Columbus Day: The Myth Continues

[zeehag]

frieslanders(tall redeads) migrated from north and cold to normandy..mixed it up a lil and left fair skinned descendents all over europe. dont remember the year. i was told this by a frieslander descendent from nederlands

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

A bit later - but "us" Normans got around a bit .



And just to mention that the Eastern Roman empire only (finally) fell in the 14th Century.....if it had managed to hang on for another couple of hundred years it likely would still be with us .

And the Normans were Vikings

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by avb3

Vikings invaded from the south? I'm a pretty good student of early medieval history, and that is new information to me. Could you direct me to a source? Vikings did attack some Italian ports, but there was no invasion.

Avb, the Vikings sailed the Mediterranean Sea and invaded Sicily and many coastal towns along the southern Italian border. They also raided and plundered the entire Northern Med basin as well as the North African coast. This is well documented in the annals of Viking History. Also, as David Old Jersey mentions, the Normans were Vikings that settled in the North of France and their civilization was one of the earliest contributors to the flowering of the Renaisance hundreds of years later. An excellent and highly recommended primer to Viking history is A History of the Vikings written by Gwyn Jones.

[delmarrey]

If this were happen today the UN would be having a meeting and they would be slapping sanctions on the Norsemens.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Avb, the Vikings sailed the Mediterranean Sea and invaded Sicily and many coastal towns along the southern Italian border. They also raided and plundered the entire Northern Med basin as well as the North African coast. This is well documented in the annals of Viking History. Also, as David Old Jersey mentions, the Normans were Vikings that settled in the North of France and their civilization was one of the earliest contributors to the flowering of the Renaisance hundreds of years later. An excellent and highly recommended primer to Viking history is A History of the Vikings written by Gwyn Jones.

The Normans were invaded by the Vikings, or at least there were significant coastal raids. The Viking Rollo got control from the Carolingian king that area that was contiguous to the province of Rouen. Rollo then became the vassal to the French king and received the title of duke.

The Viking population was very small, and they quickly intermarried with the indigenous population, adopted the French language, and became Christians, received by the bishop of Roen. They lost their Viking identity, so, although the genesis of Normandy may have been Viking, it is a real stretch to say the Vikings dominated parts of Italy. The Christian Normans did, and the amount of Viking DNA in them was small.

The Vikings themselves had little that they added to European culture... in fact, the Norman dukes realised how backward they were compared to the rest of Europe, and imported monks from the Rhineland and northern Italy, to establish monastic schools, in the 11th century. Over time, they became some of the best schools in medieval Europe.

So, Normans certainly had a huge impact, but it the Viking part was so diluted by then that it takes significant extrapolation to suggest it was Vikings, and not Normans, cultured and taught by Germanic monks, that became the dominators.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by avb3

The Normans were invaded by the Vikings, or at least there were significant coastal raids. The Viking Rollo got control from the Carolingian king that area that was contiguous to the province of Rouen. Rollo then became the vassal to the French king and received the title of duke.

The Viking population was very small, and they quickly intermarried with the indigenous population, adopted the French language, and became Christians, received by the bishop of Roen. They lost their Viking identity, so, although the genesis of Normandy may have been Viking, it is a real stretch to say the Vikings dominated parts of Italy. The Christian Normans did, and the amount of Viking DNA in them was small.

The Vikings themselves had little that they added to European culture... in fact, the Norman dukes realised how backward they were compared to the rest of Europe, and imported monks from the Rhineland and northern Italy, to establish monastic schools, in the 11th century. Over time, they became some of the best schools in medieval Europe.

So, Normans certainly had a huge impact, but it the Viking part was so diluted by then that it takes significant extrapolation to suggest it was Vikings, and not Normans, cultured and taught by Germanic monks, that became the dominators.

+1 for this!

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by avb3

The Normans were invaded by the Vikings, or at least there were significant coastal raids. The Viking Rollo got control from the Carolingian king that area that was contiguous to the province of Rouen. Rollo then became the vassal to the French king and received the title of duke.

The Viking population was very small, and they quickly intermarried with the indigenous population, adopted the French language, and became Christians, received by the bishop of Roen. They lost their Viking identity, so, although the genesis of Normandy may have been Viking, it is a real stretch to say the Vikings dominated parts of Italy. The Christian Normans did, and the amount of Viking DNA in them was small.

The Vikings themselves had little that they added to European culture... in fact, the Norman dukes realised how backward they were compared to the rest of Europe, and imported monks from the Rhineland and northern Italy, to establish monastic schools, in the 11th century. Over time, they became some of the best schools in medieval Europe.

So, Normans certainly had a huge impact, but it the Viking part was so diluted by then that it takes significant extrapolation to suggest it was Vikings, and not Normans, cultured and taught by Germanic monks, that became the dominators.

When you mix apples and oranges, you get fruit salad. Let's back up a bit and get this straight without an entire rehashing of Viking History. The Vikings raids of the 9-11th Century were not an organized army, but bands of young men who left their homes in the North under a local chieftain to achieve wealth, wives and some lands by raiding, trading and plundering. Their exploits are well documented and their travels, previously mentioned, were legendary. Historians record the end of the Viking Age in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings where William Duke of Normandy defeated the English King, Harold II of England. It was labeled the end of the Viking Age since the Viking raids of the last 200 years had basically stopped and early nation forming in Northern Europe had begun as well as many of the Vikings had assimilated into the local populations of the areas they raided. Dublin, for example, was the largest Viking city in the Old World. The Normans, on the other hand, were Vikings who settled in the North of France and established an organized kingdom unlike the disparate bands of Viking raiders from Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They were a great force in establishing the transition from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages and their lineage was Viking as the French King, Charles the Simple, gave lands in Northern France to stop the Viking King Rollo from raiding and plundering his country. Obviously, they interbred with the local populations as they did in England, Scotland, Ireland, the Hebrides, Sicily, Italy and even the Middle east but their genesis was Viking as history records. To dispute this or seek to lessen their impact is contrary to the written history.

[rognvald]

Here's a quick source about the Normans.
www.historyonthenet.com/Normans/whowere.htm

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

If this were happen today the UN would be having a meeting and they would be slapping sanctions on the Norsemens.

Lol . Naughty Norsemen .

My take is that the Vikings (and their successors) did play a contribution to moving Europe from the Dark Ages (aka the "we forgot to write much down ages" ) towards the modern era simply from the connections they built between peoples from distant lands both to replace contacts lost following the decline of the Rome and to create new connections...........whether that be on the Freemarketeer or actual commerce (when you actuallly exchange stuff for the things you take home ) end of things.

and I bet they had a lot of fun along the way .

[Astrid]

It might actually be more informative to examine the Viking influence in the east where Swedish Vikings founded the first two Russian states at Novgorod and Kiev. At Novgorod, a viking name Rurik founded what became the first Russian dynasty, which lasted until the 16th century and the accession of the Romanov dynasty..

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rognvald

When you mix apples and oranges, you get fruit salad. Let's back up a bit and get this straight without an entire rehashing of Viking History. The Vikings raids of the 9-11th Century were not an organized army, but bands of young men who left their homes in the North under a local chieftain to achieve wealth, wives and some lands by raiding, trading and plundering. Their exploits are well documented and their travels, previously mentioned, were legendary.

So far, we agree.

The Normans, on the other hand, were Vikings who settled in the North of France and established an organized kingdom unlike the disparate bands of Viking raiders from Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They were a great force in establishing the transition from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages and their lineage was Viking as the French King, Charles the Simple, gave lands in Northern France to stop the Viking King Rollo from raiding and plundering his country. Obviously, they interbred with the local populations as they did in England, Scotland, Ireland, the Hebrides, Sicily, Italy and even the Middle east but their genesis was Viking as history records. To dispute this or seek to lessen their impact is contrary to the written history.

Suggesting the Vikings were a great force in transition from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages is giving credit for culture, education and societal impact beyond actuality. The Vikings were a lot of things; great explorers, traders and even settlers, however, their cultural and educational impact, or the advancement of society was not their strong point. To accredited them with such is misreading the reality of the times.

The educational, artistic, and scientific, such as it was, regeneration came partly from monks and their abbeys, and the large influence of the Arabs who ruled the south of Spain. Many Christian and even Jewish scholars studied at Cordoba, and brought back that knowledge to their home lands. The Vikings had no part in that at all.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by avb3

So far, we agree.



Suggesting the Vikings were a great force in transition from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages is giving credit for culture, education and societal impact beyond actuality. The Vikings were a lot of things; great explorers, traders and even settlers, however, their cultural and educational impact, or the advancement of society was not their strong point. To accredited them with such is misreading the reality of the times.

The educational, artistic, and scientific, such as it was, regeneration came partly from monks and their abbeys, and the large influence of the Arabs who ruled the south of Spain. Many Christian and even Jewish scholars studied at Cordoba, and brought back that knowledge to their home lands. The Vikings had no part in that at all.

Then it is your opinion the Normans were not descendants of the Vikings? If so, then we need no further discussion. If you agree, then you cannot compare a Dark Age culture(Vikings) with one from the Middle Ages(Norman). The Vikings raids were basically over by the middle of the 11th Century. The Norman culture which flowered during the Middle Ages, as you have stated, was influenced by many other sources. However, you cannot deny the genetic and cultural legacy that was the foundation for the Normans. I once had a great hunting dog that was part Labrador Retriever and part Hound. However, he looked like a Lab, hunted like a lab, retrieved like a Lab and had the instincts of a Lab. He was, however, part hound. How would you decribe this dog?

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Astrid

It might actually be more informative to examine the Viking influence in the east where Swedish Vikings founded the first two Russian states at Novgorod and Kiev. At Novgorod, a viking name Rurik founded what became the first Russian dynasty, which lasted until the 16th century and the accession of the Romanov dynasty..

Exactly, and the name Russia comes from the word "Rus" who were the Swedish Vikings who brought culture, law and order to the lawless and disorganized land of Russia. The term Rus means "the men who row" referencing their journeys along the Volga and Dnieper Rivers of Russia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'_people

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Here's a quick source about the Normans.
www.historyonthenet.com/Normans/whowere.htm

Not exactly the most authorative link I have ever clicked into .

Apart from the links between disparate cultures along the Viking / Norse / Norman trade (and pillaging!) routes (which IMO should not be dismissed as unimportant - even though the Vikings themselves may have brought nothing of fundamental improtance from there own culture).......IMO Viking Culture (and genes?) gave the Europeans both a desire and skill to travel great distances, endure great perils along the way and then kill and plunder the locals they encountered ........whereas before that Europeans tended to specialise in killing da only da neighbours. But once folks realise that something can be done by others, the idea gets replicated and enhanced - but nonetheless always requires someone / peoples to sit down (around a campfire?) and come up with the initial idea.....in this case "lets sail off the edge of the map - just for the craic!" (my bet is that alcohol was involved ).

Very useful skills and mindset for later the eurooeans acquiring the colonies. or even nowadays bombing johnny foreigner from afar (don't mention the oil ).

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Then it is your opinion the Normans were not descendants of the Vikings? If so, then we need no further discussion. If you agree, then you cannot compare a Dark Age culture(Vikings) with one from the Middle Ages(Norman). The Vikings raids were basically over by the middle of the 11th Century. The Norman culture which flowered during the Middle Ages, as you have stated, was influenced by many other sources. However, you cannot deny the genetic and cultural legacy that was the foundation for the Normans. I once had a great hunting dog that was part Labrador Retriever and part Hound. However, he looked like a Lab, hunted like a lab, retrieved like a Lab and had the instincts of a Lab. He was, however, part hound. How would you decribe this dog?

The Norman Dukes, unquestionably, descended from Rollo, or Rolf, or whatever the French decided he originally was called. That is not in dispute.

But to suggest that there was a barren land, with little or no indigenous population, and that there was a mass displacement of those residents by Norsemen is just not the case. The indigenous Normans stayed. What changed was their rulers were no longer descendant from the Carolingians, but the Vikings.

The Vikings no doubt had impacts, and were an interesting people, but their impact on the development of culture, society, education, art and science was minimal. That influence came much more from the Church and, as I mentioned before, from the Arab influence. The Norman descendants of the original Vikings recognized their deficiencies, and embraced and encouraged the above named developments.

What would have been interesting was if their settlements in North America had become more permanent, but it almost appears that those that were settled here (Newfoundland), were left to their own resources, and abandoned by those from home. Was it climate change, political turmoil or something else? Perhaps because there was no riches as they knew it to plunder that exploration and settlement did not proceed... but that is only speculation.