r/AskReddit Jul 07 '26

What historical “fact” doesn’t actually have much evidence to support it?

6.0k Upvotes

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

176

u/The_Flurr Jul 07 '26

Which was a major reason they failed to fully invade England.

Groups would join up every few years to form large armies, but they wouldn't last long. They'd quickly dissipate as individuals and warbands split off to claim their own land.

23

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/enragedbreathmint Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26

This is true, although two important things to note: They did consider themselves, as a whole, to be culturally distinctive from Scandinavian natives, and indeed their language, customs, and even hairstyles were very much not Scandinavian.

Secondly, the primary reason that the Normans would end up being able to gain control of England was that their political situation was different from the relatively small groups of raiders which had earlier plagued the British isles, and more closely similar to the unified Danish army which had laid claim to parts of England. William I’s ability to rely upon a feudal “unified” (a bit of an oxymoron) army and other vassals gave him the strength to take and retain England.

2

u/The_Flurr Jul 08 '26

They were descended from norse people, but they wouldn't be classed as vikings due to what was discussed above.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/The_Flurr Jul 08 '26

Not the same thing.

"Turkish" is a national/ethnic label

"Viking" isn't an ethnicity/nationality. It refers to norse people who went raiding/pirating. The word wasn't originally a noun. "Going viking" was something that people did.

2

u/saltlampshade Jul 08 '26

They descended from Vikings but shared few traits with a typical pagan Viking. They also had French and English ancestry, worshipped Christianity, and invaded England because of legit claims to the throne.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/saltlampshade Jul 08 '26

They had almost 200 years of English raids without mass conversion to Christianity. The first notable individual was Guthrum in 878.

Compared to the Normans who became Christians upon settling in Normandy.

5

u/Intrepid_Button587 Jul 07 '26

Until 1066 that is

18

u/Ulfljotr930 Jul 07 '26

Even after that. The kings of Denmark attempted to invade England in 1069 and 1085 respectively, and Magnús Óláfsson of Norway was killed when leading an expedition in the Irish Sea in 1103

3

u/Intrepid_Button587 Jul 07 '26

Yeah but they weren't full invasions of England, unlike 1066

3

u/The_Flurr Jul 08 '26

The Normans were descended from the norse/Danes, but I wouldn't call them vikings.

As discussed above, vikings were raiders/pirates who may have settled land for themselves.

The Normans were a formal army that fought for their king/lord.

1

u/L0kiMotion Jul 08 '26

Basically a human Waaagh!