Were the Danish Vikings stronger than the Norwegians?

I think that the most successful groups were Danish. The Danes conquered most of Great Britain and established the Danelaw. Cnut the Great who conquered England was primarily the King of Danemark.

The Norwegians conquered parts of Ireland and other territories but I think that the Danes were generally more successful.

Anyways, there were both Danish and Norwegian groups in most of these conquests, like in Northern France.

I feel that the Western Vikings were generally more successful than their Eastern counterparts(who were active in the Baltic Sea).

The Varangians were quite successful themselves though, with the control of the Volga trading route and the establishment of the Kievan Rus.

I agree the Danes were the most successful of the bunch. Like Labienus said they controlled a lot of England. King Cnut also ruled over Norway for a time. I think the viking who settled Normandy, Rollo, was also a Dane.

Viking raids involved networks of thegns loyal to one king or another. Whilst is is true that many Swedes, especially from the Lake Mälaren area, went to Byzantium as witnessed by the Ingvar Runestones, nearly all England Runestones are also found in Sweden: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_runestones"]England are found in Sweden[/ame].

Áli/Alli had this stone raised in memory of himself. He took Knútr's payment in England. May God help his spirit. (Uppland 194)

And Danr and Húskarl and Sveinn had the stone erected in memory of Ulfríkr, their father's father. He had taken two payments in England. May God and God's mother help the souls of the father and son. (Uppland 241)

And Ulfr has taken three payments in England. That was the first that Tosti paid. Then Þorketill paid. Then Knútr paid. (Uppland 344)

There are about 30 that mention England and other than one in Norway and another one in Denmark, the rest are in Sweden with the majority being near the lakes Mälaren and Vättern.

The payments refer to danagäld and invariably these are expeditions organised by a Danish king and referred to in these runestones:

Eybjôrn raised this stone in memory of Skerðir. He died in the retinue in England (Södermanland 160)

Arnsteinn raised this stone in memory of Bjórr his son who died in the retinue when Knútr attacked England. (Norway 184)

The Tosti referred to in Sö 344 is probably Skoglar Toste, a chieftain in Västergötland. He was the father of Sigríð Storråda. Sigríð first marries Erik Segersäll. Their son, Olof Skötkonung, was accepted as king by both the Svear around Lake Mälaren and the Götar around Lake Vättern. Sigríð's second husband is Sweyn Forkbeard and their son is Knútr, Canute the Great. Olof and Knútr are therefore half brothers and Knútr appears to have established an organisation of thegns from Västergötland to Lake Mälaren, at one time also controlling Öland on Sweden's east coast, and he draws on these areas for his expeditions to England.

An interesting aspect of the runestones from around lakes Mälaren and Vättern is their use of the term viking and, according to some linguists Vikingr as a personal name, though some disagree that the two are linguistically related. Two other groups of swedish runestones, the Greece Runestones and the Ingvar Runestones show that the majority of expeditions were to the south east. England therefore was quite different. Whilst England, Ireland and France were de facto destinations for Norwegians and Danes, there was no need to mark them in any particular way. This was obviously not the case in Sweden. In Sweden, the term viking may have meant someone who went to England:

Tóla placed this stone in memory of Geirr, her son, a very good valiant man. He died on a viking raid on the western route (Västergötland 61)

"Ginnlaug, Holmgeirr's daughter, Sigrøðr and Gautr's sister, she had this bridge made and this stone raised in memory of Ôzurr, her husbandman, earl Hákon's son. He was the viking watch with Geitir" (Uppland 67)

Nah the Danes lost their pizaz when they converted to Christianity and started to settle down.

The last major danish invasion in England was in 1075 when they destroyed the anglo saxon cathedral in York. The fleet stayed in the humber wetlands for much of the year and William 1st was forced to pay them danegeld as he was worried that they might join the northern earls in their threatened rebellion against him.

Where did the Normans that settled in Normandy and invaded England successfully later come from?

Considering how Denmark would go on to conquer almost the whole Nordic world, I would give it to them in terms of being successful.

Jake10 said:

Let's not forget that the Norwegians adopted Christianity by the year 1000.

Click to expand...

And that the Danes still kept at it, and were at one point the most powerful kingdom in northern Europe.

I have the idea that Danemark, being smaller and more densely populated, experienced much more emigration ("go viking") pressure, as primogeniture forced younger sons into non-agricultural pursuits.

As US military recruiting offices proclaim in their signs nowadays: "Careers".

Well it was more an honour and an opportunity as one had to be invited to take part. There were many competing groups who campaigned against each other as much as against France, Britain or Ireland. The danger in launching a foreign campaign was always that the back door at home was left open. A good example of this can be seen on the Skarthi Stone at Hedeby:

"King Sweyn set this stone in memory of Skarði, his huscarl, who fared in the west, but who met his death at Hithabu."

West here means England but Skarthi fell when Hedeby itself came under attack around 995. A Swedish king, Erik the Victorious, took advantage of the fact that Sweyn was campaigning in England to attack the strategically important area around Hedeby. Sweyn had left Skarthi on this occasion, to guard the back door.

Erik Segersäll was not a king of all Sweden. The two most powerful groups at this time were the Götar around Lake Vättern and the Svear around Lake Mälaren. It was his son Olof Skötkonung who was the first to be accepted by both the Götar and the Svear, though that was far from secure and many competing factions and shifting alliances continued.

It is funny how people seem to forgett about the Vikings from Sweden. Ofcurse The Swedish, went mostly eastwards into modern-day Russia and further on to Byzantium and the Caliphate

Corto Maltese said:

It is funny how people seem to forgett about the Vikings from Sweden. Ofcurse The Swedish, went mostly eastwards into modern-day Russia and further on to Byzantium and the Caliphate

Click to expand...

Yes, I mentioned the Ingvar runestones in Sweden earlier but did't provide a link:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_runestones"]Ingvar runestones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


In addition wiki has a page on the Greece runestones:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece_runestones"]Greece runestones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


"Ástríðr had these stones raised in memory of Eysteinn, her husbandman, who attacked Jerusalem and met his end in Greece."

The stuff of sagas!

For anyone interested, Snorri Sturluson's Saga of Harald Hardrade is online. He fought for the Varingian Guard as a young man.

http://omacl.org/Heimskringla/hardrade1.html

The Norwegian Vikings were more independent less centralized (in part due to settlement density and geography). Much harder to get all the Norwegians united and showing up as a combined force. Much more quarrelsome between individual leaders.

Don't forget that Norway was a part of Denmark up until 1813. Denmark also conquered the southern part of Sweden. The danish vikings also conquered England and went to raid Rome (but accidentally took the city Luna in stead. When they realized it was not Rome, they burned down the place). They also raided Spain and Paris several times. But it is hard to say who (the swedish or danish vikings) were stronger since most historical records "just" mention "vikings from the north"; I believe the Danes might've been the cruelest and most succesful vikings since they were the ones who took England again and again, raided Paris over and over, and also took the Normandy.

Please do not kill me if i am historically incorrect. I am just a dane, tired of the ignorance of the world when they say that the norwegians and the swedish were the vikings, when (in my (and most other danes) eyes) it was the Danes who were the true vikings. I'm also sad that i find this thread a little too late. Sigh!

I think that question is wrong and there is no answer for who was stronger. The Danes had the benefit of recruiting Western Slavs into their armies and raiding parties and in this way also achieved numerical superiority. Even Knut the Great (son of Danish king and Polish princess) had Polish troops together with him for the conquest of England, while half of the wariors of his grandfather Harald the Bluetooth were probably Slavic.

Dane said:

when (in my (and most other danes) eyes) it was the Danes who were the true vikings. I'm also sad that i find this thread a little too late. Sigh!

Click to expand...

Danes were the people who were subdued by their king and forced to form monarchy by the slavic mercenaries hired by their kings.

Harold Bluetooth?s Vikings were Polish mercenaries

Jake10 said:

Let's not forget that the Norwegians adopted Christianity by the year 1000.

Click to expand...

The Danes (officially, that is, per edict of Harald Bluetooth) did it first, by some decades. "Paganism" did not die an instant death -- it still survives, in fact.

Dane said:

Don't forget that Norway was a part of Denmark up until 1813

Click to expand...

You mean the Kalmar Union? But the Kalmar Union was signed long after Viking times - in 1397.

Dane said:

The danish vikings also conquered England

Click to expand...

Yes - the invasion that resulted in emergence of the Empire of Cnut the Great.

Polish troops also participated in Cnut the Great's invasion of England.

Cnut was son of Swietoslawa, sister of Polish monarch Boleslaw I the Brave.

And Boleslaw sent reinforcements for his sister's son's expedition.

Dane said:

in my (and most other danes) eyes it was the Danes who were the true vikings.

Click to expand...

So you claim that there are more fjords in Denmark than in Norway ???

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=viking

Viking (n.)

(...)

The word is a historical revival; it was not used in Middle English, but it was revived from Old Norse vikingr "freebooter, sea-rover, pirate, viking," which usually is explained as meaning properly "one who came from the fjords", from vik "creek, inlet, small bay" (cf. Old English wic, Middle High German wich "bay," and second element in Reykjavik). But Old English wicing and Old Frisian wizing are almost 300 years older, and probably derive from wic "village, camp" (temporary camps were a feature of the Viking raids), related to Latin vicus "village, habitation" (see villa).

Click to expand...

I think that Norwegian vikings were just as "true" as Danish vikings.