Talk:Vikings and the Old Norse
I'm glad this article has been created, but are links to websites for attractions really needed here, when there are links to the guides that have full listings on them? If not, let's just delete them from this article. If so, let's at least please follow standard external links front-linking format. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Structure of the article
Scandinavian history has been going on for thousands of years, but the Viking Age (AD 700-1050) draws most attention from travellers. How should we present the article's content? And how should we continue? We could have a Nordic Kingdoms article which presents Nordic history from Christianization (and the first stone buildings) until modern times, with Danish-Swedish rivalry as a main theme. /Yvwv (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Destination Viking Association
At Destination of the month I suggested some information was missing from the article. I think new sections could cover
- The raids: what were they like, what areas were affected, why was northern Europe vulnerable (connections to general European history), ...
- The British isles: Norse role in the local kingdoms; what were the Norse doing in Dublin and York; the Danelaw, ...
- The Normands: background, role in Britain
- Important role in the foundation of France: what role? (if through the Normands, then perhaps combined with above)
- America: what in earth were the Norse doing over there? about Iceland (perhaps mainly a link to Iceland#History); links to L'Anse aux Meadows etc.
- River routes, Black Sea and beyond
- Influence in Russia (Novgorod etc.)
- The Varangian Guard and other roles in the Mediterranean, Morocco (here I know too little to suggest whether this should be one section or many, or perhaps dealt with elsewhere)
- Hi. There is already a lot of information on Wikipedia about that. But even there - with all those qualified editors engaged - it's a mumbo-jumbo in some cases and occassionally poorly referenced with some skewed and even false information in between. In light of that, I am not sure a project of covering and summarizing the same subjects here on Wikivoyage is doable. In fact I am quite sure engageing in it would add little more than noise and clutter without much help to travellers. RhinoMind (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I believe you meant to write "ambitious"? Anyway, I think we could perhaps select a "suggested reading" list? In this way we do not overload the more casual reader/traveller with info he can't use anyway and we present the interested reader/traveller with reviewed opportunities to go further and study more in depth on their own. What do you say? If you think it would be a good idea, I could perhaps help sort out some titles or at least provide some inspiration? RhinoMind (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- If there are good, comprehensive, easily available works, we could have such a section (I think policy allows it under strict conditions, should be checked), but I still think we should tell something more about the Duchy of Normandy, the Kingdom of Dublin, Scandinavian York, the Danelaw and Novgorod and the Kievan Rus' than "[The Norse] settled e.g. in the British Isles and Normandy. The Norse came to play important roles in the foundation of great nations such as the Russian Empire, France and England", also to those reading just this page.
- We want to get this topic guide to "effectively cover most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions". We may cover them quite shortly, but there is certainly material for short sections like those outlined above. Where there is uncertainty we can tell about the myths and note that modern research have not been able to confirm them, or that there are different interpretations. We want to activate the imagination of the readers, and them to be able to relate to the Viking settlements when visiting places like Dublin, York or Novgorod.
- Remember TTCF: Historical travel articles should mainly put destinations into context, and answer frequently asked questions. /Yvwv (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Norman invasion of England?
An entry on the Battle Abbey was deleted because the "very tenuous link with Vikings". Is the Norman invasion of England part of Viking and Old Norse history? If not, when did Normans cease to be Norse? /Yvwv (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding is that ships and weapons were largely the same as used before AD 1000, the invasion was made in the context of conflicts between people with strong connections to the Viking world, and the Bayeux tapestry is used in many books about Vikings. I think the connection is quite relevant, perhaps even because of the connection to later times. (A more exact link to the deletion would be Special:Diff/3117144). This of course partly depends on what story is in fact told at the site. --LPfi (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Including the Normans (that invaded England in 1066) as some kind of Vikings is a long stretch. But the history is connected, and 1066 is regarded as the end of the Viking age, perhaps because Harald Hardrada lost the battle at Stamford bridge only 2 weeks before the battle of Hastings.--Erik den yngre (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"The Norse people are generally understood to have been the last Europeans to be Christianised." - The Baltic countries were perhaps christianised later? --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- And the Sámi even later. Regardless, I don't see a problem with the sentence as is, since if something is "generally understood", most people think of that way, whether or not that is true. And both the Baltics and the Sámi are far less populous and/or prominent in history. Vidimian (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
European Cultural Routess
I found this, which could be checked for possibly interesting information: European Cultural Routes: Viking Routes. The real info seems to be behind Destination Viking --LPfi (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)