Did the Franks cause the Viking Expansion?

[Jetavan]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

A new theory about what drove the Vikings to raid Western Europe in the late eight and ninth centuries has been published. It suggests that the Vikings in Denmark were reacting to a threat from the Carolingian ruler Charlemagne, who was seeking to destroy their society and impose Christianity on them.

The theory was put forward by Robert Ferguson in an article for the December 2009 issue of BBC History Magazine.  His book, The Hammer and the Cross: A New History of the Vikings, was also published in November.

[Super Apostolic Bros.]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

[ms.hoorah]

Nahhhhhh. We can blame another thing, the Vikings, on global warming. (Please Lord send the NE some global warming and quickly!)  Just prior to the Viking age, Northern Europe went through a warming trend which increased harvests and increased their survival rate. During this same time the light weight plow was created which also increased harvests and survival.  With the significant increase in their population, the farm dwelling Vikings had to participate in urban sprawl/suburban brawl to obtain more farmland.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21747564/World-Climate-Past-and-Present-JLB

[88Devin12]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim... 

[ialmisry]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim... 

And for starting the conversion of the Vikings: the Rus were Vikings.  Somewhere here I posted a map of the original Russia-East Sweden!

[Rafa999]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

A new theory about what drove the Vikings to raid Western Europe in the late eight and ninth centuries has been published. It suggests that the Vikings in Denmark were reacting to a threat from the Carolingian ruler Charlemagne, who was seeking to destroy their society and impose Christianity on them.

The theory was put forward by Robert Ferguson in an article for the December 2009 issue of BBC History Magazine.  His book, The Hammer and the Cross: A New History of the Vikings, was also published in November.

If the Franks hadn't converted the Saxons Europe would have been infinitely worse off...

[scamandrius]

sounds like another ripple in the great sea that is the Pirenne thesis.

[Rafa999]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim... 

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

[88Devin12]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim...  

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

lol I don't think you know history very well... The whole reason the Muslims had to come up through Spain was because the East was holding them back at Constantinople.

Had the Muslims broken through sooner at Constantinople, things would be much different today. They didn't really manage to completely break through until the 15th Century. By then, the West had reached the point where the Middle Ages was ending, and the Renaissance was beginning. At that point, Islam had long been driven out of Western Europe down to Spain, and the West had more strength to hold them back...
Had the East fallen sooner, the West would be as Muslim as much of Eastern Europe was before the 20th Century.

[augustin717]

Eastern Europe wasn't Muslim before 20th century.
Where did you get the idea
Being under Ottoman suzerainty doesn't make one a muslim.
Is Iraq now American because of the occupation?

[88Devin12]

I'm not talking about places like Romania and such, I tend to categorize Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, etc... as also being in "Eastern Europe".

[augustin717]

Serbia, Greece etc were never Muslim.
The only Muslim areas were Bosnia (not totally, anyways) and Albania (about half).

[88Devin12]

They were part of the Ottoman Empire though... Thus they were being ruled by Muslims. I'm not saying all the people converted to Islam, but they were being under the control of Muslims. However many people did convert.

[Rafa999]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim...  

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

lol I don't think you know history very well... The whole reason the Muslims had to come up through Spain was because the East was holding them back at Constantinople.

Had the Muslims broken through sooner at Constantinople, things would be much different today. They didn't really manage to completely break through until the 15th Century. By then, the West had reached the point where the Middle Ages was ending, and the Renaissance was beginning. At that point, Islam had long been driven out of Western Europe down to Spain, and the West had more strength to hold them back...
Had the East fallen sooner, the West would be as Muslim as much of Eastern Europe was before the 20th Century.

The Franks crushed the Islamic invaders:



Let's give some credit. If it wasn't for byzantine intolerance maybe we wouldn't have seen Islam...

[88Devin12]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim...  

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

lol I don't think you know history very well... The whole reason the Muslims had to come up through Spain was because the East was holding them back at Constantinople.

Had the Muslims broken through sooner at Constantinople, things would be much different today. They didn't really manage to completely break through until the 15th Century. By then, the West had reached the point where the Middle Ages was ending, and the Renaissance was beginning. At that point, Islam had long been driven out of Western Europe down to Spain, and the West had more strength to hold them back...
Had the East fallen sooner, the West would be as Muslim as much of Eastern Europe was before the 20th Century.

The Franks crushed the Islamic invaders:



Let's give some credit. If it wasn't for byzantine intolerance maybe we wouldn't have seen Islam...

Rafa, why are you assuming I don't know my history? You are forgetting that I was a Protestant for almost all of my life. Not to mention that I was a history buff for years.

I know my history, I know about the Battle of Tours. What I'm saying, is that you are ignoring the fact that the East is the whole reason all of Europe isn't Muslim. Yes the Franks did defeat the Muslims, but again, you are forgetting that the Muslims were forced to invade Europe through Spain because the East had Constantinople locked down. As I said, if the East had not held Constantinople for as long as it did. We would see a very different Europe...

The Islamic caliphates conquered, up until about the mid 8th Century, all the way up into Spain. We know that during this time, they also pushed into France, and were then defeated at the Battle of Tours.
It wasn't until 1453 that they finally took Constantinople. We also must remember that in 1204, it was the West that totally sacked/pillaged Constantinople on their way to the Holy Land in the Fourth Crusade. Not to mention that it wasn't until about the 14th Century that the West didn't start sending aid to the East. Up until then, they were mostly a hindrance in the battle against the Ottomans.

The Western Expansion of the Ottoman Empire wasn't completely halted/reversed until about the 17th Century when the so-called "Holy Roman Empire" defeated it in several important battles. The point? The Muslims were halted in Anatolia by the Eastern Empire early on, in about the 7th/8th Centuries. Had the Eastern Empire fallen immediately, there would have been no need for the Muslims to go over to Spain in order to invade Europe. The East held them back long enough that the West had finally grown strong enough to repel the Muslims. Had the East fallen in about 650 rather than in 1453, as I said, things would be MUCH different.

[Robb]

I couldn't imagine modern day Scandinavians being Muslims.  Just think, we'd have to worry about blond haired, blue eyed terrorist along with swarthy Arab ones .

[Orthodox11]

I couldn't imagine modern day Scandinavians being Muslims.  Just think, we'd have to worry about blond haired, blue eyed terrorist along with swarthy Arab ones .

Blonde hair and blue eyes are fairly common in the Levant 

[Iconodule]

Without Vikings, there could be no Viking metal! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcT_arJIRCA&feature=related

[HandmaidenofGod]

I couldn't imagine modern day Scandinavians being Muslims.  Just think, we'd have to worry about blond haired, blue eyed terrorist along with swarthy Arab ones .

We actually do. What do you think Muslims from Russia and the Balkan states look like?

[Marc1152]

MMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... Franks



Homer

[ialmisry]

I couldn't imagine modern day Scandinavians being Muslims.  Just think, we'd have to worry about blond haired, blue eyed terrorist along with swarthy Arab ones .

Blonde hair and blue eyes are fairly common in the Levant 

I resemble that remark (but then my German and Scandinavian ancestors helped as well ).

[Fr. George]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim... 

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

lol I don't think you know history very well... The whole reason the Muslims had to come up through Spain was because the East was holding them back at Constantinople.

Had the Muslims broken through sooner at Constantinople, things would be much different today. They didn't really manage to completely break through until the 15th Century. By then, the West had reached the point where the Middle Ages was ending, and the Renaissance was beginning. At that point, Islam had long been driven out of Western Europe down to Spain, and the West had more strength to hold them back...
Had the East fallen sooner, the West would be as Muslim as much of Eastern Europe was before the 20th Century.

In this aspect, the Franks actually hurt their own defense by sacking Constantinople in the 13th century, expediting what had been a slower decline in Roman power.  If they had left the city alone, we may have seen a longer hold-out (if not for Constantinople itself, at least for the European side of the Empire) against the Muslim tide.

[John of the North]

If the Franks hadn't converted the Saxons Europe would have been infinitely worse off...

The Franks caused much more trouble than they were worth. The Saxon Wars included.

[Rafa999]

If the Franks hadn't converted the Saxons Europe would have been infinitely worse off...

The Franks caused much more trouble than they were worth. The Saxon Wars included.

Prove it.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I couldn't imagine modern day Scandinavians being Muslims.  Just think, we'd have to worry about blond haired, blue eyed terrorist along with swarthy Arab ones .

Between this and your comment about Latin American men on the other thread, I'm really getting the idea that you're a racist bigot. Please prove me wrong.

[John of the North]

If the Franks hadn't converted the Saxons Europe would have been infinitely worse off...

The Franks caused much more trouble than they were worth. The Saxon Wars included.

Prove it.

Why?? If I provide proof will you see the light?? Somehow I doubt that.

[Jetavan]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

I see. Hmm. Interesting assertion, and one that could have merit.

I've taken the liberty of renaming the thread so as to discourage this sort of confusion happening again.

[Robb]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

[Jetavan]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

Franks, Saxons, Danes, and Scandinavians. We're all Britons, all of us, and Arthur is our king, despite that I didn't vote for him.

[Iconodule]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

Franks, Saxons, Danes, and Scandinavians. We're all Britons, all of us, and Arthur is our king, despite that I didn't vote for him.

I still say we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

[Jetavan]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

Franks, Saxons, Danes, and Scandinavians. We're all Britons, all of us, and Arthur is our king, despite that I didn't vote for him.

What about the Sarmatian Knights?

[John of the North]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

Franks, Saxons, Danes, and Scandinavians. We're all Britons, all of us, and Arthur is our king, despite that I didn't vote for him.

No, no, you have it all wrong!

Weasley is our King,
Weasley is our King,
He didn't let the Quaffle in
Weasley is our King.

Weasley can save anything,
He never leaves a single ring,
That's why Gryffindors all sing:
Weasley is our King.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

Franks, Saxons, Danes, and Scandinavians. We're all Britons, all of us, and Arthur is our king, despite that I didn't vote for him.

What about the Sarmatian Knights?

Maybe they were the ones at the Castle Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghh. The world will never know.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

According to this book, we have the Franks to thank for the Vikings:

You seem to be using "the Vikings" as shorthand for something, especially since the Franks were not ancestors of the Vikings. What exactly is your point?

The book argues that the Frank's execution of thousands of pagan Saxons, may have caused the pagan Danes (and other Scandinavians) to strike back, in the form of the Viking Expansion.

Why did they all intermarry eachother in the British Isles then?  The animonsity must have not lasted long.

Who married whom?

Franks, Saxons, Danes, and Scandinavians. We're all Britons, all of us, and Arthur is our king, despite that I didn't vote for him.

No, no, you have it all wrong!

Weasley is our King,
Weasley is our King,
He didn't let the Quaffle in
Weasley is our King.

Weasley can save anything,
He never leaves a single ring,
That's why Gryffindors all sing:
Weasley is our King.

Splitter.

[ChristusDominus]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim...  

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

lol I don't think you know history very well... The whole reason the Muslims had to come up through Spain was because the East was holding them back at Constantinople.

Had the Muslims broken through sooner at Constantinople, things would be much different today. They didn't really manage to completely break through until the 15th Century. By then, the West had reached the point where the Middle Ages was ending, and the Renaissance was beginning. At that point, Islam had long been driven out of Western Europe down to Spain, and the West had more strength to hold them back...
Had the East fallen sooner, the West would be as Muslim as much of Eastern Europe was before the 20th Century.

Bottomline is that the Franks did stop them from going further into Europe. Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) made sure of this at the battle of Tours. We can specualate all we want. Fact of the matter is that he  hammered them!

[Shanghaiski]

One should be accurate when talking about Franks. From the Romano-Byzantine perspective, just about all Western European barbarians could be referred to as Franks. But the "Franks" who sacked Constantinople in 1204 were not the same as the Franks who beat back the Mohammedans at Poitiers. The "Franks" of 1204 were a conglomerate led by the Venetians and mostly comprised of various Norman groups. The Normans were Vikings who settled in northern France, half-converted to something resembling Christianity, and proceeded to continue terrorizing and conquering Western Europe and the Levant as well, hijacking the Orthodox papacy, and moving on to destroy Constantinople. Of course, the "Franks" of Charlemagne's day and the "Franco-Normans" of the 11th century were both pretty much anti-Byzantine, but in some different ways. If you want to be REALLY technical, the Western (Holy Roman) Empire was soon to be run by Saxons after the Carolingian dynasty faded.

The book's thesis is compelling, I think. I'm not sure what evidence for it is presented. The "convert or die" method came to be favored by later Christian kings of Scandinavia, among them King Olaf I Tryggvason of Norway. It is interesting to note that the kings of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden became Christians long before their subjects, and it took a long time to evangelize them.

[zoarthegleaner]

Nahhhhhh. We can blame another thing, the Vikings, on global warming. (Please Lord send the NE some global warming and quickly!)  Just prior to the Viking age, Northern Europe went through a warming trend which increased harvests and increased their survival rate. During this same time the light weight plow was created which also increased harvests and survival.  With the significant increase in their population, the farm dwelling Vikings had to participate in urban sprawl/suburban brawl to obtain more farmland.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21747564/World-Climate-Past-and-Present-JLB

OK, off subject but relative to the question of post-global warming.  I suggest we owe the great white buffalo hunters a debt of gratitude for their stopping the ocean of toxic gasses which would have certainly caused an earlier melting of the ice caps...but I''ll save that for a topic in some term paper?

Big GRIN!

John

[ialmisry]

We also have the Franks to thank for the Vikings not becoming Muslim.

And we have the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire to thank for all of Europe not becoming Muslim...  

Baloney, you can thank the Franks in the battle of Tours for that.

lol I don't think you know history very well... The whole reason the Muslims had to come up through Spain was because the East was holding them back at Constantinople.

Had the Muslims broken through sooner at Constantinople, things would be much different today. They didn't really manage to completely break through until the 15th Century. By then, the West had reached the point where the Middle Ages was ending, and the Renaissance was beginning. At that point, Islam had long been driven out of Western Europe down to Spain, and the West had more strength to hold them back...
Had the East fallen sooner, the West would be as Muslim as much of Eastern Europe was before the 20th Century.

Bottomline is that the Franks did stop them from going further into Europe. Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) made sure of this at the battle of Tours. We can specualate all we want. Fact of the matter is that he  hammered them!

Had the Empire (the Roman that is) not held off the Muslims, they would have reached Russia and the Vikings, and Charles Martel would be a footnote in history.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Did the Franks cause the Viking Expansion?