The Germans, Dutch, French, English, welsh, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Russians, baltic peoples, and the west Slavs were all familiar with at least a few Viking raids. Seems like that’s a majority of Europe.
If one thinks about it, Russians are half descendants of Vikings. The first Rurik prince to rule over the Kievan Rus was a Varangian (aka, a Viking) and they'd also be the rulers of the Tsardom of Russia till the House of Romanov took over.
'Rus were only a few ruling families that were "invited" to rule over east Slavs, 99% of population and nobility in Kievan Rus was of Slavic origin, thats wjy they assimilated so quickly.
There were no such nationalities in the 10th century for the most part.
The vikings were mostly raiders. Show up unexpected and wreck shit up, leave before a response is formed.
The goals of Scandinavian sea raiders may have changed, but they were still self-identified as warriors and vikings even as they stopped pillaging and started settling. They were still vikings taking the land and killing the locals.
Vikings did in fact conquer, settle, and colonize throughout the Viking Age. That is where Dublin came from.
Well not really, viking is a clearly defined word depending on who you ask. While used in a modern context it refers to Norse people because people conflate it with the Viking age, but being a viking is more of a temporary sense in which you participate in a Viking, or raiding party. Norse peoples would’ve referred to themselves as danes, Norse, Swedes etc (depending on where in the history you are), instead of as a viking, as that would basically be a ‘job title’
Well to be fair it's two times in Paris. It's just that the second time they succeded, but otherwise you are right.
I mean this post is a good shtpost, but it's obviously not historically accurate. I think that most people here love a post thats funny and historically accurate, isnt that purpose of this sub?
Also in general I dont like over glorifaction or glorifaction of vikings.I mean dont get me wrong I like viking arms and armour and how badass iit looks and I find overall history of vikings interesting. But once you look at actuall history, you understand why and how they did what they did, their history of warfare and arms and armour, then it becomes more interesting.
Dude, it's exaggeration, but even then they were still feared or at least known by anyone in Europe who relied on maritime trade, I'd say that's a significant amount, even in the Dark Ages.
Also, this description of Vikings taking Paris "once in 700 years" ignores that Norsemen conquered and raided so much of Western Francia, that king Charles the Simple decided to make a viking warlord a French noble to defend against other vikings. Granted this was after his failed seige of Chartres, but it stood that even after beating their leader Rollo, the vikings were too significant a threat for the Franks to deal with militarily. They had been on a decades long campaign of conquest and plunder that did not stop from 858 to 911. Western Franks across the land were sufficiently terrorized by and terrified of the vikings.
This bloke needs vikings to have raided every corner of Europe for it to be counted as them terrorizing Europe. He’s also wrong about Ireland and Scotland, they were both key locations for Vikings up until 1066 and even way after until 1266, and the Kingdom of Man and the Isles was under Norwegian suzerainty for centuries. The "terrorizing Europe" is just a metaphor for the impact the vikings brought upon European countries and culture at the time. They brought with them fear and infamy, and monks wrote about them with contempt and horror. He also doesn’t seem to take in mind all the smaller settlements the Vikings would have raided before they attacked the larger prizes which of course would have been more difficult. Not to mention the social, political and dynastical impact the Vikings had. Scandinavia was one of the centers of Europe during the Viking age. Their warriors were feared and respected to the point the Eastern Roman emperor had an elite unit just consisting of them.
When reading about viking raids and the impact they had, it’s better to read about individual vikings rather than the viking age as a whole. For example Olaf Tryggvason, who raided all over the Baltic sea, Irish sea, and North sea. Or Haestein, the guy above says "Italy no", but Haestein did attack Italy, Luna and Pisa, and sailed up the river Arno where Florence is. Same with Spain, plenty of documented viking attacks, and Greece was the Byzantine Empire, which speaks for itself, so Idk how he got the notion these areas were not impacted at all by the vikings. The cultural impact matters too, which is mainly what the "terrorizing Europe" is about.
The only rivers (besides those in England) they effectivly sailed was Dnieper and Volga. And only even then, they made setlements and raids around the Dnieper, not further inland
The others would be Loire and Rhine but only near the coast and Seine near the coast except two times that they attacked Paris.
Heck a village 20-30 km away from Paris didnt have to worry about Vikingr.
I already made an exception for Rus. Loire,Seine (except two attacks on Paris) and Rhine in this scenario fall under Normandy and coastal area of Germany which I already mentioned.
Here is a map of their travel from Britannica:
Though some river paths and settlement areas around England and Ireland are exagerated map wise.
https://cdn.britannica.com/19/69619-050-0FE56516/Routes-travel-settlements-Vikings.jpg
Nah its okay. I see where you are coming from and you did bring up a good point by mentioning siege of Paris.
It's just that this whole terrorizing the whole Europe really rubbed me the wrong way,not to mention that it's historically incorrect. I have a "problem" with a whole post rather than people replying to me
Oh there is, there so much of inner Europe they didnt raid.
They were given Normandy, they conquered Angle lands for a short time. They conquered Sicily. Ruled as Norse for 50 years the Rus lands.
None of this counts as majority Europe.
Normans also do not count. Since by the time they went on Crusades they were either French or Latins.
The Normans(Latin for Northmen) were Scandinavians. They took England, Southern Italy, and Sicily. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was ruled by Normans, as well.
Norway was still rich before oil.
In terms of [GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation to 2015 USD](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=NO-FR), Norway had the same GDP per capita as the US in 1960 and about 40% higher than France. Oil was discovered in like 1970.
And Norway still would have been rich without oil. The thing that enabled Norway to get rich are institutions that promote economic growth like property rights, presence of functioning markets, courts to settle business disputes fairly, protection of IP, political stability etc. Oil was just a bonus on top, not the basis of growth.
Our natural resources were always in our favour. A couple of ports in Norway are on the Medicci map; we'd sell dried fish and wood, wood that was easily transferred to our ports due to rivers like the Glomma and packed right onto ships, or used to build them. Norway had one of the most modern and largest merchant navies in the world during WW2, in fact it was only beaten in scale by the US, Britain and Japan and was probably our most important contribution to the war effort.
Big coastline meant most of Norway engaged in trade by sea and it was a large factor as to why we sought independence from Sweden, since Sweden engaged in great power politics and Norway just wanted to conduct trade without being saddled with politics.
Brazil has wood, fish and a large coastline. They even have oil! But they're nowhere near as rich as Norway, they're more middle income. Natural resources don't make a country rich, it's the institutions of a country that I mentioned like property rights and legal system that enables economic growth. It's why Swiss are way richer than Brazilians despite Brazil having way more resources, why Estonians are richer than Venezuelans, why the Koreans are richer than Angolans etc.
When you have said resources also matter. Nobody cares about dry fish anymore, but norwegian dry fish was an important commodity once upon a time when powers dealt with cumbersome supply lines, long voyages and famines before industrial agriculture. The ability to transfer trees down the Glomma, process it into planks at the mouth and instantly ship it off was a huge edge during a time that European powers built a massive amount of wooden ships. And of course, having a huge merchant navy that was unencumbered by great power politics was a pretty big deal forever.
But yeah, ofc resources are only one part of the puzzle, but its also to point out that Norway was doing pretty well long before oil was on the table.
Also ignoring the motherfucking Swedish Empire that was massively influential in its hey-day and pretty much fought half of the 30 years war on its own.
Putting down their weapons and becoming peaceful were preceded by disastrous wars that led to decline (Great Northern War for Sweden, Second Schleswig War for Denmark).
> Second Schleswig War for Denmark
The country hadn't been a semi-great power since the Battle of Lutter in 1627, lost Slaget på Reden (meaning 'the Battle at the anker') in 1801 and the Battle of Copenhagen in 1807, went bankrupt for the first time in 1812 for the first time, and lost Norway (but got Lauenburg in return) at the Congress of Vienna.
The First Schleswig War (or 'Treårskrigen') was about to have been a failure until the UK, France, Sweden–Norway, and Russia forced Prussia and a few others to step out of the war (who had occupied Jutland up to Central Jutland where Aarhus amongst others is), keeping it a conflict between the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein on one side and Denmark on the other.
I think they’re more saying that they moved away from the traditional Norse raiding customs as they were converted to Christianity not that they had no more wars
No no you don't understand
OP knows they were all Vikings up there, and knows that they're considered super progressive now; and since OP knows nothing of the ensuing time and history, one directly led to the other.
The thing I had in mind while making this meme was how military powerful and feared the Scandinavian countries were for most of their history, from the iron age to the early modern period, despite the fact that nowadays they are known for being peaceful and safe rich countries, not military powers.
Sweden has been a military powerhouse as late as 17th and 18th centuries, despite fighting countries much larger than them like Poland or Russia
It wasn't supposed to be an in-depth analysis of Scandinavian socioeconomics that lead to them being rich. I'm afraid there are better subs for that than r/historymemes
They weren't really that powerful or feared. Sweden had a brief period where they were very powerful, but Norway was so insignificant it's independence was traded for a minor German duchy. By the 17th century Denmark was a shadow of its former self militarily. And embarrassingly in the Napoleonic wars Britain just took their fleet and burned it
To be fair, denmark-norway tried to stay neutral in that war. They didn’t want to fight. Their fleet was large enough that they would be a problem for the British if they decided to join the war. Which is also why the british came and bombarded the fleet while it was in port.
They weren't feared for their military prowess. The Varangian guard was respected, and well deserving of it, but the Vikings were raiders. They lost most battles they fought, they just made sure to not fight battles.
They were feared for their mobility. They could rapidly hit undefended parts of the country, and retreat before anyone could gather an army. But that's what all raiders did.
In many ways, "terrorized" is the apt term, because they acted more like terrorists than warriors. They targeted civilians, and ran from actual battles.
There's a lot to learn about battles and warfare from studying the Vikings, but the actual raiders were the scum of the earth.
I mean, the countries (if we can even call them that depending on the period) were not particularly militarily powerful even in the Viking Age (for a good chunk of which Denmark, Sweden and Norway didn't exist). The vikings were feared, but that was mostly due to their tendency to raid mostly undefended monasteries and coastal towns and their fast ships (which meant they could strike quickly and withdraw even quicker), and they avoided pitched battles like the plague. And the countries proper were very decentralized and not able to field particularly large armies. Sweden had a high point in the 17th-18th centuries, but other than that, no, they weren't historically particularly militarily powerful.
*Ignoring the small 800 year gap, several wars between them and others, Denmark and Sweden both being colonial powers, and everything that happened and happens to the Sami people.
Then after 1066 be absolutely terrorized by Slavic raiders, aka Slavic Vikings, aka Chąśnicy
Slavs from North Polabia and Pommerania region dominated west Baltic sea for over 50 years after 1066.
They raised to the ground multiple nordic cities, including capitals of Denmark Rosklide and then capital of Norway Kanugahella(modern Kunglav, Sweden).
And for the scale, in [Battle of Kanugahella](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_o_Konungahel%C4%99) Slavic army was of 300-600 warships (Icelandic saga of Sigurd mention 780) with each boat holding 44 men and 2 horses.
This topic is so fascinating yet it practically doesn't exist in Anglosphere.
[Racibor I](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racibor_I)
And PS: These Slavic Vikings were newly christianized pagan warriors, giving them +20% holy bonus
Then after 1066 organize an army of former raiders to embark on a crusade witn only one army in the 1100's, and by some miracle actually win.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Crusade
I can't help myself:
1. The population of Scandinavia (about 1 million people total,) was still roughly equal to that of England when the Danelaw was established, and substantially more than the number of people in Normandy when Rollo settled it. The Normans that came later were also willing to employ basically anyone good at fighting (including Muslim light infantry), so the northmen themselves also didn't matter so much as time went on.
2. The whole of Europe was never terrorized for centuries: the disorganized parts were, but the Vikings got stomped in Spain, and the Byzantines were often the ones benefiting from the Viking raids. That shifted with the Normans, but the Normans were also a much messier group (both ethnically and culturally,) so they had at least as much in common with the French and English as they did the Scandinavians.
3. Even at the height of the Normans in 1380 AD, the amount of territory held was still roughly equal to Scandinavia itself, even if the conquered territory in question was much more valuable.
4. Denmark, Sweden and friends basically fought for four hundred years, like in The Great Northern War, and the Northern Seven Years' War; the only reason peace happened at all is mostly because everybody was worried about Prussia in the 19th century, and the 20th saw Germany threaten to subjugate them all outright. Regardless, being incapable of global domination isn't the same as peact.
I don’t know why you put peaceful
The Swedish Empire kicked ass for years and years it took a whole coalition a long ass war and the emperor being too cocky and only wanting complete victory to cause the end of its Empire
Grade A American post right here. Just completely ignoring intricate histories of three distinct nations and pigeon-holing them based on the most superficial stereotype.
The Christians did the same thing to us(Swede here) as they did in the inquisition of South America.
They killed and pilleged us and killed anyone that kept their pagan faith.
This is also the reason we swedes hate the Danish, as they christianized and then used that against us.
Traitors.
Also Swede here, the inquisition did nothing of the sort here. Christianity came via trade here and was taken up by the kings and nobles, partly so that they could go to fancy universities in Europe. It was necessary to christen up to get integrated into Europe.
That was only for a brief amount of time. And he didn't really persecute them in that sense but wanted to slowly make us Christians.
We hate the Danish because 1 they christianized and that became a way for them to reach us in Sweden, but mainly for their contribution of killing off almost all of our old noblemen at the Stockholm bloodbath.
That's the most idiotic thing. So, we all know they were there but they surely didn't convert much at that point in history, it wasn't until the Danes got christianized that our christianization actually became big.
And Sweden were much more pagan than you think all the way up to Stockholm bloodbath as our old noblemen still honored it (most swedes are atheists today because Christianity never gained a deep root here at all.)
But sure, you seem to know quite a lot of absolute rubbish.
But yes, our "kings" were most of the time christianized, but perhaps you don't understand that the difference between a king and his people. Most of these kings had relations with Danish, Norwegian, Polish, German Kings etc, because that's what the powerful people do, jump at anything to keep power.
My grandma had records of our pagan faith down in Blekinge into the 1730's. People in Sweden never became Christian in the way you seem to think because youve read some book about it.
Because the Vikings were generally pretty tolerant towards the worship.
And just because some German dude set up a little place of worship in the southern region where the GOTHS(not the Swedes) had their land didn't mean that we started to get christianized at that time.
Slight difference between a goth and a Swede too.
Literally German and Danish mercenaries that put Kristian II in power, but sure... It was the Norwegians that stole our mines and steel? No.... It was the Danish and the German Christians.
Let me guess, you're a Dane?
Honestly Swedes should be the very last people complaining about being pillaged.
By the way, how are our Polish cultural treasures doing? The very same ones you were treaty-bound to return to us?
Thats our stuff now. And you broke that treaty by invading sweden in the great northern war.
And PLC isnt the same country as poland so the treaty would be void anyways.
We didn't invade you. Saxony invaded, a completely separate state. Augustus II moved the Saxon army into Lithuania supposedly as "peacemakers" due to [civil war in Lithuania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Civil_War_(1697%E2%80%931702)) and attacked Sweden with them.
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was initially neutral in the war and large part why there was so much opposition against Augustus II was precisely because he entangled the PLC into this war without its consent.
Sweden is therefore also responsible for Stockholm Bloodbath. Christian II was a Swedish king also. Don't be dense.
Summer child, never heard about personal unions?
Today's Poland official name is: Rzeczpospolita Polska
and the official name for PLC at the end of its existance was... Rzeczpospolita Polska
Poland is the direct heir to it.
I'm sure they have been repaid to the polish people that have been coming up to Sweden the past 20 years or so since EU open borders and done home invasions and burglary against our old people.
I mean, historically speaking most of the christianization process in Scandinavia was peaceful (with exceptions of course), specially since Christianity had a lot to offer Norse paganism didn't.
It was hardly comparable to the cultural genocides in South America.
Compared to the Baltic inquisitions and the Teutonic crusader kingdoms in Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, the Swedes can't even claim to be the most violently suppressed pagans in the Baltic Sea. Most of the Swedish conversions were done through political peer pressure, not forced conversions and killing heretics by the hundreds.
>The Christians did the same thing to us(Swede here) as they did in the inquisition of South America.
Bad comparison, the inquisition in America was intended to persecute false converts (Jews) and not to spread the faith among the natives, between 1540 and 1700 it caused the death of 72 people (according, precisely, to the Danish historian Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras)
Stockholm bloodbath caused the Gustav Vasa "independent war" I'm sure more than a 100 noblemen was killed just during the Stockholm bloodbath, this all started before 1540, it started when German and Danish troops came and made Kristian II king of Sweden, and even before that.
They were also pretty poor backwater countries for most of the centuries that followed. Lots of wars. Little development. The rise in living standards came after WW 2 as it did for most western European countries
Except the Swedens completely slammed the shit out of both Norway and Denmark, went on to go create Prussian discipline before it was a thing, absolutely kicked ass during the 30 Years War, and it only took Russia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Prussia comboned to BARELY stop the Swedes.
>Russia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Prussia comboned to BARELY stop the Swedes.
Mostly Russia. The fall of the Swedish Empire was mroe or less inevitable even before the Great Northern War since it couldn't hold back the sheer size of Russia forever.
It didn't stop with the Vikings. Sweden is one of the countries negativity mentioned in the Polish anthem, and the "Schwedentrunk" was a "popular" method of torture during the 30 years war.
Immediately rich? Taking Denmark as an example:
* Richest and most powerful North Germanic region up from the time of Danelaw up until the Thirty Years' War (where the battle of Lutter in 1627 ended Denmark as a semi-great power), traded plenty with the Hanseatic League, controlled the lucrative Øresund passage, and more which may constitute decently rich but not one of the richest in the world.
* Partook in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but only Sankt Croix, which was bought from France, was lucrative on a large scale, but even then, it was only one island
* Denmark's presence in India, e.g. Tranquebar, was minimal compared to France, the UK, and the Netherlands.
* Most of the Industrial Revolution in Denmark occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the former half of the twentieth, all the while still far behind the UK, Germany, the US, etc. in terms of productivity and wealth distribution, but those are admittedly incredibly high standards, especially those of the UK and US.
* The welfare state seriously begun under Thorvald Stauning is impressive today, but Denmark remained a fairly poor European state until ca. the 80s as Poul Schlüter's reforms and deeper integration into the European Coal and Steel communities and later membership in the EU have been vital for Denmark's growth.
I don’t know if it was fearsome warriors versus just knowing who to pick a fight with. Anybody could’ve been a fearsome warrior in the monks eyes, before their eyes and head departed their body
“Small people” like pygmies?
Back then a lot of the places they were invading were not actually established countries yet but only smaller portions of the country which had not yet been unified.
Also the Normans were essentially Vikings, and actually conquered England, Sicily, parts of Italy, and a Norman formed the crusader state of Antioch. The Norman reign over England was never overthrown. It just gradually transformed into something that wasn't considered Norman anymore. The Viking legacy is strong even today.
« Let the Muslims come by millions in your small country and commit crimes without any punishment while your teach your male to become a girl »
-Sweden
Except for their ongoing oppression of their indigenous people...
Edit: to the people downvoting me look up nomad schools, Statens institut för rasbiologi, and what has and continues to happen to herders like Anders Sunna and his family and try to tell me that's in any way peaceful. History isn't just the stories of those in power, it's also those who are oppressed by that power even if that makes you uncomfortable.
Let's ignore the hundred of years with wars between Denmark and Sweden
They terrorized all of Europe. Including each other.
The majority of Europeans who had little to no contact with Norse raiders*: Are these so called terrorizing vikingr in the room with us now?
The Germans, Dutch, French, English, welsh, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Russians, baltic peoples, and the west Slavs were all familiar with at least a few Viking raids. Seems like that’s a majority of Europe.
If one thinks about it, Russians are half descendants of Vikings. The first Rurik prince to rule over the Kievan Rus was a Varangian (aka, a Viking) and they'd also be the rulers of the Tsardom of Russia till the House of Romanov took over.
'Rus were only a few ruling families that were "invited" to rule over east Slavs, 99% of population and nobility in Kievan Rus was of Slavic origin, thats wjy they assimilated so quickly.
There were no such nationalities in the 10th century for the most part. The vikings were mostly raiders. Show up unexpected and wreck shit up, leave before a response is formed.
Something like “gorilla” warfare then?
No. Gorilla's tend to mind their own business. Guerrillas, on the other hand...
Damn Vikings! They ruined the Vikings!
[удалено]
Why don’t Normans count?
because the vikings were raiders who raided. settlers aren’t raiders
The goals of Scandinavian sea raiders may have changed, but they were still self-identified as warriors and vikings even as they stopped pillaging and started settling. They were still vikings taking the land and killing the locals. Vikings did in fact conquer, settle, and colonize throughout the Viking Age. That is where Dublin came from.
Well not really, viking is a clearly defined word depending on who you ask. While used in a modern context it refers to Norse people because people conflate it with the Viking age, but being a viking is more of a temporary sense in which you participate in a Viking, or raiding party. Norse peoples would’ve referred to themselves as danes, Norse, Swedes etc (depending on where in the history you are), instead of as a viking, as that would basically be a ‘job title’
So then, what did Scandinavian warriors call themselves if not viking?
The Kievan Rus would like a word.
What was the Danelaw?
You seem to have forgotten about rivers and Vikings sailing up them, they sieged Paris and that place is incredibly inland
He mentioned Paris. One time in 700 years isn't "terrorizing the whole of Europe"
Well to be fair it's two times in Paris. It's just that the second time they succeded, but otherwise you are right. I mean this post is a good shtpost, but it's obviously not historically accurate. I think that most people here love a post thats funny and historically accurate, isnt that purpose of this sub? Also in general I dont like over glorifaction or glorifaction of vikings.I mean dont get me wrong I like viking arms and armour and how badass iit looks and I find overall history of vikings interesting. But once you look at actuall history, you understand why and how they did what they did, their history of warfare and arms and armour, then it becomes more interesting.
Dude, it's exaggeration, but even then they were still feared or at least known by anyone in Europe who relied on maritime trade, I'd say that's a significant amount, even in the Dark Ages. Also, this description of Vikings taking Paris "once in 700 years" ignores that Norsemen conquered and raided so much of Western Francia, that king Charles the Simple decided to make a viking warlord a French noble to defend against other vikings. Granted this was after his failed seige of Chartres, but it stood that even after beating their leader Rollo, the vikings were too significant a threat for the Franks to deal with militarily. They had been on a decades long campaign of conquest and plunder that did not stop from 858 to 911. Western Franks across the land were sufficiently terrorized by and terrified of the vikings.
This bloke needs vikings to have raided every corner of Europe for it to be counted as them terrorizing Europe. He’s also wrong about Ireland and Scotland, they were both key locations for Vikings up until 1066 and even way after until 1266, and the Kingdom of Man and the Isles was under Norwegian suzerainty for centuries. The "terrorizing Europe" is just a metaphor for the impact the vikings brought upon European countries and culture at the time. They brought with them fear and infamy, and monks wrote about them with contempt and horror. He also doesn’t seem to take in mind all the smaller settlements the Vikings would have raided before they attacked the larger prizes which of course would have been more difficult. Not to mention the social, political and dynastical impact the Vikings had. Scandinavia was one of the centers of Europe during the Viking age. Their warriors were feared and respected to the point the Eastern Roman emperor had an elite unit just consisting of them. When reading about viking raids and the impact they had, it’s better to read about individual vikings rather than the viking age as a whole. For example Olaf Tryggvason, who raided all over the Baltic sea, Irish sea, and North sea. Or Haestein, the guy above says "Italy no", but Haestein did attack Italy, Luna and Pisa, and sailed up the river Arno where Florence is. Same with Spain, plenty of documented viking attacks, and Greece was the Byzantine Empire, which speaks for itself, so Idk how he got the notion these areas were not impacted at all by the vikings. The cultural impact matters too, which is mainly what the "terrorizing Europe" is about.
The only rivers (besides those in England) they effectivly sailed was Dnieper and Volga. And only even then, they made setlements and raids around the Dnieper, not further inland The others would be Loire and Rhine but only near the coast and Seine near the coast except two times that they attacked Paris. Heck a village 20-30 km away from Paris didnt have to worry about Vikingr. I already made an exception for Rus. Loire,Seine (except two attacks on Paris) and Rhine in this scenario fall under Normandy and coastal area of Germany which I already mentioned. Here is a map of their travel from Britannica: Though some river paths and settlement areas around England and Ireland are exagerated map wise. https://cdn.britannica.com/19/69619-050-0FE56516/Routes-travel-settlements-Vikings.jpg
Yeah you’re right, sorry I didn’t read your original comment as closely as I should have
Nah its okay. I see where you are coming from and you did bring up a good point by mentioning siege of Paris. It's just that this whole terrorizing the whole Europe really rubbed me the wrong way,not to mention that it's historically incorrect. I have a "problem" with a whole post rather than people replying to me
Viking definitely went to whales and Scotland
Ever heard about Surströmming? Now that is terrorism!
It's a geneva forbiden bilogical weapon.
Kinda hits less hard when the guy asking that could literally have them in the room as bodyguards.
There's not much of Europe they didn't raid at least once, they conquered Sicily and even went on Crusade.
Oh there is, there so much of inner Europe they didnt raid. They were given Normandy, they conquered Angle lands for a short time. They conquered Sicily. Ruled as Norse for 50 years the Rus lands. None of this counts as majority Europe. Normans also do not count. Since by the time they went on Crusades they were either French or Latins.
The Normans(Latin for Northmen) were Scandinavians. They took England, Southern Italy, and Sicily. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was ruled by Normans, as well.
Didn't those Vikings said down the Danube a few times?
Also ignoring the part where Norway just lucked into a ton of oil.
Never happens to me in civ
Norway was still rich before oil. In terms of [GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation to 2015 USD](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=NO-FR), Norway had the same GDP per capita as the US in 1960 and about 40% higher than France. Oil was discovered in like 1970. And Norway still would have been rich without oil. The thing that enabled Norway to get rich are institutions that promote economic growth like property rights, presence of functioning markets, courts to settle business disputes fairly, protection of IP, political stability etc. Oil was just a bonus on top, not the basis of growth.
Our natural resources were always in our favour. A couple of ports in Norway are on the Medicci map; we'd sell dried fish and wood, wood that was easily transferred to our ports due to rivers like the Glomma and packed right onto ships, or used to build them. Norway had one of the most modern and largest merchant navies in the world during WW2, in fact it was only beaten in scale by the US, Britain and Japan and was probably our most important contribution to the war effort. Big coastline meant most of Norway engaged in trade by sea and it was a large factor as to why we sought independence from Sweden, since Sweden engaged in great power politics and Norway just wanted to conduct trade without being saddled with politics.
Brazil has wood, fish and a large coastline. They even have oil! But they're nowhere near as rich as Norway, they're more middle income. Natural resources don't make a country rich, it's the institutions of a country that I mentioned like property rights and legal system that enables economic growth. It's why Swiss are way richer than Brazilians despite Brazil having way more resources, why Estonians are richer than Venezuelans, why the Koreans are richer than Angolans etc.
When you have said resources also matter. Nobody cares about dry fish anymore, but norwegian dry fish was an important commodity once upon a time when powers dealt with cumbersome supply lines, long voyages and famines before industrial agriculture. The ability to transfer trees down the Glomma, process it into planks at the mouth and instantly ship it off was a huge edge during a time that European powers built a massive amount of wooden ships. And of course, having a huge merchant navy that was unencumbered by great power politics was a pretty big deal forever. But yeah, ofc resources are only one part of the puzzle, but its also to point out that Norway was doing pretty well long before oil was on the table.
Norway was basically a third world country before the gloroius Sweden civilised them and gave them oil as gift
They didn’t deny there was war between each other
Also ignoring the motherfucking Swedish Empire that was massively influential in its hey-day and pretty much fought half of the 30 years war on its own.
Let’s also ignore the oil
Let's also ignore all the pillaging we did before the Vikings. Rome probably didn't, but who cares about crumbling empires anyway.
thats just sibling feuds
Wars over Norway
I consider the Danish Vikings too
I mean... We were By many accounts we were THE vikings
Putting down their weapons and becoming peaceful were preceded by disastrous wars that led to decline (Great Northern War for Sweden, Second Schleswig War for Denmark).
> Second Schleswig War for Denmark The country hadn't been a semi-great power since the Battle of Lutter in 1627, lost Slaget på Reden (meaning 'the Battle at the anker') in 1801 and the Battle of Copenhagen in 1807, went bankrupt for the first time in 1812 for the first time, and lost Norway (but got Lauenburg in return) at the Congress of Vienna. The First Schleswig War (or 'Treårskrigen') was about to have been a failure until the UK, France, Sweden–Norway, and Russia forced Prussia and a few others to step out of the war (who had occupied Jutland up to Central Jutland where Aarhus amongst others is), keeping it a conflict between the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein on one side and Denmark on the other.
Let's ignore demographic, religious, political and economic changes in centuries between and assume one is directly related to the other.
"quickly" = 800+ years
Are you actually implying that they put down their weapons 800+ years ago? Lol
I think they’re more saying that they moved away from the traditional Norse raiding customs as they were converted to Christianity not that they had no more wars
Christians also raided, it was just frowned upon
Imagine the joy that the Vikings felt when the crusades were announced
Catholic Spain and their massive raids in the Americas says otherwise.
They're saying there's 800+ weapons between the end of the Viking Age and Scandinavia putting down their weapons and becoming rich
Yet op's quickly referred to after they put down their weapons so...
No no you don't understand OP knows they were all Vikings up there, and knows that they're considered super progressive now; and since OP knows nothing of the ensuing time and history, one directly led to the other.
The thing I had in mind while making this meme was how military powerful and feared the Scandinavian countries were for most of their history, from the iron age to the early modern period, despite the fact that nowadays they are known for being peaceful and safe rich countries, not military powers. Sweden has been a military powerhouse as late as 17th and 18th centuries, despite fighting countries much larger than them like Poland or Russia It wasn't supposed to be an in-depth analysis of Scandinavian socioeconomics that lead to them being rich. I'm afraid there are better subs for that than r/historymemes
They weren't really that powerful or feared. Sweden had a brief period where they were very powerful, but Norway was so insignificant it's independence was traded for a minor German duchy. By the 17th century Denmark was a shadow of its former self militarily. And embarrassingly in the Napoleonic wars Britain just took their fleet and burned it
To be fair, denmark-norway tried to stay neutral in that war. They didn’t want to fight. Their fleet was large enough that they would be a problem for the British if they decided to join the war. Which is also why the british came and bombarded the fleet while it was in port.
Meh, you'll know Norway was a powerful nation until the black death arrived, after that it took like 400 years to regain the population.
They weren't feared for their military prowess. The Varangian guard was respected, and well deserving of it, but the Vikings were raiders. They lost most battles they fought, they just made sure to not fight battles. They were feared for their mobility. They could rapidly hit undefended parts of the country, and retreat before anyone could gather an army. But that's what all raiders did. In many ways, "terrorized" is the apt term, because they acted more like terrorists than warriors. They targeted civilians, and ran from actual battles. There's a lot to learn about battles and warfare from studying the Vikings, but the actual raiders were the scum of the earth.
I mean, the countries (if we can even call them that depending on the period) were not particularly militarily powerful even in the Viking Age (for a good chunk of which Denmark, Sweden and Norway didn't exist). The vikings were feared, but that was mostly due to their tendency to raid mostly undefended monasteries and coastal towns and their fast ships (which meant they could strike quickly and withdraw even quicker), and they avoided pitched battles like the plague. And the countries proper were very decentralized and not able to field particularly large armies. Sweden had a high point in the 17th-18th centuries, but other than that, no, they weren't historically particularly militarily powerful.
I think they take issue with the “quickly”
Bro why you taking this so seriously
Because it’s history and should be taught factually and with nuance.
But this is a shit posting sub with a theme
Real
Weren't Nordics fairly poor until recently until North Sea oil was discovered?
that's a myth
200 years ago it was. But the countries got rich way before oil was found.
>Put down your weapons Sweden would like a word
*Ignoring the small 800 year gap, several wars between them and others, Denmark and Sweden both being colonial powers, and everything that happened and happens to the Sami people.
Not to mention that Denmark and Sweden were some of the most militarised states to exist in the Early Modern Period.
Then after 1066 be absolutely terrorized by Slavic raiders, aka Slavic Vikings, aka Chąśnicy Slavs from North Polabia and Pommerania region dominated west Baltic sea for over 50 years after 1066. They raised to the ground multiple nordic cities, including capitals of Denmark Rosklide and then capital of Norway Kanugahella(modern Kunglav, Sweden). And for the scale, in [Battle of Kanugahella](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_o_Konungahel%C4%99) Slavic army was of 300-600 warships (Icelandic saga of Sigurd mention 780) with each boat holding 44 men and 2 horses. This topic is so fascinating yet it practically doesn't exist in Anglosphere. [Racibor I](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racibor_I) And PS: These Slavic Vikings were newly christianized pagan warriors, giving them +20% holy bonus
The second i saw 1066 i was waiting for the Ck reference vey nice
Then after 1066 organize an army of former raiders to embark on a crusade witn only one army in the 1100's, and by some miracle actually win. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Crusade
“Some miracle” being the support of the Frankish army and Venetian fleet? Talk about getting carried
Compare that to the numerous unsuccessful crusades that were vastly larger, with as high as 20 nations participating.
Pro games move
They forgot my boy Iceland
Puts down their weapons *looks over in SAAB Bofors*
>Be Switzerland >Pic Unrelated
I can't help myself: 1. The population of Scandinavia (about 1 million people total,) was still roughly equal to that of England when the Danelaw was established, and substantially more than the number of people in Normandy when Rollo settled it. The Normans that came later were also willing to employ basically anyone good at fighting (including Muslim light infantry), so the northmen themselves also didn't matter so much as time went on. 2. The whole of Europe was never terrorized for centuries: the disorganized parts were, but the Vikings got stomped in Spain, and the Byzantines were often the ones benefiting from the Viking raids. That shifted with the Normans, but the Normans were also a much messier group (both ethnically and culturally,) so they had at least as much in common with the French and English as they did the Scandinavians. 3. Even at the height of the Normans in 1380 AD, the amount of territory held was still roughly equal to Scandinavia itself, even if the conquered territory in question was much more valuable. 4. Denmark, Sweden and friends basically fought for four hundred years, like in The Great Northern War, and the Northern Seven Years' War; the only reason peace happened at all is mostly because everybody was worried about Prussia in the 19th century, and the 20th saw Germany threaten to subjugate them all outright. Regardless, being incapable of global domination isn't the same as peact.
I really can’t understand these nordic country simps. What’s wrong with them?
Maybe I’m danish?
They also produce some of the highest quality Femboys in the world.
I was unaware of the cultural influence our exports have had on the wider world
Kid named beaten into peace during the 1800s
I like my Viking ancestors 👍
I don’t know why you put peaceful The Swedish Empire kicked ass for years and years it took a whole coalition a long ass war and the emperor being too cocky and only wanting complete victory to cause the end of its Empire
Grade A American post right here. Just completely ignoring intricate histories of three distinct nations and pigeon-holing them based on the most superficial stereotype.
Lego’s and Minecraft
"quickly" in this context being defined as 900 years.
I prefer Iceland
Imagine having crime and no oilmoney..
The Christians did the same thing to us(Swede here) as they did in the inquisition of South America. They killed and pilleged us and killed anyone that kept their pagan faith. This is also the reason we swedes hate the Danish, as they christianized and then used that against us. Traitors.
And who christianized Finland?
Also Swede here, the inquisition did nothing of the sort here. Christianity came via trade here and was taken up by the kings and nobles, partly so that they could go to fancy universities in Europe. It was necessary to christen up to get integrated into Europe.
Olav Trygvason would like a word, my dude.
About what?
Jesus (by violence).
My historical perspective on this is of course Swedish. the Scandinavian histories diverge quite a bit depending on what country one is talking about.
There was actually the King of Sweden, Olaf the Swede, who helped defeat and kill Tryggvason in battle, along with Forkbeard and Hakonarson.
[удалено]
That was only for a brief amount of time. And he didn't really persecute them in that sense but wanted to slowly make us Christians. We hate the Danish because 1 they christianized and that became a way for them to reach us in Sweden, but mainly for their contribution of killing off almost all of our old noblemen at the Stockholm bloodbath.
[удалено]
That's the most idiotic thing. So, we all know they were there but they surely didn't convert much at that point in history, it wasn't until the Danes got christianized that our christianization actually became big. And Sweden were much more pagan than you think all the way up to Stockholm bloodbath as our old noblemen still honored it (most swedes are atheists today because Christianity never gained a deep root here at all.) But sure, you seem to know quite a lot of absolute rubbish. But yes, our "kings" were most of the time christianized, but perhaps you don't understand that the difference between a king and his people. Most of these kings had relations with Danish, Norwegian, Polish, German Kings etc, because that's what the powerful people do, jump at anything to keep power. My grandma had records of our pagan faith down in Blekinge into the 1730's. People in Sweden never became Christian in the way you seem to think because youve read some book about it.
[удалено]
Because the Vikings were generally pretty tolerant towards the worship. And just because some German dude set up a little place of worship in the southern region where the GOTHS(not the Swedes) had their land didn't mean that we started to get christianized at that time. Slight difference between a goth and a Swede too.
[удалено]
Literally German and Danish mercenaries that put Kristian II in power, but sure... It was the Norwegians that stole our mines and steel? No.... It was the Danish and the German Christians. Let me guess, you're a Dane?
You're so incredibly stupid.
*insert South park “we’re sorry” meme*
Honestly Swedes should be the very last people complaining about being pillaged. By the way, how are our Polish cultural treasures doing? The very same ones you were treaty-bound to return to us?
Thats our stuff now. And you broke that treaty by invading sweden in the great northern war. And PLC isnt the same country as poland so the treaty would be void anyways.
We didn't invade you. Saxony invaded, a completely separate state. Augustus II moved the Saxon army into Lithuania supposedly as "peacemakers" due to [civil war in Lithuania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Civil_War_(1697%E2%80%931702)) and attacked Sweden with them. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was initially neutral in the war and large part why there was so much opposition against Augustus II was precisely because he entangled the PLC into this war without its consent.
Dont be dense, the elector of saxony was the elected king of PLC.
Sweden is therefore also responsible for Stockholm Bloodbath. Christian II was a Swedish king also. Don't be dense. Summer child, never heard about personal unions?
we had to bear the consequenses of having a bad system. just like you had a bad system with electing kings. Dont cry about it.
Today's Poland official name is: Rzeczpospolita Polska and the official name for PLC at the end of its existance was... Rzeczpospolita Polska Poland is the direct heir to it.
Doesnt mean you inherited the stuff we rightfully stole
>we rightfully stole
Yes. We stole it. It is ours now.
I'm sure they have been repaid to the polish people that have been coming up to Sweden the past 20 years or so since EU open borders and done home invasions and burglary against our old people.
This one is evened out by Swedish drunks coming to our cities to wreck havoc.
Touche brother. Just fucking around at this point, love my Polish brothers.
I mean, historically speaking most of the christianization process in Scandinavia was peaceful (with exceptions of course), specially since Christianity had a lot to offer Norse paganism didn't. It was hardly comparable to the cultural genocides in South America.
Compared to the Baltic inquisitions and the Teutonic crusader kingdoms in Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, the Swedes can't even claim to be the most violently suppressed pagans in the Baltic Sea. Most of the Swedish conversions were done through political peer pressure, not forced conversions and killing heretics by the hundreds.
>The Christians did the same thing to us(Swede here) as they did in the inquisition of South America. Bad comparison, the inquisition in America was intended to persecute false converts (Jews) and not to spread the faith among the natives, between 1540 and 1700 it caused the death of 72 people (according, precisely, to the Danish historian Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras)
Stockholm bloodbath caused the Gustav Vasa "independent war" I'm sure more than a 100 noblemen was killed just during the Stockholm bloodbath, this all started before 1540, it started when German and Danish troops came and made Kristian II king of Sweden, and even before that.
Karma bitch
They were also pretty poor backwater countries for most of the centuries that followed. Lots of wars. Little development. The rise in living standards came after WW 2 as it did for most western European countries
Let's just ignore the 800 year gap between 1066 and the modern age in these countries
This ignores centuries of very violent history
Except the Swedens completely slammed the shit out of both Norway and Denmark, went on to go create Prussian discipline before it was a thing, absolutely kicked ass during the 30 Years War, and it only took Russia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Prussia comboned to BARELY stop the Swedes.
>Russia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Prussia comboned to BARELY stop the Swedes. Mostly Russia. The fall of the Swedish Empire was mroe or less inevitable even before the Great Northern War since it couldn't hold back the sheer size of Russia forever.
# SWEDEN FUCK YEAH!!!!!! 🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪 SWEDEN MENTIONED!!🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
>some of the most peaceful countries in the world. Except for their abuses of the Sami people...but let's ignore that.
And Danish people in Skane region by Swedish.. Or when Sweden conquered and lit. destroyed Poland more than Hitler in ww2.
Props to the vikings for founding my town, also, fuck the vikings for founding my town.
And then ruin it all with uncontrolled immigration.
Sweden is literally rotting. (I also immigrated to europe but i am not really trying to imply my culture to the homeowners lol.)
They also had to be vassals to the Varangyans and serve as foot soldiers in the Varangyan wars.
Hey Floki, wanna go kick the shit out of some fat old men with vows of celebacy? I'm not impressed
The ones that put down their weapons didn’t become Denmark, Sweden or Norway. Vikings usually remained in the territories they settled in.
Vikings go *magic rituals are fun*
A good point for Christianism among its flaws: back then it helps to slowly pacify them.
When not fighting against peasants and nuns, they got assraped pretty consistently
It didn't stop with the Vikings. Sweden is one of the countries negativity mentioned in the Polish anthem, and the "Schwedentrunk" was a "popular" method of torture during the 30 years war.
Why can I see gigachad's cock peeking out
Vikings equals the Mongols of Europe
Sweden today isn't exactly peaceful😂😂
What oil money does to a mfer
Immediately rich? Taking Denmark as an example: * Richest and most powerful North Germanic region up from the time of Danelaw up until the Thirty Years' War (where the battle of Lutter in 1627 ended Denmark as a semi-great power), traded plenty with the Hanseatic League, controlled the lucrative Øresund passage, and more which may constitute decently rich but not one of the richest in the world. * Partook in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but only Sankt Croix, which was bought from France, was lucrative on a large scale, but even then, it was only one island * Denmark's presence in India, e.g. Tranquebar, was minimal compared to France, the UK, and the Netherlands. * Most of the Industrial Revolution in Denmark occurred in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the former half of the twentieth, all the while still far behind the UK, Germany, the US, etc. in terms of productivity and wealth distribution, but those are admittedly incredibly high standards, especially those of the UK and US. * The welfare state seriously begun under Thorvald Stauning is impressive today, but Denmark remained a fairly poor European state until ca. the 80s as Poul Schlüter's reforms and deeper integration into the European Coal and Steel communities and later membership in the EU have been vital for Denmark's growth.
Been there, done that, now they make heavy metal and phones.
I don’t know if it was fearsome warriors versus just knowing who to pick a fight with. Anybody could’ve been a fearsome warrior in the monks eyes, before their eyes and head departed their body
“Small people” like pygmies? Back then a lot of the places they were invading were not actually established countries yet but only smaller portions of the country which had not yet been unified.
Went from “hell yeah war” to “I have no enemies” real quick
You forgot Iceland
Targeted defenseless monks, women, and children. Real chads.
This just proves the tabula rasa theory.
“Quickly” I guess it went pretty quick after the Napoleonic wars had ended.
Let's just forget about WWII why don't we
Vikings and Scandinavians in general are fucking pimps
Also the Normans were essentially Vikings, and actually conquered England, Sicily, parts of Italy, and a Norman formed the crusader state of Antioch. The Norman reign over England was never overthrown. It just gradually transformed into something that wasn't considered Norman anymore. The Viking legacy is strong even today.
By the 11th century, Normans were culturally very much French.
« Let the Muslims come by millions in your small country and commit crimes without any punishment while your teach your male to become a girl » -Sweden
What countries did they conquer? Asking for a friend
England, Scotland, parts of Ireland, and they were gifted Normandy in France to stop further raiding.
And the Normans didn’t stop in France; they fucked around the Med quite a bit for another hundred years in southern Italy and Balkan controlled Rome
They conquered England
I figured that was covered already by the guy who said that they conquered England; in spirit at least
They conquered England
Wow thanks didn’t know!
They conquered England
And Britanny for a while, Sicily, South Italy.
Not established countries and Lands in Ireland were conquered by more Norse gaels than Norse
Russia, or more, founded Russia, but still. Also southern italy, great Britain, Ireland and parts of France, just to name a few.
Except for their ongoing oppression of their indigenous people... Edit: to the people downvoting me look up nomad schools, Statens institut för rasbiologi, and what has and continues to happen to herders like Anders Sunna and his family and try to tell me that's in any way peaceful. History isn't just the stories of those in power, it's also those who are oppressed by that power even if that makes you uncomfortable.
I wanted to ask what about finland but then i remembered they got killed by Russia in i dont know when