Vikings:Creators or Destroyers?

I would say: Vikings were destroyers, barbarous and cruel criminals.

A simple linguistic question.

Vikings are always destroyers, Danes on the other hand are both creators and destroyers (like all people). This is because the word Viking was used exclusively for pirates, while Dane for settlers and peoples from Scandinavia

They were certainly no more or less destructive than others in the same age. If you read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in the late eighth century, occasional stories of Viking attacks are nothing compared to the yearly 'this king plundered that kingdom and the next year that king came here and plundered too'... http://omacl.org/Anglo/

Yes indeed. Vikings were the pirates. A minority in that society. The proper name for the people is Norse. And Norse indeed were a very progresive society for theirs times.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu They were certainly no more or less destructive than others in the same age. If you read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in the late eighth century, occasional stories of Viking attacks are nothing compared to the yearly 'this king plundered that kingdom and the next year that king came here and plundered too'... http://omacl.org/Anglo/   (check first Viking attacks, 793/794 and check the years around it...)   I'd like to correct es_bih a bit: The cultural influence on southern Italy and Sicily was from Normans. Normans indeed had Viking ancestors, but by the time they movet to Italy, not much of that link remained.   Vikings did have cultural influence in lost of places though, mainly in the places they settled: England, Normandy, Kiev, and they even left some races in Istambul: Runes-graffitti on a statue in the Hagia Sophia.   And hey had linguistical influence: most nautical terms in both English and French have Norse origin.

I'd be careful about saying "most nautical terms in both English and French have Norse origin". I'd like to see some evidence for that - unless you're going to count the Dutch and the Flemish and the English themselves as Norse. And of course there are quite a lot of Spanish/Italian origin nautical terms in English - and Arabic ones for that matter.

Edited by gcle2003 - 18-Apr-2007 at 07:46

Originally posted by pinguin By the way, Vikings were the pirates and Norse the general people. Not all Norse were pirates, but a few. Most Norse were merchants. I preffer the later.

Yes, many people, even some scholars, fail to make the distinction between vikings/pirates and the general population of Scandinavia in the early middle ages. The term "viking" implies Scandinavian origin, of course, but it's really not an ethnic/cultural term as much as a term for Scandinavians engaged in seafaring and piracy. You should not, however, make a clear distinction between merchants and vikings, because most vikings were also merchants and most seafaring merchants were also vikings, depending on the circumstances. For example; a small viking fleet coming upon an unprotected monastery would not bother to trade with the monks for their goods, as these could easily be taken by force. The same viking fleet, coming upon a fortified city, might all of a sudden feel more inclined towards trade. It depended on circumstances. No one entertained the idea that being a merchant as opposed to being a viking was morally superior, they would not shy away from the latter activity if the opportunity arose.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Vikings are always destroyers, Danes on the other hand are both creators and destroyers (like all people). This is because the word Viking was used exclusively for pirates, while Dane for settlers and peoples from Scandinavia

I don't understand what you're saying here. The contemporary Christian chroniclers rarely used the term "viking" at all, they refered to them interchangeably as "pagani", "dani" and "nordmanni", each of them catch-all phrases. The later Old Norse sagas on the other hand use the term a lot, but these also distinguish between Danes and Norwegians, settlers or not.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu I'd like to correct es_bih a bit: The cultural influence on southern Italy and Sicily was from Normans. Normans indeed had Viking ancestors, but by the time they movet to Italy, not much of that link remained.

Yes, but there is a theory that the Normans who emigrated to Italy and Sicily descended from those Scandinavians who hadn't been able to adjust to the political culture of continental Christian society. If so, they'd be closer to their ancestors than those Normans who conquered England. I'd imagine it's a hopeless case to prove though.

Originally posted by John Lenon I think before IX -X century Vikings were known better as pirates&detroyers, but since IX -X (when their got power(rule) in different parts of Europe) they became creators (merchants, war leaders etc.).

You are right to make a distinction between periods here, the "viking age" (not a fan of the term) laster over 250 years after all and is bound to include a lot of variety. From the first recorded 793 onwards viking activity was mostly piracy and trade, but from the 860s onwards the Danes began conquering and settling in England, forming the "Danelaw". The last free Anglo-Saxon kingdom, Wessex, fought a war to expel Scandinavian power over several decades, finally ousting the last viking king from York in 954. This gave England a brief respite, until the next wave of attacks began in the 990s. This time it was not so much a matter of plunder and migration as one of political conquest, one kingdom against another, culminating in the second Scandinavian conquest of England in 1016.

Beyond this I concur with Styrbiorn's views.

Hello

Can you give me some links connected with the history of vikings, their lifestyle, and so on...

Originally posted by Viking Hello Can you give me some links connected with the history of vikings, their lifestyle, and so on...

pekau, do not advocate your ignorance so blatantly. It embarasses us.