PDA

View Full Version : [Vikings] Eastward Expansion



lazserus
May 8th, 2009, 7:39 PM
Vikings were much more than raiders and pillagers. They developed a trade network just as important as the Arabs (though not as pronounced), and they reached areas of the known world without conventional means, which led to the development of new cultures. The Vikings during the Viking Era (circa A.D. 790-1070) were very diverse. Much of the medieval literature about the Viking Era concentrates on the Icelanders and their exploits. But when we look at the Scandinavians during the period of initial colonization in Iceland--that is at the parts of Scandinavia the Icelandic settlers hailed from--we can see a distinct division in behavior. The western Vikings from Norway set out and raided parts of northern Europe, the British Isles, and colonized Iceland and Greenland. The eastern Vikings, those from Sweden, took a different path just as significant: They penetrated eastern Europe, developed future Russia, and established a trade network with the Arabs. In this thread I will explore the Swedish Vikings and their movements into Asia.


THE RUS


The Rus were a band of Viking Swedes that entered Asia possibly via the Gulf of Finlandand made their way via the Volga River. First populating the region of Novgorod, the Rus became a pool of warriors frequently recruited by the Byzantines as early as the 9th century. The Byzantium emperors frequently attampted to make peace with neighboring tribal communities and potential enemies, the Rus being one of those tribes. Though the Rus were far north of Byzantine influence, the Byzantines were able to spot potential strong allies. The Rus from the Novgorod region were the core picking tree of elite warriors the Byzantines used for personal guards and elite missions of expansion. In fact, by the early 10th century, according to Norse sagas, Viking men flocked to the Rus-controlled region of Novgorod to be recruited by the Byzantines.

There is still debate regarding the Rus migration into the southern regions of what was once the Russian Empire, particularly to the Ukrainian trade center of Kiev. What is nearly certain is the Rus populated the Novgorod region north of the Volga and had at least some influence (genetically and culturally) in how Russia developed. Kiev and the Ukraine is another argument entirely, and, in my opinion, an irrelevant one. The story goes that the Rus migrated south to Ukraine and mingled with the Slavik population in Kiev. The Rus took control of the city, but after a few dozen generations the Swedish Rus began adopting the native Slavik tongue and culture, eventually assimilating into the culture that was there before their arrival. Historians (and many historical disciplines) agree with this story. The Rus did, however, reach far south of the Volga and into Kiev, where they setup shop (probably violently) and reconsituted the trade passing through. And, important enough, Russia is derived from Rus.



NETWORKS


The Vikings were some of the world's greatest sailors, possibly only second to the Phoenicians. But surpassing Phoenician naval technology was the longship. The Viking longship is probably the most remarkable piece of naval engineering the world has seen. Longships were capable of skating atop the oceans' surfaces and traveling inland via rivers. Modern yachts, those that cost millions to build, can barely compete with a medieval-style longship. There was nowhere a longship could not get to as long as a river was present (all rivers open to the sea), and there are cases whereby longships were dragged over ground to new locations--meaning they were light enough in their design to be dragged by less than 20 persons.

With this in mind, the Vikings of the early Medieval Period were quite capable of bypassing land travel by merely coasting along river systems in their longships, allowing them to penetrate a part of the Asian continent quickly like no other people in human history. Using the river systems in western Asia, the Vikings were able to branch out in inject themselves deep into territories controlled by peoples such as the Arabs. There's no question that the Norse populated the area surrounding the Black Sea, and more evidence continues to surface that they made it as far as the Capsian Sea (and possibly further inland).

The banks of the Caspian have been controlled by the Arabs for ages, but the Vikings reached Arab territory, set up shop, and sent home Arab gold coin. In fact, the most concentrated quantity of Arab gold unearthed was found in Gotland, an island just southeast of Stockholm, Sweden. This concentration wasn't found in an Arab land but a land once controlled and populated by Vikings! Aside from the gold found at Gotland, there are Arabic accounts of Norseman interaction in Arab-controlled regions near the Caspian before the 11th century and after. So, apparently the Swedish Norse were able to setup shop in those regions and trade peacefully.



SUMMATION


Obviously this thread skips a lot of the details, but would you be reading this if it filled 5 pages? I like to keep things simple and concise while leaving the floor open for questioning. To sum things up, the Swedish Norse (primarily through the Rus) built a trade network into eastern Europe and western Asia, reaching long established trade networks setup by the Arabs. Considering Viking history, there's no reason to believe these initial networks were setup peacefully; however, considering the size and strength of the Arabs in the Caspian region, there was probably a somewhat peacefull exchange of ideas and goods. Otherwise the Arabs would have wiped out the Swedish invaders and that would be that. Just remember, Russia comes from the Swedish Rus, and know that the Swedish Vikings took a different route than their western Scandinavian neighbors: The moved east and didn't have to kill as many people.

Mezurashi
May 8th, 2009, 7:48 PM
how about a bit of detail regarding the naming conventions which resulted in the whole Greenland/Iceland thing? I've tried to explain to others on AO that Greenland has always been an icy hell-hole (in human historical terms) whilst Iceland was nice and it was the Norsemen who engaged in 'Deceptive Advertising' to keep their colony free from riff raff - tell them Greenland is Great and they'll go there instead ...

oh, and let us not forget that it was Vikings who 'discovered' North America five centuries before Columbus thought he'd found India - Vinland, Vinland, Vinland ... the country where I quite want to be ...

Freddy
May 8th, 2009, 8:21 PM
how about a bit of detail regarding the naming conventions which resulted in the whole Greenland/Iceland thing? I've tried to explain to others on AO that Greenland has always been an icy hell-hole (in human historical terms) whilst Iceland was nice and it was the Norsemen who engaged in 'Deceptive Advertising' to keep their colony free from riff raff - tell them Greenland is Great and they'll go there instead ...

oh, and let us not forget that it was Vikings who 'discovered' North America five centuries before Columbus thought he'd found India - Vinland, Vinland, Vinland ... the country where I quite want to be ...
Some believe the Vikings made it west via the Great Lakes to Minnesota.

lazserus
May 8th, 2009, 8:51 PM
how about a bit of detail regarding the naming conventions which resulted in the whole Greenland/Iceland thing? I've tried to explain to others on AO that Greenland has always been an icy hell-hole (in human historical terms) whilst Iceland was nice and it was the Norsemen who engaged in 'Deceptive Advertising' to keep their colony free from riff raff - tell them Greenland is Great and they'll go there instead ...
This is more for the Westward Expansion thread I'm planning, but I'll humor you.

There are still conflicts regarding the naming schemes of Iceland and Greenland. In Eiriks saga rauði it is mentioned that Eirik the Red named Greenland merely for the reasons of attracting settlers. (And that saga was written after the first Grænlandinga saga, parts of it fictionalized to address a certain audience.) But climate analyses suggests Greenland was in fact green at the time of settlement during the last quarter of the 10th century--what is sometimes addressed as the Viking Warm Period. Furthermore, Icelandic sagas mention Iceland was covered in forests when first settled, yet no such forests exist today. So, I'm sorry to tell you, Mez, but you've been wrong. Neither Iceland nor Greenland has maintained a constant climate. The "Deceptive Advertising" you speak of appears only in Eiriks saga rauði, which was written easily a century or more after the original publication of Grænlandinga saga. Eirik is not mentioned anywhere else, and he was the one responsible for naming Greenland.


oh, and let us not forget that it was Vikings who 'discovered' North America five centuries before Columbus thought he'd found India - Vinland, Vinland, Vinland ... the country where I quite want to be ...
The Vikings didn't "discover" anything in this department. Sure they settled in North America nearly 500 years before Columbus, but they certainly didn't discover the continent. In fact, is it said they knew it was there all along. Scandinavia is what they considered the fingers from the north, and they believed moving west would certainly reveal more land. Furthermore, the Inuit described in the Vinland sagas were by no means strangers to the Norse. Harsh winters have allowed the Inuit to populated Greenland as well, long before Eirik the Red settled.

Mezurashi
May 8th, 2009, 11:51 PM
This is more for the Westward Expansion thread I'm planning, but I'll humor you.

There are still conflicts regarding the naming schemes of Iceland and Greenland. In Eiriks saga rauði it is mentioned that Eirik the Red named Greenland merely for the reasons of attracting settlers. (And that saga was written after the first Grænlandinga saga, parts of it fictionalized to address a certain audience.) But climate analyses suggests Greenland was in fact green at the time of settlement during the last quarter of the 10th century--what is sometimes addressed as the Viking Warm Period. Furthermore, Icelandic sagas mention Iceland was covered in forests when first settled, yet no such forests exist today. So, I'm sorry to tell you, Mez, but you've been wrong. Neither Iceland nor Greenland has maintained a constant climate. The "Deceptive Advertising" you speak of appears only in Eiriks saga rauði, which was written easily a century or more after the original publication of Grænlandinga saga. Eirik is not mentioned anywhere else, and he was the one responsible for naming Greenland.


The Vikings didn't "discover" anything in this department. Sure they settled in North America nearly 500 years before Columbus, but they certainly didn't discover the continent. In fact, is it said they knew it was there all along. Scandinavia is what they considered the fingers from the north, and they believed moving west would certainly reveal more land. Furthermore, the Inuit described in the Vinland sagas were by no means strangers to the Norse. Harsh winters have allowed the Inuit to populated Greenland as well, long before Eirik the Red settled.

gads, it seems I'm not only directionally dyslexic but also misinformed, lol. not the first time, nor will it be the last ...

thx for the info on Greenland - I knew about the Iceland shifts (from some reading on the erosion of Iceland's arable lands) but I had just assumed Greenland's ice was for more extant than the tales speak of. the warming period you speak of probably pushed the ice back a ways, but the main mass of ice would have remained and had an effect on the local climate. but by 'a ways' here the I am relating it to one of the articles I looked up which suggested the ice retreated as much as five hundred miles along large parts of the southern half. this is enough to radically change the 'outline' of the Greenland mass but that still left a large portion of Greenland covered in ice. however, I only mention this as a 'possible maybe' as to why there might be a naming game here - what if Iceland's general climate was more stable thanks to the geothermal factor there and Greenland's was more unpredictable due to the varying effects of the ice mass? just a thought.

and I know the Vikings didn't discover North America, which is why I used semi-quotes. but I didn't know about the 'fingers' thing ... or I forgot about it, whichever.

anyways, back to the 'sorry for going in the wrong cardinal direction' part, roflmao ...

lazserus
May 10th, 2009, 5:53 PM
the warming period you speak of probably pushed the ice back a ways, but the main mass of ice would have remained and had an effect on the local climate. but by 'a ways' here the I am relating it to one of the articles I looked up which suggested the ice retreated as much as five hundred miles along large parts of the southern half. this is enough to radically change the 'outline' of the Greenland mass but that still left a large portion of Greenland covered in ice. however, I only mention this as a 'possible maybe' as to why there might be a naming game here - what if Iceland's general climate was more stable thanks to the geothermal factor there and Greenland's was more unpredictable due to the varying effects of the ice mass?
Without core sample data I cannot state with any certainty the nature of Greenland's climate over the millennia. I have, however, seen a map of the Greenland settlement trend and it's all coastal. Even when the Vikings first settled there it was probably covered in glacial ice at its heart. We still don't know why Greenland was abandoned by the Norse, yet there are a number of theories, one being that the climate grew too cold. And, as you said, Iceland does have enough geothermal activity to keep the place habitable. But my opinion regarding Greenland, without any irrefutable evidence, is that Greenland was in fact green along the coastal parts during the time of Norse settlement, and thus was named so. The Vikings named things normally relating to their physical features, and sometimes they would attach a person's name to it. A fictional example of the Norse naming scheme is Brattasfjord, named after Bratta Herjolfardottir, a fictional person whom first erected a settlement in the region.

I don't really have much to add to the Eastward expansion at this time, but I've attached an article regarding the origins of the Rus.

James Random
Jul 13th, 2009, 7:47 AM
how about a bit of detail regarding the naming conventions which resulted in the whole Greenland/Iceland thing? I've tried to explain to others on AO that Greenland has always been an icy hell-hole (in human historical terms) whilst Iceland was nice and it was the Norsemen who engaged in 'Deceptive Advertising' to keep their colony free from riff raff - tell them Greenland is Great and they'll go there instead ...

oh, and let us not forget that it was Vikings who 'discovered' North America five centuries before Columbus thought he'd found India - Vinland, Vinland, Vinland ... the country where I quite want to be ...

Flóki Vilgerðarson was the first to actually go to Iceland. When he settled it was winter and that winter happened to be a particularly cold winter and so he named the place Iceland before sailing back to Sweden.. Later Ingolf Arnarson and Leif Hrodmarsson (from norway) was said to have discovered it by accident and found it to be rich in resources, fish and vegetation, though not entirely uninhabited as Irish Monks had taken up residence on what is now known as Priest Island. After the discovery, Leif and Ingolf returned to Norway having acquired many resources from Iceland as well as ten slaves (though its not entirely clear who these slaves were, some believe it was the Irish Monks). Leif and Ingolf sold what they had acquired and outfitted two new boats with the money, upon which they loaded their families and then set forth for Iceland once more: this is said to be the first settlement of Iceland.

Greenland's name comes from Scandinavian settlers. Icelandic history states that Eric The Red (so named for his big red beard) was exiled from Iceland on charges of manslaughter. He and his extended families set out for a land rumoured to be in the northwest. Once settled, Eric named the place Grænland. At the time of this settlement, Greenland WAS quite green with rolling meadows where these Norse settlers could raise their families and tend cattle, etc. At the time it was an accurate name.
Later the Earth began to cool somewhat and the ice sheets shifted (Greenland was already quite near the ice-sheets despite its greenery). This shift ultimately forced the Norse Settlers out two generations later and Greenland forever remained covered in snow and ice.

The original story that Greenland and Iceland were named to confuse resource hunting enemies is just a myth :)

lazserus
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:08 AM
Later the Earth began to cool somewhat and the ice sheets shifted (Greenland was already quite near the ice-sheets despite its greenery). This shift ultimately forced the Norse Settlers out two generations later and Greenland forever remained covered in snow and ice.
The Greenland settlement lasted more than three generations. Try nearly 500 years. In the mid-14th century a man named Knut was commissioned to sail to Greenland and "return the Greenlanders to Christianity." We have the records of his ships being commissioned, though we do not know whether or not the mission was a success. One thing we do know is that in 1363 only six to seven men returned. Archaeological evidence suggests the Norse settlers either abandoned the settlement or died from disease sometime in the early 15th century.

James Random
Jul 13th, 2009, 1:36 PM
The Greenland settlement lasted more than three generations. Try nearly 500 years. In the mid-14th century a man named Knut was commissioned to sail to Greenland and "return the Greenlanders to Christianity." We have the records of his ships being commissioned, though we do not know whether or not the mission was a success. One thing we do know is that in 1363 only six to seven men returned. Archaeological evidence suggests the Norse settlers either abandoned the settlement or died from disease sometime in the early 15th century.


3 gens. My bad.

It's most likely that some of the settlers stayed despite the deteriorating conditions in Greenland, but for the most part they moved away.

Mezurashi
Jul 13th, 2009, 2:19 PM
The original story that Greenland and Iceland were named to confuse resource hunting enemies is just a myth :)

twice now I am reshaping my paradigm about two places I will never ever likely visit in my life, lol

when you posted this it triggered a subconscious alert that I knew this and had forgotten it ... and it was verified easily ...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1965/shouldnt-greenland-be-known-as-iceland-and-vice-versa

along with the other stuff you mentioned. thing that bothers me is that I already knew this from a while back but the 'old' info was so grooved intot he tracks that it took precendence when I was thinking about it.

I guess I need to upgrade my cerebral search software :probe:

James Random
Jul 13th, 2009, 2:26 PM
I guess I need to upgrade my cerebral search software :probe:

Lol. Well I'm glad I could answer the question. I'm guilty myself of forgetting the boring details of a particular history in order to go with the more interesting myth! :bondage:

proffett
Nov 3rd, 2009, 12:35 PM
Hi all!
I'm new here, just come to say hello:)


--


Uhm... Couple things here Jess... First Hi and welcome. Secondly, we have an introduction section just for saying hello here (http://forums.armageddononline.org/introduce-yourself-f41.html) and third, your future blog site is listed as 'an attacker site' according to my internet security software... So yeah...


Alright, back on topic ya history buffs..

TC
Nov 6th, 2009, 9:51 AM
Dump the above shit... fucking idiots

Stabby Joe
Nov 10th, 2009, 3:39 PM
Wow, now that was a lot spam and porn, removed. Please continue with the thread.

James Random
Nov 10th, 2009, 11:28 PM
Check your computers in case of keyloggers.