Are Vikings overrated?

I was looking for a thread to put my "egg":
maybe this post could be transferred to a genetic one? but it concerns history too and the place made to Vikings in Britain
this is a Britain DNA map (up to date I think, and through their methods - the post I received was not too precise (commercial approach) but I think the results are based upon autosomals (what discrimination criteria? I don't know) because the Y-HGs distribution are different in Scotland where Hebrides Islands had more Viking male than female when Orkney Shetland had a more equilibrated "package")

just for information (if it is valuable)
 
Shetland 29,2%
Orkney 25,2%
N Highlands Caithness 17,5%
NW Hebrides Skye Lewis 11,3%
E Hebrides NW Highlands 9,9%
W Highlands Argyle 5,8%
NE Grampians 4,9%
C + CE Scotland Aberdeen 2,2%
SW Scotland Ayr Galloway... 3,2%
SE Scotland Edinburgh 2,7%


N + NW England 4,0%
Yorks 5,6%
East Anglia 3,6%
C CW England 2,6%
W + SW England + Cornwall 1,6%
SE England 1,9%


Wales 1,0%


Uslter 1,4%
Connaught 1,2%
Munster 1,3%
Leinster 1,0%

Caithness, Zetland and Orkney are considered as equilibrated concerning males and female Vikings
Hebrides are considered as having known almost only male Vikings
as a whole these estimations seem sensible
skaal!!!
 
The R1b Vikings were definitely over-rated, IMO. However, the proper I1 Vikings were, if anything, under-rated.

Seriously though, I doubt it's possible to over-rate the Vikings. They founded the Russian monarchy, served as soldiers in Byzantium and conquered large parts of Europe. They ruled England briefly, under King Canute, and held the Danegeld for centuries. And they conquered Ireland and ruled it for a time until the Celts defeated them at Clontarf. People in large parts of western Europe used to regularly pray "From the fury of the Northmen, oh Lord, deliver us!"

As for the modern over-popularization, with the fake horned helmets, I think that came about because much of western Europe had been fascinated with Vikings for centuries. When the Victorians discovered those old tales about the ferocious Vikings, the last wave of Pagan warriors to be unleashed on the farming population of Europe, it made for a good story, one that would have been undercut if the story tellers had presented a more balanced version of events that discussed the skill of the Northmen as traders and settlers. So 19th century Europe, especially the English, romanticized the more brutal aspect of Viking culture, and those stories were just sitting there waiting for Hollywood to exploit. I once watched a very bad American "Viking" movie that featured Eric the Red being played by someone with a thick Texan accent. Hilarious.
 
I notice that the poll actually asked whether Vikings are over-romanticized. I voted yes to that, but it doesn't mean I think Vikings are over-rated, which is what is asked in the title of the thread.
 
They founded the Russian monarchy, served as soldiers in Byzantium...

Where the hell did you get this BS? For a while all tested memebers of Rurik clan have only clades typical for Eastern Europe and Southern Baltic. Y-dna clades typical for Scandinavia are very very scarce in Russia and other Eastern European countries and in opposite we have a lot of Y-dna haplos typical for Eastern Europe in Scandinavia.
 
Where the hell did you get this BS? For a while all tested memebers of Rurik clan have only clades typical for Eastern Europe and Southern Baltic. Y-dna clades typical for Scandinavia are very very scarce in Russia and other Eastern European countries and in opposite we have a lot of Y-dna haplos typical for Eastern Europe in Scandinavia.

Here are a few excerpts from a Wikipedia entry about the origins of Russia. Yah, I know, Wikipedia. But it matches what I've read in actual history books.

The Rus' (Slavic: Русь; Greek: Ῥῶς) — ancient people who gave their name to the lands of Russia and Belarus. Their origin and identity are much in dispute. Russian scholars, along with some Westerners, consider the Rus to be a southeastern Slavic tribe that founded a tribal league - the Kievan state. Ibn Khordadbeh, a Persian geographer of the 9th century also believed the Rus people are Slavic. Traditional Western scholars believe them to be a group of Varangians — diverse groups of Norsemen.[1][2][3][4] According to the Primary Chronicle of Rus', compiled in about 1113 AD, the Rus' had relocated "from over sea", first to northeastern Europe, creating an early polity that finally came under the leadership of Rurik. Later, Rurik's relative Oleg captured Kiev, founding Kievan Rus'.[5][6] The descendants of Rurik were the ruling dynasty of Rus' (after 862), and of principalities created in the area formerly occupied by Kievan Rus', Galicia-Volhynia (after 1199), Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia.[7]


According to the most prevalent theory, the name Rus', like the Finnish name for Sweden (Ruotsi), is derived from an Old Norse term for "the men who row" (rods-) as rowing was the main method of navigating the rivers of Eastern Europe, and that it could be linked to the Swedish coastal area of Roslagen (Rus-law) or Roden, as it was known in earlier times.[1][8][9] The name Rus' would then have the same origin as the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden: Ruotsi and Rootsi.[1]


Having settled Aldeigja (Ladoga) in the 750s, Scandinavian colonists played an important role in the early ethnogenesis of the Rus' people and in the formation of the Rus' Khaganate. The Varangians (Varyags, in Old East Slavic) are first mentioned by the Primary Chronicle as having exacted tribute from the Slavic and Finnic tribes in 859. It was the time of rapid expansion of the Vikings in Northern Europe; England began to pay Danegeld in 859, and the Curonians of Grobin faced an invasion by the Swedes at about the same date.
Due largely to geographic considerations, it is often argued that most of the Varangians who traveled and settled in the eastern Baltic, Russia and lands to the south came from the area of modern Sweden .[16]
The Varangians left a number of rune stones in their native Sweden that tell of their journeys to what is today Russia, Ukraine, Greece, and Belarus. Most of these rune stones can be seen today, and are a telling piece of historical evidence. The Varangian runestones tell of many notable Varangian expeditions, and even account for the fates of individual warriors and travelers.
The Vikings allegedly had some enduring influence in Rus, as testified by loan words (these ones persist from Glagolitic script at Adriatic prior and out of any Vikings), such as yabeda "complaining person" (from æmbætti, embætti "office"), skot [17] "cattle" (? from skattr "tax") and knout (from knútr, "a knotty wood").[citation needed] Moreover three Nordic names of the first Varangian rulers also became popular among the later Rurikids and then among the East Slavic people in general: Oleg (Helgi), Olga (Helga) and Igor (Ingvar).
 
The R1b Vikings were definitely over-rated, IMO. However, the proper I1 Vikings were, if anything, under-rated.

Seriously though, I doubt it's possible to over-rate the Vikings. They founded the Russian monarchy, served as soldiers in Byzantium and conquered large parts of Europe. They ruled England briefly, under King Canute, and held the Danegeld for centuries. And they conquered Ireland and ruled it for a time until the Celts defeated them at Clontarf. People in large parts of western Europe used to regularly pray "From the fury of the Northmen, oh Lord, deliver us!"

As for the modern over-popularization, with the fake horned helmets, I think that came about because much of western Europe had been fascinated with Vikings for centuries. When the Victorians discovered those old tales about the ferocious Vikings, the last wave of Pagan warriors to be unleashed on the farming population of Europe, it made for a good story, one that would have been undercut if the story tellers had presented a more balanced version of events that discussed the skill of the Northmen as traders and settlers. So 19th century Europe, especially the English, romanticized the more brutal aspect of Viking culture, and those stories were just sitting there waiting for Hollywood to exploit. I once watched a very bad American "Viking" movie that featured Eric the Red being played by someone with a thick Texan accent. Hilarious.

Well according to genetic testing those people who founded Russia were rather Scandinavians - non -viking people.
You can see that is plenty of Scandinavian admixture in average Russian,but paternal lines from Russia,compared to Scandinavia,are not that closed,instead,the paternal lines from Russia are closed to Baltic countries.
I do not think all Scandinavians who were good fighters were vikings,I think rather the people from the Western Coast of Scandinavia were Vikings.
 
Well according to genetic testing those people who founded Russia were rather Scandinavians - non -viking people.
You can see that is plenty of Scandinavian admixture in average Russian,but paternal lines from Russia,compared to Scandinavia,are not that closed,instead,the paternal lines from Russia are closed to Baltic countries.
I do not think all Scandinavians who were good fighters were vikings,I think rather the people from the Western Coast of Scandinavia were Vikings.

But arent those genetic testings based on two Russian brothers (of nobility) that simply claim direct descent/lineage from Rurik? The way i understood it is that their Y-DNA Hg is thus taken as representative for Rurik and the Varangians/Rus'; Now i seriously have my doubts whether these brothers are actual (let alone direct) descendants of Rurik to begin with; Data from actual Varangians/Rus' need to be obtained for a proper picture;
 
Well according to genetic testing those people who founded Russia were rather Scandinavians - non -viking people.
You can see that is plenty of Scandinavian admixture in average Russian,but paternal lines from Russia,compared to Scandinavia,are not that closed,instead,the paternal lines from Russia are closed to Baltic countries.
I do not think all Scandinavians who were good fighters were vikings,I think rather the people from the Western Coast of Scandinavia were Vikings.

I'm going to once more commit the cardinal sin of using Wikipedia as a reference, simply because the passage I'm going to quote accords with what I've read on the subject and I can't be bothered to comb through my own library or go to the university library to look for a suitable quote from a more credible source. But, basically, the Swedes who travelled afar to trade and raid were vikings.

"The Swedish Viking Age lasted roughly between the 8th and 11th centuries. It is believed that Swedish Vikings and Gutar mainly travelled east and south, going to Finland, the Baltic countries, Russia, Belarus,Ukraine, the Black Sea and further as far as Baghdad. Their routes passed through the Dnieper south to Constantinople, on which they carried out numerous raids. The Byzantine Emperor Theophilos noticed their great skills in war, and invited them to serve as his personal bodyguard, known as the Varangian Guard. The Swedish Vikings, called Rus are believed to be the founding fathers of Kievan Rus'. The Arab traveller Ibn Fadlan described these Vikings as follows:
I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; they wear neither tunics nor caftans, but the men wear a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves a hand free. Each man has an axe, a sword, and a knife, and keeps each by him at all times. The swords are broad and grooved, of Frankish sort.[25]
The adventures of these Swedish Vikings are commemorated on many runestones in Sweden, such as the Greece Runestones and the Varangian Runestones. There was also considerable participation in expeditions westwards, which are commemorated on stones such as the England Runestones. The last major Swedish Viking expedition appears to have been the ill-fated expedition of Ingvar the Far-Travelledto Serkland, the region south-east of the Caspian Sea. Its members are commemorated on the Ingvar Runestones, none of which mentions any survivor. What happened to the crew is unknown, but it is believed that they died of sickness.
 
But arent those genetic testings based on two Russian brothers (of nobility) that simply claim direct descent/lineage from Rurik? The way i understood it is that their Y-DNA Hg is thus taken as representative for Rurik and the Varangians/Rus'; Now i seriously have my doubts whether these brothers are actual (let alone direct) descendants of Rurik to begin with; Data from actual Varangians/Rus' need to be obtained for a proper picture;

According to some historical writings,some Rurik descendant was having hundreds of lovers,spread in Russia.
So they say Rurik was some branch of N1,Scandinavian branch.
If he was having so many lovers,how come this Scandinavian branch is not more often found in Russia paternal lines?
I suppose most of the Rus Scandinavians were having many women,so I think their paternal lines should be quite present,in today Russians.
I have seen some K36 results of a Russian and he was having about 20% FenoScandian admixture.
Maybe is not only from Rus Scandinavians is also from mixing of Slavs with Feno-Ugrian people.
Anyway,I think that the influence of Vikings in UK is largely over-rated,from how most UK people are looking,they do not have strong Viking
genetics. Normans are said to have been mostly Vikings,but who knows if they were not mostly French people?
If Vikings were such great warriors,how come they could not conquer Ireland and Scotland?
The paternal lines in Ireland are showing few Viking paternal lines,maybe maximum 10% of these are of Viking ancestry.
 
I'm going to once more commit the cardinal sin of using Wikipedia as a reference, simply because the passage I'm going to quote accords with what I've read on the subject and I can't be bothered to comb through my own library or go to the university library to look for a suitable quote from a more credible source. But, basically, the Swedes who travelled afar to trade and raid were vikings.

"The Swedish Viking Age lasted roughly between the 8th and 11th centuries. It is believed that Swedish Vikings and Gutar mainly travelled east and south, going to Finland, the Baltic countries, Russia, Belarus,Ukraine, the Black Sea and further as far as Baghdad. Their routes passed through the Dnieper south to Constantinople, on which they carried out numerous raids. The Byzantine Emperor Theophilos noticed their great skills in war, and invited them to serve as his personal bodyguard, known as the Varangian Guard. The Swedish Vikings, called Rus are believed to be the founding fathers of Kievan Rus'. The Arab traveller Ibn Fadlan described these Vikings as follows:
I have seen the Rus as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil. I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blond and ruddy; they wear neither tunics nor caftans, but the men wear a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves a hand free. Each man has an axe, a sword, and a knife, and keeps each by him at all times. The swords are broad and grooved, of Frankish sort.[25]
The adventures of these Swedish Vikings are commemorated on many runestones in Sweden, such as the Greece Runestones and the Varangian Runestones. There was also considerable participation in expeditions westwards, which are commemorated on stones such as the England Runestones. The last major Swedish Viking expedition appears to have been the ill-fated expedition of Ingvar the Far-Travelledto Serkland, the region south-east of the Caspian Sea. Its members are commemorated on the Ingvar Runestones, none of which mentions any survivor. What happened to the crew is unknown, but it is believed that they died of sickness.

All this is no more than BS. No one Scandinavian drakkar was ever found in Russia. From genetic point of view the stories about Sweden Vikings travelling by Russian rivers and establishing the first Russian state look absolutely unconvincing since typical Scandinavian clades of Y-dna practically absent in Russia.
Furthermore, the viking was not exclusive Scandinavian lifestyle it was all Baltic phenomenon. Vikings from Southern Baltic for example raided Sweden and Finland. So when we talk about vikings we should take into account that they could originate from any part of Baltic sea shore.
 
All this is no more than BS. No one Scandinavian drakkar was ever found in Russia. From genetic point of view the stories about Sweden Vikings travelling by Russian rivers and establishing the first Russian state look absolutely unconvincing since typical Scandinavian clades of Y-dna practically absent in Russia.
Furthermore, the viking was not exclusive Scandinavian lifestyle it was all Baltic phenomenon. Vikings from Southern Baltic for example raided Sweden and Finland. So when we talk about vikings we should take into account that they could originate from any part of Baltic sea shore.

There are archeological discoveries related to Scandinavians in Russia.
 
There are archeological discoveries related to Scandinavians in Russia.

And what? There was extensive trade between Northern Russian regions and Scandinavia so no wonder that some Scandinavian stuff was found in Northern Russia as well as typical Slavic stuff was found in Finland and Sweden.
 
And what? There was extensive trade between Northern Russian regions and Scandinavia so no wonder that some Scandinavian stuff was found in Northern Russia as well as typical Slavic stuff was found in Finland and Sweden.

There is significant,if not lots of FenoScandian admixture in average Russian.
On k36 results,average Russian scores as much FenoScandian admixture,as average South Swede.
How can you explain that?
 
All this is no more than BS. No one Scandinavian drakkar was ever found in Russia. From genetic point of view the stories about Sweden Vikings travelling by Russian rivers and establishing the first Russian state look absolutely unconvincing since typical Scandinavian clades of Y-dna practically absent in Russia.
Furthermore, the viking was not exclusive Scandinavian lifestyle it was all Baltic phenomenon. Vikings from Southern Baltic for example raided Sweden and Finland. So when we talk about vikings we should take into account that they could originate from any part of Baltic sea shore.

No. The word "viking" specifically refers to Scandinavians, regardless of what the Balts were doing. And there's a lot of evidence of the role Scandinavians played in helping to shape early Russian history. But if you want to write your own version of history, I can't be bothered arguing with you.
 
Britains DNA (autosomals mad?) estimation


Orkney Shetland 29% / W-Caithness InnerHebrides 10% / Hebrides (isles) 11% / E-Caithness 18% / N-E(Grampians) 5% / Argyle W-Highlands 6% / Central Scotland 2% SWScotland+Borders 3% SE Scotland+Borders 3% / Man 12% / North England+ Lancashire 4% / Yorkshire 6% / West England Midlands 3% /Lincoln-E-Anglia 4% / SE England 2% / SW England 2% (Cornwall drownin it) / Wales 1% / Munster 1% / Leinster 1% / Connaught 1% / Ulster1%


surprise with Ireland!
 
Vikings ravaged trough Western Europeans like hot knife trough butter.


I think they are bit overated tho, because they were actually not legendary warriors as described in various modern legends, but raiders and pirates, who picked easy targets
 
Let me begin with this, I don't mean to offend anyone this is just a question I am curious about. There are many who feel that the Viking age has been over-romanticized and they are in fact not as fierce of warriors as many would make them out to be. I am just curious about your opinions on the matter, you can state whether you feel they are or they aren't. Giving reasons to back your answers would also be appreciated.

Good question.
 
Vikings


Overrated ? Not sure –over-romanticized ? Sure !
Some points to consider : thefirst Northmen (Vikings) are not to be confused with the laterNorman(d)s – three-four centuries separate them, with the followingresults : intermarriages with natives, noble people or not –incorporation in the feudal system, far enough from the firstscandinavian model which was more egalitarian and clanic in the sametime – less hazard, more calculations in prospections -
to come back to the first Vikings, theyprofited at first of the surprise effect, it is sure – but evenlater when Europeans « states » were aware of theirdangerousness, they remained fearce warriors and took the strong sideupon well trained armies – surely their mobility gave them someadvantage over the heavy armies of the time but...
they colonized Iceland, the Greenland,the Feroe's, they raided and submitted the Ireland and Britaincoasts, they (at least the Danes ones) obliged the Anglo-Saxonskingdoms to pay them the 'danegeld' and in the 9° century theyobliged too the Frank king and the Breton duke Nominoe to pay this'danegeld' more than a time, they pushed the Breton gentry and clergyto flee off two times during the 10° century, even if finally theywere swept off two times too by these Bretons, these ones sometimeshelped by Saxon troops (before that some Viking traitors had alreadyhelped Breton chiefs) - their internal political problems inScandinavia also played a part here – during the 9° century, notonly they raided the Western Isles and the Atlantic regions, but theyimposed themselves all over the North Sea shores, in the Netherlands,in Germany, in Belgium, without speak about the South baltic coasts –if Brittany and England escaped the definitive shame, France kingdomleft them the territory of Normandy in the beginning of the 10°century -
we cannot desprise the Vikings weightin battles nor their militar worth : they could sometimes preset500 ships (one of their chiefs, Weland, payed by Charles le Chauvein 860, could gather 200 ships under his orders) – but it isnot their number only which gave them power : they obtained'danegeld' sometimes even against more numerous armies –more than a time they were defeated by Europeans helped by otherViking mercenaries or defeated by famine and plague – atthese times, if they would have been completely united, they wouldhave been harder enemies yet... they were not afraid by raids intomainland, far from the seeshores : they raided Burgundy too !
Soo, do not under-estimate the Vikingfactor in Europe destiny at these times -
the later 'Norman(d)s' were partlyassimilited people, crossed as genetically as culturally – theWilliam the Bastard troops of 1066 (England conquest) were full orBretons little noblemen (1/3! one of them, Alan, ancestor of theStuart family) and Pickards and Flemings ! For a long time yetFrance Normands and Bretons had some inequal relations the ones with the others – after his conquest, William had done a stage back inNormandy (Barfleur?), having send a man to collect songs from a 'redlady', a breton female singer (« bardess »?) -


concerning genetic traces :
three aspects : Y HGs, mt HGs andautosomals : I gave you the Britain DNA results (autosomals)which make sense for me as a whole, the only surprise being the verylow level (1%) among all the irish regions(even supposed Viking names as Doyle (Dougall) are born by Y-R1b-L21males if I remind well) – in Scotland and England and Wales theresults seem very sensible –
possibleexplanation : it is sometimes very difficult to weight therespective importance of purely « scandinavian » genes infront of the « north-germanic » genes and even some« celtic » ones ! But in Ireland the germanic geneswere surely very very scarce – what seems more evident is that inIreland, the Norwegian Vikings did not send many scandinavian femalesand took the celt ones – in Scotland we see big discrepancyaccording to subregions : Orkney-Shetland and Caithness areconsidered as equilibrated males-females Vikings colonizations whenHebrides and N-W Highlands, and Iceland too in a less marked way, areconsidered as dominantly male biased colonizations – Caithness andOrkney seem less « viking » than the Hebrides concerningmales markers, but for autosomals Orkney is more « viking »,and Caithness is almost the same as the Hebrides, spite the « male »differences -
anddo'nt forget some Gaels took the Viking way of life aftersometimes – the clans of NWScotland were very often founded by Scandinavians males ;whatever the gaelic form of the most of their names: MacDonald(McDonell), MacDougall (McDowell), MacLeod, MacQueen(McSwan/McSweyn), Macaulay (McCauley) (Ollason in Orkney/Shetland),Gunn, Lamont (Lamond/Lamondson), MacLachlan, Sutherland (linked toancestors of Murray's) – all the way all these male Vikingsdescendants took the gaelic language in place of their germanic(norse) one, confirming the female celtic weight, except theOrkney-Shetland ones -


concerningEngland I red (againand again and... boring)that English people cannot have Viking blood because they seem toofar from the nordic model : here again we confuse Anglo-Saxonsof the old time with « Brits » citizens of today, weforget that Anglo-Saxons and Frisians were physically close toancient Scandinavians, and we forget that not long agothe far North and very Eastern English people were very more'nordic'like than today : only 50 years ago, the fishers andpeasants of these old germanic lands of England were taller, blonder,and spite variated, more on the model of Dutch or Scandinavian peoplethan were big towns English people, these last ones a mix of all thepre- and historic populations of the isles (I don't speak here ofCornwall or Wales which are farther yet from the model!) -
Iknow a bit about this stuff ! I saw the growing of the « celt »physical influence upon English people in the industrial regions ofBritain : Irish people born numerous families, the density ofscottish, irish, welsh names (these ones not always easilyrecognizable it is true: Jones, Williams, Davies, Thomas and Co)grew in % during these 50 last years – I don't speak about the morerecent immigrations from everywhere, even if we discard Pakistaneseor other dark skinned people
timepasses by and populations change : but we have to respecthistory – the very light impact of scandinavian genes (even malemarkers) among Russian of Today doesn't disprove the part of swedeVarangians in old times – and as I'm speaking about « scandinavianphysical model » (an ancient stable and peculiar mix) I cantell you the today Malmö inhabitants are no more the same mixture asin recent past andso some gifted and auto-inspired spirits could say today that Vikingswere not Vikings and why not, never existed !Too much people are rewriting History, everyday ! Do let that topoliticians, please ! We can improve History veracity, OK, it 'snot making new fairy tales after being crashed the wholework done before -




Balticor Slavic Vikings : what weight and where did they « worked » ?What sources, too ?
 

This thread has been viewed 86542 times.

Back
Top