This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Not a bad start user:vikings but this article is far too POV at the moment.Unfortunately you need to temper you passion a little and try to stick to cold hard facts. Everything you state should be backed up by evidence, and you should write your article as if you were writing about people whome you neither particuly like or dislike. Hope this helps Theresa knott 14:55 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
thank you, Theresa, we are learning - we are happy to see that much more survived editorship than the last time we tried Vikings 16:31 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what a major part of this article tries to say. Stuff that is truley "subjective" belongs on the discussion side, so I past it in below. // Rogper 22:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the year 1005 they sailed to America. They were never much interested in becoming the ruling force. The structure was patriarcatic, but they had a high respect of women and idolize or honoured the elderly. Many females had high positions and were very influential ( Freydis - see Norse Saga). They were interested in good education.
On a Norse ship (" viking ship"), there was one captain (chief), elected from the crew: the strongest, smartest, wisest, once wildest, with lots of experience, lots of friends and political supporters, with fame on many oceans and shores, with all authority. In moments of danger and in battle he made the decisions and strategy, all crew followed without any questioning. In times of peace they stood in the back. All younger warriors were allowed to challenge and question the chief in the time between wars. All trusted him and he backed all to the outside.
If the majority of the crew asks him to step down he does so and falls back to the role as advisor and teacher.
Many companies of modern Norse countries are operated in the same way as the wooden ships, and some world-leading businesses evolved ( Nokia, IKEA, Ericsson, Maersk) - again influencing, navigating, moving, communicating and educating on global scales.
For more information see viking.
In keeping with the naming conventions for articles, I'd like to propose through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process that this article be moved to "Norseman" and that it be converted to a redirect. The relevant Wikipedia Policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Thanks for considering this for discussion. I'll not nominate for moving until some time/input has passed here. Courtland 11:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Can we change the name of the article? 100110100 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
it has to be added in the article that norse isnt an ethnicity... norse are north germanic peoples... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.204.171.167 (
talk) 01:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
is there any source for Vikings has been a common term for norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland.
What I refer to specifically is Vikings has been a common term for norsemen.
I belive there is not one single source, in the early medieval period, using the term viking as a common term for norse, so this statement should be removed.
Dan Koehl 03:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree with you.
Even if its popular to call all nortern people during vikinga age vikings, today by common people, its wrong.
If Wikipedia would state in articles populair beliefs, rather than prooven facts, it would not be a quality encyclopedia.
Here below I show several sources that does not support this "populair" view.
It seems like the english speaking encyclopedias in early 1900 were well defined on the word viking:
Viking \Vi"king\, n. [Icel. v[imac]kingr, fr. v[imac]k a bay, inlet.] One belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen, who plundered the coasts of Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. [1913 Webster]
further on:
Note: Viking differs in meaning from sea king, with which it is frequently confounded. "The sea king was a man connected with a royal race, either of the small kings of the country, or of the Haarfager family, and who, by right, received the title of king as soon he took the command of men, although only of a single ship's crew, and without having any land or kingdom . . . Vikings were merely pirates, alternately peasants and pirates, deriving the name of viking from the vicks, wicks, or inlets, on the coast in which they harbored with their long ships or rowing galleys." --Laing. [1913 Webster]
Viking A pirate. So called from the vik or creek in which he lurked. The word is wholly unconnected with the word "king." There were sea-kings, sometimes, but erroneously, called "vikings," connected with royal blood, and having small dominions on the coast. These sea-kings were often vikingr or vikings, but the reverse is not true that every viking or pirate was a sea-king. (Icelandic vikingr, a pirate.).
Any of the Scandinavian people who raided the coasts of Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries.
Contemporary chroniclers called the raiders by many names, including heathens and pagans, as well as Northmen and Danes, but one of the names used to refer to them by the English was `Viking', and this is now used to describe not only the raiders, but also the period during which they carried out their attacks. These centuries, from the ninth to the eleventh, have become known, therefore, as the Viking Age. [...] In the icelandic sagas, víkingr came to be used as a noun to refer to a warrior, or pirate, víking was used to refer to an expedition. The majority of Scandinavians, therefore, were not Vikings; only those who went a-viking could really qualify for the description.
I therefore ask for written sources that viking was used as a term for norsemen in the history
Im pretty sure this is a misunderstanding, and todays habits are only some 20-30 years.
Dan Koehl 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Slavs and the Byzantines also called them Varangians (ON: Væringjar, meaning sworn men or from Slavic варяги supposedly deriving from the root "вар" - "profit" as coming from North they would profit by trading goods and not producing them, which had a negative connotation in Slavic culture of that time)..." I believe what is meant is that the failure to produce goods had a negative connotation. However, the wording also leaves open the conclusion that it was the production of goods that was deprecated. Could someone tell me what was intended here? -- AlanUS ( talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago I was asked to look this article over and I have now combed through it and made numerous edits. A few comments:
After this, the material in the body needs a closer looking at. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Containing copyright violations?
This was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 September 18. While I am also having difficulty with the date of the tagged source, Diwas points out that the section beginning "The tension between increasingly centralized groups and independent warrior societies may have furnished part of the impetus behind the Viking raids and the Scandinavian migrations to other parts of Europe that began in the late eighth century, as warriors sought to expand their territorial holdings and were unable to do so in neighboring lands. " is copied from the Encyclopedia of European Peoples, beginning on page 831. I can see this, in Google book, and it clearly predates the placement of the text here by several years. It would probably be safe to revert to the edit prior to the influx of this content, but content placed by this user seems rightly suspect, given that some of it is blatantly pasted. Since the article was not blanked, previously, I am extending the listing at the WP:CP board. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Somehow somebody managed to destroy all edit history between April and October. I cannot be bothered to do detective work on what exactly went wrong or who is to blame, but clearly the cause was some merge attempt gone disastrously wrong. Behind the merge attempt there seems to be a " Scandinavians" article which treated "Scandinavians" as a contemporary "ethnic group". Then somebody had the glorious idea to merge this already misguided article with the article on medieval Scandinavians to create an even more broken page. Seeing as there are perfectly valid articles on Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, there is clearly no reason to write an article about ("Danes+Norwegians+Swedes"), even if these are summarized as "Scandinavians". The article about the modern concept of Scandinavia is, of course, to be found at Scandinavia. This page here is about medieval history during the 8th to 10th century. It is spectacularly misguided to water down an article about a medieval topic with modern demographics. -- dab (𒁳) 08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Norse settlements in Sicily and in the south of Italy, who says that ? It is a joke ? There were some Norman adventurers and knights banished from Normandy that went there to make money and get power. They founded there principalities, became lord or king, but the Normans are not Norsemen and the Norman presence in Italy is not a settlement. Nortmannus ( talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a table called "Distribution" in the article. According to that table there are 8,260,987 "Norsemen" in Sweden. In what way are they defined. There is no source for this. What is the definition? Citizenship? "Ethnic origin" is not registred in Sweden and many people have multiple origins. So it must be imposible to count such an exact figure. -- Muniswede ( talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the citation needed, urgently so as it is nowadays often thought to be a later invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.15.58 ( talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find any mention of the fact that the Norwegian word for Norwegian (people) is "Nordmenn" (pl) ie, "Northmen". With all the other talk of who calls who what, it seems relevant enough. - Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:80AA:82BA:3829:E152 ( talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This map shows the very little knowledge of the WP map makers. The Normans are not Norsemen, they are a mixture of Gallo-Franks and Anglo-Scandinavians. In 1066 William the Conqueror set foot in England and during the 11th century Norman Barons set foot in the south of Italy and in Sicily, see Norman conquest of southern Italy, not the Norsemen, that is wrong ! Nortmannus ( talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Vikings#How should these articles be organized? to share your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
>> Posted on both the "Norsemen" and "Vikings" Talk pages: As an increasingly steady contributor to Viking / Norse articles on Wikipedia, I've been intrigued to read the Talk pages for some of the more critical articles. As time passes, I'm convinced of the need for reorganisation across a number of these.
Starting with the Norsemen / Viking 'divide', for example, I'm aware there has been discussion recently as to the merits of merging these two articles. Some consensus apparently arose against a merger, for the moment at least, BUT since then nothing (or next to nothing) has been done to reorganise the articles in the manner which reflects that particular consensus. The 'Vikings' article, focusing on the raiding / piratical aspect of the word - distinct from the modern, generalised ethnic marker in English language texts - still retains much that would be better placed in a "Norsemen" / "Norse" article, not least the socio-economic descriptions of late 1st millennium Scandinavian society and economy. Such reorganisation would be the logical outcome of that consensus. Rather, it seems that the central argument to date has been over the semantics of the 'Viking / Norse divide', but with little or no responsibility then taken for rearranging the content. I would, moreover, consider it imperative - in the interests of clarity - to make more explicit the links between the two articles in their opening paragraph(s) and / or disambiguation links. A general reader, or researching student, looking up "Vikings" for example, needs to have it made clear that the Wikipedia article with that title will focus on the raider / piratical aspect of Norse culture, with the general article on the ethnic group from which the Vikings originated, the 'Northmen' / 'Norse', possessing its own much wider, more generalised article. I think the creation of a specialised "Viking" / "Northmen" / "Norse" template might assist with this potentially confusing overlap. The casual, beginning reader for example, might find it rather perplexing that we can have "Norse mythology", but also a specific article on "Viking art" - the links and boundaries between these established terms in scholarship are clear for those in the know, but could be rather confusing for the uninitiated.
Most worryingly, we seem to have a series of articles that duplicate the same material and / or present similar ideas in multiple sections. I'm already on record for questioning the organisation of the Viking Age article, for example.
I'm interested to hear what others think on this matter... This is a call for further discussion on these matters, rather than an attempt to provide solid answers. Anyone? Paul James Cowie ( talk) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in [..] Iceland [..]". When I saw at Leif Erikson: "was a Norse[8] explorer" (note, "Norse" linked to "Norsemen"), I changed to "was an Icelandic[8] explorer (while his father was Norse)".
I note that the list of countries in the quote from this article doesn't include Norway (as probably the origin). When I read Norse I first thought it's a person from Norway. Is it appropriate to link Norse to Norsemen? At least I, read this "wrong".. Only when you hover over the link or actually press it do you see Norsemen, and while I did, I thought it meant men from Norway..
Maybe Norsemen (or Norse) is used to avoid having to say an "an Icelandic explorer" or "an Norwegian explorer" as both could get contested.
Note at Icelander I see: "2nd row: [..] Erik the Red", he seems clearly not born in Iceland (born in Norway), while his son Leif is.
Before I change possible errors at Bjarni Herjólfsson and Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir, can anyone advise? comp.arch ( talk) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding In the early medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for Norsemen, as far as I have read, In the entire medieval period, Vikings was never a common term for Norsemen. Dan Koehl ( talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
But a lot of prime sources indicates that Vikings was a common term for pirates. The word pirate was never used in oldenglish, and when pirates were mentioned in latin sources, it was translated to vikings in oldenglish. Dan Koehl ( talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lesser known figure in Norse religion known as Leo (symbol: Norse lion), he is often depicted wearing this insignia on the right bicep of his Kaftan, a silver winged helmet and pointed black leather shoes. He is known to have coined the term Islamian, but maintains the belief in Free will.
His weapons are a mace decorated in the Fibonacci number and a pointed shield decorated with three interlocking horns.
He is an ally of Heimdall (the horn bearer) and was impressed by Loki (the hound like one).-- LeoElf-jsjydyk ( talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC) <--- sock of Mughal Lohar/ Jinnhoppan; see also [ [6]
I think perhaps that that the wording "even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages" should be rephrased. Norway, Denmark and Sweden were certainly different states, but it is debatable if the people living there were "different sets of people" by the middle ages, well before the idea of nation states had emerged and at a time when regional identities were probably more important. In any case, "Norway" is not a people (Norwegians are). -- Dijhndis ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The sentence:
is really capturing, and proving this article is not written by people who read the prime sources. Please read what he really writes, and change the text! Dan Koehl ( talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you do it yourself, if you are familiar with the source? Dimadick ( talk) 15:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Norsemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. The editor who requested the move has withdrawn the request. The move request also is no longer applicable as the target link has been developed into its own article. ( non-admin closure) Hrodvarsson ( talk) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Norsemen → North Germanic peoples – Requesting move as per WP:PRECISION. The current title is just one of the many names used for these people in the Viking Age. The article also covers the periods before and after the Viking Age, so the current title is therefore too narrow for the article's scope. Krakkos ( talk) 10:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I have undone your bold rewrite. I personally think that there must be an article on Norsemen. But I am open to suggestions and would like to hear your reasoning for your North Germanic peoples version. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The map that's used in the article displays Norse settlements in Estonia. I'm not aware of any Norse settlements in Estonia during the Viking Era. Does anyone have sources for that? Blomsterhagens ( talk) 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is probable that there were Germanic settlements in Estonia since the Bronze Age. [10] This is attested by the large number of large number of Germanic loanwords in Finnic, in particular words related to agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy, seafaring and government. [11] Germanic influence was especially strong at Saaremaa. [12] The Norse presence on Saaemaa is attested by the Salme ships, as Thomas.W has already pointed out. In regards to Estonia there is no need to change the map. Krakkos ( talk) 20:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"Northern and Western Estonia were definitely part of the Scandinavian cultural space during the period under review (i.e. 450-1050AD)". A quote from Andres Tilvaur, archaeologist at Tartu University ( link). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I suspect an RfC on the subject will be needed to resolve this at this point. Other uninvolved editors can form a consensus on exactly how the subject of vikings and Estonia should be treated. As this issue obviously affects a number of articles and files, I suggest holding the RfC on a central noticeboard. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I try to summarise evidence presented on this talk page for Scandinavian settlement in Northern (10th century) and Western Estonia (8th century):
My conclusion: current map is wrong about Estonian territory. At best only Nuckö peninsula and Enby village can be counted as Scandinavian settlement area. -- Minnekon ( talk) 11:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the Swedish archaeologist Gunilla Larsson at Uppsala University, Iron Age Scandinavians did not simply trade and raid in Estonia, but settled there as well. Ship burials in Estonia are not local emulations of Scandinavian tradition, but are remnants of Scandinavian settlers: "The traces of Swedish seafaring in Estonia consist of rivets in settlement layers and burials with rivets that may come from Scandinavian boats or local boats built within a Scandinavian tradition. One such site is Viltina... [The Viltina rivets] belong to ships of the Svear according to my analysis. Actual boat burials have been found in Proosa near Tallinn (Deemant 1975, 1976, 1977) and in Rebala (Bill 1994:60). At both sites the boats have had rivets of the type used among the Svear, with square shafts. At Proosa, which has also revealed other rich Scandinavian burials from the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the rivets found are either in an undated context, or in a context from the 1 1th or 12th century. The boat burials are evidence that the visits by Scandinavians were not just for raids or for conducting trade. Instead some Scandinavians settled here and buried their dead according to the tradition and customs from home, in boat burials." [31] Krakkos ( talk) 18:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Great! Seems we have a consensus on 11th century mainland North Estonia on the map :) The islands and the rest of the timeline are still an open topic then. Blomsterhagens ( talk) 21:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tom. There was certainly a consensus in the 80s and earlier that there was Norse settlement on Ösel. If this had been refused, there would some mention of a change of scholarly opinion on the matter. Just because every later source does not explicitly mention Ösel does not mean that they disagree with the notion. Ermenrich ( talk) 13:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Rather than modifying the map based upon a myriad of contradicting sources, it would be better to base it upon a reliable source which covers Norse settlements in general. This map is a good candidate. It is part of an article written by Bergljot Solberg, Professor of Medieval Archeology at the University of Bergen, and supervised by Bjørn Bandlien, Professor of Medieval History at the University of South-Eastern Norway. The map is from the most recent addition of the Store norske leksikon (2006-2007), and is published by Kunnskapsforlaget with support from Fritt Ord. Krakkos ( talk) 08:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, short summary: Question: "Was there Norse habitat on the island of Ösel during the viking era?" Some editors like me and several others claim there are no sources for this. Some editors claim there was Norse habitat on the island of Ösel. The question is about updating the map in question (linked above and in the article), which currently claims there was Norse habitat, but does not include sources. The connected talk page with opinions is here. There is also a talk discussion thread on this talk page above. This is connected to the wider topic of "Who were the Oeselians?", who were also called "Vikings from Estonia". The main options have been either "we don't know" or "Estonians". But this is not the current question. The current question is - is there credible proof for Norse population on the island of Ösel in the viking era? If not, the color of Ösel should be changed on the map. Blomsterhagens ( talk) 17:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This merge proposal was rejected by Johnbod. That's OK, I accept the rejection. May I just ask, though, what people(s) the rejected merge articles are referring to? Am I understanding it correctly that the sources deal with "Vikings" as WP:COMMONNAME for an ethnic group of which these childhood, trade, and coinage articles are about? Just trying to understand the WP:CONSENSUS of intepretation of available sources on the matter. Sorry for the inconvience if this is somehow against any rules to ask. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) B dash ( talk) 13:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Norsemen →
Norse people – Perhaps preferable synonym per
WP:PRECISION, as non-gender specified in accordance with scope? This would be per consistency with all interwikilinks, some of which seems also to have chosen the non-gender specific synonym despite equivalent choices in other languages.
PPEMES (
talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
What is this? There's no citation for this (what seems to me) rather odd claim. Anyone have anything to back it up? Clown Tiddies ( talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I've redone a cleanup of original research of this page. I made a similar attempt last year, but this was reverted by Frayae, [32] a sock of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Krakkos ( talk) 11:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have examined a large number of sources on the Vikings and the Viking Age, and there appears to be little evidence of Norsemen being the common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of the Viking Age. Here are some examples:
In fact, it seems like scholars generally use the term Norsemen only for Viking Age Norwegians:
Given the ambiguous nature of the term Norsemen and its rare usage among scholars for the topic of this article, its usage as a title for this article is unfortunate. Krakkos ( talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that the section:
is removed, since it belongs in the article Viking, and its already enough with confusion between the terms Viking and Norse, so there is really no need to deepen the problem furthermore. Dan Koehl ( talk) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I added that all Scandinavian countries had an organized defence AGAINST vikings, mentioned on runestones, Knyttlingada and Heimskringla, Dan Koehl ( talk) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The word Viking, has never been used to describe any etnical Scandinavian group of people, and has never, in any source, been geographically specified to people of any kind, from Scandinavia.
I object very much that uneducated people call my ancestors for pirates, instead of using the correct term, Northmen, for the ethnical group. 2.Vikings, as any pirate, can not be labelled as tradesmen, (or any civil profession) because tradesmen doesnt perform piracy: Egil Skallagrimsson writes about Björn farman: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.) It also gives a false impression of the iron age Scandinavian culture and heritage, which with the label Northmen open doors to a much more diversified insight in the culture, while the word viking, whereven and whenev it is mentioned comes together with myth, fals history and simplifying of a larger picture.
I strongly believe that he word, and the article Viking should reflect the historical persons who were really vikings, and not my forefathers. Its time that also in the english language, the word Viking gets a modern definition, and not belong in the same box as Nigger, Nazi, and other terms that people has used uncorrectly for groups of people. I am a scandinavian, and so were my Northmen ancestors in Scandinavia between 800 and 1066. Most probably, only a very few percent of those Norse people were actually vikings, and its very wrong to refer to them as such, just becasue its fun, or "we did like that a long time" (less than 50 years) etc.
I want biased POV articles like Viking to become NPOV; so that you can read about true, documented Vikings, on the page about vikings, and not read myths, fantasies, or a lot of stuff that refer to norse people in general. For some time, the article Norseman was even redirected to viking article, which was not correct, it was a joke, and such things should never occur in an encycopedia: Viking is an oldenglish word that means pirat, and the latin word piratae is directly translated to viking in numerous documents, during medevial time. I argue that the article Viking, should supply information about vikings and not about a late misinterpreted ideas about who Vikings were, or any fantasies people may have. I object to that article viking expands the original meaning, including more or less every Norseman during viking time; (people of north Germanic descent, people of the Norse culture, scandinavians, scandinavian kings, tradesmen, settlers, founder of cities, explorers of America), since viking has only one meaning: it means pirat. A pirat can be from just anywhere. And a Norseman, or scandinavian person during medevial time who didnt perform piracy should not be refered to as a viking.
Vikings, as any pirate, could origin from anywhere: The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus.
Dan Koehl ( talk) 14:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
History is no democrazy, and you cant vote which year a certain thing happened, it must be verified by citing prime sources.
Regarding the very unwise attempt to mixix this article with viking, I can add from a scientific article, written by professor John H Lind, at Copenhagen University:
Source: https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age
Dan Koehl ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I see this edit is being reinserted after being reverted out three times. As I said in my edit summary when I removed it, it's got several issues. One, it's ungrammatical. "In Yngvars saga víðförla written in the twelfth century by Oddr Snorrason, is described when Yngvar and his fleet in the land of the Saracens (Serkland) is being attacked by Caucasian prates, referred to as vikings. Vikings was a prominent problems and the Norwegian king Harald I of Norway was the most radical, cleanings his land from vikings." That sentence is completely ungrammtical and has numerous mispellings and misuse of words plus problems with verb usage. Two, the whole section is irrelevant to the section its inserted in - which is about the history of the term "Norseman". Nothing in there addresses the history of the term "Norseman". Three, it has sections on the terminiology of OTHER words which is also irrelevant to an article on Norsemen. Fourth, it is unsourced except for one sentence and the block quote. Fifth, (and most minor) it breaks the MOS in numerous ways also, but if it was just that last bit, it wouldn't be so bad, but the other four issues are serious and it should not be edit warred into place without a strong consensus on the talk page. I count four insertions of the information which is verging into WP:3RR territory. The edits need to be removed and discussion should take place on the talk page before it returns. Ealdgyth ( talk) 18:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This article duplicates content from the Vikings article (only at much less length) and is mostly focused on the meaning of the word "Northmen". Is there a compelling reason for it to exist as an article, or couldn't we just mention "Northmen" as one of the contemporary terms used for the Vikings over there?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This may or may not have been explained in the Vikings page, but I am curious where the name originates from, or is it a modern term made up? Even then I would like to know where it came from. Colestrelke ( talk) 07:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The term "Viking" appears in the Sermon of the Wolf (wīcinga[e?]), written by archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester Wulfstan in 1014, and in Battle of Maldon (wīcinga), written probably after 991. 82.128.217.39 ( talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Not a bad start user:vikings but this article is far too POV at the moment.Unfortunately you need to temper you passion a little and try to stick to cold hard facts. Everything you state should be backed up by evidence, and you should write your article as if you were writing about people whome you neither particuly like or dislike. Hope this helps Theresa knott 14:55 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
thank you, Theresa, we are learning - we are happy to see that much more survived editorship than the last time we tried Vikings 16:31 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what a major part of this article tries to say. Stuff that is truley "subjective" belongs on the discussion side, so I past it in below. // Rogper 22:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the year 1005 they sailed to America. They were never much interested in becoming the ruling force. The structure was patriarcatic, but they had a high respect of women and idolize or honoured the elderly. Many females had high positions and were very influential ( Freydis - see Norse Saga). They were interested in good education.
On a Norse ship (" viking ship"), there was one captain (chief), elected from the crew: the strongest, smartest, wisest, once wildest, with lots of experience, lots of friends and political supporters, with fame on many oceans and shores, with all authority. In moments of danger and in battle he made the decisions and strategy, all crew followed without any questioning. In times of peace they stood in the back. All younger warriors were allowed to challenge and question the chief in the time between wars. All trusted him and he backed all to the outside.
If the majority of the crew asks him to step down he does so and falls back to the role as advisor and teacher.
Many companies of modern Norse countries are operated in the same way as the wooden ships, and some world-leading businesses evolved ( Nokia, IKEA, Ericsson, Maersk) - again influencing, navigating, moving, communicating and educating on global scales.
For more information see viking.
In keeping with the naming conventions for articles, I'd like to propose through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process that this article be moved to "Norseman" and that it be converted to a redirect. The relevant Wikipedia Policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Thanks for considering this for discussion. I'll not nominate for moving until some time/input has passed here. Courtland 11:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Can we change the name of the article? 100110100 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
it has to be added in the article that norse isnt an ethnicity... norse are north germanic peoples... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.204.171.167 (
talk) 01:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
is there any source for Vikings has been a common term for norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland.
What I refer to specifically is Vikings has been a common term for norsemen.
I belive there is not one single source, in the early medieval period, using the term viking as a common term for norse, so this statement should be removed.
Dan Koehl 03:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I dont agree with you.
Even if its popular to call all nortern people during vikinga age vikings, today by common people, its wrong.
If Wikipedia would state in articles populair beliefs, rather than prooven facts, it would not be a quality encyclopedia.
Here below I show several sources that does not support this "populair" view.
It seems like the english speaking encyclopedias in early 1900 were well defined on the word viking:
Viking \Vi"king\, n. [Icel. v[imac]kingr, fr. v[imac]k a bay, inlet.] One belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen, who plundered the coasts of Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. [1913 Webster]
further on:
Note: Viking differs in meaning from sea king, with which it is frequently confounded. "The sea king was a man connected with a royal race, either of the small kings of the country, or of the Haarfager family, and who, by right, received the title of king as soon he took the command of men, although only of a single ship's crew, and without having any land or kingdom . . . Vikings were merely pirates, alternately peasants and pirates, deriving the name of viking from the vicks, wicks, or inlets, on the coast in which they harbored with their long ships or rowing galleys." --Laing. [1913 Webster]
Viking A pirate. So called from the vik or creek in which he lurked. The word is wholly unconnected with the word "king." There were sea-kings, sometimes, but erroneously, called "vikings," connected with royal blood, and having small dominions on the coast. These sea-kings were often vikingr or vikings, but the reverse is not true that every viking or pirate was a sea-king. (Icelandic vikingr, a pirate.).
Any of the Scandinavian people who raided the coasts of Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries.
Contemporary chroniclers called the raiders by many names, including heathens and pagans, as well as Northmen and Danes, but one of the names used to refer to them by the English was `Viking', and this is now used to describe not only the raiders, but also the period during which they carried out their attacks. These centuries, from the ninth to the eleventh, have become known, therefore, as the Viking Age. [...] In the icelandic sagas, víkingr came to be used as a noun to refer to a warrior, or pirate, víking was used to refer to an expedition. The majority of Scandinavians, therefore, were not Vikings; only those who went a-viking could really qualify for the description.
I therefore ask for written sources that viking was used as a term for norsemen in the history
Im pretty sure this is a misunderstanding, and todays habits are only some 20-30 years.
Dan Koehl 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Slavs and the Byzantines also called them Varangians (ON: Væringjar, meaning sworn men or from Slavic варяги supposedly deriving from the root "вар" - "profit" as coming from North they would profit by trading goods and not producing them, which had a negative connotation in Slavic culture of that time)..." I believe what is meant is that the failure to produce goods had a negative connotation. However, the wording also leaves open the conclusion that it was the production of goods that was deprecated. Could someone tell me what was intended here? -- AlanUS ( talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago I was asked to look this article over and I have now combed through it and made numerous edits. A few comments:
After this, the material in the body needs a closer looking at. :bloodofox: ( talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Containing copyright violations?
This was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 September 18. While I am also having difficulty with the date of the tagged source, Diwas points out that the section beginning "The tension between increasingly centralized groups and independent warrior societies may have furnished part of the impetus behind the Viking raids and the Scandinavian migrations to other parts of Europe that began in the late eighth century, as warriors sought to expand their territorial holdings and were unable to do so in neighboring lands. " is copied from the Encyclopedia of European Peoples, beginning on page 831. I can see this, in Google book, and it clearly predates the placement of the text here by several years. It would probably be safe to revert to the edit prior to the influx of this content, but content placed by this user seems rightly suspect, given that some of it is blatantly pasted. Since the article was not blanked, previously, I am extending the listing at the WP:CP board. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Somehow somebody managed to destroy all edit history between April and October. I cannot be bothered to do detective work on what exactly went wrong or who is to blame, but clearly the cause was some merge attempt gone disastrously wrong. Behind the merge attempt there seems to be a " Scandinavians" article which treated "Scandinavians" as a contemporary "ethnic group". Then somebody had the glorious idea to merge this already misguided article with the article on medieval Scandinavians to create an even more broken page. Seeing as there are perfectly valid articles on Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, there is clearly no reason to write an article about ("Danes+Norwegians+Swedes"), even if these are summarized as "Scandinavians". The article about the modern concept of Scandinavia is, of course, to be found at Scandinavia. This page here is about medieval history during the 8th to 10th century. It is spectacularly misguided to water down an article about a medieval topic with modern demographics. -- dab (𒁳) 08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Norse settlements in Sicily and in the south of Italy, who says that ? It is a joke ? There were some Norman adventurers and knights banished from Normandy that went there to make money and get power. They founded there principalities, became lord or king, but the Normans are not Norsemen and the Norman presence in Italy is not a settlement. Nortmannus ( talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a table called "Distribution" in the article. According to that table there are 8,260,987 "Norsemen" in Sweden. In what way are they defined. There is no source for this. What is the definition? Citizenship? "Ethnic origin" is not registred in Sweden and many people have multiple origins. So it must be imposible to count such an exact figure. -- Muniswede ( talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the citation needed, urgently so as it is nowadays often thought to be a later invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.15.58 ( talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find any mention of the fact that the Norwegian word for Norwegian (people) is "Nordmenn" (pl) ie, "Northmen". With all the other talk of who calls who what, it seems relevant enough. - Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:80AA:82BA:3829:E152 ( talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This map shows the very little knowledge of the WP map makers. The Normans are not Norsemen, they are a mixture of Gallo-Franks and Anglo-Scandinavians. In 1066 William the Conqueror set foot in England and during the 11th century Norman Barons set foot in the south of Italy and in Sicily, see Norman conquest of southern Italy, not the Norsemen, that is wrong ! Nortmannus ( talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Vikings#How should these articles be organized? to share your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
>> Posted on both the "Norsemen" and "Vikings" Talk pages: As an increasingly steady contributor to Viking / Norse articles on Wikipedia, I've been intrigued to read the Talk pages for some of the more critical articles. As time passes, I'm convinced of the need for reorganisation across a number of these.
Starting with the Norsemen / Viking 'divide', for example, I'm aware there has been discussion recently as to the merits of merging these two articles. Some consensus apparently arose against a merger, for the moment at least, BUT since then nothing (or next to nothing) has been done to reorganise the articles in the manner which reflects that particular consensus. The 'Vikings' article, focusing on the raiding / piratical aspect of the word - distinct from the modern, generalised ethnic marker in English language texts - still retains much that would be better placed in a "Norsemen" / "Norse" article, not least the socio-economic descriptions of late 1st millennium Scandinavian society and economy. Such reorganisation would be the logical outcome of that consensus. Rather, it seems that the central argument to date has been over the semantics of the 'Viking / Norse divide', but with little or no responsibility then taken for rearranging the content. I would, moreover, consider it imperative - in the interests of clarity - to make more explicit the links between the two articles in their opening paragraph(s) and / or disambiguation links. A general reader, or researching student, looking up "Vikings" for example, needs to have it made clear that the Wikipedia article with that title will focus on the raider / piratical aspect of Norse culture, with the general article on the ethnic group from which the Vikings originated, the 'Northmen' / 'Norse', possessing its own much wider, more generalised article. I think the creation of a specialised "Viking" / "Northmen" / "Norse" template might assist with this potentially confusing overlap. The casual, beginning reader for example, might find it rather perplexing that we can have "Norse mythology", but also a specific article on "Viking art" - the links and boundaries between these established terms in scholarship are clear for those in the know, but could be rather confusing for the uninitiated.
Most worryingly, we seem to have a series of articles that duplicate the same material and / or present similar ideas in multiple sections. I'm already on record for questioning the organisation of the Viking Age article, for example.
I'm interested to hear what others think on this matter... This is a call for further discussion on these matters, rather than an attempt to provide solid answers. Anyone? Paul James Cowie ( talk) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in [..] Iceland [..]". When I saw at Leif Erikson: "was a Norse[8] explorer" (note, "Norse" linked to "Norsemen"), I changed to "was an Icelandic[8] explorer (while his father was Norse)".
I note that the list of countries in the quote from this article doesn't include Norway (as probably the origin). When I read Norse I first thought it's a person from Norway. Is it appropriate to link Norse to Norsemen? At least I, read this "wrong".. Only when you hover over the link or actually press it do you see Norsemen, and while I did, I thought it meant men from Norway..
Maybe Norsemen (or Norse) is used to avoid having to say an "an Icelandic explorer" or "an Norwegian explorer" as both could get contested.
Note at Icelander I see: "2nd row: [..] Erik the Red", he seems clearly not born in Iceland (born in Norway), while his son Leif is.
Before I change possible errors at Bjarni Herjólfsson and Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir, can anyone advise? comp.arch ( talk) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding In the early medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for Norsemen, as far as I have read, In the entire medieval period, Vikings was never a common term for Norsemen. Dan Koehl ( talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
But a lot of prime sources indicates that Vikings was a common term for pirates. The word pirate was never used in oldenglish, and when pirates were mentioned in latin sources, it was translated to vikings in oldenglish. Dan Koehl ( talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lesser known figure in Norse religion known as Leo (symbol: Norse lion), he is often depicted wearing this insignia on the right bicep of his Kaftan, a silver winged helmet and pointed black leather shoes. He is known to have coined the term Islamian, but maintains the belief in Free will.
His weapons are a mace decorated in the Fibonacci number and a pointed shield decorated with three interlocking horns.
He is an ally of Heimdall (the horn bearer) and was impressed by Loki (the hound like one).-- LeoElf-jsjydyk ( talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC) <--- sock of Mughal Lohar/ Jinnhoppan; see also [ [6]
I think perhaps that that the wording "even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages" should be rephrased. Norway, Denmark and Sweden were certainly different states, but it is debatable if the people living there were "different sets of people" by the middle ages, well before the idea of nation states had emerged and at a time when regional identities were probably more important. In any case, "Norway" is not a people (Norwegians are). -- Dijhndis ( talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The sentence:
is really capturing, and proving this article is not written by people who read the prime sources. Please read what he really writes, and change the text! Dan Koehl ( talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you do it yourself, if you are familiar with the source? Dimadick ( talk) 15:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Norsemen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. The editor who requested the move has withdrawn the request. The move request also is no longer applicable as the target link has been developed into its own article. ( non-admin closure) Hrodvarsson ( talk) 23:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Norsemen → North Germanic peoples – Requesting move as per WP:PRECISION. The current title is just one of the many names used for these people in the Viking Age. The article also covers the periods before and after the Viking Age, so the current title is therefore too narrow for the article's scope. Krakkos ( talk) 10:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Krakkos: I have undone your bold rewrite. I personally think that there must be an article on Norsemen. But I am open to suggestions and would like to hear your reasoning for your North Germanic peoples version. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The map that's used in the article displays Norse settlements in Estonia. I'm not aware of any Norse settlements in Estonia during the Viking Era. Does anyone have sources for that? Blomsterhagens ( talk) 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is probable that there were Germanic settlements in Estonia since the Bronze Age. [10] This is attested by the large number of large number of Germanic loanwords in Finnic, in particular words related to agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy, seafaring and government. [11] Germanic influence was especially strong at Saaremaa. [12] The Norse presence on Saaemaa is attested by the Salme ships, as Thomas.W has already pointed out. In regards to Estonia there is no need to change the map. Krakkos ( talk) 20:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"Northern and Western Estonia were definitely part of the Scandinavian cultural space during the period under review (i.e. 450-1050AD)". A quote from Andres Tilvaur, archaeologist at Tartu University ( link). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I suspect an RfC on the subject will be needed to resolve this at this point. Other uninvolved editors can form a consensus on exactly how the subject of vikings and Estonia should be treated. As this issue obviously affects a number of articles and files, I suggest holding the RfC on a central noticeboard. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I try to summarise evidence presented on this talk page for Scandinavian settlement in Northern (10th century) and Western Estonia (8th century):
My conclusion: current map is wrong about Estonian territory. At best only Nuckö peninsula and Enby village can be counted as Scandinavian settlement area. -- Minnekon ( talk) 11:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the Swedish archaeologist Gunilla Larsson at Uppsala University, Iron Age Scandinavians did not simply trade and raid in Estonia, but settled there as well. Ship burials in Estonia are not local emulations of Scandinavian tradition, but are remnants of Scandinavian settlers: "The traces of Swedish seafaring in Estonia consist of rivets in settlement layers and burials with rivets that may come from Scandinavian boats or local boats built within a Scandinavian tradition. One such site is Viltina... [The Viltina rivets] belong to ships of the Svear according to my analysis. Actual boat burials have been found in Proosa near Tallinn (Deemant 1975, 1976, 1977) and in Rebala (Bill 1994:60). At both sites the boats have had rivets of the type used among the Svear, with square shafts. At Proosa, which has also revealed other rich Scandinavian burials from the 5th and 6th centuries AD, the rivets found are either in an undated context, or in a context from the 1 1th or 12th century. The boat burials are evidence that the visits by Scandinavians were not just for raids or for conducting trade. Instead some Scandinavians settled here and buried their dead according to the tradition and customs from home, in boat burials." [31] Krakkos ( talk) 18:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Great! Seems we have a consensus on 11th century mainland North Estonia on the map :) The islands and the rest of the timeline are still an open topic then. Blomsterhagens ( talk) 21:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tom. There was certainly a consensus in the 80s and earlier that there was Norse settlement on Ösel. If this had been refused, there would some mention of a change of scholarly opinion on the matter. Just because every later source does not explicitly mention Ösel does not mean that they disagree with the notion. Ermenrich ( talk) 13:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Rather than modifying the map based upon a myriad of contradicting sources, it would be better to base it upon a reliable source which covers Norse settlements in general. This map is a good candidate. It is part of an article written by Bergljot Solberg, Professor of Medieval Archeology at the University of Bergen, and supervised by Bjørn Bandlien, Professor of Medieval History at the University of South-Eastern Norway. The map is from the most recent addition of the Store norske leksikon (2006-2007), and is published by Kunnskapsforlaget with support from Fritt Ord. Krakkos ( talk) 08:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, short summary: Question: "Was there Norse habitat on the island of Ösel during the viking era?" Some editors like me and several others claim there are no sources for this. Some editors claim there was Norse habitat on the island of Ösel. The question is about updating the map in question (linked above and in the article), which currently claims there was Norse habitat, but does not include sources. The connected talk page with opinions is here. There is also a talk discussion thread on this talk page above. This is connected to the wider topic of "Who were the Oeselians?", who were also called "Vikings from Estonia". The main options have been either "we don't know" or "Estonians". But this is not the current question. The current question is - is there credible proof for Norse population on the island of Ösel in the viking era? If not, the color of Ösel should be changed on the map. Blomsterhagens ( talk) 17:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This merge proposal was rejected by Johnbod. That's OK, I accept the rejection. May I just ask, though, what people(s) the rejected merge articles are referring to? Am I understanding it correctly that the sources deal with "Vikings" as WP:COMMONNAME for an ethnic group of which these childhood, trade, and coinage articles are about? Just trying to understand the WP:CONSENSUS of intepretation of available sources on the matter. Sorry for the inconvience if this is somehow against any rules to ask. Chicbyaccident ( talk) 15:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) B dash ( talk) 13:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Norsemen →
Norse people – Perhaps preferable synonym per
WP:PRECISION, as non-gender specified in accordance with scope? This would be per consistency with all interwikilinks, some of which seems also to have chosen the non-gender specific synonym despite equivalent choices in other languages.
PPEMES (
talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
What is this? There's no citation for this (what seems to me) rather odd claim. Anyone have anything to back it up? Clown Tiddies ( talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I've redone a cleanup of original research of this page. I made a similar attempt last year, but this was reverted by Frayae, [32] a sock of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Krakkos ( talk) 11:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have examined a large number of sources on the Vikings and the Viking Age, and there appears to be little evidence of Norsemen being the common name for the Old Norse-speaking peoples of the Viking Age. Here are some examples:
In fact, it seems like scholars generally use the term Norsemen only for Viking Age Norwegians:
Given the ambiguous nature of the term Norsemen and its rare usage among scholars for the topic of this article, its usage as a title for this article is unfortunate. Krakkos ( talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that the section:
is removed, since it belongs in the article Viking, and its already enough with confusion between the terms Viking and Norse, so there is really no need to deepen the problem furthermore. Dan Koehl ( talk) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I added that all Scandinavian countries had an organized defence AGAINST vikings, mentioned on runestones, Knyttlingada and Heimskringla, Dan Koehl ( talk) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The word Viking, has never been used to describe any etnical Scandinavian group of people, and has never, in any source, been geographically specified to people of any kind, from Scandinavia.
I object very much that uneducated people call my ancestors for pirates, instead of using the correct term, Northmen, for the ethnical group. 2.Vikings, as any pirate, can not be labelled as tradesmen, (or any civil profession) because tradesmen doesnt perform piracy: Egil Skallagrimsson writes about Björn farman: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.) It also gives a false impression of the iron age Scandinavian culture and heritage, which with the label Northmen open doors to a much more diversified insight in the culture, while the word viking, whereven and whenev it is mentioned comes together with myth, fals history and simplifying of a larger picture.
I strongly believe that he word, and the article Viking should reflect the historical persons who were really vikings, and not my forefathers. Its time that also in the english language, the word Viking gets a modern definition, and not belong in the same box as Nigger, Nazi, and other terms that people has used uncorrectly for groups of people. I am a scandinavian, and so were my Northmen ancestors in Scandinavia between 800 and 1066. Most probably, only a very few percent of those Norse people were actually vikings, and its very wrong to refer to them as such, just becasue its fun, or "we did like that a long time" (less than 50 years) etc.
I want biased POV articles like Viking to become NPOV; so that you can read about true, documented Vikings, on the page about vikings, and not read myths, fantasies, or a lot of stuff that refer to norse people in general. For some time, the article Norseman was even redirected to viking article, which was not correct, it was a joke, and such things should never occur in an encycopedia: Viking is an oldenglish word that means pirat, and the latin word piratae is directly translated to viking in numerous documents, during medevial time. I argue that the article Viking, should supply information about vikings and not about a late misinterpreted ideas about who Vikings were, or any fantasies people may have. I object to that article viking expands the original meaning, including more or less every Norseman during viking time; (people of north Germanic descent, people of the Norse culture, scandinavians, scandinavian kings, tradesmen, settlers, founder of cities, explorers of America), since viking has only one meaning: it means pirat. A pirat can be from just anywhere. And a Norseman, or scandinavian person during medevial time who didnt perform piracy should not be refered to as a viking.
Vikings, as any pirate, could origin from anywhere: The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into: ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticam was directly translated to vicingus.
Dan Koehl ( talk) 14:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
History is no democrazy, and you cant vote which year a certain thing happened, it must be verified by citing prime sources.
Regarding the very unwise attempt to mixix this article with viking, I can add from a scientific article, written by professor John H Lind, at Copenhagen University:
Source: https://www.academia.edu/8906219/_Vikings_and_the_Viking_Age
Dan Koehl ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I see this edit is being reinserted after being reverted out three times. As I said in my edit summary when I removed it, it's got several issues. One, it's ungrammatical. "In Yngvars saga víðförla written in the twelfth century by Oddr Snorrason, is described when Yngvar and his fleet in the land of the Saracens (Serkland) is being attacked by Caucasian prates, referred to as vikings. Vikings was a prominent problems and the Norwegian king Harald I of Norway was the most radical, cleanings his land from vikings." That sentence is completely ungrammtical and has numerous mispellings and misuse of words plus problems with verb usage. Two, the whole section is irrelevant to the section its inserted in - which is about the history of the term "Norseman". Nothing in there addresses the history of the term "Norseman". Three, it has sections on the terminiology of OTHER words which is also irrelevant to an article on Norsemen. Fourth, it is unsourced except for one sentence and the block quote. Fifth, (and most minor) it breaks the MOS in numerous ways also, but if it was just that last bit, it wouldn't be so bad, but the other four issues are serious and it should not be edit warred into place without a strong consensus on the talk page. I count four insertions of the information which is verging into WP:3RR territory. The edits need to be removed and discussion should take place on the talk page before it returns. Ealdgyth ( talk) 18:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This article duplicates content from the Vikings article (only at much less length) and is mostly focused on the meaning of the word "Northmen". Is there a compelling reason for it to exist as an article, or couldn't we just mention "Northmen" as one of the contemporary terms used for the Vikings over there?-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
This may or may not have been explained in the Vikings page, but I am curious where the name originates from, or is it a modern term made up? Even then I would like to know where it came from. Colestrelke ( talk) 07:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The term "Viking" appears in the Sermon of the Wolf (wīcinga[e?]), written by archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester Wulfstan in 1014, and in Battle of Maldon (wīcinga), written probably after 991. 82.128.217.39 ( talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)