The Danish Vikings had to build a wall to protect themselves from the German Empire

mihaitzateo

Regular Member
Messages
943
Reaction score
98
Points
0
Location
Bucharest
Ethnic group
Romanian
Y-DNA haplogroup
proly R1B
Hello kind Ladies and Sirs,

I was curious to know why the Vikings were raiding in the British Isles, but why there are not recorded any raids of the Vikings in Germany.
It seems that the vicinity of the German Empire was one of the causes that triggered the Vikings to start migrate from Scandinavia towards British Isles a part of them and towards Russia, another part of the Vikings (from Sweden).
There is a Scandinavian Saga that tells the history of the wall that the Viking Danish have built, to protect their country from the Germans.
https://norse-mythology.net/dannevirke-the-viking-wall-across-denmark/

The information from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danevirke
So, the wall was started around 650 AD.
If the wall was already to be start in 650 AD, it seems that the German tribes have already attacked and terrified the Norsemen, a few times.
First raid recorded, in British Isles, from the Vikings, was around 793 AD.
So, it seems that a part of the Norse Germanics tribes fled from Scandinavia, because they feared German tribes.

There is no proof that R1B-S21/U106 was not actually brought in South Scandinavia by conquering German people.
As you move North of Scandinavia, R1B-U106 is decreasing.
R1B-U106 peaks in Germany.
 
So it seems that the Main Stream theories, that the Vikings went to "Rob and Rape" in British Isles are not actually true at all.
Vikings might have been afraid about their existence, because they did not knew what German Empire would do to them.
A thing is also known, that Magyars were attacking West Germanic speaking tribes from South East.
 
Is there really much of a difference beyeeen the Danes, north Germans and the Frisians?
 
There was no such thing as the Vikings, there were Viking tribes and temperory alliances under some charismatic leaders.
The tribes were fighting each other too, the pressure didn't come from outside, it came from within.
Appearantly the British Isles and European coastal areas were easy preys, and Germany not.
 
There was no such thing as the Vikings, there were Viking tribes and temperory alliances under some charismatic leaders.
The tribes were fighting each other too, the pressure didn't come from outside, it came from within.
Appearantly the British Isles and European coastal areas were easy preys, and Germany not.

You’re totally right, you described exactly the “Vikings” season finale from last week:

“Ragnarok” Vikings: Season 5, Episode 20

.. A new battle for Kattegat is on and only the Gods know who will emerge victorious...
 
Wasn’t Hedeby in what is now present day Germany?
 
Wasn’t Hedeby in what is now present day Germany?

It was.
Danes and South Swedes were sometime subjects of the German Empire/Holy Roman Empire. Meaning that they were accepting the authority of the king of Germany, do not think they were put to pay any extra taxes, compared to the other people from the German Empire.
That does not means that they were not going in British Isles, even in the part ruled by some AngloSaxons,seems things were quite complicated.
No idea why neither Germany, neither Denmark are starting to investigate these things.
Now Germany and Denmark are very good friends, what it was in the past, is just a matter of history.
And is a very interesting history, as it seems.
Is very possible that AngloSaxons migrated to the South of Britain, before being part of German Empire.
Maybe some more people from here will start to do a little research about the German Empire and its relations with Danes and Swedes.

Have not done so much research, but it seems that this kingdom of Germany, named Holy Roman Empire, was started by some Frankish people.
 
It was.
Danes and South Swedes were sometime subjects of the German Empire/Holy Roman Empire. Meaning that they were accepting the authority of the king of Germany, do not think they were put to pay any extra taxes, compared to the other people from the German Empire.
That does not means that they were not going in British Isles, even in the part ruled by some AngloSaxons,seems things were quite complicated.
No idea why neither Germany, neither Denmark are starting to investigate these things.
Now Germany and Denmark are very good friends, what it was in the past, is just a matter of history.
And is a very interesting history, as it seems.
Is very possible that AngloSaxons migrated to the South of Britain, before being part of German Empire.
Maybe some more people from here will start to do a little research about the German Empire and its relations with Danes and Swedes.

Have not done so much research, but it seems that this kingdom of Germany, named Holy Roman Empire, was started by some Frankish people.

All I know is that Charlemagne king of the Frankish Empire wanted the Northern Germanic tribes to convert to Christianity. He is also sometimes called the Saxon slaughterer in Germany.
 
Well it seems we have found one of the main reasons of the Vikings leaving Scandinavia and Balts, Baltic countries and going to British Isles and Russia (seems lots of Baltic people ruled by mister Swede Rurik and some other Swedes left to Russia).
 
I was previously under the impression that The “Vikings” in general were just Scandinavians in general with the word “Viking” being a verb or action taken by small groups (early on) within this culture. Apparently the word existed in noun and verb form, so it gets confusing.
 
Vikings were the Scandinavians and their allies, which allies seems to have been usually some Finnic and some Baltic people.
There is some argument in regards to what Viking means.
Viking is an English word, that is derived from an Old Norse verb:
http://theconversation.com/what-does-the-word-viking-really-mean-75647

The title of this thread is not really correct, because not all Danes were Vikings, in fact, maybe only a part of the males able to fight were going Viking,if we are to use the meaning of the word Viking from Scandinavian.
I have not done any research, in regards to this matter, of the percentage of the Danes that were going Viking/Pirating.

I think there are two phenomenons, one being Scandinavians going Pirating/Viking and another phenomenon, the migration of some or more Danes and Norwegians to British Isles and the migration of some Swedes and Baltic people to Russia.

I do not think that the migrants from Denmark and Norway that settled and remained in the British Isles can be called Vikings, while the Swedish and Baltic people that migrated and established in Russia, cannot be called Vikings, either.

It seems there is a lot of confusion between an activity , which is Pirating/Viking and the ethnicity of the most of the people that were practicing this activity.
 
Last edited:
I feel that the same warriors that went "Viking" were also more than capable of switching gears and becoming full fledged traders and settlers as well. I think it's a little more complex than people realize.
 
I feel that the same warriors that went "Viking" were also more than capable of switching gears and becoming full fledged traders and settlers as well. I think it's a little more complex than people realize.

Do not think that the main activity of most of the Vikings was the war, but fishing in the North Sea.
Due to this, they were extremely skilled at sailing in the North Sea and also, they knew how to get from Scandinavia to British Isles.
I have not studied too much, to see if the Vikings attacked also more inland, or they were attacking only on the shores of the British Isles.
 
Last edited:
Everything becomes clearer if you translate viking with "marine", like in "US marine". Vikings were often the second sons that had no enheritance in times of population growth, and had to find their fortune or land elsewhere. Evenually riches, and come home and buy land. They did not flee to England because they were afraid of the Germans. Danevirke was built for mainly one reason: to separate the Nordic lands from Germanc tribes and to make a clear border defence wall, like the Chinese wall and worked as such up to 1864.There are many early examples af viking attacks into Germany via the rivers. England and France were richer and more profitable to raid.
 
Everything becomes clearer if you translate viking with "marine", like in "US marine". Vikings were often the second sons that had no enheritance in times of population growth, and had to find their fortune or land elsewhere. Evenually riches, and come home and buy land. They did not flee to England because they were afraid of the Germans. Danevirke was built for mainly one reason: to separate the Nordic lands from Germanc tribes and to make a clear border defence wall, like the Chinese wall and worked as such up to 1864.There are many early examples af viking attacks into Germany via the rivers. England and France were richer and more profitable to raid.

I think your post gets back to the original question, why did the Danes build a wall? It doesn't have to mean the Danes feared the Germans, or "fled" to Britain to escape them. The Romans built a wall in England, but it wasn't out of fear, it was to control trade and inhibit raiding. There isn't any reason to think the Danish wall was any different.

I am, however, very open to anyone who has historical data on other purposes for the wall.
 
True enough. Dannevirke can compare to Hadrians wall. It also served the purpose of protecting the trade route across the foot of Jutland. From the Baltic to the North sea that went over land because sailing the coast of Jutland around Skagen was dangerous and long. Viking expansion is mostly a matter of population growth and technology. The ships changed from iron age row boats to viking age sail and row boats and could then cross first the North sea and later even the Atlantic. Bear in mind that Scandinavia, especially Denmark consists of many islands, and is dependant or benifited by seafaring, like Greece. Whereas Russia, Germany, France and England have large landmasses that were actually hindering communication and international communication. We often see the vikings as primitive wild people that raided out of bloodthirst and pure agression where it was actually opposite: The vikings had an intercontinental knowledge (Asia, Europe and America), advanced technology (Ulfbert) and a relatively large population and they raided or overtook countries with smaller population densities or ineffective means of communication.
 
Last edited:
We have to be careful in characterizing people in the past; it was a different time and a different ethic. Also, much of what we know of the Vikings was written by their victims (i.e. the priests on Lindisfarne) so those descriptions need to be kept in perspective. I wouldn't argue that the Norseman were peaceful "agrarian reformers", to coin a phrase, but all warfare in this period was bloody and very personal. British warlords and their peasant levies were as brutal when attacking their island enemies.

I suspect that, as you say, these Vikings were simply young men, living in a land-poor country, who went out looking for opportunities. These may have including piracy (it was an era with few rules and strong men took what they wanted), but many probably looked forward to settling down as farmers . . . and didn't care that someone else already owned the land they found.
 
For your perspective: Compare Lindisfarne to a motorcycle gang hitting the local pawn shop, and "Dane law" to "The American lead coalition" occupying Iraq.
 
I think your post gets back to the original question, why did the Danes build a wall? It doesn't have to mean the Danes feared the Germans, or "fled" to Britain to escape them. The Romans built a wall in England, but it wasn't out of fear, it was to control trade and inhibit raiding. There isn't any reason to think the Danish wall was any different.

I am, however, very open to anyone who has historical data on other purposes for the wall.


In my opinion Hadrians Wall, was totally built out of fear, as was the Danevirk, they are both 'defensive' works.
 
There is more to it. Defensive works, though per definition built out of fear, are not only defencive. Castels, for example can be the exact opposite, symbols of power. And is a wall between to countries not just a one sided castle?
 

This thread has been viewed 15430 times.

Back
Top