Talk:Viking Age/Archive 2

message: Greetings.
There is a peer review started on Wikipedia:Peer review/Viking/archive1 and any interested party is invited to take part in reviewing the article. If you know the history of scandinavia, then please stop by and help the peer review of the artile Viking
Thank you for your time. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review invitation 

message: As a vote is one of the steps of wikipedias guide to resolve disputes let's try one.
Add your four~ under the solution you support. Please also add a short reasoning after your name and (if you want) larger comments under the comments sections.
LOL, this is pathetic. Just keep to the facts. And don´t rename him. --Comanche cph 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try a vote 

message: Because he was not called Hrolf by any script, other to a saga from Iceland writed 300 years later.
If you look at those who has reverting it, its all Norwegians or Icelandics, who just properly just WANTS to keep claiming that the "Hrolf" (from the Icelandic saga) IS Rollo of Normandy. 
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo_of_Normandy#Still_kicking_to_Rollo
When calling him "Rollo" as he WAS called in Normandy, France and England, -and not "HROLF". 
We have a neutral, and right view on him, that agres with BOTH Theory´s, about who Rollo is, -and NOT the only very doubtful Icelandic saga theory.
Rollo was not known as Hrolf
--Comanche cph 09:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why changing Hrolf to Rollo 

message: :Sorry, but a website is NOT acceptable as a source of information. You must reference a book and page number. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptable/Unacceptable 

message: I see you love to revert, Comanche. I just want to point out that simply reverting or removing text you don't agree with isn't good behaviour. You know that there is a dispute yet you constantly try to keep your side of the story the current one via reverts. When you see one of your edits being changed the second time around a bell should ring signaling it's time to go to the talk page. Then it is common procedure that the original text remain until the dispute is resolved. Inge 23:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you still seeking a rewert war? Did you not understand what I tried to explain or do you not want to play nice? Inge 00:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Gentlemen, revert-warring is a bad thing. I'm no expert on the Viking Age, but I've tried to patch up a compromise which I hope will be acceptable to both of you. Please see this in good faith. Btw, you might both be interested in this debate: . It almost looks like a user is trying to prove that no Vikings ever existed in Sweden. :sv:Diskussion:Viking has more on the same discussion. Anyway, the map could probably need a few improvements, so any input on it would be very welcome. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My last remarks regarding texts mentioning Gange-Rolf was referring to Rolf and 860. Inge 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: The article has previously been subject of reverts wars. Now it would need serious reference check and inline quotations. There are also a lot of  tags. / Fred-Chess 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert needed 

message: Rurik most certainly did not found Novgorod in 859.  In fact, archaelogy seems to suggest this town existed before Rurik was born. Goliath74 17:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Rurik found Novgorod? 

message: Even for an amateur historian of the Viking age it is quite apparent that this article generally is of rather low quality. Some of the more striking faults:
#the introduction fails to give the generally accepted time period of the Vikinga age (800-1050)
#the 'Viking Age' as a historical period is really only used to describe the period in Scandinavia. Eg while the 'Viking age' is a period is in Swedish history it is not so in say French, German or Russian history. 
#A lot of what is written in this article fits better into the Vikings article. In fact, I would suggest merging the two articles.
#There are relatively few sources/references to the text. 
#The article is too Anglo-centric with very little mention of the effects of the Vikings on Russia and the Baltics.
Osli73 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lot's to improve in this article 

message: The article states:
"The traditional definition is no longer accepted by most Scandinavian historians and archaeologists."
This describes all. Danish-Scandinavian "Experts" would not accept any negative statement. The really convincing, radical cleaning of any negative aspects in the viking age, but also ALL related articles violates neutrality. See for example Annales Vedastini, who described cruelty, mass-murder, raping and kidnapping, stealing and a simply not seen violence. 
Compared to the difficulty to accept this, it seems not too difficult to change all content in Wikipedia.
Before the friends of Denmark and Scandinavia edit-war started, there were for example the introduction:
The Viking Age is the name of the period between 793 and 1066 AD in Scandinavia and Britain, following the Germanic Iron Age (and the Vendel Age in Sweden). During this period, the Vikings, Scandinavian warriors, leidangs and traders, raided and explored most parts of Europe, south-western Asia, northern Africa and north-eastern North America. Apart from exploring Europe by way of its oceans and rivers with the aid of their advanced navigational skills and extending their trading routes across vast parts of the continent, they also engaged in warfare and looted and enslaved numerous Christian communities of Medieval Europe for centuries, contributing to the development of feudal systems in Europe, which included castles and barons (and was a defense against Viking raids).
Compare this to the current version. Include negative facts! It is important, to explain information neutral. Even if its negative. Please help. W. Wispanow 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that virtually every people has some skeletons in the closet and we do well to point that out. Balance is vital in Wikipedia. This reads like a whitewash -- a sort of "yes, but" apologia that would never be tolerated from, say, the Germans. Doesn't mean you can't be proud of your heritage, but let's keep it real, okay? --Rhombus 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality disputed, viking palliation

message: FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing  at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display  
Cirt (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal icon placement

message: 'Most of the English kingdoms, being in turmoil, could not stand against the Vikings, but Alfred of Wessex managed to keep the Vikings out of his country.' 
The Vikings did infact take most of Wessex, except for the marshland around Athelny.  It was here that Alfred the Great sat out the winter before mustering an army and defeating the Danes at the Battle of Ethandune, which most likely took place in Wiltshire, around the area of Westbury Hillfort, which would have been far inside to boundaries of the old kingdom of Wessex, infact the entire county of Wiltshire which also includes Chippenham would have been deep inside the boundaries of the old Kingsom of Wessex during the Viking invasions.
After defeating the Danes at Ethandune (Edington), Alfred pirsued the Danes to Chippenham and beseiged them in his own town.  After being forced into starvation, the Danes sued for peace and signed the Treaty of Wedmore which lead to the setting up of the Danelaw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VelaPulsar (talk • contribs) 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikings in England. 

message: This article has problems which won't go away, unless rethought from the start: There is something called "the viking age", whether or not certain people like the term. However, in writing an article called "Viking Age", one has to have some rather well-defined idea of what to describe. Wouldn't a large part of the current article be better off in a separate article named "Viking Conquests", while others would fit better under "Viking Exploits" or some such?
The Viking Age is a period of time in Scandinavian history, the transition between the Iron Age with its Vanetro (a shamanistic-pantheistic sort of religion) to the Dark Ages' Kristendom (litteraly "Christianity", but shouldn't be confused with the present day variety; it was at best a mystic-monotheistic religion, its rituals conducted in latin, which nobody -sometimes not even the priest- understood). From a time without letters or writing, to one in which written documents (the law, say) were of the utmost importance. A time where indivdual physical prowess gave way to tactics and technology.
It was in many ways the transition from a "me-and-you" mindset to an "us-and-them" mindset.
There's a lot of reasons this period is so important to us Scandinavians. But when it comes to Wikipedia, there's one overriding concern: Does this article enlighten, or confuse, people who've never heard of the viking age before? As it stands, I wouldn't blame someone who went away thinking the vikings were slavic scots that sailed up and down the Seine in order to trade with Constantinople. And burn down an irish monastery on the way.
So, what do I suggest? Situating the time and place (Scandinavia, 8th-11th century AD) and sticking to it. Mentioning/listing the vikings' conquests, and linking to separate articles of the vikings' exploits in present day countries. Describing the religion (well, what we know of it), the building style(s), the everyday tools possessed, and possibly listing the notables (the kings and queens, as well as the major failed usurpers).
Basically, I think it's best to follow Lucan's advice: Keep it simple. Keep the end in sight. Better to omit what's of questinable usefulness, than to toss in an old norse parleur for good measure...
Smolk (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from your theories about the different religions I mostly agree with the suggestion. I think that perhaps some of the confusion expressed by the user in the discussion above this one regarding the existence of a Viking Age, could have sprung from this. It is important to clarify that the historical time periods are different from country to country, and that there actually is a distinct Viking Age in Scandinavian history, and that the ending and beginning of common periods like the Iron Age and the Middle Ages vary from country to country. Also to your list of sections it would also be good to have a section about the society of the Viking countries, ie social structure, main forms of livelihoods etc, which would probably be more useful than a section on everyday tools. Be aware that the list of notables could quickly become an area of dispute though, and should probably also be a very rough introduction to the general history of the period instead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary reason that I'd want something on the tools available to the vikings is that there seems to be some consensus that their ships went out of fashion with the advent of the saw. Secondarily, I mostly think history in terms of tools and technology. Smolk (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus! 

message: There is no age called "viking age" The time of the vikings were during the Germanic iron age. Also in Scandinavian languages there is nothing called viking age. Now I'm Danish, and in Danish it's called "vikingetiden (the viking time)" or just "jernalderen (the iron age)"
This should be merged with the article "Vikings" or atleast changed the name, i think
--Missip1 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Viking Age is the official academic translation of the Scandinavian historical period called "Vikingetiden". "Viking time" is just bad English.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But meybe it's wrong to call it an age. Since it's not even called that in Scandinavian languages. It's a period in the Middle Ages. --Tesko111111 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not true. It is called the "Viking Age" in the Scandinavic languages. In Scandinavic history it is a distinct historical period situated between the Iron Age and the Middle Ages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: nothing called "viking age" in britannica etc. what's you point? This article should either be merged with viking or be renamed in my pov. --Tesko111111 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: (a) go to google scholar / google books. (b) search for "viking age". (c) see how there are numerous scholarly monographs discussing the "Viking Age".  One example out of dozens, if not hundreds, would be  Eric Christiansen The Norsemen in the Viking Age, Blackwell Publishing, 2002, .  You do not have a case. Please do some minimal research before starting a "discussion". --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google :S. Is that a souce now. Maybe you should have a look of the own link you gave me. --Tesko111111 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GoogleBooks lists potential sources for this article. Search for "viking age" on GoogleBooks and you'll see the term is used quite often in recently published books. You might be able to track down of those listed at your local library.--Celtus (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article name discussion "Viking age". 

message: "words which used sk- sounds, such as skirt, sky, and skin; other words appearing in written sources at this time included again, awkward, birth, cake, dregs, fog, freckles, gasp, law, moss, neck, ransack, root, scowl, sister, seat, sly, smile, want, weak and window.[25] Some of the words that came into use are among the most common in English, such as both, same, get, and give. The system of personal pronouns was affected, with they, them, and their replacing the earlier forms. Old Norse influenced the verb to be; the replacement of sindon by are is almost certainly Scandinavian in origin, as is the third-person-singular ending -s in the present tense of verbs."
I think or, at least, ask this question:
Aren't there many things wrong in that paragraph about the influence on the English language?
For instance, words like "both" or "give" appear to be common Germanic words and not specifically Scandinavian (north germanic) ones. The same is true for "birth" (German: Geburt), "cake" (German: Kuchen), "sister" (German: Schwester, but with dialectal forms like "süster" etc.), "weak" (German: schwach) etc.
I highly doubt, these are good examples for something specifically Scandinavian...
And moreover, isn't the ending -s a result of a phonetic change from -eth to -s in order to have a somewhat easier pronounciation? That's what we learned at school (though this does not mean that it was correct).
Other examples are better: like "sky" or "law".
:Agreed. No idea why the -s is mentioned, don't think it existed in Norse. Sources are needed. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of Viking settlement on the English language 

message: I teach medieval history at De Anza College (which doesn't necessarily establish my credibility, I realize); however, various sources suggest that trade between the Vikings and Muslim Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates via the Caspian Sea produced large inflows of high-quality silver Dirham coins (as evidenced by large caches of Islamic coins found in Scandinavia).
There is a possible correlation (established by the mining dates on the coins found in buried Scandinavian caches) of the tapering off of these specie inflows with an increase of Viking raids.
In other words, as the Abbasid 'Empire' started to fragment (losing control of precious metals and tax revenue from different areas, (i.e. Spain, Egypt, Khorasan) and as output from existing mines dropped, so did the volume of money reaching the Vikings, which may have caused them to seek other sources of gold and silver...
This is probably too tidy, too linear in outline: 'no silver from Islamic world, so attack Western Europe', BUT, to a certain extent there might be a little bit of truth to it, perhaps it was a contributing factor.
In my opinion, it does deserve some mention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerre1859 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, citation needed. What I could find questions this chronology: Viking raids into Western Europe were occurring in the 790s, before their trade with the Caliphates in the 900s. Also, while those raiding Western Europe and those trading with the Caliphates were both Norse, they were not the same people. Fences&Windows 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Theorise thoughtfully all you like on a blog, but Wikipedia is not the place for original argument. If you can't come up with reliable sources that support this supposed connection between a decline in the Abbasid caliphate and an increase in Viking Raids in Northern Europe due to the consequent lack of silver coinage, it is not going in the article. You've not presented a single source. Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This source says that the decline is silver coins into East and Northern Europe occurred in the late 10th century, the last coin turning up in Sweden in the 960s. This means that there were about 150 years of Viking raids to Britain and other places in Northern Europe before the decline in silver. This source says that the peak of flow of silver into Europe was about 800. This source says that the slowing down of silver from the Abbassid caliphate in the 820s lead to problems in the Carolingian empire, leading to less trade with the Vikings, increasing piracy - just the thesis you've been proposing. I wasn't 'dismissing' your proposal, I was using sources. Now here's a source that supports it. See how this works? Fences&Windows 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: More here: "opinion differs as to whether it was the presence of Arabic silver, or periodic reductions in its availability, which fuelled Scandinavian raiding in the west." So the raids could have been caused by the presence of this silver, not its removal. I'm sure we can add some suitably sourced and neutrally worded content to reflect these theories. Fences&Windows 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Reasons for Viking Expansion 

message: There seems to be a lot of vandalism on this page. Is there any way that it can be tagged to prevent this? Brendandh (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I'm doing a project, but I can't find this particular piece of information. Could anyone help me?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.5.117 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that you don't specify which geographical area you are interested in, you may wish to browse :Category:Viking Age. Ben MacDui 19:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or pose the question at the reference desk. The article talk pages should only be used for discussions related to article improvement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When were the Viking Raids? 

message: It is a pity, I think that the Viking age usually is seen as an isolated period that began during the 8'th century and ended in the eleventh century.
I would rather see it as a continuation of the Migration Period, when many tribes from Scandinavia, such as the Goths and Anglo-Saxons invaded the colapsing Roman Empire and other areas. Is it not likely that the Viking Age Scandinavians already had contacts and trade links with these earlier migrants wich  they  later came to invade or plunder? Maybe they had heard stories told of past heroes' deeds around the camp fires. Maybe there were even maps and route descriptions preserved. Is not the oldest written text in Saxon, Beowulf set in Scandinavia and in Sweden there's a runestone (Rökstenen) that suggests that the Geats may have felt a strong fellowship with the Goths.1
Looking at Vikings from that angle it may not be completely illogical to think of Viking raids more like planned military expedititions with clear goals and objectives, rather than as occasional forays where they captured what they came over (although this may have been the case sometimes). Perhaps some of the Viking leaders where even well versed in Roman thinking about strategy and tactics. An indication of this is that the Vikings sometimes appears to have used Roman battleformations such as shieldcastles and pig head's array. These are more or less identical to the formations that the latter-day Roman legions used.
With this in mind, it is perhaps not more correct to ask what happend outside Scandinavia during the viking age that made the norsemen do what they did, than to ask what happend inside Scandinavia during this period.
I am looking forward to your comments on this thread.
(And there are uch more evidence to support this, but this text is not about The Goths)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadalado (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put the viking age in a larger context 

message: The viking age timeline on the page had overlapping black and blue text and you couldn't actually read the text so I went ahead and fixed it and made the events that are on there actually stand out when as far as when they happened on the timeline instead of just the words being centered on the year which no one could visually see on the graph the year they happened. Basically made it more legible and aesthetically pleasing. If anyone needs any help with messing with it in the future just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get right on it.  —  dain- talk   06:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  viking age timeline fixed 

message: Hi there,
just to throw some oil on the burning waves ...
IMHO the concept of a VA conflates three issues:
- Nordic Culture (and its history)
- British History
- World History
1. Nordic Culture (and its history)
The culture from which the Vikings emerged constitutes - probably - a continuum (albeit a developing one) from,
say, the Merowingian Age, and, arguably*, up to the Black Death, which was a major incision especially for the
Norse, with their higher-than-average depopulation; practically the end of civilization as they knew it.
1066 notwithstanding, e.g. vikings emerged from the north to go raiding in the British Isles (Magnus Barefoot,
slain, IIRC, on a raid in Ireland in 1103); and the "Realm of Norway" ("Norgesveldet"),
Norway's greatest expansion and political heyday was around the reign of this 13. century guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_IV_of_Norway. Et cetera. 
*Arguably, the Viking Age among the Norse was, if not ended, then severly reduced due to the encroaching
Hanseatic League, combined with the expansion of the church and of royal authority, leading to a thorough
restructuring of society and economy; classic "Norse Society"-stuff, IMHO.
2. British History
Of course the period between the Lindisfarne raid and the battle of Stamford Bridge 
saw a lot of viking influence on the history of the British Isles. No doubt about it.
3. World History
While Nordic history is part of World History, and Norsemen pop up in places surprisingly far from home,
they play a role in World history only inasmuch as World History is somewhat identical to British Historiography;
and a case for this view permeating history writing here and there could be made.
Although The Norse ranged from America to Armenia, they didn't make much of an impact on either
place, and few places in between - what they did there is more of a "who were these guys?" question.
But had William lost the battle of Hastings, the "Viking Age" would have been much, much less important, 
historically, even given the trials of Alfred the Great. Then we wouldn't have to ponder when
this Viking Age began and ended, because then there wouldn't have been one, as little as there is
 an Age of Wendish and Saxon Raiders, Age of Barbary Pirates or Age of Huns, Mongols, Tartars,
Magyars, Bulgars, Turks .... a horde (and a mass noun, too) of savage ... well, hordes bothering 
their betters intent on enjoying a good ballad and a goblet of wine in the castle's great hall.
Or ... the Viking Age is a markedly North-European (North Sea, even) affair, politically and historically.
Conclusion? 
Perhaps one should not start with the concept and look for a corresponding reality.
Perhaps this concept also should be picked apart somewhat. Yes, there was a period when chronicles
reflected some vigorous seasonal labour migration out of Scandinavia, but OTOH this had been going on
since the Cimbrians and Teutones, well over thousand years. They just hadn't invented the keel
at the time, so they didn't litter the piers in Brighton so much. And the same phenomenon continued
after 1066, but with so many waves of Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans ... the chroniclers experienced
a kind of "invasion ennui", couldn't be bothered anymore, really. Attention shifted elsewhere.
In the spirit of contribution
Laborious version - retain most, yet make specific
/EN is not my mother tongue, so all text here should probably be rewritten/:
"The Viking Age is the name given by historians to a period especially in Northern European History,
spanning the late 8th to late 11th centuries /the dates in the article vary from 1030 to 1263, btw;
which is about as long as the 9. - 11. century. Interesting./. Norse rovers appeared as traders,
invaders, conquerors and colonists in neighbouring regions within reach of their seafaring capabilities,
their access to trade goods, their ability to wage war and to sustain emigration.
/The following headings could have separate sections; I'd reccommend keeping them short,
and link to relevant, established Wiki articles expanding on the subject./
Historical considerations /- seems to be "the history of the history of the Vikings ...?/
Historical background /- a hodgepodge of politics, geography, culture, technology ...
        would perhaps be better covered with a reference to "Norse Society" ?/
Historic overview  /consists of "important dates" + "areas of expansion"/
   Important dates /for beginning or actually first mention to end or disappearance from chronicles/
   Scope of expansion /areas, and degrees of influence there/
Norse Society /- "See main article" /
   Politix
   Economics
   Religion
   Technology
   Etceterics
Vikings /- "See main article" /
Viking Expansion /- "See main article" /
   Probable causes of Norse expansion
   Norse Expansion Enablers 
        (Technology, Law (who gets to inherit whom), foes in political unrest)
   Viking Itinerary - Areas visited (by region, as today)
        Viking invasions (by region, as today)
             Area
               Events (battles and such)
                  Political consequences
                     Legacy
        Viking colonisations
             (e.g. Britain, Normadie)
                Impact
                  Influence of Norse (X) on (e.g.) English (X)
                     (Language, law, technology, cuisine, fashion ...)(at the time)
                        Legacy (today /maybe not a practical division.../)
   Probable causes of the end of Norse expansion
...
Perhaps easier version: Rename the whole article "Viking Expansion",
redirect from "Viking Age", agressive linking to sub-articles as above.
Hoping to sign this right,
T 83.109.180.48 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that is all original research it is not a relevant discussion on Wikipedia. You should take this up with the historians who assign the period in question the "Viking Age" in Scandinavian history. Good luck with that (and I would recommend you read a bit more than just British history before you do that, it would probably save you from some embarrassment). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a Viking Age? 

message: The Viking Age is a historical period for Scandinavia.  Even though the effects of Vikings' influences and affairs around Europe is interesting, and an important part of the overall story, the Viking Age entry contains very little of Scandinavian Society, economics, politics, culture or anything else regarding life in the area.  Archaeologically, the Viking Age is more of a contuination of earlier periods, but mark altogheter the start of the transition of Scandinavia into medieval christian states.  The currrent page is more about in what way and what effects migration and travels of Scandinavians had on other parts of Europe, than about the Scandinavians of the Viking Age itself... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by St12357 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Viking period was an important part of the history of Scandinavia however this article fails to mention much about Scandinavia itself during this time. I would think that additional information would be needed to expand this article to elaborate on not only the Vikings themselves but also the society, culture and history of Scandinavia itself from the years 800 to 1050. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Viking Age really about, and what should this page be about?   

message: The first few segment of the Historical Considerations section is almost word for shot of what happens in the History Channels 'Vikings' TV series. A show that is incredibly historically inaccurate and isn't backed by the sources provided. Delete immediately, it's clearly some idiot editing this article because he watched a TV show. 124.169.184.30 (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the first sections either, the article is a complete mess. I'm not a Wikipedian, but if nobody wants to police it, I suggest you just delete it. It's fluff. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.57.145.187 (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Considerations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Viking Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080604203505/http://www.lansmuseum.a.se:80/runriket/taby.html to http://www.lansmuseum.a.se/runriket/taby.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Many Slavic scholars are opposed to this theory of Germanic influence on the Rus' (people) and have suggested alternative scenarios for this part of Eastern European history." Germanic? Shouldn't that be Scandinavian or Viking or Varangian or something similar? Allens (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Germanic people are speaking Germanic languages. English, Dutch, German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faraose. (But not Finnish)  Just like Slavic people speaks Russian, Polish, Check, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatic etc (but not Albanian, Romanian, Greek or Hungarian). Scandinavia is a geographical matter not linguistical. Russia wasn't born yet, during the Vikinger Age. Neither was a lot of today's countries, England, Sweden, Italy, Poland etc, none of them existed at 800 AD! What is "Varangian", by the way ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern and eastern Europe: Germanic?