This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Danes vs. Swedes vs. Norwegians--- who were the best Vikings?

Discussion in 'Borknagar' started by Victor Meldrew, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. EvilRealm

    EvilRealm New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Also there exists icelandic saga called "Fundinn Noregr", which tells about ancient Finnish kings of Kvenland (Kainuu now) who had possessions all over scandinavia, and the most known one's, king Fornjortr's son Norre founded Norway. Today, on the north part of Norway i think, still live people called "Kvens".

    Finnish viking called Thorfinn and his men accompanied with norwegians on raids, and these finns taught them to 'lead the wind', and it was so impressive that norwegians called it magic. From there originated the ancient norwegian word for magic: "finngerd".
     
  2. webster

    webster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    what ever the fisrt englishmen where they where pretty mad until the vikings raped the women and burnt doun there villiages damn
     
  3. Det Som Engang Var

    Det Som Engang Var Viking Bastard

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    13,269
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I'm a little confused about Cluain Tarbh, who were the Gaels fighting? I heard mention of vikings but which side were they on? If the Irish aren't Celtics, then who is? Aren't Switerzland also Gaels?
     
  4. Zephyrus

    Zephyrus Tyrants and Slaves

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    25,498
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine or Iowa
  5. My Arms, Your Purse

    My Arms, Your Purse I Steal Things

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    Nordmenn selvfølgelig.
     
  6. KRaEzTaIuRmED

    KRaEzTaIuRmED New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is retarded, this is just a childish arguement on who's cool by who was more destructive, had the biggest axe, or who was the drunkest.
     
  7. KRaEzTaIuRmED

    KRaEzTaIuRmED New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where'd you read your Irish history, on the back of an arse?
     
  8. Qu Appelle

    Qu Appelle Tree hugger

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Seattle!
    Very true. After all, there should be no question as to who the best vikings were.

    They were the Pennsylvania Dutch, of course.
     
  9. GONE Ridin' Hood

    GONE Ridin' Hood Professor.

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hmmm interesting question, quite a tough one actually, but I'd go with Norwegians; they had some amazing ships :kickass: .
     
  10. Undefined

    Undefined Indefinite Entity

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,929
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Unsure and Inexact
    I think this question is better suited for the regulars of the Amon Amarth forum.
     
  11. pabs

    pabs New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Yeah.. All of the three were using gear that was made in china anyways :p
     
  12. Qu Appelle

    Qu Appelle Tree hugger

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Seattle!
    Actually, I have a sortof-related question to this.

    As I understand it, one of the local indigenous groups in Northern Scandinavia and Finland are the Sami? How are they regarded and treated over there?

    I've always been interested in the different indigenous cultures of the world, and it'd be interesting to hear more about this one.
     
  13. Qu Appelle

    Qu Appelle Tree hugger

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Seattle!
    Huh - interesting. Thanks for the information. There are a couple of books available here that I read, but they were written by Anthropologists, so they had a slight 'look at that wacky other culture!' vibe that I found uncomfortable. "And now, observe as Johann skins the reindeer outside of his tent", etc.

    Why do some hate the Samis?
     
  14. My Arms, Your Purse

    My Arms, Your Purse I Steal Things

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    Same reason lots of people hate black people, jews etc. Because they're dimwits. (The people who hate them, not the samis)
     
  15. Det Som Engang Var

    Det Som Engang Var Viking Bastard

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    13,269
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I wouldn't have known if you didn't clear that up at the end. :lol:
     
  16. Blind Guardian

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,523
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sweden
    The usual reason:anything that is different.
     
  17. KILGAROK

    KILGAROK New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Gaels are Celts. (But not all Celts are Gaels) The ones who came to Ireland were called Gaelic, Goidelic or Q-Celtic. The ones who came to Britain were called Brythonic, or P-Celtic. The Gaels or Q-Celts lived in Ireland, and later conquered Scotland and the Isle of Man. The Brythonic or P-Celts lived in Britain, but were driven out of all of it except Wales and Cornwall by Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon invasions.
    No one knows exactly where the Celts originated.
     
  18. valle1

    valle1 New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Do any of your guys have any historical background to build any of that bull up with facts? "Norweigans were more brutal because they use axes" Jesus on scates!... That argument sounds like something I could get from a random interview in a kindergarden. The fact is that the viking era stretched from year 800 to 1050 and under at least a 3rd of those years, Norway were under Danish control. So how effin brutal can they be? Denmark on the other hand, controlled a big part of Europe under Knud den Store (You may know him as Canute the Great) including Norway. Parts of Sweden and England among others. Whereas Norway controlled Norway if they were lucky. Some of you may also be familiar with another Danish viking called Ragnar Lødbrøk if you have watched HBO´s vikings. He was famous for robbing Paris of a fortune in return for not sacking them... All in all, you guys need to read up on your viking history before you make claims on the matter.
     
    Glockmar likes this.
  19. Glockmar

    Glockmar New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I have a historical background to build on with many facts regarding the Vikings who I have studied for years, as I am a ancestor of Gorm the Old, Sweyn Forkbeard, Harald Bluetooth, Knut the Great and Valdemar the Victorious and I have the papers to prove that too.

    But my family line has connection both to Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Most of the Kings were Danish and many had roots in Als and Roskilde. But in Sweden I am related to two princesses from Lund and one of my ancestors sailed west with the Norwegians who to a large degree travelled with the Danes back then.

    So the argument on who was the best Vikings is kind of nonsense. For all of the Vikings were extremely fierce and it is not true the Swedes had more longivity, they just remained Swedish longer. Many Danes settled in England and Ireland and so lasted at least as long as the Swedes just under another nationality, so to say that the Swedes was more successful makes no sense. Likewise it is tough to make that argument for Norway. For there is a reason Greenland and Iceland was under Danish rule for so long, for during a long period of ancient history Denmark and Norway was the same kingdom and fought together, so did Skåne in southern Sweden who was Danish/Norwegian for a long time.

    So how can you argue Norwegians, Swedes or Danes stronger than each other? They were basically made of the same blood and culture, and feared where-ever they went and all took very long journeys. There is evidence that the Swedes may have made it all the way to Azerbaijan and the Middle-East. The Norwegians and Danes both made it to the America's, though it was mostly Norwegians, but the Danes went to Rome and Paris and sacked these cities as well as London, York and most of England. So to say the Danes were inferior to the rest makes no sense. They were not superior either, they all had great success but in different ways.

    The Swedes probably had the most success as a nation, eventually taking Skåne from Denmark and being strong in Scandinavia because they remained more local. The Norwegians traveled the furthers and discovered the most perhaps, but locally they were inferior to both the Danes and Swedes who ruled them throughout much of history in part because they had larger numbers and more advantageous locations.

    The Danes however probably had the greatest success spreading their blood lines throughout all of Europe and the world. People of Danish ancestors came to live in both Italy, Spain, France, England, Portugal, Ireland, Holland, Iceland, Greenland and later many went to the america's too in larger numbers than the Norwegians.

    So how would you measure this against each other? Local national power, vs ship building and exploration vs wide-spread blood lines of Kings all over the world?

    You can't really compare this, both because they often fought and traveled together and mixed blood too, but also because for their relatively small number all 3 nations had a lot of success everywhere they went. The only reason you guys have to discount the Danes is because they integrated with the English, but the English became the largest empire ever and many there today still have Danish ancestry, so should the Danish be discounted just because the Danes started calling themselves English when they had as much Viking roots and blood as the Swedes and Norwegians?

    I can show countless of evidence of why it makes no sense to divide them like this, for though we may want to do that today because of rising nationalism, it reflects a poor understanding of history in viking times where nationality was more about trust, blood, titles, resources and literal power rather nationality. There wasn't really a official Denmark, Norway or Sweden nation until much later.
    Many Danes as mentioned became Christian because they were better at integrating than the Swedes and Norwegians, and with the Christian way of thinking the common spiritual connection and faith in Jesus often had greater importance than what nation you came from. And so it was not uncommon for Danes, Norwegians and Finns to travel together and be allies even if they had different national backgrounds.

    Most of my Danish/Norwegian ancestors married Swedes, Germans, Russians, Dutch and Englishmen. So the division between these Scandinavian countries were not as great as you guys seems to think. That mostly came much later with the Dano-Swedish war in 1650's and later again in the 1800's, but in Viking times Danes, Swedes and Norwegians often fought together or traded together. If they had fought each other so much back then, they would never have had the power to conquer what they did. This is why when people thought of Vikings or Varengians they rarely differentiated between if it was a Norwegian, Swedish or Danish Viking. For in those times the difference between them was not all that great at all.

    If you read about the history of Iceland and Greenland for example you will find that the Danes and Norwegians traveled together, this is how Greenland and Iceland became Danish though Leif Erikson was Norwegian. A bit like Christopher Columbus was Italian but sailed for Spain.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
    The history of Greenland is a history of life under extreme Arctic conditions: currently, an ice cap covers about 80 percent of the island, restricting human activity largely to the coasts.

    The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There has been no evidence discovered that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the InuitGreenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 AD, from northwestern Greenland. While the Inuit survived in the icy world of the Little Ice Age, the early Norse settlements along the southwestern coast disappeared, leaving the Inuit as the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries. During this time, Denmark-Norway, apparently believing the Norse settlements had survived, continued to claim sovereignty over the island despite the lack of any contact between the Norse Greenlanders and their Scandinavian brethren. In 1721, aspiring to become a colonial power, Denmark-Norway sent a missionary expedition to Greenland with the stated aim of reinstating Christianity among descendants of the Norse Greenlanders who may have reverted to paganism. When the missionaries found no descendants of the Norse Greenlanders, they baptized the Inuit Greenlanders they found living there instead. Denmark-Norway then developed trading colonies along the coast and imposed a trade monopoly and other colonial privileges on the area.
    The history of Greenland is a history of life under extreme Arctic conditions: currently, an ice cap covers about 80 percent of the island, restricting human activity largely to the coasts.

    The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There has been no evidence discovered that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the InuitGreenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 AD, from northwestern Greenland. While the Inuit survived in the icy world of the Little Ice Age, the early Norse settlements along the southwestern coast disappeared, leaving the Inuit as the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries. During this time, Denmark-Norway, apparently believing the Norse settlements had survived, continued to claim sovereignty over the island despite the lack of any contact between the Norse Greenlanders and their Scandinavian brethren. In 1721, aspiring to become a colonial power, Denmark-Norway sent a missionary expedition to Greenland with the stated aim of reinstating Christianity among descendants of the Norse Greenlanders who may have reverted to paganism. When the missionaries found no descendants of the Norse Greenlanders, they baptized the Inuit Greenlanders they found living there instead. Denmark-Norway then developed trading colonies along the coast and imposed a trade monopoly and other colonial privileges on the area.
    The history of Greenland is a history of life under extreme Arctic conditions: currently, an ice cap covers about 80 percent of the island, restricting human activity largely to the coasts.

    The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There has been no evidence discovered that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the InuitGreenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 AD, from northwestern Greenland. While the Inuit survived in the icy world of the Little Ice Age, the early Norse settlements along the southwestern coast disappeared, leaving the Inuit as the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries. During this time, Denmark-Norway, apparently believing the Norse settlements had survived, continued to claim sovereignty over the island despite the lack of any contact between the Norse Greenlanders and their Scandinavian brethren. In 1721, aspiring to become a colonial power, Denmark-Norway sent a missionary expedition to Greenland with the stated aim of reinstating Christianity among descendants of the Norse Greenlanders who may have reverted to paganism. When the missionaries found no descendants of the Norse Greenlanders, they baptized the Inuit Greenlanders they found living there instead. Denmark-Norway then developed trading colonies along the coast and imposed a trade monopoly and other colonial privileges on the area.
    The history of Greenland is a history of life under extreme Arctic conditions: currently, an ice cap covers about 80 percent of the island, restricting human activity largely to the coasts.

    The first humans are thought to have arrived in Greenland around 2500 BC. Their descendants apparently died out and were succeeded by several other groups migrating from continental North America. There has been no evidence discovered that Greenland was known to Europeans until the 10th century, when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, which seems to have been uninhabited when they arrived. The ancestors of the InuitGreenlanders who live there today appear to have migrated there later, around 1200 AD, from northwestern Greenland. While the Inuit survived in the icy world of the Little Ice Age, the early Norse settlements along the southwestern coast disappeared, leaving the Inuit as the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries. During this time, Denmark-Norway, apparently believing the Norse settlements had survived, continued to claim sovereignty over the island despite the lack of any contact between the Norse Greenlanders and their Scandinavian brethren. In 1721, aspiring to become a colonial power, Denmark-Norway sent a missionary expedition to Greenland with the stated aim of reinstating Christianity among descendants of the Norse Greenlanders who may have reverted to paganism. When the missionaries found no descendants of the Norse Greenlanders, they baptized the Inuit Greenlanders they found living there instead. Denmark-Norway then developed trading colonies along the coast and imposed a trade monopoly and other colonial privileges on the area.
     
  20. Glockmar

    Glockmar New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Yes you are right as far as influence in Viking times the Danes were probably the most influential even if the Norwegians build the best boats and the Swedes became the most powerful later. But as far as Vikings goes I would have to say that it should at best be a draw or actually a victory to the Danes-Norwegians if anything, for when you think of Viking conquest you think of them.

    Ragnar Lødbrøk was by the way both Norwegian and Danish. He may have been legendary, but if he lived he likely was born in what is today Norway but which was then ruled by the Danes, so he sailed and fought for the Danes. If he lived he was a relative of my ancestor Gorm the Old of Denmark. So the people who discount the Danes here don't know their history or have a bias against them for becoming Christian and English, for the fact of the matter is that the Danes were some of the most feared and successful warriors and Vikings of all times. They raided and settled both Rome, Paris, London, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Holland, England, Scotland, Ireland, Poland and as mentioned Iceland and Greenland too. Tough later nationalism identifies the Canada, Iceland, Greenland and Scotland travel with Norwegians, but they mostly sailed together with Danes who had most of the conquering Kings back then even if Norway had the ship-builders and explorers, and they both had plenty of viking warriors. So I strongly disagree with the notion that the Danes should be the weakest Vikings in history, that simply is not true. Don't forget that the Angles who mostly settle England and became England the greatest empire in history who came to settle the US, Canada and Australia too, came from Southern Denmark and if you look at English names today and know anything about the Danish language you will recognize just how many English names has Danish influence.
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Our music community has been around for almost 15 years and we pride ourselves on offering great metal music discussion, as well as music production and other closely related topics. We work hard every day to make sure our community is one of the best. Enjoy!
  • Like us on Facebook

  • Donate ♥

    We have worked hard for 15 years (and running) to make sure our Metal community is running fast, uses the best software, and isn't overloaded with advertising. If you love the forum as much as we love bringing it to you, please show your support with a generous donation. We really appreciate it!