally understood", most people think of that way, whether or not that is true. And both the Baltics and the Sámi are far less populous and/or prominent in history. Vidimian (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

European Cultural Routess
I found this, which could be checked for possibly interesting information: European Cultural Routes: Viking Routes. The real info seems to be behind Destination Viking --LPfi (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Northern Canada
PDF article about Viking artefacts found on Ellesmere Island Pashley (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bridge in Albertslund
Any official material about the bridge in Albertslund? /Yvwv (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC) 


 * Here: Vikingebro RhinoMind (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting project, but not sure its worth including in a travel guide. RhinoMind (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Female viking warriors
New evidence shows that there were women warriors: https://www.nrk.no/viten/xl/skjoldmoya-fra-birka-1.13706472 https://www.nrk.no/kultur/tror-denne-hodeskallen-tilhorte-en-kvinnelig-vikingkriger-1.14494742 The Oseberg grave contained 2 women: https://forskning.no/kjonn-og-samfunn-historie-arkeologi/mektige-vikingkvinner/795984 --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Amount of locations
Is it normal for there to be so many marked places in the locations section?Animalia555 (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Historical travel topics tend to fall off the curve of normalcy in Wikivoyage; check out Roman Empire and Aviation history, for instance. Ibaman (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering my question.Animalia555 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Myklebust viking ship
Does "Myklebust viking ship" also need a map link?Animalia555 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Order of countries
The current order of countries in the listing section Vikings is:
 * Sweden
 * Iceland
 * Norway
 * Denmark
 * Germany
 * Greenland
 * Canada
 * Latvia
 * United Kingdom
 * Ireland

I see little logic in this. I understand that we want to keep Scandinavia together at the top, but why Iceland comes before Denmark is beyond me. What about:
 * Denmark
 * Norway
 * Sweden
 * Iceland
 * Finland (if we get any listing)
 * Germany
 * Latvia
 * United Kingdom
 * Ireland
 * Greenland
 * Canada

This would keep the Nordic countries except Greenland together at the top (with the Scandinavian ones in alphabetic order), with some quasi-chronological order. If we want to keep also Greenland at the top, we probably have to put both Greenland and Canada before Germany, as those two are connected.

–LPfi (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm also confused. Why is Iceland before Denmark. I support this proposal although I would prefer Greenland and Canada to go before Germany. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Viking Age
Yvwv wrote in :
 * &lt;!-- This article is not specicically about the Vikings, but intended to describe human remnants in Scandinavia from the Ice Age up to AD 1000. -->

I wonder whether that is wise. In Finland we have quite a lot of findings from the Stone Age and Bronze Age, and I suppose there are no less such findings in Scandinavia. Do we want to include those? We should then probably have several general history museums (as that's where you find the prehistory), hill forts, burial fields etc. In Turku, the Kurala kylämäki has a workshop on experimental archaeology, which would be interesting (if we restrict ourselves to Scandinavia, we'd need to find something similar there). This would stray far from the Viking theme.

–LPfi (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Finno-Ugric settlements from before AD 1000 could be included in this article. While they have a non-Scandinavian language and ancestry, they are certainly part of Nordic prehistory. These articles could also go in prehistoric Europe. /Yvwv (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

1021 in Newfoundland
carbon dating at L'Anse aux Meadows Pashley (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Norwegian NRK news and research news at Forskning.no about the 1021 dating. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Parallels with Greco-Roman polytheism
I reverted the statement that
 * "[Knowledge gaps have to a large extent been filled by European scholars' knowledge of Greco-Roman polytheism], which have many parallels with Norse mythology due to their shared Indo-European heritage."

My understanding is that the former is a older belief, challenged in the last decades. Scholars in the days of yore described the Norse in the context of their knowledge of Greco-Roman polytheism, and therefore tended to fill knowledge gaps with what they knew about the Greco-Roman polytheism. Later scholars saw the parallels and took it as evidence for de facto similarities. This became a deceptive circle argument (as explained in the later sentences).

It is a quite radical statement that similarities would have their origins in the culture of nomadic herders of 5,000 years before the Vikings. It is also not unreasonable to think that the traditions of the local people from before the arrival of the Indo-European could have influenced the mythology of the to be Greek, Roman and Norse peoples. As such, we'd need evidence that filling the gaps with knowledge about one group wouldn't in fact corrupt our understanding of another.

–LPfi (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia page on Proto-Indo-European mythology, and many experts think that the Norse, Greek and Roman mythologies all share a common origin with Hinduism. Of course, the different Indo-European mythologies diverged as they spread out across Europe and Asia, and many false equivalencies can be drawn as a result, but I won't be surprised if some stories in Norse mythology actually share a common origin with parallel stories in Greek and Roman mythology. The dog2 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of them might – who am I to contest that – but whether enough remained for filling knowledge gaps, and is enough well-understood for correct gap filling being realistic today (or in the past), is not evident. I'd rather not say anything about this in the article, unless there are well-established findings. –LPfi (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Swords in Rock.jpg


 * No commercial FoP in Norway for non-architecture if an artwork is the main subject. Do we want this? SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 03:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not seeing this. I uploaded it locally because it's shown at Stavanger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for locally uploading it :-) SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 00:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Categorization of sites?
The list of sites is compiled from many destination, and they have mostly been standardized as "listings". Should we take use of categories such as See and Do? And how would we make a difference between them? /Yvwv (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we can keep them uncategorised. When visiting a city, you might want to Do something or See something, and then the difference makes sense. This list is mostly for deciding on going somewhere, and then whether a place is See or Do is not crucial; the relevant nuances cannot be conveyed by colours. –LPfi (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Split: Nordic prehistory and Viking Age?
Wikivoyage's historical travel topics expand, and this page is no exception. Since it featured in 2019, a lot has been added. The Viking Age covers a large land area, and tends to be a highly requested theme by visitors to northern Europe. The archaeological sites from 10,000 BC to the 8th century AD are less famous outside Scandinavia, but numerous and interesting in their own right; as we might see in the Goths article. Is it about time to split this article? /Yvwv (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the material on the time before the Viking Age is overwhelming in this article, and some of it is needed to put the Vikings in a context. I'd say: expand here until those sections become too big. –LPfi (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with LPfi. There are few sights to visit, only some physical sights, burial mounds for instance, are partly viking age, partly earlier. So the distinction between these periods may not be that clear. Erik den yngre (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

New petroglyphs found in Sweden
/Yvwv (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In an area where petroglyphs are common; these are estimated (?) to be 3,000 years old. We should wait until we know whether they are remarkable. We don't say anything about petroglyphs in this article (do we?), and if we are to, we should probably start with well-researched ones. –LPfi (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah! We have the Alta and Tanum ones. The area south of Enköping (Enköping?) is said to be particularly rich in petroglyphs, but we say nothing about it. There are also a few remarkable sites in Finland, but I don't think they are in scope (the Alta ones might also not be, I assume they weren't made by Germanic people). –LPfi (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We could replace "Old Norse prehistory" with "Nordic prehistory" to include those sites. –LPfi (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)