-4

Question was closed & so i decided to delete it:)

  • 3
    The death of Constantine I of the Picts in 877 is one of several examples of Viking battles against the Picts. There is a complication that much of the Viking activity was on the west coast, which had previously been conquered by the Scots invading from Ireland. – Henry Feb 14 '16 at 0:49
  • 3
    Really, this could be answered just by typing "Vikings in Scotland" into any search engine. It's very well documented that the Norse raided northern England, Scotland, and Ireland, as well as settling in places like York, Shetland, & Orkney. – jamesqf Feb 14 '16 at 4:53
5

"Vikings" were not a "race"! Neither were they a nation or an ethnos. "Vikings" was a name given in the Middle Ages to Scandinavian warriors who attacked many places in Europe. Scandinavian warriors not only plundered, they also settled in various countries, including Britain.

England experienced several waves of invasion from Northern Europe, after the Romas "withdrew". The first wave was from the Anglo-Saxon tribes, who originated from the parts of Northern Germany which are in Germany now, but used to be in Denmark at other times. They conquered a large territory from the "native" Britons and established their Anglo-Saxon kingdoms there. Not all of the territory was conquered. The Britons had their kingdoms in Wales, in particular.

The next wave of invaders arrived from what was already known as Denmark at the time, that is roughly from the same place as the first wave, in 10s century. You may call them Vikings or not, but these were essentially the people from the same place as earlier "Anglo-Saxons". There is no doubt they encountered some of the original Britons as well, because at one time the whole of England was under Danish dominance, but not for long. The final wave arrived in 1066 from Normandy (which was also previously conquered by the same "Vikings":-)

Finally the Danes of the first wave were as "Barbarian" as the native Britons. The word "Barbarian" applies to all non-Greek and non-Romans.

The word "race", according to the modern scientists, is ill defined in general. But distinguishing the Western Europeans by "race" is simply ridiculous.

  • 2
    @turinsbane: "Christianizing" and "Latinizing" is a matter of education/propaganda/religious conversion (pick whatever terms you like). It has nothing whatsoever to do with race, which is a matter of genetics. (And please, no arguments about whether the concept of race is scientifically valid.) As for the Norse gods, some people still do follow them, and what on Earth does that have to do with anything? – jamesqf Feb 14 '16 at 4:41
  • @turinsbane: Certainly you're free to ask whatever you like (within the site rules, anyway), just as people responding are free to point out that your question a) is fundamentally flawed; b) shows that you did no previous research; and c) displays... well, I'll be nice and not say it :-) – jamesqf Feb 14 '16 at 18:34
  • 1
    @Alex I would suggest replacing "Brits" with "Britons" to make it clearer these were the early Celtic inhabitants of the island. "Brits" suggests a colloquial reference to the modern inhabitants (at least to my American ears). – njuffa Feb 14 '16 at 21:53
  • 1
    Physically bigger than Anglo Saxons? Do you have any references for that? – Gort the Robot Feb 15 '16 at 4:39
  • 1
    @turinsbane: As to religion having anything to do with race, consider that I am, by definition, of the same race as my parents. They were Christians; I am (to the extent I have any religious beliefs at all) a pagan. I also know a number of people of other races who are Christians. – jamesqf Feb 15 '16 at 4:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.