Talk:Viking Age

Viking heritage of the Rurik dynasty

The Rurik dynasty's Viking heritage, alluded to here, is a topic of substantial controversy amongst Russian historians. I am not qualified to speak out on the subject but a professional historian of Russia should craft a more nuanced and informed statement on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.198.50 (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rurik heritage here is completelly ignored, because it does not fit the narrative about Vikings, that came from Scandinavia and had Scandinavian heritage.

This whole article about vikings paint the picture, that only Scandinavians were doing viking things, while it seems, that in Baltic Sea everyone capable of seafaring were doing that.

There is no controvery among Russian historians - 30 years ago they already had very clear understanding of joint Viking-Prussian component(from eastern Baltic Sea), that was the basis of formation of Novgorod. The controversy about Viking Rus heritage is only among uneducated morons.

With Rus it seems, that they were local people, that were vikingized - similarly how it happened in Ireland, where vikings were few and over time assimilated into local culture. GrimDawn (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nursing202 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nursing202 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Academic criticism of article coverage

This article has been reviewed as part of an academic article on Wikipedia's coverage of the Middle Ages.[1]

There's some very good points about the article suffering from certain forms of POV, for example categorizing information according to the borders of modern nations. Peter ^Isotalo 07:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, isn't this medieval period the time when several countries (or at least their core areas) became those countries? Spec. Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark; but something similar was afoot in England, wasn't it? Even the division of East and West Francia has its origin in this period, IIRC. So yes, referring to modern states is helpful, but also not (very) wrong, IMO. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I read the essays in "Forging the medieval on Wikipedia", thanks to a pointer from Gråbergs Gråa Sång elsewhere, and that is what inspired me to add content about Vikings in the Mediterranean and about women in Viking society. I disagree with the authors' contention that "Listing countries as they exist today as locations for Viking activity adds national borders to a history that had little to do with them, naturalising ideas of ethno-genesis and the nation-state as organising principles." Most scholarship on the subject refers to modern-day political boundaries or geographical concepts that were non-existent then, because doing so allows readers to place the geographical location of events. There was no geographical concept of "North America" or of an entity such as "Newfoundland" in the Viking Age, but those terms are useful to organize the information in our article, in my opinion. How else could we discuss L'Anse aux Meadows, or archaeologists such as Lucy Moore place the results of her fieldwork in geographical context? I think the discrepancy can be addressed by disclaimers and by providing context.

Also, when Moore writes, "The inclusion of three hundred words on 'Norse influence on the English language', but no other modern language, demonstrates this linguistic chauvinism", I'm left wondering why she didn't address the problem herself, since she says she has edited the article. Three hundred words is not many words, and obviously there is more to be said in that regard about other languages such as Swedish or Norwegian (where are the linguists?). Why, rather than writing what seems a postmodern analysis of the article's deficiencies, isn't she fixing those perceived deficiencies herself? Of course, if she did that, she wouldn't have anything to complain about in her analysis, would she?;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Carlstak, the part about languages is pretty obvious WP:UNDUE or WP:POV. If someone pointed it out here on the talkpage, it wouldn't be very constructive to reply "well, why don't you fix it!" Peter ^Isotalo 15:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Eh, disagree, I subscribe to the "just fix it" ethos, not the "Somebody "Notme" Else" ethos; funny thing to say to the person who has been fixing some of the problems pointed out in the essay. I don't see anyone else doing it. Our article needs the input of more scholars. Moore could have amended it to address the points she raises with less effort than she invested in the "essay cluster". After all, she has been editing our article, and not to mention that many more people will read our article than hers—if she wants to enlighten the public, this is the place to do it rather than in the rarefied confines of a scholarly article that hardly anyone will read or care about. Carlstak (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the "modern borders" issue - if only to locate places (a bit) for non-specialist readers, this seems fairly standard practice. In the ancient history of other parts of the world academics sometimes go full on with the ancient names, which many contemporary readers like myself find unhelpful. A sentence stating the dominant role ON played in modern Scandi languages could be added for sure, but one would expect this not to be news for most readers. English readers are likely to know less about, and be more interested in, the influence on English. Would mentioning what is apparently a single documented raid on Africa be WP:UNDUE? Quite possibly. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've already added a paragraph to the "Old Norse influence on other languages" section that includes: "Today Old Norse has developed into the modern North Germanic languages Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and other North Germanic varieties... " I think we should expand that section with more information about its influence on the modern Nordic languages. Per Peterson and Beers Fägersten in English in the Nordic Countries: "People in the Nordic states – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland – rank as among the most proficient speakers of English in the world". English-speaking Nordic people read English WP, and quite a few of them contribute to it. People that I have known from those countries generally are much more proficient speakers and readers of English than Trumpers typically are here in the Southland of the US. Also, in my opinion mentioning a single documented raid on Africa at Nekor on the coast of Morocco is an interesting fact and not undue. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The main influence the Viking age had on modern Nordic language is likely that they are spoken in the Northern Atlantic. I don't think it's appropriate to talk about "influence" on the languages themselves, when old Norse is an ancestor. It would be far more appropriate to speak about how old Norse was influenced by other languages during the period. What's also missing is influence on languages in other areas with strong Viking influence, such as Finnish, Russian, French, Scots and Irish. But I would expect that English would be the most detailed, not because this is enwp, but because English was the language most fundementally altered by Viking influence.

Hi, Wiki has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_toponymy, if one wanted to avoid making this article too Anglo-centered =o) T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Andejons (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Good points. I'm starting a new real-world project today, and will not be able to reply in detail until tonight. Carlstak (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the "Old Norse influence on other languages" section to "Old Norse and other languages" at least for now. Perhaps someone can think of a better title. I agree that using the word "influence" in the subheading mucks it up. This one can encompass all the facets of language development you mention as well as its ancestral relationship to present-day Scandinavian languages. I think this should be done in short summary form with links to any pertinent main articles, but with enough information to give readers a basic outline. Carlstak (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Carlstak, linguistic influences of Old Norse seemed like a perfectly logical heading to me. It was a direct result of what happened during this period.

Proficiency in English among modern Nordic countries is a completely different and much later process. I don't see how it has anything to do with the period. Peter ^Isotalo 13:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

He's taking issue with my "English readers are likely to know less about, and be more interested in, the influence on English" above. True, it seems to be the case that, not for the first time, I'm the only non-Scandi person commenting in this section, but I doubt our actual readers have the same profile. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, I guess you missed what I said about having a more inclusive title to include the expanded content I intend to add to the section. Johnbod, not sure why you think I'm Scandinavian. One of my grandmothers was German, but I'm a mutt like everyone else, no matter how "pure" they think their blood is. If it's my username that makes you think that, it's an anagram of one of my godfather's stage names, he was a movie star. There's a Danish book about fishing that mentions Carlstak fair. I do have long hair that's turned platinum blonde in my old age, blue eyes, red hair in my moustache, and spend a great deal of time aboard boats, but I'm not Scandi. I am an eighth Cherokee.;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, apologies - I suppose it was the username! Carlstak the Grim works .... Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Carlstak, the North Germanic languages are direct descendants of Old Norse. That's straight up taxonomy. They haven't been "influenced" by Old Norse, they basically are Old Norse. We have an article on that already that can be summarized in (and synced with) this article.

The influence of English described in the article right now is not the result of it being descended from Old Norse but by invasion, trade, migration, etc. So a somewhat similar process to how Norman French made an impact. Peter ^Isotalo 09:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

? Yes, I know, that's why I removed the word "Influence" from the heading title; you added it back. I even added the words "Old Norse has developed into the modern North Germanic languages: Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and other North Germanic varieties of which Norwegian, Danish and Swedish retain considerable mutual intelligibility while Icelandic remains the closest to Old Norse..." that I copied from the Old Norse article. I am subscribed to this section, so please don't keep pinging me. Carlstak (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The evolution of Old Norse and the influence it had on various languages are two separate things. They should be kept under separate headings. Peter ^Isotalo 17:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. Peace out. Carlstak (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ruoutsi

@Carlstak: 'Routsi' in Brink is a spelling mistake. For confirmation, see fiwiki article for Sweden, fi:Ruotsi, and compare Google Scholar searches Rus+Ruotsi and Rus+Routsi. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Brink's mistake is also pointed out in this review of the Viking World: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43272361 (last paragraph of the review) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Jähmefyysikko, please let me continue some editing I'm in the middle of and I will change it. I know other scholars spell it "Ruotsi", but Brink is a formidable scholar, and I always prefer to be consistent with the source. Doubtless some editor will come along and change it back when they see the contradiction with Brink, so I will add a hidden note to prevent that. I am in the process of fact-checking this article, which has very obviously never been done. It is still full of errors, and much work remains. I have over a thousand tabs up in my browser now (not all of them open, of course), and I'm switching back and forth between them, adding content and sources to the article as I go. Thanks, Carlstak (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I do get lost sometimes in all these tabs, even with the drop-down list.;-) Yes, I see that Pierre Gonneau says (in French): "It's found in the Finnish name for Swedes: "Ruotsi" (a typo on p. 7 where we find << Routsi >>?)." I had previously noticed that Sigfús Blöndal says "...the Swedish-speaking portion of Finland, whose inhabitants are known in Finnish as Ruotsalaiset, and in Swedish as Ruotsi". I will change it now. Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Blöndal is also confused here:

• The Swedish-speaking portion of Finland, whose inhabitants are known in Finnish as Ruotsalaiset — The Finnish name for Finland Swedes is suomenruotsalainen. The bare ruotsalainen means 'Swede'. Finland Swedes are irrelevant to the topic.
• [...] known [..] in Swedish as Ruotsi. — Ruotsi is not a Swedish word. In modern Finnish it means 'Sweden', although in older Finnish it could also be used an ethnonym.

One could reuse the paragraph from Kievan Rus'#Names here. It seems well formulated, although there might be some problems on how it corresponds to the referenced sources (Brink and Blöndal). Thorsten Andersson's 2007 article Rus' und Wikinger in Arkiv för nordisk filologi, Vol. 122 would have a detailed technical discussion about the relevant etymologies and their connection if that is needed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that paragraph from Kievan Rus'#Names is what this article previously said, before I changed it. I'm quoting it here: According to the prevalent theory, the name Rus', like the Proto-Finnic name for Sweden (*Ruotsi), is derived from an Old Norse term for "the men who row" (rods-) as rowing was the main method of navigating the rivers of Eastern Europe, and that it could be linked to the Swedish coastal area of Roslagen (Rus-law) or Roden, as it was known in earlier times. The name Rus' would then have the same origin as the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden: Ruotsi and Rootsi. This doesn't correspond at all to what the given sources for that information, Brink and Blöndal, actually say. I was trying to reconcile them. I don't think that paragraph is usable in this form, as it is not supported by the two scholars' texts. You know more about the subject than I do, could you work something out from Andersson's discussion? Carlstak (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I should be on the water by now myself, but I will do this much. Andersson says, pp. 6–7 (not using the "tq" template because walls of the green text hurts my eyes):

"The folk name russ. Rus', also attested in Greek and Arabic as Pcôç or ar-Rüs (Thomsen 1919: 348 ff., Ekbo 1958: 195, Falk 1981: 147 and passim), is ultimately based on the noun aschw. roþer m. 'rowing', which was also used by naval campaigns within the organization called aschw. leþunger m. Heide (2006) would like to see a parallel to the word vikingr, roughly 'shift rower', in this word, referring to the crew of such war campaigns. Both words undoubtedly emphasize the role of rowing in ancient seafaring, but the connection between aschw. roþer and russ. Rus' is in all probability not as direct as Heide imagines. This directs our interest to the Old Swedish place name Roþrin, in the older form Roþer (without the definite final article -in), which contains the word roþer 'rowing' and is still used today in the form Roden as a historical name.

In the Middle Ages, this name referred to the coastal strip with the skerries in front of it, mainly in the Uppland landscape, but apparently also north of it. Today the name lives on in Roslagen, the name of the coastal and archipelago area of Uppland (SOL: 259). According to a widespread view, the name Roþrin is based on the Finnish name for 'Swedes', Ruotsi, formerly also used as the name of the people. The view of the connection between Roþer and Ruotsi is expressed in a lexicon article by Ake Granlund (1969), to which Eldar Heide (2006: 76) refers, in this way: Roslagen (Roþrin) is the area of the Swedish mainland with which the Finns first had contact in ancient times, which is reflected in the name Ruotsi (cf. Fig. 1 in Andersson 2002: 97). With this explanation, Ruotsi is an example of the well-known fact that countries are named after the nearest neighboring area from the outside." (DeepL translation of the German text) Carlstak (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume that aschw. is the abbreviation for aus Schwedisch (from Swedish). I found this p. 224:

"Post-Viking regional law-codes refer to levy systems ( leiðangr, leding, leþung ) designed to provide ships and men for military service at the king's command."

Our Leidang (Ledung in Swedish) article says: "leiðangr (Old Norse) was a form of conscription (mass levy) to organize coastal fleets for seasonal excursions and in defense of the realm typical for medieval Scandinavians." So it makes sense in the context. Carlstak (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what I propose to take the place of the present paragraph, using Andersson and Elgán & Scobbie as sources instead of Brink and Blöndal:

According to Thorsten Andersson, the Russian folk name Rus ultimately derives from the noun roþer (rowing), a word also used in naval campaigns in the leþunger (Old Norse: leiðangr) system of organizing a coastal fleet. The Old Swedish place name Roþrin contains the word roþer and is still used in the form of Roden as a historical name. In modern times the name still exists as Roslagen, the name of the coastal area of Uppland province. The name Roþrin is widely considered to derive from the Finnish name for Sweden, Ruotsi, formerly also used as the name of the people. Elgán and Scobbie say that the word Rus could derive from Ruotsi, or possibly from Old Norse rodr, meaning a "rowing way", or from Roslagen, where many Swedish Vikings would have lived. Carlstak (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not seem right. Ruotsi is derived from the name Roden, not the other way around. It's possible the translator got confused somewhere in the middle, but the last sentence clearly states that Ruotsi is the derived form.

Andejons (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you please restate the sentence as you would have it, Andejons? I've gotten confused myself going back and forth between the various texts. Carlstak (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right. My understanding is that Andersson did not accept that the statement, "The name Roþrin is widely considered to derive from the Finnish name for Sweden"—I failed to include his counter arguement in my proposed text above.

Joonis Ahola writes in the Kalevalaic Heroic Epic and the Viking Age in Finland chapter of Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland p. 381, citing Johan Schalin: "...the *Ruþs, the ethnonym from which Russia derives and which may be connected to the Finnic ethnonym for Swedes, Ruotsi."

Schalin, citing Häkkinen and Andersson says in chapter "Scandinavian–Finnish Language Contact in the Viking Age in the Light of Borrowed Names" p. 428: " The prevailing understanding is that the Russian name Rus' is considered a borrowing from Finnic and the Finnic name is considered a borrowing from East Scandinavian... but "The OESc etymology for the Finnic name is problematic." Carlstak (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been studying this issue all day, reading the sources, and consequently I've rewritten the text using Andersson's article as the source, and removed mention of Ruotsi altogether, as it seems only to unnecessarily complicate matters. I hope I got it right.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)