I'm from Sicily but I've been living in Denmark for several years. I always tell my Danish (or Scandinavians in general) friends that I may have Viking ancestry through the Normans. It's probably a big stretch but makes for good conversation since it's a link many who are not history enthusiasts don't expect.
Lol all germanics (anglos, franks, visi goths, ostro, bavarians, saxons etc) came from scandinavia uptop 750 bc - 500 ad so by that logic all west europe is connected by blood
yeah, no mention of the Hautevilles in the whole interview, a bit disappointing. But then I guess they did their thing mainly after the 1100 cut-off point.
@@slyasleep Yep roger 1, robert guiscard who took sicily from arab emirate, Legendary Battle of Cerami 100 vs 3k, Roger 2 who ended zirgid dynasty , Bohemond who carried 60% of first crusade including legendary battles like battle of lake of Antioch 600 vs 15k
Ah, I love Dan lol he asks the simplest questions in the most poignant way; so we can all have our questions answered but in a kind of fresh way. Just brilliant!!
Another reason raiding started was that the pope put a ban on trading with non christian countries, which hurt nordic traders financially. This is why churches and convents were targeted in particular, because of their wealth but also to hurt the "evil empire" of christianity. Eventually it was more beneficial to join christianity than to keep fighting the juggernaut.
Even the TV show Vikings started off with the established Vikings going east and Ragnar wanting to go West as part of the storyline. Even a show that fudges a lot of historical accuracy can be correct some of the time
I think its correct more than that. The thing is that it doesn't necessarily go in any true to life chronological detail. At first it does, yes, but in later seasons, the writers took a lot of poetic license with the flow of time.
Even moderately successful landowning families would engender a need for new homesteads, to avoid succession conflicts and a thinning of accumulated wealth and property. No particular crisis would have been needed. More generally, UK history tends to focus on the Western edge of Scandinavian expansion and raiding, but of far more scope and lasting significance is the colonization of the river system extending to modern day Ukraine. The Varangian guard get a lot of attention, but the way the river system was taken over and the way this process spread and mixed cultures is hugely important to later developments.
It is understandable that UK school children learn about the vikings through our interactions. Time is short and there is a lot of information to be accessed. Anyone studying further has access to loads of books that tell of the Rus and other groups that both traded and raided eastward. I am old now and can't recall when I came across this information but it was in pre internet days.
@@soderlund3610 Not unfortunate at all! I really wish English-speaking people were as proficinet in Scandinavian languages as the Scandinavians are in English.
Some various words of Vikings that were used interchangingly to mean the Vikings: Viking, Norseman, Dane, Northman, Varangian, Rus. (Norsemen/Northmen and Danes were used interchangingly even if it wasn't certain the group were directly from Norway or Denmark)
Is the episode at Lindisfarne in anyway related to Charlemagne forcibly converting 4500 Friesians to Christianity 10? 11? years earlier and then killing them all immediately afterwards? Also banning Christians from trading with Pagans? + cutting down trees in their Sacred Groves? To what extent did Theodosius's edict in 391 making it illegal to be Pagan and punishable by death lead to hostility between Christians and Pagans?
Bartlett is correct in saying that the origin of the word "viking" is unknown, but what is known is that to be called a "viking" by their contemporary Norwegians was a swear word for the lowest of the low individuals. These people were usually the "outlaws" of their society which comes from the phrase "uten for loven" or "lovløs", that is to say they had committed a crime and were cast out of society and outside the law, meaning that they could be killed without reproach and or never admitted into a settlement. It is believed that these people formed groups and eventually became pirates, raiding both in Norway and after a while abroad. Those that came later were not vikings, they were Norwegians and Danes, led by Jarls (Earls) looking for territory.
Aethelred/s ;spithet', 'Unred', translates more like 'badly counseled' than 'not prepared'. If I recall correctly, 'red' means 'counsel', and was used in many names. 'Aelfred' (modern Alfred) translates as 'elf counsel'.
To some degree I 'd think that they had a big population that swelled during good times, and then something came along and pressured them - a cold spell or bad harvests -- and they had to go raiding. My family still has a farm north of Olso and the soil is very rich. But they probably had many kids per family - so the younger boys had to figure out something to do.... so they went raiding.
Happy to see you got us Danes and our North sea Empire. It was mostly Danes / Danish vikings who took England. Beside the word viking came from the old Norse word Vikgir. It's a job titel you get, when you take job as sea raiders.
The single greatest quantity trade good from Scandinavia to Byzantium was dried cod. They traded so many captive Slavs to Byzantium we have the word slave to define indentured servants. They certainly got all around Europe, the Mediterranean Sea, Middle East, western Asia and as far as North America.
I love how English casually and routinely differentiate themselves from Danes and French. Nice to hear some self-awareness at 27:00 when they discuss how all the suitors for Edward the Confessor's throne were as much Norse bastards as anything else.
I think on the isles people might have said the Juts are coming or Danes, the term / name Danes at least date back to 950 as i recall, Juts probably date back even further, but that is 2 hand writings as we of course did not write much our self. I see myself as a Jut more than i see myself as a Dane.
Nothing really started with the "vikings". Scandinavians have criss crossed Europe and the east since the bronze age. There are lots of evidence to that. Just in one finding in Sweden, there was 2600 yo things from today southern Germany, Italy (etruscia) and Turkey. For instance swords, bronze buckets and other things. The tens of thousands of petroglyphs from Sweden speaks for itself. Mostly boats, weapons and war scenes.
Before viking age those boats were row boats. Sails for ships were very expensive, but somehow economy got better and sail boats became usual and Scandinavian people started longer voyages. There were also other factors. Someone said there was less centralized armies in mainland Northern Europe to keep raiders away at that time, so Scandinavians who had been trading, saw opportunity to just take things by force and skip the trading part.
lots of evidence like literal roman maps showing all germanics (anglos franks etc) came from scandinavia? yea lol not criss crossed, they made west europe
I think, from an historical point of view, people who lived in modern day Finland were culturally Baltic rather than Norse (habits, clothings, language, traditions, etc) so they're not considered Norse (and Finns today don't usually consider themselves culturally Scandinavians either). From a geographical point of view Finland and Sweden are connected way up into the North where I believe settlements weren't that largely spread so there was less mixing between the people and cultures. One may argue that across the sea they aren't that far apart though so this is just a speculation. It may just have been a coincidence that the cultures didn't intermix too much.
@@crystalcole2674 Do you know this for a fact or are you just saying? My entire family is from Finland and they consider themselves Scandinavian. I was actually asking W.B. Bartlett and I should have acknowledged that. I am curious was historians think.
@@daphnekivinen9482 that is interesting... most of the Suomi i know insist that they are not Scandinavian, but hard to tell with Suomi as they tend not to be very strident about anything except when they've had a few beers. There is a tendency in Finland to back off from associations with Scandinavia (Sweden) as they were under Swedish rule for several hundred years. Despite that length of time Swedish is very much a second language there - maybe only 10%? The national identity of Finland is fascinating..
@@undrellx All my family members are from Finland. Everyone spoke Finnish except for my maternal Grandmother's family who spoke Swedish. Those relatives live near Kaustinen. My father's family was from near Lahti. Thanks for the info!
@@daphnekivinen9482 hi Daphne.. well u can't get much more Finnish than that! I've got a few good Finnish friends and have wrestled with the language. If you haven't already read about it you should find out how well the Finnish ducked and dived under the apparent rule of both Sweden and Russia... incredible story of maintaining their culture and language while ostensibly collaborating with their invaders. I particularly liked the way they would literally move villages further into the forest in order to avoid giving horses and men to foreign armies... just extraordinary resilience which I think shows through in their attitudes and culture today. really interesting country of which I am a great admirer.. nice to chat.. kippis
They conveniently left that the Vikings in places like Spain were unsuccessful. They were defeated many times in Christian Spain and Islamic Spain, failing to raid many of the areas they wanted to raid. Some settled in various areas of spain as well, and some were used as mercenaries by the christian kingdoms for their own goods. Also Palm Trees in Southern Spain were not a thing until later... Palm trees are not native to southern spain, they were brought there. PD: Also... Where is Sicily? Russia? It seems like this is centered around UK and a bit of France but vikings were in many areas you know?
Nothing was named Russia before Ivan the Terrible become Tsar in 1547 AD. Where Moscow stand today was just empty forests at the time of the Vikings. But yes Vikings from what is now Sweden settled all the way along the river Volga. And is even believed to have had trade relations with Persia. But the main reason way the Vikings was successful was because they had access to steel, probably from Persia, where Frankia, Britannia and most of main land Europe only used iron. This is perhaps way they was not successful in what is now Spain as they too had access to steel. PS: Remember France and UK is allot younger geopolitical entities then the Vikings too. UK was founded in 1922 AD where England as a Kingdom was founded in 927 AD and the end of the Viking era. The Republic of France was formed 1792 AD but the Kingdom of France was formed in 843 AD. The Viking era dies out around 1000 AD.
He did mention the Vikings having losses, right as or right after he mentioned them going to Spain. This was a very interesting interview! I'd like to get that guy's book. The only thing I don't get is why the younger guy was shouting.
Lindisfarne was a special scouting mission, which actually turned out to be a rescue mission, according to my source of misunderstood historical firefighters. That's why they really didn't have weapons for raiding, but they used the axes like the tools they use today. Shields for heat protection and it wasn't siege gear, but contemporary fire ladders etc.. It's just a huge misunderstanding from the beginning, and can be explained as the language barrier offered the first problem. They also had to save most of the interior, with all these confused and helpless monks running wild, so they had to pacify them, and in the heat of the moment (punn intended) they knocked out a few, so it could have looked like a raid from a certain point of view, but I'm convinced that the locals were embarrassed about the situation and they made up this story, just to save face and over time, the story sadly was used against the brave rescue Vikings of lindisfarne, and ended up being the wildest propaganda of the dark ages..
And all of the precious mentalware from the monastery? Was that their honorarium for savings those poor monks? What source do you have for this new version of the story?
@@citizenVader An interpretation isn't a fact. Yes, people can most definitely have opinions, but they aren't facts. You really should use your powers of imagination for good!
It is interesting how historians avoid mentioning the Baltic Slavs of the Abodriten Pomeranian tribe. The island of Rügen was the center of pagan cult with the shrine of Arkon. And there is evidence that the pagan religion of the Slavs was also practiced in Scandinavia. The island of Rügen was completely crucial, as it was between northern Germany and Sweden and closed the access from the Baltic to the west and vice versa. The Baltic pagan Slavs were a significant naval force of the time and even until the nearly 12th century.
Well the man who kidnapped Irelands patron saint, saint patrick, was called Niall of the nine hostages, he is known only for that one deed. But he was a king who may also had lands in Cornwall and north western France. At least i read it in a book years and years ago.. either way there is so much history, a lot gets lost or forgotten or is maby not as far reaching etc. Cool to know about this baltic slav tribe though. So thank you.
We also say brain boru defeated the vikings at clontarf. But it was mostly a battle between munster and leinster and the vikings were a small mercenary force. 😂😂 History is what you write baby.
I'm allways so surpriced that you talk about the Vikings in Brittain as if they suddently came and conquerred.. what about the Anglo-Saxons-Jutes? As far as I know, the Jutes came from Middle Jutland (Denmark), the Angels from Southern Jutland (Denmark) and the Saxons from Northern Germany/Nederlands. So couldn't some of the the Vikings in Brittain just be the anglo-saxons' grandchildren?
Because by definition the "Vikings" are the raiders who invaded and settled during the period of the existing English kingdoms. Not all of them were Danish, as the video makes clear.
@@skepticalbadger Yes I know that they were not all Danish, but did you read what I wrote about the Anglo-Saxons? A few days ago I read that the current population in UK have 3% Norwegean ansestory and 6 % Danish, so that might say something about the percentage of origians in the Viking age?
I mean, it was somewhat sudden. It had been probably 150/200 years+ since the height of the earlier westward movements circa 400-550 and kingdoms had come and gone in that time. Then within the space of about 75 years, you have the first Viking raid, then progressively intensifying raids until the Micel Here takes half of what is now England. Both cultures on either side of the North Sea had developed in that time.
if people valued the silver content of coins and not the monetary value of the coins the coins would have been treated like ingots and melted down, no, coins were valued as a medium of exchange the worth of which was tied to the silver content. Fire, the Wheel, animal domestication, agriculture, fermentation and the use of money as an abstraction are all equally important in the story of civilization. One of the reasons paper money was not used earlier may be paper was rare, was invented in China, only made it's to Europe and the Med in the middle ages and was probably more valuable then metal money for some time. Isn't presenting a note to a Templars bank and getting a sack of coins using paper money?
Dan, this is for Wayne, your guest. I'm a Celticist but I can see that the Vikings played an important role in sowing the seeds of nationalism. Not as a founder but a catalyst. I see the roots of capitalism sprouting after the Vikings and during the Tudor dynasty. It's wonderful for scholars to come on youtube and discuss their work.
It is funny how British still say that "Vikings" invaded England in 1066. They can't simply say French did it. it would hurt their pride. The northmen of normandy were not vikings for a long time, they, as said in the vid, were speaking french, had french culture, wear french armors, used french weapons, and called themselves French. They were mixed with French people for 3 generations. Moreover, the duke of Normandie, vassal of the French king, had soldiers from normandie, brittany and other parts of France to attack England And himself, noted about this war that it was " Franci vs Angli "
@@johnhenry4844 William the conqueror was half dan half French by blood...and so were most of the northmen living in France. And since they adopted French life and called themselves French.. it would be a bit presumptuous to "tell" them today, no you were not French , we know better than you northmen, that you were vikings" They call themselves French so why should we decide that they were not. Moreover they fear water and couldn't even built ships able to cross the sea to reach England, They asked Fishermen from Britannie ( bretagne) to built them. That itself show they were not vikings anymore.
@@ganikus8565 It is more accurate to say about bunch of Franco Norseman by themselves conquered England than to say the french did. Given how the french monarchs weren’t involved and the later Anglo Norman’s later became Frances greatest rival in the Middle Ages
not that much genetic dilution occurs in 3 generations.. "scratch a Norman you'll find a Dane.." was the way Anglo-Saxons viewed them... mind Harald was half Viking himself and Anglo-Saxons were fairly genetically from the north.. it looked like a lot of squabbling between very similar people.. who all wanted to hang on to the rich lands of England.. it all comes down to the money in the end.. nothing new in the world
Who in Britain says Vikings invaded in 1066? Where do you get that from. It's the culmination of the Norman conquest and has always been known as such. The battle of Hastings is taught in English junior school and I can tell you they were called the Normans led by William the conqueror.
I think you try to explain a bit the Viking raid on Sevilla, there was not raid in Córdoba. Al- Andalus ( Andalucía) was part of the Umayyad Emirate of Córdoba. A Viking fleet arrived in Sevilla through the Guadalquivir and the Vikings pillaged the city. The Muslims Army, very well organised and better military equipment, under Emir Abd ar-Rahman II of Córdoba, with rapid respond defeat the Vikings so badly in battle they did not want to come back
You're misunderstanding him. The Vikings were interested in silver, as in the element silver. Once they received the (often) Islamic coins, they would melt them down. It's described in Bartlett's book.
As Much as I'd like to know the information this contains, I hate podcasts! I wonder where this idea that Normans were afraid to get on ships came from? I've read alot, but never came across that....sources say that a seafarer named Boerne got blown off course by a storm sighted North America,,but returned to Greenland & told his tale, which got to Erik's household, & he purchased the very same ship for his son. Because ships like people find their way back again, & so Leif made the crossing, in the year 1000. Since we know this is true, I don't see a reason to doubt the reason of the account. I really don't care what this man THINKS so much as what the facts are on the ground, + the historical say! His opinion means diddly.
I have to agree with another comment; this feels quite weak. I’ve watched many on this subject that feel more knowledgable and authoritative. And I’m not sure if the audio is off but Dan Snow sounds like he’s very shouty.
The weird and simple truth about the end of the Viking age is that all of Europe were getting ready to deal with the threat from the north so we(slowly) christened as Christian on Christian violence was frowned upon and it was a way not be on the receiving end of major payback. We rebranded and got ready for (what was then) the modern age. We graduated from violence to politics and fell to poverty, illiteracy and blind religion that lasted until the early 20th century in Norway.
One or two valid points in this, but I have to say that this is the weakest by far of the videos I have seen to date on this excellent channel. The main contribution to Great Britain is what is known as 'clench nailing', from which we derive the term 'clinker built', in re ship/boatbuilding. In this, a hole is made through the edges of two planks to be joined together. Then a nail is driven through and a 'rove', (looks like a cup-washer) is forced onto the pointy end, which is cut off, leaving a tiny, gable end shaped stub of wire. Finally this stub is carefully hammered, to form a round 'capping', whilst a second Viking shall, (usually a Thrall or lower orders type of chappie, don't you know) sits under the ship/boat with a 'dolly weight' pressed against the head of the nail, to absorb the shock and keep all right & tight. (if the dolly slips off, he is then kicked by the Masterman (prolly a Karl) who is hammering, but not hard enough to kill him, as this wastes time. From the above process proceeds the entirity of Pretania's much lauded "rulership of the waves", if you will allow.. I would add a note on The Norse attitude to women, which was superior by far to that of most other European civilizations, to this day.. F'rinstance; thus it goes, or goeth; if that an married woman had forbidden her husband to show even one single hair of his chest in public, and he had gotten his tits out, then, at the public Thing (held on a hill, a kind of parliament, from which we derive the word 'thing' (entity)), then she was entitled to divorce him and take half of his possessions.. Also his chances of getting into The Hall Of The Chosen Slain (also known as Valhalla) were seriously impaired, as The Valkyr (Selectors Of The Einenharr) were, as far as I know, usually girls. Apart from that, a few good points. 👂👍❤️
And in some Northern societies, women were held in high enough respect that you might have to fight a duel to the death or face exile if you harrassed a free married - OR UNMARRIED - woman. You lost your honour, and in an honour-driven society, that was everything. Women could own property, inherit, run a business and foresee the wealth that came from it as they pleased. They were quite equal when it came to fighting, as well - the famous 'warrior grave' in Birka is, after all, that of a WOMAN warrior and caused quite a stir. ;)
This damn scholar failed. Vik-ing means beach-ing. Viking is an act. Viking is not a person. Runn-ing is not a person. Eat-ing is not a person. These are actions. Raiders go on viking. Raiders are not vikings. Viking means operating on the beaches, or beaching. North men were rather former. They won't say "were going raiding!" No, they say we're going breaching beaches or beaching THAT WOULD BE GOING TO GO DO A Viking.
Astonished nothing was mentioned about transgender Vikings, unless the graves found with women buried alongside weapons relate to this, or perhaps Viking women were identical to their female descendants on Tyneside after a few beers (or not) and liked steaming in along with the lads.
@@Mike-dk7wj It would be funny if this kind of nonsense wasn't being pushed into historical and archaeological study. We have archaeologists being pressured into not classifying skeletons as male or female in case they "identified" as a different gender. This nonsensical ideology is a huge threat to academic freedom and the truth.
I'm from Sicily but I've been living in Denmark for several years. I always tell my Danish (or Scandinavians in general) friends that I may have Viking ancestry through the Normans. It's probably a big stretch but makes for good conversation since it's a link many who are not history enthusiasts don't expect.
Lol all germanics (anglos, franks, visi goths, ostro, bavarians, saxons etc) came from scandinavia uptop 750 bc - 500 ad so by that logic all west europe is connected by blood
yeah, no mention of the Hautevilles in the whole interview, a bit disappointing. But then I guess they did their thing mainly after the 1100 cut-off point.
@@slyasleep Yep roger 1, robert guiscard who took sicily from arab emirate, Legendary Battle of Cerami 100 vs 3k, Roger 2 who ended zirgid dynasty , Bohemond who carried 60% of first crusade including legendary battles like battle of lake of Antioch 600 vs 15k
@@bruhmcchaddeus413they are British and focus mainly on the viking attacks on Britain.
Not a big stretch, so many Sicilians look like Norse people, the Norman blood is still there.
Ah, I love Dan lol he asks the simplest questions in the most poignant way; so we can all have our questions answered but in a kind of fresh way. Just brilliant!!
Bought the book a month or two back and i'm at the Harald Bluetooth chapter. Just to say thanks to W B for writing it, really enjoyed it so far
Another reason raiding started was that the pope put a ban on trading with non christian countries, which hurt nordic traders financially. This is why churches and convents were targeted in particular, because of their wealth but also to hurt the "evil empire" of christianity. Eventually it was more beneficial to join christianity than to keep fighting the juggernaut.
I'm part Viking!
Great episode! Thank you
Even the TV show Vikings started off with the established Vikings going east and Ragnar wanting to go West as part of the storyline. Even a show that fudges a lot of historical accuracy can be correct some of the time
yup my old clock is accurate twice a day. 😂
I think its correct more than that. The thing is that it doesn't necessarily go in any true to life chronological detail. At first it does, yes, but in later seasons, the writers took a lot of poetic license with the flow of time.
Even moderately successful landowning families would engender a need for new homesteads, to avoid succession conflicts and a thinning of accumulated wealth and property. No particular crisis would have been needed.
More generally, UK history tends to focus on the Western edge of Scandinavian expansion and raiding, but of far more scope and lasting significance is the colonization of the river system extending to modern day Ukraine. The Varangian guard get a lot of attention, but the way the river system was taken over and the way this process spread and mixed cultures is hugely important to later developments.
It is understandable that UK school children learn about the vikings through our interactions. Time is short and there is a lot of information to be accessed. Anyone studying further has access to loads of books that tell of the Rus and other groups that both traded and raided eastward. I am old now and can't recall when I came across this information but it was in pre internet days.
I would really like to learn about Norse daily life and farming, beyond the usual focus on ships and fighting.
There are lots of scandinavian documentaries about that. Unfortunately most in scandinavian languages
@@soderlund3610 Not unfortunate at all! I really wish English-speaking people were as proficinet in Scandinavian languages as the Scandinavians are in English.
Listening to stuff like this makes me really want to play Crusader Kings
Just got ck2. Started as Duke of Dublin now I own Ireland, Britain, North africa and Jerusalem.
Literally loading it up as I'm watching this!
10 seconds in i was thinking the same😂
Haha I was thinking the same thing
I have it, but I think I’m going to need a damn degree to play it. It’s so overwhelming!
This channel is awesome.
Great Episode!!!
Some various words of Vikings that were used interchangingly to mean the Vikings: Viking, Norseman, Dane, Northman, Varangian, Rus. (Norsemen/Northmen and Danes were used interchangingly even if it wasn't certain the group were directly from Norway or Denmark)
Is the episode at Lindisfarne in anyway related to Charlemagne forcibly converting 4500 Friesians to Christianity 10? 11? years earlier and then killing them all immediately afterwards? Also banning Christians from trading with Pagans? + cutting down trees in their Sacred Groves? To what extent did Theodosius's edict in 391 making it illegal to be Pagan and punishable by death lead to hostility between Christians and Pagans?
Bartlett is correct in saying that the origin of the word "viking" is unknown, but what is known is that to be called a "viking" by their contemporary Norwegians was a swear word for the lowest of the low individuals. These people were usually the "outlaws" of their society which comes from the phrase "uten for loven" or "lovløs", that is to say they had committed a crime and were cast out of society and outside the law, meaning that they could be killed without reproach and or never admitted into a settlement. It is believed that these people formed groups and eventually became pirates, raiding both in Norway and after a while abroad. Those that came later were not vikings, they were Norwegians and Danes, led by Jarls (Earls) looking for territory.
Aethelred/s ;spithet', 'Unred', translates more like 'badly counseled' than 'not prepared'. If I recall correctly, 'red' means 'counsel', and was used in many names. 'Aelfred' (modern Alfred) translates as 'elf counsel'.
Dan Snow is so good man
Good interview!
Wonderful historian.
To some degree I 'd think that they had a big population that swelled during good times, and then something came along and pressured them - a cold spell or bad harvests -- and they had to go raiding. My family still has a farm north of Olso and the soil is very rich. But they probably had many kids per family - so the younger boys had to figure out something to do.... so they went raiding.
Good video, greetings from Sweden.
Those ships are so impressive looking.
Happy to see you got us Danes and our North sea Empire. It was mostly Danes / Danish vikings who took England.
Beside the word viking came from the old Norse word Vikgir. It's a job titel you get, when you take job as sea raiders.
Hahaha! That doesn't describe the etymology; that's just saying 'dog' is the title for something that barks.. :)
@munteza9262well that‘s a daftly bigoted comment.
Norway is beautiful
The single greatest quantity trade good from Scandinavia to Byzantium was dried cod. They traded so many captive Slavs to Byzantium we have the word slave to define indentured servants. They certainly got all around Europe, the Mediterranean Sea, Middle East, western Asia and as far as North America.
I love how English casually and routinely differentiate themselves from Danes and French. Nice to hear some self-awareness at 27:00 when they discuss how all the suitors for Edward the Confessor's throne were as much Norse bastards as anything else.
I think on the isles people might have said the Juts are coming or Danes, the term / name Danes at least date back to 950 as i recall, Juts probably date back even further, but that is 2 hand writings as we of course did not write much our self.
I see myself as a Jut more than i see myself as a Dane.
Nothing really started with the "vikings". Scandinavians have criss crossed Europe and the east since the bronze age. There are lots of evidence to that. Just in one finding in Sweden, there was 2600 yo things from today southern Germany, Italy (etruscia) and Turkey. For instance swords, bronze buckets and other things. The tens of thousands of petroglyphs from Sweden speaks for itself. Mostly boats, weapons and war scenes.
Before viking age those boats were row boats. Sails for ships were very expensive, but somehow economy got better and sail boats became usual and Scandinavian people started longer voyages. There were also other factors. Someone said there was less centralized armies in mainland Northern Europe to keep raiders away at that time, so Scandinavians who had been trading, saw opportunity to just take things by force and skip the trading part.
lots of evidence like literal roman maps showing all germanics (anglos franks etc) came from scandinavia? yea lol not criss crossed, they made west europe
My suspicion is that Charlemagnes conquest of the Saxons was an indirect cause of Norse raiding.
Interesting. Why do you think that?
Interesting! 🤔
🤔Question Iv been doing a lot of research on the surname Bartlett have u found the origin to the name ?😆
That’s my surname by the way 😂
the name Bjorn rhymes with "burn"
Question, Why aren't Finish people considered part of the Viking lineage ? Because, really the way border's really are what back then ?
I think, from an historical point of view, people who lived in modern day Finland were culturally Baltic rather than Norse (habits, clothings, language, traditions, etc) so they're not considered Norse (and Finns today don't usually consider themselves culturally Scandinavians either).
From a geographical point of view Finland and Sweden are connected way up into the North where I believe settlements weren't that largely spread so there was less mixing between the people and cultures. One may argue that across the sea they aren't that far apart though so this is just a speculation. It may just have been a coincidence that the cultures didn't intermix too much.
Because they have an entirely different heritage, they're a Uralic people.
Sami are also in Finland. Do you think Finland is considered a Scandinavian country?
It’s not
@@crystalcole2674 Do you know this for a fact or are you just saying? My entire family is from Finland and they consider themselves Scandinavian. I was actually asking W.B. Bartlett and I should have acknowledged that. I am curious was historians think.
@@daphnekivinen9482 that is interesting... most of the Suomi i know insist that they are not Scandinavian, but hard to tell with Suomi as they tend not to be very strident about anything except when they've had a few beers. There is a tendency in Finland to back off from associations with Scandinavia (Sweden) as they were under Swedish rule for several hundred years. Despite that length of time Swedish is very much a second language there - maybe only 10%? The national identity of Finland is fascinating..
@@undrellx All my family members are from Finland. Everyone spoke Finnish except for my maternal Grandmother's family who spoke Swedish. Those relatives live near Kaustinen. My father's family was from near Lahti. Thanks for the info!
@@daphnekivinen9482 hi Daphne.. well u can't get much more Finnish than that! I've got a few good Finnish friends and have wrestled with the language. If you haven't already read about it you should find out how well the Finnish ducked and dived under the apparent rule of both Sweden and Russia... incredible story of maintaining their culture and language while ostensibly collaborating with their invaders. I particularly liked the way they would literally move villages further into the forest in order to avoid giving horses and men to foreign armies... just extraordinary resilience which I think shows through in their attitudes and culture today. really interesting country of which I am a great admirer.. nice to chat.. kippis
It’s Harry Enfield.
They conveniently left that the Vikings in places like Spain were unsuccessful. They were defeated many times in Christian Spain and Islamic Spain, failing to raid many of the areas they wanted to raid. Some settled in various areas of spain as well, and some were used as mercenaries by the christian kingdoms for their own goods. Also Palm Trees in Southern Spain were not a thing until later... Palm trees are not native to southern spain, they were brought there.
PD: Also... Where is Sicily? Russia? It seems like this is centered around UK and a bit of France but vikings were in many areas you know?
Nothing was named Russia before Ivan the Terrible become Tsar in 1547 AD. Where Moscow stand today was just empty forests at the time of the Vikings. But yes Vikings from what is now Sweden settled all the way along the river Volga. And is even believed to have had trade relations with Persia. But the main reason way the Vikings was successful was because they had access to steel, probably from Persia, where Frankia, Britannia and most of main land Europe only used iron. This is perhaps way they was not successful in what is now Spain as they too had access to steel.
PS: Remember France and UK is allot younger geopolitical entities then the Vikings too. UK was founded in 1922 AD where England as a Kingdom was founded in 927 AD and the end of the Viking era. The Republic of France was formed 1792 AD but the Kingdom of France was formed in 843 AD. The Viking era dies out around 1000 AD.
He did mention the Vikings having losses, right as or right after he mentioned them going to Spain.
This was a very interesting interview! I'd like to get that guy's book. The only thing I don't get is why the younger guy was shouting.
Sorry, you can't call Dublin part of Britain thank you very much 😅
Lindisfarne was a special scouting mission, which actually turned out to be a rescue mission, according to my source of misunderstood historical firefighters.
That's why they really didn't have weapons for raiding, but they used the axes like the tools they use today. Shields for heat protection and it wasn't siege gear, but contemporary fire ladders etc..
It's just a huge misunderstanding from the beginning, and can be explained as the language barrier offered the first problem. They also had to save most of the interior, with all these confused and helpless monks running wild, so they had to pacify them, and in the heat of the moment (punn intended) they knocked out a few, so it could have looked like a raid from a certain point of view, but I'm convinced that the locals were embarrassed about the situation and they made up this story, just to save face and over time, the story sadly was used against the brave rescue Vikings of lindisfarne, and ended up being the wildest propaganda of the dark ages..
And all of the precious mentalware from the monastery? Was that their honorarium for savings those poor monks?
What source do you have for this new version of the story?
@@paigetomkinson1137 mostly my fantasy
@@citizenVader Ahh, I see. Thanks for explaining!
@@paigetomkinson1137 that is a fact I truly believe in. A interpretation perhaps, but definitely not a explanation HAHAHAHAHAHA
@@citizenVader An interpretation isn't a fact. Yes, people can most definitely have opinions, but they aren't facts. You really should use your powers of imagination for good!
It is interesting how historians avoid mentioning the Baltic Slavs of the Abodriten Pomeranian tribe. The island of Rügen was the center of pagan cult with the shrine of Arkon. And there is evidence that the pagan religion of the Slavs was also practiced in Scandinavia. The island of Rügen was completely crucial, as it was between northern Germany and Sweden and closed the access from the Baltic to the west and vice versa. The Baltic pagan Slavs were a significant naval force of the time and even until the nearly 12th century.
obviously not enough to mention...
Were they? I’ve read that Vikings enslaved a lot of Slavic people 🤔
@@crystalcole2674 Arrogant as always.
Well the man who kidnapped Irelands patron saint, saint patrick, was called Niall of the nine hostages, he is known only for that one deed. But he was a king who may also had lands in Cornwall and north western France. At least i read it in a book years and years ago.. either way there is so much history, a lot gets lost or forgotten or is maby not as far reaching etc. Cool to know about this baltic slav tribe though. So thank you.
We also say brain boru defeated the vikings at clontarf. But it was mostly a battle between munster and leinster and the vikings were a small mercenary force. 😂😂 History is what you write baby.
I'm allways so surpriced that you talk about the Vikings in Brittain as if they suddently came and conquerred.. what about the Anglo-Saxons-Jutes? As far as I know, the Jutes came from Middle Jutland (Denmark), the Angels from Southern Jutland (Denmark) and the Saxons from Northern Germany/Nederlands. So couldn't some of the the Vikings in Brittain just be the anglo-saxons' grandchildren?
Because by definition the "Vikings" are the raiders who invaded and settled during the period of the existing English kingdoms. Not all of them were Danish, as the video makes clear.
@@skepticalbadger Yes I know that they were not all Danish, but did you read what I wrote about the Anglo-Saxons?
A few days ago I read that the current population in UK have 3% Norwegean ansestory and 6 % Danish, so that might say something about the percentage of origians in the Viking age?
I guess the difference religion, culturaly between the Anglo saxon and the vikings
I mean, it was somewhat sudden. It had been probably 150/200 years+ since the height of the earlier westward movements circa 400-550 and kingdoms had come and gone in that time. Then within the space of about 75 years, you have the first Viking raid, then progressively intensifying raids until the Micel Here takes half of what is now England. Both cultures on either side of the North Sea had developed in that time.
@@MsJakobsen Vikings also reached the Spain and the middle east, they were raiders and payrates not normal people from the north doing trade
if people valued the silver content of coins and not the monetary value of the coins the coins would have been treated like ingots and melted down, no, coins were valued as a medium of exchange the worth of which was tied to the silver content. Fire, the Wheel, animal domestication, agriculture, fermentation and the use of money as an abstraction are all equally important in the story of civilization. One of the reasons paper money was not used earlier may be paper was rare, was invented in China, only made it's to Europe and the Med in the middle ages and was probably more valuable then metal money for some time. Isn't presenting a note to a Templars bank and getting a sack of coins using paper money?
My understanding is that the Vikings did melt their silver coins down.
Dan, this is for Wayne, your guest. I'm a Celticist but I can see that the Vikings played an important role in sowing the seeds of nationalism. Not as a founder but a catalyst. I see the roots of capitalism sprouting after the Vikings and during the Tudor dynasty.
It's wonderful for scholars to come on youtube and discuss their work.
It is funny how British still say that "Vikings" invaded England in 1066. They can't simply say French did it. it would hurt their pride.
The northmen of normandy were not vikings for a long time, they, as said in the vid, were speaking french, had french culture, wear french armors, used french weapons, and called themselves French. They were mixed with French people for 3 generations.
Moreover, the duke of Normandie, vassal of the French king, had soldiers from normandie, brittany and other parts of France to attack England
And himself, noted about this war that it was " Franci vs Angli "
To say the Norman’s were pure french is misleading, for starters they were pretty autonomous from the french monarchy
@@johnhenry4844 William the conqueror was half dan half French by blood...and so were most of the northmen living in France. And since they adopted French life and called themselves French.. it would be a bit presumptuous to "tell" them today, no you were not French , we know better than you northmen, that you were vikings"
They call themselves French so why should we decide that they were not. Moreover they fear water and couldn't even built ships able to cross the sea to reach England, They asked Fishermen from Britannie ( bretagne) to built them. That itself show they were not vikings anymore.
@@ganikus8565
It is more accurate to say about bunch of Franco Norseman by themselves conquered England than to say the french did.
Given how the french monarchs weren’t involved and the later Anglo Norman’s later became Frances greatest rival in the Middle Ages
not that much genetic dilution occurs in 3 generations.. "scratch a Norman you'll find a Dane.." was the way Anglo-Saxons viewed them... mind Harald was half Viking himself and Anglo-Saxons were fairly genetically from the north.. it looked like a lot of squabbling between very similar people.. who all wanted to hang on to the rich lands of England.. it all comes down to the money in the end.. nothing new in the world
Who in Britain says Vikings invaded in 1066? Where do you get that from. It's the culmination of the Norman conquest and has always been known as such. The battle of Hastings is taught in English junior school and I can tell you they were called the Normans led by William the conqueror.
I think you try to explain a bit the Viking raid on Sevilla, there was not raid in Córdoba. Al- Andalus ( Andalucía) was part of the Umayyad Emirate of Córdoba. A Viking fleet arrived in Sevilla through the Guadalquivir and the Vikings pillaged the city. The Muslims Army, very well organised and better military equipment, under Emir Abd ar-Rahman II of Córdoba, with rapid respond defeat the Vikings so badly in battle they did not want to come back
Interested in the silver not the monitory value? Bro silver is money…
You're misunderstanding him. The Vikings were interested in silver, as in the element silver. Once they received the (often) Islamic coins, they would melt them down. It's described in Bartlett's book.
Was there global warming at the beginning of the Viking Age?
Dan Snow, yes. The other guy... Sleepy!
Saddened by the lack of actual facts, that seem to been left out more of someones personal viewpoint.
What facts were missed out?
The Christian Franks attack us fist,then the norse started raiding the christians
As Much as I'd like to know the information this contains, I hate podcasts!
I wonder where this idea that Normans were afraid to get on ships came from? I've read alot, but never came across that....sources say that a seafarer named Boerne got blown off course by a storm sighted North America,,but returned to Greenland & told his tale, which got to Erik's household, & he purchased the very same ship for his son. Because ships like people find their way back again, & so Leif made the crossing, in the year 1000. Since we know this is true, I don't see a reason to doubt the reason of the account. I really don't care what this man THINKS so much as what the facts are on the ground, + the historical say! His opinion means diddly.
There's a book on the shelf written by a "Tom Holland"; what's that about? 🤔
Fall of the Roman Empire,
I have to agree with another comment; this feels quite weak. I’ve watched many on this subject that feel more knowledgable and authoritative. And I’m not sure if the audio is off but Dan Snow sounds like he’s very shouty.
The weird and simple truth about the end of the Viking age is that all of Europe were getting ready to deal with the threat from the north so we(slowly) christened as Christian on Christian violence was frowned upon and it was a way not be on the receiving end of major payback. We rebranded and got ready for (what was then) the modern age. We graduated from violence to politics and fell to poverty, illiteracy and blind religion that lasted until the early 20th century in Norway.
the "victims" main problem was they didn't stage someone way up high to Scandinavia
one eyed god
"The Northman" is apparently trying to make the Vikings seem less like white supremacists. This interview seems to ignore the issue.
?
Vad fan pratar du om?
Why would white supremacy be mentioned at all?
"White supremecists"? What idiotic theory of history did you study to write something so particularly dumb?
lmao white supremacist Vikings
The girl playing the organ is funnier than you. You can have 2nd place, if you get a better shirt. Dragon Shields reveal themselves. Be careful.
They were black people
we wuz Vi-Kangz
😂😂 if they were they wouldn't of conquered anyone.
@@IrishCinnsealach Joking matey
One or two valid points in this, but I have to say that this is the weakest by far of the videos I have seen to date on this excellent channel. The main contribution to Great Britain is what is known as 'clench nailing', from which we derive the term 'clinker built', in re ship/boatbuilding. In this, a hole is made through the edges of two planks to be joined together. Then a nail is driven through and a 'rove', (looks like a cup-washer) is forced onto the pointy end, which is cut off, leaving a tiny, gable end shaped stub of wire. Finally this stub is carefully hammered, to form a round 'capping', whilst a second Viking shall, (usually a Thrall or lower orders type of chappie, don't you know) sits under the ship/boat with a 'dolly weight' pressed against the head of the nail, to absorb the shock and keep all right & tight. (if the dolly slips off, he is then kicked by the Masterman (prolly a Karl) who is hammering, but not hard enough to kill him, as this wastes time.
From the above process proceeds the entirity of Pretania's much lauded "rulership of the waves", if you will allow..
I would add a note on The Norse attitude to women, which was superior by far to that of most other European civilizations, to this day.. F'rinstance; thus it goes, or goeth; if that an married woman had forbidden her husband to show even one single hair of his chest in public, and he had gotten his tits out, then, at the public Thing (held on a hill, a kind of parliament, from which we derive the word 'thing' (entity)), then she was entitled to divorce him and take half of his possessions.. Also his chances of getting into The Hall Of The Chosen Slain (also known as Valhalla) were seriously impaired, as The Valkyr (Selectors Of The Einenharr) were, as far as I know, usually girls. Apart from that, a few good points. 👂👍❤️
And in some Northern societies, women were held in high enough respect that you might have to fight a duel to the death or face exile if you harrassed a free married - OR UNMARRIED - woman. You lost your honour, and in an honour-driven society, that was everything. Women could own property, inherit, run a business and foresee the wealth that came from it as they pleased. They were quite equal when it came to fighting, as well - the famous 'warrior grave' in Birka is, after all, that of a WOMAN warrior and caused quite a stir. ;)
This damn scholar failed. Vik-ing means beach-ing. Viking is an act. Viking is not a person. Runn-ing is not a person. Eat-ing is not a person. These are actions. Raiders go on viking. Raiders are not vikings. Viking means operating on the beaches, or beaching. North men were rather former. They won't say "were going raiding!" No, they say we're going breaching beaches or beaching THAT WOULD BE GOING TO GO DO A Viking.
Do you have sources for your etymological analysis?
Son unos X18TINDER.Uno de los mejoresp conciertos Mañas no 2 se l 💯💞😍
Astonished nothing was mentioned about transgender Vikings, unless the graves found with women buried alongside weapons relate to this, or perhaps Viking women were identical to their female descendants on Tyneside after a few beers (or not) and liked steaming in along with the lads.
Transgender vikings? Please. 😑
@@TheCJUN It's a joke.....
@@Mike-dk7wj 👍😁
@@Mike-dk7wj It would be funny if this kind of nonsense wasn't being pushed into historical and archaeological study. We have archaeologists being pressured into not classifying skeletons as male or female in case they "identified" as a different gender. This nonsensical ideology is a huge threat to academic freedom and the truth.
Amazing episode!