Talk:Leidang

message: #The term viking is never, ever mentioned in connection with ledung. Contrary, the ledung organization was established as fleet defence against vikings. (removing viking) Dan Koehl 14:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: In Denmark, the situation changed since 1134, when German cavalry
appeared in the country. Before 1169, each Danish shipmaster had to
bring a horse and a crossbow to the leiðangr ship. In 1169 the
farmer's fleet levy disolved and was replaced by a smaller, professional army
of the so called: "herræmæn" [herraemaen].
In Sweden a similar system was introduced before 1281. In Norway, at
the end of the 12th century, the strategy for warfare changed: it was
centered on a few "grand ships", and in contrast to Denmark, the
farmers could still be called upon for active service, although in
smaller numbers, e.g. six men out of a forty-man ship in 1273.
-- Ruhrjung 09:51 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The present sentence Viking Age Scandinavians. The leiðangr was however established long before the beginning of the Viking Age. shows very clearly that there is no need to use vikingage here, (normally said to be 800-1066) its more correct to use medevial (ca 450-1450) which much more reflect the time period the leadung was used. If noone has wellfouned objections, Ill change to medevial.Dan Koehl 13:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Current understanding is that leiðangr was estabished in Scandinavia first in Denmark at the end of Viking Age and during the 11th century in Norway and Sweden. It was not a specifically Viking Age institution and certainly not early than that. The reason why it could not exist earlier is that it was a complicated, centralized system for creating naval transportation and required an organized, unified rule. There certainly were navies in Scandinavia before leiðangr, but those operated on different kind of basis. --Drieakko 09:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If we use one article for both the English and Scandinavian institutions, we should probably use the English name on the English Wikipedia...
:Yes indeed - frankly, it's bonkers to have an English language article which discusses this Anglo-Saxon feature under the guise of an "Anglo-Saxon version" of this Scandinavian system - it wasn't the same system. See for example here and here.Also, the assessment of the English "fyrd" as it stands is absurd - there was nothing "voluntary" about it, and it reads as though its members would merely kick a few stones around for a bit, get bored, and then go home. Whether or not that applied to its leaders is, as always, another matter. I'm in no doubt that "fyrd" should have its own article, and mentions of it here should be re-edited to reflect its separate status. Nortonius (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So move or fork? Because the present situation is beyond absurd. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested here that Fyrd should not be part of this article.  Interested editors are invited to comment there.Monstrelet (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just copied the England section over to Fyrd and added the reflist for it. 74.96.48.77 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't '''Fyrd''' more common in English?

message: "It is likely that the obligation of Englishmen to serve in the fyrd or peoples army is older than our oldest records."
Perhaps this should be written better? It's a bit fairy tale/ mythological in style, not very encyclopaediac or particularly informative...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.79.7 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: older than our oldest records