Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Because it was there. It was close to home for them, easily accessible.
Rus, a one-time affair? Seriously?? They took the place over completely! They made it their own. This should be clear if for no other reason, than that the country still bears their name. They used its waterways to reach Constantinople, for trading and raiding, so for them, Rus' was a strategic acquisition, that gave them access to the Near East and its riches.
.https://www.history.com/news/globetr...constantinople
This is one of them historical lies.
There is little to none archeological evidence to Scandinavians presence in what you call Rus.
There is no genetic evidence to their presence in same areas.
NONE.
The entire idea is pushed by Normanist Theory proponents, with one and only goal to show how retarded Rusins were and how "civilized" and "developed" west was, let it be, even in form of ruthless blood thirsty Vikings.
Again, there is NO real evidence to Normanist theory. It's pure propaganda.
Yes, I know, you will provide a bunch of "research" proving just that. What will be made up stories and research of others research or others research all coming from the same source.
As I said, there is no substantial evidence to that. Bloggers and re-writers of old ideas do not count as proof to anything.
Now some of you will point to Normandy. But that is a one time affair. Yes, the Normans went to Southern Italy, and Middle East but by then they were no longer Vikings from Scandinavia. Plus they were largely just serving as mercenaries like their cousins did for the Byzantines.
Some may even point to the Land of the Rus. Yet again, I say that is a one time affair. Raiders from Scandinavia did not continuously raid and raid after Kievan Rus, and successor principalities were established.
Yet, wave after wave, after wave of Vikings seemed to pillage England a lot. Now Scotland, and Ireland did get raided. And the islands like the Hebrides, and port cities like Dublin were Viking strongholds. However, it does seem that the Vikings ever made it very far inland in either Scotland, Ireland, nor Wales for that matter.
While the Vikings penetrated deep into England. The took half of Mercia, all of Northumbria, East Anglia, and Kent. They were far more successful against Anglo Saxon defenders.
Which brings me to my next question. Did any Anglo Saxon ruler ever push the Vikings completely out of England before William the Conqueror came, or at least take back a good portion before the Battle of Hastings?
There were other lands near Scandinavia like the Holy Roman Empire, whatever you called Poland back then. I think it was called Wendland or something. Why not pillage there too?
Because England was next door. Easy peasy. Easy pickins'. Over time, the two civilizations became intermingled. Same w/Normandy (French).
Isn't it people in the United Kingdom and the United States who focus on Britain when considering the Vikings? When we make movies or TV series about them, naturally we focus on their attacks on English speaking people, we're familiar with the culture. If we were French or Russian and wanted to know more about the Vikings, we'd probably focus on the Viking invasions of France and Russia.
Right, but the OP's question is about Viking activity during the era in which Vikings invaded the British Isles (793-1066). In Russia, the Vikings didn't begin to assimilate until the end of that period. Whether or not they were a minority anywhere they went isn't relevant to the topic. In Russia they were a ruling elite.
Well, it is doubtful that Rus was Viking. Sure there would have been Viking traders and some Vikings came to bring peace with the tribs there, and I am sure there were ethnic Norse that lived there but it is not necessarily to mean they were Viking. Also before Rus were Christian they were recorded worshiping Slavic gods and observing Slavic customs, instead of Scandinavian.
Maybe the ruling elite was in Rus were Baltic peoples, and they were influenced by the Vikings however they were not Vikings themselves, yet the Balts themselves were subject to a raid by Scandinavians at least 2 centuries before the Viking era and colonized and intermingled with the local Balts.
Yet the East Slavs were much poorer than the people of the West such as England and France and were poorer than the Vikings of the north. Due to that, the Vikings were more concentrated in the West due to the wealth and raided places such as England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the Netherlands.
Speaking of England the Vikings did not conquer the whole of England and did occupy areas of England and sometimes they were beaten other times they won the war against the Anglo Saxon tribes. The Viking era came to an end in the Norman invasion in 1066.
Why did the Vikings focus so much on England?
****************
There were other lands near Scandinavia like the Holy Roman Empire, whatever you called Poland back then. I think it was called Wendland or something. Why not pillage there too?
I read a lengthy book called The Vikings: A History by Robert Ferguson. Basically they never left even though William the Conqueror may have taken political control. Ireland and England had much in common with the Viking's homeland. That may have been why. The Vikings were an aquatic people, trading and raiding. The shorelands of Scandinavia and Britain both lent themselves to that activity. Kiev, not so much.
Well, it is doubtful that Rus was Viking. Sure there would have been Viking traders and some Vikings came to bring peace with the tribs there, and I am sure there were ethnic Norse that lived there but it is not necessarily to mean they were Viking.
No, that's precisely who they were.
Only the "Vikings" were known in Russia under a different name, as "Waräger" ( Old Islandic/Norwegian word,) and they were the inseparable part of Russian history, starting from the Primary Chronicle ("Tale of the bygone years,") - the earliest historic document, referring to the birth of the Russian nation.
Quote:
Also before Rus were Christian they were recorded worshiping Slavic gods and observing Slavic customs, instead of Scandinavian.
Because once the Scandinavians settled among Slavs and organized their state, they assimilated with Slavs. Christianization of the "Rus" (this new mixture) took place already a bit later.
Isn't it people in the United Kingdom and the United States who focus on Britain when considering the Vikings? When we make movies or TV series about them, naturally we focus on their attacks on English speaking people, we're familiar with the culture. If we were French or Russian and wanted to know more about the Vikings, we'd probably focus on the Viking invasions of France and Russia.
There is actually a Russian movie that came out in 2016 called Viking. It has some embellishments and biases but it's a pretty descent film.
Plot: Kievan Rus, late 10th century. After the death of his father, Svyatoslav I, ruler of Kievan Rus, the young prince Vladimir (Danila Kozlovsky) is forced into exile across the frozen sea in Sweden to escape his treacherous half-brother Yaropolk (Aleksandr Ustyugov), who has murdered his other brother Oleg (Kirill Pletnyov) and conquered the territory of Kievan Rus. The old warrior Sveneld (Maksim Sukhanov) convinces Vladimir to assemble a force of Viking mercenaries led by a Swedish chieftain (Joakim Nätterqvist), hoping to reconquer Kiev from Yaropolk.[6]
This is one of them historical lies.
There is little to none archeological evidence to Scandinavians presence in what you call Rus.
There is no genetic evidence to their presence in same areas.
NONE.
The entire idea is pushed by Normanist Theory proponents, with one and only goal to show how retarded Rusins were and how "civilized" and "developed" west was, let it be, even in form of ruthless blood thirsty Vikings.
Again, there is NO real evidence to Normanist theory. It's pure propaganda.
Yes, I know, you will provide a bunch of "research" proving just that. What will be made up stories and research of others research or others research all coming from the same source.
As I said, there is no substantial evidence to that. Bloggers and re-writers of old ideas do not count as proof to anything.
And the Russian Chronicle we all read as kids--a forgery?
England was, at the time of the first Viking invasions, a series of small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms rather than one united force. It wasn’t until the end of the 9th century when King Alfred was able to unite all of the kingdoms, well after the Vikings had been established there. While the Anglo-Saxon kings of pre-unification England generally despised the Vikings, they also didn’t particularly care for each other. Seeing the benefit of having Viking military prowess on their side, they often entered into alliances with the Vikings, thereby bring the Vikings into conflicts with neighboring kingdoms. So the Vikings became very involved in Anglo-Saxon affairs, particularly during the 9th century. While the raids did continue up until 1066 when William the Conqueror invaded England, the Vikings were less successful after the 9th century in England.
Francia on the other hand was somewhat the opposite. During the 8th and early 9th centuries Francia was part of the incredibly powerful Carolingian empire under Charlemagne who was more effective at repulsing the Danish Vikings at his northern border than England was because he established a militarized buffer zone or “march” there. If England had the foresight and ability to do so along its eastern coast in the 8th century, history might have played out very differently. However, Carolingian empire came to an end with the death of Charlemagne in 847, and was divided into East Francia, Middle Francia, and West Francia. This left the region fractured, divided and vulnerable. The Vikings took full advantage of that, as evidenced by the number of Viking military victories from the mid-9th century onward particularly in Middle and West Francia.
Of course there were many other factors at play and I could go on and on about it, but the success of the Vikings in various regions often depended on how vulnerable these regions were at the point of contact.
I read a lengthy book called The Vikings: A History by Robert Ferguson. Basically they never left even though William the Conqueror may have taken political control. Ireland and England had much in common with the Viking's homeland. That may have been why. The Vikings were an aquatic people, trading and raiding. The shorelands of Scandinavia and Britain both lent themselves to that activity. Kiev, not so much.
Not so much?
Nope, the "aquatic people" remained very much aquatic.
Even later in time, this Scandinavian dynasty was following the same "aquatic" concept, when establishing and expanding the principality of Moscow ( the predecessor of today's Russia,) along the available waterways in the area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
