Viking age revisionism and fetishisation of Nordic culture

[Ayetooey]

Not sure what to make of that and there has been a lot of discussion on the subject here and elsewhere. The Irish DNA Atlas found a high amount of Norse in the Irish also and these were some of the same people that were involved in the People of the British Isles study. Anglo-Saxons would be similar to the Danes and that could have made it difficult to separate Danish Viking influence. The only way to really see what contributions Vikings made to populations is to possibly look at Viking genomes and IBS sharing but some of these populations all descend from similar groups anyway. There is a study that is being done from Copenhagen University that is using Viking genomes to see if they are similar to present day Danes and also look at where they might have left their genes in populations that have had known Viking settlements.

https://geogenetics.ku.dk/research_g...ev/viking-dna/

If its proven its proven and I hope there's attempts to try and make a more concrete judgements through further studies and tests, but higher rates of blonde hair which is the argument I've heard from some others can be explained with higher saxon admixture, with them settling in the east and moving west overtime. Pretty sure most vikings didn't even settle in Britain in a full time sense as they were pirates, and the danelaw vikings afaik were obliterated by the Normans, and before that took place they were said to of lived seperate lives to anglo-saxons and seldom intermingled.

In respect to the thread topic, with "fetishisation" of the vikings; I personally wouldn't find any small amounts of dna left over to be something to gloat over for British person.

[Grace O'Malley]

I have very ambivalent feelings about the Vikings. I actually find the pre-Viking Vendel era more interesting. On one hand, I think Vikings contributed greatly to the history of Northern Europe, including Northeast Europe and Russia, and founded many Northern Europen cities. On the other hand, I think their influence over Europe as a whole can be overstated. They were not very successful in their adventures into Southern Europe. I think their dominance over Northern Europe had a lot to do with it being a sparsely populated place at the time. Its easy to push around an a defenseless English monastery or an Irish fishing village of 40 people, but its quite another going into more heavily populated Southern Europe and have influence. I think the pre-Viking history of Scandinavia should actually get more attention than it does.

Yes I agree. The Vikings gained a foothold in Ireland and Britain because both places had many separate kingdoms and weren't a united force. They gained Normandy because of similar reasons in that French kings were warring amongst themselves. They didn't have any success when they raided Spain and never got a foothold there.

Vikings anyway were mostly trying to gain wealth and fame and fortune by their raiding and all their settlements started initially from over-wintering in places and if they could they started staying permanently. They then became part of the political fabric of the places they stayed and became part of that society. This only happened in Ireland, Britain, France and parts of Russia. They don't appear to have made much of an impact anywhere else. The Normans were more successful but then they had different ambitions.

[Daco Celtic]

If its proven its proven and I hope there's attempts to try and make a more concrete judgements through further studies and tests, but higher rates of blonde hair which is the argument I've heard from some others can be explained with higher saxon admixture, with them settling in the east and moving west overtime. Pretty sure most vikings didn't even settle in Britain in a full time sense as they were pirates, and the danelaw vikings afaik were obliterated by the Normans, and before that took place they were said to of lived seperate lives to anglo-saxons and seldom intermingled.

In respect to the thread topic, with "fetishisation" of the vikings; I personally wouldn't find any small amounts of dna left over to be something to gloat over for British person.

Yes. I would gloat over Anglo-Saxon history more than Vikings. Anglo-Saxon history is pretty interesting including their conversion to Christianity.

[Ayetooey]

Yes. I would gloat over Anglo-Saxon history more than Vikings. Anglo-Saxon history is pretty interesting including their conversion to Christianity.

Well Anglo-Saxons are the cultural and predominant ethnic predecessors of the modern English, so yes I completely agree. Saxons were badass.

[dosas]

Varangians were true servants of the Emperor and fought for the Roman Empire till the bitter end, with no surrender and no quarter given against the cockroach horde known as the ottomans, so s up from me, historically speaking of course.

[Creoda]

Pretty sure most vikings didn't even settle in Britain in a full time sense as they were pirates, and the danelaw vikings afaik were obliterated by the Normans, and before that took place they were said to of lived seperate lives to anglo-saxons and seldom intermingled.

The Danes who had settled in England from the Viking Danelaw were massacred by Anglo-Saxons/English, not Normans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Br...s_Day_massacre

[Grace O'Malley]

If its proven its proven and I hope there's attempts to try and make a more concrete judgements through further studies and tests, but higher rates of blonde hair which is the argument I've heard from some others can be explained with higher saxon admixture, with them settling in the east and moving west overtime. Pretty sure most vikings didn't even settle in Britain in a full time sense as they were pirates, and the danelaw vikings afaik were obliterated by the Normans, and before that took place they were said to of lived seperate lives to anglo-saxons and seldom intermingled.

In respect to the thread topic, with "fetishisation" of the vikings; I personally wouldn't find any small amounts of dna left over to be something to gloat over for British person.

It's interesting in England re the Vikings and I have been swayed back and forth with some people's arguments on here re their genetic contributions. I think the Anglo-Saxon contribution to Britain was much greater and this is not saying much because it is obvious historically. I don't think Anglo-Saxons would have not mixed with any Vikings though as at that time people had no hesitation in forming alliances based on marriage. Whether people are proud of certain people's contributions to the gene pool is a personal preference. I just think you have to go with what the evidence shows.

I do agree that people using blond hair as some sort of gauge is not likely to be a valid indicator. I wish I'd listen to my inner-voice and stay clear of those discussions on here. They are just like walking into a quicksand pit.

[Óttar]

I have I1 Y DNA from the Vikings with some Anglo-Saxon subclades. My father's side is Irish Catholic.

[Ayetooey]

The Danes who had settled in England from the Viking Danelaw were massacred by Anglo-Saxons/English, not Normans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Br...s_Day_massacre

I got my Nords mixed up, it was Harald Hardrada's people who were finished off by the Normans.

[Grace O'Malley]

The Danes who had settled in England from the Viking Danelaw were massacred by Anglo-Saxons/English, not Normans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Br...s_Day_massacre

What's your opinion on the Viking's contributions to English genetics specifically? I think you have a good grasp of the genetic side of things.