- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
History buffs - how would you rate the Vikings success at expansion?
Posted on 3/10/17 at 7:53 am
Posted on 3/10/17 at 7:53 am
I've been reading and watching some documentaries on the Vikings and it got me wondering:
They were definitely much feared in their heyday. But in terms of classic evolutionary terms - ie: spreading their genetics as wide as possible, it almost seems like they fell short in a lot of ways.
I think they have left some bloodlines in northern England but perhaps not a majority. Seems like the native Britons and the Saxons, etc. left a larger footprint.
Likewise, it kind of seems like, although they ruled Normandy for a long time, I'm not sure they left that big of an imprint on the dna as opposed to say the Franks and previous people like the Gauls and Burgandians.
And their settlements in Iceland and Greenland seem to have been mixed successes at best. And their early attempts at settling North America didn't succeed at all.
I'm not sure about how much impact they had on the Russians. I know the Rus were originally Vikings but I'm not sure how their genetics compare to say the Slavic people that were there before and maybe later influxes of people from Asia.
They were definitely much feared in their heyday. But in terms of classic evolutionary terms - ie: spreading their genetics as wide as possible, it almost seems like they fell short in a lot of ways.
I think they have left some bloodlines in northern England but perhaps not a majority. Seems like the native Britons and the Saxons, etc. left a larger footprint.
Likewise, it kind of seems like, although they ruled Normandy for a long time, I'm not sure they left that big of an imprint on the dna as opposed to say the Franks and previous people like the Gauls and Burgandians.
And their settlements in Iceland and Greenland seem to have been mixed successes at best. And their early attempts at settling North America didn't succeed at all.
I'm not sure about how much impact they had on the Russians. I know the Rus were originally Vikings but I'm not sure how their genetics compare to say the Slavic people that were there before and maybe later influxes of people from Asia.
14
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:00 am to Methuselah
I'm not very knowledgeable regarding the Vikings, but are there any good maps that show their expansion?
Unless he's done it already, maybe that can be one of Dan Carlin's next Hardcore History podcasts.
Unless he's done it already, maybe that can be one of Dan Carlin's next Hardcore History podcasts.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:01 am to Methuselah
While they didn't necessarily "spread" their seed so-to-speak, you have to give them props for some of their accomplishments. They were doing things with metal that no one was really doing at the time. They were the first europeans to go to North America, which is quite the feat in itself. Their ship building and longhouses are pretty impressive. I think not being a group that wrote a lot down hurts their place in history but overall they are a great group to be studied in the evolution of modern man.
This post was edited on 3/10/17 at 8:02 am
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:02 am to Methuselah
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:06 am to Methuselah
The Vikings were an original team not an expansion team. Fran Tarkenton was a great quarterback for them back in the day
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:07 am to Methuselah
Anglos kicked that arse.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:10 am to Methuselah
Scandinavian genes would be found mostly in Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, England, Russia, and France. There were never enough vikings to conquer large swaths, and they weren't great at sieges, so they mostly raided and traded. When they did conquer and settle areas, they were always heavily outnumbered by the locals. Plus it's been 1000 years. Cant expect people in Normandy to look like pure Scandinavians.
Besides, there likely isn't much difference in a Saxon and a Dane, looks-wise. It's really impossible to say how widespread the Viking DNA is compared to other tribes. How do you know how big of an imprint the Gauls made, to compare?
Iceland has been continuously occupied by Vikings for 1000 years. Greenland was occupied by Vikings for hundreds of years. That's not bad. Danes had great success in Britain and one became king.
Besides, there likely isn't much difference in a Saxon and a Dane, looks-wise. It's really impossible to say how widespread the Viking DNA is compared to other tribes. How do you know how big of an imprint the Gauls made, to compare?
Iceland has been continuously occupied by Vikings for 1000 years. Greenland was occupied by Vikings for hundreds of years. That's not bad. Danes had great success in Britain and one became king.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:10 am to Methuselah
I took the DNA test and I had a bunch of phantom Scandinavian DNA in there. I think for such a comparatively small population they did pretty well spreading their genes through Northern Europe.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:14 am to Methuselah
I just think the Vikings had a different mentality than other "conquering" groups. Britons/Saxons/Persians all wanted to expand as much as possible, and leave their legacy/influence the people they overtook. I feel like the Vikings just wanted to raid for the sake of raiding. It was a part of who they were, and they enjoyed it. I guess the expansion they had was just because they were so good at raiding.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:18 am to Lsupimp
quote:
took the DNA test and I had a bunch of phantom Scandinavian DNA in there. I think for such a comparatively small population they did pretty well spreading their genes through Northern Europe.
Right. It's impossible to really tell how widespread "Viking genes" are without mass DNA tests. What is OP basing his opinion off of? Just how many blue eyed blondes he sees in Moscow?
I have my doubts that we'd be able to easily tell the difference between a Dane, a Saxon, a Goth or a Frank just based on looks.
This post was edited on 3/10/17 at 8:19 am
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:19 am to SouthOfSouth
quote:
While they didn't necessarily "spread" their seed so-to-speak, you have to give them props for some of their accomplishments. They were doing things with metal that no one was really doing at the time. They were the first europeans to go to North America, which is quite the feat in itself. Their ship building and longhouses are pretty impressive.
True. There shipbuilding and seamanship itself were incredibly impressive. And yeah, some of the grave goods and stuff they've unearthed show a great level of artistry and technical know how.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:19 am to Methuselah
vikings aint got shite on genghis khan
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:27 am to Pitch To Johnny
quote:
just think the Vikings had a different mentality than other "conquering" groups. Britons/Saxons/Persians all wanted to expand as much as possible, and leave their legacy/influence the people they overtoo
Not really. Vikings started as raiders, no one knows exactly why, but they started as raiders for plunder. Eventually they did try to settle lands and had some success but lacked the numbers and siege ability to be more successful. They did conquer most of what's now England and a Dane named Canute became king of England.
FWIW, there is little info available about the Saxon invasion and there's a theory that it was more of a wave of immigration, possibly even peaceful, and not the bloody hostile invasion previously assumed.
This post was edited on 3/10/17 at 8:40 am
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:27 am to biglego
quote:
Right. It's impossible to really tell how widespread "Viking genes" are without mass DNA tests. What is OP basing his opinion off of? Just how many blue eyed blondes he sees in Moscow? I have my doubts that we'd be able to easily tell the difference between a Dane, a Saxon, a Goth or a Frank just based on looks.
I think in Britain there have been a good bit of dna testing trying to attribute what peoples made contributions to the dna in different parts of the country.
There are a ton of articles but here is one:
Britan dna studies
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:33 am to Methuselah
Ah. Well if there isn't much scandinavian blood in Britain then I'd be surprised and say you have a point. Britain is the place, aside from Iceland, where Viking blood should be found. Although even then the native population vastly outnumbered them.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:46 am to Methuselah
They were no Michael J. Fox
Posted on 3/10/17 at 8:46 am to Methuselah
If you want to judge Viking "success" by the distribution of their DNA over time, that's your choice, but I would like to suggest to you that you should look at the Vikings, and try to determine, from their standards, whether they felt they were successful.
In my opinion, it's a more rewarding process to dive deeper into their culture and make that determination, based on their beliefs, instead of judging them against a standard that they had no concept of.
Ask yourself some questions about the Vikings. Knowing what you know about them:
Was simply establishing a colony on Greenland a success for them?
Was the failure at the siege of Paris in 885 actually a failure for them?
What were the goals of the raiding system, and are those goals in conflict with how you are judging them?
And don't forget... the Vikings of 700 AD had very different goals from the Vikings of 1000 AD. They can't all be judged by the same standard.
My advice... don't generalize. Get more specific to learn more. There's a lot of material there if you want to dive in!
In my opinion, it's a more rewarding process to dive deeper into their culture and make that determination, based on their beliefs, instead of judging them against a standard that they had no concept of.
Ask yourself some questions about the Vikings. Knowing what you know about them:
Was simply establishing a colony on Greenland a success for them?
Was the failure at the siege of Paris in 885 actually a failure for them?
What were the goals of the raiding system, and are those goals in conflict with how you are judging them?
And don't forget... the Vikings of 700 AD had very different goals from the Vikings of 1000 AD. They can't all be judged by the same standard.
My advice... don't generalize. Get more specific to learn more. There's a lot of material there if you want to dive in!
Posted on 3/10/17 at 9:00 am to SpqrTiger
quote:
My advice... don't generalize. Get more specific to learn more. There's a lot of material there if you want to dive in!
Good advice.
I wasn't trying to diss them in any way. And yeah, I realize that they had impressive accomplishments.
For whatever reason, questions like this tend to percolate through my mind from time to time and sometimes it seems like it might be a good topic for a discussion.
I guess the same could be asked of many "raiding" cultures. Did the Mongols and Turkic people leave a heavy dna footprint in the middle east/southeastern Eurpoe area (I mean Turkey is named after them but I have no idea if that area has heavily Turkic dna).
Posted on 3/10/17 at 9:07 am to Methuselah
I think another big reason you dont see more DNA is that (at least I) havent heard of them "raping and pillaging". Also the fact that they lived in one big house together probably didnt help the whole baby making success of the people.
I guess thats a bit of a leap but they seem more excited about blood than sex which could be a big reason why you dont see a large DNA footprint.
I guess thats a bit of a leap but they seem more excited about blood than sex which could be a big reason why you dont see a large DNA footprint.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 9:13 am to SouthOfSouth
I'd be shocked if Viking men raiding a village didn't do plenty raping. They took women and slaves.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News