Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:28, 30 December 2005

Who lived in north-eastern Scandinavia during the Viking age

In the "Varangians" article it appears stated in Misplaced Pages now that "the Varangians (Russian: Variags, Варяги) were Scandinavians who travelled eastwards, mainly from the northeastern parts of Scandinavia, in what are now Norway and Sweden".

That sentence tells part of the throught. We ought to let the Misplaced Pages readers also know who were the people living in north-eastern Scandinavia at the time. Earlier, we could see Misplaced Pages informing its readers as to who (which peoples and/or tribes) lived in north-eastern Scandinavia (where the Varangians "mainly came from") during the Viking age.

In Scandinavia and elsewhere there is a widely and commonly accepted understanding and consensus among historians and researchers regarding the undisputed fact that during the Viking age the people inhabiting the north-eastern Scandinavian areas were Finns who were also known as Cwens in historical texts, and Samis, botht being members of the so called Fenno-Ugric family of peoples.

At the time, from the north-western coastal areas of the Scandinavian Peninsula also the Norse were making advances up north towards the north-eastern coastal areas of the Scandinavian Peninsula. Similarly, from the east (south-east) the Finnish Karelians and Slavic groups such as the Novgorodians were making advances towards the area in question as well.

Please, allow this important fact remain in the text. We shall now make a reference to the text regarding the historical Cwenland area in northern and north-eastern Scandinavia, part of which belongs to the modern day Republic of Finland, not only to the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden.

old talk

The following phrase removed

<-- said by whom? not in the mentioned chronicles --(these Slavic and Finnish tribes are said to have rebelled against a previous Scandinavian rule) -->

Varangians ARE the first mentioned rulers of Slavs, of hypothetically Scandinavian origin. It looks like the above statemnt resulted from a series of editorial "improvements". Mikkalai

Mikkalai, have you ever read the primary chronicle???? It explicitly says what YOU pretend it does NOT.--Wiglaf 12:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I did read it. It does NOT say what I say it does not. Read for yourself.

Въ л4то 6367. Имаху дань Варязи из заморья на Чюди и на Слов4енехъ. Мери и на Вс4хъ и на Кривич4хъ.

Въ л4то 6370. Изъгнаша Варягы за море и не даша им дани. И почаша сами в собъ володати. И не б4 въ нихъ правды, и въста род на род, и быша в нихъ усобиц4, и воевати почаша сами на ся. И р4ша сами въ себъ:"поищемъ соб4 князя, иже бы влад4лъ нами и судилъ по праву." И идоша за море къ Варягомъ, к Руси, Сице бо ся зваху ти Варязи Русь, яко се друзии зовуться Свее, друзия же Урмане, Англяне, инии Г4те.

The text says only that initially Varangians collected contribution from slavic-fennic tribes, but neither they ruled nor lived there. (text says: varangians from over the sea). Of course, one can speculate differently, but it will be only speculation. Not to say that the chronicle itself is a third-hand source of these times.

So let's not translate it into our understanding, and say what it says: varangians robbed slavs, then were driven away, then were invited specifically to rule, and say it with the proper attribution, too.

If you have any other original source on this issue, you are velcome to quote. Mikkalai 17:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for Rus == Swedes, the Chronicle specifically says: "These varangians were called Rus, just as the other ones were called Swedes, still others were Germans, Angles or Goths. So that was their name." Mikkalai 18:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but "Swede" was not a simple concept in Viking age Scandinavia. There was the Swedish king, but he was the king of peope who usually only called themselves, Geats, närkingar (Nerike), västermän (Westmannia), södermän (Sudermannia), Gutar (Gotland, the Goths of the chronicle), and Ros-byggjar (Roslagen). If you want to have a look at the controversy of "Swede", look at Ancient Uppsala.--Wiglaf 18:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly why do you consider this piece irrelevant? : "The Slavic inhabitants called these Swedes Rus'." Inform me, please.--Wiglaf 19:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for being imprecise. This detail better be confined to the Rus' article. Also, there are no Slavic sources from the 8th century to confirm your claim. Also, it is very likely that at these times the Ladoga area was inhabited by Fennic peoples, rather than Slavs. Mikkalai 20:06, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the Ladoga area was in most likelihood settled by Fenno-Ugric tribes before the Slavs. My question concerns why you removed a piece that was inserted 19:40, 10 Jun 2003, by Adam Bishop. I find it relevant and will put it back.--Wiglaf 20:29, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The phrase in question cannot be as a matter of fact with respect to this time frame. For these times for which documentation is scarse one must be very careful. Thre is too much misinformation and loosely grounded conjectures and extrapolations on this issue floating around already. Either you prove it, or it is out. Mikkalai 22:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, so after over a year, you demand conclusive proof for the veracity of a sentence. Since the text consequently needs some revision, I have moved a discussion on early Russian scholarship to the page where it belongs.--Wiglaf 05:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We don't have conclusive info about some things related to certain times. How would you like a phrase: "Varangians lived in Kiev in 7th century and were known as Rus"? Where is the burden of proof? there are well-known things, at least easily verifiable, and there are not so easily verifiable ones. I've never heard of someone conclusively claiming that slavs called someone Rus in 8th century or earlier. faldan?rustah?saint bertran?constantine? Which other early references are missing? If there are such, then most definitly they would be extremely important to be referred here as an important argument. Mikkalai 01:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We do have one source, the authors of the Primary Chronicle. Every time I read it, I am struck with the pride the author shows of being Slavic. Still, when he describes the "Rus'" he clearly states that they were Varangians (who he defines as Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon), and that they came from across the sea. He clearly states that the Rus' were Varangians and that the Varangians who settled in Eastern Europe were called "Rus'".--Wiglaf 15:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now I seem to uderstand what our problem is. I am not arguing against that slavs called them Rus. I am arguing against the date. It is 860 in the chronicle, which is 9th century, not 8th (people got confused over centuries in this way all the time). Of course, one may reasonably extapolate that 60 years ago they were most probably called Rus as well. But we are talking about solid evidence here. Mikkalai 16:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry but what is solid evidence? There is rarely anything you can call solid evidence in academia. If everything written in Misplaced Pages was based on solid evidence, I don't believe that there would be many pages. What we can say is whether most scholars agree on this or that.--Wiglaf 20:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you better be sorry :-). The problem is not with evidence, but with interpretations thereof. In our case there is nothing, zilch, nada to interpret in the first place. Mikkalai 23:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is a source called the Primary Chronicle written for Slavs and by Slavs. In this text a Slav or Slavs call those Varangians "Rus". I call it a source, you call it "nothing, zilch, nada". We can agree to disagree.--Wiglaf 19:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigh... You are not listening. (or you have a short attention span and comment only very last sentence in the discussion, out of context. Shall I recount the whole discussion each time I make a new comment?) I don't question the fact itself. Yes, YES, YES!!!, I do agree slavs called them Rus. I am questioning the date, the timestamp, the year when it was reportedly happening. We don't know about the 8th century. We know only it is reported for the 9th century. If you know any report related to 8th century that mentions the word Rus as used by slavs, please, don't withhold this information. Mikkalai 21:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Calm down. I agree with you. I thought you meant "ever".--Wiglaf 15:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We do know, however, of a non-Varangian Rus (Rhos) that populated the northern coast of Black Sea in 7th century, according to "Zhitias" of various Greek saints written by Greek chroniclers. Shakhmatov tried to get around this problem by trying to introduce the "early wave of Viking expansion" but had no archaelogical evidence or written accounts to support it.

Yeesh, if I knew three years ago, when I heard about Varangians for the first time, that they were so contentious a topic, I would never have bothered studying them :) Adam Bishop 05:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, in the West it is not a contentious subject. The main reason why I am interested in it is because my wife is Russian and has a phD in history. My mother-in-law is a professor of history at the Academy of Science in Moscow. Let's say that Rurik and Poltava are part of my life.

My wife says that the problem with the role of the Varangians in the creation of Kievan Rus' is that some people in the former Soviet Union feel that it is a "national defeat".--Wiglaf 17:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you call it pluralism instead? I smell double standard here: when two americans speak differently, it is democracy, when two Russians disagree, it is stupid brawl, and when a Russian disagrees with an American, it is WWIII. Mikkalai 23:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the record: I don't doubt in validity of Normanist theory. History knows quite a few cases when a bunch of tough guys seize a power in a foreign land only to dissolve in the local population, possibly leaving some of nobility to remember their roots. And I see no particular glory in varangians but their skills to keep power in their hands. Mikkalai 00:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I quoted a RUSSIAN.--Wiglaf 19:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there, by any chance, a written source supporting Varangians was vikings? One source, a single place it is written that they were vikings? Dan Koehl 19:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head, there is the account of Liutprand that dicusses some Varangians returning home to Sweden from Constantinople, through Germany, and the German emperor imprisons them because he thinks they may be spies for the Danes (who were what we consider Vikings). Adam Bishop 06:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why were the varangian warriors considered so powerful and dangerous if they were "always defeated"? also by this time greek fire was no longer in use. the mythical status of these people had to come from somewhere, as did the desire for them as mercenaries.

Harald Harfagri

Recently an anon tried to replace Harald Hardraada by Harald Harfagri. The latter article (or a redirect?) seems missing. Can anyone fix the miss? Mikkalai 18:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I did it myself. Mikkalai 18:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evolution of this article

I have had this article unwatched for a few months and I discovered that the Normanist version is given in the past tense and limited to 18th century Germans, whereas the anti-normanist version is given in the present tense. Moreover, non-existent Norse sagas are referred to. Mikkalai et al, can we start a serious discussion on why this is considered NPOV?--Wiglaf 22:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess that I will have to read every article about this matter now, to check what has happened.--Wiglaf 22:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess so. Why didn't you have it on your watchlist? Being a non-expert, I detected this substitution of Haralds by simply being naturally suspicious to anons. Much other stuff could have passed thru my eyes unnoticed. Mikkalai 00:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I unwatched because I was very tired of this controversy. I will have a look at the pages in due time.--Wiglaf 06:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Source for term viking

No source has stated that vargian was vikings, see my question above. I remove the term viking. Dan Koehl 14:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC) if any queries Contact: Abishek email: abishek07@gmail.com

Greek fire

Why was Greek fire removed?--Wiglaf 20:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the name Varangian

There is a geographical region in Northern Norway called Varanger. In Norwegian the people living around the White Sea have always been known as Varangians. These fact have been used by Norwegian national-romantics to claim the Varangians as Norwegians. Though this is obvioulsy not accurate, it seems plausible that the term Varangian stem from this area, rather than the glacial period mentioned in the article. --Tokle 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Do you have any sources on this etymology?--Wiglaf 17:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Thor Heyerdahl mentions it in his book about the origins of norse mythology "Jakten på Odin" (The hunt for Odin). But I might be wrong. --Tokle 10:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Primary Chronicle

I wonder why Ghirlandajo does not bother to consult the Primary Chronicle before making accusations. Here is a quote in Russian:

В год 6367 (859). Варяги из заморья взимали дань с чуди, и со словен, и с мери, и с кривичей. А хазары брали с полян, и с северян, и с вятичей по серебряной монете и по белке от дыма.

It clearly says that a large part of European Russia paid tribute to the Varangians before the famous invitation.--Wiglaf 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

map

the map depicting tribes living in today's eastern europe has perhaps an error. slavic tribes are shown in the are of the carpatian mountains, nevertheless it is known that these mountains were inhabited largely by romanic people. i must stress that the area inhabited by romanic people was quite large thus not to be ignored.

I strongly disagree with the text by the map - neither Baltic tribes nor the so called Chudes were cultures in non-European Russia!

Please see also my comment on the discussion page of the map. 80.235.61.87 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Danes?

Danes are Scandinavians as well, so the sentence from the top of the article "this term also includes the people of Denmark and England" should probably be changed to "this term also includes the people of England".

The wording might be confusing at the moment...what it is trying to say is that the people the Varangians came into contact with didn't know or care how they divided themselves at home, and considered Scandinavians, Germans, and English one big group. The Varangians were actually Swedish, usually, but later also included Danes and English. Does that make any more sense? Adam Bishop 04:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

About the map

Cwens/Cwenland

An anon contributor from 213.216.199.xxx continues pushing his theory without discussing and providing references. Until he starts discussing, his contributions will be reverted on sight. mikka (t) 20:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's theories

Ghirlandajo reverted to a lead section where northeastern Scandinavia was the main source of Varangians. I would really love to see solid references for his theory that the Varangians were Fenno-Ugric.--Wiglaf 20:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I don't know what the fuck is going on in this page anymore, there seems to be a four-way edit war. Wiglaf, I am not insisting Varangians came from Norway, and this is not original research. If they didn't come from Norway, just remove it! Christ! Adam Bishop 07:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Read this: assume good faith.--Wiglaf 10:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Same to you :) Adam Bishop 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Gentlemen! You're not supposed to fight in here...this is a WARROOM!" :) Please correct me if I'm wrong, here Mr. Bishop, but you were probably thinking of the Varangian Guard's most famous member, Harald Hardråda of Norway. He and his fellow Norges won much reknown (and booty) in the service of Constantinople. But Harald and his stout lads were the exception. Most of the Varangians appeared to be Swedes. The Norwegians tended to sail westwards. The Jomsvikings, who included members from all over, are sometimes misidentified as Varangians. So it is easy for confusion to reign on such matters...this period is not called the Dark Ages for nothing. I'm no expert...I could'nt read a Runestone if you paid me a million dollars (but I would certainly be willing to learn fast and try;). But let's have good faith all around, and a horn of Wiki Ale, ere we sail on our voyages. Peace Brothers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I suppose I may have been...or maybe it's not very useful to divide Norway and Sweden (and Denmark) 1000 years ago as if they are their modern identities. I apologize for being so abrasive, I am more frustrated with the Finnish/Cwenland person than anyone else in particular. This is happening quite a lot lately on other articles too, and I should probably take a break. Adam Bishop 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you, except these divisions which took place 1000 years ago are the origins of their modern identities. We are prisoners of our pasts. I do agree about the Finno-Ugric part. I don't see how Ghirl came up with that. Might as well say the Varangians were Hungarians, it would make about as much sense. Sigh, I know what you mean... I might need a Wikibreak too. A dear friend of mine has just bid the project farewell plus I've got this Annoying twit stalker bitching me out over my FA. I really want to cry havoc and let slip a few choice words of the sort you've used here. But I think I'll have a beer and go to bed instead. Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Wiglaf thinks that was Ghirlandajo, it was User:Carolina de la Gardie (and a bunch of IPs before that). Maybe something got confused in all the reverting that was going on. Adam Bishop 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)