Vikings In The East, The Normans

You have a Time Machine? Can I borrow it?

 

do you prefer to be an offer or an offender?

 

I'd prefer to understand, tel you the truth.

 

He simply reads the Lithuanian pseudo-historians too much.

 

wales has distinctly different genetics than england,,,melting pot...

 

Sorry - read Oppenheimer. You are talking codswallop.

 

one for sure, "you" know what "we" all read, and what "we" read far less credible then your readings

ps i refereed to dick harrison´s Sveriges historia , "Dick Walther Harrison, (born April 10, 1966 in Huddinge) is a Swedish historian who was born in Huddinge, Stockholm County, Sweden and spent much of his youth in Staffanstorp in Skåne. On June 12, 2010 he married Katarina Lindbergh in Kalmar Cathedral. He is currently a Professor of History at Lund University.[1]

His main areas of interest are the European Middle Ages, including the medical history of the period, and the history of slavery"

 

What of it? Read Oppenheimer.

 

"Sveriges historia: Sveriges historia del (part) 3"

there are many Oppenheimers , who of them shell i read?

 

And what Mr. Dick Walther Harrison writes in his book that normans were murderers and rapists only? Or you remember the information which you like only?

 

"murderers"??? you dont remember when and how it started, dont you`? "whole eastern Vikings economy was based om entirely on slavery (mostly the Balt, Slavic young females)" and the crucial word in my post was economy http://www.politicalforum.com/histo...07553-vikings-east-normans-3.html#post4668658

 

Stephen Oppenheimer: 'The Origins of the British'. I don't have the publisher or date, but it's probably Oxford and 2006 (someone has borrowed my copy). The key points can be found on the web - Prospect Magazine, Issue 126, 21 Oct 2006, 'Myths of British Ancestry'. This Oppenheimer is a geneticist in very good standing and - I think anyway - an Oxford academic. The only thing I'm dubious about is his notion that the original of English was perhaps spoken in Britannia before the Roman annexation.

 

It was the society of the early Middle Ages which in part used so-called raid economy. This type of economy was used by Scottish highlanders till to XIV century, by Chechens till XIX century and by many steppe peoples in early and late Middle Ages. They were not better and not worse than their contemporaries in other parts of Europe at that time. Though certainly it is possible to snatch out one fact and to give it as norm. A little example from the late Middle Ages in this case. 1534-37 so-called Starodub war between Lithuania and Moscow Russia. At 1535 Lithuanians have taken Russian town Starodub as the result the town was completely destroyed and almost all defenders and inhabitants of the town were killed, women were raped of course. Does it mean all Lithuanians were maniacs, murderers and rapists?

 

1) liberated from the Moskovits Lithuanian city Starodub, we talk about 2-3 000s, right? Ivan the terrible halve the population of GDL , the Western (Ruthenien) parts 3/4
2) not the all countries at that period of time lived form slavery (especially this nasty form of slavery) the Muslim slave traders for instants were much more "careful" this the young female slaves
3) these Lithuanians who killed and raped defenseless citizens of the GDL or any other country i would call for murderers and rapists
4) why do alway try to bite me? is it your medias force you to action? and what should we discuss new, it seams to me that you have agreed with my main statement "eastern Vikings economy was based entirely on slavery"

 

i thought we have been are discussing here the Varangians and The Normans...nevermind
PS what Oppenheimer says about Island colonization?

 

1. Starodub belonged to Moscow at that moment.
2. If you name those Lithuanians which have killed inhabitants of Starodub murderers and rapists, in this case you name as the murderer and rapist Jan Tarnovsky which has ordered to do all of this.
3. I do not bite you, I'm against one-sided perception of a history which you show here and I did not agree with you that the economy of vikings was based on slavery. I have told you they in part used raid economy. The economy of ancient Egypt could be based on slavery. Norman society of VIII-X centuries is the society of so-called military democracy, one of forms of late primitive society. Sometimes they even could have slaves, which were not the basis of their economy like in Greece or Rome. Yes they made attacks on Slavic and Baltic territories but there are other facts, the facts of cohabitation of Scandinavians and Slavs on the territory of modern Leningrad and Novgorod oblasts that is proven by numerous results of archeological excavations. There is the fact of creation of Rus by normans. Or maybe you have an alternative version?

 

1) sure Moscow occupied this this Lithuanian city some years before, much like Germans during WW1
2) are you sure that it was a personal order of Jan Tarnowski, links?
3) the term vikings is a product of European national romanticism, if we talk about "swedish" travelers ("who from the 9th to 11th centuries ventured eastwards and southwards along the rivers of Eastern Europe") more accurate term is The Varangians. then i said nothing about The Varangians connection to Eastern European statehoods
4) so you are against Dick Harrison , Ibn Fadlan, and modern (post- nationalistic) Scandinavian historiography ,apply here http://www.hist.uu.se/ i m sure you have a change

 

1. It depends on the point of view with which you look at a history. I think you need to leave dreamland and to accept the fact. After disintegration of Kiev Russia on its open spaces were arisen two alternative projects which tried to unit Russian lands: the Moscow project and the Lithuanian project. Lithuanian one finally has lost, while Moscow could create great empire. So XV-XVI centuries was the time of rivalry of Moscow and Lithuania for possession of Russian lands. Lithuania applied for all Russian landss including those which it never had, the Novgorod land for example and even Moscow. In turn Moscow considered all territory of former Kiev Russia as its historical parts. In this situation all boundary cities very much frequently passed from one side to another and back again.

2. Without a link, read the history of Starodub war. Jan Tarnowski komanded army which have taken Starodub. This is the known fact (except of you probably) not many persons were left alive including Feodor Ovchina-Obolensky which ruled over the defense of the town and which were imprisoned in Lithuanian castles. The majority were killed. Later Ivan theTerrible wrote to his Lithuanian colleague: without translation (I hope you have not forgotten Russian) «в наши не в свершенные лета отец государя вашего Жигимонт король прислал своих людей с бесермены к нашей вотчине к Стародубу, и город взяли, и воевод наших, и детей боярских с женами и с детьми многих поимали и порезали, как овец» As you see Ivan considered Starodub as his patrimony. These words we can find even in wikipedia. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Русско-литовская_война_(1534—1537)

3. In any case we speak about the same people - Scandinavians which in the West of Europe were called Normans in the east Varangians. Juggling by therms does not change anything.

4. If you tell to me in what point the opinion of Dick Harrison is differed from mine, probably I'll tell you - is I'm against him or not. As I did not read Dick Harrison because I read other books. Marx for example which characterized this society as military democracy. Though he has not thought up this term. This term was created by the American historian and ethnographer Lewis H. Morgan.

 

sorry you're talking BS a scientific impossibility...the DNA of hundreds of thousands likely millions of immigrants over the last 2k yrs and their descendents cannot genetically disappear merely to satisfy your desire for genetic/ethnic purity...even genetic traces of Neanderthal DNA has carried down after perhaps only fleeting contact with homo sapiens some 30-50K years ago is still with us...

 

If you like history, you'll love this.

 

Very interesting theory. Of course/or perhaps the author of article is fantast, but still an interesting article in any way.

 

Theory is an interesting word.

Did you miss the first hand accounts by Ibn Fadlan? His writings are trustworthy because he is such a dispassionate observer...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan

 

When I look at Maya and Inca structures "made by them", I do not believe that these ancient people were able to build it, because they did not knew what the wheel is.
So I do not trust to ancient writer , but the article is very Interesting . That article has a very good style of language and description.

 

The wheel was not particularly useful in desert sands of the Araabian peninsula, but it was widely used to grind grains and lift water from artesian wells.

Carts with wheels pulled by donkeys were used in some villages, but the camel's foot was far better for transportation in desert sands and camels fared far better with thorny grazing and little water.

 

Of course especially in the mountains the wheel useless, and these Incas built their Machu Picchu whith help by lamas which cheerfully pulled multi-ton blocks of stone on skids in the mountains.